[quote]Hanley wrote:
mldj wrote:
No, the concept of relative strength is not stupid. Performance in the majority of sports is related (by some extent) with the athlete’s relative strength.
Stupid are the excuses people make, trying to justify their mediocre results, achieved with mediocre efforts.
No matter if it is
“I’m bulking, that’s why I’m at 30% BF”
“My 2.6x 350 pound deadlift is better than your 2.5x 500”
“It’s all genetics, my pecs won’t grow even if, God forbid, I cut the cardio and train 3x week”
Relative strength, in the context of “I deadlift x times bodyweight” IS stupid, on the sporting field it probably holds true, but not in lifting comps. Anybody with any competition experience knows it’s a horrid basis for comparison. If it was a good way to compare lifters then forumlas like Sinclair, Wilks, Schwartz-Malone etc wouldn’t exist.
A 3x bodyweight pull at 242 is MUCH more impressive than 3x at 181. They’re both phenomenal pulls but the latter IS better imo. Regardless of relative strength. I’d even go so far as to say that a 2.75x bodyweight pull by a 242lb lifter is better than 3x at 181.
Oh and KBC, +20 rep points.
[/quote]
Ummm, I don’t see disagreement between you and me.
My point was, boasting that 2.6x 350 pound deadlift is better than 2.5x 500 pound one is BS.
Maybe, as a bigger guy, you are a little too sensitive about that.
And yeah, 2.75x at 242 is HELL of a pull, pun intended.
To all posters: I really appreciate the informed and intelligent responses. I seriously haven’t been able to get much input back from people because there isn’t very much back and forth.
General note: When I list/show the percentages it isn’t to say I am concerned with impressing people, I lift for myself. It is to show that at some level, I think I am showing potential for good lifting genetics and also have invested a fair amount of hard work into this. I am concerned about making the best choices to achieve my goal: to be the best I can be.
Not gaining weight isn’t about being afraid of putting in hard work, it is about making the best decision. And I was asking “why gain weight” and I have heard some very good arguements for gaining weight, well supported by examples and statistics. I would like to see this " my “weightlifting encyclopedia” by drechsler, to see if he had anything to say. heaven knows where he got this table of “ideal weightclasses based on height” but according to the table you should be lifting in the 90kg class. Pffft, but what does he know anyway. "
And to clear this up, I don’t think that one should ever boast that they “lift better” than anyone else- regardless of the percentage, weight class or what have you. I think weightlifting is about you, the lifter, and no one else.
Anyways, thanks a bunch for the input, I am being more convinced that maybe coming back and gaining 16lbs of muscle would be nice to see how it works.
Being bigger means more strength (even some fat can contribute to lifting a bit more because of cushioning and leverage); it also means that the risk of injury is lower. So all and all you will be able to lift an heavier average load which will lead to more strength gains.
I fully understand not wanting to move up a weight class though. The difference in lifts from the 62 to the 69 is very important and can be intimidating.
BUT consider that most elite lifters do train at an heavier weight than they compete at. Most lifters will train at 5-7kg more than their ‘‘competitive weight’’. For example Dimas lifts at around 185 but trains at 200.
You can lose around 3kg in water safely, without losing strength and 2kg with 3 weeks of a bit stricter dieting. This will lead to better results (by allowing you to train with a higher average weight) without moving up a weight class.
[quote]Lucid_3ntr0py wrote:
I would like to see this " my “weightlifting encyclopedia” by drechsler, to see if he had anything to say. heaven knows where he got this table of “ideal weightclasses based on height” but according to the table you should be lifting in the 90kg class. Pffft, but what does he know anyway. "
[/quote]
the weightlifting encyclopedia can be purchased here
Obviously these are for the old weight categories, but still interesting
I went looking to see if Drechsler does in fact mention where this is from, and he cites Robert Roman, The Training of the Weightlifter, so if you’re interested in teh original source material, it’s book number 9 here http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/rwl.htm
although honestly I would purchase the weightlifting encyclopedia as well. for 30$ you cant beat that. With other materials I’ve paid more and gotten less than i have from this book just from skimming through certain sections that interest me, I havent even read the whole thing (yet)
[quote]Hanley wrote:
mldj wrote:
No, the concept of relative strength is not stupid. Performance in the majority of sports is related (by some extent) with the athlete’s relative strength.
Stupid are the excuses people make, trying to justify their mediocre results, achieved with mediocre efforts.
No matter if it is
“I’m bulking, that’s why I’m at 30% BF”
“My 2.6x 350 pound deadlift is better than your 2.5x 500”
“It’s all genetics, my pecs won’t grow even if, God forbid, I cut the cardio and train 3x week”
Relative strength, in the context of “I deadlift x times bodyweight” IS stupid, on the sporting field it probably holds true, but not in lifting comps. Anybody with any competition experience knows it’s a horrid basis for comparison. If it was a good way to compare lifters then forumlas like Sinclair, Wilks, Schwartz-Malone etc wouldn’t exist.
A 3x bodyweight pull at 242 is MUCH more impressive than 3x at 181. They’re both phenomenal pulls but the latter IS better imo. Regardless of relative strength. I’d even go so far as to say that a 2.75x bodyweight pull by a 242lb lifter is better than 3x at 181.
Oh and KBC, +20 rep points.
[/quote]
Exactly, the relative strength thing only matters in comparing your sport, not your strength to someone else. If it’s so cool why don’t 150 pound wrestlers go against 200 pound wrestlers.