Hello everyone!
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
you can call him a big ol' unit - but saying he is big "for an athlete" is meaningless - Phil Vickery (not the cook) and Martin Bayfield were "athletes" in the sense tyhat they did lots of running and were involved regularly in sport - but were huge - and nobody would question their size.East Lower wrote:He makes his living through athletic endeavours, but does not appear to have the physical frame that one might expect from someone who spends a lot of his time running at a fairly high intensity. I've no doubt that he's fit, but I find it hard to see the fault in calling him a big ol'unitthebish wrote:the word "athlete" (if it simply means somebody who regularly participates in sport) is utterly meaningless to judge appropriate size of body frame.East Lower wrote:He's still pretty big for a supposed athlete.
you might say he's too big to be a footballer - but even then it'd be pretty meaningless...
if his size is showing a particular problem - then what is the particular problem? do you think his size makes him slow? if so - what weight/size do you think would give him the required pace? some people are slow whatever their size...
-
Lofthouse Lower
- Legend
- Posts: 7416
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:08 pm
Size makes slow, definitelythebish wrote:you can call him a big ol' unit - but saying he is big "for an athlete" is meaningless - Phil Vickery (not the cook) and Martin Bayfield were "athletes" in the sense tyhat they did lots of running and were involved regularly in sport - but were huge - and nobody would question their size.East Lower wrote:He makes his living through athletic endeavours, but does not appear to have the physical frame that one might expect from someone who spends a lot of his time running at a fairly high intensity. I've no doubt that he's fit, but I find it hard to see the fault in calling him a big ol'unitthebish wrote:the word "athlete" (if it simply means somebody who regularly participates in sport) is utterly meaningless to judge appropriate size of body frame.East Lower wrote:He's still pretty big for a supposed athlete.
you might say he's too big to be a footballer - but even then it'd be pretty meaningless...
if his size is showing a particular problem - then what is the particular problem? do you think his size makes him slow? if so - what weight/size do you think would give him the required pace? some people are slow whatever their size...
Weight size ratio - who knows
Bet you thought you'd got away with this didn't youEast Lower wrote:He makes his living through athletic endeavours, but does not appear to have the physical frame that one might expect from someone who spends a lot of his time running at a fairly high intensity. I've no doubt that he's fit, but I find it hard to see the fault in calling him a big ol'unitthebish wrote:the word "athlete" (if it simply means somebody who regularly participates in sport) is utterly meaningless to judge appropriate size of body frame.East Lower wrote:He's still pretty big for a supposed athlete.
Think again!
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
ok... (shut up, Pru!).. How heavy is Nolan now? if he lost half a stone - do you think he would run quicker - to the extent that it had a noticeable effect on the effectiveness of his game? (I don't)East Lower wrote: Weight size ratio - who knows
how much pf his "bulk" is muscle - and how much is flab? - people often say Nolamn is fat - but, actually, he isn't - I doubt he has any discernable flab at all.
-
Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12940
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbsEast Lower wrote:Size makes slow, definitelythebish wrote:you can call him a big ol' unit - but saying he is big "for an athlete" is meaningless - Phil Vickery (not the cook) and Martin Bayfield were "athletes" in the sense tyhat they did lots of running and were involved regularly in sport - but were huge - and nobody would question their size.East Lower wrote:He makes his living through athletic endeavours, but does not appear to have the physical frame that one might expect from someone who spends a lot of his time running at a fairly high intensity. I've no doubt that he's fit, but I find it hard to see the fault in calling him a big ol'unitthebish wrote:the word "athlete" (if it simply means somebody who regularly participates in sport) is utterly meaningless to judge appropriate size of body frame.East Lower wrote:He's still pretty big for a supposed athlete.
you might say he's too big to be a footballer - but even then it'd be pretty meaningless...
if his size is showing a particular problem - then what is the particular problem? do you think his size makes him slow? if so - what weight/size do you think would give him the required pace? some people are slow whatever their size...
Weight size ratio - who knows
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
-
Rated R Superstar
- Hopeful
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:30 pm
- Location: Bolton
- Contact:
-
Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Meaning that Bolt weighs 2.69 lbs per inch of height whereas Nolan weighs 2.73 lbs per inch of height - thus supporting East Lower's theory if any.Montreal Wanderer wrote:Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
May the bridges I burn light your way
-
Gary the Enfield
- Legend
- Posts: 8598
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: Enfield
Well, yes. But 6 inches shorter and only 13 pounds lighter?thebish wrote:Montreal Wanderer wrote: Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
said it better than me, Monty - and shorter!
Anyway, muscle weighs more than fat. Since I started running (have I ever mentioned this?) I have lost 3 inches from my waist yet weigh only 7 pounds less.Nolan isn't fat. Bolt isn't fat.
do you go running Gary?Gary the Enfield wrote:Well, yes. But 6 inches shorter and only 13 pounds lighter?thebish wrote:Montreal Wanderer wrote: Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
said it better than me, Monty - and shorter!
Nolan isn't fat. Bolt isn't fat.
-
ohjimmyjimmy
- Icon
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:13 am
- Location: The House of Fun (it's quicker if you run)
Gary the Enfield wrote:Well, yes. But 6 inches shorter and only 13 pounds lighter?thebish wrote:Montreal Wanderer wrote: Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
said it better than me, Monty - and shorter!
Nolan isn't fat. Bolt isn't fat.
-
Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12940
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Only if I made the conversion s correctly (Bolt was listed in cms and kgs, while Nolan in stones and pounds)Bruce Rioja wrote:Meaning that Bolt weighs 2.69 lbs per inch of height whereas Nolan weighs 2.73 lbs per inch of height - thus supporting East Lower's theory if any.Montreal Wanderer wrote:Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
I wasn't contesting the theory beyond the fact size per se does not make slow."If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
Bruce Rioja wrote:Meaning that Bolt weighs 2.69 lbs per inch of height whereas Nolan weighs 2.73 lbs per inch of height - thus supporting East Lower's theory if any.Montreal Wanderer wrote:Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
not really...
EL's theory was simple and bold, namely: "Size makes slow, definitely" (I'm a bigger size than my missus - and a lot faster)
ohjimmyjimmy wrote:Gary the Enfield wrote:Well, yes. But 6 inches shorter and only 13 pounds lighter?thebish wrote:Montreal Wanderer wrote: Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
said it better than me, Monty - and shorter!
Nolan isn't fat. Bolt isn't fat.
Should this be on the celebrity crush thread?
-
Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Ah, so you've avoided it all day until Monty came to bale you out and then gone "Yeah...."thebish wrote:Bruce Rioja wrote:Meaning that Bolt weighs 2.69 lbs per inch of height whereas Nolan weighs 2.73 lbs per inch of height - thus supporting East Lower's theory if any.Montreal Wanderer wrote:Usain Bolt is 6' 5" and 207 lbs
Nolan is 5' 11" and 194 lbs.
Just saying, for comparative purposes...
not really...
EL's theory was simple and bold, namely: "Size makes slow, definitely" (I'm a bigger size than my missus - and a lot faster)
May the bridges I burn light your way
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests