BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 You underestimate what the human body is capable of. If you've ever spent time in a gym setting, "~90%+ people" can easily attain a 3/4/5 total in just a couple of years. 500 squat after a few more years. The problem here is the definition of athleticism everyone is using. You are equating someone's ability to lift weights and run in a straight line with athleticism. This is where we are all differing from you. I will however concede that if a person who naturally runs a 4.5 and benches, squats and dead lifts the same as someone who trained for those numbers, that they both are as fast for 40 yards (coming out of blocks) and lifting for those three lifts. That in an of itself does not equate to athleticism, that equates to 40 yards and a few lifts. Athleticism has too many variables to be quantified by a short sprint and a couple olympic lifts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Training for it IS the process of learning to do it. God almighty. You've got to be kidding me. You can't learn to run fast. I'm not talking about working on your 40 technique, I'm talking about being able to produce more power. P=MAD/T Mass x acceleration (for all intents and purposes, we use 9.81m/s2 [gravity]) x distance / time Strength is not a skill. Speed is not a skill. Improving your skills can aid you in improving your speed and strength, but speed and strength themselves are not skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The problem here is the definition of athleticism everyone is using. You are equating someone's ability to lift weights and run in a straight line with athleticism. This is where we are all differing from you. I will however concede that if a person who naturally runs a 4.5 and benches, squats and dead lifts the same as someone who trained for those numbers, that they both are as fast for 40 yards (coming out of blocks) and lifting for those three lifts. That in an of itself does not equate to athleticism, that equates to 40 yards and a few lifts. Athleticism has too many variables to be quantified by a short sprint and a couple olympic lifts. Well, obviously we're going off of the traditional "definition" of athleticism. It's really the only way to define it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 P=MAD/T I give you the money, you give me the donut. End of transaction. There is no need to go bringing equations into this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Considering you can't even recruit all of your muscle fibers at once, your fast-to-slow ratio isn't as important as people think. Becoming more explosive is more about CNS adaptation than anything. Someone who is "not fluid in the hips" can work on that with proper training. I don't see why people are getting butthurt about my comments. I'm simply saying that any able-bodied person can become just as athletic as the average NFL player. Obviously, everyone can't run a 4.3. To set the record straight, you said something about training in spite of athleticism. It didn't make sense, and I posted a mild-mannered response to it - to which you immediately got obnoxious, and you've carried that obnoxiousness throughout each response. Nobody is butthurt (except you) and nobody is being nearly as obnoxious as you are. And you aren't "just saying" anything... you said something completely the opposite a page or two ago, while telling everyone else they were wrong, and now you've come full circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 To set the record straight, you said something about training in spite of athleticism. It didn't make sense, and I posted a mild-mannered response to it - to which you immediately got obnoxious, and you've carried that obnoxiousness throughout each response. Nobody is butthurt (except you) and nobody is being nearly as obnoxious as you are. And you aren't "just saying" anything... you said something completely the opposite a page or two ago, while telling everyone else they were wrong, and now you've come full circle. I said that many pro athletes are athletic in spite of their training. That does not contradict what I said at all. I acknowledge the fact that many NFL players have natural athleticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Considering you can't even recruit all of your muscle fibers at once, your fast-to-slow ratio isn't as important as people think. Becoming more explosive is more about CNS adaptation than anything. Someone who is "not fluid in the hips" can work on that with proper training. I don't see why people are getting butthurt about my comments. I'm simply saying that any able-bodied person can become just as athletic as the average NFL player. Obviously, everyone can't run a 4.3. Actually, it really is. I'm well aware the percentage of muscle fibers recruited, it's what power-lifting is based off of, that doesn't negate the fast:slow twitch fiber ratio. I'm not arguing this any more. While the human body is capable of achieving great feats, the type of training that the average human would need to equal an Antonio Cromartie, is akin to saying any human being can sing like Marvin Gaye with the same level of training. While there are plenty of people who believe that, it's so improbable that it might as well be impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Actually, it really is. I'm well aware the percentage of muscle fibers recruited, it's what power-lifting is based off of, that doesn't negate the fast:slow twitch fiber ratio. I'm not arguing this any more. While the human body is capable of achieving great feats, the type of training that the average human would need to equal an Antonio Cromartie, is akin to saying any human being can sing like Marvin Gaye with the same level of training. While there are plenty of people who believe that, it's so improbable that it might as well be impossible. 