whats the answer to this [Forum Archive]

-->

Pages: 1

whats the answer to this

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Leon77

all of the bigger guys can lift more iron then me, but i can very easily beat them with bodyweight strength exercises, push ups - pull ups, dips, etc

so who would be classed as the "stronger" ?

Posted by: DOMS

The answer is 42.

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon77

all of the bigger guys can lift more iron then me, but i can very easily beat them with bodyweight strength exercises, push ups - pull ups, dips, etc

so who would be classed as the "stronger" ?

you have greater muscular endurance but are not stronger than them

Posted by: Doublebase

I think 12 is better

Posted by: SPIKE1257

Is that a trick question ?

Posted by: Volume

42 sounds about right

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPIKE1257

Is that a trick question ?

It must be.

Posted by: P-funk

you way less then they do so you are moving less mass. If you way what, 135lbs??, and can do 12 push ups. It is not the same as some guy that weighs 235lbs trying to do pull ups. Try strapping an extra 100lbs and see if you can do as many pull ups as he can.

Also, what LAM said is true too.

Posted by: pumpthatiron

weigh* than*

Posted by: WilliamB

Leon your a tool.

Posted by: SPIKE1257

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamB

Leon your a tool.

Could this be the answer we've been looking for ?

Posted by: bio-chem

is this multiple choice? because i always chose C and it works pretty well. yeah my answer is C

Posted by: ihateschoolmt

http://www.irongodz.com/dips.wmv

Posted by: CursedOne

Posted by: racoon02

What is the capital of malaysia?

Ill take famous english poets for 200 Alex.

Posted by: Leon77

Quote:

Originally Posted by racoon02

What is the capital of malaysia?

Ill take famous english poets for 200 Alex.

the capital of malaysia is Kuala Lumpar

Posted by: redspy

Why don't you pick a few exercises (e.g. squat, bench press, deadlift) and figure out your strength to weight ratios?

Posted by: racoon02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon77

the capital of malaysia is Kuala Lumpar

Wow... how sheltered do you have to be to not get a jeopardy reference....

.....

Posted by: myCATpowerlifts

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

is this multiple choice? because i always chose C and it works pretty well. yeah my answer is C

Posted by: KarlW

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

you way less then they do so you are moving less mass. If you way what, 135lbs??, and can do 12 push ups. It is not the same as some guy that weighs 235lbs trying to do pull ups. Try strapping an extra 100lbs and see if you can do as many pull ups as he can.

Also, what LAM said is true too.

Is there a rhinocerous beetle in here?

So say a 150lb dude can do 10 pull ups, along comes a 300lb dude and he can only do 1 pull up. You say it's because he has to "pull up" twice as much weight, OK but aren't his arms twice as big so he should be able to do 10 if he's as stong as the 150lb guy?

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

ok. taking into account that the lighter 150 lber can do 9 more reps on the pull up. say the 150 lb guy can bench 200 and the 300 lb dude benches 550. who is really stronger ? who would you rather take a left hook from ?

Posted by: KarlW

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

mmmmm in that example the 300lb guy is absolutely AND relatively stronger. This would normally be unusual, assuming both guys were in the same condition.

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

This would normally be unusual, assuming both guys were in the same condition.

unusual. how do you figure ?

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

So say a 150lb dude can do 10 pull ups, along comes a 300lb dude and he can only do 1 pull up. You say it's because he has to "pull up" twice as much weight, OK but aren't his arms twice as big so he should be able to do 10 if he's as stong as the 150lb guy?

150x10 = 195
300x1 = 300
300x10 = 390

390/300 = 1.3x bodyweight
195/150 = 1.3x bodyweight

So pound for pound they are equal.

Posted by: KarlW

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

150x10 = 195
300x1 = 300
300x10 = 390

390/300 = 1.3x bodyweight
195/150 = 1.3x bodyweight

So pound for pound they are equal.

IF the 300lb guy could do 10 right?
But he can't, he can only do 1.

Posted by: vegman

The answer is: Leon is a tool

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

IF the 300lb guy could do 10 right?
But he can't, he can only do 1.

Then we know our subject is a lard ass.

When I was 263 @ around 15% bodyfat I could still do 10 solid pullups, no push-off from the ground.

Regardless though the 300 pounder doing 1 pullup is still stronger, not by pound (efficiency) but he performed more work.

