Denis Cyplenkov

[darthsith19]

I really don't know who is stronger s both have great powers. But YOU admited yourself that Cyplenkov smashes Ronnie in arm wrestling and STRONGMAN contest. I think this is the end of the discussion. Period...

However, this began as a discussion about Cyplenvkov's bf%. I was using Coleman in my argument.

Dude size does not alway's mean power I have a buddy that could not bench 250 if you had a gun to his head he weigh's 200lb. But you grab on to the dude on a armwestling table and he will hurt your felling 's I promise you that the man can do 3 one arm pullup's with the other hand in his pocket. You get my drift.

Yes, I do, however, we are not debating Coleman vs, Cyplenkov in an arm wrestle, as it is obviously that Coleman would end up with his arm in a cast there. I wasn't necessarily talking about lifting power, either, I was speaking purely about muscle, and Coleman is composed entirely of it.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Josh H

[big nasty]

wait wait, i don't get it. Cyplenkov smashes Ronnie in arm wrestling and STRONGMAN contest, but still Ronnie is stronger because of the size of his body? if that's true, then Dominic Filiou must be the strongest man in the world.

Well, I don't know anything about Dominic Filiou, except what I just read on wikipedia, but he is 6'5 and probably has more bodyfat than Coleman and Cyplenkov do. If you're the same weight as somebody else is, but you're shorter and trimmer, why would you weigh as much unless you have more muscle on you? That's what I am saying, and it makes sense, if this doesn't make sense then please tell me why Coleman weighs more than Cyplenov. Your weight is made up of fat, muscle, and your height plays a factor. Coleman is both shorter and has less fat than Kyplenkov, but he weight the same amount, which I assume means he must have more muscle than Cyplenkov does. I don't see why else he would weigh more.

A bodybuilder does'nt make a armwrestler and vis versa and height and weight has nothing to do with body type and the whey people are but together.

I know, and I already admitted that Cyplenkov would destroy Coleman in an arm wrestle. My response referring to Coleman was after someone said that Cyplenkov probably had less than 10% bodyfat, and that his bodyfat level looked very low. And as I understand it, your weight is made up of you're fat, muscle, height. Lets say there are 2 people who weigh 300 lbs and they both have 10% bodyfat. One of them is 7 ft tall, one is 6 ft tall. Obviously, the 6 ft tall person would be stronger, do you agree? I am not talking stronger at arm wrestling, stronger at strongman competitions, I am just talking about overall muscle. Also, if there are 2 people who both weigh 300 lbs, and are both 6 ft., but one has 12% bodyfat and one has 2% bodyfat, the one with 2% bodyfat must be stronger, cause the other guy is fatter and still only weighs the same amount? Does this make sense? And if there are other factors which make up your weight, I would like to hear them.

A bodybuilder when he is at 2% bodyfat is at that point probably not at his strongest he has drianed his body of as much fluid as possible thay can only stay there a short time as it is very dangerous. All the vid's you see of Coleman going heavy he is not anywhere close to 2% more like 8 to 10. All I am trying to explian to you is you can not compare a bodybuilder and a strongman the training is not even close to the same completely different goal's. I will say Coleman is a cut of a different cloth he does alot of powerlifting and is one of the stronger bodybuilder around but should not be compared to strongmen.

[darthsith19]

A bodybuilder when he is at 2% bodyfat is at that point probably not at his strongest he has drianed his body of as much fluid as possible thay can only stay there a short time as it is very dangerous. All the vid's you see of Coleman going heavy he is not anywhere close to 2% more like 8 to 10. All I am trying to explian to you is you can not compare a bodybuilder and a strongman the training is not even close to the same completely different goal's. I will say Coleman is a cut of a different cloth he does alot of powerlifting and is one of the stronger bodybuilder around but should not be compared to strongmen.

Yes, at 2% his muscles may be weaker from lack of energy, but his muscle will still be there just the same as before. I heard in the 2006 Mr. Olympia he was at 300 lbs. on stage. His off-season weight was 325 lbs.

[lukeamdman]

Ronnie does surprisingly heavy weights for being a body builder. Most of the time you don't see guys in his profession doing huge weights because of the risk of injury's.

