[quote]intenseone wrote:
in answer to your question, most large bodybuilders (National caliber or pro’s)ARE NOT functional athletic wise nor are they fast. In my 30 years in the industry have I ever considered bodybuilders “athletes”. Strength is NOT always functional!
[/quote]
Wow, 30 years in the industry and you still don’t know the definitions of “strength” and “functional”. You aren’t related to fitone are you?
[quote]BALBOS wrote:
here are my top 10 tips for functional strength-1.work on a construction site
2.hit the punching bag hard
3.climbing a rope fast
4.embrace callistenics
5.play table tennis to sharpen your reflexes
6.strenghten your neck and grip
7.play keep up with soccerball
8.do some wrestling
9.throwing big rocks of your shoulder
10.avoid body building and do olympic lifts and powerlifts instead
stay strong&tough!
captain obvious[/quote]
I assume you’re a troll, but this reveals the point that “functional” idiots are really talking about “multi-functional”. You only have to function at one thing to be “functional”. But if you’re expecting someone to squat a ton, run fast, have extreme flexibility, and knit your own underwear, you’re talking about multiple functions, so “functional” is an inadequate term used intentionally to denigrate the accomplishments of those in specific fields.
[quote]intenseone wrote:
in answer to your question, most large bodybuilders (National caliber or pro’s)ARE NOT functional athletic wise nor are they fast. In my 30 years in the industry have I ever considered bodybuilders “athletes”. Strength is NOT always functional!
[/quote]
Can you please explain how this is not functional, sir?
[quote]RickJames wrote:
“functional” idiots are really talking about “multi-functional”
[/quote]
that’s a very astute distinction…
people that train for a myriad of sports wind up being half-assed at every last one of them…
[quote]TDog305 wrote:
Can you please explain how this is not functional, sir?
Dwain Chambers vs. Kevin Levrone - YouTube [/quote]
From what I understand, Levrone used to be a sprinter. If that is the case, you could expect him to still have the form. However, to think you are going to train like a bodybuilder and successfully sprint like a madman is a gross mistake.
[quote]BALBOS wrote:
BALKANBOY wrote:
I does not play any role to me,i have no interest for it.
so should go chase women and drink cheap whiskey then.[/quote]
Are you knocking chasing women and drinking cheap whiskey?
Most “bodybuilders” aren’t even lean, let alone “strong”.
HA!
[quote]MachineAZ wrote:
Most “bodybuilders” aren’t even lean, let alone “strong”.
HA![/quote]
And they cheat when doing 225 for reps. hahahaha.
[quote]BALBOS wrote:
body builders with big muscles are very strong!
I REPEAT-BODY BUILDERS WITH BIG MUSLES ARE VERY STRONG!
i am a boxer.i train functionaly in and out of the gym.i know many athletes presonally.and many body builders.this is the truth. big body builders can lift big weights,although they train for look.are they fast too? i dont know.
strenght is always functional,weakness is not! [/quote]
This is amazing stuff. Seriously, the authors on T-Nation should be onto you ASAP. Maybe even go see Poliquin, he could use this sort of stuff in his program.
Keep 'em coming Balbos. This is the stuff T-Nation really needs.
[quote]TDog305 wrote:
intenseone wrote:
in answer to your question, most large bodybuilders (National caliber or pro’s)ARE NOT functional athletic wise nor are they fast. In my 30 years in the industry have I ever considered bodybuilders “athletes”. Strength is NOT always functional!
Can you please explain how this is not functional, sir?
I know of that race and that being said, Kevin got pretty much blown away in that race. Also Kevin is also known for doing the opposite in the offseason meaning he’ll drop weight about 30-40lbs instead of the ususal gaining weight like most do, dropping weight like that gives him a huge advantage for doing more functional activities. I’ll give it to him though, his conditioning is probably better than 98% of the pro’s. I seriously doubt if you’ll see a top Olympia contender doing anything like that anytime soon!!
[quote]intenseone wrote:
TDog305 wrote:
intenseone wrote:
in answer to your question, most large bodybuilders (National caliber or pro’s)ARE NOT functional athletic wise nor are they fast. In my 30 years in the industry have I ever considered bodybuilders “athletes”. Strength is NOT always functional!
Can you please explain how this is not functional, sir?
I know of that race and that being said, Kevin got pretty much blown away in that race. Also Kevin is also known for doing the opposite in the offseason meaning he’ll drop weight about 30-40lbs instead of the ususal gaining weight like most do, dropping weight like that gives him a huge advantage for doing more functional activities. I’ll give it to him though, his conditioning is probably better than 98% of the pro’s. I seriously doubt if you’ll see a top Olympia contender doing anything like that anytime soon!!
[/quote]
Blown Away is a relative term. In relation to Dwain Chambers, yes he got blown away.
Even if he is 30-40lbs less he is still huge and he is still athletic.
Could Gunter do that? Nope, probably not, but it is still possible to be a top NPC competitor or an IFBB pro and fit into this current perception of what “functional” is.
[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
TDog305 wrote:
Can you please explain how this is not functional, sir?
