• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Dream Team 4: Golden State Warriors

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
David. said:
No. I would look bigger if we were sitting down. If you take a picture of each person and frame it so it is just exhibiting each persons frame, you are adjusting for height.

The 5'9 guy and i would dwarf lebron.
Click to expand...

Okay... sure. that 5'9 guy has a small frame.
You would dwarf Lebron if he were 180lbs for his height?
 
Sir'Dom Pointer said:
Okay... sure. that 5'9 guy has a small frame.
You would dwarf Lebron if he were 180lbs for his height?
Click to expand...
If we were the same height with the current body mass proportions we currently have, yes
 
David. said:
I get what youre saying, but that formula is to adjust for that disparity.

A 6'6 beanpole is going to look big. Hes 6'6. He is big. It doesnt mean he's strong.
Click to expand...

Lebron is bigger, stronger, smarter, more beautiful, richer, better looking, and more charismatic than you. Deal with it
 
Cavatt said:
Lebron is bigger, stronger, smarter, more beautiful, richer, better looking, and more charismatic than you. Deal with it
Click to expand...

David. Post a pic of your physique. I'll tell you if you are bigger than Bron.

Also, it's much harder to bulk the taller you are. You can't adjust his height and weight to how much a 5'9 Lebron would weigh..

Lebron has a huge shoulder width, you can't tell me that you are as wide as him, that's ridiculous.
 
David. said:
Is math bullshit? Give it up.

69 inches vs. 79. Ill spot you two inches.

LxWxH, right?

69/79 = .8734.

.8734 x 245 = 214 x .8734 = 187. X .8734= 163.

So being very gracious you arrive at 163.

Ok?

2003-04-Topps-Pristine-LeBron-James-RC-101-212x300.jpg


This is some guy at 5'9 at 150 lbs and 8% bodyfat.

0703102138b-1.jpg



Ive been bodybuilding for years (so i sort of know what im talking about) and am much bigger looking than lebron at 180 and 10% at 5'11. Ok?
Click to expand...

as I pointed out previously your strange adjustment method also implies that Shaq is not very big. E.g. at 7' 300 pounds Shaq would, according to your method, equate in size to a 6' 188 pound individual --

(6/7) = .857

300*.857 = 257.1 * .857 = 220.3 * .857 = 188.5

voila, Shaq isn't massive at all! You wouldn't look twice at someone who was 6' 190 would you?

your method just arbitrarily applies a shrinkage factor three times to someone's weight. That is not how body size scales up and down (e.g. your other dimensions do not grow or shrink with your height, and your weight does not scale linearly with height).

You can stick with your method of "proving" that Shaquille O'Neal and Lebron James are normal sized human beings and not large-sized ones. I'll stick with my method of comparing Lebron's size/weight to literally every other person who has ever played his position in the NBA, along with some NFL linebackers and tight ends.
 
cavsfever said:
as I pointed out previously your strange adjustment method also implies that Shaq is not very big. E.g. at 7' 300 pounds Shaq would, according to your method, equate in size to a 6' 188 pound individual --

(6/7) = .857

300*.857 = 257.1 * .857 = 220.3 * .857 = 188.5

voila, Shaq isn't massive at all! You wouldn't look twice at someone who was 6' 190 would you?

your method just arbitrarily applies a shrinkage factor three times to someone's weight. That is not how body size scales up and down (e.g. your other dimensions do not grow or shrink with your height, and your weight does not scale linearly with height).

You can stick with your method of "proving" that Shaquille O'Neal and Lebron James are normal sized human beings and not large-sized ones. I'll stick with my method of comparing Lebron's size/weight to literally every other person who has ever played his position in the NBA, along with some NFL linebackers and tight ends.
Click to expand...
what youre experiencing is called 'cognitive dissonance.'

are you sure youre able to dissassociate shaquile oneal from being 7 feet tall to properly analyze how big you feel youd imagine he was should he not be 7 feet tall?


maxresdefault.jpg

Oh shit! it appears as though he wasnt really all that massive at that weight and height, doesnt it?!

Forget the fact that hes 7 feet tall and just.. open your eyes man. Would you be terrified of this man if you were the same height?

and yes, 190 at six feet is absolutely respectable and worthy of the idea that he is 'big'. 190 isnt 160, is it cavsfever? its almost like one is 20% bigger than the other, isnt it?

you getting pissy about a result doesnt at all address why you feel methodology is incorrect, does it. Yes, your other dimensions do scale linearly. An easier way to say that is "ones body grows proportionately." if you are a bigger person, do you not grow as a person would if they were just bigger? I look forward to your response.


Unless youre aware of a 4th dimension, LxWxH and the logic that bodies grow proportionately is pretty sound my dude.

if you cant come to grips with basic measurement because it produces a result that you aren't happy with, feel free to ask literally a professional. @guitarlifter
 
Last edited:
Something I'm sure has been pointed out, but I didn't realize until today and find funny: Cleveland's win in game 7 was their 73rd of the year...
 
David. said:
what youre experiencing is called 'cognitive dissonance.'

are you sure youre able to dissassociate shaquile oneal from being 7 feet tall to properly analyze how big you feel youd imagine he was should he not be 7 feet tall?


maxresdefault.jpg

Oh shit! it appears as though he wasnt really all that massive at that weight and height, doesnt it?!