You can find videos of him doing 12 reps with 200lb dumbbells, 800lbx2 squats, and 800lbx2 dead lifts. He's almost a bodybuilder/power lifter hybrid. I think I even remember seeing a 495lbx6 bench press in one of his videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQsmwC4jSFY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KD7cGRDDc...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hxa_kj2aBCU...feature=related

I have no idea who is stronger, but Ronnie ain't the typical "body builder". The dude isn't all size, he's very strong.

Edited May 9, 2008 by lukeamdman

[raikkonen]

ronnie coleman is stronger than Cyplenkov? i find that hard to believe.

Yes, he is. In an arm wrestling match, Cyplenkov would smash Coleman's arm into the pad, no contest. Strongman competitions, Cyplenkov wins but Coleman might get a few points, idk. But, explain this to me, if Cyplenkov is stronger than Coleman, how come they are the same weight even though Coleman is 2 inches shorter and has +/- 10% bodyfat less? Remember, Coleman used a lot of steroids. His arms are 24", his chest is like 58" or 60" or something and his upper legs are like 34" or some crazy shit. I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

But seriously, look at the dude:

http://i.b5z.net/i/u/230085/i/Ronnie_Coleman.jpg

http://www.ironews.net/wp-content/uploads/...7BC/image01.png

(Ronnie Coleman's bicep looks sick in that pic where he is armwrestling)

ok then this is just funny as owt to read. i cant belive this. your actually backing up what you say with facts such as 'well ronnie is 2 inch shorter and still same weight so that must mean hes stronger'. honestly, your the most deluded guy on the planet to think like that.

im gonna safely say , that ronnie coleman is a strong guy, i kno that, but he wouldnt have a chance again Cyplenkov. ronnie is a bodybuilder, Cyplenkov is a strongman. theres a big difference between have lots of muscle and having lots of strong muscle i believe. so it seems that you believe ronnie has more muscle than Cyplenkov a he is 2 inch shorter , yet Cyplenkov is stronger. isnt that amazing? :s *sighs*

One of them is 7 ft tall, one is 6 ft tall. Obviously, the 6 ft tall person would be stronger, do you agree? I am not talking stronger at arm wrestling, stronger at strongman competitions, I am just talking about overall muscle.

ok you seem to be quite confused as to what muscle is etc. the 6ft isnt stronger, hes just strong relative to his size and weight (although i beleive it counts more towards weight), so thus why you think hes stronger. like me, im half the size of this guy in my gym, relative strength wise, i know im strongest, but actual strength, he would destroy me, and thats what we care about more. actual strength. there not gonna put 2 guys in a strongman contest and say, 'hey look here, this guy is 5 stone lighter and 3 inchs smaller, give him some more points'

i dont know of any sports where they have a height and muscle category.

(im not trying to be a dick towards u josh btw <3 i think your just getting abit confused with things etc :p)

Edited May 9, 2008 by raikkonen

[kyle102887]

A bodybuilder when he is at 2% bodyfat is at that point probably not at his strongest he has drianed his body of as much fluid as possible thay can only stay there a short time as it is very dangerous. All the vid's you see of Coleman going heavy he is not anywhere close to 2% more like 8 to 10. All I am trying to explian to you is you can not compare a bodybuilder and a strongman the training is not even close to the same completely different goal's. I will say Coleman is a cut of a different cloth he does alot of powerlifting and is one of the stronger bodybuilder around but should not be compared to strongmen.

Yes, at 2% his muscles may be weaker from lack of energy, but his muscle will still be there just the same as before. I heard in the 2006 Mr. Olympia he was at 300 lbs. on stage. His off-season weight was 325 lbs.

More muscle doesn't mean more strength it means a greater potential for strength. There are limiting factors......muscle is not the determinant alone.

[The Mac]

I look forward to seeing what what Cyplenkov does. Experience suggests he will do well but fail against the best - however, that IS one hell of an arm he has.....

