Adarq.org

Performance Area => Strength, Power, Reactivity, & Speed Discussion => Topic started by: TheSituation on March 21, 2011, 11:23:12 am

Title: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 21, 2011, 11:23:12 am
I'm sick of manlets on youtube and forums posting their videos acting like they are so strong because they can bench/squat/deadlift a high number for their bodyweight. A 5'6 160 manlet is the equivalent of a 6'2 200 pound man, so stop comparing your relative strength to 6'2 160 pound men. Fawkin manlets

Like this phaggot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nvNVfVs670


I'm not impressed.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: JelloPuddinPup on March 21, 2011, 11:29:30 am
I'd just like to add, I hate short people.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Dreyth on March 21, 2011, 11:51:09 am
Even if he touched his chest his ROM is extremely short.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: joejoe22 on March 21, 2011, 12:15:08 pm
Is a manlet like a little man?  If so, that's AWESOME!  :highfive:
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 21, 2011, 12:16:16 pm
Even if he touched his chest his ROM is extremely short.

True, and that's not even the point I was trying to make
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: bball2020 on March 21, 2011, 01:04:48 pm
hopefully there arent too many 6-2 160lb people that are trying to lift a lot of weight...

but yeaa height and limb length play such a big role in lifts
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Raptor on March 21, 2011, 02:18:25 pm
Exactly. I mean, take Nightfly here. He squats pretty much the same as me in terms of max strength numbers, but for his structure, leg length, torso length, ROM, etc, that's pretty crazy if you think about it at 6'5.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: D-Rose Jr on March 21, 2011, 04:18:51 pm
what about 5'8 black guys with a 6'1 wingspan and long ass legs for their body (kids large in Ralph Lauren and size 32 pants)
hahaha
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: tychver on March 21, 2011, 04:23:41 pm
I'm sick of manlets on youtube and forums posting their videos acting like they are so strong because they can bench/squat/deadlift a high number for their bodyweight. A 5'6 160 manlet is the equivalent of a 6'2 200 pound man, so stop comparing your relative strength to 6'2 160 pound men. Fawkin manlets

Like this phaggot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nvNVfVs670


I'm not impressed.

Then grow into a decent weight for your frame, quit bitching, and compare on a body weight adjusted formula like everyone else does.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: D-Rose Jr on March 21, 2011, 04:29:37 pm
are you talking to me, because I am NOT bitching.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 21, 2011, 06:04:15 pm
I'm sick of manlets on youtube and forums posting their videos acting like they are so strong because they can bench/squat/deadlift a high number for their bodyweight. A 5'6 160 manlet is the equivalent of a 6'2 200 pound man, so stop comparing your relative strength to 6'2 160 pound men. Fawkin manlets

Like this phaggot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nvNVfVs670


I'm not impressed.

Then grow into a decent weight for your frame, quit bitching, and compare on a body weight adjusted formula like everyone else does.

Manlet raggggeeeee

Give me a formula to use that apparently everyone uses already. I've never heard anyone use a bodyweight adjusted formula (whatever that even means). All I hear is manlets bragging about how they can bench 2x their bodyweight (thats why when manlets post strength videos, they'll put @160 pounds or whatever. Never seen someone of normal height do that) and thinking they are better than everyone else. But I guess manlets need something to be happy about.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: bball2020 on March 21, 2011, 08:53:04 pm
isn't 5 10 the american "normal height" thus 6-2 would be more abnormal than 5 8.  Clearly height plays a role as do genetics, but dont dismiss someone's strength just because they are shorter. It still takes hard work to bench that much over your body weight I dont care how tall you are.

Besides that who cares what other people think or say, if you are getting stronger and beating your OWN PR's then thats all that matters not what some guy on youtube or forums says or brags about due to insecurities.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 21, 2011, 08:57:28 pm
isn't 5 10 the american "normal height" thus 6-2 would be more abnormal than 5 8.  Clearly height plays a role as do genetics, but dont dismiss someone's strength just because they are shorter. It still takes hard work to bench that much over your body weight I dont care how tall you are.

