Look at this impressive physique, you wouldn't see any other athlete in other sports with this physique, a true athlete:

I notice that Indonesians are much rounder, looking less lean compared to the Chinese. Example, Sony, Taufik, Chandra, Eng Hian, Luluk, Yulianto, Halim and Hendrawan. They all seem to have some fat on their bodies, some of them looking tubby like Chandra and Sony...where as you will have to look hard to find some fat on Lin Dan and his teamates, though not Zhang Jun. Obviously.

yes, a jumpsmashing machine :)

I would say: "please put your shirt back on and celebrate some other way" :D

LOL

because there are enough people (especially in north america) who already think this sport is a wussy sport (not that I don't invite many out for a game to change their minds :) ); sure doesn't help to show off a scrawny bod. :D

i dont know what picture you are looking at but i find nothing "scrawny" about that body. i would be a 'god' my peers (and the fairer gender...) if i had such a physique... sigh :D

that should be one of the best conditioned body comparable to any other sport that requires both speed and power.

you wouldn't see any other athlete in other sports with this physique

how about boxing (and possibly any other physical sport that has weight divisions) and gymnastics?

i think light weight boxers have crazy bodies and as do gymnists. Those darn gymnastic guys are machines i say, machines!!

yup light weight boxers, gymnast and badminton players (the top specimens of course) are way up there in the same category. elite athlethism. machined to perfection just like trunkz69 put it....

Look at this impressive physique, you wouldn't see any other athlete in other sports with this physique, a true athlete:

What about Bruce Lee in his prime?

Fair enough comments, boxers and gymnasts but I'm talking about sports like football and more televised sports. I know he's a bit scrawny but you wouldn't complain with a physique like that.

oh yeah; compared to us mere mortals, I agree that he does have a decent physique. And definitely proper for badminton, so no disrepect intended.

But like Ben Beckman said, compare to a US pro football player (e.g. Michael Vick or Terrell Owens) or even a pro basketball player (Ben Wallace) he looks scawny by comparison. But definitely agree that each sport has its proper body type.

You guys ever seen Roy Jones Jr's (boxer) body?

100% athletic, beside him I don't see anyone more fit than Lin Dan.

My biology teacher told me those muscle are fast and strong muscles unlike body building.

What about Bruce Lee in his prime?

Actually, when I first saw this picture, I immediately thought of Bruce Lee's body, pretty close.

Here's a picture:

this person lacks the really thick veins of Lin Danz

this person lacks the really thick veins of Lin Danzheh if badminton players looked more like me it might be more popular ;) jk...thats kevin levrone, a bodybuilder

heh if badminton players looked more like me it might be more popular ;) jk...thats kevin levrone, a bodybuilder
ask this Johnny Bravo to run around like a badminton player for 10mins, he will be complete out of breath!

dude.....................that body builder's muscle are so huge, it looks like he's going to burst out of his undies....I wonder if he gets a wedgie often?:confused::p:)

this person lacks the really thick veins of Lin Danz

As you can see Lin Dan is contracting his muscle while Roy Jones is in a relax position.

ask this Johnny Bravo to run around like a badminton player for 10mins, he will be complete out of breath!
he probably uses more oxygen just to flex those muscles than we need while running. Believe it or not, most professional bodybuilders spend more time doing cardio than many of us spend playing badminton. They might not be able to run very far or fast, but their cardiovascular system can handle more blood throughput than most of us ever will. :cool:

he probably uses more oxygen just to flex those muscles than we need while running. Believe it or not, most professional bodybuilders spend more time doing cardio than many of us spend playing badminton. They might not be able to run very far or fast, but their cardiovascular system can handle more blood throughput than most of us ever will. :cool:
but what i said is still true, he won't be able to last running for 10mins.. :)

and he probably eat more vitamin pill in volume everyday than me eating rice..

but what i said is still true, he won't be able to last running for 10mins.. :)

and he probably eat more vitamin pill in volume everyday than me eating rice..
he can power-walk for 10 minutes :D

but what i said is still true, he won't be able to last running for 10mins.. :)

and he probably eat more vitamin pill in volume everyday than me eating rice..
Just wondering, can he scratch his own back? :D:confused:

Just wondering, can he scratch his own back? :D:confused:

Maybe he uses that surfboard behind him :confused:

Impressive physique but not really suitable for badminton.

Lin Dan isn't flexing, he is celebrating, i've seen another picture and it was impressive. Of course that other guy is contracting,he is posing for a picture, he would have been told to contract and flex his muscles.

Lin Dan isn't flexing, he is celebrating, i've seen another picture and it was impressive. Of course that other guy is contracting,he is posing for a picture, he would have been told to contract and flex his muscles.
I still don't think his muscles are that impressive. They are just more noticable because of his incredibly low bodyfat precentage. But in all likelyhood, the typical 250lb american will have more impressive muscles if their fat instantly dissapeared.

Lin Dan isn't flexing, he is celebrating, i've seen another picture and it was impressive. Of course that other guy is contracting,he is posing for a picture, he would have been told to contract and flex his muscles.

Flexing? He is 100% sure contracting his muscle also after winning the match against Gade. And no Roy is not contracting his muscle thats his normal posture.

I'm in agreement with Ben on this.

That body builder wouldn't get around a court very quickly - too bulky and heavy!

Look at a badminton player's legs. Muscular and toned. Upper body light but defined and toned.

Most body builders in local gyms have big upper bodies and pigeon legs. That's not athletic - Ben's point.

Now a true badminton player like Lin Dan, a true world-class athlete. I'd say these guys surpass top footballers in terms of overall physical ability.

That body builder wouldn't get around a court very quickly - too bulky and heavy!

Look at a badminton player's legs. Muscular and toned. Upper body light but defined and toned.

Most body builders in local gyms have big upper bodies and pigeon legs. That's not athletic - Ben's point.
that's just an stereotype... and a very old one. It's been impossible to win any bodybuilding competitions without very large legs to match the upper body since before arnold was in his teens. A typical bodybuilder these days well have far bigger legs than even the biggest badminton player. Not just bigger--it's more toned and have far more fast-twitch muscles.

also, the typical badminton player look bigger than they actually are because they are so much shorter. If put a bodybuilder and a badminton player side by side, you'd see that a bodybuilder has much much bigger legs, much much bigger calves and still lower bodyfat

Lin Dan isn't flexing, he is celebrating, i've seen another picture and it was impressive. Of course that other guy is contracting,he is posing for a picture, he would have been told to contract and flex his muscles.

Wow Hes not FLEXING?!?!? Thats krazy then!, but i don't think it can get more Rip then that, even if he flex. But by his Facial Expression it looks like hes flexing... And is he Left or Right Handed? Cuz if hes right Handed, thats only His Left Arm, so im sure his Right are would be even more Impressive

Only if badminton players are like this. Would be a funny picture!

Badminton players aren't small. Wong Choong Hann is around 6ft sumthin and he has massive legs, very impressive. The body builders wouldn't be fast because all the weights that they do will weigh them down and they would be used to slow lifting and not explosive movements, lin dan would beat that body builder in a sprint.

Badminton players aren't small. Wong Choong Hann is around 6ft sumthin and he has massive legs, very impressive. The body builders wouldn't be fast because all the weights that they do will weigh them down and they would be used to slow lifting and not explosive movements, lin dan would beat that body builder in a sprint.

body builders are really slow, mostly because of the extra weight of their extra muscles, have low dexterity due to muscles get into their ways.

Badminton players aren't small. Wong Choong Hann is around 6ft sumthin and he has massive legs, very impressive. The body builders wouldn't be fast because all the weights that they do will weigh them down and they would be used to slow lifting and not explosive movements, lin dan would beat that body builder in a sprint.
About the height thing, Kevin Lev is only 5'9, Jay Cutler (arnold classic champ) is 5'9 too, although he weighs 300 pbs in the off season. Heightwise pro body builders are about average, whereas pro badminton players are slightly above.

The thing about bodybuilders is their bodies aren't designed to do anything at all...they are designed to be the best looking bodies by Mr. Olympia, Arnold Classic, etc. standards. Its kind of an artform.

I find pro badminton players kinda skinny looking, but they are, of course, built to play badminton, and not to look good.

I still don't think his muscles are that impressive. They are just more noticable because of his incredibly low bodyfat precentage. But in all likelyhood, the typical 250lb american will have more impressive muscles if their fat instantly dissapeared.

im sure impressive physique isnt just about muscles. its about the overall conditioning of the body. i.e: muscles+low bodyfat+ proportion for maximum efficiency/athlethism.

"the typical 250lb american will have more impressive muscles if their fat instantly dissapeared" : easier said than done given U.S. obesity statistics :p

The body builders wouldn't be fast because all the weights that they do will weigh them down and they would be used to slow lifting and not explosive movements
successful bodybuilders train predominantly FOR explosive strength. You guys need to stop spreading misconceptions from the 60s. Fast twich muscle cells (responsible for explosive strength) has the greatest capacity to grow large, and since bodybuilders want to get as large muscles as possible, they specifically target explosive strength.

body builders are really slow, mostly because of the extra weight of their extra muscles, have low dexterity due to muscles get into their ways.
they are slower because of their limited range of motion. If you had 22 inch arms, you wouldn't be able to move very much at all. A bodybuilder trying to sprint with all those muscles is akin to a normal person trying to sprint with their legs and arms shackled.

Low dexterity comes from the fact that we are born with limited motor neurons. A neuron controls a muscle fiber group. When those muscle groups are very strong, doing something requires the firing of very few neurons, and since nothing fires perfectly, there's relatively less precision. Weaker person have to fire much more neurons to acheive the same effect, so there's greater precison. That's the tradeoff--you can have greater strength or greater dexterity, but not both. (Well, you can improve your coordination to reach closer to your dexterity limit, but the limit is fixed.)

"the typical 250lb american will have more impressive muscles if their fat instantly dissapeared" : easier said than done given U.S. obesity statistics :p
and even if did they try, they'd lose a lot of their muscle too.


this thread has got me thinking though... i wonder how many badminton players use steroids. I think not many if at all only because of badminton's roots as a gentlemanly sport--and an unfair advantage is not gentlemanly.

(Yes, even badminton players stand to gain a lot from steroids, performance wise.)

and an unfair advantage is not gentlemanly.
just in the Womens game then, you think? ;)

oh yeah; compared to us mere mortals, I agree that he does have a decent physique. And definitely proper for badminton, so no disrepect intended.

But like Ben Beckman said, compare to a US pro football player (e.g. Michael Vick or Terrell Owens) or even a pro basketball player (Ben Wallace) he looks scawny by comparison. But definitely agree that each sport has its proper body type.

Yes... those US footboll guys just look like Ben johnson on some extra steroids :-).. BTW Terrell Owens looks to have loads more body-fat than Lin Dan :-)
Terrell Owens (http://www.terrellowens.com/photo/data/media/31/M-series_Bike_1024.jpg)

Low dexterity comes from the fact that we are born with limited motor neurons. A neuron controls a muscle fiber group. When those muscle groups are very strong, doing something requires the firing of very few neurons, and since nothing fires perfectly, there's relatively less precision. Weaker person have to fire much more neurons to acheive the same effect, so there's greater precison. That's the tradeoff--you can have greater strength or greater dexterity, but not both. (Well, you can improve your coordination to reach closer to your dexterity limit, but the limit is fixed.)

Thats very interesting!

I guess that would mean that a slim player would benefit more playing near the net to use his precision in dropping shots while the bigger player would be advantageous behind as less precision is used in smashing?

Thats very interesting!

I guess that would mean that a slim player would benefit more playing near the net to use his precision in dropping shots while the bigger player would be advantageous behind as less precision is used in smashing?
sounds good... except like everything else in life, it's a little more complicated than that. The relation is with strength, not size. And there's a lot of other things you can vary, like the angle and spin of a shuttle to affect it's flight path. A person could have very strong triceps and lats for a powerful smash, but a weak muscle that controls forearm protonation/suppination (whichever muscles they are.) Thus they would maintain great dexterity in controlling the angles at which to hit the bird.

But in general, you are right, which is why badminton players have very small upper bodies (fine dexterity more important than strength) and large lower bodies (strength more important than fine dexterity.)

But in general, i don't think it'll affect most of us very much--we aren't anywhere near our maxmium genetic potential for dexterity as the pros are.

Yes... those US footboll guys just look like Ben johnson on some extra steroids :-).. BTW Terrell Owens looks to have loads more body-fat than Lin Dan :-)
Terrell Owens (http://www.terrellowens.com/photo/data/media/31/M-series_Bike_1024.jpg)

twobeer, you think that's body fat? :confused: either I can't believe my eyes, or we have a pretty different definition, because that looks like a pretty ripped body to me.

twobeer, you think that's body fat? :confused: either I can't believe my eyes, or we have a pretty different definition, because that looks like a pretty ripped body to me.
I'd put lin dan at around 4-5% bodyfat, and owens around 5-6% bodyfat. 20% difference is a lot.. we're talking about a whole pound here!! :p

as a side note, China would keep its players for a lot longer if they learnt a thing or two about proper nutrition. Judging by what I've seen so far, they can easily cut the injury rate in half at least if they hired a knowledgable sports nutrionist. Or even me :D

But judging by how things run over there, the person in charge of their meals is probably only in that spot because they're related to someone important.

