|
United States522 Posts
Hey all, I have been visiting TL.net for several years watching vods etc., but I only actually singed up for the site a little bit ago. I'm D+ on iccup (only 80-90 apm by massively cheesing Koreans as Protoss, I have won games against people with APM 200 points higher than me). Anyways, I noticed that everyone is pretty helpful with blog answers, so I thought I would ask for your help.
So I have a friend and he can weight lift a ton, and I can't. I can run long distances (5k-15k) decently, short distances (1 mile), etc. very fast, and he can't. Anyways, we wanted to create some kind of competition, kind of like a bet with the winner buying drinks or something that pitted my speed versus his muscle. What we came up was with for every extra pound he lifts more than I in our weightlifting regemine I give him a 1 sec head start in a 1 mile race (he is really slow, so I think I can win, even with a 2 min disadvantage).
So for example he bench presses 185 and I bench press 125, so he gets +60 sec there, Curls like 20 pounds more then me so +20 sec there, and so on and so forth.
I was wondering if anyone could come up with a better competition or how to modify this to make it more fair/interesting.
Thanks TL
 
|
United States24769 Posts
If you tell us how much he can lift, how fast he can run it, and how fast you can run it, then we can calibrate the numbers to be fair... otherwise your guess is as good as ours.
|
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though.
|
On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though.
Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial?
|
On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? I think he means that converting kilometers to kilograms will be more consistent...tbh I have no clue though 
|
On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial?
Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven.
I guess you could run with an overweight inverse to you lift? I dont know they are too different skills.
|
if he can only bench 185 thats not much, come on man ><
|
well if you are sure you are that much faster than him at running... i guess the system you have now would work. How fast do you think you run the mile?
|
United States24769 Posts
On November 15 2008 06:53 malongo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven.I guess you could run with an overweight inverse to you lift? I dont know they are too different skills.
What exactly is proven? I have no idea what you are getting at...
|
On November 15 2008 07:02 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 06:53 malongo wrote:On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven.I guess you could run with an overweight inverse to you lift? I dont know they are too different skills. What exactly is proven? I have no idea what you are getting at...
Haha says the physics teacher. Isn't it all in metric?
Then again I have no idea what proven means either, but I would infer that he means that metric is proven to be accurate when trying to measure things using the metric system.
|
Saying metric is more accurate than imperial is like saying 2 weeks is longer than a fortnight.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
How tall are you and how much do you weight?
|
United States17042 Posts
Metric is exactly as accurate as imperal- however, I believe that kg and meters is both metric and therefore better (I think that's the point that someone above me was trying to make).
you can calibrate the numbers to be slightly more fair, but you should also just realize that the two sports are different. there's really nothing that you can do to determine if either of you guys are more "in shape" or not.
|
On November 15 2008 06:53 malongo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven.
I think he means the standard itself is accepted worldwide, not that it's intrinsically more accurate than imperial. however, the US needs to get off it's ass and convert to the damn metric system, because it *does* make more sense than the current system.
"hey, how many feet should be in a mile?" "hmm... how about 1000?" "no... 5280 is a much better number."
|
On November 15 2008 07:27 vAltyR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 06:53 malongo wrote:On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven. I think he means the standard itself is accepted worldwide, not that it's intrinsically more accurate than imperial. however, the US needs to get off it's ass and convert to the damn metric system, because it *does* make more sense than the current system. "hey, how many feet should be in a mile?" "hmm... how about 1000?" "no... 5280 is a much better number."
what are you trying to prove here... you're saying the U.S. should convert to the metric system, I agree. But, your example of about the mile is measured by feet. Feet is not metric. Someone saying 1000 feet are in a mile is not having trouble grasping the metric system, that person is having trouble grasping intelligence.
|
On November 15 2008 08:04 renegade_zerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 07:27 vAltyR wrote:On November 15 2008 06:53 malongo wrote:On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven. I think he means the standard itself is accepted worldwide, not that it's intrinsically more accurate than imperial. however, the US needs to get off it's ass and convert to the damn metric system, because it *does* make more sense than the current system. "hey, how many feet should be in a mile?" "hmm... how about 1000?" "no... 5280 is a much better number." what are you trying to prove here... you're saying the U.S. should convert to the metric system, I agree. But, your example of about the mile is measured by feet. Feet is not metric. Someone saying 1000 feet are in a mile is not having trouble grasping the metric system, that person is having trouble grasping intelligence.