Yes, I'm just joking around. My point is shorter guys always brag about their relative strength and compare it to taller guys, but it's not a fair comparison. Every single manlet will put their bodyweight in their video titles on youtube to brag about their relative strength.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: bball2020 on March 21, 2011, 11:33:35 pm
point taken

but if 6 foot under guys can't brag or anything about lifting, 6 foot over guys can't brag about dunking haha..

but yea people that don't see the difference just don't get it
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: tychver on March 22, 2011, 12:03:36 am
Manlet raggggeeeee

Give me a formula to use that apparently everyone uses already. I've never heard anyone use a bodyweight adjusted formula (whatever that even means). All I hear is manlets bragging about how they can bench 2x their bodyweight (thats why when manlets post strength videos, they'll put @160 pounds or whatever. Never seen someone of normal height do that) and thinking they are better than everyone else. But I guess manlets need something to be happy about.

Used at pretty much any competition:

Powerlifting
Wilks http://www.wimwam.nl/wilkscalculator.htm
Siff http://tsampa.org/training/scripts/siff/
Both can be used for totals or single lifts. Wilks
Malone-Meltzer to age adjust for junior and masters

Weightlifting
Sinclair
Sinclair-Malone-Meltzer

Wilks total is often used to compare a single lift anyway so you can use it for any exercise you want.

Blenderate, 6'1 250lb elite raw powerlifter posting his weight in a youtube title:
#Invalid YouTube Link#

Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: adarqui on March 22, 2011, 04:23:01 am
i get abused by manlets daily on bodybuilding.com, because they are ATG squatters with no athleticism, so they are disgruntled, and mad.

Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: LBSS on March 22, 2011, 05:41:29 am
i get abused by manlets daily on bodybuilding.com, because they are ATG squatters with no athleticism, so they are disgruntled, and mad.



you mad, adarq? haters gonna hate.

unathletic atg squatters UNITE, ATG NATION 4 LYFE!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 22, 2011, 05:52:47 am
are you talking to me, because I am NOT bitching.

Do you think hes talking to you when he quotes someone else and not you?

On topic. Manlets is a cool word. I like manlings as well.

Shorter people do have a biomechanical advantage, but then off course I can carry more bw than them without looking huge.

But I like your point JC. Shorter people often wants to compare their lifts to their bw. I always tell them to get a bigger ROM.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Raptor on March 22, 2011, 06:45:37 am
How about dwarves?
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 22, 2011, 07:04:30 am
How about dwarves?

Denmark has a benchpresser whos a dwarf. He holds the WR for his weightclass and has won several international titles. Honestly I think its bull. He cant fully extend his elbows (some dwarves has this problem) and he cant touch the ground when on the bench. So they bend the rules for him. And he keeps yapping about he stronger pound for pound in the bench than anyone in the world. All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 22, 2011, 09:45:38 am
Manlet raggggeeeee

Give me a formula to use that apparently everyone uses already. I've never heard anyone use a bodyweight adjusted formula (whatever that even means). All I hear is manlets bragging about how they can bench 2x their bodyweight (thats why when manlets post strength videos, they'll put @160 pounds or whatever. Never seen someone of normal height do that) and thinking they are better than everyone else. But I guess manlets need something to be happy about.

Used at pretty much any competition:

Powerlifting
Wilks http://www.wimwam.nl/wilkscalculator.htm
Siff http://tsampa.org/training/scripts/siff/
Both can be used for totals or single lifts. Wilks
Malone-Meltzer to age adjust for junior and masters

Weightlifting
Sinclair
Sinclair-Malone-Meltzer

Wilks total is often used to compare a single lift anyway so you can use it for any exercise you want.

