Fighters bench press

[Eater of Souls]

Yep. An exaggerated arch is never ideal, but it is worlds better than a flat back bench press. In this sense, it's ALWAYS better to be closer on that end, then no arch and risking shoulder/pec tears.

Of course. Simple matter of physics and physiology. And studies support the lower injury rate of powerlifters. Note that this got ignored by someone?

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

Cause i said (reffering to the video) that the arch is too excessive and doesn't create any functional strenght if you bench like that.
Simple question if i put 225 up with a flat back and.you need a overexagerated arch to do so, whos stronger?
If i build my bench up to 325 with a flat back and.you need an excessive arch whos stronger?
A slight arch is okay, already said this 20 times, jon jones has a slight arch, Arnold used a slight arch, im reffering to the vid of the girl "benching" many people "bench" like that

Oh. I didn't watch that video, nor was I refering to it. It seems you've categorized that as THE powerlifting style benchpress which is wrong and misinformed. That's the bodybuilding equivalent of a guy half repping.

Who's stronger? The one without the arch, but the guy benching with a flat back won't be benching for very long, which is why the arch is necessary and so vital. It's for health reasons, not strength.

The whole point of it is, it's the safest form that allows you to lift the most amount of weight.

 

[Eater of Souls]

Cause i said (reffering to the video) that the arch is too excessive and doesn't create any functional strenght if you bench like that.

No matter how many times you say this, you will still be wrong. Note that I gave examples, and, of course, instead of actually responding to them, you resort to name calling.

Even training with an arch, a powerlifter will get stronger on other pressing movements, even those not practiced. Unfortunately, this contrasts with you spamming "functional" but that is actually what happens.

Go look up some actual powerlifting gyms. This has been both discussed and shown extensively. I suppose you will ignore it as well because you disagree with it, even though you are wrong.

 

[Exemplar]

Bench Press is an incredibly useless exercise for MMA so I doubt a lot of fighters do it

When is it a useful exercise other than the purpose of meatheads one-uping each other. Half end up with multiple shoulder surgeries by the time the reach 40 years old. Stupid roosters.

 

[Eater of Souls]

So you're shorting the rom and creating less functional strength?
Next time you're on the mat ask if you can arch your back and get into pressing postion before he trys to pin you.

You keep saying "functional strength" and ignoring why it is wrong.

Try again. Respond to my examples of functional strength, please. I doubt that you will, because they all show you are incorrect. The easiest would probably be the squat example.

If you lack the intellectual honesty to address points raised, why are you involved in a discussion?

 

[jimmylmao]

Actually, the chest is one of the few muscle groups that prohibits power for your punches. You won't see any high level mma fighters brag on about their bench as it is very useless.

The clean and snatch however, is a very good indicator of explosiveness/power as it utilizes all the muscle groups that create power(hips,legs, traps, lats and shoulders). Not very surprising because those two lifts require everything a true athlete needs. (agility, flexibility, power and strength)

 

[Eater of Souls]

Wrong, the bench includes the biceps for stabilization, the lats during the negative of a bench press.
So we have delts, biceps, chest, back.. That's every upperbody muscle group smashed into one compound excercise.
Powerlifting bench press bullshit aside,.when you keep your ass flat on the bench its a great measure of upperbody strength.

I pointed out how this is wrong, and linked to a study. Do you care to comment?

Flat back is the real bench imo, a slight arch is okay, however you look like the chick in that video you're not working any functional strength.
If anything you're going to tear a pec by grabbing the bar super wide and arching your back to a extreme so you have less room to press but your stressing your joints far more.

I referenced a study that showed you were wrong here as well. Do you care to comment?

If you keep a flat back or with a minimal arch and bench at shoulder width apart, you build functional strength that can actually translate to mma or wrestling.

I have continually pointed out how your use of the term functional is wrong. Do you care to comment?

You wont find any fighters benching like powerlifters, because the goal is functional strength not putting up the most weight.

I gave examples of fighters who do. Do you care to comment?

 

[Eater of Souls]

Actually, the chest is one of the few muscle groups that prohibits power for your punches. You won't see any high level mma fighters brag on about their bench as it is very useless.

The clean and snatch however, is a very good indicator of explosiveness/power as it utilizes all the muscle groups that create power(hips,legs, traps, lats and shoulders). Not very surprising because those two lifts require everything a true athlete needs. (agility, flexibility, power and strength)

I agree that they are superior lifts. Particularly the extension of the hips.

 

[PivotPunch]

So you're shorting the rom and creating less functional strength?
Next time you're on the mat ask if you can arch your back and get into pressing postion before he trys to pin you.

