Author Topic: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench  (Read 23991 times)

GMCtrk

  • Guest
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #50 on: March 29, 2006, 01:29:22 PM »
One thing to remember though, is Ronnie doesn't train low reps at all, he only did 495 in COR simply becuase it was showtime. If he trained like a powerlifter and bulked up to 350 there's no telling what he could bench...

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #51 on: March 29, 2006, 01:35:50 PM »
One thing to remember though, is Ronnie doesn't train low reps at all, he only did 495 in COR simply becuase it was showtime. If he trained like a powerlifter and bulked up to 350 there's no telling what he could bench...
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

mesmorph78

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10953
  • there can only be one...
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #52 on: March 29, 2006, 01:46:38 PM »
kevin levrone did 500 for 5 as well
choice is an illusion

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #53 on: March 29, 2006, 01:48:27 PM »
kevin levrone did 500 for 5 as well
think about it meso back when you were benching 225 for a hard 5 could you bench 315? myself i couldn't do 315 until i got to 15 reps with 225.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

tom joad

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #54 on: March 29, 2006, 01:50:34 PM »
kevin levrone did 500 for 5 as well

what can he bench now?  (you're only as good as your last time at bat.)

mesmorph78

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10953
  • there can only be one...
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #55 on: March 29, 2006, 01:59:48 PM »
think about it meso back when you were benching 225 for a hard 5 could you bench 315? myself i couldn't do 315 until i got to 15 reps with 225.

i couldnt get 315 till i benched 225 for 10
when i was benching 225 for 5 ... i could barely get 264 for 1
choice is an illusion

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #56 on: March 29, 2006, 02:01:54 PM »
i couldnt get 315 till i benched 225 for 10
when i was benching 225 for 5 ... i could barely get 264 for 1
exactly, so i could MAYBE see Ronnie doing 600 on bench if he could snap 500 for an easy 10-12 but not 5.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

badlad

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #57 on: March 29, 2006, 02:30:43 PM »
Here we go my very first post.
Can only base my knowledge on my personal experience because there seem to be so many crazy claims about this and that.
Just remembering back to when I was at about my strongest (at a bw of about 260-270) I could bench 350 for 10 with no spotter. If I remember correctly I could do 315 for anywhere between 15 to 20 reps fairly easily.
I also recall going for the most reps I could do with 225 and I'm pretty sure I fell just short of 50 reps.
I have heard numerous claims about various bb's and powerlifters able to do far more than this and I can believe there are guys who could do say 100 reps with 225 fairly easily.
However when I gave 400 pounds a go I couldn't even do one rep. I'm definately no powerlifter (only trained as a bb) and have never trained with sets of less than 8 reps but I remember being quite shocked even back then that I couldn't get 400 up.
Also I don't think I was particularly strong, I am fairly tall however (about 6'4) and have long arms so not very helpful when it comes to putting up big numbers.
I also remember an old friend of mine who was a very large non-comp. bb who was about 240 pounds at about 5'8. He had legit 21 inch arms, 22 inch calves and 33 inch quads. His biggest bench was around 420 for 1 rep. So maybe size doesn't always correlate to power because if anyone looked like they could bench 550 pounds this guy did.


mesmorph78

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10953
  • there can only be one...
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2006, 02:38:18 PM »
exactly, so i could MAYBE see Ronnie doing 600 on bench if he could snap 500 for an easy 10-12 but not 5.
i watched cor
he benched 405 for 10 or 12.....  respectively but he was complaining about his shoulder....
in the unbelivable he did....

press 200lb dumbells for 12 easy reps...
admittedly...
choice is an illusion

Bast175

  • Guest
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2006, 02:40:41 PM »
Ronnie takes 3 months off of training And Juice each year,  So he's probably actually his strongest during his contest diet.

Levrone even more so.  He would gain weight to do a contest.

So both were likely their strongest when ripped.

paul84

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Nuke 'em, Rico!
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #60 on: March 29, 2006, 03:32:40 PM »
Ok. Let's break it down then... Moving three feet in .005 seconds is simply just not possible. A physics teacher (Howard!!) could tell you how fast that really would be.