Blenderate, 6'1 250lb elite raw powerlifter posting his weight in a youtube title:
#Invalid YouTube Link#



Most major powerlifting competitions use weight classes, not a handicap formula. I'm not too sure about olympic lifting, but I'm assuming the olympics uses weight classes as well. Lamar Gant is in the Guiness Book of World records for deadlifting 5x his bodyweight. Sure it sounds impressive, but he's 5'1 123 pounds. No man of normal height would be able to deadlift 5x their bodyweight. Yet if Lamar Gant was 6 feet, with a proportionate amount of muscle (can't think of the words to use but I think you get me), his deadlift wouldn't be so impressive.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: joejoe22 on March 22, 2011, 09:46:55 am
How many chicks walk around going, "Man, I wish that 5'1" guy would come talk to me!"

SHORT PEOPLE ARE CREEPY!   :P :P
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: John Stamos on March 22, 2011, 11:40:57 am
How about dwarves?
All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.

lmao
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 22, 2011, 11:54:28 am
Also tychever, I think you're missing the point. The point wasn't that 2x bodyweight squat was more impressive for a 200 pound man than it is for a 150 pound manlet, it was that manlets compare their relative strength to people of the same weight, even if they are much taller.

If that point isn't clear enough for you, I'll try explaining it again.

A 5'6 160 pound manlet squats 320 pounds. So that's 2x his bodyweight. A 6'2 160 pound man squats 240 pounds. That's 1.5x his bodyweight. For some crazy reason, the 5'6 manlet thinks he's superior to the 6'2 man purely for relative strength reasons. He should be happy that he has more muscle on him than the 6'2 man, but he's not because a 320 squat isn't impressive.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: tychver on March 22, 2011, 05:44:26 pm
Manlet raggggeeeee

Give me a formula to use that apparently everyone uses already. I've never heard anyone use a bodyweight adjusted formula (whatever that even means). All I hear is manlets bragging about how they can bench 2x their bodyweight (thats why when manlets post strength videos, they'll put @160 pounds or whatever. Never seen someone of normal height do that) and thinking they are better than everyone else. But I guess manlets need something to be happy about.

Used at pretty much any competition:

Powerlifting
Wilks http://www.wimwam.nl/wilkscalculator.htm
Siff http://tsampa.org/training/scripts/siff/
Both can be used for totals or single lifts. Wilks
Malone-Meltzer to age adjust for junior and masters

Weightlifting
Sinclair
Sinclair-Malone-Meltzer

Wilks total is often used to compare a single lift anyway so you can use it for any exercise you want.

Blenderate, 6'1 250lb elite raw powerlifter posting his weight in a youtube title:
#Invalid YouTube Link#



Most major powerlifting competitions use weight classes, not a handicap formula. I'm not too sure about olympic lifting, but I'm assuming the olympics uses weight classes as well. Lamar Gant is in the Guiness Book of World records for deadlifting 5x his bodyweight. Sure it sounds impressive, but he's 5'1 123 pounds. No man of normal height would be able to deadlift 5x their bodyweight. Yet if Lamar Gant was 6 feet, with a proportionate amount of muscle (can't think of the words to use but I think you get me), his deadlift wouldn't be so impressive.

Yes they use weight classes. I'm kinda aware of this having come second in 94kg class at the national weightlifting championships, done a couple of novice level IPF events and been a spotter/load at a heap of them. Our club does IPF powerlifting as well as weightlifting.

You're missing the point. What this allows you to do is compare between weight classes:
IPF WR John Kuc 395kg deadlift @ 110kg is 3.6*BW gives 232.4575 wilks score
IPF WR Lamar Grant 300kg deadlift @ 60kg is 5.2*BW gives 264.399 wilks score

So Lamar Grant is still fucking awesome at deadlifting but John would only need to lift about 450kg to be comparatively as good rather than the 572 if you were to just go by lift/BW.

