You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → Why is benching considered a crap strength indicator?
Why is benching considered a crap strength indicator?
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
This thread has been closed by a moderator. Replies are no longer possible.123456789101112131415161718192021
Stetec said:
And also, some would say Terry Hollands is better at stones that Jimmy Marku. But is he? Hes taller thats for sure. But Jimmy is hexed by the fact that hes short so the same works in reverse.
And also, some would say Terry Hollands is better at stones that Jimmy Marku. But is he? Hes taller thats for sure. But Jimmy is hexed by the fact that hes short so the same works in reverse.
Height, weight, waist size, bum hole diameter are all irrelevant
Whoever lifts the most is stronger at that exercise, irrespective of height/weight
Terry is better at stones than Marku, as he lifts heavier stones...end of
Stetec said:
And also in my opinion, a guy whos 7 foot tall taking a weight from the floor to overhead moves it a lot further than someone who is 5 foot 3.
And also in my opinion, a guy whos 7 foot tall taking a weight from the floor to overhead moves it a lot further than someone who is 5 foot 3.
Wow, how did you figure that one out?!
Post Edited: 14.07.2010 @ 10:58 AM by Stetec
No need to take the piss, just my opinion. And Terry lifts them higher not heavier.Who won last BSM btw?
Stetec said:
So unless everyone who competes is similar in height, I don't think there will be scientifically direct comparison in any movement.
So unless everyone who competes is similar in height, I don't think there will be scientifically direct comparison in any movement.
There is. Pick a movement. Test that movement and you've scientifically proved who has great strength in that movement.
I say we just sack all this malarky and just do some isometric dynametry. Just knee extension would do, 90 degress, 3 attempts and peak force for the win. That would be an exciting sport to watch!
Look, at the end of the day does it matter that much, no, this is a entertainment and great fun for all who take part, as I said, just stating my opinion like anyone else, my opinion just happens to be that range of motion or the distance a person moves a heavy object isn't taken into account. Its the same principal as you wouldn't expect 1 athlete to move a sandbag 10m and the one next to him 15m and call it an even contest.
IainKendrick said:
I say we just sack all this malarky and just do some isometric dynametry. Just knee extension would do, 90 degress, 3 attempts and peak force for the win. That would be an exciting sport to watch!
I say we just sack all this malarky and just do some isometric dynametry. Just knee extension would do, 90 degress, 3 attempts and peak force for the win. That would be an exciting sport to watch!
Let's start a new sport - "gaylifting".
Tricep kick-back for max, bicep curl for max... and bench press
Wayne_Cowdrey said:
Let's start a new sport - "gaylifting".
Tricep kick-back for max, bicep curl for max... and bench press
Let's start a new sport - "gaylifting".
Tricep kick-back for max, bicep curl for max... and bench press
Isokinetic shoulder rotation, wall sits and OHP
Is this a result of schools having both 'competative' and 'non competative' sports days?
FFS some people are good at some things, some are good at others, some are attractive to the opposite sex, some are great in bed. A lot of people dont have much of anything. A few of us have it all. Take what nature gave you and get on with it, and if you cant do that, do some bench presses.
FFS some people are good at some things, some are good at others, some are attractive to the opposite sex, some are great in bed. A lot of people dont have much of anything. A few of us have it all. Take what nature gave you and get on with it, and if you cant do that, do some bench presses.
OdiousSlob14/07/10 @ 12:09
little_a said:Is this a result of schools having both 'competative' and 'non competative' sports days?
FFS some people are good at some things, some are good at others, some are attractive to the opposite sex, some are great in bed. A lot of people dont have much of anything. A few of us have it all. Take what nature gave you and get on with it, and if you cant do that, do some bench presses.
FFS some people are good at some things, some are good at others, some are attractive to the opposite sex, some are great in bed. A lot of people dont have much of anything. A few of us have it all. Take what nature gave you and get on with it, and if you cant do that, do some bench presses.
You have a non-existent bench yet a decent overhead (I'm led to believe). So that's the 'good bench=good overhead' correlation straight out of the window.
123456789101112131415161718192021
You are here: Home → Forum → General Bullshit → Why is benching considered a crap strength indicator?