You must really not think very highly of the getbig population if we need a physics teacher to tell us how fast three feet in .005 seconds is...

3feet/.005sec = 600ft/sec
For anyone who actually cares, that's 55% the speed of sound  ::)

shortfatugly

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #61 on: March 29, 2006, 04:05:10 PM »
It is not possible for most people because their minds cannot imagine it. The body can only do what the mind wills it to. Have you seen video of Bruce Lee kicking his training partners 12 feet across the room? The force is about 12*140 (1680). Assuming that the sandbag is no more than 5.6 feet from the ceiling, that would be the same amount of force. I'll admit that the .005 second strike does sound exaggerated. The person probably meant to say .05 seconds, which is feasible because Bruce was said to strike in the blink of an eye, which takes place in .01 seconds.

 Other people can do some of Bruce Lee's feats, but it was his combination of mind and body that made him special, and the reason that he is still discussed today.

I don't know what you are calculating here.  You seem to be multiplying feet travelled by a person's weight in pounds and are equating this to force.  Force is actually the product of mass and acceleration.  And this acceleration generated by anyone's kick or punch would be transmitted in a very short period of time.  Over a very short distance- not the 12 feet you mention.  So in fact it would be an Impluse.  

I have never ever seen- other than in movies involving wires that are later digitally removed - anyone 'fly' across the room for 12 feet.  There may be an initial lift off which would therefor involve another component: namely the force required to lift a person's mass off of the floor. I will ignore this for the time being.  Also, the person so struck would become a projectile that would follow a parabolic pathway to the ground.  This complicates matters.  

And that force is not applied to the person over the entire 12 feet that you say the person travels.  The 12 feet will come into play later on should anyone be required to figure out the force impeding the object.  

Your comment about the sandbag and same amount of force is completely bogus.  

So if the person struck was initially at rest, and his final speed - prior to slowing down - was say 10m/s - perhaps an exaggeration-  and this final speed was achieved in 0.5 seconds ( as the body would almost immediately begin to slow down ), then the acceleration would be 20m/s/s.  The force needed to get a mass to accelerate thusly would be 1300N assuming a 65 kilogram person.  this would approximately equal 2600 Watts of Power generated in that 0.5 seconds.  

Any alterations that involve a greater acceleration or a shorter time period ( the "myth " of Bruce Lee ) would create an even greater force and power.  And if you reduce the final speed obtained or increase the time- you are bringing the force and power into the realm of the easily attainable.

You are sort of figuring out WorK done which is the product of force and distance.  And then Power is work divided by time.  you can't use the 12 feet.  This is just wrong and shows me that you have no real understanding of what you are talking about.  or you just failed every physics course you ever took: if you ever took any.

YOu'd have to convert feet to meters and pounds to kilograms.  

3 feet is about 1 meter.  Using 0.05 seconds as the time you have a speed of 20 meters per second which reasonable.  Its twice as fast as the velocity of a top world class sprinter: Maurice Green say. But you only have to hit it for that short period of time.  I couldn't do it but others probably could.  hockey Goal tenders for example. maybe

If you want to see how much power  2600 watts actually is, get on a concept 2 rower, set the monitor to watts and then try to hit 1600 let alone 2600.  You will have to alter the damper settings.  

The math is very simplified here and I didn't consider the effects of gravity on a person lifted completely off the floor nor did i consider the projectile motion parabolic pathway an object would follow.

There is no amount of science that will change people's opinion about what Bruce Lee could and could not do.  Stories about what he could do have been passed down over the years and have been exaggerated for effect.  Many other well meaning people simply make things up to show how great the guy was.  People idolize the guy and for that reason alone, he has done a great deal to help many people overcome their fears and to better themselves.  

I once saw him pick up a rickshaw by the ends of the shafts.  The rickshaw had 2 or 3 bad guys in it too.  The power to do that would be enormous... oh wait.. that was in 'ENter the Dragon.."  damn...

LuciusFox

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8775
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #62 on: March 29, 2006, 04:19:00 PM »
I don't know what you are calculating here.  You seem to be multiplying feet travelled by a person's weight in pounds and are equating this to force.  Force is actually the product of mass and acceleration.  And this acceleration generated by anyone's kick or punch would be transmitted in a very short period of time.  Over a very short distance- not the 12 feet you mention.  So in fact it would be an Impluse.  