Forget the fact that hes 7 feet tall and just.. open your eyes man. Would you be terrified of this man if you were the same height?

and yes, 190 at six feet is absolutely respectable and worthy of the idea that he is 'big'. 190 isnt 160, is it cavsfever? its almost like one is 20% bigger than the other, isnt it?

you getting pissy about a result doesnt at all address why you feel methodology is incorrect, does it. Yes, your other dimensions do scale linearly. An easier way to say that is "ones body grows proportionately." if you are a bigger person, do you not grow as a person would if they were just bigger? I look forward to your response.


Unless youre aware of a 4th dimension, LxWxH and the logic that bodies grow proportionately is pretty sound my dude.

if you cant come to grips with basic measurement because it produces a result that you aren't happy with, feel free to ask literally a professional. @guitarlifter
Click to expand...

I only kinda know what you all are talking about because TL;DR for these past few pages, but the best way to measure "bigness" is to measure weight of lean body mass per inch of height. There has to, however, be some sort of constant height part to the formula in order to do this because, the taller you are, the more lean body mass lbs per inch you will have even if things scale perfectly. So let's say we scale every person to 6 feet tall and let 72 inches be the constant).

W*(1-B)/H*(C/H)^3

W = weight
B = decimal format of body fat percentage
H = height
C = constant height to scale (6 feet tall, or 72 inches)

Shaq @ 300 lbs, 11% body fat, 7 feet tall would be:

300*.89/84*(72/84)^3 = 2.00 LLBM per IHSSFM (lbs of lean body mass per inch of height scaled to a 6 ft man)

Let's take Dave:

180*.89/71*(72/71)^3 = 2.35 LLBM per IHSSFM, a 15% increase over Shaq.

LeBron:

265*.95/80*(72/80)^3 = 2.29 LLBM per IHSSFM, a 2.6% decrease from Dave. Dave and LeBron are almost the same amount of LLBM per IHSSFM, but LeBron is also a lot taller and leaner, which makes him all the more impressive. No offense to Dave. 265 is what I guess LeBron to be, but I remember commentators in 2008 or 2009 saying he weighed 274 then, which I wouldn't consider to be out of the realm of possibility. In that case, LeBron would beat out Dave slightly. Dave could look bigger than LeBron, but remember that LeBron carries a TON of his weight in his legs. I'd also like to add the thought of LeBron if he were to have entered into the NFL. He'd probably be in the 280-300 range because his muscular endurance he has not wouldn't be needed, and he would need more weight to handle hits. One could only imagine.

Now, for fun, let's take prime Ronnie Coleman, 8x Mr. Olympia, from 2004 Mr. Olympia:

294*.96/71*(71/71)^3 = 4.15 LLBM per IHSSFM, a 43.4% increase from Dave.

This is the best formula I know, but it isn't perfect because it doesn't consider the weight of all of the other organs, bones, and all other non-striated-muscle-tissue weight by leaving them out of the equation. However, we aren't really going to get any closer than what I've come up with.
 
Last edited:
guitarlifter said:
I only kinda know what you all are talking about because TL;DR for these past few pages, but the best way to measure "bigness" is to measure weight of lean body mass per inch of height. There has to, however, be some sort of constant height part to the formula in order to do this because, the taller you are, the more lean body mass lbs per inch you will have even if things scale perfectly. So let's say we scale every person to 6 feet tall and let 72 inches be the constant).

W*(1-B)/H*(C/H)^3

W = weight
B = decimal format of body fat percentage
H = height
C = constant height to scale (6 feet tall, or 72 inches)

Shaq @ 300 lbs, 11% body fat, 7 feet tall would be:

300*.89/84*(72/84)^3 = 2.00 LLBM per IHSSFM (lbs of lean body mass per inch of height scaled to a 6 ft man)

Let's take Dave:

180*.89/71*(72/71)^3 = 2.35 LLBM per IHSSFM, a 15% increase over Shaq.

LeBron:

265*.95/80*(72/80)^3 = 2.29 LLBM per IHSSFM, a 2.6% decrease from Dave. Dave and LeBron are almost the same amount of LLBM per IHSSFM, but LeBron is also a lot taller and leaner, which makes him all the more impressive. No offense to Dave. 265 is what I guess LeBron to be, but I remember commentators in 2008 or 2009 saying he weighed 274 then, which I wouldn't consider to be out of the realm of possibility. In that case, LeBron would beat out Dave slightly. Dave could look bigger than LeBron, but remember that LeBron carries a TON of his weight in his legs. I'd also like to add the thought of LeBron if he were to have entered into the NFL. He'd probably be in the 280-300 range because his muscular endurance he has not wouldn't be needed, and he would need more weight to handle hits. One could only imagine.

Now, for fun, let's take prime Ronnie Coleman, 8x Mr. Olympia, from 2004 Mr. Olympia:

294*.96/71*(71/71)^3 = 4.15 LLBM per IHSSFM, a 43.4% increase from Dave.

This is the best formula I know, but it isn't perfect because it doesn't consider the weight of all of the other organs, bones, and all other non-striated-muscle-tissue weight by leaving them out of the equation. However, we aren't really going to get any closer than what I've come up with.
Click to expand...
Thanks.


This is pedantic, but id argue the body fat percentages used, not that it really matters. What you are saying is correct.

Theres also variance in limb length.

But ultimately yes, the formula plus consideration for lbm is your answer. Shaq vs lebron adjusted for height isnt the entire answer. His 190 will look different than lebrons. Easily

Eta: i weigh 200. Fix your stuff. Loljk
 
Last edited:
Who in the fack cares about what y'all talking about, besides you all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
iMoeJoe said:
Who in the fack cares about what y'all talking about, besides you all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Who ever cares about what people are actively engaged in outside of those who are actively engaged?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top