Author Topic: Bench press contests (Read 7818 times)

chaos · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2011, 06:35:41 PM »

Quote from: bigbadwolfe on February 20, 2011, 06:34:13 PM

Yeah I will never use a closed back shirt again, to much of a pain to get on and off. The open back shirts will for sure give you a bigger pop out of the hole but lockouts will basicly be the same in both shirts.

Do you still end up with the red marks and bruises on your arms like the closed back shirts?

What do you hit raw vs shirted?

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2011, 06:39:18 PM »

Wolfe knows more about PW than me in reguards to using equipment (shirts, etc) but to mimmick that (almost) I will do a reverse band bench to help increase bench, along with chains, bands and boards.

bigbadwolfe · « **Reply #27 on:** February 20, 2011, 06:41:05 PM »

Yes prolly worse with the open backs cause you can pull them down more on the triceps to jack the shirt. My arms were pretty tore up today.

As far as right now I'm not sure what my raw max is I have literally become a Gear Whore and put my shirt on at 405 pounds. But I did do 405 for 10 reps raw about 4 weeks ago so thats the best I can tell ya.

bigbadwolfe · « **Reply #28 on:** February 20, 2011, 06:43:27 PM »

Quote from: airosol on February 20, 2011, 06:33:13 PM

Ive only ever seen open back shirts on the huge strong fuckers (Wolfe)

edit: are they are only legal in multi-ply contests and do lighter divisions use them?

they have contest for single plys only but most of the mare single ply closed back contests. Most of your multi ply meets are gonna be guys wearing open back shirts.

dj181 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:40:43 AM »

Hey coach, Just because "bodybuilders" aren't immensely strong DOES NOT disprove the theroy that strength=size. The absolute best proof of this theroy, is that if said bodybuilder has thicker pecs, delts, and tris, then he has made those muscles stronger. And if part of his training routine is training of a barbell bench press and his pecs, delts, and tris have got bigger and thicker in the process, then his barbell bench press WILL increase. FACT

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #30 on:** February 21, 2011, 08:24:20 AM »

Quote from: dj181 on February 21, 2011, 02:40:43 AM

Hey coach, Just because "bodybuilders" aren't immensely strong DOES NOT disprove the theroy that strength=size. The absolute best proof of this theroy, is that if said bodybuilder has thicker pecs, delts, and tris, then he has made those muscles stronger. And if part of his training routine is training of a barbell bench press and his pecs, delts, and tris have got bigger and thicker in the process, then his barbell bench press WILL increase. FACT

that made NO sense. of course your going to add some size, but to say that size = strength (as you used in a blanket statement) is wrong. Jason Pegg squatted a legit 1000lbs and is no where near the size of a pro bodybuilder, or state level for that matter.

Tito24 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 21, 2011, 10:10:49 AM »

Quote from: bigbadwolfe on February 20, 2011, 06:17:33 PM

Not a Schmoe Tito just an old beat up semi retired pro bench presser who loves to help people get involved in the sport I love.

just kidding big guy

tbombz · « **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2011, 10:15:30 AM »

Quote from: The Coach on February 21, 2011, 08:24:20 AM

that made NO sense. of course your going to add some size, but to say that size = strength (as you used in a blanket statement) is wrong. Jason Pegg squatted a legit 1000lbs and is no where near the size of a pro bodybuilder, or state level for that matter.

no

size=strength

not strength=size.

if your big, then your strong. just because your strong doesnt mean yoru big.

btw, this hardly qualifies as a squat

dj181 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 21, 2011, 10:35:29 AM »

Powerlifting squats are ass and spinal erector dominate, quad involvement with a powerlifting style squat is nearly non-existant. FYI, Fred "Dr. Squat" Hatfield had pathetically weak quads, but his ass and lower back sure were damn strong

Put Pegg on some leg extensions and if he gets stronger and stronger on them, for example going from 150 pounds for 10 reps to 300 pounds for 20 reps, then I guaren-goddamn-tee that he will have MUCH BIGGER quads. Let me put it this way, if he could add 150 pounds on his leg extensions for the same number of reps, say 10 for example, then his quads will be MUCH LARGER.

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #34 on:** February 21, 2011, 11:19:21 AM »

I can't post from my computer because of this site being contaminated, I can't see the youtube link but if its of Pegg, its a legit squat. Second, you two....BOTH of you need to learn the difference between power and strength. Start with that. When I read comments like this, I have to actually take it with a grain of salt knowing that your scope of knowledge is limited. After you're the one who thinks a calorie is a calorie no matter who disproves it and the source the proof came from.