Posted by: SlimShady

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon77

all of the bigger guys can lift more iron then me, but i can very easily beat them with bodyweight strength exercises, push ups - pull ups, dips, etc

so who would be classed as the "stronger" ?

Guys who are bigger than you will always be seen as being stronger than you. They can pick up heavier stuff. But does it even matter? I mean who really cares? There is always gonna be someone stronger, no matter who you are.

Posted by: clemson357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

but he performed more work.

not true

if you assume both guys have approx. the same arm length

work = Force * Distance

the big guy moved 300 lbs, but only moved it 2 ft.

the little guy moved 150 lbs, but if he does 10 reps he moves it 20 ft.

Posted by: Pirate!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

Regardless though the 300 pounder doing 1 pullup is still stronger, not by pound (efficiency) but he performed more work.

Yep, it is a simple as that. I could probably deadlift 100 lbs for at atleast 30 reps, so I'd be lifting 3000 lbs. You think I'm stronger than Ronnie Coleman if he only does around 3 sets at 800 lbs. or 2 @ 900 lbs.?

Posted by: WilliamB

Alright a couple of things. I dought the 150 pound guy could do one pullup with 150 extra pounds pulling him down. As for the left hook thing, I dought most professional boxers/fighters attempt to bench as much weight as possible because its relatively useless for hitting people IMO.

Posted by: KentDog

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamB

As for the left hook thing, I dought most professional boxers/fighters attempt to bench as much weight as possible because its relatively useless for hitting people IMO.

Exactly the first thing I thought. I don't think anyone here can take that many hits from Tito Trinidad (apx. 160 pounds).

Posted by: Exordus

Quote:

Originally Posted by KentDog

Exactly the first thing I thought. I don't think anyone here can take that many hits from Tito Trinidad (apx. 160 pounds).

I betcha Leon77 could!!

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamB

Alright a couple of things. I dought the 150 pound guy could do one pullup with 150 extra pounds pulling him down. As for the left hook thing, I dought most professional boxers/fighters attempt to bench as much weight as possible because its relatively useless for hitting people IMO.

if that is the case you would rather be hit by a 200 lb man who can bench 450 vs getting hit by a 200 lb man who can bench 250 ? I don't think so. who was talking about professional boxers anyway ?

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

if that is the case you would rather be hit by a 200 lb man who can bench 450 vs getting hit by a 200 lb man who can bench 250 ? I don't think so. who was talking about professional boxers anyway ?

Are you saying that strength as a rule correlates to punching power?

Posted by: KarlW

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uzi9

Are you saying that strength as a rule correlates to punching power?

I can't help but agree with what LAM is trying to say, but...............I don't know how strong Bruce Lee was, I doubt he could bench 400 but I do know that I would not have liked to have been hit by him LOL.

Posted by: myCATpowerlifts

Quote:

Originally Posted by PirateFromHell

100 lbs for 30 reps doesnt equate to 3000 lbs lol!
it would be more like 190 or so

Posted by: Kracin

theres only one way to settle this, let the 300 pounder and the little guy box it out... winner take all....... lets just hope the little guy gets in his 10 hits before the big guy gets his 1...... lol

Posted by: P-funk

there is good reason why a heavy weight never fights a bantam weight. the differnece in punching power is huge!

Posted by: KarlW

If FORCE = punching power then F=MA right?

So if the lighter guy can produce twice the acceleration of his fist at the point of impact then the force would be the same?

Posted by: WilliamB

Speed is everything when punching. If I had to choose between someone with brute force or speed to fight I would defintly pick the guy with brute force because he probably swings like an oaf.

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

If FORCE = punching power then F=MA right?

So if the lighter guy can produce twice the acceleration of his fist at the point of impact then the force would be the same?

yes, f= MA

the bantam weight would have to accelerate pretty damn fast to punch as hard as the 230lb heavy weight though.

Posted by: Kracin

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamB

Speed is everything when punching. If I had to choose between someone with brute force or speed to fight I would defintly pick the guy with brute force because he probably swings like an oaf.

lol, put a big UFC fighter in a ring with a little kung fu artist and its a good assumption that it isnt a match made in heaven. likewise theres a difference when your trying to compare strength/bodyweight with powerlifters.

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamB

I dought most professional boxers/fighters attempt to bench as much weight as possible because its relatively useless for hitting people IMO.

Which is why the big fighters bench 500-600 pounds? How in the hell is it useless? Look at a punch that isn't an uppercut and then come back to that statement.

