|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
 
Point in case: Show me a tall slender Olympic weight-lifter gold medalist.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
 (03-30-2018, 01:54 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Nope @Pckts Jj is talented and smart fighter and thats not mean he more strong than cormier machida and belford Jones has higher fight IQ but he is also much stronger than Machida and possibly Belfort, at least. Cormier has similar strength. Capable of deadlifting 600-pounds and also has "underhook" leverage from his height which allows him to stop takedowns from similarly-strong Cormier. This is the same reason why Sylvia had such good takedown defense too, his leverage. Many heavyweights who trained with him and Chael stated that even for his twig-looking body, he was as strong as a heavyweight. @Pckts was right when he said this is comparing oranges to apples.  (03-30-2018, 03:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Point in case: Show me a tall slender Olympic weight-lifter gold medalist. So now we’re comparing one of the strongest humans on earth to a random tall/slender man? What happened to a short stocky man to a tall slender man at the same weight? Btw, the mountain and Brian Shaw are 6’8” and Most strongest men competitors are 6’3 and above... but I assume you didn’t want to use them because it would not back your point. You also don’t realize that Being tall means that you’re pulling weight higher, starting from a lower position bending in more extreme angles & that makes it much more difficult for them to compete on the same playing field, it’s why usually taller men can perform the deadlift better than the squat. Unless you actually do any of these sports on a regular basis you won’t know what I’m talking about, no offense. (03-30-2018, 04:30 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: @Polar nope JJ not so strong in muscle he have more technique fast kick and punch he is stand up fighter Jones pulled a 600lb deadlift, that is a very strong man and I’d venture to say that very few 205’ers can pull that weight, don’t underestimate his strength. Also realize what your prerequisite is for “strength”.. Is it weight lifting strong, grip strength, core strength, grappling strength, etc. You can’t classify strength in one field.
But you talk about fight you not talk about weight training
And where data of cormier belfort about weight training too (03-30-2018, 07:36 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: But you talk about fight you not talk about weight training First I used fighting to compare strength, you mentioned that fighting is technique, which is correct but when both men are comparable in skills, strength plays a large role. So to eliminate the technical aspect, I mentioned JJ being able to deadlift 600lbs. Trust me on this, very few fighters can deadlift 600lbs, especially at lhw. (03-30-2018, 07:47 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Check Cormier too bro @Pckts and I both have actually did powerlifting and MMA so we both know what we are talking about, now I don't know about you but from your posts you seem to not know much about or probably haven't practiced the two sports. So your responses hold less leverage in that regard. Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve. That's all. (03-31-2018, 12:40 AM)Polar Wrote:(03-30-2018, 07:47 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Check Cormier too bro Agreed, I wasn't even discussing it in a Bear v Tiger perspective, because I certainly would not put a Tiger in the "lean and tall" category, they are very robust and stocky animals, not as much as a Bear but they certainly aren't thin by any stretch.
Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve.
Not so sure about pound-for-pound. There is a big difference between size-parity and weight-parity. At weight-parity, a tiger has a significant height and length advantage. At height/length parity, the grizzly would have a huge weight advantage. For true size-parity, the tiger would have some advantage in height and length while the bear is some heavier. I agree with Pckts that comparing a tiger with a tall slender man is off base. But the tiger ( at weight-parity ) is longer and leaner than the grizzly. Point I was trying to make; there is much more involved in strength than merely muscle-mass. (03-31-2018, 02:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve. At weight parity wouldn't a Grizzly still be taller at the shoulder and fairly close in HBL? 250KG Tiger or Grizzly is full grown for some males. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |