Fighters bench press

[shortlefthook]

If both people bench the same amount, they are benching the same amount.

How hard is that?

Strength has an accepted definition: 1rm.

That is it. Changing things to suit yourself for some reason changes nothing with respect to how things are actually done.

So technique plays zero factor?
They are benching the same weight under less rom, this makes them weaker point blank.
If someone squats atg 315 1 rep max and someone half squats 315 1 rep max, the atg squater is.stronger, you're litterally a moron if you can't comprehend rom

 

[Eater of Souls]

You keep saying.how you disproved what i said but cant actually disrpove anything?
Show me how that article is shit and go.

Oh, and while I am doing so, please respond to this:

shortlefthook said: ↑
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?

shortlefthook said: ↑
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?

You keep ignoring it. You do not get to do that, while crying that I need to keep showing you how something is wrong.

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

I hope most fighters can atleast bench teh 275. I would hope most lhw and he can bench tree fiddy doe.

A guy like Rumble is definitely putting up somewhere in the 350-405 region. Jon Jones put up 350 with them long arms so I have no doubts guys like Rumble and Cormier throw up similar/slightly better numbers

 

[mikehunt]

 

[Meulenhof]

Looks like she's about to break her back. What kinda crazy shit is this. Do some ppl actuallly think this is good for your body?

 

[shortlefthook]

Oh, and while I am doing so, please respond to this:

shortlefthook said: ↑
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?

shortlefthook said: ↑
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?

You keep ignoring it. You do not get to do that, while crying that I need to keep showing you how something is wrong.

Um the bench includes bicpes lats im not wrong

Un i said flat back and slight arch is okay, a overexagerated arch is not its cheating the lift the article i posted proved that.

Um tyron woodley seen benching with ct fletcher with a flat back litterally no arch.
Tank abbot barely had a arch which is classified as a slight arch, you wont see mma fighters doing low volume benching like powerlifters i cant find a post of you showing me fighters that do, so you're wrong again.

Um yea i said a slight arch will build more functional strenght goes right in line with the article that you have yet to disprove, fact its taking you so long to try and disprove it already means you haven't done it moron.

"However, if your bench press is only awesome when you arch like a contortionist and is much less with normal technique, that ability will not transfer well to other activities, either in the gym and on the field.

This is one reason why Charles Poliquin favors the close-grip bench as a measure of strength. Along with having a greater transference to what athletes do in sports, the close-grip bench press has less room for tricks like taking a super-wide grip or arching your back, both of which can embellish actual performance."
Sounds like exactly what i said.

 

[shortlefthook]

Looks like she's about to break her back. What kinda crazy shit is this. Do some ppl actuallly think this is good for your body?

Eater of souls does, he claims a bench is a bench

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

Actually, athletes usually lean to low volume style strength training, because they focus on purely strength, and with the least amount of weight/mass possible. Low reps, heavy weights/%s, and usually high frequency generally if it's in the off-season.

 

[Eater of Souls]

I have posted things twice already. How many times are you going to ignore it?

Fine, give me a minute. You remind me of why I never had children.

Ok, for starters the guy in the picture would not get his lift passed in a meet, so citing it as a powerlifting bench is pointless. It is a stupid gym-bro thing, not a PL thing.

"Risk of Injury"

Powerlifting has a lower injury rate than bodybuilding. (Hamill, BP, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research). (I previously posted this, but you have ignored it several times)

"Diminished Muscle Building"
Yes, there is a shorter ROM, but there is also a greater load used, and MHC isoforms respond to both weight as well as time under tension. Something that is conveniently ignored. Also, heavier weights increase motor unit recruitment and inter- and intra muscular coordination, which allow not only more fibers to be recruited, but recruited in a more efficient manner (Zatsiorsky, Science and Practice of Strength Training).

""Strong" on the Bench, Weak Everywhere Else"
Only if you train like a moron. Even powerlifters with a great arch use assistance work to work the weakpoints of their lift.

"This is one reason why Charles Poliquin favors the close-grip bench as a measure of strength." Poliquin has not only deferred to Simmons - who favors a wide grip - in print, he also does so at seminars that they have done together. This statement by the author is either just plain wrong or a lie.