If for example you wanted to know how much at 6'1 245lbs you would have to lift to be as good as Lamar Grant there's your answer.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: tychver on March 22, 2011, 05:53:43 pm
Also tychever, I think you're missing the point. The point wasn't that 2x bodyweight squat was more impressive for a 200 pound man than it is for a 150 pound manlet, it was that manlets compare their relative strength to people of the same weight, even if they are much taller.

If that point isn't clear enough for you, I'll try explaining it again.

A 5'6 160 pound manlet squats 320 pounds. So that's 2x his bodyweight. A 6'2 160 pound man squats 240 pounds. That's 1.5x his bodyweight. For some crazy reason, the 5'6 manlet thinks he's superior to the 6'2 man purely for relative strength reasons. He should be happy that he has more muscle on him than the 6'2 man, but he's not because a 320 squat isn't impressive.

That's because the 6'2 160lb guy lifting 240lb needs to shut the fuck up and lift ~360lb at ~225lb giving an equal wilks score.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 22, 2011, 06:55:07 pm
Also tychever, I think you're missing the point. The point wasn't that 2x bodyweight squat was more impressive for a 200 pound man than it is for a 150 pound manlet, it was that manlets compare their relative strength to people of the same weight, even if they are much taller.

If that point isn't clear enough for you, I'll try explaining it again.

A 5'6 160 pound manlet squats 320 pounds. So that's 2x his bodyweight. A 6'2 160 pound man squats 240 pounds. That's 1.5x his bodyweight. For some crazy reason, the 5'6 manlet thinks he's superior to the 6'2 man purely for relative strength reasons. He should be happy that he has more muscle on him than the 6'2 man, but he's not because a 320 squat isn't impressive.

That's because the 6'2 160lb guy lifting 240lb needs to shut the fuck up and lift ~360lb at ~225lb giving an equal wilks score.

Ok.

From now on, I want every person to just put their wilks score in their youtube videos. I don't care how much they weight or how much weight they lifted.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: JelloPuddinPup on March 23, 2011, 08:53:17 am
I accidentally stepped over a midget in Walmart once. Talk about awkward... There's no way to walk away from that smoothly.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: dirksilver on March 23, 2011, 12:11:52 pm
How about dwarves?

Denmark has a benchpresser whos a dwarf. He holds the WR for his weightclass and has won several international titles. Honestly I think its bull. He cant fully extend his elbows (some dwarves has this problem) and he cant touch the ground when on the bench. So they bend the rules for him. And he keeps yapping about he stronger pound for pound in the bench than anyone in the world. All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.

this might be the best post i've ever read in my entire life! hahaha...that was great! screw midgets!
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Raptor on March 23, 2011, 02:12:08 pm
midget_hops
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 23, 2011, 04:13:41 pm
How about dwarves?

Denmark has a benchpresser whos a dwarf. He holds the WR for his weightclass and has won several international titles. Honestly I think its bull. He cant fully extend his elbows (some dwarves has this problem) and he cant touch the ground when on the bench. So they bend the rules for him. And he keeps yapping about he stronger pound for pound in the bench than anyone in the world. All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.

this might be the best post i've ever read in my entire life! hahaha...that was great! screw midgets!

Hahahaha. Glad to be of service.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: adarqui on March 23, 2011, 04:31:44 pm
How about dwarves?

Denmark has a benchpresser whos a dwarf. He holds the WR for his weightclass and has won several international titles. Honestly I think its bull. He cant fully extend his elbows (some dwarves has this problem) and he cant touch the ground when on the bench. So they bend the rules for him. And he keeps yapping about he stronger pound for pound in the bench than anyone in the world. All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.

this might be the best post i've ever read in my entire life! hahaha...that was great! screw midgets!

midgetNation
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: aiir on March 23, 2011, 08:20:18 pm
How about dwarves?

