Who is physically stronger: UFC champ LESNAR or Strikeforce champ OVEREEM?

And he's also got a really REALLY big ****.

 

Dude man havent you read Beebs's posts? Overeem has BODYBUILDING muscles!!!! 660lb deadlift? Brock must be doing twice that.. Oh wait a minute..

 

In a nut shell...Brock was good with linear motion backwards and forwards....

He was not good moving side to side (horizontal) which is kind of important....

Now a dude who was/is more athletic than Brock was Stephen ONeal who beat him in the 1999 NCAA finals and was a World Champ in freestyle wrestling who went on to play for the New England Patriots ....he didn't play college ball....

 

I did underestimate Overeem's strength.

My point though is that being defined and having a good physique does not always correlate with better strength than a guy with a body that looks more like a strongman.

 

Stop backtracking. Like i said MUSCLES = STRENGTH. Its a VERY simple formula. Technique aside Overeem is certainly a strong individual. Matter of fact he has Olympic calibre strength. I know Ronnie Coleman did an 800lb deadlift and he trained primarily with routines that were akin to powerlifters and strongmen. Overeem in that video is 140lbs shy of that and he's a fighter. Thats a hella strong dude.

 

I'm not backtracking, I'm admitting a mistake, as an adult.

Yes to a degree muscle = strength, but more muscle doesn't always mean more strength at the elite level.

Ronnie Coleman undoubtedly has more muscle than say Ed Coan, but he does not have more strength in those muscles. How can Coan be stronger with less muscle, according to your theory?

Whats so hard to understand about that? Increasing muscle size is not always the most efficient way to increase strength, or Coleman would be the strongest man alive. Coleman is also by far the strongest bodybuilder, he is not exactly the norm.

Olympic calibre strength? That is a gross exageration, look at what the HW's are lifting in the 2 olympic lifts; Overeem, or any other non olympic lifter can't approach those numbers.

 

Let me spell it for you for the umpteenth time. TECHNIQUE! Like you said there are many factors to consider but technique is paramount for strongmen/powerlifters etc.

 

So you think with the same technique Coleman could outlift elite powerlifters?

Sadly mistaken, and proven so in strongman competitions where technique can't always be trained.

 

Im not saying that at all as thats entirely semantic and cant be quantified. What i am saying is that technique takes time to learn and train. Technique plays a huge part in strongmen competitions as well of course strength.

 

Simple question, do you think that things beyond simple size of a muscle effect strength?

IE, can a smaller muscle be stronger than a larger one?

 

All things being equal of course a smaller muscle cannot be assumed to be stronger than a larger one.

 

I didn't say all things equal, because all things are not equal, and I didn't say assumed.

A smaller muscle trained through methods aimed at improving strength can be stronger than a larger muscle trained for hypertrophy.

Can you possibly deny this? Or do you think the biggest bodybuilders are the strongest people in the world, just lack form?

 

yeah but thats a tattoo so it doesn't count when comparing.

 

This one made me think for a minute before concluding that Lesnar was probably the correct answer mainly due to Beebs' reasoning. Plus Scurla sort of went of the deep end with the Olympic lifting comparison, NOTHING PERSONAL!

Regardless they are both physical specimens. So I can appreciate this because I have many years of weight lifting experience.

In conclusion; Mark Coleman was stronger than both of them in his prime.

 

Mark Kerr was FAR FAR stronger than a prime Coleman. Even Coleman would attest to this.