[Magnus]

Here we go again, another thread gone hopelessly off-topic. Ronnie and Cyplenkov are both very strong. Ronnie is stronger in some areas, and Cyplenkov is stronger in others. I doubt Ronnie would beat Denis in AWing, but then again, Ronnie isn't an AWer. I also doubt that Denis could bent-over barbell row 495x8. They are both doing two totally different things, and one could easily beat the other at one thing, and vice-versa. If they both trained for the exact same things, I'd have to say Ronnie would clean house. But, muscle-size does directly relate to strength. The potential strength of the muscle is determined by the cross-sectional size of the muscle. True, you can make a muscle stronger without making it bigger, but if you take a big muscle at it's fullest potential, and a small muscle at it's fullest potential, the bigger one will be stronger. A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. There are also other factors besides the muscle itself, like leverage(i.e short arm vs. long arm) connective tissue strength, genetics, etc, etc. But, that being said...

Kovacs is stronger than BOTH of them

Edited May 9, 2008 by Magnus

[darthsith19]

ok then this is just funny as owt to read. i cant belive this. your actually backing up what you say with facts such as 'well ronnie is 2 inch shorter and still same weight so that must mean hes stronger'. honestly, your the most deluded guy on the planet to think like that.

Alright, sorry. I guess I was wrong about that, but I do believe he has more muscle than Cyplenkov, maybe not strength.

im gonna safely say , that ronnie coleman is a strong guy, i kno that, but he wouldnt have a chance again Cyplenkov. ronnie is a bodybuilder, Cyplenkov is a strongman. theres a big difference between have lots of muscle and having lots of strong muscle i believe. so it seems that you believe ronnie has more muscle than Cyplenkov a he is 2 inch shorter , yet Cyplenkov is stronger. isnt that amazing? :s *sighs*

Yes, I do believe that Coleman has more muscle. Strength I am not sure about. Like kyle102887 said, muscle doesn't equal strength.

More muscle doesn't mean more strength it means a greater potential for strength. There are limiting factors......muscle is not the determinant alone.

My mistake. Yeah, alright I believe Coleman has more muscle than Cyplenkov does, but strength I am not sure about.

[G-Man]

I look forward to seeing what what Cyplenkov does. Experience suggests he will do well but fail against the best - however, that IS one hell of an arm he has.....

Fail against the best? It didn't look like Voevoda could do much against Cyplenkov in practice and it does not get much better than that.

Here's Artem Klimenko at the mere age of 18 against Taras Ivakin - Ivakin is a many time World Champion with multiple victories against John Brzenk, Devon Larratt, Jan Germanus and many others:

[big nasty]

Here we go again, another thread gone hopelessly off-topic. Ronnie and Cyplenkov are both very strong. Ronnie is stronger in some areas, and Cyplenkov is stronger in others. I doubt Ronnie would beat Denis in AWing, but then again, Ronnie isn't an AWer. I also doubt that Denis could bent-over barbell row 495x8. They are both doing two totally different things, and one could easily beat the other at one thing, and vice-versa. If they both trained for the exact same things, I'd have to say Ronnie would clean house. But, muscle-size does directly relate to strength. The potential strength of the muscle is determined by the cross-sectional size of the muscle. True, you can make a muscle stronger without making it bigger, but if you take a big muscle at it's fullest potential, and a small muscle at it's fullest potential, the bigger one will be stronger. A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. There are also other factors besides the muscle itself, like leverage(i.e short arm vs. long arm) connective tissue strength, genetics, etc, etc. But, that being said...

Kovacs is stronger than BOTH of them

Thank you.!!!!

[Pancake Sprawl]

i don't understand, with the logic he is using Ronnie Coleman is stronger than Mariusz Pudianowski because he's short then him and has more muscle.

i doubt he's stronger than any strongman and he is too bulky and muscle bound to be able to do anything with functional strength. like pulling a fire truck or something, i think he doesn't have the stamina because of all the oxygen he needs for his muscles that's why i think even though he's got more muscle his small body cannot compete with the amount of muscle. he's a relatively short man and probably at around 250lbs he would be at his best physical state, but as of right now he is waaay too large, he doesn't have agility, mobility, or stamina to do anything besides lift a bar with a lot of weight a few times.

same with Markus Ruhl. if you watch him workout when he does overhead pull downs he looks like his own chest and shoulder muscles are choking him because they are so massive. too much bulk is a bad thing.

