Is bench press the best indicator of upper body strength?

[DanDragon Machi]

Hafthor would be superior in any purely strength dependent events and is undeniably stronger. But armwrestling requires more than just strength and is very technique dependent also.

I agree with you but in the scenario that I'm putting there is no professional. Both people has poor technique thus I don't think the loser one could deny he/she is weaker than the winner

 

[wufabufa]

I think it's not so simple. If lifter A can bench more than lifter B but lifter B can biceps curls more do you think A could go on claiming that he is the strongest? I'm considering both having same technique

Dude, you really need to read the entire thread. The same guy you're quoting here and arguing with has being advocating for 2 or 3 events to test overall upperbody strength, both pushing and pulling.

 

[DanDragon Machi]

Dude, you really need to read the entire thread. The same guy you're quoting here and arguing with has being advocating for 2 or 3 events to test overall upperbody strength, both pushing and pulling.

I got it but the discussion was opened because the conclusion never was a closed question. There is divergent opinions here and I enjoy reading each them

I think AW is a good indicator too if there is no technique involved (like between two amateur girls)

 

[Volador]

I got it but the discussion was opened because the conclusion never was a closed question. There is divergent opinions here and I enjoy reading each them

I think AW is a good indicator too if there is no technique involved (like between two amateur girls)

Arm wrestling is a poor indicator because there's no way to measure how much force is being applied. Ridiculously strong people can lose to experienced guys due to little tweaks in technique. No matter how good your technique, you're not going to outbench a ridiculously stronger guy unless there's something very strange going on.

Even among the inexperienced. if someone makes a small adjustment in wrist position, or intuitively discovers a way to exercise superior leverage against the other's arm he might win due to factors other than strength. Also, some matches might go long, and you might enter into endurance terrain, where it's not about pure strength anymore. It's true though that World's Strongest Man used to have armwrestling as an event, but it was eventually phased out. One guy broke an arm due to poor technique too.

1RM at the Bench press/Military press/chin up are easy to measure, relatively simple to teach (not really, but we're assuming this is not a pro competition or anything) and easy to compare. They are better tests of pure strength. Whoever lifts more poundage for a rep wins.

 

[DanDragon Machi]

Arm wrestling is a poor indicator because there's no way to measure how much force is being applied. Ridiculously strong people can lose to experienced guys due to little tweaks in technique. No matter how good your technique, you're not going to outbench a ridiculously stronger guy unless there's something very strange going on.

Even among the inexperienced. if someone makes a small adjustment in wrist position, or intuitively discovers a way to exercise superior leverage against the other's arm he might win due to factors other than strength. Also, some matches might go long, and you might enter into endurance terrain, where it's not about pure strength anymore. It's true though that World's Strongest Man used to have armwrestling as an event, but it was eventually phased out. One guy broke an arm due to poor technique too.

1RM at the Bench press/Military press/chin up are easy to measure, relatively simple to teach (not really, but we're assuming this is not a pro competition or anything) and easy to compare. They are better tests of pure strength. Whoever lifts more poundage for a rep wins.

Good point

Do you think a person who can dumbbell bench 60 pounds for 12 reps can be considered stronger than another who can bench the same weight and same technique but for one or two fewer reps? Or it's possible that this person is stronger and only less endurance?

 

[Sano]

Strength is the ability to exert force against a load.

Armwrestling depends much more on technique than pure strength, it's not a good gauge of general strength, it's a very specific movement. Devon Larrat would beat Hafthor Bjornsson in armwrestling, doesn't mean he's stronger. He's just extremely trained in that specific movement/position.

Hafthor would be superior in any purely strength dependent events and is undeniably stronger. But armwrestling requires more than just strength and is very technique dependent.

Of course benching is somewhat specific and has its technique as well. Which is why I was suggesting 2 or 3 events to measure general upper body strength. But among an untrained population, with similarly untrained technique, bench and press would give you a good idea of who has more upper body strength as long as they can perform them acceptably.

Just nitpicking here because you're making a very reasonable argument, but in the context of the thread it would probably be more accurate to say that strength is peak muscle force, measured by the maximum voluntary isometric contraction. As soon as you introduce external, movable, loads you're introducing external leverages. It's certainly possible that one person is stronger, ie, can produce more muscle force in the relevant muscle groups, yet have a lower bench because of worse anatomical leverages, technique and muscle synergism.

As you said, that's not as easily measurable so it's less useful. But it does lend some credence to the specificity of strength, however marginal.

 

[Noodles03]

Just nitpicking here because you're making a very reasonable argument, but in the context of the thread it would probably be more accurate to say that strength is peak muscle force, measured by the maximum voluntary isometric contraction. As soon as you introduce external, movable, loads you're introducing external leverages. It's certainly possible that one person is stronger, ie, can produce more muscle force in the relevant muscle groups, yet have a lower bench because of worse anatomical leverages, technique and muscle synergism.

As you said, that's not as easily measurable so it's less useful. But it does lend some credence to the specificity of strength, however marginal.

I always enjoy reading your post because I learn so much.

 

[Sano]

I always enjoy reading your post because I learn so much.

Haha thanks man, but there's a lot of stuff I dont know, and have expanded my views on as well. It really is true that the more you learn the more you realise how little you know. But, that's what makes it fun too! Have a good one.