Why We Lift

Off Topic
81

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
W@LRUS!1 wrote:
texasguy wrote:
“hyooge” muscles have their place and those places are in the gym or on a stage

[sarcasm]
Yeah, just ask 6’ 290 lbs Mariusz Pudzianowski, there’s no way he’d be able to ‘function’ outside the gym.
[/sarcasm]

Yeah, this non-functional muscle talk is bullshit. I am sorry I touched on the subject.

This is like a lovefest of little men. “High fives and group hugs for everyone under 200 pounds!”[/quote]

How much are you going to weigh when you lose the fat?

I would rather be a lean 190 than a fat 205.

82

[quote]burning ice wrote:
to bring us back to ‘why we lift’;

i say,

to slay the invisible dragon that breathes fire, within. to redefine rebirth, from our previous ashes, and rise a phoenix: stronger, brighter, more powerful…

to calm the tempest that roils underneath these pecs, ever hungry for more, ever the untamed, and yet, as the cold iron warms in our bleeding palms, to find the meaning of life as we know it… through blood and tears.

=) how’s that?[/quote]

This is just my opinion but I think you would be better served waxing your back rather than waxing poetic.

83

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How much are you going to weigh when you lose the fat?

I would rather be a lean 190 than a fat 205.[/quote]

We can compare pics when I’m done.

84

[quote]texasguy wrote:
Mad Titan wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

like tim sylvia right? please
look up his record. the quick, smaller guys were better built to whip his ass.

check out requirements for military special forces too. there is a reason they only take a certain size.

“hyooge” muscles have their place and those places are in the gym or on a stage [/quote]

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about if you believe everyone in military special forces is lacking muscle mass. I have two very large individuals in that group as patients. Why type shit that you really don’t know about?

85

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
W@LRUS!1 wrote:
texasguy wrote:
“hyooge” muscles have their place and those places are in the gym or on a stage

[sarcasm]
Yeah, just ask 6’ 290 lbs Mariusz Pudzianowski, there’s no way he’d be able to ‘function’ outside the gym.
[/sarcasm]

Yeah, this non-functional muscle talk is bullshit. I am sorry I touched on the subject.

This is like a lovefest of little men. “High fives and group hugs for everyone under 200 pounds!”

How much are you going to weigh when you lose the fat?

I would rather be a lean 190 than a fat 205.[/quote]

My lean body mass alone is well over both numbers. I don’t have problems “functioning”.

86

I lift so I can dominate my co-workers.

Everyone in my office remains in constant fear that I will mark them with my man spray…because honestly, that shit has an uncomfortable pungent muskiness about it.

Musclebound is a term invented by girly men.

87

Thats some funny shit. I like your outlook although I still think “because I like to pick up heavy shit” is the phrase I’d rather use.

OMC

[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
I lift so I can dominate my co-workers.

Everyone in my office remains in constant fear that I will mark them with my man spray…because honestly, that shit has an uncomfortable pungent muskiness about it.

Musclebound is a term invented by girly men. [/quote]

88

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How much are you going to weigh when you lose the fat?

I would rather be a lean 190 than a fat 205.

We can compare pics when I’m done.
[/quote]

I’ll probably be in my 50’s by the time you are done.

Oh well. I should have known how any conversation with you would turn out.

89

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…
My lean body mass alone is well over both numbers. I don’t have problems “functioning”.[/quote]

Never said you did. I had problems with speed and endurance when I was 215 and playing rugby. I was not fat either.

There are plenty of big guys that function very well at their weight.

I didn’t function as well at 215. I suppose if I would have taken some time off from rugby I may have gotten used to carrying the weight.

