Muscle and Brawn Forums

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Board (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Relative Strength or Absolute Strength (http://www.muscleandbrawn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9902)

5kgLifter 05-08-2012 11:50 AM

Relative Strength or Absolute Strength
 
As the title says...though everyone likes to see huge numbers being shifted and it's always great to watch...do you prefer to gauge people by their relative strength or absolute strength? Competitions etc notwithstanding, since we know that contests are about absolute strength.


Personally, though I like to watch feats of absolute strength and take nothing away from the overall stronger lifter, I prefer to gauge people's strength by their relative strength.

Fazc 05-08-2012 12:49 PM

Relative definitely. But let me clarify that, when people talk about 'relative strength' they are usually betraying a bias which favours the smaller lifter. For me it isn't about using 'relative strength' as a justification to favour the lighter lifter but as a means to assess what I think is impressive based on bodyweight and what others are doing with similar body weights.

To me Lamar Gants close to 700lbs pull is just as impressive as KK's 900+. They're both just bull strong.

bruteforce 05-08-2012 12:54 PM

In general, absolute strength. Maybe why I prefer draft horses over those silly arabian things. However, if a significantly smaller guy lifts nearly what a huge guy does, then I might prefer the relative side of things.

BendtheBar 05-08-2012 12:56 PM

Relative strength is interesting, and I respect it, but I prefer absolute. I've been at both ends of the spectrum and they both present their own sets of challenges. Relative was much easier in my youth, but I've always chased PRs and cared little about the weight at which they occurred. I just want to be the strongest I can be.

I love watching people succeed at strength no matter what their weight. With that said, I do not like to see the accomplishments of heavier lifters diminished because of some random Wilks formula. Strong is strong, at any weight.

I'm not here to position myself as better than anyone but myself. I only want to better myself. I respect all goals. If someone wants to stay lean and set records, I hope they do.

IronManlet 05-08-2012 01:31 PM

Relative strength is more telling, to my mind.

Fazc 05-08-2012 01:36 PM

There is a definite trend here, haha! :)

BendtheBar 05-08-2012 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fazc (Post 239622)
There is a definite trend here, haha! :)

Yeah. :mh:

Where's DW? :march::march::march:

I had a higher Wilks at a bodyweight of 190, at least for squats and bench. Back then though I had to stay thin. My side job was trying to find Ms. Right...

Chillen 05-08-2012 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5kgLifter (Post 239581)
As the title says...though everyone likes to see huge numbers being shifted and it's always great to watch...do you prefer to gauge people by their relative strength or absolute strength? Competitions etc notwithstanding, since we know that contests are about absolute strength.


Personally, though I like to watch feats of absolute strength and take nothing away from the overall stronger lifter, I prefer to gauge people's strength by their relative strength.

I personally Like to watch the All-around strength sort of events, and tailor my own workouts (to a degree around this premise).

Please no one take offense to what I am about to post. This is not my intent.

For example: a powerlifter might be able to bench press 600 lbs at a body weight of 280 lbs, but maybe he can only do 4 pull ups, and couldn't run a block to save his soul. At the end of that block, all that strength means NOTHING. Because he can not breath, and is basically useless. (This assumes no cardiovascular conditioning)

However:

A 175-180 lb guy (for example) can only bench 315, but he can bust out about 30 pull ups, run 2 miles rather effortlessly. And, at the end of those two miles, his relative strength is still there and can still use it.

So let me ask you, who is really stronger? Better yet, which person’s strength would you wish to have? Sorry, but I’d rather be the smaller guy, but this is just me.

This is just Personal preference. I support all personal goals. What ever they may be.

TitanCT 05-08-2012 07:59 PM

I'd say it has to do more with goals. As a bodybuilder i could give two shits about my absolute strength, and i don't compete, either. its all about size and appearance for me. An average person will get more information from judging their relative strength and increases in strength than anything else, imo. But both relative and absolute have their place.

TitanCT 05-08-2012 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillen (Post 239760)
I personally Like to watch the All-around strength sort of events, and tailor my own workouts (to a degree around this premise).

Please no one take offense to what I am about to post. This is not my intent.

For example: a powerlifter might be able to bench press 600 lbs at a body weight of 280 lbs, but maybe he can only do 4 pull ups, and couldn't run a block to save his soul. At the end of that block, all that strength means NOTHING. Because he can not breath, and is basically useless. (This assumes no cardiovascular conditioning)

However:

A 175-180 lb guy (for example) can only bench 315, but he can bust out about 30 pull ups, run 2 miles rather effortlessly. And, at the end of those two miles, his relative strength is still there and can still use it.

So let me ask you, who is really stronger? Better yet, which personís strength would you wish to have? Sorry, but Iíd rather be the smaller guy, but this is just me.

This is just Personal preference. I support all personal goals. What ever they may be.

chillen, no hate. but im over 200lbs. i dont run. thats what cars are for. =0 )


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.