1. I never said it was negated. Obviously it is important. But it's not the end-all-be-all. Someone with a lower % of fast-twitch fibers can still become athletic. 2. I never said anyone could become as athletic as Cromartie. I said a 4.5 flat. Cro ran a 4.47 and had a 38" vert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 You can't learn to run fast. I'm not talking about working on your 40 technique, I'm talking about being able to produce more power. P=MAD/T Mass x acceleration (for all intents and purposes, we use 9.81m/s2 [gravity]) x distance / time Strength is not a skill. Speed is not a skill. Improving your skills can aid you in improving your speed and strength, but speed and strength themselves are not skills. 9.81m/s2? Am I measuring my 40 time running in a straight line or falling off a building? I could definitely get a good time jumping off a building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 9.81m/s2? Am I measuring my 40 time running in a straight line or falling off a building? I could definitely get a good time jumping off a building That's what you use for the formula. Unless you're not measuring on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 You can't learn to run fast. I'm not talking about working on your 40 technique, I'm talking about being able to produce more power. P=MAD/T Mass x acceleration (for all intents and purposes, we use 9.81m/s2 [gravity]) x distance / time Strength is not a skill. Speed is not a skill. Improving your skills can aid you in improving your speed and strength, but speed and strength themselves are not skills. You're entire premise is that people can train to be as fast and strong as the average NFL athlete, yet now you're saying you can't learn to run fast? That's gotta be a typo no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 You're entire premise is that people can train to be as fast and strong as the average NFL athlete, yet now you're saying you can't learn to run fast? That's gotta be a typo no? No, you can't learn to run fast. Running fast is not a skill. Running a fast 40 is because a lot of technique. But how fast you are ABLE to run is not a skill. Now, obviously technique will help you realize your true speed, but working on technique will not improve your top speed. Speed is simply how fast you are able to perform a movement. You cannot learn to do that. You have to train for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 to summarize The difference between a professional athlete and a guy who attends open gym once a week is working out and diet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 That's what you use for the formula. Unless you're not measuring on Earth. I haven't taken physics in a very long time but I'm pretty sure gravity is already accounted for in my mass on earth and I'm running a straight line, 9.81m/s2 is the velocity used when measuring something in free fall. Like your argument in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 That's what you use for the formula. Unless you're not measuring on Earth. I suggest you go reread that physics book of yours, because this isn't even marginally accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 No, you can't learn to run fast. Running fast is not a skill. Running a fast 40 is because a lot of technique. But how fast you are ABLE to run is not a skill. Now, obviously technique will help you realize your true speed, but working on technique will not improve your top speed. Speed is simply how fast you are able to perform a movement. You cannot learn to do that. You have to train for it. By learning I obviously wasn't referring to reading a book and then dropping two tenths off my 100meter time. I think you are a bit in over your head here. You should sit a couple out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, of course. No one is denying that. I will never be Jadaveon Clowney, but I can definitely become just as athletic, or more athletic, than Gholston, for example. Genetics do have their limit, but let's not act like you can't train your way to a 4.5 flat. Gotta back up my man here. Between my junior and senior years of high school, I dropped my 40 time from a 4.67 to 4.39 using plyometrics and Strength Shoes. Increased my vert from 27" to 44". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 By learning I obviously wasn't referring to reading a book and then dropping two tenths off my 100meter time. I think you are a bit in over your head here. You should sit a couple out. BRO DO YOU EVEN RECRUIT YOUR MUSCLE FIBERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, that was a mistake. 9.81m/s2 is for objects in free-fall. That doesn't make everything else I said wrong. Fallacy fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Gotta back up my man here. Between my junior and senior years of high school, I dropped my 40 time from a 4.67 to 4.39 using plyometrics and Strength Shoes. Increased my vert from 27" to 44". Eastbay used to hawk the sh*t out of those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 who was the guy in the jets gear helping the o-line drills ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Gotta back up my man here. Between my junior and senior years of high school, I dropped my 40 time from a 4.67 to 4.39 using plyometrics and Strength Shoes. Increased my vert from 27" to 44". Too much nerd work, not enough training Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, that was a mistake. 