90

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look. [/quote]

well i was a regionally ranked Collegiate style wrestler in highschool for three years in a row and state ranked the third year as well.

in the off season, i participated in grecco roman and freestyle leagues as well as grappling and submission classes to stay in shape.

i feel i know quite a bit more about grappling than your average bear or internet tough guy. ahem.

strength is advantageous, so settle yourself down, we all lift here. but, it is a small part of what monson needs.

usually the guys who are at least strong enough to get the job done, but balance their strength with sufficient amounts of cardio and skill will win. lifting weights and doing nothing else is great for building strength, but that is all it’s good for.

using monson just isn’t a good idea to show that weight training alone is good enough, heck i bet he’d think most peoples outlooks on cardio here at T-Nation are retarded anyways.

in monson’s case, his muscles havn’t been functional for what he is doing. if they don’t have enough enurance, they aren’t functioning like he needs them too.

91

[quote]W@LRUS!1 wrote:

i’m sure he’d be able to lift heavy things and flex a lot. but his strength wouldn’t necessarily do him any good in an octagon, on a basketball court, a football field etc. muscles are definately trained certain ways to perform certain functions.

Dude, you made the absurd stance that large muscles are worthless beyond the gym or on a BB stage. I gave an example where you’re wrong. I could give many, many more.

i’m not saying strength isn’t a functional attribute at all, i’m just saying that it is a small part over the over all “functional body” equation.

Nice back peddling. You know you claimed something stupid and now you want to redefine “large muscles are worthless beyond the gym or on a BB stage”.[/quote]

no, there is no back peddling. there was some oversight on my part. “hyooge” muscles are good for a weight room, a stage and for lifting really heavy things like a refrigerator. since we do that every day right?

i don’t have a problem with big muscles. it’s just when people actually believe that having big muscles is the only way to be truly in shape that it is retardedly funny and annoying.

92

[quote]burning ice wrote:
to bring us back to ‘why we lift’;

i say,

to slay the invisible dragon that breathes fire, within. to redefine rebirth, from our previous ashes, and rise a phoenix: stronger, brighter, more powerful…

to calm the tempest that roils underneath these pecs, ever hungry for more, ever the untamed, and yet, as the cold iron warms in our bleeding palms, to find the meaning of life as we know it… through blood and tears.

=) how’s that?[/quote]

dude, don’t steal my phoenix.

93

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look. [/quote]

and how about pete williams and mark coleman at UFC 17, or were you not a fan yet because it wasn’t the new and trendy sport to watch mr. grappling pro?

now in the UFC they do not limit fighters to grappling, but that sums our convo up nicely. you are trying to box muscle strength in to tiny little boxes where it really can shine, and you limit situations in doing so. taking out the rest of fighting to leave grappling alone isn’t really a fair assesment of a functional body.

little guys beat the crap out of bigger guys all the time by being quicker, by having more endurance and of course by having enough strength to do what they need to do.

but, even in wrestling and grappling, it’s not uncommon to see the smaller guys win due to skill, agility and endurance.

heck, check out the gracie family. bean poles, yet they are some of the most feared names in mma, grappling and bjj, now and even before the stuff was cool.

there was a video, i believe it was posted here, with a grappler fighting an NFL linemen more than twice his size. the linemen did overpower him a number of times, but in the end, the grappler still beat him, hyooge muscls and all.

maybe you saw it?

94

[quote]texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look.

and how about pete williams and mark coleman at UFC 17, or were you not a fan yet because it wasn’t the new and trendy sport to watch mr. grappling pro?

now in the UFC they do not limit fighters to grappling, but that sums our convo up nicely. you are trying to box muscle strength in to tiny little boxes where it really can shine, and you limit situations in doing so. taking out the rest of fighting to leave grappling alone isn’t really a fair assesment of a functional body.

little guys beat the crap out of bigger guys all the time by being quicker, by having more endurance and of course by having enough strength to do what they need to do.

but, even in wrestling and grappling, it’s not uncommon to see the smaller guys win due to skill, agility and endurance.

heck, check out the gracie family. bean poles, yet they are some of the most feared names in mma, grappling and bjj, now and even before the stuff was cool.

there was a video, i believe it was posted here, with a grappler fighting an NFL linemen more than twice his size. the linemen did overpower him a number of times, but in the end, the grappler still beat him, hyooge muscls and all.

maybe you saw it?[/quote]

and for that matter, vitor belfort and tank abbot, or “enter here” and tank abbot?