I'd put lin dan at around 4-5% bodyfat, and owens around 5-6% bodyfat. 20% difference is a lot.. we're talking about a whole pound here!! :p

as a side note, China would keep its players for a lot longer if they learnt a thing or two about proper nutrition. Judging by what I've seen so far, they can easily cut the injury rate in half at least if they hired a knowledgable sports nutrionist. Or even me :D

But judging by how things run over there, the person in charge of their meals is probably only in that spot because they're related to someone important.


brave statement. great to know we are sharing the knowledge of experts in their own field. with that said i'd personaly like to know:

1) knees (joints and etc) are a non renewable resource. myth or fact? and how does/can sport nutritionist improve a players 'shelf life' if say he/she only has control over the food intake but absolutely no say in the training program (in regarding to 'knees and joints lifespan').

2) all those diet that with beef ligaments/tendons and such (i.e ngu chap) in chinese culinary are suppose to strengthen our joints (knees?). myth or fact?

thanks. great to know you.

brave statement. great to know we are sharing the knowledge of experts in their own field. with that said i'd personaly like to know:

1) knees (joints and etc) are a non renewable resource. myth or fact? and how does/can sport nutritionist improve a players 'shelf life' if say he/she only has control over the food intake but absolutely no say in the training program (in regarding to 'knees and joints lifespan').

2) all those diet that with beef ligaments/tendons and such (i.e ngu chap) in chinese culinary are suppose to strengthen our joints (knees?). myth or fact?

thanks. great to know you.

fact or myth, i still get my regular portions of those chinese culinary. :) So glad beef tendon and pork hocks are pretty cheap here :) :)

twobeer, you think that's body fat? :confused: either I can't believe my eyes, or we have a pretty different definition, because that looks like a pretty ripped body to me.

Sure pretty ripped I agree.. But compared to the prictures of lin dan it seems Lin's got extremly little BF. The fotbollers seems to have bigger muscles, but also more fat.. at least what I can tell from the pictures..

It also makes some sense as badminton at top-level probably probably is more stamina oriented than US fotball at the NFL level (just my guess.. but with al the long breaks and fixed positions .... :-) )

cheers
T

Sure pretty ripped I agree.. But compared to the prictures of lin dan it seems Lin's got extremly little BF. The fotbollers seems to have bigger muscles, but also more fat.. at least what I can tell from the pictures..

It also makes some sense as badminton at top-level probably probably is more stamina oriented than US fotball at the NFL level (just my guess.. but with al the long breaks and fixed positions .... :-) )

cheers
T

Oh yeah, you'll get no arguement from me regarding Lin Dan's physique being perfect for badminton.

But the original post was stating that it was an "impressive" physique, and my contention is that for me (and most people?), a ripped body (with bigger muscles) looks more "impressive" than a skinner body, albeit possibly with lower body fat.

Just a matter of perception (of what is "impressive"), thats all. No real right or wrong. And no certainly no arguement from me that certain bodies are better for some sports, and could be a hinderance in others. :D

brave statement. great to know we are sharing the knowledge of experts in their own field. with that said i'd personaly like to know:

1) knees (joints and etc) are a non renewable resource. myth or fact? and how does/can sport nutritionist improve a players 'shelf life' if say he/she only has control over the food intake but absolutely no say in the training program (in regarding to 'knees and joints lifespan').

2) all those diet that with beef ligaments/tendons and such (i.e ngu chap) in chinese culinary are suppose to strengthen our joints (knees?). myth or fact?

thanks. great to know you.
I'm not talking about anything fancyful like that. Given the amount of training and performing top badminton players are subjected to in China, they need to be consuming adequate nutrients. Judging by the picture, this is NOT happening. This greatly reduces the body's ability to repair itself. When they body's bodyfat is as low as 5%, you are sacrificing a lot of bodily functions (immune system, body repair, etc) over just maintaining the muscle.

I wonder if the chinese team take 'foo cha' or other naturally based tonic before a big tournaments like the olympic.

I wonder if the chinese team take 'foo cha' or other naturally based tonic before a big tournaments like the olympic.
what are the claimed benefits of foo cha? I presume some kind of tea?
What does it contain?

what are the claimed benefits of foo cha? I presume some kind of tea?
What does it contain?


i think your chances on the china team is a bit shaky right now.
LOL. just kidding ;)

Regarding the weightlifter and the badminton player, the training and weights used are obviously very different. The body builder uses extreme weights to build up muscle, where as Lin uses weights for endurance and explosive speed.

Oh yeah, you'll get no arguement from me regarding Lin Dan's physique being perfect for badminton.

But the original post was stating that it was an "impressive" physique, and my contention is that for me (and most people?), a ripped body (with bigger muscles) looks more "impressive" than a skinner body, albeit possibly with lower body fat.

Just a matter of perception (of what is "impressive"), thats all. No real right or wrong. And no certainly no arguement from me that certain bodies are better for some sports, and could be a hinderance in others. :D

I agree fully with you on that.. and most people would also consider top body-builders to have more impressive physique than NFL players..

But just building big muscles isn't that impressive in my book... The tricky part is to have both strong and enduring muscles.. This is where i think a body like Lin Dan (and for example many martial arts athletes) excels over weight-lifters, bodybuilders, steroid gym-pumpers ;-)

Cheers,
Twobeer

Regarding the weightlifter and the badminton player, the training and weights used are obviously very different. The body builder uses extreme weights to build up muscle, where as Lin uses weights for endurance and explosive speed.
I guess i'll just say it again...

bodybuilders train for explosive strength more so than badminton players

endurance comes from slow twitch muscle fibers, so training for endurance necessarily requires a badminton player to put emphasis away from fast twitch fibers. Thus bodybuilders can concentrate on hitting fast twitch muscle fibers exclusively, whereas badminton players cannot.

There is a difference in the optimal training, but it's not what you think.

(Fast twitch muscles are very heavy, take up a lot of space, and tire very easily. Given most badminton player's lack of bulging muscles, it is unlikely that their muscles are predominantly fast twitch.)

There's a very easy test to approximately guess what proportion of fast or slow twitch fibers are in your muscles. The answer is different for each muscle group of course. I can post it if you guys are interested.

I agree fully with you on that.. and most people would also consider top body-builders to have more impressive physique than NFL players..

But just building big muscles isn't that impressive in my book... The tricky part is to have both strong and enduring muscles.. This is where i think a body like Lin Dan (and for example many martial arts athletes) excels over weight-lifters, bodybuilders, steroid gym-pumpers ;-)

Cheers,
Twobeer
Except most NFL players train as though they were weight lifters. I don't know why there's so many stereotypes about weight lifters lacking strength or endurance. Any competitive power lifter will probably be able to push or pull more weight than competitive badminton players, and do it a lot more times.

Except most NFL players train as though they were weight lifters. I don't know why there's so many stereotypes about weight lifters lacking strength or endurance. Any competitive power lifter will probably be able to push or pull more weight than competitive badminton players, and do it a lot more times.

Probably not (given the weight is small enough for endurance / oxygen intake to be as great factor as pure strength, and we are talking racket, arm leg here ;-) ).. I've seen strong-man competition where the big strong guys just collapse due to their bulky muscles demands more oxygen, than their aerobic systems (lungs, oxygen transport to the muscle etc).

I've seen this in a number of occasions as well on badminton-courts where Beefcake type players show impressive smash-powers and walks over their opponent half way into the match, and then just gets tired and looses to the other players better endurance..

Most sports a very geared towards pure stamina or pure strenght.. Badminton Is one of the few I know of (I can think of martial arts etc as other examples) where both muscle endurance and strength is of equal importance.

check out www.dolfzine.com/page266.htm (http://www.dolfzine.com/page266.htm), www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/weight.htm (http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/weight.htm ) and www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/strength.htm (http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/strength.htm) for some info on different types of training, muscle fibers etc.. there is a lot of interesting stuff for badminton players on the aerobic, anaerobic systems CRP-system ATP, lactic acid... on how to train for both power AND! endurance ;-)

my 2 cents,
T

i tihnk the problem with endurance is that it requires the optimum amount of muscle.

if too few muscle, you'll have to recuit a lot of muscle fibers for any particular action, and hence each particular muscle fiber will be used more often. This makes the muscle group tire more quickly.

if too much muscle, the muscle performance is limited by oxygen, as you said. This can be overcomed by using ampehtamines though, but it's now illegal in the olympics.

And in reality, both factors are limiting performance. I consider myself to be of reasonable endurance (10 km run under an hour... not that great, but not something you consider horrible.) And yet if i'm doing heavy compound liftsI find it very easy to be out of breath after just 4 or 5 reps, especially if i'm not focusing on my breathing technique. And to be honest, I get sweaty far faster by lifting weights than by playing badminton.

To be honest, i dont think it takes much strength to play badminton. Maybe at the elite levels it matters alot, but strength still isn't as advantagous as in other sports....

To be honest, i dont think it takes much strength to play badminton. Maybe at the elite levels it matters alot, but strength still isn't as advantagous as in other sports....

If you play at lower levels (against weak oppponents) you can probably compansate poor physique with better technique.. But a top pro will need extreme strength, as there are such an extreme number of long jumps, high jumps and lounges in badminton (when played at high level). Time to reach net, corners etc early becomes a deciding factor so leg strength becomes a crucial part of the game, and a por-player can't realy on the opponent "giving him" weak replies. Getting to the corners with minimal number of steps requires huge leg-strength but also back and stomach strenght to uphold the body balance to not "fall through" etc.. Wrist strength and body ratational strength etc are pretty obvious to be able to play both powerful and deceptive shots, even from difficult positions..

for example:

check out the difference in size on Chen Hongs Racket leg vs. left leg..
Chen Hong (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=5293)

Or try just do lounges and get down deep like this (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=318) 50 times in a row and see how your leg feels after that ;-)

And just jumping (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=3803) high enough puts enormous demands on pro badminton players legs, knees etc (if nothing else this is obvious when looking at all the knee injuries top badminton-players get from the stress of all jumps and lounges).

Cheers,
Twobeer


/T

that bodybuilder looks so...icky...so dark..so OILY!!!

so chinese badminton players have tones bodies?? or just lindan?
indonesian players are not rounder..they're skinny/un-toned .no muscles whatsoever.except for the thighs i guess..from all the jumping

If you play at lower levels (against weak oppponents) you can probably compansate poor physique with better technique.. But a top pro will need extreme strength, as there are such an extreme number of long jumps, high jumps and lounges in badminton (when played at high level). Time to reach net, corners etc early becomes a deciding factor so leg strength becomes a crucial part of the game, and a por-player can't realy on the opponent "giving him" weak replies. Getting to the corners with minimal number of steps requires huge leg-strength but also back and stomach strenght to uphold the body balance to not "fall through" etc.. Wrist strength and body ratational strength etc are pretty obvious to be able to play both powerful and deceptive shots, even from difficult positions..
actually i agree with lemon. when he's talking about strength he's talking about explosive, fast twitch muscle fibres, which badminton players don't need as much compared to a lot of sports. In reality, although it looks as though badminton players have freakish verticals, they quite simply don't...most of the ppl on this forum could jump about as high as they do (without the movements needed to smash a bird). What pros need more than strength is cardiovascular ability and muscles which allow them to perform such jumps, as well as lunges and strafes, repeatedly at a rapid pace with short intervals between sets of repetitions. If a lot of the ppl on this forum tried their hardest they could span the court and jump etc. like the pros for a very short period of time...but the pros can do this for several games in a row. What the pros have is the explosive strength of an intermediate player coupled with incredible endurance and a very good cardiovascular system to keep their muscles oxygenated.

actually i agree with lemon. when he's talking about strength he's talking about explosive, fast twitch muscle fibres, which badminton players don't need as much compared to a lot of sports. In reality, although it looks as though badminton players have freakish verticals, they quite simply don't...most of the ppl on this forum could jump about as high as they do (without the movements needed to smash a bird). What pros need more than strength is cardiovascular ability and muscles which allow them to perform such jumps, as well as lunges and strafes, repeatedly at a rapid pace with short intervals between sets of repetitions. If a lot of the ppl on this forum tried their hardest they could span the court and jump etc. like the pros for a very short period of time...but the pros can do this for several games in a row. What the pros have is the explosive strength of an intermediate player coupled with incredible endurance and a very good cardiovascular system to keep their muscles oxygenated.

I really don't think most of the people in this forum will be even close to for ex. Lin Dans vertical jump abilities (or any top ten world singles/doubles badminton player for that matter). I've seen some comparisons and apart from highly specialiced sports like high.jumps, long-jumps etc. badminton is way up ther.. (If i remember correctly Volleyball players jumped the highest, basket ball players didn't jump as high as expected on average (probably due to the use of one-legged pushoffs in most game-situations).

Just out of curiosity what do you think "most people on this forum" can do in standstill vertical jumps (with and without jump preparation (swing arms, or arms by the sides).

cheers,
Twobeer

If you play at lower levels (against weak oppponents) you can probably compansate poor physique with better technique.. But a top pro will need extreme strength, as there are such an extreme number of long jumps, high jumps and lounges in badminton (when played at high level). Time to reach net, corners etc early becomes a deciding factor so leg strength becomes a crucial part of the game, and a por-player can't realy on the opponent "giving him" weak replies. Getting to the corners with minimal number of steps requires huge leg-strength but also back and stomach strenght to uphold the body balance to not "fall through" etc.. Wrist strength and body ratational strength etc are pretty obvious to be able to play both powerful and deceptive shots, even from difficult positions..

for example:

check out the difference in size on Chen Hongs Racket leg vs. left leg..
Chen Hong (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=5293)

Or try just do lounges and get down deep like this (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=318) 50 times in a row and see how your leg feels after that ;-)

And just jumping (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=3803) high enough puts enormous demands on pro badminton players legs, knees etc (if nothing else this is obvious when looking at all the knee injuries top badminton-players get from the stress of all jumps and lounges).