Edited May 9, 2008 by Pancake Sprawl

[Magnus]

i don't understand, with the logic he is using Ronnie Coleman is stronger than Mariusz Pudianowski because he's short then him and has more muscle.

i doubt he's stronger than any strongman and he is too bulky and muscle bound to be able to do anything with functional strength. like pulling a fire truck or something, i think he doesn't have the stamina because of all the oxygen he needs for his muscles that's why i think even though he's got more muscle his small body cannot compete with the amount of muscle. he's a relatively short man and probably at around 250lbs he would be at his best physical state, but as of right now he is waaay too large, he doesn't have agility, mobility, or stamina to do anything besides lift a bar with a lot of weight a few times.

same with Markus Ruhl. if you watch him workout when he does overhead pull downs he looks like his own chest and shoulder muscles are choking him because they are so massive. too much bulk is a bad thing.

Having alot of muscle doesn't man you're muscle-bound. "Muscle-bound" is a term people associated with lifters because they thought the muscles were tying them up.

Really, it's a result of training imbalances and not stretching. Bulk is King

Edited May 9, 2008 by Magnus

[Robert Bishop]

Here we go again, another thread gone hopelessly off-topic. Ronnie and Cyplenkov are both very strong. Ronnie is stronger in some areas, and Cyplenkov is stronger in others. I doubt Ronnie would beat Denis in AWing, but then again, Ronnie isn't an AWer. I also doubt that Denis could bent-over barbell row 495x8. They are both doing two totally different things, and one could easily beat the other at one thing, and vice-versa. If they both trained for the exact same things, I'd have to say Ronnie would clean house. But, muscle-size does directly relate to strength. The potential strength of the muscle is determined by the cross-sectional size of the muscle. True, you can make a muscle stronger without making it bigger, but if you take a big muscle at it's fullest potential, and a small muscle at it's fullest potential, the bigger one will be stronger. A bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. There are also other factors besides the muscle itself, like leverage(i.e short arm vs. long arm) connective tissue strength, genetics, etc, etc. But, that being said...

Kovacs is stronger than BOTH of them

Thank you.!!!!

the guy that impresses me most though is Zydrunas Zavickas for overall power

[Pancake Sprawl]

i don't understand, with the logic he is using Ronnie Coleman is stronger than Mariusz Pudianowski because he's short then him and has more muscle.

i doubt he's stronger than any strongman and he is too bulky and muscle bound to be able to do anything with functional strength. like pulling a fire truck or something, i think he doesn't have the stamina because of all the oxygen he needs for his muscles that's why i think even though he's got more muscle his small body cannot compete with the amount of muscle. he's a relatively short man and probably at around 250lbs he would be at his best physical state, but as of right now he is waaay too large, he doesn't have agility, mobility, or stamina to do anything besides lift a bar with a lot of weight a few times.

same with Markus Ruhl. if you watch him workout when he does overhead pull downs he looks like his own chest and shoulder muscles are choking him because they are so massive. too much bulk is a bad thing.

Having alot of muscle doesn't man you're muscle-bound. "Muscle-bound" is a term people associated with lifters because they thought the muscles were tying them up.

Really, it's a result of training imbalances and not stretching. Bulk is King

bulk is king of what? body building? i thought symmetry, definition, and being vascular was? strongman? i doubt that, yes, the competitors are bulky but they're much more taller than Coleman the ones that are around his weight and some even lighter then he is.

i don't understand what you mean? maybe he's not muscle bound but he is definitely too large to be athletic. you have to have some sort of mobility and agility.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Pancake Sprawl

[Magnus]

i don't understand, with the logic he is using Ronnie Coleman is stronger than Mariusz Pudianowski because he's short then him and has more muscle.

i doubt he's stronger than any strongman and he is too bulky and muscle bound to be able to do anything with functional strength. like pulling a fire truck or something, i think he doesn't have the stamina because of all the oxygen he needs for his muscles that's why i think even though he's got more muscle his small body cannot compete with the amount of muscle. he's a relatively short man and probably at around 250lbs he would be at his best physical state, but as of right now he is waaay too large, he doesn't have agility, mobility, or stamina to do anything besides lift a bar with a lot of weight a few times.

same with Markus Ruhl. if you watch him workout when he does overhead pull downs he looks like his own chest and shoulder muscles are choking him because they are so massive. too much bulk is a bad thing.