I have never ever seen- other than in movies involving wires that are later digitally removed - anyone 'fly' across the room for 12 feet.  There may be an initial lift off which would therefor involve another component: namely the force required to lift a person's mass off of the floor. I will ignore this for the time being.  Also, the person so struck would become a projectile that would follow a parabolic pathway to the ground.  This complicates matters.  

And that force is not applied to the person over the entire 12 feet that you say the person travels.  The 12 feet will come into play later on should anyone be required to figure out the force impeding the object.  

Your comment about the sandbag and same amount of force is completely bogus.  

So if the person struck was initially at rest, and his final speed - prior to slowing down - was say 10m/s - perhaps an exaggeration-  and this final speed was achieved in 0.5 seconds ( as the body would almost immediately begin to slow down ), then the acceleration would be 20m/s/s.  The force needed to get a mass to accelerate thusly would be 1300N assuming a 65 kilogram person.  this would approximately equal 2600 Watts of Power generated in that 0.5 seconds.  

Any alterations that involve a greater acceleration or a shorter time period ( the "myth " of Bruce Lee ) would create an even greater force and power.  And if you reduce the final speed obtained or increase the time- you are bringing the force and power into the realm of the easily attainable.

You are sort of figuring out WorK done which is the product of force and distance.  And then Power is work divided by time.  you can't use the 12 feet.  This is just wrong and shows me that you have no real understanding of what you are talking about.  or you just failed every physics course you ever took: if you ever took any.

YOu'd have to convert feet to meters and pounds to kilograms.  

3 feet is about 1 meter.  Using 0.05 seconds as the time you have a speed of 20 meters per second which reasonable.  Its twice as fast as the velocity of a top world class sprinter: Maurice Green say. But you only have to hit it for that short period of time.  I couldn't do it but others probably could.  hockey Goal tenders for example. maybe

If you want to see how much power  2600 watts actually is, get on a concept 2 rower, set the monitor to watts and then try to hit 1600 let alone 2600.  You will have to alter the damper settings.  

The math is very simplified here and I didn't consider the effects of gravity on a person lifted completely off the floor nor did i consider the projectile motion parabolic pathway an object would follow.

There is no amount of science that will change people's opinion about what Bruce Lee could and could not do.  Stories about what he could do have been passed down over the years and have been exaggerated for effect.  Many other well meaning people simply make things up to show how great the guy was.  People idolize the guy and for that reason alone, he has done a great deal to help many people overcome their fears and to better themselves.  

I once saw him pick up a rickshaw by the ends of the shafts.  The rickshaw had 2 or 3 bad guys in it too.  The power to do that would be enormous... oh wait.. that was in 'ENter the Dragon.."  damn...

 You have thoroughly 0wned me :'(  Thanks for informing me though, because I have told other people these things and I will no longer do that :-\

Karl Kox

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6863
  • There's no Kayfabe in the business anymore.
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #63 on: March 29, 2006, 05:03:21 PM »
Yeah, and Ernie also said he doesn't have synthol in his tris.

Where are the pics that some one posted a while back of his drain plugs ?

alexxx

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Don't hate..
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #64 on: March 29, 2006, 05:42:34 PM »
Here we go my very first post.
Can only base my knowledge on my personal experience because there seem to be so many crazy claims about this and that.
Just remembering back to when I was at about my strongest (at a bw of about 260-270) I could bench 350 for 10 with no spotter. If I remember correctly I could do 315 for anywhere between 15 to 20 reps fairly easily.
I also recall going for the most reps I could do with 225 and I'm pretty sure I fell just short of 50 reps.
I have heard numerous claims about various bb's and powerlifters able to do far more than this and I can believe there are guys who could do say 100 reps with 225 fairly easily.
However when I gave 400 pounds a go I couldn't even do one rep. I'm definately no powerlifter (only trained as a bb) and have never trained with sets of less than 8 reps but I remember being quite shocked even back then that I couldn't get 400 up.
Also I don't think I was particularly strong, I am fairly tall however (about 6'4) and have long arms so not very helpful when it comes to putting up big numbers.
I also remember an old friend of mine who was a very large non-comp. bb who was about 240 pounds at about 5'8. He had legit 21 inch arms, 22 inch calves and 33 inch quads. His biggest bench was around 420 for 1 rep. So maybe size doesn't always correlate to power because if anyone looked like they could bench 550 pounds this guy did.