Cheers,
Twobeer
/T
While what you said requires SOME strength, it doesn't require very much. In your lunge example.... how many of us can do 50 lunges? I'm willing to bet almost all of us. Heck, I was doing 50 lunges with a 110 pound barbell on my back after a few months or working out, and I by no means have gifted genetics. I hate to break it to you but badminton doesn't require strength. Maybe speed and endurance but not strength.

I really don't think most of the people in this forum will be even close to for ex. Lin Dans vertical jump abilities (or any top ten world singles/doubles badminton player for that matter). I've seen some comparisons and apart from highly specialiced sports like high.jumps, long-jumps etc. badminton is way up ther.. (If i remember correctly Volleyball players jumped the highest, basket ball players didn't jump as high as expected on average (probably due to the use of one-legged pushoffs in most game-situations).

Just out of curiosity what do you think "most people on this forum" can do in standstill vertical jumps (with and without jump preparation (swing arms, or arms by the sides).

cheers,
Twobeer
I did a search of some Lin Dan's "legendary" jumps... and found them to be quite average.

http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=3408
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=4496
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=4486
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=4489
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=618
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=98

I looked at every result under "Lin Dan" from badminton photo, and the average seems to be about 15 inches, with the top to be about 20 inches (4496.) It's hard to judge exactly since all the photos have a very low camera height, which would exagerate his jumping abilities. The lack of shadows also makes it harder. I wouldn't be suprised if the 4496 jump was only 18 inches.

I have never done any kind of jumping program. I did a few jumps without the use of hands and pulled off 18 inches. (Jumped beside a "ruler" and recorded with camera) With the use of hands and bending knees, I got a 2 feet 10 inch vertical. This isn't much different from Lin Dan's verticals, and is by no means exceptional. So disagree, probably 50% of BFers can come very close to Lin Dan's vertical, as paulchow already said.

I just looked at some topless pics of Lin Dan again... there's not very much there. I'd put his weight at around 165 pounds... probably less. Almost everyone is capable of acheiving 165 pounds at the same body fat level as Lin Dan within a year unless they're 300 pounds or something.

And just jumping (http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_36&products_id=3803) high enough puts enormous demands on pro badminton players legs, knees etc (if nothing else this is obvious when looking at all the knee injuries top badminton-players get from the stress of all jumps and lounges).
/T
Those knee injuries say little about the amount of strength needed. Getting knee injuries isn't that hard... and avoiding them isn't that hard either. Top powerlifters can easily explode 700 pounds off the ground, from when the knees are fully bent inward (at their weakest position) all the way up to fully extended. That's far more force than a badminton player's knees will every see on take off. (powerlifting shoes also have no padding, whereas badminton shoes have a lot of padding.)

Look at a badminton player's legs. Muscular and toned. Upper body light but defined and toned.

Most body builders in local gyms have big upper bodies and pigeon legs. That's not athletic - Ben's point.
I was watching a vid and thought of this post so I decided to take screenshots of what BBers' legs look like... note that each of his legs are about as wide as his waist....

I was watching a vid and thought of this post so I decided to take screenshots of what BBers' legs look like... note that each of his legs are about as wide as his waist....

Scary pics.. lots of useless muscle fibers there (or is it oil or silicon pumped into the muscles ;-)..
To much "pump" in the gym and some illegal drugs will do things like that to your body ;-), dosn't say the muscles are that useful for actual work though..

That's a perfect example of what I do not consider to be a perfect body..
Looks unatural, overpumped and impractical.. If the functionality was on par with size.. all boxers and martial artist (or even condendors in world strongest men competitions) would look like that.. right???

But as we concluded earlier in this thread.. We certainly have different references and opinions what constitutes the "perfect" physique..

/T

I did a search of some Lin Dan's "legendary" jumps... and found them to be quite average.

http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=3408
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=4496
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=4486
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=4489
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=618
http://www.badmintonphoto.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=&products_id=98

I looked at every result under "Lin Dan" from badminton photo, and the average seems to be about 15 inches, with the top to be about 20 inches (4496.) It's hard to judge exactly since all the photos have a very low camera height, which would exagerate his jumping abilities. The lack of shadows also makes it harder. I wouldn't be suprised if the 4496 jump was only 18 inches.

I have never done any kind of jumping program. I did a few jumps without the use of hands and pulled off 18 inches. (Jumped beside a "ruler" and recorded with camera) With the use of hands and bending knees, I got a 2 feet 10 inch vertical. This isn't much different from Lin Dan's verticals, and is by no means exceptional. So disagree, probably 50% of BFers can come very close to Lin Dan's vertical, as paulchow already said.

I fail to see your logic.. Based on some of Lin Dans in game pictures.. (in game jump-smashes etc) you conclude that on a controlled vertical jump test you and him would performs about the same max :-). Do you really think one in-game jumpsmash is is max vertical??

I will not be able to proove my point since i don't have any test-results from neither Lin Dan nor the BF:ers.. So if you are happy in your beleif that the power-jumps from badminton pros is about average, then i can't really say anything that would change that, right?

cheers,
Twobeer

Scary pics.. lots of useless muscle fibers there (or is it oil or silicon pumped into the muscles ;-)..
Uselss muscles? How useful is the ability to hit a feather-cork object over a 1.6 meter net in real life?

Look at the definition in his legs. It's pretty clear there's nothing injected there.

To much "pump" in the gym and some illegal drugs will do things like that to your body ;-), dosn't say the muscles are that useful for actual work though..

Every extra bit of muscle adds functional strength. And again... how useful is hitting a feathered object in real life?

That's a perfect example of what I do not consider to be a perfect body..
Looks unatural, overpumped and impractical.. If the functionality was on par with size.. all boxers and martial artist (or even condendors in world strongest men competitions) would look like that.. right???

Actually, top MMA are around 220 to 230 lb at around 7% body fat. He is at 230lb at 5% body fat in that pic. Fighting also requires different muscle groups. Outside of MMA and powerlifting, very few people want 20 inch necks.

But as we concluded earlier in this thread.. We certainly have different references and opinions what constitutes the "perfect" physique..
/T
The topic is on impressive, not perfect. Lin Dan's physique is very easily to acheive. It's like comparing an mitsu evo with a ferrari enzo. While the evo is a great car, the enzo is the more impressive of the two. :)

I fail to see your logic.. Based on some of Lin Dans in game pictures.. (in game jump-smashes etc) you conclude that on a controlled vertical jump test you and him would performs about the same max :-). Do you really think one in-game jumpsmash is is max vertical??

I will not be able to proove my point since i don't have any test-results from neither Lin Dan nor the BF:ers.. So if you are happy in your beleif that the power-jumps from badminton pros is about average, then i can't really say anything that would change that, right?

cheers,
Twobeer
You can probably jump higher than that... but if your basing the defintion of impressive upon being slightly above average, then you're diluting the defintion of the word...

While the evo is a great car, the enzo is the more impressive of the two. :)

Still the evo willl be a lot faster of track.. and of course you can take the analogy further ;-) a ferrari F1 will beat the enzo on track condition. but then of course the engine of the F1 is worn out and the enzo could go 100's more races without a angine change ;-)..

If you aremore impressed by track racing than street or rally-racing then the preferences will of course be that of your personal opionion. It's not that easy to objectively compare apples and oranges though ;-)

cheers,
T

the enzo is the more impressive of the two. :)

You may also be confusing impressive with expensive ;-)

/Twobeer

Uselss muscles? How useful is the ability to hit a feather-cork object over a 1.6 meter net in real life?


I argue that it's by far more useful than taking differnent poses before judges.. :p

/Twobeer

actually i think the evo vs. enzo is very appropriate on many levels...

actually i think the evo vs. enzo is very appropriate on many levels...

actually it's quite fun to compare :rolleyes:

Ferrari enzo stats (reference http://www.supercars.net/cars/2002@$Ferrari@$Enzog.html )
Power: 492.2 kw / 660 bhp
Price : $670.000
Weight: 1370 kg / 3020 lbs
Top speed: 350 km/h
accel: 0-100 Km/h: 3,6 sek
Quarter mile (402m) time: 11,6 :mad:
traction: two wheel drive

Mitsubishi Lancer EVO - JRM racing edition (reference http://www.jrm-racing.se/docs_hem.asp)

Power: more than 600 HP on engine (about 530 on the wheels!)
Price: $ 90.000
Weight: 1210 kg / 2667 lbs
Top speed: 325 km/h
accel 0-100 Km/h: 2,9sek
Quarter mile (402m) time: 10,89 :D
traction: four wheel drive

We get the same money.. You buy an enzo, I buy an EVO.. then will go out on the street and race ;-)

So which is more "impressive" apples or bananas???

/Twobeer

actually it's quite fun to compare :rolleyes:

Ferrari enzo stats (reference http://www.supercars.net/cars/2002@$Ferrari@$Enzog.html )
Power: 492.2 kw / 660 bhp
Price : $670.000
Weight: 1370 kg / 3020 lbs
Top speed: 350 km/h
accel: 0-100 Km/h: 3,6 sek
Quarter mile (402m) time: 11,6 :mad:
traction: two wheel drive

Mitsubishi Lancer EVO - JRM racing edition (reference http://www.jrm-racing.se/docs_hem.asp)

Power: more than 600 HP on engine (about 530 on the wheels!)
Price: $ 90.000
Weight: 1210 kg / 2667 lbs
Top speed: 325 km/h
accel 0-100 Km/h: 2,9sek
Quarter mile (402m) time: 10,89 :D
traction: four wheel drive

We get the same money.. You buy an enzo, I buy an EVO.. then will go out on the street and race ;-)

So which is more "impressive" apples or bananas???

/Twobeer
comparing a highly modified car vs a stock car? Yea that sounds reasonable :rolleyes:

No mention of 1100hp supras? :rolleyes:


and you somehow missed the entire point of the anology. One is built predominently for looks. It's exotic and rare. The other is built to be common and fast. No one buys an evo for looks.

and you somehow missed the entire point of the anology. One is built predominently for looks. It's exotic and rare. The other is built to be common and fast. No one buys an evo for looks.

Yeah but it you came up to an Enzo on a nice twisty piece of road, you'd probably assume he can't drive so you can blow him away anwyay. However if you came up to an Evo on a twisty piece of road, he/she probably still can't drive however the car makes up for it to a large degree so it'd still be a pain in the arse to pass them, sigh, I need more power in my bike well actually I need a new bike.

comparing a highly modified car vs a stock car? Yea that sounds reasonable :rolleyes:

No mention of 1100hp supras? :rolleyes:

and you somehow missed the entire point of the anology. One is built predominently for looks. It's exotic and rare. The other is built to be common and fast. No one buys an evo for looks.

So your analogy with badminton player vs. a bodybuilder type body is that good loking = [ enzo and Bulky muscles like a body builder ] and a not goodlooking = [ a badminton pro like Lin Dan (or maybe a not so bulky martial artist like Bruce Lee's body) ].. :confused:


And BTW "STOCK" is perhaps a bit of an overstatment for a car that is being built at about 350 / year and to be able to buy one for $670k you have to "proove" collectors track record of many previous ferrari cars :-) ..

And while you bring up 1100hp Supras :-).. I didn't mention those because then your argument about sleek looks comes tumbling down even harder. :-)

now this is a beautiful car :-) http://www.customize.org/view/24456

should we just drop it and agree that we simply disagree what is really looking good??

cheers,
T

what are the claimed benefits of foo cha? I presume some kind of tea?
What does it contain?

it contain whatever the coach/herbalist want the subject to perform, all from natural source so the ingredients from the foo cha can pass olympic drug testing.

case in point, i heard that Naoka Takahashi, gold medalist of women long distance runner, sydney 2000, took some traditional supplement before the competition.

I agree fully with you on that.. and most people would also consider top body-builders to have more impressive physique than NFL players..

But just building big muscles isn't that impressive in my book... The tricky part is to have both strong and enduring muscles.. This is where i think a body like Lin Dan (and for example many martial arts athletes) excels over weight-lifters, bodybuilders, steroid gym-pumpers ;-)

Cheers,
Twobeer

I agree, i much much much prefer lin dan's physique over a bodybuilder because it is practical. With LD's physique, i can run faster, jump higher, do obstacle course faster, better coordination, pants less, eat less, put less demand on my kidneys, livers, etc., mostly likely live longer too. It is a proven fact statistically, skinner people live longer than a heavy people.

Bigredlemon "bodybuilders train for explosive strength more so than badminton players"

I dont thing bodybuilder train for explosive strength is the objective, they train for muscle growth and tone, explosive strength is just an neccessity to achieve that bulk. If law of nature dictate that massive muscle growth can be achieve by wearing high heels and walk straight while balancing some books on the head, bodybuilders will do that too :p If they train for explosive strength, why the bodybuilding competition doesnt INVOLVED ANY EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH related routines? HOW COME NO TOP WEIGHT LIFTERS OR SNATCHERS ( a very high twitch muscle demanding sport) have body like Kevin levrone??

Bodybuilding sport is only for one thing, the look, it has no other practical use beside attracting females which base on primal notion of a mate that is aggressive looking, good hunter and protector, a very ancient stereotype. It's now basically a meat show, equivalent to the female side enhancing their (.) (.) LOL :D

Regarding to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwun
ask this Johnny Bravo to run around like a badminton player for 10mins, he will be complete out of breath!

he probably uses more oxygen just to flex those muscles than we need while running. Believe it or not, most professional bodybuilders spend more time doing cardio than many of us spend playing badminton. They might not be able to run very far or fast, but their cardiovascular system can handle more blood throughput than most of us ever will.