95

[quote]texasguy wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look.

and how about pete williams and mark coleman at UFC 17, or were you not a fan yet because it wasn’t the new and trendy sport to watch mr. grappling pro?

now in the UFC they do not limit fighters to grappling, but that sums our convo up nicely. you are trying to box muscle strength in to tiny little boxes where it really can shine, and you limit situations in doing so. taking out the rest of fighting to leave grappling alone isn’t really a fair assesment of a functional body.

little guys beat the crap out of bigger guys all the time by being quicker, by having more endurance and of course by having enough strength to do what they need to do.

but, even in wrestling and grappling, it’s not uncommon to see the smaller guys win due to skill, agility and endurance.

heck, check out the gracie family. bean poles, yet they are some of the most feared names in mma, grappling and bjj, now and even before the stuff was cool.

there was a video, i believe it was posted here, with a grappler fighting an NFL linemen more than twice his size. the linemen did overpower him a number of times, but in the end, the grappler still beat him, hyooge muscls and all.

maybe you saw it?

and for that matter, vitor belfort and tank abbot, or “enter here” and tank abbot?[/quote]

I think everyone finally agrees with you on all points: muscles are bad, REO speedwagon good…

I think that you are thinking in extremes here. Find a middle ground. Perhaps, huge muscles for some, Duran Duran for others.

96

[quote]texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look.

and how about pete williams and mark coleman at UFC 17, or were you not a fan yet because it wasn’t the new and trendy sport to watch mr. grappling pro?

now in the UFC they do not limit fighters to grappling, but that sums our convo up nicely. you are trying to box muscle strength in to tiny little boxes where it really can shine, and you limit situations in doing so. taking out the rest of fighting to leave grappling alone isn’t really a fair assesment of a functional body.

little guys beat the crap out of bigger guys all the time by being quicker, by having more endurance and of course by having enough strength to do what they need to do.

but, even in wrestling and grappling, it’s not uncommon to see the smaller guys win due to skill, agility and endurance.

heck, check out the gracie family. bean poles, yet they are some of the most feared names in mma, grappling and bjj, now and even before the stuff was cool.

there was a video, i believe it was posted here, with a grappler fighting an NFL linemen more than twice his size. the linemen did overpower him a number of times, but in the end, the grappler still beat him, hyooge muscls and all.

maybe you saw it?[/quote]

Yeh but that lineman had little or no grappling experiance. Brazilian Jujitsu is set up for smaller opponents to defeat larger, some gracies even shun weight training to prove this. The fact some BJJ instructors have turned around recommending getting bigger and strong “helps” has caused friction in G/BJJ circles.

Monson is argueably one of the best grapplers today, his MMA record is 23 - 6 - 0 not to shabby. Look at Open weight GP’s in pride or Absolute divion in ADCC, usually won by HW’s and heavier fighters.

Skilled big/strong guys are more likely going to beat equally skilled smaller guys. This is why we have weight catagories. Look at crocop hes been weighing in at 230lbs recently and its not affected his game one iota. But this arguement has been done to death.

On the Why we lift question, many people who are dedictaed or passionate about an activity, that isnt sitting on ones ass watch TV or drinking, will always be met with curiosity/confusion/jealousy. I get asked all the time “man grappling looks gay why do you do it”

97

[quote]Wayland wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look.

and how about pete williams and mark coleman at UFC 17, or were you not a fan yet because it wasn’t the new and trendy sport to watch mr. grappling pro?

now in the UFC they do not limit fighters to grappling, but that sums our convo up nicely. you are trying to box muscle strength in to tiny little boxes where it really can shine, and you limit situations in doing so. taking out the rest of fighting to leave grappling alone isn’t really a fair assesment of a functional body.

little guys beat the crap out of bigger guys all the time by being quicker, by having more endurance and of course by having enough strength to do what they need to do.

but, even in wrestling and grappling, it’s not uncommon to see the smaller guys win due to skill, agility and endurance.

heck, check out the gracie family. bean poles, yet they are some of the most feared names in mma, grappling and bjj, now and even before the stuff was cool.

there was a video, i believe it was posted here, with a grappler fighting an NFL linemen more than twice his size. the linemen did overpower him a number of times, but in the end, the grappler still beat him, hyooge muscls and all.

maybe you saw it?

