# Who is stronger?



## Freddo (Feb 22, 2009)

The guy who benches 100kg with perfect form, touching his chest with the bar, and all the way up, or the guy who benches 120 kg who does not touch his chest but come half way down?


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

No need to touch your chest when pressing mate!


----------



## stavmangr (Nov 25, 2008)

Obviously the first.Exept if the later can press 110 with perfect form....


----------



## GHS (Oct 6, 2008)

No need to touch your chest? What are you on about mate?

Obviously the 100kg lifter as the 120kg lifter isn't performing a bench press.

If we're talking a proper bench comp rules.

GHS


----------



## Freddo (Feb 22, 2009)

I think you get more movement within the chest and hit more muscle fibers if you touch your chest, or you come within an inch, im not a fan of people benching big weight, and coming halfway down.


----------



## miles2345 (Mar 26, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> No need to touch your chest when pressing mate!


guess you'd be the guy doing 120 half reps then :laugh:


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

GHS said:


> No need to touch your chest? What are you on about mate?
> 
> Obviously the 100kg lifter as the 120kg lifter isn't performing a bench press.
> 
> ...


There is no need to bring the bar all the way down to your chest,down to an L shape is perfectly visable


----------



## Jake H (Oct 31, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> There is no need to bring the bar all the way down to your chest,down to an L shape is perfectly visable


lol no because you don't get the proper stretch of the negative.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Freddo said:


> The guy who benches 100kg with perfect form, touching his chest with the bar, and all the way up, or the guy who benches 120 kg who does not touch his chest but come half way down?


Stronger where?

Pecs - more than likely the 100kg guy.

Triceps - possibly the 120kg guy.

No offence but the question has too many missing variables to answer.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Rossy Balboa said:


> No need to touch your chest when pressing mate!


Why do you (mistakenly) beleive this to be the case


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

I've recently just stopped in on a personal training seminar that my mate was attending for his personal training qualifications and they are infact telling people to stop advising a "full" rep down to the chest and just to take it to an L.....if you guys are wondering why i am coming out with this patter!


----------



## miles2345 (Mar 26, 2008)

cos he doesnttouch his chest when he benches


----------



## dmcc (Nov 25, 2007)

Rossy Balboa said:


> No need to touch your chest when pressing mate!


If you don't it won't count in comp.


----------



## Freddo (Feb 22, 2009)

why would you not touch your chest? or go an inch within it? you get more movement!


----------



## GHS (Oct 6, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> There is no need to bring the bar all the way down to your chest,down to an L shape is perfectly visable


 :lol:

Beeen to a lot of powerlifting/bench comps I take it :whistling:

GHS


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

Just advice i was going off! im not going to argue with someone who knows MUCH more than me!


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

GHS said:


> :lol:
> 
> Beeen to a lot of powerlifting/bench comps I take it :whistling:
> 
> GHS


Nope not a single one actually! But if you's are all gona b ar$e holes about it n pounce on something i was told then you's arent really being much help,just agrivating the situation!


----------



## miles2345 (Mar 26, 2008)

mate ppl are only messin but some ppl commenting here train at a pretty hi level. Not saying your mate didnt hear what you are telling us but I along with others who use benching as their fundamental chest building exercise will never agree thats all


----------



## GHS (Oct 6, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> Nope not a single one actually! But if you's are all gona b ar$e holes about it n pounce on something i was told then you's arent really being much help,just agrivating the situation!


 Nobody is pouncing on you mate but you make a statement as if its fact and its clearly wrong.

Maybe that is what personal trainers are being advised to tell clients now but this does not mean fcuk all when it comes to bench pressing.

GHS


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

I understand where you are coming from,however say you are in my situation right.....you go to a seminar where there is someone who trains people day in day out....going round the country giving new updates on training techniques and he says that...would you believe him?


----------



## miles2345 (Mar 26, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> Just advice i was going off! im not going to argue with someone who knows MUCH more than me!


could be argued you are doing it now!


----------



## GHS (Oct 6, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> I understand where you are coming from,however say you are in my situation right.....you go to a seminar where there is someone who trains people day in day out....going round the country giving new updates on training techniques and he says that...would you believe him?


 No

GHS


----------



## miles2345 (Mar 26, 2008)

i dont feel i have to be that open minded with form and stuff unless being advised by someone like stuart. On the other hand, by your own admission you clearly aren't that knowledgeable and could have done with more open-minded when considering peoples responses, just like you were when your friend told you what he heard, dont see a difference in the situation


----------



## brickhoused (Mar 12, 2008)

What is the personal trainers name and stats, I am sure if he is anyone worth knowing he would be worth mentioning.