I'm sure guys like kevin L. trains cardio, coz they have to if they want to last long enough in their competition. Having high cardio number is meaningless if it's still not practical in REAL LIFE. I bet a 900 lb obesed person lying in bed has more blood circulating his/her than kevin L, is this 900 lb person has high cardio ?

Most top top weightlifter have physique like these, big legs yes but also big waist unlike bodybuilders.

So your analogy with badminton player vs. a bodybuilder type body is that good loking = [ enzo and Bulky muscles like a body builder ] and a not goodlooking = [ a badminton pro like Lin Dan (or maybe a not so bulky martial artist like Bruce Lee's body) ].. :confused:


And BTW "STOCK" is perhaps a bit of an overstatment for a car that is being built at about 350 / year and to be able to buy one for $670k you have to "proove" collectors track record of many previous ferrari cars :-) ..

And while you bring up 1100hp Supras :-).. I didn't mention those because then your argument about sleek looks comes tumbling down even harder. :-)

now this is a beautiful car :-) http://www.customize.org/view/24456

should we just drop it and agree that we simply disagree what is really looking good??

cheers,
Ti think you are taking the analogy much too far and picking at details.

I agree, i much much much prefer lin dan's physique over a bodybuilder because it is practical. With LD's physique, i can run faster, jump higher, do obstacle course faster, better coordination, pants less, eat less, put less demand on my kidneys, livers, etc., mostly likely live longer too. It is a proven fact statistically, skinner people live longer than a heavy people.

Bigredlemon "bodybuilders train for explosive strength more so than badminton players"

I dont thing bodybuilder train for explosive strength is the objective, they train for muscle growth and tone, explosive strength is just an neccessity to achieve that bulk. If law of nature dictate that massive muscle growth can be achieve by wearing high heels and walk straight while balancing some books on the head, bodybuilders will do that too :p If they train for explosive strength, why the bodybuilding competition doesnt INVOLVED ANY EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH related routines? HOW COME NO TOP WEIGHT LIFTERS OR SNATCHERS ( a very high twitch muscle demanding sport) have body like Kevin levrone??
Because bodybuilding competition doesn't involve any routines. Any lots of powerlifters have a body better than kevin levrone. I.e. Check out what current #1 bodybuilder (Ronnie Coleman) used to do before BBing. Actually, you can look at what he's still doing: training like a powerlifter, and with great success at bodybuilding. And people are taking notice and following suit.


Bodybuilding sport is only for one thing, the look, it has no other practical use beside attracting females which base on primal notion of a mate that is aggressive looking, good hunter and protector, a very ancient stereotype. It's now basically a meat show, equivalent to the female side enhancing their (.) (.) LOL :D


which is still more useful than the ability to hit a small object as close to a dot without going over with a long stick.



Regarding to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwun
ask this Johnny Bravo to run around like a badminton player for 10mins, he will be complete out of breath!

he probably uses more oxygen just to flex those muscles than we need while running. Believe it or not, most professional bodybuilders spend more time doing cardio than many of us spend playing badminton. They might not be able to run very far or fast, but their cardiovascular system can handle more blood throughput than most of us ever will.

I'm sure guys like kevin L. trains cardio, coz they have to if they want to last long enough in their competition. Having high cardio number is meaningless if it's still not practical in REAL LIFE. I bet a 900 lb obesed person lying in bed has more blood circulating his/her than kevin L, is this 900 lb person has high cardio ?

Most top top weightlifter have physique like these, big legs yes but also big waist unlike bodybuilders.
and again, how useful is the ability to hit a small light object as close to an arbitary line as possible without going over? If you want real-world usefulness, maybe we should ask BBers to see who can program a database system the fastest? :rolleyes:

if your definition of an impressive physique is based upon real-world usefulness, a short skinny build has the optimal amount of performance per resource consumption, the best strength to weight ratio, and the best endurance, the longest life expectancy, the highest brain performance per energy intake, etc etc. So a skinnny gary coleman would have the most impressive physique according to you? :rolleyes:

bodybuilding has never claimed to be practical

if your comment regarding the physique of olympic lifters is not like bodybuilders is proof that an olympic lifting style is illsuited to bodybuilding, then that is somewhat true. powerlifting is more suited because it hits all the major muscles better. i.e. olympic movements puts little stress on many important body parts (hams, calves, etc etc.) It also puts a lot of stress on the body core, making the waist much thicker. bodybuilding tends to go for the exagerated X shape which requires a thinner waist. Most bodybuilders that follow a powerlifting style training use other exercises to strengthen and grow areas not adequately targeted. dedicated olympic lifters do not do this, and hence does not have the same proportions. Also, there is always a trade off between more fat and more strength. The more fat you have, the more strength the body will allow. Olympic lifters care about strength not fat, and hence will tolerate a high bodyfat percentage to get a higher lift number. bodybuilders do not have that luxruy.

as for having functional strength... the current three time winner of Mr. Olympia can squat over 800 pounds and leg press over 2400 pounds. Can lin dan do even half of that? If bodybuilder's muscles were purly useless while Lin Dan's are functional, lin dan should be able to out lift them easily with his big legs right?



the truth is, the body doesn't want to put on that much muscle. all that muscle is harmful to the body. if your body didn't feel it absolutely need it, it wouldn't let you put it on. Heck, even if your body felt it needed extra strength, it still might refuse to pack on extra size. Look at all the successful bodybuilders. How many of them can't bench 400 pounds? Squat or deadlift 600 pounds? You just cant pack on size without packing on strength. And in a bodybuilder's case, it's almost all fast twitch muscle.

which is still more useful than the ability to hit a small object as close to a dot without going over with a long stick.


and again, how useful is the ability to hit a small light object as close to an arbitary line as possible without going over? If you want real-world usefulness, maybe we should ask BBers to see who can program a database system the fastest? :rolleyes:

*sigh* when did i said badminton was practical??? What i did said was that if i have a physique like Lin Dan (LD), i can run faster, jump higher, twist and turn quicker, have better coordination, last longer, weigh less and put less strain on my bodily organs. What each individual can do with their LD's physique is unique to them, their own choice.

if your definition of an impressive physique is based upon real-world usefulness, a short skinny build has the optimal amount of performance per resource consumption, the best strength to weight ratio, and the best endurance, the longest life expectancy, the highest brain performance per energy intake, etc etc. So a skinnny gary coleman would have the most impressive physique according to you? :rolleyes:

again, u have taken my statement out of context. Yes, short skinny build is more efficiency BUT being practical and energy efficiency are 2 different things and I HAVE NEVER EQUATED THESE 2 attributes as dependent variables.
Also, I have never said short people live the longest, or have the highest intelligent efficiency( I wouldn't say LD is short either). I'm talking about weight, not height, and statistical trend. Gary Coleman, scientifically and statistically speaking, isn't an average person, mentally or physically. Midget actually have short lives.


bodybuilding has never claimed to be practical:
What I have been saying is having a LD's physique is more practical in a real world than having a bodybuilder physique.

if your comment regarding the physique of olympic lifters is not like bodybuilders is proof that an olympic lifting style is illsuited to bodybuilding, then that is somewhat true. powerlifting is more suited because it hits all the major muscles better. i.e. olympic movements puts little stress on many important body parts (hams, calves, etc etc.) It also puts a lot of stress on the body core, making the waist much thicker. bodybuilding tends to go for the exagerated X shape which requires a thinner waist. Most bodybuilders that follow a powerlifting style training use other exercises to strengthen and grow areas not adequately targeted. dedicated olympic lifters do not do this, and hence does not have the same proportions. Also, there is always a trade off between more fat and more strength. The more fat you have, the more strength the body will allow. Olympic lifters care about strength not fat, and hence will tolerate a high bodyfat percentage to get a higher lift number. bodybuilders do not have that luxruy.

as for having functional strength... the current three time winner of Mr. Olympia can squat over 800 pounds and leg press over 2400 pounds. Can lin dan do even half of that? If bodybuilder's muscles were purly useless while Lin Dan's are functional, lin dan should be able to out lift them easily with his big legs right?

the truth is, the body doesn't want to put on that much muscle. all that muscle is harmful to the body. if your body didn't feel it absolutely need it, it wouldn't let you put it on. Heck, even if your body felt it needed extra strength, it still might refuse to pack on extra size. Look at all the successful bodybuilders. How many of them can't bench 400 pounds? Squat or deadlift 600 pounds? You just cant pack on size without packing on strength. And in a bodybuilder's case, it's almost all fast twitch muscle.

Why are u comparing LD leg press and squatting ability with a world top body builder :confused: Is squatting 800 lbs and leg pressing 2400+ lbs really useful?

You are too simplistic on defining muscles in 2 classes, big fast twitch and enduring narrower slow twitch. I only had presented 1 example using weightlifting case. Take shotput, javelin, discus throwers, why arent these explosive arms have the bulk and size of bodybuilder's arm? Or long jumpers have legs like legs of bodybuilder? IMO, your view on muscle classes are too simplistic. Hey, ok, lets remove the stamina, sprinting, jumping, twist and turn variables. So with training on techniques, kevin L can smash shuttles at 500 km/hr with his 'explosive' arm, abs, and leg muscles ? :rolleyes: LOL

I guess i'll just say it again...
endurance comes from slow twitch muscle fibers, so training for endurance necessarily requires a badminton player to put emphasis away from fast twitch fibers. Thus bodybuilders can concentrate on hitting fast twitch muscle fibers exclusively, whereas badminton players cannot.

There is a difference in the optimal training, but it's not what you think.

(Fast twitch muscles are very heavy, take up a lot of space, and tire very easily. Given most badminton player's lack of bulging muscles, it is unlikely that their muscles are predominantly fast twitch.)

There's a very easy test to approximately guess what proportion of fast or slow twitch fibers are in your muscles. The answer is different for each muscle group of course. I can post it if you guys are interested.

Badminton isn't an endurance event though.
It's work, rest, work, rest, work, rest, etc.

an endurance event is
work, work, work, work, etc. Like a marathon.

(although you may prefer to define endurance differently. e.g. by which energy system the body uses, or something else)

Exactly Neil, badminton is about speed endurance.

There are many components to fitness apart from strength and cv endurance, including speed, muscular endurance, agility , flexibility, etc

Badminton requires high levels in all these areas.

I would imagine that while bodybuilding is a whole lifestyle , in terms of diet, drugs, etc the actual training requirements are far less than badminton. So I would not say thats Lin Dan's physique was easier to achieve.

*sigh* when did i said badminton was practical??? What i did said was that if i have a physique like Lin Dan (LD), i can run faster, jump higher, twist and turn quicker, have better coordination, last longer, weigh less and put less strain on my bodily organs. What each individual can do with their LD's physique is unique to them, their own choice.
If agility is your criteria for impressiveness, then Lin Dan would fail again. Gymnasts have the highest strength to weight ratio, with superb agility. Why don't you specifically say what's your criteria for an impressive physique?

I'm impressed by physique that takes a lot of work to attain, requires dedication, planning, and committment. It also requires superb genetics. Top bodybuilders requires all of those things, and requires them to a far greater degree.


again, u have taken my statement out of context. Yes, short skinny build is more efficiency BUT being practical and energy efficiency are 2 different things and I HAVE NEVER EQUATED THESE 2 attributes as dependent variables.

I am equating them as dependent variables because they are.


Also, I have never said short people live the longest, or have the highest intelligent efficiency( I wouldn't say LD is short either). I'm talking about weight, not height, and statistical trend. Gary Coleman, scientifically and statistically speaking, isn't an average person, mentally or physically. Midget actually have short lives.

Midgets are short because of genetic abnormalities. From a physiological standpoint, a short person is the most efficient.


What I have been saying is having a LD's physique is more practical in a real world than having a bodybuilder physique.
the topic is impressive, not practical. If you feel that LD is more practical but BBers are more impressive, then i'm inclined to agree with you.

I would imagine that while bodybuilding is a whole lifestyle , in terms of diet, drugs, etc the actual training requirements are far less than badminton. So I would not say thats Lin Dan's physique was easier to achieve.
Bdybuilding is very particular in what to eat and not eat. This requires choosing between a few different foods and eating them day after day after day for 20 years, especially during contest season. Lin Dan needs to show no such restraint.

Bodybuilders need to lift weights until there is no longer any benefit from lifting weights. This requires careful long term planning of what to lift, how heavy to lift, and how long to lift it, every day. To attain LD's physique, you could have no idea what you're doing in the gym, spend 30 minutes a day, and get it within a year. That's hardly impressive nor difficult.

Most people fail to understand how difficult being a successful bodybuilder is. Consider Flex Wheller. He has a myostatin gene mutation that prevents muscle breakdown. (http://www.healthtalk.ca/muscle_boy_06262004_7203.php,http://www.news-medical.net/print_article.asp?print=yes&id=2757 for info on what it would do to a normal person .) So this superhuman, despite its mutatant genes and injecting so much steroids, prohumans, and human growth factors that his liver and kidneys are now destoryed at age 40, has never won a Mr. Olympia (BBing's top competition.) If that doesn't make you think it's impressive then nothing will.