Having alot of muscle doesn't man you're muscle-bound. "Muscle-bound" is a term people associated with lifters because they thought the muscles were tying them up.

Really, it's a result of training imbalances and not stretching. Bulk is King

bulk is king of what? body building? i thought symmetry, definition, and being vascular was? strongman? i doubt that, yes, the competitors are bulky but they're much more taller than Coleman the ones that are around his weight and some even lighter then he is.

i don't understand what you mean? maybe he's not muscle bound but he is definitely too large to be athletic. you have to have some sort of mobility and agility.

No, not king of bodybuilding, just out-right, idk, importance in general I think bodybuilding is stupid anymore, considering a HUGE guy could be beat buy a shrimp with lower bodyfat. Some of my favourite bodybuilders(like Kovacs, Mat Duvall) really don't do well as bodybuilders, cuz they are all mass and little else. But I don't care, I think mass is what matters. That's why I also like Strongman. Not, defined AT ALL, but who cares? They huge and they're strong, which is what I'm shooting for in my own goals. I'd rather have 24inch arms than be extremely agile and be a gymnast. Anybody can be a gymnast. Not everybody can have a 60in chest and bench 400lb lik it's an empty bar.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Magnus

[dimeisgod]

body-building by definition is cosmetic. It is the worst thing that has happened to the sport of lifting weights. ronnie coleman is probably stronger than 99% precent of the world, strong as in gym\bodybuilding exercises. he would still lose to brzenk, bagent, larrat, voevoda etc.

As a matter of fact chances are he would break his arm in one of those matches being able to put a huge amount of pressure on those ligaments he never trained.

Size has a huge carryover to strength relative to other people, so he would have an advantage if he's 325 against lets say a 200 pound john brzenk but he would still lose.

magnus: Do you believe weighing 300 pounds and bench pressing 400 and not doing 10 pull-ups is strong? if you want to look big stuff something in your shirt, but that isn't strong in my book. but every one has his own goals. good luck with yours.

Jonathan.

[Magnus]

body-building by definition is cosmetic. It is the worst thing that has happened to the sport of lifting weights. ronnie coleman is probably stronger than 99% precent of the world, strong as in gym\bodybuilding exercises. he would still lose to brzenk, bagent, larrat, voevoda etc.

As a matter of fact chances are he would break his arm in one of those matches being able to put a huge amount of pressure on those ligaments he never trained.

Size has a huge carryover to strength relative to other people, so he would have an advantage if he's 325 against lets say a 200 pound john brzenk but he would still lose.

magnus: Do you believe weighing 300 pounds and bench pressing 400 and not doing 10 pull-ups is strong? if you want to look big stuff something in your shirt, but that isn't strong in my book. but every one has his own goals. good luck with yours.

Jonathan.

Yes, I think weighing 300lb benching 400 for reps like nothing is strong. Alot of little weaklings can do pull-ups better than Zyrudus Savickas. Does that mean the 110lb kid with 11in biceps and a 30in chest that can do 30 pull-ups is stronger than Savickas? Nope. How the heck does being able to do pull-ups make you strong? And looking big doesn't mean stuffing stuff in your shirt. Strongmen are also massive, they just don't fret over having %2 bf and 6-pack abs. And also, to clarify, I didn't say Ronnie or Greg could beat Denis or John AWing. I said they are all strong in different areas. To say it again, I doubt Ronnie could beat Denis in AWing, but I also doubt Denis could bent-over barbell-row 495lb for 8 reps. They are trainin for 2 completely different things. I am also not a fan of bodybuilding, but I do admire the truly strong bb-ers out there, like Greg and Ronnie. And also, considering Ronnie's genetics, I think if he had trained to be an AWer, he would be an AWing monster.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Magnus

[Magnus]

magnus: ... if you want to look big stuff something in your shirt, but that isn't strong in my book...

