Moderators: peeker643, swerb, danwismar, furls
by furls » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:48 pm
by dmiles » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:31 am
by pod2dawg » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:48 am
e0y2e3 wrote:And Simon's dad is terrifying.
by jb » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:04 am
furls wrote:Simon's dad could still beat Simon's ass.That said, there was another tOSU player that broke all the weightroom records a couple of years ago (bout 5 years ago actually). To my knowledge, he still holds the bench record at 630. His name..... Mike Kudla.Kudla turned heads at the combine with his 45 (ish) 225 reps (tied the record at the time) and was eerily similar to Simon in size and speed. That said, Simon is much more of a playmaker than Kudla, but they are both similar in that their size does not present a celing in the NCAA, but it is an issue in the NFL.I think Simon will have a better NFL career than Kudla (Undrafted FA by the Steelers who didn't stick) and I think his motor will allow him to overcome, but the two are very similar and it drives home the point that strength alone is not enough.
by danwismar » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:39 am
by jb » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:43 am
danwismar wrote: He pays for the selfishness and bad decisions of others.
by danwismar » Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:50 am
by pup » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:16 pm
by jb » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:39 pm
by furls » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:37 pm
by e0y2e3 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:57 pm
by e0y2e3 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:00 pm
dmiles wrote:Functionally speaking are the guys with the top bench press reps the guys who turn out to be the best players on Sunday? Has anyone ever drawn up that correlation to compare how many guys in say the top 10% on reps looking at being a sure-fire HOFer? I guess in a way you can use it to eliminate a prospect, but you certainly can't put too much value on it. Furls, I am not disagreeing with you, just conventional wisdom. Speaking from point of a dad who took hitting instruction upon his shoulders, if I'd depended "conventional wisdom" or groupthink I am certain my kids would be throwing around lacrosse balls at this point. I also get the fact that if you throw a few hundred kids into a testing cycle it's pretty hard to get too fancy in the types of activities you can test. You do have to come up with some measurable standards, where the test is easily administered and of course this is as straightforward as it gets. I've been at the assumption that moving as much weight as possible over small rep range (5 or less) is much better for an athlete that a high rep activity, but I guess this tests muscular endurance as well so you might see who doesn't peter out in the 4th quarter.
by dmiles » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:07 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:You are overlapping about six things here. Max reps is FAR more important than single rep max. That said, body type and arm length becomes an issue in figuring out just what max rep means (I maxed at 25 and it sucked) because of my long arms. Frankly, if you are going to try and use weights to figure out what is what you should just go with what someone hang cleans for a set of five.
by e0y2e3 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:15 pm
by mattvan1 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:37 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:!!! my back is ruined because of deadlifting, if you make him do it make him do it right, Bad Technique will kill him.And 5 reps is a happy medium, but max reps covers the combination of strength and endurance.IMO, cleans, lunges, etc are far... far... more important.
by e0y2e3 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:44 pm
by dmiles » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:38 pm
Return to College Sports Arena
Users browsing this forum: ybot and 1 guest