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

So if the lighter guy can produce twice the acceleration of his fist at the point of impact then the force would be the same?

Keep in mind that the body with more mass will produce a greater continuous force because it has momentum behind it. A brick wall versus a 90 pound weakling, if of equal strength and removing speed as an issue in the fight - will have the 90 pounder on a stretcher.

Posted by: Todd_

i can pat my head, rub my stomach, and chew gum which finally disproves once and for all that black guys have huge schlongs

Posted by: Uzi9

Strength in its own right has nothing to do with power at point of impact

How; because the only factors that come into it is WEIGHT and SPEED AT POINT OF IMPACT.

Also mass of object (i.e. size of fist) will determine the pounds per square inch of pressure upon impact.. (i.e. 2 people that put the same weight and speed at point of impact but 1 has a smaller fist, then well that person will exhort more damage in the area of his fist then the larger guys fist but overall force of power will remain constant in both cases.

Acceleration has nothing to do with it, example; 2 cars one has 1000bhp one has 100bhp, both have the same mass and weight and both hit a wall at 100mph it doesn’t matter that the 1000bhp gets to 100mph faster but only the fact that they both hit at 100mph.

There are other factors that have minor implication (in terms of human bodies), like if the guys fist wasn’t as hard as the others then his fist would absorb more force upon impact, also things like stiffness of body upon impact will detriment the amount of power that is absorbed (like crumble zones on cars).

Now muscles are the tools that determine the speed of movement (in humans) and weight is dead luggage that plays an important role in the math of it.

Another example: If you correlate strength to amount you can bench and look at the most powerful super stock tractor pull motor that has incredible strength, (big bencher of the motor world) mass and weight but hits you at 30mph or compared to a nascar hitting you at 200+mph that has much less strength (but pound for pound maybe not) weight and mass, I would know that the NASCAR would cause a huge amount more damage on a human body.

Posted by: Tha Don

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

Bruce Lee was still hella strong (i don't know about a 400lbs bench, but i remember hearing how much he used to curl and thinking it was a LOT for a guy of his size)

Posted by: Volume

It's the eye of the tiger
It's the thrill of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge
Of our rival
And the last known survivor
Stalks his prey in the night
And his fortune must always be
Eye of the tiger

Man, I hated that song after the first 2000 plays....

"Your gonna eat lightning, and your gonna crap thunder!"-Mick (Rocky's Trainer)

Posted by: Uzi9

My brother is a martial artist and trains with this guy who was offered a prize fight by some of the big boys of the local gyms around my area (all jacked up big mother f**kers) hes about 170lbs at 5`8" (very low bf%) his skill is good and he hits hard, these big guys went for three, one minute rounds with him (think there was 6-8 in total obviosly the whole gym couldn`t fight him he would be knackared), the fight was held in a local boxing gym, he (my brothers mate) completey whiped the floor with them and smashed their faces into sh*t they couldnt of given bodybuilding a worse name, this little guy beat the crap out of all of them

Posted by: clemson357

fighting has so much to do with technique that this conversation is pointless. the guy who hits harder does not always win.

Posted by: Leon77

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon77

all of the bigger guys can lift more iron then me, but i can very easily beat them with bodyweight strength exercises, push ups - pull ups, dips, etc

so who would be classed as the "stronger" ?

Consider the common argument between bodyweight exercise and weight training. One individual will boast superiority based on his ability to perform 20 pull-ups and 100 pushups. Another individual will claim superiority based on his ability to squat 500 pounds.

Who is the superior athlete?

To those expecting an answer, unfortunately there is no correct answer. An athlete is not defined by his ability to perform a certain number of repetitions, or by how much weight he can lift. Athletes must be evaluated and judged based on performance.

There is no training device or system that serves as the best for strength and conditioning. Too many individuals spend excessive amounts of time and energy justifying their training system, while discrediting others. These individuals would be better served by incorporating variety into their training program.

Who is to say that bodyweight exercise is superior to weight training, or vice versa? Who is to say that kettlebells are superior to dumbbells, or vice versa? What about sandbags, medicine balls, or clubbells? What about sport-specific skill training?

We are all individuals, each with unique strengths, weaknesses, goals, and objectives. No man or woman should preach the absolute superiority of one particular training system, device, or methodology.