Jonathan.

Also, do you think it's a coincidence that the most successful strongmen are also muscular giants?

Edited May 10, 2008 by Magnus

[Magnus]

but every one has his own goals. good luck with yours.

Jonathan.

...but good luck with your own goals, too...whatever they are

[Pancake Sprawl]

i'm a big guy myself. and when i was younger i was much like you, into bulk. but i noticed something. the bigger i got the stronger i got in the gym, but it doesn't necessarily carry over to functional strength. like say if i was hanging off a cliff or something, could i be able to pull myself up and onto the land? or be able to carry something relatively heavy a long distance, like if i were hunting in the wilderness and had to carry out a deer i killed or something.

so now, i try to focus i being real world strong. when i was into bulk, i was 350lbs. and in recent years i've went down to 287lbs, now i'm at a around 310lbs. for some people, being strong AND mobile is being strong. i understand for you it's simply an ego thing, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if ever stock exchange crashes or something drastic happens, i want to be ready to do whatever i have to, to survive. you can understand that right?

[Magnus]

i'm a big guy myself. and when i was younger i was much like you, into bulk. but i noticed something. the bigger i got the stronger i got in the gym, but it doesn't necessarily carry over to functional strength. like say if i was hanging off a cliff or something, could i be able to pull myself up and onto the land? or be able to carry something relatively heavy a long distance, like if i were hunting in the wilderness and had to carry out a deer i killed or something.

so now, i try to focus i being real world strong. when i was into bulk, i was 350lbs. and in recent years i've went down to 287lbs, now i'm at a around 310lbs. for some people, being strong AND mobile is being strong. i understand for you it's simply an ego thing, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if ever stock exchange crashes or something drastic happens, i want to be ready to do whatever i have to, to survive. you can understand that right?

Right. But I don't ever plan on hanging off the edge of a cliff(even if I did, and if I fell, I'll sure as heck look good on the way down ) And, if stock exchange crashes, is my back yard going to turn into the Badlands? C'mon, let's be realistic, THAT'S a bit much Regardless of what you think is "realistically strong", no matter how you slice it, stronger is stronger. Guy A benches 350lb and weighs 300lb, Guy B benches 250 and weighs 200, Guy A is stronger regardless of the fact that he is benching a smaller % of his bw, and can probably do pull-ups better. I DO, however, plan on impressing some people with impressive lifts and size, so that's what I'm aiming for. And maybe a Corvette or 3 along the way So please, let's DO be realistic here

[Pancake Sprawl]

i'm a big guy myself. and when i was younger i was much like you, into bulk. but i noticed something. the bigger i got the stronger i got in the gym, but it doesn't necessarily carry over to functional strength. like say if i was hanging off a cliff or something, could i be able to pull myself up and onto the land? or be able to carry something relatively heavy a long distance, like if i were hunting in the wilderness and had to carry out a deer i killed or something.

so now, i try to focus i being real world strong. when i was into bulk, i was 350lbs. and in recent years i've went down to 287lbs, now i'm at a around 310lbs. for some people, being strong AND mobile is being strong. i understand for you it's simply an ego thing, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if ever stock exchange crashes or something drastic happens, i want to be ready to do whatever i have to, to survive. you can understand that right?

Right. But I don't ever plan on hanging off the edge of a cliff(even if I did, and if I fell, I'll sure as heck look good on the way down ) And, if stock exchange crashes, is my back yard going to turn into the Badlands? C'mon, let's be realistic, THAT'S a bit much Regardless of what you think is "realistically strong", no matter how you slice it, stronger is stronger. Guy A benches 350lb and weighs 300lb, Guy B benches 250 and weighs 200, Guy A is stronger regardless of the fact that he is benching a smaller % of his bw, and can probably do pull-ups better. I DO, however, plan on impressing some people with impressive lifts and size, so that's what I'm aiming for. And maybe a Corvette or 3 along the way So please, let's DO be realistic here

but that's the thing, you don't know what tomorrow brings. the pull ups is directly related to how much you weigh, therefore people who are lighter are of course going to do better, but someone like Tex who is 6'8 and 400lbs doing 15 reps on a pull up bar is INCREDIBLE. now show me any other 300lb'ers or 400lb'ers that can do that. sure, they might be able to lift as much as he does on a bar, but bring them to a pull up bar and only a few if even that can bang out 15 reps at 400lbs.