"Arching your back will also take away some leg drive."
No, it does not, it allows for greater tension in the legs due to changes in knee and hip angle. You can also maintain more tension throughout the pelvis, which allows greater stability on the bench, which reduces the risk of injury. See multiple articles by Simmons, Nicols, etc. This is so commonly known I cannot believe anyone is arguing it. Sort of like not leaning back when pressing overhead.

"Leg Drive is Overrated Too!"

Just plain stupid as it lowers the risk of injury. That being said:

"It's good for an extra 10-20 pounds in most lifters" Has he measured most lifters? Obviously not, another bullshit statement.

"This is clearly evidenced by the amazing para-Olympic bench presser Siamand Rahman, who benched 705 pounds recently – with non-functioning legs!"

Yep, amazing guy. However, you cannot extrapolate from one guy to everybody, which is why studies where n=1 are thrown out.




There. Complete with references. Now you answer my questions.

 

[Eater of Souls]

So technique plays zero factor?

I never said that. Why do you continually lie?

They are benching the same weight under less rom, this makes them weaker point blank.

They are not. One of them is. Count much? And no it does not. It means one is doing less work.

If someone squats atg 315 1 rep max and someone half squats 315 1 rep max, the atg squater is.stronger, you're litterally a moron if you can't comprehend rom

Good thing strength does not equal ROM.

Strength is measured in 1rm. That is it.

ROM is measured differently. You are confusing the two, along with everything else. See my analogy between the high bar and low bar squat. I even used myself as an example.

Oh, wait, I have never lifted, according to you, because, well, it would upset you, I guess.

 

[shortlefthook]

Ok, for starters the guy in the picture would not get his lift passed in a meet, so citing it as a powerlifting bench is pointless. It is a stupid gym-bro thing, not a PL thing.

"Risk of Injury"

Powerlifting has a lower injury rate than bodybuilding. (Hamill, BP, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research). (I previously posted this, but you have ignored it several times)

"Diminished Muscle Building"
Yes, there is a shorter ROM, but there is also a greater load used, and MHC isoforms respond to both weight as well as time under tension. Something that is conveniently ignored. Also, heavier weights increase motor unit recruitment and inter- and intra muscular coordination, which allow not only more fibers to be recruited, but recruited in a more efficient manner (Zatsiorsky, Science and Practice of Strength Training).

""Strong" on the Bench, Weak Everywhere Else"
Only if you train like a moron. Even powerlifters with a great arch use assistance work to work the weakpoints of their lift.

"This is one reason why Charles Poliquin favors the close-grip bench as a measure of strength." Poliquin has not only deferred to Simmons - who favors a wide grip - in print, he also does so at seminars that they have done together. This statement by the author is either just plain wrong or a lie.

"Arching your back will also take away some leg drive."
No, it does not, it allows for greater tension in the legs due to changes in knee and hip angle. You can also maintain more tension throughout the pelvis, which allows greater stability on the bench, which reduces the risk of injury. See multiple articles by Simmons, Nicols, etc. This is so commonly known I cannot believe anyone is arguing it. Sort of like not leaning back when pressing overhead.

"Leg Drive is Overrated Too!"

Just plain stupid as it lowers the risk of injury. That being said:

"It's good for an extra 10-20 pounds in most lifters" Has he measured most lifters? Obviously not, another bullshit statement.

"This is clearly evidenced by the amazing para-Olympic bench presser Siamand Rahman, who benched 705 pounds recently – with non-functioning legs!"

Yep, amazing guy. However, you cannot extrapolate from one guy to everybody, which is why studies where n=1 are thrown out.




There. Complete with references. Now you answer my questions.

It wouldn't get passed at a meet but yet.you claim they are both just as strong you litterally said that.

 

[Eater of Souls]

Um the bench includes bicpes lats im not wrong

Less than 10% PMVIC via emg analysis. Making it not an effective exercise for those muscle groups. Studies show this. This is why no one benches to train their back.