Van_Bilderass · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:50:25 PM »

There is a very real correlation between size and strength, in any one particular lifter! If you say, "so and so is much smaller than me yet can lift more", then you haven't thought things through.

And if someone says he doesn't think strength and size go hand in hand then he isn't being honest, or hasn't thought things through. Every bodybuilder takes strength increase as a sign of growth and progress. Say you go in and do 30 reps on the leg extension with 150lbs to failure yet last workout you did 180lbs for the same amount of reps, do you take that as a positive or negative sign? Negative of course. But if you do 200lbs for 30 you know you are doing something right. Right?!

Those westsiders "squatting" huge weights have big guts, big glutes, big erectors, because that's the muscles they use in the lift! They have small quads because they are hardly used. Many pro bodybuilders would kill those guys on Olympic squats or hack-squats. And guess what, the bbers have bigger quads.

It's scientifically proven that the cross-sectional area of a muscle is directly related to it's strength. I don't even know why this is debated. Well I do know actually, it's because of misunderstanding the terms in the discussion. People don't understand what the other really means.

An personal example. Bodybuilder I train often squats with a powerlifter. Powerlifter max squats 300lbs more than the bb, in a suit. Even if bb puts on the suit the PLer would still squat 300lbs more since the bb doesn't know how to use the suit. Bodybuilder kills the PLer on narrow stance Olympic squats without gear. Guess who has bigger quads?

Powerlifting involves a lot more than muscular strength. Mainly technique and "angles" due to structure. Doesn't change the fact that a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle all other factors being the same.

Van_Bilderass · « **Reply #36 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:55:04 PM »

Quote from: bigbadwolfe on February 20, 2011, 06:41:05 PM

But I did do 405 for 10 reps raw about 4 weeks ago so thats the best I can tell ya.

Bob Chicherillo used to do 20 reps with 405. Fantastic, huh? A guy more concerned with his hair than his bench press numbers.

tbombz · « **Reply #37 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:58:29 PM »

Quote from: Van_Bilderass on February 21, 2011, 12:50:25 PM

There is a very real correlation between size and strength, in any one particular lifter! If you say, "so and so is much smaller than me yet can lift more", then you haven't thought things through.

And if someone says he doesn't think strength and size go hand in hand then he isn't being honest, or hasn't thought things through. Every bodybuilder takes strength increase as a sign of growth and progress. Say you go in and do 30 reps on the leg extension with 150lbs to failure yet last workout you did 180lbs for the same amount of reps, do you take that as a positive or negative sign? Negative of course. But if you do 200lbs for 30 you know you are doing something right. Right?!

Those westsiders "squatting" huge weights have big guts, big glutes, big erectors, because that's the muscles they use in the lift! They have small quads because they are hardly used. Many pro bodybuilders would kill those guys on Olympic squats or hack-squats. And guess what, the bbers have bigger quads.

It's scientifically proven that the cross-sectional area of a muscle is directly related to it's strength. I don't even know why this is debated. Well I do know actually, it's because of misunderstanding the terms in the discussion. People don't understand what the other really means.

An personal example. Bodybuilder I train often squats with a powerlifter. Powerlifter max squats 300lbs more than the bb, in a suit. Even if bb puts on the suit the PLer would still squat 300lbs more since the bb doesn't know how to use the suit. Bodybuilder kills the PLer on narrow stance Olympic squats without gear. Guess who has bigger quads?

Powerlifting involves a lot more than muscular strength. Mainly technique and "angles" due to structure. Doesn't change the fact that a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle all other factors being the same.

its about damn time you came back to your senses van!

tbombz · « **Reply #38 on:** February 21, 2011, 01:00:32 PM »

btw, in that video of pegg squatting, how fucking annoying is some dumb fuck yelling at you trying to make his voice sound deep and manly when you trying to lift? man i cant stand that shit

dj181 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 21, 2011, 01:43:17 PM »

Thanks Van, that's exactly what I've been saying all along, but you are able to say it much more elequently than I

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #40 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:23:58 PM »

Van, all that means is bob was better conditioned for muscular endurance, far and away from power. Go to a 1RM. Again, I'm referring to power.

Jadeveon Clowney · « **Reply #41 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:28:36 PM »

The Coach is all talk but no proof. Probably sells used cars for a living.