I prefer (and recommend) a system that incorporates variety. Regardless of your training goals and desires, you will be well served with variety. I personally train with barbells, dumbbells, bodyweight exercise, medicine balls, sandbags, sledgehammers, sprints, intervals, and just about every other training device that you can think of. Each tool and system can provide benefits if used correctly.

The athlete must incorporate variety into his program to become complete. There is no single exercise or piece of equipment that will create a complete athlete. It is unfortunate that so many individuals fail to include variety into their exercise routine. These individuals continue to train the same way, day after day, week after week. Their results are limited due to the natural process of habituation. As related to strength and conditioning, habituation is defined as tolerance to the effects of a particular activity acquired through continued use. When you train the same way all the time, your body adapts and adjusts to the load that is placed against it.

By incorporating variety, you have many tools and systems available to foster progression. Consider the martial artist who refuses to train with weights. This individual boasts his ability to perform 500 bodyweight squats. This accomplishment is impressive, but what happens when he attempts to squat with 300 pounds on his back? If this individual has not squatted with heavy weights, there is a good chance that he will be sent crashing to the floor, unable to handle the weight.

What about the individual who routinely squats 300 pounds? What happens when he attempts to perform a one-legged squat with his non-working leg extended in front of his body? In most situations, this individual will struggle to perform one repetition. He will lack the balance, coordination, and flexibility to perform this movement.

Each of these individuals assumes they are “strong”, but they are narrow-minded in their approach to strength and conditioning. A complete athlete will train with a complete program. This individual will be proficient with his own bodyweight, as well as added resistance.

Leon77

Posted by: WilliamB

Alright I dont think Chuck Lidell or Tito Ortiez can bench press 600 pounds, because fighters lift but they dont dedicate training to their bench press. Though you do need good triceps for holds and a variety of other things, but thats besides the point Training for throwing fists is not the same thing as lifting weights. And how are you going to throw the comparison out there of a little kung fu guy and a UFC guy. What I am talking about was put a BBer in the ring with a UFC guy and you know that UFC guy will be able to throw knock out punches just as easily but probably easier than the 600 pound bencher.

Posted by: WilliamB

However I am not denying the fact that most UFC fighters are strong like ox dont get me wrong there.

Posted by: PreMier

Tank Abbot was a HUGE bencher, and he had one of if not the most devistating punches in UFC history.

Posted by: sgtneo

man some odd questions, your muslces are trained for endurence not strength and bulking, therefore a bodybuilder will be stronger as you will be more endured, would have thought that answer would be pretty clear consider youve boxed for how long? kinda a common sense question really

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamB

Alright I dont think Chuck Lidell or Tito Ortiez can bench press 600 pounds, because fighters lift but they dont dedicate training to their bench press.

No but I am quite sure a modestly sized guy is well into the 400s. I know a guy just a CRACK over 200 who is benching 485 RAW, and yes he is a fighter.

I have video of Tank doing 600 RAW.

Obviously there is more to being a fighter than bench pressing a respectable weight, I seriously dont think anyone was so stupid as to propose such a thing.

Posted by: Kracin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PreMier

Tank Abbot was a HUGE bencher, and he had one of if not the most devistating punches in UFC history.

so true, now take the movement of a punch. pretty much like benching isnt it? the more muscle you have the faster you can move it and the more weight it has to it, f=ma which means that generally the more you bench the stronger your punches will be (provided you can actually throw a good punch)

Posted by: KarlW

Quote:

Acceleration has nothing to do with it

Not so sure about this.

Posted by: shiznit2169

Quote:

I have video of Tank doing 600 RAW.

Can you post it? I wanna see it

Posted by: Mudge

Tank Abbot 600 bench 1.2MB RIGHT CLICK SAVE AS

Posted by: KarlW

He looks like he could put up way more. Not sure about the negative though

Posted by: myCATpowerlifts

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlW

He looks like he could put up way more. Not sure about the negative though

yea what's up with that negative??

Posted by: Mudge

He needs to be using a Texas Power Bar, 600 is too much for a regular bar.

Posted by: WilliamB

Look at his spotter?! How is that kid spotting 600lbs? He looks the same size or smaller than I am and theres no way in hell I would want to be spotting a 600lbs lift!

Posted by: Mudge

Yeah his spotter probably weighs 3 plates

Posted by: Curlingcadys

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

no offence, and certainly no defense of Leon, but just cause a guy is 300lb doesn't mean he packs any sort of a punch and actually in most cases they don't.