You literally need a body with dozens of mutations to make you super large, kidney and livers strong enough to handle the insane amounts of foods and steroids necessary, and the smarts to formulate the most efficient plan to maximize all of your advantages. (And a super strong immune system, since as muscle size increase, your immune system weakens. A severe skiness will take you out of the game for a long time.) Maybe one in a million man is genetically capable of ever reaching the size and definition of a top bodybuilder in their lifetime. One in two is genetically capable of reaching the LD's size and definition within two years (and i'm including gals here too.)

If agility is your criteria for impressiveness, then Lin Dan would fail again. Gymnasts have the highest strength to weight ratio, with superb agility. Why don't you specifically say what's your criteria for an impressive physique?

since u asked, i would say an ideal body to have, in my book, is a decathletes. http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/decath/

some quotes from http://www.decathlonusa.org/nature.html

"the decathlon -- measures those elementary athletic talents. Speed, strength, agility, spring and endurance are embodied within its measurable objectives. While one athlete may be faster, another stronger and yet a third a better jumper, the decathlon attempts to determine who, among the three, is the best all-around or general athlete.

The skills of the decathlete are not specific to any sport. Although all sporting contests need fast, strong and agile athletes, they also demand specific skills. Although those skills (e.g., making a 20-foot jump shot, hitting a curve ball, or kicking a field goal) are difficult to master, they are specific to each sport and not general in nature. This is why there can be no doubt that decathlon champions are the best all-around athletes in the world. Making a case that decathletes are the "world's best athletes" is harder since some athletes with honed specific talents, for example Michael Jordan or Ken Griffey, Jr., may be so proficient in their unique skills as to overshadow a decathlete with terrific general competency.

The decathlete does not have to be exceptional in any one event to be the champion in the ten events. He must range from being at least adequate in his weak events to being outstanding in his stronger events. Because he must do well in three running, one hurdling, three jumping an and three throwing events he has inadequate chance to perfect and polish any one of the events. So he must compromise. And therein lies the nature of the decathlon. It is a compromise where concessions must be made in preparation for the sake of maximizing the total score. In his training he must strive to improve his technique, gain strength without sacrificing speed or spring, (and vice versa) and acquire the endurance that will escort him through a competition which, in many cases, lasts 8-10 hours each day.

Mental factors play a greater role than they do in other events. Many coaches talk of a "decathlon mentality," meaning the athlete's ability to stay focused throughout the ten events, to get psyched up for each attempt or race, and to shrug off disappointment and get on with the next trial. In the decathlon there are chances to recuperate from mistakes. "

Badminton players like LD comes close to a decathlete but he has a bit less muscle mass because a racquet weigh less than a lead ball, a javelin spear and discus. However, badminton required more hand eye coordination and strategic planning, more use of multiple skills applied in cohesion. (ie, more mental skill). I'll take these attributes any day over of a BB type.

Here is a look of their training involved

http://www.coachr.org/deca.htm

I'm impressed by physique that takes a lot of work to attain, requires dedication, planning, and committment. It also requires superb genetics. Top bodybuilders requires all of those things, and requires them to a far greater degree.

Tell that to anorexics, they're willing to risk their life to achieve their goals and objectives. How is that for dedication, planning and committment (mentally, physically, and spiritually) over that of your BB'er. :p So by your definition of impressiveness, then an anorexic is most impressive LOL

To attain LD's physique, you could have no idea what you're doing in the gym, spend 30 minutes a day, and get it within a year. That's hardly impressive nor difficult.


mmm... and getting Bruce Lees body physique would probably take. say 32 minutes a day in the "gym" ... :D

since u asked, i would say an ideal body to have, in my book, is a decathletes. http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/decath/

Suppose I agree that the ideal phyical shape is that of a decathlete you have in mind. (I don't, and even the site you linked admit there's no single ideal body phsyique in a successful decatehlete.) There's nonethelss a dichotomy between ideal and impressive. An ideal car is like a geo metro. It gets the job done with minimal resources. It is practical, but hardly impressive.

Tell that to anorexics, they're willing to risk their life to achieve their goals and objectives. How is that for dedication, planning and committment (mentally, physically, and spiritually) over that of your BB'er. :p So by your definition of impressiveness, then an anorexic is most impressive LOL
if you look at an anorexic's diet, you'll find that it's chaotic. How many anoreics follow set a diet? Plan out their intake of nutrients months in advance? It's unprincipled: the path anorexics take does not needed them to their desired result. At least not based upon scientific principles. A typical anoreic's diet is about balancing between their desire to eat and fighting against that desire, in an irrational way. All the committment in the world isn't going to get you anywhere without the smarts and genes to back it up.

I'm confounded by how you can equate anorexics with bodybuilders. Did you read ANYTHING i've written? anybody is genetically capable of being a successful anorexic. The same cannot be said about bodybuilding.

mmm... and getting Bruce Lees body physique would probably take. say 32 minutes a day in the "gym" ... :D
Bruce lee weighted, 135 pounds. He had a lean body mass of about 128 pounds with 5% body fat. That is not hard to achieve. A typical human body won't resist up until 180 pounds of lean body mass. 130 is a cakewalk.

Bruce lee weighted, 135 pounds. He had a lean body mass of about 128 pounds with 5% body fat. That is not hard to achieve. A typical human body won't resist up until 180 pounds of lean body mass. 130 is a cakewalk.

Once again you are limiting your defintion of "physique".. Bodyfat and musclemass are NOT the only to factors to train for, as most athletes know..

Suppose I agree that the ideal phyical shape is that of a decathlete you have in mind. (I don't, and even the site you linked admit there's no single ideal body phsyique in a successful decatehlete.) There's nonethelss a dichotomy between ideal and impressive. An ideal car is like a geo metro. It gets the job done with minimal resources. It is practical, but hardly impressive.

Again, you have equate efficiency with practicality. Again, i say these variables dont depend on each other. Geo metro is fuel efficiency but it isn't an ideal car. Take the american auto market for example (US has broader range of roads, distance between towns and cities, brands and models of vehicles. ie, the most freedom of choice of travel and car model to choose from), if I'm correct, the popular models sold and own are accord, camry, and mid size truck/suv. Why? Because that's what the majority wanted, good speed, good comfort, good carrying capacity, decent fuel consumption, good drivability, good look, good durability, etc, just like LD physique, good at everything but not the best on any oneparticular attribute. By your bodybuilding logic of impressiveness, I would say an auto equivalent would be a forklift or a tractor, slow but an excellent lifter or puller. I won't even equate the Hummer to a bodybuilder because a hummer is still a comfortable, multifunctional vehicle.


if you look at an anorexic's diet, you'll find that it's chaotic. How many anoreics follow set a diet? Plan out their intake of nutrients months in advance? It's unprincipled: the path anorexics take does not needed them to their desired result. At least not based upon scientific principles. A typical anoreic's diet is about balancing between their desire to eat and fighting against that desire, in an irrational way. All the committment in the world isn't going to get you anywhere without the smarts and genes to back it up.

I'm confounded by how you can equate anorexics with bodybuilders. Did you read ANYTHING i've written? anybody is genetically capable of being a successful anorexic. The same cannot be said about bodybuilding.

well, u brought up dedication, planning and committment effort of bodybuilding to achieve impressiveness so i gave u an example of a class of people who have even more dedication, planning and committment. Point is, there are many human achievements that required more dedication, planning and committment to attain less impressive result than BB.

It is obvious that impressiveness is different to different people. This debate is quite similar to my discussion with Kelvin regarding his view on the Lamborghini Murcielago. He find this car impressive and aggressive looking. I counter back by offering samples of common model of cars that are even more impressive and aggressive, in performance. You said BB required certain genetic and is not common to population. I guess exoticism and scarcity is impressive in your eyes, just like Kelvin drools on the Lamborghini Murcielago.

PS: being practical as i am, i never owned a subcompact vehicle in my life. All my cars have been over 17 feet long. Oh, u might say it's costly to maintain. Well, one car i have, i averaged 10 cents per mile cost, this included depreciation, fuel, maintenance, license and insurance, averaged over 21 years, not a one year anomoly. No, it wasnt highway driven to bring the cost/mile number down. I had carried sods for my backyard lawn; carried 8 x 20' re-bars; enough floor molding to trim a 2 stories condo; many 4x4 and 6x6 posts (12-14'), and had beaten many accord and alike. I like to see a geo metro do that. :p

Once again you are limiting your defintion of "physique".. Bodyfat and musclemass are NOT the only to factors to train for, as most athletes know..
there is also proportions, which is what bodybuilders train for. not pure size, but also proportions.



6 entries found for physique.
phy·sique Audio pronunciation of "physique" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-zk)
n.
The body considered with reference to its proportions, muscular development, and appearance: “a short man with... the physique of a swimmer” (John le Carré).


let me know what i've "missed"

Again, you have equate efficiency with practicality. Again, i say these variables dont depend on each other. Geo metro is fuel efficiency but it isn't an ideal car.
are you saying the metro is an impractical car?

I believe you are confusing practically with desire...

Take the american auto market for example (US has broader range of roads, distance between towns and cities, brands and models of vehicles. ie, the most freedom of choice of travel and car model to choose from), if I'm correct, the popular models sold and own are accord, camry, and mid size truck/suv. Why? Because that's what the majority wanted, good speed, good comfort, good carrying capacity, decent fuel consumption, good drivability, good look, good durability, etc,
confusing desire with practicality. a small civic will do the job of a camry or truck for 99% of consumers, 99% of the time


just like LD physique, good at everything but not the best on any oneparticular attribute. By your bodybuilding logic of impressiveness, I would say an auto equivalent would be a forklift or a tractor, slow but an excellent lifter or puller. I won't even equate the Hummer to a bodybuilder because a hummer is still a comfortable, multifunctional vehicle.

good at everything? LD would get slaughtered in any physical fight. And in any case your reasoning is irrelevant. Practiality and impressivenes are different things.

put your 600hp evo next to a zhonda pagani modded to 1200hp. which will the average person say is more impressive?

the one better at doing everything or the more exotic and rare?


well, u brought up dedication, planning and committment effort of bodybuilding to achieve impressiveness so i gave u an example of a class of people who have even more dedication, planning and committment. Point is, there are many human achievements that required more dedication, planning and committment to attain less impressive result than BB.

anorexics have more dedication, planning, and committment than bodybuilders? please read my post before responding instead of just making up falsehoods and passing them off as truth.

or else show that your wild claims are true. i'll save you some time: anorexics are impuslive by nature-->hence lack of commitment and dedication.


It is obvious that impressiveness is different to different people. This debate is quite similar to my discussion with Kelvin regarding his view on the Lamborghini Murcielago. He find this car impressive and aggressive looking. I counter back by offering samples of common model of cars that are even more impressive and aggressive, in performance. You said BB required certain genetic and is not common to population. I guess exoticism and scarcity is impressive in your eyes, just like Kelvin drools on the Lamborghini Murcielago.


3 entries found for impressive.
im·pres·sive Audio pronunciation of "impressive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-prsv)
adj.

Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony.




impressive

\Im*press"ive\, a. [Cf. F. impressif.] 1. Making, or tending to make, an impression; having power to impress; adapted to excite attention and feeling, to touch the sensibilities, or affect the conscience; as, an impressive discourse; an impressive scene.



impressive

adj 1: making a strong or vivid impression; "an impressive ceremony" [ant: unimpressive] 2: producing a strong effect; "gave an impressive performance as Othello"; "a telling gesture" [syn: telling]



a common event is not one to make a strong impression. It looks like you are arguing over semantics here: you are defining impressiveness as the thing that you most desire. I'm defining it as the thing most likely to cause awe.




PS: being practical as i am, i never owned a subcompact vehicle in my life. All my cars have been over 17 feet long. Oh, u might say it's costly to maintain. Well, one car i have, i averaged 10 cents per mile cost, this included depreciation, fuel, maintenance, license and insurance, averaged over 21 years, not a one year anomoly. No, it wasnt highway driven to bring the cost/mile number down. I had carried sods for my backyard lawn; carried 8 x 20' re-bars; enough floor molding to trim a 2 stories condo; many 4x4 and 6x6 posts (12-14'), and had beaten many accord and alike. I like to see a geo metro do that. :p
the metro has a roof rack

are you saying the metro is an impractical car?
I believe you are confusing practically with desire...

No, never said that.
I believe you are confusing affordability and fuel economy with practicality.

confusing desire with practicality. a small civic will do the job of a camry or truck for 99% of consumers, 99% of the time

that doesnt explain why accords, camry, truck and van are the most popular models. If you're right, then 99% of the vehicles on the road should be civics and geo metro but that is not the case. Depending on which cities, I estimate that civcs, geo, prius represent 5 to 20% of car owned by canadian.

good at everything? LD would get slaughtered in any physical fight. And in any case your reasoning is irrelevant. Practiality and impressivenes are different things.

LD is not stupid. A Bodybuilder guy like Kevin L. has to catch LD first. LOL Remember that LD can use many other physical attributes beside knowing how to bearsqueeze someone. In Bruce Lee case (with LD physique), bruce can kill kevin under 5 min if he wanted to. There are numerous ways to take down (and kill) a 300 lb muscle guy but these are secret among the martial artist circle.

put your 600hp evo next to a zhonda pagani modded to 1200hp. which will the average person say is more impressive?

It depends. If 600hp evo is a light weight car that and can out accelerate, out maneuver a 3 ton zhonda pagani, the answer is obvious. Let me pick a better example: a 600 hp endurano motocycle versus a 1200 hp caboose, how many shows are there that exhibit caboose. Compare to cars and motorcycles, caboose is quite rare.

or else show that your wild claims are true. i'll save you some time: anorexics are impuslive by nature-->hence lack of commitment and dedication.

how do we know if BB's are not doing it for their own exhibition, egoistic and self absorbing impulsive reasons?

