Even Bruce Lee said “A stronger muscle, is a bigger muscle.”
Scroll down to the physical fitness section.
If you’re really fuckin’ strong you’re probably carrying around a lot of muscle.
If you’re really muscled up then you’re probably really strong.
This isn’t rocket science folks.
There are exceptions to the rule but the two go hand-in-hand like peanut butter and jelly.
[quote]PeteK wrote:
Honestly they really are. And so are heavy-weight weightlifters and powerlifters and so are gorillas. Well at least according to the people on this site. The thing that people don’t take into account is that someone who is TALL will always be relatively weaker than someone who is short. It is actually height more than anything else that determines your “relative” strength.
Think of it this way… Lightweight weightlifters can lift 3x their own bodyweight over their head. Super heavyweights less than 2x. So if you want great relative strength, make sure you are short, if not, well then you really have to add muscle, because there aren’t any 6 foot 145 pounds strongmen I know of.
Muscle after all will make you stronger. A guy that is 6 foot tall and weighs 140 pounds is not as strong as a guy that is also 6 foot tall and weighs 200 pounds (assuming that it is muscle). There simply is nobody on this earth who is over 6 feet tall that can be considered strong at 145 pounds, no such thing. And I think your “relative” strength will also increase as your bodyweight increases.
Sure enough it will always be lower than that of an equally well trained but shorter individual, but it will be better than what you started with. Case in point, myself. I more than doubled my lifts the first year of training, and I certainly didn’t double my bodyweight.
(On a different note. I even think that the relative strength of short bodybuilders like Lee Priest and Franco Columbu is higher than those of heavyweight power- and weightlifters.)
Also, if you look at men like Rezazadeh you will soon find that he probably has about the same amount of muscle mass as someone like Ronnie Coleman. Interestingly enough I think that if you could teach today’s elite bodybuilders perfect weightlifting technique and gave them a few months(or years) to prepare they would do extremely well in a meet. Probably world class too. If they have the required coordination.
We’ve heard the stories of bodybuilders using relatively light weights such as Paul Dillet and Vince Taylor. However, I am willing to bet that if people would use their techinique, range of motion, tempo and their diet at the time of taping the weights would be suprisingly heavy.
The biggest men are the strongest. And the shortest are the relative strongest. It has nothing to do with bodyweight but with height. If your tall you need the muscle and everything will improve. If you’re short you need less of it because you have better leverages, and of course, you don’t have to lift that much.
I think the entire notion of “relative” strength is bullshit. It’s just something that weighlifting organizations cae up with to compare lifters from different weight classes.
Look at it this way. Relatively an ant is about 100 times as strong as a gorilla. But if you would enlarge the ant to the size of the gorilla the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear. Goes to demonstrate how silly “relative” strength is. If the people here would rather be an ant than a gorilla I think it’s safe to assume you went to the wrong site. Do you really wanna be an ant?[/quote]
Case closed buddy. Awesome job. Better get this sucker up on wikipedia ASAP because functional training is quite the debate these days but you just put an end to it with one single post.
High fives all round!
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
If you’re really fuckin’ strong you’re probably carrying around a lot of muscle.
If you’re really muscled up then you’re probably really strong.
This isn’t rocket science folks.
There are exceptions to the rule but the two go hand-in-hand like peanut butter and jelly.[/quote]
I prefer peanut butter and honey.
[quote]ReklaW wrote:
I mean biathlon skiers can shoot so we should rate all sports and interests that involve skis and snow the same.
[/quote]
I’d like to see Kingwill hit a ginormuos 1080 while spraying the crowd with an ak-47.
That would be stronger than heck!
Or a boarder-cross run where the competitors get machettes.
I’m not sure about that whole “the pull of gravity would be too great for its body to bear” spiel, but i bet if you shrunk the gorilla down to the size of the ant, its mini heart would no longer be able to pump blood through its mini-mini veins and arteries … so … ummm, what were we talking about?
Wait, he has an aunt who’s a gorilla?
[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
Boris B wrote:
PeteK wrote:
I think the entire notion of “relative” strength is bullshit.
This is where you TOTALLY lost me…
Of course bigger = less relative strength, but that doesn’t mean that if you are over 6 foot and 250+, that you shouldn’t be able to do a chin-up…
Relative strength is not a crock to any athlete that has to start, stop and jump.
and this pertains to bodybuilders how?[/quote]It relates to STRENGTH… If you are a big guy with poor relative strength, you are going to be at a disadvantage in just about any sport that requires you to move… The biggest guys don’t always win the WSM, for example.