He obviously is not though and if he is right how come all champion BB past and present have been missing this and not realising thewir full potential for benching.LOL


----------



## Rossy Balboa (Nov 6, 2008)

Ok then


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Rossy Balboa said:


> I've recently just stopped in on a personal training seminar that my mate was attending for his personal training qualifications and they are infact telling people to stop advising a "full" rep down to the chest and just to take it to an L.....if you guys are wondering why i am coming out with this patter!


Ok. This is what someone is thinking:

That they can illicit a full pec stretch and subsequent growth by doing L-arm benching to 9inches of the chest.

This is a fallacy to say the least. At 6 board height (9in), or in fact anything over a 3 board (4.5in) you will be working the triceps as the primary mover, and the pecs will be working as a stabiliser.

Name and shame the seminar.


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> Just advice i was going off! im not going to argue with someone who knows MUCH more than me!


Lol, you already are by arguing with everyone on here!

I am a trainer and in my experience over half of trainers are retarded and have no experience of actual training.

The other group to avoid listening to are your mates.....

Of course you don't need to touch your chest, just like you don't need to full squat or you don't need to train hard in the gym - problem is they get you nowhere in the end and you look like a fool in the gym.

M


----------



## BigDom86 (Jul 27, 2008)

depends if your touching the chest and i mean touching not bouncing off then yes this is good, but if you are touching chest just to get a bounce back up then 1 or 2 inch off is fine. i do both full rep touch chest and sometimes do 1 or 2 inch off.

just a question if you touch the chest dont you think that you loose tension from the pec mucles? like say for example with a chin up if you go completely all the way down


----------



## tmacf (Jan 27, 2009)

I have read about arms 90 degrees to the ground. The logic behind it was less stress on shoulders or something along those lines. Read it a while ago. Same with shoulder pressing. I think it may have been in stuart mcrobert book. The one on form i think but i read that many years ago.

So would benching from dead on chest to say 8 inches above chest take the triceps out the movement and isolate the chest more? Like a bench shrug only using your pecs.


----------



## Goose (Jan 29, 2009)

You shouldn't be resting when the bar touches your chest you should be briefly allow it to scrap the skin then to push off again.

It will open the chest up more an allow for further muscle fubres to be fired up and used, initally allowing more growth and strength to occur. To say not to go down to your chest when pressing is complete Bullsh*t.

Which seminar was this and where??


----------



## Bulk_250 (May 10, 2008)

When I first started training in Fitness First thats what they told me, I think it might be something to do with preventing injury to elbows or shoulders or something. But I think it may be more likely to caUSE injury, cos you'll be lifting more weight too soon.

Anyways, it's bulls*t in my opinion lol.


----------



## SOUTHMAN (Sep 14, 2008)

i also think if you bench to a few inches above your chest unless using boards each rep isnt going to be the same. By going all the way to my chest and all the way to the top i know the bar is moving exactly the same distance.


----------



## tmacf (Jan 27, 2009)

I didn't read it in the stuart mcrobert book just had a look. it was hand placement and youre forearms being vertical that he talked about. Unless you touch youre chest you will not get the nice feeling of doms the next morning.


----------



## toxo (Mar 11, 2008)

touching the chest hits the pecs more.


----------



## tmacf (Jan 27, 2009)

For me personally i like the feeling of the stretch at the lower postion. If something is working for you great don't change it. Every body has diffrent limb torso length etc so what works for one isn't always best for the another. Weighted dips are more effective for me tbh.


----------



## BigDom86 (Jul 27, 2008)

has anyone tried bench pressing with the (dont know the name of it) but U-bar??? like where the part which will hit your chest is higher than the parts where you put your hands. sorry about the poor explanation.

i tried it once felt good but need to lower the weight alot as it puts stress on the shoulders


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

Would you do a squat not to parallel or a bicep curl only half way up? The same applies to benching not to yoru chest. If you want full ROM you go down to your chest.


----------



## SOUTHMAN (Sep 14, 2008)

willsey4 said:


> Would you do a squat not to parallel


bad example that one mate lol at the gym i go to a full squat is about an inch of movement to post people.


----------



## tmacf (Jan 27, 2009)

chilisi said:


> ive only adopted this method myself for the last 3 months..i was lacking in the chest department and since ive not locked out at the top and only lowered it to just above my chest my gains have rocketed.
> 
> i feel this method is harder because your not resting at the top when you lock out.


Completely agree with not locking out.


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

SOUTHMAN said:


> bad example that one mate lol at the gym i go to a full squat is about an inch of movement to post people.


Sorry but dont understand what you wrote?


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

chilisi said:


> the chosen muscles are working constantly during those exercise..
> 
> when you reach a certain range in the bench press your triceps and shoulders take over alot of the workload..
> 
> ...


I agree on not locking out but with touching your chest its all about your grip position. If too narrow then your tris and shoulders will come into play as your arms will be bent too much at the bottom.

However either way if its working for you then all is good.