3 entries found for impressive.im•pres•sive Audio pronunciation of "impressive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-prsv)
adj. Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony.


So does freaks of nature.

the metro has a roof rack

but i wouldn't be following behind a 'loaded' geo coming out of Home Depot :P

there is also proportions, which is what bodybuilders train for. not pure size, but also proportions.
let me know what i've "missed"

Dictionary df. of Physique:

\Phy*sique"\, n. [F. See Physic.] The natural constitution, or physical structure, of a person.

Physique is not limited musclemass, propotions and size, but rather the sum of all body-attributes. Just beacuse we may share the same proportions, size and musclemass, doesn't mean whe have identical physique (doens't even mean we will look the same ;-) )

Just having different endurance for example MUST constitute a difference in physique.. (differences in lung-capacity, heart-muslce power, lactace tolerance in muscles etc)..

/Twobeer

Dictionary df. of Physique:

\Phy*sique"\, n. [F. See Physic.] The natural constitution, or physical structure, of a person.

Physique is not limited musclemass, propotions and size, but rather the sum of all body-attributes. Just beacuse we may share the same proportions, size and musclemass, doesn't mean whe have identical physique (doens't even mean we will look the same ;-) )

Just having different endurance for example MUST constitute a difference in physique.. (differences in lung-capacity, heart-muslce power, lactace tolerance in muscles etc)..

/Twobeer
First of all, wth? Did u read ur own definition? Muscle "power" or lactace "tolerance" are not words used to describe body structure at all.

Next, I find it hard to believe Lin Dan impresses u more with his physique than Kevin L. I mean...u've never seen Dan's inherts b4...and Kevin is larger, more appealingly sculpted and more "powerful" looking in every way to me (since u like that word). His physique truly leaves an impression in the mind.

To cooler this discussion is obviously pointless because he's strictly adhering to the denotative nuance of "impressive".
But hey, don't take the word out of context. It has a blatently positive connotation, especially in this realm of discussion. No one was mocking Dan Lin before when they said his physique was impressive. ;)
im·pres·sive (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifm-prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifv)
Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony.
im·pres·sion (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifm-prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
An effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience.

In the end its just opinion, so whatever floats ur boat.

First of all, wth? Did u read ur own definition? Muscle "power" or lactace "tolerance" are not words used to describe body structure at all.

Next, I find it hard to believe Lin Dan impresses u more with his physique than Kevin L. I mean...u've never seen Dan's inherts b4...and Kevin is larger, more appealingly sculpted and more "powerful" looking in every way to me (since u like that word). His physique truly leaves an impression in the mind.

To cooler this discussion is obviously pointless because he's strictly adhering to the denotative nuance of "impressive".
But hey, don't take the word out of context. It has a blatently positive connotation, especially in this realm of discussion. No one was mocking Dan Lin before when they said his physique was impressive. ;)
im·pres·sive (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifm-prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifv)
Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony.
im·pres·sion (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifm-prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ebreve.gifshhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
An effect, feeling, or image retained as a consequence of experience.

In the end its just opinion, so whatever floats ur boat.

If bodybuilder pec's and thighs turn (impress) you on, that's your cup of tea. I always thought that anatomic endowment meant to attract the opposite genders :rolleyes:

Lin Dan's impressive physique is related to athletic performance and function, not as to appeal to my visual senses.

If bodybuilder pec's and thighs turn (impress) you on, that's your cup of tea. I always thought that anatomic endowment meant to attract the opposite genders :rolleyes:

Lin Dan's impressive physique is related to athletic performance and function, not as to appeal to my visual senses.lol; to the homosexual reference...this whole thread was started about a bunch of ppl admiring dan lin's physique. Although, in hindsight, perhaps I shouldn't have said "appealing" ;) :(

From the definition two beer gave, physique has nought to do with performance/ability, but structure. How does one judge this but by appearance, or the effect on the visual senses? All of Dan Lin's more "practical abilities" and/or awe inspiring skills aside, are you more impressed by the way his body looks, or the way a body builder like Kevin Lev's body looks? I think if ur being honest with urself, the body builder probably leaves more of an impression. Still, its ur opinion.

It's obvious comfusion remain after all the explanation and debate on what is 'impressive' and 'phyisque', I like to attach a scernario of how 'impressive' and 'phyisque' can be performance and ability related. Note how 2 bodybuilder types are not so impressive. :p :D LOL

u know what, screw u and ur video game photos. We already defined physique and impressive but there's no more arguments I have to give. I'll just go on the internet and look at pictures of kevin levrone in a speedo to be turned on..er..I mean...to be impressed...:eek:

that doesnt explain why accords, camry, truck and van are the most popular models.
That's presuming people's sole consideration in buying a car is picking the most practical in. And in any case this is getting much off topic

LD is not stupid. A Bodybuilder guy like Kevin L. has to catch LD first. LOL Remember that LD can use many other physical attributes beside knowing how to bearsqueeze someone. In Bruce Lee case (with LD physique), bruce can kill kevin under 5 min if he wanted to. There are numerous ways to take down (and kill) a 300 lb muscle guy but these are secret among the martial artist circle.
Right, and it's just as likely for the big muscle guy to know those "secrets" and the small guy doesn't. You are confusing stronger with invincible. If you look at boxing/kick boxing/MMA/etc etc, size and weight is a huge advantage. Unless there is a large skill difference, an 160 pounder is not going to beat a 180 pounder. And certainly not a 200 pounder. Or a 220 pounder.... etc etc.

It depends. If 600hp evo is a light weight car that and can out accelerate, out maneuver a 3 ton zhonda pagani, the answer is obvious. Let me pick a better example: a 600 hp endurano motocycle versus a 1200 hp caboose, how many shows are there that exhibit caboose. Compare to cars and motorcycles, caboose is quite rare.

Indeed. Look around. Old classic cars draw stares like no other. In downtown TO, lambos aren't that rare... open speedsters from the 30s are, and get more attention than any lambo or ferrari


or else show that your wild claims are true. i'll save you some time: anorexics are impuslive by nature-->hence lack of commitment and dedication.

how do we know if BB's are not doing it for their own exhibition, egoistic and self absorbing impulsive reasons?

impulsive = short term. BBing takes a half a dozen years to start.

and what does one's motivation have to do with the impressiveness of the result anyway? And your line of reasoning is getting increasingly tangential to the original topic.


So does freaks of nature.

Top BBers are freaks.... didn't you read my post about mutations :)

the metro has a roof rack

but i wouldn't be following behind a 'loaded' geo coming out of Home Depot :P
OK :)

two things i noticed from this thread:

- who needs nuclear power? you just need to put bigredlemon and cooler in the same room, probably get just the same amount of heat.

- only i knew that the best way to forum members excited and posts a lot is to put up a few half naked pictures of *men* in the forum, i wouldn't have to spend so much time talking about badminton.

;)

Dictionary df. of Physique:

\Phy*sique"\, n. [F. See Physic.] The natural constitution, or physical structure, of a person.

Physique is not limited musclemass, propotions and size, but rather the sum of all body-attributes. Just beacuse we may share the same proportions, size and musclemass, doesn't mean whe have identical physique (doens't even mean we will look the same ;-) )

Just having different endurance for example MUST constitute a difference in physique.. (differences in lung-capacity, heart-muslce power, lactace tolerance in muscles etc)..

/Twobeer
hy·sique (f-zk)
n. The body considered with reference to its proportions, muscular development, and appearance.

The dictionary disagrees with you :)


Look back at the first few posts. Are they talking about lung capacity and lactose tolerance, or are they talking about muscle size and definition? :)

If bodybuilder pec's and thighs turn (impress) you on, that's your cup of tea. I always thought that anatomic endowment meant to attract the opposite genders :rolleyes:

Lin Dan's impressive physique is related to athletic performance and function, not as to appeal to my visual senses.
attacking a person's sexuality is the sign of someone grabbing at straws :)

but you are entitled to your interesting albeit unorthodox definition of that word

From the definition two beer gave, physique has nought to do with performance/ability, but structure. How does one judge this but by appearance, or the effect on the visual senses? All of Dan Lin's more "practical abilities" and/or awe inspiring skills aside, are you more impressed by the way his body looks, or the way a body builder like Kevin Lev's body looks? I think if ur being honest with urself, the body builder probably leaves more of an impression. Still, its ur opinion.
agree.

the title is "impressive physique" not "impressive performance"

there's a difference :)

two things i noticed from this thread:

- who needs nuclear power? you just need to put bigredlemon and cooler in the same room, probably get just the same amount of heat.

- only i knew that the best way to forum members excited and posts a lot is to put up a few half naked pictures of *men* in the forum, i wouldn't have to spend so much time talking about badminton.

;)
nosense! we are just having a delightful conversation :D

attacking a person's sexuality is the sign of someone grabbing at straws :)

but you are entitled to your interesting albeit unorthodox definition of that word

BRL, I dont think u have assessed my statement fairly. I only inferred that male physique meant to attract opposite genders, IT IS THE LAW OF NATURE IN MAJORITY CASES. It is Paul Chow's free will to disclose or not to disclose to us of his natural tendency, voluntary. I did not say he is or he isn't.
It is Paul Chow that is doing the attacking and grabbing straws here. ;)

u know what, screw u and ur video game photos.

BRL, I dont think u have assessed my statement fairly. I only inferred that male physique meant to attract opposite genders, IT IS THE LAW OF NATURE IN MAJORITY CASES. It is Paul Chow's free will to disclose or not to disclose to us of his natural tendency, voluntary. I did not say he is or he isn't.
It is Paul Chow that is doing the attacking and grabbing straws here. ;)

lol. It seems outrageous to me that u would use a photo from a video game to make a point about human physique???:confused: I mean..one doesn't need a decent argument when you're resorting to such tactics. About the earlier comment on the appealing pecs and thighs, it's bizarre how it's impossible for one guy to admire another's body on an objective basis without being questioned for homosexuality, yet we can rave about another's skill or shot finess as much as we want. ( <-- We're all just kidding so dont take this too seriously. :o ) Yet, again, in retrospect i guess I shouldn't have said "screw u" while my sexuality is in question. :D

Since last looking, this topic has changed off course dramatically!! :confused:

Hadn't looked at this thread for awhile, just went through all three pages of it, and heres my opinion(s).

I'm going with BRL on this, the thread is on impressive physique, not most-suited-to-every-possible-situation physique. Sure, Lin Dan and his efficient, well-coordinated, low-fat body is well-suited for most "everyday," "practical," activities. But so is nearly everyone else in the developed world.

To prove this point, I have invented the Beach Test. Lin Dan and BB are walking beside each other along the beach. Who do you notice first, and spend the most time looking at (whether you admit it or not)? Do you even notice LD? The Beach Test is available for non-commercial use.

Starting with an average physique, one could obtain Lin Dan's muscular composition in a year working on it 30 minutes, every other day. Make that every day, plus diet/nutrition plan if you wanted to lower your body fat to that level.

My mouse is frozen at the moment, so I'm not bothering to see who wrote it, but anyways regarding the statement that goes along the lines of "Most sports are very one-sided in terms of muscular requirements.(1) One aspect of badminton I like is that it strikes a balance of requiring endurance and muscle strength equally.(2)"

1. Well, not everyone wants to play a sport similar to badminton. Some people like football (American), some like volleyball, etc. Turns out that, surprisingly enough, some of them enjoy playing competitively! And guess what, to improve their play, they will work on shaping their bodies to suit those sports. "Ooh, look at those dumb football jocks, with their big, bulky muscles. I am much more suited to manuevering a thin racket in order to strike the shuttlecock, which, in case you didn't know, can reach speeds of 200 mph at the elite levels!" Well, your average competitive football player is going to run straight through an average competitive badminton player. Arguing how different sports demand too much/little from a player's body is the same as the whole apples/oranges thing. Some sports involve body contact, some don't. (My vote is with apples, BTW)

2. The muscle strength required for badminton is nothing compared to the endurance required. To be a good player, you don't have to lift weights for one second. A coach who spent 3 months with the Chinese national training team in the 80's said that the only weighted exercises they did was using a leg press machine set at a very light weight, with many fast repetitions (think along the lines of the same motion as skipping rope, but with more resistance); and using a 2 pound weight in the hand, doing a motion that is hard to describe here, but basically is extending the forearm, working the tricep. Obviously, times have changed, training methods involve weights now. The best exercise for badminton is skipping. The coach said that Yang Yang's record for consecutive quadruple-skips was 78. (somewhere around there)

Bodybuilding isn't as easy as people think. I've read a minute-by-minute journal of a bodybuilder on a competition day, and the attention to what is eaten/drank is much more detailed than what a badminton player thinks about what to eat at a tournament. They have to time everything right in order to look their best for the judges. Things such as which foods to eat at certain times, to ensure they don't look to bloated, to ensure their veins are pumped, etc.

So, with respect to the original post, sure Lin Dan's physique is nice. But regarding the comments on his physique being more impressive than say, body builders, NFL players, etc., I'd have to disagree. How can you argue against guys' whose pure objective is to have massive, ripped, less-suited-to-"practical"-activity bodies?