Way to miss the point of the post.
|
thread officialy derailed, op: next time run in kilometers.
|
On November 15 2008 08:04 renegade_zerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2008 07:27 vAltyR wrote:On November 15 2008 06:53 malongo wrote:On November 15 2008 06:33 Durak wrote:On November 15 2008 06:06 Archaic wrote:
I think that you should calibrate it to KMS. Instead of pounds, use KG. Instead of miles, use meters. More accurate, and more commonly accepted. Physics =P.
I think this competition works fairly well, though. Wait, how is metric more accurate than imperial? Its just worldwide accepted and statistically proven. I think he means the standard itself is accepted worldwide, not that it's intrinsically more accurate than imperial. however, the US needs to get off it's ass and convert to the damn metric system, because it *does* make more sense than the current system. "hey, how many feet should be in a mile?" "hmm... how about 1000?" "no... 5280 is a much better number." what are you trying to prove here... you're saying the U.S. should convert to the metric system, I agree. But, your example of about the mile is measured by feet. Feet is not metric. Someone saying 1000 feet are in a mile is not having trouble grasping the metric system, that person is having trouble grasping intelligence.
What???
I still consider 1 mile = 5280 feet way too hard to compared to 1km = 1000m
At least its not like random 5280 :D
|
You can use physics formulas to calculate the work required to lift x weight and run x distance, which I think is what the people are saying above me talking about kg and m, etc. I don't know exactly what those formulas are though, but theoretically they exist. Calculating work for lifting weights would probably be a lot easier than for running, but it should be possible to calculate or atleast approximate the work required.
|
United States522 Posts
I am 5 foot 10 about 165
My friend is about 6 foot tall 200 pounds I think
As for the weight lifting its 3 sets of 10, so 185 still might not be a lot, but I'm not sure.
My friend thinks can run the mile in 8 min something (he's kind out of shape)
I am pretty sure I can run a 5 min 30 sec mile.
As for the whole competition, we're trying to design it to be fair, and not to give anyone person an advantage, while at the same time giving an incentive to lift more weight/run faster.
Thanks for your input.
Oh btw, I know the imperial system is a bitch (I graduated materials engineering and we always went metric, except for an oddball mechanical engineering problem) but that's how America does things (well at least in the weight room and on our highways).
|
|
|
why don't you enter a decathlon together, or some other sort of multi-event competition, and add up your combined score for all the events?
|
Well, basically your lifting capacity and your distance running are almost competely different process. So its kinda hard to make a competition that is fair. He will beat you in the weightlifting, you will beat him in the race. If you try to find a conversion rate, the competition will inevitably be unfair.
The best I could think is to go by a percentage system.
You go against each other and work out what percentage the winner won by.
|
How old are you, may i ask? 8min or w/e mile he can run is pretty bad :\
|
this really wouldn't make it a competition but more of a 'whos better'..
i know based on running times you can come up with an age and gender graded percentage of how "good" you are relative to the best. if there's a similar thing for weightlifting (i assume you'd need age, gender and weight though) then you can use the percentage grades to figure out who's "better" relatively.
doesn't make it much of a competition though, more of a statement =o
edit: but really, you're a distance runner; running a mile is hardly fair to you. most people can generally cough out a mile even if they've never run before. now 9.3 miles is a totally different thing. it's like limiting how much you can lift.. really no point, neh? i guess i'm just trying to point out that as the distances increase, the gap will get ridiculously wide so it doesn't matter what conversion system you use w.r.t to pounds lifted vs seconds headstart. if it turns out that giving him a 2min headstart in the mile was too long, simply up the distance to a 5k.. unless you've run before, running a 5k is reaaaaaaally tough, nevermind a 15k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