also, it's not hanging off a cliff, that's just an example, what if you fall off the side of a building, hanging off a ferris wheel or something. all these things are very much realistic to me because i hunt and casually hike in mountains, i like riding roller coasters, and i do go into buildings. everything "is a bit much" when you think about it, but that doesn't stop it from happening. you tell everyone in this world that they will die tomorrow, and a lot will laugh and tell you "that's a bit much" but for a lot of us, it's going to happen. most people don't expect to die tomorrow but eventually, you will.

so is it realistic for you to think you're going to actually put up impressive lifts? and impressive is subjective, if you're small then impressive is different. but if you're the same size as Magnus Samuelssen, then impressive is not impressive unless you equal or beat his lift, or show promise. Bob Sapp is 6'5 and 400lbs with 5% body fat, he is impressive to look at, very huge, but he's not much of a fighter.

some people will never close the #4, should they just stop training because it's "unrealistic"? NO. because they don't know until they try.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Pancake Sprawl

[Magnus]

i'm a big guy myself. and when i was younger i was much like you, into bulk. but i noticed something. the bigger i got the stronger i got in the gym, but it doesn't necessarily carry over to functional strength. like say if i was hanging off a cliff or something, could i be able to pull myself up and onto the land? or be able to carry something relatively heavy a long distance, like if i were hunting in the wilderness and had to carry out a deer i killed or something.

so now, i try to focus i being real world strong. when i was into bulk, i was 350lbs. and in recent years i've went down to 287lbs, now i'm at a around 310lbs. for some people, being strong AND mobile is being strong. i understand for you it's simply an ego thing, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if ever stock exchange crashes or something drastic happens, i want to be ready to do whatever i have to, to survive. you can understand that right?

Right. But I don't ever plan on hanging off the edge of a cliff(even if I did, and if I fell, I'll sure as heck look good on the way down ) And, if stock exchange crashes, is my back yard going to turn into the Badlands? C'mon, let's be realistic, THAT'S a bit much Regardless of what you think is "realistically strong", no matter how you slice it, stronger is stronger. Guy A benches 350lb and weighs 300lb, Guy B benches 250 and weighs 200, Guy A is stronger regardless of the fact that he is benching a smaller % of his bw, and can probably do pull-ups better. I DO, however, plan on impressing some people with impressive lifts and size, so that's what I'm aiming for. And maybe a Corvette or 3 along the way So please, let's DO be realistic here

but that's the thing, you don't know what tomorrow brings. the pull ups is directly related to how much you weigh, therefore people who are lighter are of course going to do better, but someone like Tex who is 6'8 and 400lbs doing 15 reps on a pull up bar is INCREDIBLE. now show me any other 300lb'ers or 400lb'ers that can do that. sure, they might be able to lift as much as he does on a bar, but bring them to a pull up bar and only a few if even that can bang out 15 reps at 400lbs.

also, it's not hanging off a cliff, that's just an example, what if you fall off the side of a building, hanging off a ferris wheel or something. all these things are very much realistic to me because i hunt and casually hike in mountains, i like riding roller coasters, and i do go into buildings. everything "is a bit much" when you think about it, but that doesn't stop it from happening. you tell everyone in this world that they will die tomorrow, and a lot will laugh and tell you "that's a bit much" but for a lot of us, it's going to happen. most people don't expect to die tomorrow but eventually, you will.

so is it realistic for you to think you're going to actually put up impressive lifts? and impressive is subjective, if you're small then impressive is different. but if you're the same size as Magnus Samuelssen, then impressive is not impressive unless you equal or beat his lift, or show promise. Bob Sapp is 6'5 and 400lbs with 5% body fat, he is impressive to look at, very huge, but he's not much of a fighter.

some people will never close the #4, should they just stop training because it's "unrealistic"? NO. because they don't know until they try.