9.81m/s2 is for objects in free-fall. That doesn't make everything else I said wrong. Fallacy fallacy. If you're going to google and paste things you don't understand, how can I trust you are a gym teacher in training at all? You could be getting all this information off retardopedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 1. I never said it was negated. Obviously it is important. But it's not the end-all-be-all. Someone with a lower % of fast-twitch fibers can still become athletic. 2. I never said anyone could become as athletic as Cromartie. I said a 4.5 flat. Cro ran a 4.47 and had a 38" vert. Oh, well in that case. You've got to be kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Anyways, my original post was saying that anyone can train to run a 4.5 and squat 500. If you don't believe me, train and diet seriously for 8 years (4 HS, 4 college) and report back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If you're going to google and paste things you don't understand, how can I trust you are a gym teacher in training at all? You could be getting all this information off retardopedia Actually, Googling it would have given me change in work over change in time. Also, just because I made one poorly-put-together argument does not make it false. Fallacy fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor99 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 None of the combine events mean anything. All I care about is how well they play on the field. Athleticism can be improved. If someone can play well with bad athleticism, just imagine what they can do once they improve theirs. I don't care unless they're lifting weights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I said that many pro athletes are athletic in spite of their training. That does not contradict what I said at all. I acknowledge the fact that many NFL players have natural athleticism. It does indeed contradict it. If an athlete is athletic in spite of training (as you said), then that implies that the source of their athletic ability came from somewhere OTHER than training. Everyone here is assuming you meant "natural ability", myself included. However, you've since argued that athleticism is the result of training. Which in fact contradicts your initial meaning of athleticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 It does indeed contradict it. If an athlete is athletic in spite of training (as you said), then that implies that the source of their athletic ability came from somewhere OTHER than training. Everyone here is assuming you meant "natural ability", myself included. However, you've since argued that athleticism is the result of training. Which in fact contradicts your initial meaning of athleticism. Nope. I said that could improve your athleticism with training. I also said that you can be naturally athletic. I didn't contradict myself at all and both statements are 100% fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Anyways, my original post was saying that anyone can train to run a 4.5 and squat 500. If you don't believe me, train and diet seriously for 8 years (4 HS, 4 college) and report back. Nevermind the fact I've already explained that squatting 500 lbs will never happen for me. I'll just report back to you now, rather than waiting until my late 40's. You are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayNoToDMC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Actually, Googling it would have given me change in work over change in time. Also, just because I made one poorly-put-together argument does not make it false. Fallacy fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Nope. I said that could improve your athleticism with training. I also said that you can be naturally athletic. I didn't contradict myself at all and both statements are 100% fact. No, you clearly said "athletic in spite of training". Do you know what "in spite of" means? Like "you said both statements are 100% fact, in spite of them being your opinions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Nevermind the fact I've already explained that squatting 500 lbs will never happen for me. I'll just report back to you now, rather than waiting until my late 40's. You are wrong. I am not wrong. You took my statement to extremes. It was obvious that I was referring to able-bodied individuals, and I have since clarified that. Your strawman argument won't work (it became a strawman after I clarified and you still insisted that I meant ALL people, regardless of condition, could do those things). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Gotta back up my man here. Between my junior and senior years of high school, I dropped my 40 time from a 4.67 to 4.39 using plyometrics and Strength Shoes. Increased my vert from 27" to 44". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehFalcon63 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 No, you clearly said "athletic in spite of training". Do you know what "in spite of" means? Like "you said both statements are 100% fact, in spite of them being your opinions". Yes, I did say that. Many players are athletic in spite of their poor training routines. Where did I contradict myself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.