Post your vertical leap, height, wheigh, max bench press, standing reach,wingspan etc

[QUOTE=Revelation]Prime stats (from 2-3 years ago):

Height: 5'8
Weight:165 lbs
Vertical leap: Around 40 inches -- I could dunk fairly easy on a good day
Max Bench: 225 x 9 -- Max probably near 300lbs.
Standing reach: Unknown
Wingspan: Unknown
40 yard dash: Unknown
[B]
I have to assume that some of these people's stats are inflated. If not, several of you guys are world-class athletes. [/B]Maybe I don't know very many true athletes but I rarely (if ever) see people who have a 42+ inch verticals or that bench press 500+lbs.[/QUOTE]

Funny thing is, you have one of the top 3-5 unrealistic looking bench numbers. 225 x 9 times is unusually high for a 5'8" 165lb guy. Heck, I only did 225 once when I was 5'8" 160lb and only about 4% body fat.

[QUOTE=Darius]Lotta guys with 40"+ verts in this thread :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

All you guys are lying. lilojmayo said his standing vertical was 32-33 inches. He said the standing vertical is better because it measures pure explosiveness off the ground.

[IMG]http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm197/retrojordanxvii/lilojmmmay-1.jpg[/IMG]

He did this w/o running he just turned around and jumped. look how high his feet are off the ground. There's no way that half you guys can jump 8 inches higher then him of a vertical jump.

I just checked the last 4 or 5 pages of this thread and the average vert of posters seems to be around 26-28(with an approach) inches, with the odd 35+ inch vert in there.

So unless you guys only seen the first few posts of the thread and seen a few 35-40+ inch verticles thrown out, I doubt you actually read through the whole thread, because from what I seen (over the last 5 or so pages) there aren't that many people claiming a ridiculous vert.

Edit: Just checked the first few pages and the average vert does seem to be higher. I'd still say that 26-28 is high for some people here, but not really that uncommon.

Height: 6-1 (6-2 in shoes)
Weight: 180
Wingspan: 6-4
Standing reach: (without shoes) 7-8 with my left arm 7-7 with my right arm
Max Press: 250
Vertical: 36
40 Time: 4.5

None of you retards can jump stop kidding yourself.

[QUOTE=Kebab Stall]I'm white.

I have long arms and very long legs. I don't know where it came from. My Dad was 6'2, but didn't have long arms, his arm span was only about the same as his height, which is about normal. He did have long legs though. His Dad, my Grandad, is only 6' and doesn't have long arms or long legs. My Mum's quite tall for a woman, about 5'7 - 5'8, but again, doesn't really have long arms or legs.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that answer. Usually ppl with relatively long arms have relatively long legs (or vice versa). I am also guessing you probably have square/high shoulders (and a 'short' neck) ( The neck only appears shorter or longer because of shoulder elevation if you know what I am saying). I have very square shoulders, so even though my arm length isn't absurdly long for my height (5,9" with only a 5,11" wingspan), I suppose I have an advantage in standing reach because of shoulder height.

I have a 48 inch vertical and I run the 40 in 4.3.

[QUOTE=FIXED] He said [B]the standing vertical is better [/B]because it measures pure explosiveness off the ground.
[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. If the goal is to measure pure explosiveness, then yes, it is a better measurement. But if the goal is to simply see who can get higher overall, then running vert is better.

[QUOTE=Myth]Yes and no. If the goal is to measure pure explosiveness, then yes, it is a better measurement. But if the goal is to simply see who can get higher overall, then running vert is better.[/QUOTE]
Maybe standing vertical and running verticals should be averaged to see the average explosiveness. That's just my two cents.

[QUOTE=supersmashbros]Thanks for that answer. Usually ppl with relatively long arms have relatively long legs (or vice versa). I am also guessing you probably have square/high shoulders (and a 'short' neck) ( The neck only appears shorter or longer because of shoulder elevation if you know what I am saying). I have very square shoulders, so even though my arm length isn't absurdly long for my height (5,9" with only a 5,11" wingspan), I suppose I have an advantage in standing reach because of shoulder height.[/QUOTE]
I don't really have a short neck, it is quite long. Not ridiculously long, like Chris Bosh, but long enough. My shoulders are high, but again, not that high.

[QUOTE=plowking]I have a 48 inch vertical and I run the 40 in 4.3.[/QUOTE]
You too? I thought it was just me and MJ.

[QUOTE=KenneBell]You too? I thought it was just me and MJ.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. I have plenty of pictures and quotes from my trainer stating so.

[QUOTE=Kebab Stall]I don't really have a short neck, it is quite long. Not ridiculously long, like Chris Bosh, but long enough. My shoulders are high, but again, not that high.[/QUOTE]
btw speaking of high shoulders, you can't forgot to mention guys like Shawn Marion, Phil Jackson, and Kevin Mchale! They also have long wingspans too which effectively makes them play much 'taller' than their listed height. Keep in mind that someone like Chris Bosh has such a small head (relative to his height) that it kinda 'evens-out' his shoulder height. I am guessing you have a relatively short head for your height.

[QUOTE=supersmashbros]btw speaking of high shoulders, you can't forgot to mention guys like Shawn Marion, Phil Jackson, and Kevin Mchale! They also have long wingspans too which effectively makes them play much 'taller' than their listed height. Keep in mind that someone like Chris Bosh has such a small head (relative to his height) that it kinda 'evens-out' his shoulder height. I am guessing you have a relatively short head for your height.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, I haven't measured my head. :oldlol:

I know that I have shortish back for my height. I'm mainly all legs.

I agree, withe the Marion, Jackson and Mchale thing though. Especially Mchale who looked wierd as hell with those high shoulders. I've seen a few times on here, that toe to shoulder height is more important than toe to head height. Which I'd agree with.

[QUOTE=Kebab Stall]I don't know, I haven't measured my head. :oldlol:

I know that I have shortish back for my height. I'm mainly all legs.

I agree, withe the Marion, Jackson and Mchale thing though. Especially Mchale who looked wierd as hell with those high shoulders. I've seen a few times on here, that toe to shoulder height is more important than toe to head height. Which I'd agree with.[/QUOTE]
I am only 5,9" (69 inches) but my head is a little bit on the long side (about 10 inches tall to be precise). However, my shoulders are so square (and thereby making my neck appear so 'short') that my chin is barely an inch from my shoulders. I've compared height with my peers who are the same height as me (by standing right next or ass-to-ass b4 no homo intended) but my shoulder height is greater than the majority of them despite my 'tall' head.