Un i said flat back and slight arch is okay, a overexagerated arch is not its cheating the lift the article i posted proved that.

That article proves nothing. It is utter shit. Even the studies I posted do not "prove" anything. Apparently this is another word you do not know how to properly use.

Um tyron woodley seen benching with ct fletcher with a flat back litterally no arch.
Tank abbot barely had a arch which is classified as a slight arch, you wont see mma fighters doing low volume benching like powerlifters i cant find a post of you showing me fighters that do, so you're wrong again.

Look up Jones benching. Hell, he is doing a board press, straight from powerlifting. Try again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/uf...ing-April-UFC-title-fight-Daniel-Cormier.html

Um yea i said a slight arch will build more functional strenght goes right in line with the article that you have yet to disprove, fact its taking you so long to try and disprove it already means you haven't done it moron.

No matter how many times you keep saying something that is wrong, that does not make it right. A child could understand this.

"However, if your bench press is only awesome when you arch like a contortionist and is much less with normal technique, that ability will not transfer well to other activities, either in the gym and on the field.

This is one reason why Charles Poliquin favors the close-grip bench as a measure of strength. Along with having a greater transference to what athletes do in sports, the close-grip bench press has less room for tricks like taking a super-wide grip or arching your back, both of which can embellish actual performance."
Sounds like exactly what i said.[/QUOTE]

And that is just not true.

So all you can do is lie and call people names?

Great.

 

[Eater of Souls]

It wouldn't get passed at a meet but yet.you claim they are both just as strong you litterally said that.

They?

There is only one person in that picture. Can you not even count?

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

You guys are just arguing semantics at this point

 

[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.

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



Prove it. Support it with an actual reference.



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.



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)



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



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?

They there is two, you litterally say they are just as strong cause they are both bench 225 lol
Throw then both on a incline guarantee the bencher with less arch has more strength that carrys onto other lifts hence that way of benching being functional
If you half squats as much as someone atg squats you're not as strong point blank.

 

[Eater of Souls]

You guys are just arguing semantics at this point

Actually, I am not. He has made so many statements that were just plain wrong that he should be embarrassed. Then, of course, all he can do is insult me and then re-post the same mistakes.

Hell, I have posted peer-reviewed studies that show he is wrong, including the greatest study on lifting and injury ever performed, and he is not man enough to even acknowledge this.

Fuck, he does not even know the difference between functional strength and transfer of training effect.

 

[Sleepdancer]

I don't know anything about weight lifting competitions, but is arching that severely really allowed? The bar barely gets lowered.

 

[shortlefthook]

You guys are just arguing semantics at this point

No not really my point is pretty accepted as a general fact.
If you half squat what someone atg squats you're not just as strong cause the weight is the same.
Its the same thing with the arch in benching.
You take that huge arch off that 13 year old girl she couldn't bench 185, pressing 2 inches isn't the same as pressing 12 inches, simple shit.

 

[Eater of Souls]

They there is two, you litterally say they are just as strong cause they are both bench 225 lol

Because they both bench 225. Strength is measured by 1repetition maximum.

Throw then both on a incline guarantee the bencher with less arch has more strength that carrys onto other lifts hence that way of benching being functional

That is not what functional means. Like strength, you apparently do not know what it means either.

If you half squats as much as someone atg squats you're not as strong point blank.

If you grammers half as mcuh as a literate persun, peopul not understand you.

Also, a half squat is not acceptable in competition, but an arch on the bench is. A squat has an accepted definition, and a half squat does not count. Again, you cannot change definitions to suit yourself. A better analogy would be comparing the high and low bar squat. Of course, doing so properly shows you are wrong again.

Strength curves are optimized for the individual, and the leverages of the individual (along with muscle origins and insertions and numerous other factors) make bench press technique a very individual thing. You do not seem to understand this either.


Really, is there anything you do understand?

 

[Eater of Souls]

I don't know anything about weight lifting competitions, but is arching that severely really allowed? The bar barely gets lowered.

That lift would not have passed in competition, no.

What goes on during displays and shows is not always representative of powerlifting.