Phil

A side note. I've heard somewhere that basketball involves the most motor systems from the body. Having played it, I find it hard to dispute. You have to be able to use both hands effectively, compared to badminton only have to use one hand.

lol. It seems outrageous to me that u would use a photo from a video game to make a point about human physique???:confused: I mean..one doesn't need a decent argument when you're resorting to such tactics. About the earlier comment on the appealing pecs and thighs, it's bizarre how it's impossible for one guy to admire another's body on an objective basis without being questioned for homosexuality, yet we can rave about another's skill or shot finess as much as we want. ( <-- We're all just kidding so dont take this too seriously. :o ) Yet, again, in retrospect i guess I shouldn't have said "screw u" while my sexuality is in question. :D
I guess sometime picture doesn't worth thousands words.
By your quotes of the definition of:

im·pres·sive (m-prsv)
Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony.


The snapshot photo of the game quake was to emphasize that the meaning 'impressive' doesn't need to be use in the context of making visual impact. It does not have to relates to inspires visual awe as BRL had alluded. Impressive can be use in the context of performance based admiration - like nailing 7 frags in a row with a rail gun :p

I think this thread got drag on for so long was due to each individual definition of 'impressiveness'. You, BRL, phil find physique images relating to abnormality, exotic, rarity, disportional as impressive where as I find visual physique relating to performance and achievement excellence - high to highest form athletism. By your definition, a 1000 lb obesed person, an anoraxic, and people with certain disportional appendages have impressive physique as well. In that case, there is no shortage of impressive human physique that can also make visual impact

hy·sique (f-zk)
n. The body considered with reference to its proportions, muscular development, and appearance.

The dictionary disagrees with you :)


Look back at the first few posts. Are they talking about lung capacity and lactose tolerance, or are they talking about muscle size and definition? :)


I don't think so ;) I find Kevin L. is 'very disportional' :D

Like I've said before don't take the word out of context: no one was insulting dan lin before when they said he has an impressive physique. the connotation is blatently positive. For example, when walking down the street no one who sees a rabidly obese person thinks to themself, "impressive".

About the proportions saying dan lin looks more proportional than Kevin L. is pointless and is still just ur opinion; you and I have no idea what the ideal human proportions are. To me kevin's physique still looks better, more awe inspiring, impressive, whatever you prefer to say, than dan's.

About the video game thing, thats still insane!!:mad: This thread is about impressive PHYSIQUE, not quake scores. If it was just called impressive or something like impressive skill, then yes, that argument would mean something.

















:)

BRL, I dont think u have assessed my statement fairly. I only inferred that male physique meant to attract opposite genders, IT IS THE LAW OF NATURE IN MAJORITY CASES. It is Paul Chow's free will to disclose or not to disclose to us of his natural tendency, voluntary. I did not say he is or he isn't.
It is Paul Chow that is doing the attacking and grabbing straws here. ;)

u know what, screw u and ur video game photos.
I read his post and said nothing of the sort. There's nothing homosexual about a man admiring the hard work and body of another.

Hadn't looked at this thread for awhile, just went through all three pages of it, and heres my opinion(s).

I'm going with BRL on this, the thread is on impressive physique, not most-suited-to-every-possible-situation physique. Sure, Lin Dan and his efficient, well-coordinated, low-fat body is well-suited for most "everyday," "practical," activities. But so is nearly everyone else in the developed world.

To prove this point, I have invented the Beach Test. Lin Dan and BB are walking beside each other along the beach. Who do you notice first, and spend the most time looking at (whether you admit it or not)? Do you even notice LD? The Beach Test is available for non-commercial use.

Starting with an average physique, one could obtain Lin Dan's muscular composition in a year working on it 30 minutes, every other day. Make that every day, plus diet/nutrition plan if you wanted to lower your body fat to that level.

My mouse is frozen at the moment, so I'm not bothering to see who wrote it, but anyways regarding the statement that goes along the lines of "Most sports are very one-sided in terms of muscular requirements.(1) One aspect of badminton I like is that it strikes a balance of requiring endurance and muscle strength equally.(2)"

1. Well, not everyone wants to play a sport similar to badminton. Some people like football (American), some like volleyball, etc. Turns out that, surprisingly enough, some of them enjoy playing competitively! And guess what, to improve their play, they will work on shaping their bodies to suit those sports. "Ooh, look at those dumb football jocks, with their big, bulky muscles. I am much more suited to manuevering a thin racket in order to strike the shuttlecock, which, in case you didn't know, can reach speeds of 200 mph at the elite levels!" Well, your average competitive football player is going to run straight through an average competitive badminton player. Arguing how different sports demand too much/little from a player's body is the same as the whole apples/oranges thing. Some sports involve body contact, some don't. (My vote is with apples, BTW)

2. The muscle strength required for badminton is nothing compared to the endurance required. To be a good player, you don't have to lift weights for one second. A coach who spent 3 months with the Chinese national training team in the 80's said that the only weighted exercises they did was using a leg press machine set at a very light weight, with many fast repetitions (think along the lines of the same motion as skipping rope, but with more resistance); and using a 2 pound weight in the hand, doing a motion that is hard to describe here, but basically is extending the forearm, working the tricep. Obviously, times have changed, training methods involve weights now. The best exercise for badminton is skipping. The coach said that Yang Yang's record for consecutive quadruple-skips was 78. (somewhere around there)

Bodybuilding isn't as easy as people think. I've read a minute-by-minute journal of a bodybuilder on a competition day, and the attention to what is eaten/drank is much more detailed than what a badminton player thinks about what to eat at a tournament. They have to time everything right in order to look their best for the judges. Things such as which foods to eat at certain times, to ensure they don't look to bloated, to ensure their veins are pumped, etc.

So, with respect to the original post, sure Lin Dan's physique is nice. But regarding the comments on his physique being more impressive than say, body builders, NFL players, etc., I'd have to disagree. How can you argue against guys' whose pure objective is to have massive, ripped, less-suited-to-"practical"-activity bodies?

Phil

A side note. I've heard somewhere that basketball involves the most motor systems from the body. Having played it, I find it hard to dispute. You have to be able to use both hands effectively, compared to badminton only have to use one hand.

Very nicely put :)

I guess sometime picture doesn't worth thousands words.
By your quotes of the definition of:

im·pres·sive (m-prsv)
Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable: an impressive ceremony.


The snapshot photo of the game quake was to emphasize that the meaning 'impressive' doesn't need to be use in the context of making visual impact. It does not have to relates to inspires visual awe as BRL had alluded. Impressive can be use in the context of performance based admiration - like nailing 7 frags in a row with a rail gun :p

I think this thread got drag on for so long was due to each individual definition of 'impressiveness'. You, BRL, phil find physique images relating to abnormality, exotic, rarity, disportional as impressive where as I find visual physique relating to performance and achievement excellence - high to highest form athletism. By your definition, a 1000 lb obesed person, an anoraxic, and people with certain disportional appendages have impressive physique as well. In that case, there is no shortage of impressive human physique that can also make visual impact
Yes performance can be impressive. But we're not talking about impressive performance. We're talking about impressive physique, as was already mentioned. To a certain extent, those extremes you mentioned will create an impression. They're different in that bodybuilders strike a positive impression. An impression people will tend to look up to.

Hadn't looked at this thread for awhile, just went through all three pages of it, and heres my opinion(s).

I'm going with BRL on this, the thread is on impressive physique, not most-suited-to-every-possible-situation physique. Sure, Lin Dan and his efficient, well-coordinated, low-fat body is well-suited for most "everyday," "practical," activities. But so is nearly everyone else in the developed world.

64% (2001) of american are either obese or overweight. Only 2% of them have low fat (underweight). Balance is normal weighted but i don't say normal weight is low-fat. LD and bruce lee's should have less body fat than some underweights.

To prove this point, I have invented the Beach Test. Lin Dan and BB are walking beside each other along the beach. Who do you notice first, and spend the most time looking at (whether you admit it or not)? Do you even notice LD? The Beach Test is available for non-commercial use.

I think u confused oddity with impressiveness. Yes, general public will stare at a BB if LD and a BB were walking along the beach. It is a normal reaction of our eyes to focus attention to visual abnormality of their surrounding. A BB phyisque isnt a normal human form so people do stare. It had been documented that Leonardo Da Vinci pays particular attention (stare and study) to ugly (human) faces and forms. I;ll give you another beach test, fully clothed LD walks along a european nudist beach with a nudist european friend. Who would the nude sun bathers be staring at? My guess would be LD because a black hair clothed person stands out among lighter hair color nudist crowd. Since LD is clothed, his physique is covered up. Another example. If Kevin L is paraded along the street with a pair of siamese twins and/or a 8 foot tall guy, I believe Kevin L won't be getting that much stare from the crowd.

1. Well, not everyone wants to play a sport similar to badminton. Some people like football (American), some like volleyball, etc. Turns out that, surprisingly enough, some of them enjoy playing competitively! And guess what, to improve their play, they will work on shaping their bodies to suit those sports. "Ooh, look at those dumb football jocks, with their big, bulky muscles. I am much more suited to manuevering a thin racket in order to strike the shuttlecock, which, in case you didn't know, can reach speeds of 200 mph at the elite levels!" Well, your average competitive football player is going to run straight through an average competitive badminton player. Arguing how different sports demand too much/little from a player's body is the same as the whole apples/oranges thing. Some sports involve body contact, some don't. (My vote is with apples, BTW)

Well, badminton and football are sports. I would classify bodybuilding as an exhibition or a show, similar to modeling. Former sport players are athletics, bodybuilders, imo, are exhibitionist.

2. The muscle strength required for badminton is nothing compared to the endurance required. To be a good player, you don't have to lift weights for one second. A coach who spent 3 months with the Chinese national training team in the 80's said that the only weighted exercises they did was using a leg press machine set at a very light weight, with many fast repetitions (think along the lines of the same motion as skipping rope, but with more resistance); and using a 2 pound weight in the hand, doing a motion that is hard to describe here, but basically is extending the forearm, working the tricep. Obviously, times have changed, training methods involve weights now. The best exercise for badminton is skipping. The coach said that Yang Yang's record for consecutive quadruple-skips was 78. (somewhere around there)

bruce lee and many martial artist experts have similar physique as LD and can crush over a dozen of bricks with one blow (as well as doing many other feats). It seem some people can attain great physical power without the muscle bulk like BB.


Starting with an average physique, one could obtain Lin Dan's muscular composition in a year working on it 30 minutes, every other day. Make that every day, plus diet/nutrition plan if you wanted to lower your body fat to that level.

Bodybuilding isn't as easy as people think. I've read a minute-by-minute journal of a bodybuilder on a competition day, and the attention to what is eaten/drank is much more detailed than what a badminton player thinks about what to eat at a tournament. They have to time everything right in order to look their best for the judges. Things such as which foods to eat at certain times, to ensure they don't look to bloated, to ensure their veins are pumped, etc.

I never said bodybuilding was easy. As you and BRL have disconnect impressiveness with performance, i can in the same token disconnect impressiveness with quantity of effort to attain its final form. In the real world, performance is valued much more highly than effort put in anyway. (ex, exams, tournaments, contests, etc)

How can you argue against guys' whose pure objective is to have massive, ripped, less-suited-to-"practical"-activity bodies?

How? Do u know this thread has 13 pages so far. :p


A side note. I've heard somewhere that basketball involves the most motor systems from the body. Having played it, I find it hard to dispute. You have to be able to use both hands effectively, compared to badminton only have to use one hand. No arguement here.

64% (2001) of american are either obese or overweight. Only 2% of them have low fat (underweight). Balance is normal weighted but i don't say normal weight is low-fat. LD and bruce lee's should have less body fat than some underweights.

When I said "nearly everyone in the developed world," I meant most people are well-suited to everyday life, not that most people have low body fat. I don't think I will ever get to say in my lifetime that most people in N. America have low body fat.

I think u confused oddity with impressiveness. Yes, general public will stare at a BB if LD and a BB were walking along the beach. It is a normal reaction of our eyes to focus attention to visual abnormality of their surrounding. A BB phyisque isnt a normal human form so people do stare. It had been documented that Leonardo Da Vinci pays particular attention (stare and study) to ugly (human) faces and forms. I;ll give you another beach test, fully clothed LD walks along a european nudist beach with a nudist european friend. Who would the nude sun bathers be staring at? My guess would be LD because a black hair clothed person stands out among lighter hair color nudist crowd. Since LD is clothed, his physique is covered up. Another example. If Kevin L is paraded along the street with a pair of siamese twins and/or a 8 foot tall guy, I believe Kevin L won't be getting that much stare from the crowd.

Aiya, Beach Test is turned for use against me! Well, if you have LD walking fully clothed on nudist beach, of course he will stand out. But I don't think any words one might think of is "impressive," unless he's sporting some new fashion designs. Same for siamese twins. However, at least for me, if I saw a BB (not even as big as the really huge guys), one word or synonym that would come to mind would be impressive.

Well, badminton and football are sports. I would classify bodybuilding as an exhibition or a show, similar to modeling. Former sport players are athletics, bodybuilders, imo, are exhibitionist.

bruce lee and many martial artist experts have similar physique as LD and can crush over a dozen of bricks with one blow (as well as doing many other feats). It seem some people can attain great physical power without the muscle bulk like BB.

I never said bodybuilding was easy. As you and BRL have disconnect impressiveness with performance, i can in the same token disconnect impressiveness with quantity of effort to attain its final form. In the real world, performance is valued much more highly than effort put in anyway. (ex, exams, tournaments, contests, etc)

How? Do u know this thread has 13 pages so far. :p

Haha good point. Although with my settings its "only," 4 pages.