This makes no sense. As long as you work at a high enough % and use the muscle you wanna train you get stronger. if you arch and use the same weight you use when you odon't arch yes then it's worse to build strength but if you raise the weight then it's just benching optimally in a way that allwos you to move the most weight without injury and you still get stronger.
basically if you arch your non arch bench will also get higher but with a (healthy) arch you have a smaller chance of injury

 

[Eater of Souls]

This makes no sense. As long as you work at a high enough % and use the muscle you wanna train you get stronger. if you arch and use the same weight you use when you odon't arch yes then it's worse to build strength but if you raise the weight then it's just benching optimally in a way that allwos you to move the most weight without injury and you still get stronger.
basically if you arch your non arch bench will also get higher but with a (healthy) arch you have a smaller chance of injury

Have you read his posts? He continues to make no sense.

 

[Jawbox01]

Deep question: If world class benchers train UFC, could they be champ?

 

[usernamee]

Why are people so obsessed with bench press? So stupid. Ive heard this all my life. How much you bench bro, how much you bench bro?? Like who gives a shit? Why is there not as much hype around how much you can curl or deadlift or any other exercise? Its not even a good measure of total functional strength. Its only a measurement of the strength of your pecs, triceps and delts in that specific and extremely limited range of motion. Absolutely no reason for the hype.

Do u even lift, bro?

 

[shortlefthook]

girl b

girl A

If they both max 225, girl b has more functional strength.
She doesn't need an excessive arch to put that weight up, her strength will transfer over to the mat more.

Its like arguing that half squats are more beneficial than atg squats, minimal arch means more rom, more arch less rom, less functional strength.
Functional strength means you're strong in all different patterns of movement and rom, when you're only strong at benching with an excessive arch you are stuck in a fixed pattern strenght which isn't as functional.
You can cry all day you're still not right.

You keep saying "functional strength" and ignoring why it is wrong.

Try again. Respond to my examples of functional strength, please. I doubt that you will, because they all show you are incorrect. The easiest would probably be the squat example.

If you lack the intellectual honesty to address points raised, why are you involved in a discussion?

 

[mikehunt]

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

Explosive type lifts like the C&S are great, but they're not a good comparison for the bench press, and what it can offer

Clean and press does not replace the breadmakers that are the squat and deadlift... You need the base strength to get the most out of an explosive lift like the clean and snatch. Bench press is in the same manner, it's a base strength builder for the upper body... Combine it with overhead presses and weighted pull ups/chin ups, and that's all you really need.

Squat, deadlift, bench, OHP, weighted chinups/pullups

Can switch weighted dips in there for bench too

Then apply the plyometric/explosive type exercises that focus on speed of force production

Strength + speed = power

Then you have other things like power to weight ratio, which is contigent on your weight class, body composition, etc

 

[ABSthetics]

Benching is seriously one of the most overrated memes ever.

 

[giancaakos54]

Why are people so obsessed with bench press? So stupid. Ive heard this all my life. How much you bench bro, how much you bench bro?? Like who gives a shit? Why is there not as much hype around how much you can curl or deadlift or any other exercise? Its not even a good measure of total functional strength. Its only a measurement of the strength of your pecs, triceps and delts in that specific and extremely limited range of motion. Absolutely no reason for the hype.

Because literally everyone that has EVER lifted does bench press. Every. Single. Person.

Unless they have no arms...

 

[catsforsale]

About tree fiddy

 

[Eater of Souls]

girl b
girl A

If they both max 225, girl b has more functional strength.

No, they both are bench pressing 225. Again, refer to my squat example.

She doesn't need an excessive arch to put that weight up, her strength will transfer over to the mat more.

Prove it. Support it with an actual reference.

Its like arguing that half squats are more beneficial than atg squats, minimal arch means more rom, more arch less rom, less functional strength.

No one has said that. Refer to my actual squat example. You fail to understand that people with different leverages will have different strength curves.

Functional strength means you're strong in all different patterns of movement and rom,

No, that it is not what it means. One of the many things you are wrong about and keep ignoring. Furthermore, you ignored my posting that many powerlifters who bench with an arch get stronger in other pressing movements - and do so with less injuries (and I support this with actual references and studies)

when you're only strong at benching with an excessive arch you are stuck in a fixed pattern strenght which isn't as functional.

Except powerlifters who arch are not stuck in a fixed pattern, no matter how much you wish to lie and say this.

You can cry all day you're still not right.

If by crying, you mean point out how you are wrong, support my points with references and studies, and still wait for you to actually back up your statements with anything other than horse shit, yes, I guess I was crying.

Are you trolling me?

 

[jimmylmao]

Because literally everyone that has EVER lifted does bench press. Every. Single. Person.

Unless they have no arms...

Except for weightlifters. Benching shortens and tightens the shoulder muscles and that severely limits putting anything over 300 pounds+ over your head.