Posted by: Mudge

Hmm. Ask Glenn Danzig how it felt when he got dropped by a "fatty"

Posted by: Jay334

Weight def matters in my opinion. Its when weights are more or less equal that other factors come into play. Of course I'm not talking about professional fighters here, thats just a lame example to use.

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by PreMier

Tank Abbot was a HUGE bencher, and he had one of if not the most devistating punches in UFC history.

Mirko crocop is the best kicker, but I bet he dosnt squat the most.

But he weighs quite a bit and can fling his leg fast.

Posted by: Jay334

My favorite ufc fighter is wanderlei silva.

Posted by: Curlingcadys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

Hmm. Ask Glenn Danzig how it felt when he got dropped by a "fatty"

Oh certainly! I'm not saying all the "big boys" can't hit for shit but usually if they can punch its only the straight thats effective simply because they can put the weight behind it but any other punches ie: hooks and uppercuts they don't have that luxury of doing that, so even though you're still going to feel that punch its "typically" nothing to lose sleep over its usually slow, well telegraphed and lacks "pop" (unless its a straight but then its just a weighted punch), but I would be more concerned getting popped from somebody in the broad range of 170lb to 225lb, I think Iwould just give them my lunch money and call it a day!

Just my opinion/experience though I've been hit by both and usaully by the end of the day I've forgotten about the 300lb fatty punch or even the ripped 300lb guy for that matter, but the guys in shape at 300 were a bit quicker but the biggest factor was still being able to see the punch comming from last tuesday.

Posted by: Mudge

Good points by all. Actually there was a UFC fighter that was over 400 that people on the street joked they would rather fight him out of anyone, because he was so slow.

Some people with no athletic skills big or small would be easy pickins, but if a guy can still move ok and is 300ish pounds, he'd probably put a little hurt on ya provided he connects.

Posted by: Curlingcadys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudge

Some people with no athletic skills big or small would be easy pickins, but if a guy can still move ok and is 300ish pounds, he'd probably put a little hurt on ya provided he connects.

Very true, at that weight, especially if he's fit and then gets a little training on speed and technique shit! I hope the other guy is wearing an armored suit and brought a lunch cause it would be a long night for him!

Or it could be a very short one...but I've bitten off a little more than I could chew a couple times in the past and it always seems when you're on the losing end the fights always last all night

Posted by: edt1974

the smaller guy wouldnt have more muscular endurance, that would be if the lighter guy could lift a given weight longer than the heavier/bigger dude, the smaller guy would have have what is referred to as more "Relative Strength", i.e relative to the fact that he is small, as far as raw power/strength then obviously the bigger guy has more strength/power as he moves more weight............

Posted by: PreMier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uzi9

Mirko crocop is the best kicker, but I bet he dosnt squat the most.

But he weighs quite a bit and can fling his leg fast.

Duh.. squatting and a side kick are two totally different movements..

Posted by: pumpthatiron

"Mirko crocop is the best kicker, but I bet he dosnt squat the most.

But he weighs quite a bit and can fling his leg fast."

ya dumass

Posted by: j rizz

dude, crocop is the fucking shit. i watched a video compelation of him on muchosucko.com (go to the fight section, they have toins of all sorts of fights..bareknuckle,backyard,street,ufc. anyways..) crocop just WRECKS these guys with kicks to the head and then faster than u can blink he is on top of them bustin their heads up... awsome.

Posted by: WilliamB

The 200-250 pound guys are the most lethal I think. They have the body mass to be heavy lifters while at the same time they have the agility to snap quick with their fists. Priemer is right those guys that pack on like 300+ pounds can definetly just put their weight behind their punch and take someones head off just with their weights. Not a very skillfull punch though. Chuck Lidell thats all I got to say, its all about the 200-250 pound beast.

Posted by: Uzi9

[quote=PreMier]Duh.. squatting and a side kick are two totally different movements..[/QUOTE

Dont just duh me out of ignorance, quads are quads they contract one way, being mega strong in the squat will mean your not weak at leg extensions.

Someone said tank abbot benched the most and had the hardest hit, a punch is primary upper body as bench press is, a squat is primary lower body, when you Side kick I suppose you move your leg dont you (lowerbody)

or is that hard work for sum to figure out?)