----------



## SOUTHMAN (Sep 14, 2008)

willsey4 said:


> Would you do a squat not to parallel or a bicep curl only half way up? The same applies to benching not to yoru chest. If you want full ROM you go down to your chest.


I was saying most people dont go anywhere near parallel when squatting yet consider it a full squat, therefore squats are a bed example to use.

Kind of a joke mate dont worry about it lol


----------



## willsey4 (Apr 21, 2008)

SOUTHMAN said:


> I was saying most people dont go anywhere near parallel when squatting yet consider it a full squat, therefore squats are a bed example to use.
> 
> Kind of a joke mate dont worry about it lol


You will have to excuse me right now, im half asleep.

I know its not abvious to some people but I just dont see why people would not go down to at least just above parallel.


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

Freddo said:


> The guy who benches 100kg with perfect form, touching his chest with the bar, and all the way up, or the guy who benches 120 kg who does not touch his chest but come half way down?


Most of you are talking a load of sh1t..

Too many variables as Tall mentioned..

Also im not liking the Beta weights used to discern "strength"

The original poster did not mention bringing chest of tris or what is full bench, so i dont know what half of you are spouting off about either...

Back to original question

But I will give you a real life comparison as far more suitable......

Comparing a half bench to a full bench is like comparing chalk and cheese, you cant compare... Impossible, 2 different exercises.. HOWEVER

I knew\know a guy who is Natty, pretty fckin big by all standards and has never done a full rep at anything in his life (im ruled out as im not natty smart ar5es)

But he could rep out with half reps with 220kg on bench.....

Could he do a 160kg strict????? I very much doubt it

But any one who can do 160kg for a nice full rep I very much doubt would be able to rep out with 220kg bench presses either...

Put it like this, no one i know who does 160kg can come anywhere near 220kg on a partial as we have tried









BUT who would i prefer to take a dig from if i had to......

No way would it be the 220kg partial bencher, so draw your own conclusions:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tom1990 (Dec 21, 2008)

Rossy Balboa said:


> I've recently just stopped in on a personal training seminar that my mate was attending for his personal training qualifications and they are infact telling people to stop advising a "full" rep down to the chest and just to take it to an L.....if you guys are wondering why i am coming out with this patter!


the bottom half of bench pressing (touching chest) focus more on your chest, and as you push further up the more triceps get involved. the half rep man lol i understand where your coming from tho


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

sickchest90 said:


> the bottom half of bench pressing (touching chest) focus more on your chest, and as you push further up the more triceps get involved. the half rep man lol i understand where your coming from tho


The bottom half actually if done properly brings lats also conseiderably into play along with delts also...

Bench press is not really a chest exercise, it requires use of many muscles..

However IMO nothing builds big thick pecs like bench press


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2009)

Depends on your body mechanics but i wouldnt even consider a guy for strenght in any way if i saw half reps.


----------



## volatileacid (Dec 28, 2005)

Rossy Balboa said:


> Nope not a single one actually! But if you's are all gona b ar$e holes about it n pounce on something i was told then you's arent really being much help,just agrivating the situation!


Ouch. So you're passing off this second-hand information to us from some bloke who's attended some seminar and want us to take it as gospel.

There are some exercises where you don't need to go through the maximum possible range of movement - but for chest, I like to touch my chest - not bounce off it, not use it as a place to rest the weight, just a slight touch, to work the chest properly.

You either know the reasons why you've said what you've said, or you don't. Please stop with your second hand information and talk from experience or give us the actual science - else you know what they say about opinions and a-holes - everyone's got one.


----------



## Freddo (Feb 22, 2009)

jw007 said:


> The bottom half actually if done properly brings lats also conseiderably into play along with delts also...
> 
> *Bench press is not really a chest exercise*, it requires use of many muscles..
> 
> However IMO nothing builds big thick pecs like bench press


a bold statement here hulk.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Freddo said:


> a bold statement here hulk.


He's correct.

It's a multi joint compound exercise.

In the same way a deadlift is neither singley a back or leg exercise.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

dutch_scott said:


> here we go, wow wee...
> 
> for what its worth i will say the triceps are on their own 25% the strength of the pecs, so anyone thinking at any height the tris do more than chest is wrong imo. biomechanically the shoulder joint, comprising the pec insertions and the shoulders, and tris is much more powerful than the elbow joint which the tricep extends most of its action for.
> 
> if u could bench 300kg to a 3 board in good form ull have a huge set of pecs. the pecs cannot be weaker than the triceps due to several factors biomechanically.


I totally see what you are saying, but I don't totally agree.

For me personally 6board and above is triceps as the prime mover, delts and pecs as stabilisers.

This holds true down to a 3board for me, but a 3board does have some more pec involvement.

Most peoples long tricep head is weak however as that the lazy head, so my statement only really applies in close grip bench/bench/dips. I think I can Fly more than I can Skull though.


----------