Yeh but that lineman had little or no grappling experiance. Brazilian Jujitsu is set up for smaller opponents to defeat larger, some gracies even shun weight training to prove this. The fact some BJJ instructors have turned around recommending getting bigger and strong “helps” has caused friction in G/BJJ circles.

Monson is argueably one of the best grapplers today, his MMA record is 23 - 6 - 0 not to shabby. Look at Open weight GP’s in pride or Absolute divion in ADCC, usually won by HW’s and heavier fighters.

Skilled big/strong guys are more likely going to beat equally skilled smaller guys. This is why we have weight catagories. Look at crocop hes been weighing in at 230lbs recently and its not affected his game one iota. But this arguement has been done to death.

On the Why we lift question, many people who are dedictaed or passionate about an activity, that isnt sitting on ones ass watch TV or drinking, will always be met with curiosity/confusion/jealousy. I get asked all the time “man grappling looks gay why do you do it”[/quote]

you are correct. and i have mentioned that strength is important, but there are many more, arguably more important limiting factors to being functional.

also, the lineman did not have grappling experience. that is my point as well, he was huge, much stronger than the grappler and with much bigger muscles, yet he lost. had he been as skilled a grappler as the grappler, he undoubtedly would have won. but he wasn’t, and, in that case, his strength did not function well for him.

98

[quote]Make1tRa1n wrote:
texasguy wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
texasguy wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Someone needs to tell Jeff Monson (one of the greatest submission grapplers in the world) to lose some of that non-functional muscle.

jeff monsons career ended after having his shit rocked by much less muscular guys time after time.

If you knew anything about submission grappling (which is what I noted), you would really how ignorant you just make yourself look.

and how about pete williams and mark coleman at UFC 17, or were you not a fan yet because it wasn’t the new and trendy sport to watch mr. grappling pro?

now in the UFC they do not limit fighters to grappling, but that sums our convo up nicely. you are trying to box muscle strength in to tiny little boxes where it really can shine, and you limit situations in doing so. taking out the rest of fighting to leave grappling alone isn’t really a fair assesment of a functional body.

little guys beat the crap out of bigger guys all the time by being quicker, by having more endurance and of course by having enough strength to do what they need to do.

but, even in wrestling and grappling, it’s not uncommon to see the smaller guys win due to skill, agility and endurance.

heck, check out the gracie family. bean poles, yet they are some of the most feared names in mma, grappling and bjj, now and even before the stuff was cool.

there was a video, i believe it was posted here, with a grappler fighting an NFL linemen more than twice his size. the linemen did overpower him a number of times, but in the end, the grappler still beat him, hyooge muscls and all.

maybe you saw it?

and for that matter, vitor belfort and tank abbot, or “enter here” and tank abbot?

I think everyone finally agrees with you on all points: muscles are bad, REO speedwagon good…

I think that you are thinking in extremes here. Find a middle ground. Perhaps, huge muscles for some, Duran Duran for others.[/quote]

not once have i said muscles are bad. heck, i have a few of my own, but REO Speedwagon is pretty good.

I have said that muscles are not as important as many are making them out to be though, and that is a true statement.

mostly, i like pointing out douchebag c-law’s fallicies when he starts typing.

99

Wow, maybe because its what sets us apart from the others. Having strength and abilities to perform tasks others can’t and knowing the reson you have these is because you busted your ass to get there. We were willing to push ourselves past a point where most would fail. Somthing else that is cool is that not only do we know it, but they know it as well.

100

[quote]texasguy wrote:
i don’t have a problem with big muscles. it’s just when people actually believe that having big muscles is the only way to be truly in shape that it is retardedly funny and annoying. [/quote]

Who has made the claim “to be truly in shape, you must have big muscles”?

I don’t recall anyone mentioning this besides you.