Mirko has the hardest kick but dosnt squat the most, when he kicks and does his side kick the quads,glutes fire (as well as abs and depending how he kicks other muslces might contract, but he normally just flings his leg without moving his body to much) these muscle only can contract one way.

A different movemnt dosnt mean they are somehow weak at it for that same muscle???

I am talking about strenght relative to punching/kicking power.. I dont think you quite understand the point being made.. I cant seem to get away from these guys who pop up like mushroom men and dig an irrevelent hole for all points to be lost in.

Posted by: Tha Don

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpthatiron

"Mirko crocop is the best kicker, but I bet he dosnt squat the most.

But he weighs quite a bit and can fling his leg fast."

ya dumass

haha what a cheap shot!

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpthatiron

"Mirko crocop is the best kicker, but I bet he dosnt squat the most.

But he weighs quite a bit and can fling his leg fast."

ya dumass

Do you have any idea about what POINT I am making? what are you some kind of little kid? read all my posts in this thread you mushroom.

Posted by: PreMier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uzi9

Dont just duh me out of ignorance, quads are quads they contract one way, being mega strong in the squat will mean your not weak at leg extensions.

Someone said tank abbot benched the most and had the hardest hit, a punch is primary upper body as bench press is, a squat is primary lower body, when you Side kick I suppose you move your leg dont you (lowerbody)

or is that hard work for sum to figure out?)

It is, but a bench/punch are the same motion. A squat and a side kick are not. Oh, and drop the petty insults..

Quote:

Mirko has the hardest kick but dosnt squat the most, when he kicks and does his side kick the quads,glutes fire (as well as abs and depending how he kicks other muslces might contract, but he normally just flings his leg without moving his body to much) these muscle only can contract one way.

So.. you are saying he kicks the hardest, but doesnt squat the most. Isnt that what I was saying RE: squat and kick not being the same motion, therefore not directly connected? Thought so..

Quote:

A different movemnt dosnt mean they are somehow weak at it for that same muscle???

What? Rephrase please.

Quote:

I am talking about strenght relative to punching/kicking power.. I dont think you quite understand the point being made.. I cant seem to get away from these guys who pop up like mushroom men and dig an irrevelent hole for all points to be lost in.

I dont understand your point. First you agree that Tank had one of the most devastating punches, because he benched a ton "because its primarily upper body." Then you say that Mirko has the hardest kick but he doesnt squat the most(agreeing with me that squat doesnt necessarily correlate with kicking power). So your trying to say you agree with me?

Posted by: Uzi9

Duh!!!... (petty insult)Tell me what muscles a side kick uses primary.

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlingcadys

no offence, and certainly no defense of Leon, but just cause a guy is 300lb doesn't mean he packs any sort of a punch and actually in most cases they don't.

Muscle is fired or triggered by electrical stimulus, this is known as reflex action. The greater amount of muscle firing in unison - the greater the overall response which equals an increase in speed as well as strength.

you take 2 people of equal skill. A benches 200 lbs and B benches 300. A squats 300 lbs and B squats 500. A is substantially under powered and will get his ass handed to him.

my buddy Terry Giles is 5'10 295 @ 8%. He is an 11 Times World Champion at Full-Contact Karate and holds the record for something like 46 knockouts on the bare fisted fighted circuit. big guys can be very strong and fast if they train to be.

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

Good post ... Skill of punching (speed, body movment etc) plays a large factor in a mans punching power I know guys who bench 240lbs for a rep punch harder then a guy that benches 450lbs, although of equal skill, speed and weight then the stronger guy would punch harder.

But hold on LAM just wait for Premier to jump in and tell you what squats got to do with fighting?... he just dosnt get the idea of the point we are making of overall stenght v.s punching/kicking power! lol.

Posted by: Curlingcadys

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

big guys can be very strong and fast if they train to be.

Very true I wont dispute you on that what so ever, key word being that they train to be. with out it its like watching a slow motion act, and allthough a guy half the size could very well have half the strength his speed would be a bit more thus he'd probably be landing 5 punches/kicks/knees/elbows ect to every one of the big guy and being the speed factor would play a big part if the untrained big guy did land it would be out of luck IMO.

But like you mentioned with your friend, someone thats trained with size WILL be very devistating.

I just find it comical how still in this day and age there's so many extremely huge guys that love to play the "hard ass" role cause they're the size of Mack trucks but when it comes to throwing blows they're left a battered mess. Seen it too many times.

