[quote]jstreet0204 wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
jstreet0204 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
jstreet0204 wrote:
dwall33 wrote:
SSC wrote:
dwall33 wrote:
I’d agree with this thread if the reasoning behind the title was this:
I don’t want to bench 405 because all I care about is the progress I make with my physique. The weight I use is inconsequential, and numbers are nothing more than bragging statistics.
You don’t really believe that numbers are nothing more than bragging statistics, do you?
If so… wow.
I don’t actually think that, but really if you think about it, what does it matter how much you lift if you are a bodybuilder? Its not a competition of strength.
There is some truth to that. Generally if you get stronger you will get bigger, but when comparing differnt people a bigger muscle is not always a stronger muscle. I’ve read that Arnold never benched more than 450, less than me but his size and muscularity blow mine away.
Here is an intersting article. Not all bodybuilders, but some pretty big dudes some of which I would have thought were much stronger than they are.
Oh and I said “Generally if you get stronger you’ll get bigger” only because there is a certain amount of technique involved in exercises like bench press that can make your numbers go up drastically if you aren’t using them.
The only muscle that gets bigger then is the ego muscle 
You do realize most people will NEVER bench press 450lbs?
Just checking.
Also, I am sure that was FOR REPS and not some one rep max. I do 450 for 10 reps as my last set on pressing movements when training chest. I can make that exercise even harder with the same weight by either holding the reps for longer periods of time or even by how I lift it. That is why there seems to be some confusion here. Powerlifters judge strength by the most they can do one time. Bodybuilders use weight to affect the target muscle group and when going that heavy (as in over 400lbs) there are many ways to stimulate it even more than simply worry about a one rep max weight.
Ha ha, most people will who even step foot in a gym won’t break out of the 200’s. Fewer will ever get past 1.5 times their body weight. You’d like to think the ones that show enough interest to post here would be the exception.
There was an Arnold special edition of one of the bodybuilding mags a year or two back, and he said that was the most he ever did once, and I was pretty surpised. It may very well be that a 1 rep max was never a priority. None of this is however should be used as an excuse to place limits on ones goals like OP seems to have done here, so I didn’t mean to derail the thread here.
I’d expect Arnold to be benching 375-405*6-10 in his prime, size-wise, with that horrible scare-crow form 
Guys the size of McGrath usually do around 40510-12 or so, Ronnie-size gets you around 4958-10 in the off-season… Of course it’s different from person to person, but just to give people a rough idea.
And that is obviously not PL form.
There are a few guys who semi-tuck their elbows though (Warren, for example).
I also don’t think that there is much difference between full reps and half reps in the bottom portion of ROM, in terms of how many reps people get with the same weight with bb-form.
Btw, while they had progression in mind as well, the routines of the guys during Arnold’s time and a little later imo weren’t really all that well-suited to for becoming as large/strong(for reps) as possible.
Nowadays, standard bb routines ultimately allow for more total progress imo and guys back then were still way too concerned with the pump and doing too much random shit.
And let’s not forget that their dietary views weren’t exactly great either. As little fat as possible in their diets and too little protein etc.
I bet that Arnold and co could, using the same (probably quite a bit less, actually) amount of drugs as they did back then, get significantly bigger by using modern routines, focus on progression and modern day bb dietary principles…
And not to forget some of the nice HS equipment we have now, though that’s obviously of secondary importance compared to the other factors.
Ok, I take back my apology for derailing the thread, this is much more intersting than the point the OP tried to make.
[/quote] Oh, all the weights I mentioned are off-season weights btw.
Dunno if Arnold ever had a proper off-season during his competitive career and after coming leaving europe… Looks way too lean in any of the vids I could find.
And as I said… Their routines weren’t that great compared to what we have today.
If I were to go to failure or close to failure for 3 sets or so ((10, 8,) 8, 6, 4 or whatever the hell Arnold often did back then), I wouldn’t be able to perform maximally on the last set either…
I only found one very short bit of flat-bench footage… His technique really was terrible (looked like he actually let the weight drop a tad towards his feet at times, that must have hurt in the shoulders…), I think he had 3pps and a smaller plate on per side. Oh well. Long-ass arms + crappy technique and prefatigue = lower weights. Guess 365-385 or so for 8 or so if he had been fresh should have been possible.
Or maybe he did incline before… He wrote about how he had to prioritize the clavicular portion of the chest…
[/quote]