Obviously he was amazing, one of the best Oly lifters by any standard, however, do you think he would have been as good if he was a normal height (he was only 4’11")?
Are to sense make you supposed?
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Are to sense make you supposed?[/quote]
I sure hope the OP edited his post, because it makes perfect sense to me.
Answer, he was good for his weight because he was really short. I dont know how he would if he was taller. Then again Im not the authority on the subject by any means.
Anyone reckon Reza woulda been as good if he was normal weight?
I wonder if Lamar Gant coulda pulled 5x bodyweight with normal arms…?
The question makes no sense; how tall is considered ‘normal’? How much would he weigh at a normal height? Would he be a stretched out version himself? What happens to his nervous system, bones, muscles? Which parts get bigger? Same proportions? Same neural effeciency? Same technique?
That’s like asking ‘how much would you bench if you were me?’
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
The question makes no sense; how tall is considered ‘normal’?
[/quote]
Er… Average height. Perhaps within one standard deviation of average. That would generally be considered “Normal.”
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
How much would he weigh at a normal height?
Would he be a stretched out version himself? What happens to his nervous system, bones, muscles? Which parts get bigger? Same proportions? Same neural effeciency? Same technique?
[/quote]
I think that the opening post implied that all other factors were equal; i.e. equal strength, so perhaps same muscle mass though a smaller mass-height ratio.
To me, it’s really a question of biomechanics and leverage. If he had the same level of strength but was taller, would he have been worse at lifting? I would say so, simply because the bar would have to travel more distance. On the other hand, perhaps being taller would allow him to pack on more mass and he’d be stronger, though I guess muscle extension length and other factors that determine how good you are at certain lifts.
Overall, I’m inclined to say that, yes, being shorter gives you an advantage, all other things remaining equal.
The best leverages give you the best strength. He made his body work to the fullest and did things noone has ever done. Why are your trying to make his accomplishments seem not as great?
Seriously everyone has to make excuses for why someone is good instead of appreciating what they have done.
Troll thread. This is failure.
Whats the point?
STUPID question, remove this thread as it has no point.
My intent with the question was not to put down his accomplishments. I could never do what he did, in any circumstance.
Normal height, just to clarify, is 170 centimeters, or about 5’5" (or taller). That is the averaged height for men from around the world. Naim Suleymanoglu was 6" shorter than that.
The point of this thread is to stimulate conversation as, I believe, is one of the points of a forum. Clearly many of you think it’s a stupid question. Fair enough.
Perhaps I should have worded the original question differently. Was his height something that contributed to his success?
[quote]gone heavy wrote:
My intent with the question was not to put down his accomplishments. I could never do what he did, in any circumstance.
Normal height, just to clarify, is 170 centimeters, or about 5’5" (or taller). That is the averaged height for men from around the world. Naim Suleymanoglu was 6" shorter than that.
The point of this thread is to stimulate conversation as, I believe, is one of the points of a forum. Clearly many of you think it’s a stupid question. Fair enough.
Perhaps I should have worded the original question differently. Was his height something that contributed to his success?[/quote]
If Michael Jordan was 4’9 would he have been a great basketball player? Thats how your question comes off really, leverages are a huge reason for your strengths and weaknesses. He made his body do amazing things, there were short people like him that could not even get near his strength levels.
[quote]Hanley wrote:
I wonder if Lamar Gant coulda pulled 5x bodyweight with normal arms…?[/quote]
I thought LG’s arms were normal, it was his back / spine that was abnormal (twisted with scoliosis?) thus giving him a back that was effectively 3inch shorter (did make his arms look freaky long though!)
compare to normal deadlift like bolton. His arms nearly go to his hips, lamars are almost past his knees. And boltons arms are not short by any means, he is built a great deadlifter also just nothing can compare to lamar he is the king of the deadlift.
I believe if lamar didn’t have scolosis he would have been considerably taller thats why his arms were so much longer for his height. He still did alright with bench as he used an alot of arch
With “He still did alright with bench” you mean “He was a fucking monster”, because the guy had the bench WR - 320 at 123, and had 352 at 132.
[quote]gone heavy wrote:
My intent with the question was not to put down his accomplishments. I could never do what he did, in any circumstance.
Normal height, just to clarify, is 170 centimeters, or about 5’5" (or taller). That is the averaged height for men from around the world. Naim Suleymanoglu was 6" shorter than that.
The point of this thread is to stimulate conversation as, I believe, is one of the points of a forum. Clearly many of you think it’s a stupid question. Fair enough.
Perhaps I should have worded the original question differently. Was his height something that contributed to his success?[/quote]
No way is 5’5" normal height, i dont think i know a single guy that short… id say 5’10"-5’11" is normal height
[quote]Possumwee wrote:
gone heavy wrote:
My intent with the question was not to put down his accomplishments. I could never do what he did, in any circumstance.
Normal height, just to clarify, is 170 centimeters, or about 5’5" (or taller). That is the averaged height for men from around the world. Naim Suleymanoglu was 6" shorter than that.
The point of this thread is to stimulate conversation as, I believe, is one of the points of a forum. Clearly many of you think it’s a stupid question. Fair enough.
Perhaps I should have worded the original question differently. Was his height something that contributed to his success?
No way is 5’5" normal height, i dont think i know a single guy that short… id say 5’10"-5’11" is normal height[/quote]
Yea, no it’s not. Do some research. There’s PLENTY of people shorter than 5’10/5’11, and not a whole lot that much taller.
This seems like a good thread to ask a question that has been bugging me lately.
Do you guys think that Matt Kroczaleski would be as good at powerlifting if he wasn’t a person but was actually a bowl of cereal?
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
This seems like a good thread to ask a question that has been bugging me lately.
Do you guys think that Matt Kroczaleski would be as good at powerlifting if he wasn’t a person but was actually a bowl of cereal?
[/quote]
Now thats better! A question WORTH thinking about.
BTW he’d have to be a wholegrain cereal in a plain bowl, otherwise it would be too silly to contemplate.
[quote]Possumwee wrote:
gone heavy wrote:
My intent with the question was not to put down his accomplishments. I could never do what he did, in any circumstance.
Normal height, just to clarify, is 170 centimeters, or about 5’5" (or taller). That is the averaged height for men from around the world. Naim Suleymanoglu was 6" shorter than that.
The point of this thread is to stimulate conversation as, I believe, is one of the points of a forum. Clearly many of you think it’s a stupid question. Fair enough.
Perhaps I should have worded the original question differently. Was his height something that contributed to his success?
No way is 5’5" normal height, i dont think i know a single guy that short… id say 5’10"-5’11" is normal height[/quote]
Seeing as how 1 out of every 3 men on the planet is chinese, I’m not so sure that the fact that no one in your social circle 5’5" or less is relevant.