The thread title is referrng to bOdybuilders, not strengh training, I would rate bb'ers by size, small & fat = novice, big & lean = advanced.
Posted via Mobile Device
I agree completely... strength stats are irrelevant for bodybuilders
The thread title is referrng to bOdybuilders, not strengh training, I would rate bb'ers by size, small & fat = novice, big & lean = advanced.
Posted via Mobile Device
Well it's a stupid thread title then, in the wrong forum.
Posted via Mobile Device
I agree completely... strength stats are irrelevant for bodybuilders
Moron.
Posted via Mobile Device
Oh that's right, I forgot that they set up a bench press at bodybuilding comps to see who the winner is..
weight lifted is definitely important... you need to lift to get big. The question was: "How can we determine whether a trainee is beginner, intermediate or advanced" In bodybuilding you are judged on physique, not how you got there, or how much you can lift. I never said that "how much you could lift" wasn't important, I said that the actual "strength stats" don't determine how elite they are.
It's a stupid thread.
The only test a lifter needs to pass is the test of time.
Forget about what the other person is doing just get your dead arse ander the phucking bar and lift like your life depends on it, because it does.
I've never read such nonsense.
Craft I believe it is because you used the term 'irrelevant' that you got the backlash. Maybe 'Strength stats are not nearly as important as overall size and development in determining bodybuilder status' would be a better statement for you.
yepz agreed .. the back/trap thickness usually gives it away.. It genuinely holds the phsyque together more than any other bodypart
You know that laughs will ensue when a thread starts like thisG'day all,
I have got a random thought in my head and its confusing me for a bit..........