Look Mr. Attitude, I’m not saying size doesn’t matter in the strength game - I’m saying that the statement “relative strength is a crock” is B.S. and anyone that has clue about S&C knows that.
[quote]Boris B wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
Boris B wrote:
PeteK wrote:
I think the entire notion of “relative” strength is bullshit.
This is where you TOTALLY lost me…
Of course bigger = less relative strength, but that doesn’t mean that if you are over 6 foot and 250+, that you shouldn’t be able to do a chin-up…
Relative strength is not a crock to any athlete that has to start, stop and jump.
and this pertains to bodybuilders how?It relates to STRENGTH… If you are a big guy with poor relative strength, you are going to be at a disadvantage in just about any sport that requires you to move… The biggest guys don’t always win the WSM, for example.
Look Mr. Attitude, I’m not saying size doesn’t matter in the strength game - I’m saying that the statement “relative strength is a crock” is B.S. and anyone that has clue about S&C knows that.
[/quote]
No the biggest guy doesn’t win strongest man. BUT if the same guy adds 20lbs. of muscle, I’m sure he’ll do better than he did the last time.
Too many people are afraid to add muscle because they think it will hurt their performance. Being small and weak will hurt your performance.
I’ll give you an example: Barry Bonds. He put on quite a bit of muscle and it didn’t hurt his game at all. Now all you functional geeks would have adviced him not to put on the mass because then he wouldn’t be as quick around the bases as he used to be. But whatever speed he lost in stealing bases he more than made up for in hits. If he would have listened to the functional geeks he would have stayed small. He would have been quick around the bases, for a while until age cought up, because you lose speed and reaction and stuff first, but less productive. It’s a good thing Bonds didn’t listen to the functional geek because then h never would have been near the hall of fame. (and yes, I am aware he lead the league in home runs prior to his buffed days, but he became way more productive after he beefed up)
Bonds would be in the hall of fame either way. Its not even close. Looking at his stats on mlb.com he would probably be very close to 700 homers either way as his stats are pretty consistant.
Other than 2001 he never has hit over 50 homers. So in actuality he has probably hurt himself a lot by taking the steriods as while he had that one incredible season, he has not increased really any of his stats while hurting the rest of his game.
But feel free to check his stats…notice that there are no real significant changes to his stats.
[quote]PeteK wrote:
No the biggest guy doesn’t win strongest man. BUT if the same guy adds 20lbs. of muscle, I’m sure he’ll do better than he did the last time.
Too many people are afraid to add muscle because they think it will hurt their performance. Being small and weak will hurt your performance.
I’ll give you an example: Barry Bonds. He put on quite a bit of muscle and it didn’t hurt his game at all. Now all you functional geeks would have adviced him not to put on the mass because then he wouldn’t be as quick around the bases as he used to be. But whatever speed he lost in stealing bases he more than made up for in hits. If he would have listened to the functional geeks he would have stayed small. He would have been quick around the bases, for a while until age cought up, because you lose speed and reaction and stuff first, but less productive. It’s a good thing Bonds didn’t listen to the functional geek because then h never would have been near the hall of fame. (and yes, I am aware he lead the league in home runs prior to his buffed days, but he became way more productive after he beefed up)[/quote]
As far as the WSM is concerned, he may or he may not - it would depend on the events and the competitor.
As far as Barry is concerned, it’s a really poor example that has nothing to do with the points I mentioned… You might as well’ve talked about a shot-putter - hitting a ball out of the park has little to do with relative strength…
…and do me a favor and stop saying “you functional strength guys”… I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about - if you want to call me the “functional size guy” , then fine - it’s more relevant to the point I’m trying to make.
[quote]Boris B wrote:
PeteK wrote:
…and do me a favor and stop saying “you functional strength guys”… I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about - if you want to call me the “functional size guy” , then fine - it’s more relevant to the point I’m trying to make.
[/quote]
Point taken. From now on when I talk about functional guys I don’t mean you.
I mean all these people who focus on changing direction really fast, and being able to do a lot of one-legged squats and doing cart wheels and flip flops and all sorts of other things 7 year old girls are better at.
[quote]PeteK wrote:
Boris B wrote:
PeteK wrote:
…and do me a favor and stop saying “you functional strength guys”… I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about - if you want to call me the “functional size guy” , then fine - it’s more relevant to the point I’m trying to make.
Point taken. From now on when I talk about functional guys I don’t mean you.
I mean all these people who focus on changing direction really fast, and being able to do a lot of one-legged squats and doing cart wheels and flip flops and all sorts of other things 7 year old girls are better at.[/quote]
Is this all because you can’t do a cart wheel?