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlingcadys

I just find it comical how still in this day and age there's so many extremely huge guys that love to play the "hard ass" role cause they're the size of Mack trucks but when it comes to throwing blows they're left a battered mess. Seen it too many times.

that is very true. when I was younger (teens) and always scraping I dusted off plenty of big dudes who outweighed me by 50-70 lbs. most of them can't throw or land a punch for shit.

Posted by: freydo

(I know this might be a silly comparison) There is no doubt that bench press and punching power are somewhat related but not all together. If this was true would'nt whoever squats the most would have the highest vertical leap? Also a whole lot of punching power comes frome the torque created in the twist of the hips, right?

Posted by: freydo

Also if this held true, would the person who could do leg extensions with the most weight kick a ball the furthest? It cant be compared there are too many things to factor.

Posted by: WilliamB

I would almost say that have a huge squat would be more beneficial for punching then a big bench. If you plant your feet and connect with your whole bodies momentum including your legs your knocking someone out. Bend at the knees, twist at the hips, cock back, and let it rip.

Posted by: freydo

i completely agree, too many factors to base it all on just one. That is why you have heavyweights that are both good but one has 20 wins with 20ko's and the other 20 wins with say 5ko's

Posted by: WilliamB

Probably not thought

Throwing quick sharp blows definetly requires more than weight lifting. I think some of it has to do with genetics. Some people just will never be able to get hands moving to a certain velocity.

Posted by: freydo

you also "learn" how to hit people. I've hit people and I swear my punch felt like it was going in slow motion, it was just unnatural, you gotta learn to just let em fly

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by freydo

Also if this held true, would the person who could do leg extensions with the most weight kick a ball the furthest? It cant be compared there are too many things to factor.

I am waiting for premier to pop up and say that "leg extensions are a completely diffrent movment and muscles used then kicking a ball"

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally Posted by freydo

If this was true would'nt whoever squats the most would have the highest vertical leap?

Lots of good stuff there, but yes big squaters do train vertical leaps. But when a guy like Mike Miller weighs in 380 after dieting down, I dont know that its fair to ask him to clear 4 feet.

A lot of what is tought in powerlifting, is pulled from Soviet sport science.

Posted by: freydo

i guess if your were trying to punch someone with your back against the wall with only the power generated by your arm extending, the greatest bench would lead to the hardest punch

Posted by: PreMier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uzi9

But hold on LAM just wait for Premier to jump in and tell you what squats got to do with fighting?... he just dosnt get the idea of the point we are making of overall stenght v.s punching/kicking power! lol.

Dude, your a fucking jackass, and your skewing my words. I never said that overall strength did not not equate to punching/kicking power. Re read what I wrote. I said a squat will have not direct effect on someones side kick power. One of the baddest people lb/lb post here, and I bet he cant squat near as much as some.. het he could kick your head completely off.

Arguing with you has become completely untproductive as you are skewing my wording, and missing my point. There is no way to prove either postition in all actuality.

Posted by: PreMier

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uzi9

I am waiting for premier to pop up and say that "leg extensions are a completely diffrent movment and muscles used then kicking a ball"

Stop being a fucking jackass. I never said anything of the sort.. not once did I mention leg extensions. You have entirely too much time on your hands bro.

Posted by: Uzi9

Quote:

Originally Posted by PreMier

Stop being a fucking jackass. I never said anything of the sort.. not once did I mention leg extensions. You have entirely too much time on your hands bro.

I like your post count.

Posted by: Decker

Shawn Michaels, now he's fast and strong. He's got that kick, ya know. That Kick.

One minute you're talking, the next, he whips out that kick and you're done.

Posted by: Curlingcadys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

Shawn Michaels, now he's fast and strong. He's got that kick, ya know. That Kick.

One minute you're talking, the next, he whips out that kick and you're
done.

come on now! Im a big hbk fan but remember we are talking about scripted wrestling here....

Posted by: P-funk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curlingcadys

come on now! Im a big hbk fan but remember we are talking about scripted wrestling here....

whatever dude, that shit is real.

Posted by: Curlingcadys

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

whatever dude, that shit is real.

Posted by: WilliamB

Alright two things first do people really think that WWF wrestling stuff is in the least bit real (other when they screw up and really get hurt, that shits funny) and second. Can't we just close this thread. It's pretty much become spam and im sick of looking at this at the top of the list everyday. This shit was started by Leon I mean come on! ha. Peace.

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38