Denmark has a benchpresser whos a dwarf. He holds the WR for his weightclass and has won several international titles. Honestly I think its bull. He cant fully extend his elbows (some dwarves has this problem) and he cant touch the ground when on the bench. So they bend the rules for him. And he keeps yapping about he stronger pound for pound in the bench than anyone in the world. All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.

this might be the best post i've ever read in my entire life! hahaha...that was great! screw midgets!

midgetNation

reppin' it
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: cowed77 on March 24, 2011, 12:06:39 am
im sad.  :(
cos im 174, 5'7 or watever that makes out to be, and here u have tall ppl bashing short ppl.
T.T
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 24, 2011, 07:21:13 am
im sad.  :(
cos im 174, 5'7 or watever that makes out to be, and here u have tall ppl bashing short ppl.
T.T

5'8,5" and dont take it serious. Start a thread bashing tall people.  :highfive:
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: joejoe22 on March 24, 2011, 03:05:19 pm
Why is it that short people feel it necessary to throw in that 1/2"?  Like 5'8.5" is soooooo much taller than 5'8"!   :P 

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: JelloPuddinPup on March 24, 2011, 03:14:46 pm
Same reason that tall basketball players lie about their height. Everybody wants to be perceived as a bit more than they are on paper.

I always made my coach under-list my height. I figure it someone expects to be playing against a 6'2" center and suddenly he's 6'5", that would have a more psychological effect in my opinion that if I was listed at 6'6" and turned out to be less.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: D-Rose Jr on March 24, 2011, 03:57:38 pm
I am 5'8.5-5'9 but I list as 5'6 or 5'7. It plays on the insecurities of other people really well
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 25, 2011, 05:37:04 am

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?

We do. Im 1,87m
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: tychver on March 25, 2011, 05:41:08 am

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?

We do. Im 1,87m

1.73m here. Heights easier because you never change and remember what the imperial equivalent is. Weight changes...
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: DamienZ on March 25, 2011, 07:35:39 am

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?

We do. Im 1,87m

Then you're not 5'8,5"...

Quote
5 Feet 0 Inches=5'0"=153 cm
5 Feet 1 Inches=5'1"=154 cm
5 Feet 1 Inches=5'1"=155 cm
5 Feet 1 Inches=5'1"=156 cm
5 Feet 2 Inches=5'2"=157 cm
5 Feet 2 Inches=5'2"=158 cm
5 Feet 3 Inches=5'3"=159 cm
5 Feet 3 Inches=5'3"=160 cm
5 Feet 3 Inches=5'3"=161 cm
5 Feet 4 Inches=5'4"=162 cm
5 Feet 4 Inches=5'4"=163 cm
5 Feet 5 Inches=5'5"=164 cm
5 Feet 5 Inches=5'5"=165 cm
5 Feet 5 Inches=5'5"=166 cm
5 Feet 6 Inches=5'6"=167 cm
5 Feet 6 Inches=5'6"=168 cm
5 Feet 7 Inches=5'7"=169 cm
5 Feet 7 Inches=5'7"=170 cm
5 Feet 7 Inches=5'7"=171 cm
5 Feet 8 Inches=5'8"=172 cm
5 Feet 8 Inches=5'8"=173 cm
5 Feet 9 Inches=5'9"=174 cm
5 Feet 9 Inches=5'9"=175 cm
5 Feet 9 Inches=5'9"=176 cm
5 Feet 10 Inches=5'10"=177 cm
5 Feet 10 Inches=5'10"=178 cm
5 Feet 10 Inches=5'10"=179 cm
5 Feet 11 Inches=5'11"=180 cm
5 Feet 11 Inches=5'11"=181 cm
5 Feet 12 Inches=5'12"=182 cm
6 Feet 0 Inches=6'0"=183 cm
6 Feet 0 Inches=6'0"=184 cm
6 Feet 1 Inches=6'1"=185 cm
6 Feet 1 Inches=6'1"=186 cm
6 Feet 2 Inches=6'2"=187 cm
6 Feet 2 Inches=6'2"=188 cm
6 Feet 2 Inches=6'2"=189 cm
6 Feet 3 Inches=6'3"=190 cm
6 Feet 3 Inches=6'3"=191 cm
6 Feet 4 Inches=6'4"=192 cm
6 Feet 4 Inches=6'4"=193 cm
6 Feet 4 Inches=6'4"=194 cm
6 Feet 5 Inches=6'5"=195 cm
6 Feet 5 Inches=6'5"=196 cm
6 Feet 6 Inches=6'6"=197 cm
6 Feet 6 Inches=6'6"=198 cm
6 Feet 6 Inches=6'6"=199 cm
6 Feet 7 Inches=6'7"=200 cm
6 Feet 7 Inches=6'7"=201 cm
6 Feet 8 Inches=6'8"=202 cm
6 Feet 8 Inches=6'8"=203 cm
6 Feet 8 Inches=6'8"=204 cm
6 Feet 9 Inches=6'9"=205 cm
6 Feet 9 Inches=6'9"=206 cm
6 Feet 9 Inches=6'9"=207 cm
6 Feet 10 Inches=6'10"=208 cm
6 Feet 10 Inches=6'10"=209 cm
6 Feet 11 Inches=6'11"=210 cm
6 Feet 11 Inches=6'11"=211 cm
6 Feet 11 Inches=6'11"=212 cm
6 Feet 12 Inches=6'12"=213 cm
7 Feet 0 Inches=7'0"=214 cm