[quote]PeteK wrote:
No the biggest guy doesn’t win strongest man. BUT if the same guy adds 20lbs. of muscle, I’m sure he’ll do better than he did the last time.[/quote]
Really? Are you SURE about that? Because I wouldn’t be. You need to realize that adding muscle does not occur in a vacuum. What if he added 20 pounds but lost endurance, which is a huge part of strongest man competitions? I understand what you are trying to say, but outside of powerlifting, there are very few sports where simply adding muscle is going to directly correlate to improved performance 100% of the time.
[quote]
Too many people are afraid to add muscle because they think it will hurt their performance. Being small and weak will hurt your performance.[/quote]
Perhaps, but those people are idiots and nobody is really arguing that here so you are basically just creating an argument and fighting with yourself here. Also, there is a flip side to the coin and many athletes are overly concerned with adding muscle mass that they neglect the other qualities that are MORE important for sporting success. Being fat and slow will hurt your performance as well.
This has far much more to do with technique than strength, I’ve seen and been hit by people who have amazing technique but can hardly pick up their groceries out of their car (think cliche old master that can harldy move but all of a sudden kicks your ass), and I know plenty of big strong guys who can’t perform a one inch punch to save their lives.
As for the OP, sorry but it does just sound like a long winded bitch and moan about being tall, Deal with it, I do.
[quote]SamuraiWannaBe wrote:
Don’t forget Bruce Lee!
This must be a new record, first reply starts the turn into a fighting thread.
Yes the immortal, or is it very mortal??, Bruce Lee. An actor who played someone who is really strong, yet never participated in international competition.
Watch the following video on Mr. Lee, and you will change your mind. I doubt even an Oly lifter larger than Lee (within reason of course) could knock someone that far with a punch just one inch away from the body.
This has far much more to do with technique than strength, I’ve seen and been hit by people who have amazing technique but can hardly pick up their groceries out of their car (think cliche old master that can harldy move but all of a sudden kicks your ass), and I know plenty of big strong guys who can’t perform a one inch punch to save their lives.
As for the OP, sorry but it does just sound like a long winded bitch and moan about being tall, Deal with it, I do.[/quote]
Oh contraire mufraire
Unlike you I am no master or researcher of the one inch punch. However, I do know F=m*a. While technique might be part of it, I’m 90% sure it required high strength of the serratus muscle while transfering body mass through his fist. More than likely he had this tremendous power because he spent more time than anybody doing it. As he always displayed the ability to train more than anybody.
Anybody who has ever investigated him knows that at one time or another he used nearly every training philosophy known. This is not unusual as the average workout freak who isn’t locked into powerlifting, bodybuilding, or other sport will try a multitude of different things moving on to proper nutrition has he gets older above 25.
The big difference is from 20 to 35 when most of us have jobs and school, he was able to continue training 4 to 6 hours a day because his livelyhood was based on it. Where as if I did that I would be late for work every day get fired lose my job can’t pay my bills then be kicked out on the street.
Bruce Lee was an amazing physical specimen but the one inch punch was a bit phony. He hit the guy and the guy fakes a fall backwards.
If it was real he would be hitting a heavy bag and it would fly backwards.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bruce Lee was an amazing physical specimen but the one inch punch was a bit phony. He hit the guy and the guy fakes a fall backwards.
If it was real he would be hitting a heavy bag and it would fly backwards.[/quote]
A heavy bag doesn’t have a diaphragm and internal organs.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Oh contraire mufraire[/quote]
That’s Au contraire, mon frere (meaning “On the contrary, my brother”).
Airtruth, I’ve found a new calling: following you around and correcting your attempts at any language other than Standard English! (A thankless job, but somebody’s got to keep these fora intelligible.)
Just kidding you, dude. You were doing great with the F equation.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bruce Lee was an amazing physical specimen but the one inch punch was a bit phony. He hit the guy and the guy fakes a fall backwards.
If it was real he would be hitting a heavy bag and it would fly backwards.[/quote]
The important element in the one inch punch is making sure you put a chair behind them to fall over, as is demonstrated in that video.
Also making sure they are a bit drunk and have bad balance is useful. For example punching someone with an inner ear infection might produce the best results.
Yeah I find it a bit exaggerated too.
It wouldn’t be difficult for a lot of people to stay on their feet afterwards. It’s no different than giving someone hard push. And if it was doing significant internal damage to a person to take them off their feet, I doubt it could be demonstrated in that way to begin with.