[quote]blazindave wrote:
Can someone answer the power clean question?
It seems everyone missed it :P[/quote]
It isn’t a huge problem if you resist slightly… but it is going to be a waste of energy. I may have misunderstood, but why is it that you are looking to use your arms to resist the weight rather than let your body take the load?
[quote]jimmyjamesii wrote:
I don’t know if this is exactly your point, but it really annoys me when people will try to belittle someone’s achievements by trying to use their weight as an excuse for why they should be able to lift more.
It’ll go something like this…
I finally got a 250 pound bench!!
Really, how much do you weigh?
240
That’s barely a full body weight bench press, you should be benching at least 1.5x bodyweight. Boooo… get back to the gym you big fat fatty, I hope you rot in hell
This was obviously a slight exaggeration, but it just makes me mad, a small guy will get praised for 180 just because he weighs 115. If he gained 50 pounds of fat, everyone would start telling him how his lifts really need to improve when a moment ago he was soooo awesome.
I don’t hate smaller lifters, I think its great whenever someone tries to make a goal and achieves it. I just think too much value is put into how much someone weighs.[/quote]
That’s what i was saying. While i understand that relative strength can be a big deal, it basically comes down to absolute strength. Someone who is 4’ and can squat 500 pounds, to me, isnt necessarily as impressive as someone who is 6’5 and squats 500 pounds.
Chances are, the 4 foot guy weighs about 100 pounds. Chances are the 6’5 guy is about 250 pounds.
While its impressive that the short guy has a a 5* squat, he is only really lifting 600 pounds while the big guy has another 250 pounds hes got to lift. So in total he is lifting 750 pounds. That’s a tremendous number.
Remember that the 6foot 5 guy has alot more weight he needs to carry around, and doing a body weight squat on its own, already is 250 pounds. The fact that he must also carry this weight over a long distance and has lever disadvantages, is quite impressive.
[quote]Congera wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Can someone answer the power clean question?
It seems everyone missed it 
It isn’t a huge problem if you resist slightly… but it is going to be a waste of energy. I may have misunderstood, but why is it that you are looking to use your arms to resist the weight rather than let your body take the load?[/quote]
I have problems racking. I understand that i dont hold the weight when i rack, but just have my hands push or lay the bar “against” my neck. I understand elbows high when i rack. I understand to use the top of my shoulders to hold it as well. I dont get how to get there. Is it ok if the bar hits my clavicle? Is it supposed to be right behind my clavicle? Infront? It’s cause its not landing that properly and it hurts a bit. I just want to get the technique down.
A 500lb Deadlift for a 250lb guy is not that impressive.
Powerlifters in weight classes above 242 benefit from the extra leverage that their size brings. Bigger Chest = shorter stroke. Bigger Chest also = better angle for pectoral contraction. Bigger legs = better leverage. Bigger belly = better leverage. A lot of this leverage doesn’t come from fat but comes from muscle. And it’s hard to hold a lot of muscle and stay lean. In fact, it seems to get progressively harder the larger you get. It’s easier for a 198 to keep his six pack than it is for a 275.
That’s not the best explanantion, but you get the idea.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
Congera wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Can someone answer the power clean question?
It seems everyone missed it
It isn’t a huge problem if you resist slightly… but it is going to be a waste of energy. I may have misunderstood, but why is it that you are looking to use your arms to resist the weight rather than let your body take the load?
I have problems racking. I understand that i dont hold the weight when i rack, but just have my hands push or lay the bar “against” my neck. I understand elbows high when i rack. I understand to use the top of my shoulders to hold it as well. I dont get how to get there. Is it ok if the bar hits my clavicle? Is it supposed to be right behind my clavicle? Infront? It’s cause its not landing that properly and it hurts a bit. I just want to get the technique down.[/quote]
Ok, here’s a nice trick that will help answer your question on placement. Everyone’s will vary slightly. For example mine rests right over my clavicle, while one of my teammate’s(he weighs 335) rests almost out over his pecs. In order to find your “rack spot” take an empty bar and hold it as if you are front squatting. Now straighten your arms out in front of you. Perform a front squat with your arms extended. Your body will naturally have you rest the bar at your ideal placement. Once this position is established perform a few sets of light front squats with the bar there in order to get a good feel for it.