Oh, great. Not only do I have to worry about cliffs, but now I've got to worry about buildings and ferris wheels. Oh, wait, I train my grip, so even if I couldn't do 15reps of pull-ups before saving myself, I could hang there for hours, thanks to Captains of Crush! Now, what if somebody was in an accident, and was pinned under a car? Who would you rather have help you? A big bulky guy who could deadlift 800lb, and couldn't roll the car off you and therefore save your life. or the agile guy who can pull himself up from the side of the building, but could dl 400lb to save his life? Really, man, I understand what you mean. We aren't guaranteed everything about tomorrow. But think about this(true story, btw): a few years back, our minivan burned down in the driveway from a short in a faulty alternator clip. We were woken up at 3 in the morning by the paperboy ringing the doorbell, and then saw our car going up in an inferno. Almost burned our house and the garage down. What would've helped then? Pull-ups? No. A big bulky guy walking around the neighbor-hood with a 800lb barbell across his shoulders? No. The fact is, we're foolish to think we have any control over everything and anything that can happen in our lives, so what's the point? Should I drop the training, and study firefighting now? Or, should I study electrical engineering and spend hours a day checking vehicles electrical systems ensuring that they won't catch on fire? The point is, this is ridiculous.

What if the bulky guy's hanging off a ferris wheel? What if the agile guy is pinned under something heavy? This is absolutely pointless already. The fact is, if you're honest with yourself, the only reason we do what we do is because we all have different ideas on what we think is cool. I think having a 50in chest and 20in biceps is the best route to "cool", and you think being agile and wiry is the the best kind of "cool". We each do what we like, and realistically, none of the aforementioned things will ever happen, and if they do, Murphy's law says it'll the bulky guy that's caught hanging off the cliff, or the skinny guy found pinned down under something heavy. Can you see what I mean yet? Do you see my point?

PS, if you want, I'll add some pics of the fire in my gallery. It's pretty cool...kinda.

And Btw, am I the only one who thinks this is getting just a wee-bit off-topic?

Edited May 11, 2008 by Magnus

[Magnus]

Oh, great. Not only do I have to worry about cliffs, but now I've got to worry about buildings and ferris wheels. Oh, wait, I train my grip, so even if I couldn't do 15reps of pull-ups before saving myself, I could hang there for hours, thanks to Captains of Crush! Now, what if somebody was in an accident, and was pinned under a car? Who would you rather have help you? A big bulky guy who could deadlift 800lb, and could roll the car off you and therefore save your life. or the agile guy who can pull himself up from the side of the building, but couldn't dl 400lb to save his life? Really, man, I understand what you mean. We aren't guaranteed everything about tomorrow. But think about this(true story, btw): a few years back, our minivan burned down in the driveway from a short in a faulty alternator clip. We were woken up at 3 in the morning by the paperboy ringing the doorbell, and then saw our car going up in an inferno. Almost burned our house and the garage down. What would've helped then? Pull-ups? No. A big bulky guy walking around the neighbor-hood with a 800lb barbell across his shoulders? No. The fact is, we're foolish to think we have any control over everything and anything that can happen in our lives, so what's the point? Should I drop the training, and study firefighting now? Or, should I study electrical engineering and spend hours a day checking vehicles electrical systems ensuring that they won't catch on fire? The point is, this is ridiculous.

What if the bulky guy's hanging off a ferris wheel? What if the agile guy is pinned under something heavy? This is absolutely pointless already. The fact is, if you're honest with yourself, the only reason we do what we do is because we all have different ideas on what we think is cool. I think having a 50in chest and 20in biceps is the best route to "cool", and you think being agile and wiry is the the best kind of "cool". We each do what we like, and realistically, none of the aforementioned things will ever happen, and if they do, Murphy's law says it'll the bulky guy that's caught hanging off the cliff, or the skinny guy found pinned down under something heavy. Can you see what I mean yet? Do you see my point?

PS, if you want, I'll add some pics of the fire in my gallery. It's pretty cool...kinda.

And Btw, am I the only one who thinks this is getting just a wee-bit off-topic?

EDIT: An 800lb guy that COULD roll the car off you and an agile guy who COULDN'T dl 400lb to save his life

Edited May 11, 2008 by Magnus