I'm 189cm
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 25, 2011, 10:12:21 am

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?

We do. Im 1,87m

Then you're not 5'8,5"...


I know. I posted that his height was 5'8,5". Apparently alot of you misunderstood that.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: adarqui on March 25, 2011, 09:25:22 pm

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?

We do. Im 1,87m

Then you're not 5'8,5"...


I know. I posted that his height was 5'8,5". Apparently alot of you misunderstood that.

i was always under the impression that flander was a 5'3 manlet, wtF!!!!!!
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Kellyb on March 26, 2011, 12:43:44 am
How about dwarves?

Denmark has a benchpresser whos a dwarf. He holds the WR for his weightclass and has won several international titles. Honestly I think its bull. He cant fully extend his elbows (some dwarves has this problem) and he cant touch the ground when on the bench. So they bend the rules for him. And he keeps yapping about he stronger pound for pound in the bench than anyone in the world. All I can say is, I can get the cookies from the top shelf. Go fuck of stupid midget.

I trained a dwarf girl for a time that competed in powerlifting. She just walked into the gym one day and said she wanted to train for a powerlifting meet. I'm glad you brought this up because I'd forgotten all about her until now,  but I just looked her up and looks like she's gone on to accomplish a lot in powerlifting as well as shot put and throwing events:

http://usparalympics.org/athletes/jill-kennedy

I trained her for a few months back in '98 before she went to Dubai.  It was quite funny watching her do deadlifts. We'd have to put small plates on the bar just so she could have any range of motion. On bench press we'd take an elastic nylon weightlifting belt and wrap it around her hips tieing her to the bench press.  She was a relative beginner back then but still already strong as hell for her size. I remember her doing front squats with 175 and benching somewhere around 135.  I don't think she weighed more than 90 lbs or so.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Raptor on March 26, 2011, 08:36:03 am
If a midget participates in a powerlifting meet and only has to raise the bar 1/2 of an inch from the ground in a deadlift, does that count?
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: LBSS on March 26, 2011, 11:06:27 am
LOLZ SOMEONE OVERCAME PHYSICAL DISADVANTAGES TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING THE VAST MAJORITY OF ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE COULDN'T BEGIN TO ATTEMPT!!!!

HAHAHAHA!!!!

SO FUNNY GUYS SO FUNNY! AMIRITE? AMIRITE? HAHAHAHA!!!

assholes.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 26, 2011, 01:39:23 pm

Side note, why don't yall europeans list your height in metric like your weights?

We do. Im 1,87m

Then you're not 5'8,5"...