Your structure could use work. I am also 6'4" and a natural and I can probably bench 350 for 1.  ;)
just push some weight!

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #65 on: March 29, 2006, 05:47:11 PM »
Your structure could use work. I am also 6'4" and a natural and I can probably bench 350 for 1.  ;)
you couldn't roll 350 to save your life.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

alexxx

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Don't hate..
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #66 on: March 29, 2006, 05:49:37 PM »
you couldn't roll 350 to save your life.

I don't plan to roll it! I plan to lift it with my huge chest!
just push some weight!

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #67 on: March 29, 2006, 05:52:22 PM »
I don't plan to roll it! I plan to lift it with my huge chest!
hey look at it this way after that 350 lb. bar buries itself in your chest you'll be able to rest a plate of food in the indentation when your sitting on the couch watching gay porn.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

kicker

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
  • Getbig!
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #68 on: March 29, 2006, 05:53:21 PM »
that's funny because when i met Ronnie at a show he said that the most he's ever benched is 500 for 8.

Bingo.  The claims in FLEX are always exaggerated.

tony b

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Getbig!
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #69 on: March 29, 2006, 05:53:36 PM »
Musclemag Oct98 By Terry Adams
Iron Haven Gym
Alberton
Prince Edward Island

One of the highlights of the Arnold Classic 98 was the "bench press" challenge by Jimmy"Iron Bull" Pellechia.Ronnie Coleman took up the challenge and benched 225 pounds for a total of 79 reps as compared to jimmy's 59 reps!Even more impressive is the fact that Ronnie put in a heavy chest workout just a day before at World Gym.I watched him do incline bench press with 6 plates for 8 reps followed by benches with 8 plated for 8 reps.This effort had to have weakened him somewhat for the bench press contest the next day.You cant trully appreciate the size and shape of  Ronnie Coleman unless u meet him in person.

sarcasm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12318
  • The Luke loves Dungeons and Dragons
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #70 on: March 29, 2006, 05:54:56 PM »
Musclemag Oct98 By Terry Adams
Iron Haven Gym
Alberton
Prince Edward Island

One of the highlights of the Arnold Classic 98 was the "bench press" challenge by Jimmy"Iron Bull" Pellechia.Ronnie Coleman took up the challenge and benched 225 pounds for a total of 79 reps as compared to jimmy's 59 reps!Even more impressive is the fact that Ronnie put in a heavy chest workout just a day before at World Gym.I watched him do incline bench press with 6 plates for 8 reps followed by benches with 8 plated for 8 reps.This effort had to have weakened him somewhat for the bench press contest the next day.You cant trully appreciate the size and shape of  Ronnie Coleman unless u meet him in person.
old news dude, this was posted on another thread yesterday.
Jaejonna rows 125!!

alexxx

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Don't hate..
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2006, 05:55:52 PM »
hey look at it this way after that 350 lb. bar buries itself in your chest you'll be able to rest a plate of food in the indentation it when your sitting on the couch watching gay porn.

I think you would like to watch me do gay porn but that ain't gonna happen! Alexxx is too big of a man! I plan on getting to 500 pound bench.
just push some weight!

LuciusFox

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8775
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #72 on: March 29, 2006, 06:01:05 PM »
I think you would like to watch me do gay porn but that ain't gonna happen! Alexxx is too big of a man! I plan on getting to 500 pound bench.

 sarcasm is gay?  ???

alexxx

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Don't hate..
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #73 on: March 29, 2006, 06:01:39 PM »
sarcasm is gay?  ???

Captain obvious right as usual!
just push some weight!

LuciusFox

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8775
Re: Ernie taylor's comment on Ronnie coleman's bench
« Reply #74 on: March 29, 2006, 06:03:21 PM »
Captain obvious right as usual!

 Here is something obvious: you are not as big as you think you are :)