From what I understand, Levrone used to be a sprinter. If that is the case, you could expect him to still have the form. However, to think you are going to train like a bodybuilder and successfully sprint like a madman is a gross mistake.[/quote]
You are splitting hairs. That was one example. Are you telling me that top level pro’s could not do at least 80-90% of this list that was posted earlier (I use this list because this is what functional strength was perceived as on this thread - even though there are about 1 billion current definitions of what “functional strength” is)
[quote]here are my top 10 tips for functional strength-1.work on a construction site
2.hit the punching bag hard
3.climbing a rope fast
4.embrace callistenics
5.play table tennis to sharpen your reflexes
6.strenghten your neck and grip
7.play keep up with soccerball
8.do some wrestling
9.throwing big rocks of your shoulder
10.avoid body building and do olympic lifts and powerlifts instead
stay strong&tough!
captain obvious[/quote]
If I wasn’t clear earlier, I hate this term “Functional Strength” because people are throwing everything under this heading except bodybuilding.
Bodybuilders are being cast aside as big bumbling oafs that have the inability to use any of their muscle.
Meanwhile, threads are being started telling you to play table tennis, to increase your functional strength.
What a joke.
[quote]moonjumper wrote:
Great thread(dont they screen these)
I once gained 38 lbs in 30 days in college and won $350. I did it eating 2 whole boxes of CHEESE-ITS, drinking Heineken and doing bong hits.
Its actually a pleasurable diet.[/quote]
That’s awesome, although probably felt like ass after at the end, Supersize You! Who needs Mickey D’s
[quote]TDog305 wrote:
If I wasn’t clear earlier, I hate this term “Functional Strength” because people are throwing everything under this heading except bodybuilding.
Bodybuilders are being cast aside as big bumbling oafs that have the inability to use any of their muscle.
Meanwhile, threads are being started telling you to play table tennis, to increase your functional strength.
What a joke.[/quote]
The problem is that there is no “set” definition of “functional strength”.
Strength is functional for a specific purpose… whatever that purpose may be.
If I play baseball then it’s all about swing speed; it doesn’t matter if you can bench 800lbs, if you can’t generate enough speed to swing the bat fast enough to hit a the ball deep (I’m ignoring having the coordinate to actually hit the ball cleanly, because that has nothing to do with strength).
Bodybuilders can lift damned heavy weights… so for the purpose of lifting, at least, they have plenty of functional strength.
Being a bodybuilder doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re slow either. Obviously a guy who weighs 300lbs will impeded by his weight, but he can still be faster than over 90% of the population.
[quote]TDog305 wrote:
If I wasn’t clear earlier, I hate this term “Functional Strength” because people are throwing everything under this heading except bodybuilding.
Bodybuilders are being cast aside as big bumbling oafs that have the inability to use any of their muscle.
Meanwhile, threads are being started telling you to play table tennis, to increase your functional strength.
What a joke.[/quote]
I did find your previous post a bit unclear. I don’t like to use the word ‘functional’ either. I didn’t mean to give the impression that bodybuilders are big oafs, if that is how I came across. I just wanted to say to those who may not have been aware (not necessarily you), that training in a bodybuilding fashion isn’t going to make you an explosive athlete like a sprinter unless you also specifically sprint.
I didn’t want a bunch of newbies to think, “Wow, Kevin Levrone is pretty quick and he is a pro bodybuilder, so if I train like him I will get fast too”.
Balbos. I like your enthusiasm but I don’t think one simple post is going to end this debate.
I detest the term ‘functional training’. For my experience with functional trainers check this post out.
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1022895
Functional training is another gimmick for PT’s who can’t get a decent reputation through conventional methods.
A tennis player with rounded shoulders who hits the ball at 200kmh+ is still functional for what he does. Bodybuilders are functional because the training they do gets them up on stage in the condition they need to be.
Functional is only relative to the result desired. If you want to be huge and you achieve it. Your training was functional.
[quote]Coach Mack wrote:
Functional training is another gimmick for PT’s who can’t get a decent reputation through conventional methods.
[/quote]
Please define “conventional” methods.
[quote]Coach Mack wrote:
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1022895
Functional is only relative to the result desired. If you want to be huge and you achieve it. Your training was functional.
[/quote]
I loved that post.
Amen to that final quote. That is correct. I love the quote for bodybuilding “He who puts on the most amount of muscle, by lifting the least amount of weight, wins”.
[quote]intenseone wrote:
Please define “conventional” methods.
[/quote]
By conventional I mean with barbells and exercises such as squats, deadlifts, bench press, push press, cleans and so on.
I find it no coincidence that “Functional” PT’s are always poorly conditioned and adverse to any serious weight exercises.
Our director employed this guy who was highly recommended. His first athlete to work on was a Rugby player, in the off season and needed to put on 7kgs.
I would have thought it was a time for the classic strenght and size exercises mixed with a good nutritional plan. Instead Mr Functional gives him every exercise on the swiss ball and with thera bands.
Needless to say, Mr Functional did not last long and none of his athletes made any progress.
He now works in a commercial gym and has a very busy schedule with PT clients. Circus stunts do generate interest.