I know. I posted that his height was 5'8,5". Apparently alot of you misunderstood that.

i was always under the impression that flander was a 5'3 manlet, wtF!!!!!!


Yeah I know. Most people feel that way about me. Mostly because Im so fat that I look almost square.  :P

If a midget participates in a powerlifting meet and only has to raise the bar 1/2 of an inch from the ground in a deadlift, does that count?

If a man with really long arms competes and only has to lift it ½ of an inch of the ground, that would count.

LOLZ SOMEONE OVERCAME PHYSICAL DISADVANTAGES TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING THE VAST MAJORITY OF ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE COULDN'T BEGIN TO ATTEMPT!!!!

HAHAHAHA!!!!

SO FUNNY GUYS SO FUNNY! AMIRITE? AMIRITE? HAHAHAHA!!!

assholes.

I hear some people get cranky with age.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: cowed77 on March 27, 2011, 06:17:41 am
Sth just came across my mind..

While it's true that shorter ppl go thru smaller rom for their movements, if the angles their limbs go thru is abt the same, is it really that big of a difference? If u do take into account leverages, the taller dude also can put on more muscle in the same area, wo relatively, it's not that much off, innit?
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: JelloPuddinPup on March 28, 2011, 10:46:40 am
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgdt1k98zv1qa8novo1_400.jpg)
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: $ick3nin.vend3tta on March 28, 2011, 09:01:03 pm
Everyone who dedicates themselves to the barball over a considerable amount of time should be respected, regardless of size or the load that happens to be on the bar.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: D-Rose Jr on March 28, 2011, 09:04:51 pm
Everyone who dedicates themselves to the barball over a considerable amount of time should be respected, regardless of size or the load that happens to be on the bar.

bump
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 29, 2011, 02:53:25 am
Everyone who dedicates themselves to the barball over a considerable amount of time should be respected, regardless of size or the load that happens to be on the bar.

I disagree. Time itself is not a reason for respect. If they train wrongly and with bad form they do not get any respect from me. And the longer they have trained with bad form the less respect they should get.

Your other point is true to me. If a person trains hard and with good form he would get my respect regardless of size and weight on bar.

If on the other hand we have a crybaby who does train with good form but does not train hard and cry about the lack of results he is gaining, he looses my respect instantly.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: cowed77 on March 29, 2011, 05:11:51 am
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgdt1k98zv1qa8novo1_400.jpg)

Ok tough guy, so ur tall. U win.
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: LBSS on March 29, 2011, 06:02:38 am
Everyone who dedicates themselves to the barball over a considerable amount of time should be respected, regardless of size or the load that happens to be on the bar.

with flander's caveat (i.e. 20 years of doing it wrong and getting nowhere doesn't count), i agree with this. i'd actually expand it to say that long-term dedication to doing anything well deserves respect.*

*inb4 what about serial killers?
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: adarqui on March 29, 2011, 03:17:30 pm
Everyone who dedicates themselves to the barball over a considerable amount of time should be respected, regardless of size or the load that happens to be on the bar.

I disagree. Time itself is not a reason for respect. If they train wrongly and with bad form they do not get any respect from me. And the longer they have trained with bad form the less respect they should get.

x2, if they spin their wheels for a long time and never truly progress, then they might as well not even have lifted in the first place.. this is, if we're talking about people in the performance/strength game, not joe avg looking to get "toned".

pc
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: TheSituation on March 29, 2011, 07:22:15 pm
Getting toned ftw
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: Flander on March 30, 2011, 01:57:01 am
Getting toned ftw

Im toned. Does that mean I can do cheat curls?
Title: Re: If you're under 6 feet, your relative strength is irrelevant
Post by: JelloPuddinPup on March 30, 2011, 08:40:48 am
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgdt1k98zv1qa8novo1_400.jpg)

Ok tough guy, so ur tall. U win.

Chillax. Just a great quote from a great movie that I couldn't pass up putting in the thread. :)