I suppose the moral of the thread is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether others like it or not. :)

Phil

First of all, wth? Did u read ur own definition? Muscle "power" or lactace "tolerance" are not words used to describe body structure at all.

If you read my post i didn't equal those attributes to Physique to "power" and "Lactict tolerance", but rather stated that difference in these variables logically means a difference in Physique must be present as well. The difference in these attributes leads to the conclution that Physcal attributes like for example different number/size of different types of muscle fibers, different numers of cell, cell structures, more erythrocytes etc ar all parts of of the physique.

/T

hy·sique (f-zk)
n. The body considered with reference to its proportions, muscular development, and appearance.

The dictionary disagrees with you :)


No, Me and the dictionary dosn't have an argument :-)

Internal organs like lungs, cells, fibers etc are also part of the "structure"..

Look back at the first few posts. Are they talking about lung capacity and lactose tolerance, or are they talking about muscle size and definition? :)

Well, I think we covered that the types of muscles you see on Lin dan most likely has better lactose tolerance and agility than the BB freaks shown.. But this doens't change anything about the strict meaning of the word "physique", so what's your point? :)

/Twobeer

agree.

the title is "impressive physique" not "impressive performance"

there's a difference :)

Of course there is a difference.. Doesn't mean there isn't any correlation betwwen pysique and performance though!!!

Huge + non performing = unimpressive.
large + performing = impressive

/Twobeer

you guys still gon't understand brl's point...

yes, obviously lungs, heart, and other organs are part of the structure, but your argument is pointless for 2 reasons:

1) You keep talking about lactose tolerance, and muscles' abilities? Although those will be linked to the structure of the body, physique is in no way a measurement of adeptness. For example, although a runner may have a "good" physique in your eyes, when you are measuring his lactose tolerance you are in no way measuing his physique! The person who you decide looks like an olympic runner (good physique) may have less lactose tolerance than another guy you deem has an average or poor physique.

2) How is the STRUCTURE of Dan's heart and lungs any more IMPRESSIVE than a body builders? What are they more defined?? Are they larger?? You've never seen either Dan's or any BB organs, yet you are trying to make a judgement on the physique of their organs, which is a visual judgement.

I think u confused oddity with impressiveness.

oddity is by definition impressive. But even if limit impressiveness to admirability, Arnold's physique is still much better than Lin Dan's


Well, badminton and football are sports. I would classify bodybuilding as an exhibition or a show, similar to modeling. Former sport players are athletics, bodybuilders, imo, are exhibitionist.

which goes to show, BBers are more likely to be impressive since they specifically train to impress


bruce lee and many martial artist experts have similar physique as LD and can crush over a dozen of bricks with one blow (as well as doing many other feats). It seem some people can attain great physical power without the muscle bulk like BB.

strength is a function of mind and muscle. The strongest CNS strength is limited by muscle. And in any case it doesn't matter. We don't know how many bricks BBers can crush, but we do know that more than a few of them can move 2500 pounds 1 meter within a second from stationary. Bruce lee isn't strong enough to do that.


I never said bodybuilding was easy

Yes you did. You said being an anorexic is harder than being a BBer. Are you telling me that not eating is incredibly difficult? Anyone can do it.


As you and BRL have disconnect impressiveness with performance, i can in the same token disconnect impressiveness with quantity of effort to attain its final form. In the real world, performance is valued much more highly than effort put in anyway. (ex, exams, tournaments, contests, etc)

Except when a normal person asks another who has the more impressive physique, only you would say "that depends on how well he did on the exams." :p

No, Me and the dictionary dosn't have an argument :-)

Internal organs like lungs, cells, fibers etc are also part of the "structure"..

Then in that case, you are stretching the definition beyond its intended meaning. As I said before... you are free adopt an unreasonable interpretation of that word. But if you ask any sane person whether physique would include internal orgrans, the majority of the people would disagree with you.

This reminds of when Clinton argued over what the definition of "is" is during his impeachment.

Well, I think we covered that the types of muscles you see on Lin dan most likely has better lactose tolerance and agility than the BB freaks shown.. But this doens't change anything about the strict meaning of the word "physique", so what's your point? :)
/TwobeerThe average BBer will have MUCH MUCH better lactose tolerance given the amount of milk they drink.

You statement would be more correct if you meant "lactic acid" tolerance, although I could reasonably disagree with you there as well. A typical bodybuilding routine in the early 90s (and to some today) revolved around large number of reps, and having a high lactic acid tolerance would give a significant advantage to a bodybuilder as that would allow more reps and hence greater muscle size. But since I know little about the lactic acid tolerances of bodybuilders, I'll decline to discuss this topic further. :)

Of course there is a difference.. Doesn't mean there isn't any correlation betwwen pysique and performance though!!!

Huge + non performing = unimpressive.
large + performing = impressive

/Twobeer
impressive physique. The adverb physique modifies the verb impressive.

Who impressess you more is too subjective, and you would just define that as whatever qualities Lin Dan has, and we won't get anywhere.

Hence this topic is limited to physique. :)

you guys still gon't understand brl's point...

exactly. Let's isolate performance from the physique.

You see two men walking down the street, wearing only shorts. You have no idea what they do. Who's body will impress you more?

If you say LD's lookalike you are sorely wrong. Although the typical BBer lacks agility, not everyone with BB physiques are slow. Take a look at top MMA fighters. They are all built like your typical BBer (although around 30-50lb smaller.) They are lightning fast, and have much better agility than Lin Dan would. Kevin Randleman in 2000 had a fighting weight of 232, which is roughly what arnold had during his prime, contest season (235ish). If you think randleman is slow, you should watch some of his fights. He'll leap across the ring and knock his opponent onto the floor before others even have time to react. If you look at randleman and a typical BBer side by side, you would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two unless you know what to look for. (FYI, BBers have bigger legs, especially calves, whereas MMA fighters have bigger upper bodies, espcially neck.)

you guys still gon't understand brl's point...

yes, obviously lungs, heart, and other organs are part of the structure, but your argument is pointless for 2 reasons:

1) You keep talking about lactose tolerance, and muscles' abilities? Although those will be linked to the structure of the body, physique is in no way a measurement of adeptness. For example, although a runner may have a "good" physique in your eyes, when you are measuring his lactose tolerance you are in no way measuing his physique! The person who you decide looks like an olympic runner (good physique) may have less lactose tolerance than another guy you deem has an average or poor physique.

2) How is the STRUCTURE of Dan's heart and lungs any more IMPRESSIVE than a body builders? What are they more defined?? Are they larger?? You've never seen either Dan's or any BB organs, yet you are trying to make a judgement on the physique of their organs, which is a visual judgement.

Your points neither makes much sense nor invalidates my agument that Physique is more than a simple translation of body-size.

1) Are you trying to tell us that you do not think an olympic runner has good physique? What we do in this thread is nothing more than to make assumptions about their real-world physique based on some pictures... so your point is mooth.

2) All visual judgement of someones physique is based on presumtions, based on personal or general experiences about the correlatione betweek apperance and performance.
These presumtions makes you impressed or non impressed..

So when looking at a visual image of Lin dan or a BodyBuilder we are making certain presumtions about their performance, that either makes us impressed or not-so-impressed.

My presumtions is that a body looking like Lin Dan performs alot better in most aspects than one of the BB:ers pictures posted in this thread ( a good analogy would be Bruce Lees Physique vs. Arnold Swarzeneger ).
Your presumtions are obviuosly the reverse.. Hence your'e impressed by the attributes of a BodyBuilder look..

For all I care You could as well be stating that ex-bodybuilder look are the most impressive physique (from a visual standpoint):

http://www.jokeornot.com/gallery/ex_bodybuilder.jpg

But that doesn't mean I have to agree.. :)

/Twobeer

exactly. Let's isolate performance from the physique.

You see two men walking down the street, wearing only shorts. You have no idea what they do. Who's body will impress you more?

If you say LD's lookalike you are sorely wrong. Although the typical BBer lacks agility, not everyone with BB physiques are slow. Take a look at top MMA fighters. They are all built like your typical BBer (although around 30-50lb smaller.) They are lightning fast, and have much better agility than Lin Dan would. Kevin Randleman in 2000 had a fighting weight of 232, which is roughly what arnold had during his prime, contest season (235ish). If you think randleman is slow, you should watch some of his fights. He'll leap across the ring and knock his opponent onto the floor before others even have time to react. If you look at randleman and a typical BBer side by side, you would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two unless you know what to look for. (FYI, BBers have bigger legs, especially calves, whereas MMA fighters have bigger upper bodies, espcially neck.)

though i suppose MMA fighters you are talking about incorporate alot of BB elements in their training, unlike BB's these MMA's also undergo plenty agility and reflex training. much like badminton athletes. this is something i think that diff pure BB's from other athletes. so perhaps you shouldnt use MMA's as a yardstick to gauge BB's athletism cause they are not the same. just my opinion though.

still think Lin Dan is quite an impresive physique. but respect goes to BB's as well. but if i had a choice to choose between the two (as my body) it would still be Lin Dan's cause less bulk/size. would prob feel strange trying to fit into my car and stuff if i was that big :D

exactly. Let's isolate performance from the physique.

You see two men walking down the street, wearing only shorts. You have no idea what they do. Who's body will impress you more?

If you say LD's lookalike you are sorely wrong. Although the typical BBer lacks agility, not everyone with BB physiques are slow. Take a look at top MMA fighters. They are all built like your typical BBer (although around 30-50lb smaller.) They are lightning fast, and have much better agility than Lin Dan would. Kevin Randleman in 2000 had a fighting weight of 232, which is roughly what arnold had during his prime, contest season (235ish). If you think randleman is slow, you should watch some of his fights. He'll leap across the ring and knock his opponent onto the floor before others even have time to react. If you look at randleman and a typical BBer side by side, you would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two unless you know what to look for. (FYI, BBers have bigger legs, especially calves, whereas MMA fighters have bigger upper bodies, espcially neck.)

To help you spot the difference between the visual apperance of an MMA physique and a BB:er I'll post a picture of one of the greatest MMA fighters ever..

Rickson Gracie:

http://www.hyekatchdo.com/legends/rickson.jpg

compare this to your own Bodybuilder picture:
http://www.badmintonforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4265&stc=1

Can you spot the difference?

With your previous arguments Rickson Gracie should not be classified as having an Impressive physique??? :D


/Twobeer

i dont think there are any top NFL or rugby players with (over)proportions such as the picture above. the reason should be obvious as well.

but then again, what would i know about NFL. i havent even seen a whole game :D

Your points neither makes much sense nor invalidates my agument that Physique is more than a simple translation of body-size.

1) Are you trying to tell us that you do not think an olympic runner has good physique? What we do in this thread is nothing more than to make assumptions about their real-world physique based on some pictures... so your point is mooth.

2) All visual judgement of someones physique is based on presumtions, based on personal or general experiences about the correlatione betweek apperance and performance.
These presumtions makes you impressed or non impressed..

So when looking at a visual image of Lin dan or a BodyBuilder we are making certain presumtions about their performance, that either makes us impressed or not-so-impressed.

My presumtions is that a body looking like Lin Dan performs alot better in most aspects than one of the BB:ers pictures posted in this thread ( a good analogy would be Bruce Lees Physique vs. Arnold Swarzeneger ).
Your presumtions are obviuosly the reverse.. Hence your'e impressed by the attributes of a BodyBuilder look..

For all I care You could as well be stating that ex-bodybuilder look are the most impressive physique (from a visual standpoint):
do u skim my posts on purpose to misquote me? how did u get the impression that im mocking a runners physique?? I didn't specify the distance or any details about the runner on purpose because it was irrelevant to the point i was trying to make: a person who, in ones opinion, has a better looking body (ie. physique that impresses them more) whether its a bb, badminton player, 100m sprinter, marathon runner, (this includes a physique that one feels is helpful to the sport) may not be the better performer in that field! By judging the impressiveness of ones physique you are not necessarily judging what they are able to do. For example, I see a world's strongest man champion next to a body builder and I know the champion can out lift the body builder in almost every way, but I'm still more impressed by the bb's physique.

You made one point that was valid, but still pathetic because I and others have repeated it several times: the impressiveness of a physique is in the eye of the beholder. This is true, though, like other's have said, if you didn't know who Dan Lin was but you played badminton as much as you do now and you saw Dan in shorts walking next to Kevin Lev in shorts on a beach, you would probably feel sorry for Dan because he so much less impressive, or not even notice him. I mean, when he's not flexing he just looks skinny and cut with athletic looking legs. But overall I agree with this point because I'm sure there's ppl out there...maybe you (though I don't think ur being honest with yourself) who wouldn't even glance at Kevin because Dan Lin was blowing them away with his body...

After that semi relevant point you go on to state that someone who is excessively bizarre looking is impressive, which is frustatingly annoying because it's been said 3 or 4 times that impressive is a positive statement! To say someone is impressive is to compliment them!!

One final thing, if you didn't know bruce lee had incredible fighting skills lets face it, you wouldn't be as impressed with his physique as arnold's...and how is being able to fight well (bruce lee) better that being able to look good to the majority of North Americans and lift a lot of weight (arnold). Honestly, which one is more useful? How often do ppl get into physical fights in the "real world"?

P.S: what does "real-world" have to do with the impressiveness of physique? Does having a common, office worker (because that's "real world") body have anything to do with being impressive? Pls don't make another comment until you've read all of this through carefully; and for god's sake dont repeat another one of your points..:mad:

i think the path that this thread's contributors are taking are starting to get a bit far from the original intend of the thread. so as a result, this thread will be closed.