Once you get used to the placement and get comfortable with those front squats you can start cleaning and landing it in the proper spot. As far as the bar hitting your clavicle, that may very well be where it needs to land. After a good lift i usually have bruises on both clavicles from the bar. That doesn’t mean it should smash it, but yes it’s fine if your clavicles take a bit of a shot.
I hope this post helps.
I don’t think anybody ever deviced a method to gauge how much height matters in lifting. So when people say X’X tall’s lift is impressive and X’X tall’s is not,they are just guessing,are not they? For weight there are some estimates now,although that is linked to height too.
Oh and Shoebolt, I thought it was the case that the taller person’s curse is having to keep the muscles under tension longer,not that they have to generate more power.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
Relative strength is not meaningless. In fact, it’s very important depending on the sport. For some, relative strength is extremely important, more so than absolute strength.
Actually it is kind of worthless. When you’re the same weight and the other guy is just stronger, he’s just stronger. This is why they have weight classes or optimal sizes for various sports.
If I’m a heavyweight boxer, a flyweights much greater relative strength still equals him getting beat. If we’re both flyweights, he’s just stronger, not relatively stronger.
And I might get beat if he’s a better boxer.
[/quote]
Exactly the point I made. Relative strength does matter in sports where there are weight classes. The stronger guy will usually win.
It also matters in activities like (dare I say) rock climbing, where a high degree of relative strength in the upper body is crucial to being able to scale mountains.
[quote]molnes wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
Relative strength is not meaningless. In fact, it’s very important depending on the sport. For some, relative strength is extremely important, more so than absolute strength.
Actually it is kind of worthless. When you’re the same weight and the other guy is just stronger, he’s just stronger. This is why they have weight classes or optimal sizes for various sports.
If I’m a heavyweight boxer, a flyweights much greater relative strength still equals him getting beat. If we’re both flyweights, he’s just stronger, not relatively stronger.
And I might get beat if he’s a better boxer.
This is correct for boxing yes. But not for other sports. If you weight 100 kg and squat 200 kg as a soccer player, you are probably going to be a lot worse physically than a 65 kg soccer player that also squats 200 kg. Why? Cause he can probably run a lot faster, jump a lot higher, etc. etc. So the boxing example doesn’t apply to all sports.[/quote]
True, but body proportions will dictate what sports you play. You won’t see 285 lb rock climbers. You see 100-155 pound rock climbers. I’m just trying to say, most sports have people the same size, so it’s just matter of being stronger.
Strength will only go up pound fro pound with bodyweight so much. And of course you won’t see 155 lb o linemen, but you can see 155 pound soccer players.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
Relative strength is not meaningless. In fact, it’s very important depending on the sport. For some, relative strength is extremely important, more so than absolute strength.
Actually it is kind of worthless. When you’re the same weight and the other guy is just stronger, he’s just stronger. This is why they have weight classes or optimal sizes for various sports.
If I’m a heavyweight boxer, a flyweights much greater relative strength still equals him getting beat. If we’re both flyweights, he’s just stronger, not relatively stronger.
And I might get beat if he’s a better boxer.
Exactly the point I made. Relative strength does matter in sports where there are weight classes. The stronger guy will usually win.
It also matters in activities like (dare I say) rock climbing, where a high degree of relative strength in the upper body is crucial to being able to scale mountains.
[/quote]
Exactly my point Nate, hahahaha! I just used the same example you did. I’m just saying with the same size, the stronger guy, is well, stronger. People will not succeed at sports they’re not built for.