Phil Pfister wins World's Strongest Man competition.

[Vegas]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Charleston firefighter Phil Pfister has become the first American in 24 years to win the World's Strongest Man competition.

But it hasn't gone to his head.

A weary Pfister was back at work Tuesday, three days after winning the 10-day competition in Sanya, China.

"I haven't even gotten a good night's sleep yet," Pfister said.

The 6-foot-6, 325-pound Pfister beat 25 athletes from around the world in events such as bus pulls, car pushes, tire turns and stone lifts.

Wisconsin native Bill Kazmaier was the last American to win the title, winning from 1980 to 1982.

Pfister, 35, a firefighter since 1999, was in second place behind defending champion Mariusz Pudzianowski of Poland entering the last day of competition but won the last five events. He overtook Pudzianowski in the final event in which competitors carry stones, ranging from 220 to 352 pounds, and place them on platforms in a timed event.

[MANOWAR]

Nice find.
He doesn't look that strong, but thats some heavy weight he has to pick up.

www.strongmanphil.com

[Who is Mike Jones?]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Charleston firefighter Phil Pfister has become the first American in 24 years to win the World's Strongest Man competition.

But it hasn't gone to his head.

A weary Pfister was back at work Tuesday, three days after winning the 10-day competition in Sanya, China.

"I haven't even gotten a good night's sleep yet," Pfister said.

The 6-foot-6, 325-pound Pfister beat 25 athletes from around the world in events such as bus pulls, car pushes, tire turns and stone lifts.

Wisconsin native Bill Kazmaier was the last American to win the title, winning from 1980 to 1982.

Pfister, 35, a firefighter since 1999, was in second place behind defending champion Mariusz Pudzianowski of Poland entering the last day of competition but won the last five events. He overtook Pudzianowski in the final event in which competitors carry stones, ranging from 220 to 352 pounds, and place them on platforms in a timed event.

Beating Pudzianowski is REALLY impressive. Kudos to him and all his hard work. Love the strongman competition!

[Mudge]

He doesn't look that strong, but thats some heavy weight he has to pick up.

As I'm sure you know, looks mean almost nothing.

[Double3]

Thats great to hear.

He has come a long way

[MANOWAR]

As I'm sure you know, looks mean almost nothing.

Yes, very true.

One thign I don't understand is how olympic lifters pick up so much weight but don't look that muscular at all.
PB, can you explain why? I always thought that strength = size.

[DirkMoneyshot]

Yes, very true.

One thign I don't understand is how olympic lifters pick up so much weight but don't look that muscular at all.
PB, can you explain why? I always thought that strength = size.

Size is POORLY related to Strength

They have very little in common.

[adidamps2]

yeah for an American to win it finally...

[ManOfMuscle]

Size is POORLY related to Strength

They have very little in common.

I think this is true to a great degree for juicers but not so much for nattys.

[MANOWAR]

Here we go.
Words from Pullinbig
"strength training should always be the core of any lifting program if you wanting to add size. these guys saying that you dont need to train heavy to get big are scared to train heavy or say core movements are not necessarry are lost. i mean how in the hell did ronnie get so damn big? it wont from ignoring heavy weights and skipping deads. but thats another subject."

I remember him specifically saying in a thread about Ronnie Coleman that strength = size, I tried searching but couldn't find.

So is strength = size, or is it just a theory that doesn't hold out for everyone? Very curious on this

[huskyguy]

It is not a theory it is a proven fact.

[MANOWAR]

I'm getting confused. 2 of my gurus are saying 2 different things.

PB says size = strength.
Dirk says size is not related to strength.

Shit

[MANOWAR]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3
\m/ MANOWAR \m/, Mulligan, Golgo13

you my boy Mulli

[huskyguy]

I think the truth is --If you want to train for size, you are best off training for strength it is the best path. However lb per lb many small guys are stronger than big guys. The strongest guy in our gym does not even weigh 150lbs and he is very skinny, but lb for lb he is definitely the strongest individual I have ever met.

[MANOWAR]

Yea, like the olympic lifters I see on tv look very skinny, but they lift up some massive weight

[Insane_Man]

Yes, very true.

One thign I don't understand is how olympic lifters pick up so much weight but don't look that muscular at all.
PB, can you explain why? I always thought that strength = size.

Olympic lifts require strength, speed, dexterity and perfect form all at the same time. Being a streamlined and efficient athlete really pays off here.

[outlawtas]

I think the bigger you are the stronger you are. But just cuz your the biggest dosen't always mean your the strongest. If you gain muslce size you will be stronger, but unless you train for strength you won't be as strong if your training purely for definition or size.

[Melbourne]

Getting stronger will help you get bigger.

Being big doesn't necessarily mean you're strong.

That's about the gist of what I've learned from here.

Olympic weight lifters keep their weight down like boxers and wrestlers so that they can compete in a certain weight division. Isn't it also the case that in the event of a tie the lifter with the lower bodyweight wins? I'm not very sure about that.

[getfitdoc]

He looks strong to me.

[Tafman]

damn, the pollack should have won again.

[ManOfMuscle]

I'm getting confused. 2 of my gurus are saying 2 different things.

PB says size = strength.
Dirk says size is not related to strength.

Shit

PB is right. And saying olympic lifters are skinny is just plain ridiculous please stop. Sure they have weight classes, but skinnny, come on.

[silver_shadow]

Yea, like the olympic lifters I see on tv look very skinny, but they lift up some massive weight

with olympic lifting, 2 huge factors are technique and sheer explosiveness. explosiveness is not necessarily going to help this guy bench 500, but it sure enables him to C&J 190kgs (420lbs) at a bodyweight of a mere 60 kgs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZujiuwWkso

now check out one of the big boys (of oly lifting) - hosein razazadeh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiEAmYhDlBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkSN3f-a3Ok
this guy is much larger and is brutally strong so he doesn't have to rely on technique as much as one of the littler guys.

[02gixxersix]

If you don't eat to get big you won't get any bigger.

[Jusee]

I'm getting confused. 2 of my gurus are saying 2 different things.

PB says size = strength.
Dirk says size is not related to strength.

Shit

Here is the answer nice and simple.

Compared to yourself and nobody else, size does equal strength. When comparing other people to eachother, this is not true.

[jcp2]

Here is the answer nice and simple.

Compared to yourself and nobody else, size does equal strength. When comparing other people to eachother, this is not true.

Show me a beginner or an intermediate lifter who puts 100 lbs on his bench deadlift and squat, and i can guarantee that in 95%, if not more, they are going to get bigger as long as the cals are up. As you get to a higher level physique, obviously it is not going to correlate the same way. That is why 90% of the kids and people you see in the gym don't make any progress, they are not advanced and they are not trying to get stronger, but are trying to do 15 sets per bodypart from the start. They get nowhere, and look the same and never get stronger, until they start with gear.