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #42 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:42:03 PM »

Quote from: Jadeveon Clowney on February 21, 2011, 02:28:36 PM

The Coach is all talk but no proof. Probably sells used cars for a living.

Great, another stalker. How much proof would you like? Clinical studies?

Van_Bilderass · « **Reply #43 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:42:51 PM »

Quote from: The Coach on February 21, 2011, 02:23:58 PM

Van, all that means is bob was better conditioned for muscular endurance, far and away from power. Go to a 1RM. Again, I'm referring to power.

Any guy benching 405 for 20 is plenty powerful and strong as all hell. Maybe his transfer to singles, percentage-wise, isn't as impressive as a top powerlifters but there's lots of power there, it's not just muscular endurance. That's if the story is even true, which I doubt.

And lots of powerlifters do the "repetition method" regularly.

Chicherillo can count himself among powerlifting royalty.

Jadeveon Clowney · « **Reply #44 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:43:44 PM »

Quote from: The Coach on February 21, 2011, 02:42:03 PM

Great, another stalker. How much proof would you like? Clinical studies?

Lol, quit acting like you've proved any of your lifts, the Hobbit. You just come on here and make claims you never back up.

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #45 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:44:41 PM »

Quote from: Van_Bilderass on February 21, 2011, 12:50:25 PM

There is a very real correlation between size and strength, in any one particular lifter! If you say, "so and so is much smaller than me yet can lift more", then you haven't thought things through.

And if someone says he doesn't think strength and size go hand in hand then he isn't being honest, or hasn't thought things through. Every bodybuilder takes strength increase as a sign of growth and progress. Say you go in and do 30 reps on the leg extension with 150lbs to failure yet last workout you did 180lbs for the same amount of reps, do you take that as a positive or negative sign? Negative of course. But if you do 200lbs for 30 you know you are doing something right. Right?!

Those westsiders "squatting" huge weights have big guts, big glutes, big erectors, because that's the muscles they use in the lift! They have small quads because they are hardly used. Many pro bodybuilders would kill those guys on Olympic squats or hack-squats. And guess what, the bbers have bigger quads.

It's scientifically proven that the cross-sectional area of a muscle is directly related to it's strength. I don't even know why this is debated. Well I do know actually, it's because of misunderstanding the terms in the discussion. People don't understand what the other really means.

An personal example. Bodybuilder I train often squats with a powerlifter. Powerlifter max squats 300lbs more than the bb, in a suit. Even if bb puts on the suit the PLer would still squat 300lbs more since the bb doesn't know how to use the suit. Bodybuilder kills the PLer on narrow stance Olympic squats without gear. Guess who has bigger quads?

Powerlifting involves a lot more than muscular strength. Mainly technique and "angles" due to structure. Doesn't change the fact that a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle all other factors being the same.

I never doubted the correlation between size and strength, that's not what I was debating.

Coach is Back! · « **Reply #46 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:47:26 PM »

Quote from: Jadeveon Clowney on February 21, 2011, 02:43:44 PM

Lol, quit acting like you've proved any of your lifts, the Hobbit. You just come on here and make claims you never back up.

Shut up stupid, there are adults talking.

Van_Bilderass · « **Reply #47 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:52:18 PM »

Quote from: The Coach on February 21, 2011, 02:44:41 PM

I never doubted the correlation between size and strength, that's not what I was debating.

Yeah these discussion always get muddled because people are discussing different things and keep misunderstanding eachother.

Anyway, big bodybuilders are very strong and very powerful, a lot of times muscularly stronger and even more powerful than top powerlifters. It's just that powerlifting, moving a weight from A to B, involves a lot more than muscular strength and power. It's angles, it's structure, it's technique, it's attitude.

But on a very basic level size = strength.

Jadeveon Clowney · « **Reply #48 on:** February 21, 2011, 03:12:10 PM »

Quote from: The Coach on February 21, 2011, 02:47:26 PM

Shut up stupid, there are adults talking.

Lol, neither your stature nor intellect would cause anyone to mistake you for an adult.

dj181 · « **Reply #49 on:** February 21, 2011, 03:15:08 PM »

If one can make a bigger arch, then that will cut down the vertical distance that the bar must be moved in a bp, therefore allowing one to lift greater poundages without necessarily increasing their actual strength. Less distance that the bar must be pressed equals greater the weight that can be pressed.