Gladiator audition

Callidice · 10-10-2008 04:57PM

800 m in 2.30 is hugely quick for anyone packing significant muscle..

I'm 5,11 and 14 3/4 stone with a high level of cardio and athletic fitness and a lot of usable muscle. I'd be strong enough to take on the gladiators with the upper body stuff but could only just manage that kind of sprint with some serious training.

Contender requirements have obviously been geared to exclude those who might be too strong... I bet some of those bigger gladiators could never pass the 800m requirement... how the hell is a sixteen stoner ever going to do the 800 in 2.30?

15 stone and very athletic is probably the upper limit that a contender could possibly be.... it's designed so that the Gladiators have the physical edge.

rubadub · 10-10-2008 05:19PM

Hanley wrote: »

Anyone else wanna call foul and say they pick the smaller guys to put the stack in the gladiators favour?

It is sort of like WWE wrestling, all the referees & managers are tiny, to make the "stars" look even better.
Thing is it all boils down to the final run really, where being small is an advantage.

Hanley wrote: »

Tbh I don't see why more people don't start on the handbike and just fall off. It's only a 10 sec penalty and it normally takes most folk as long, if not longer to do it. Imagine the energy you'd save.

Yeah, I have seen some do this, I would love to have a go. The women still do the monkey bars so I expect this must be a lot harder, and monkey bars are still hard enough, especially the length they have to do, they have monkey bars in cabinteely park

thirtyfoot · 10-10-2008 05:25PM

Callidice wrote: »

800 m in 2.30 is hugely quick for anyone packing significant muscle..

I'm 5,11 and 14 3/4 stone with a high level of cardio and athletic fitness and a lot of usable muscle. I'd be strong enough to take on the gladiators with the upper body stuff but could only just manage that kind of sprint with some serious training.

Contender requirements have obviously been geared to exclude those who might be too strong... I bet some of those bigger gladiators could never pass the 800m requirement... how the hell is a sixteen stoner ever going to do the 800 in 2.30?

15 stone and very athletic is probably the upper limit that a contender could possibly be.... it's designed so that the Gladiators have the physical edge.

Thats a good point regarding limiting the really big guys getting in but not being able to run 800m in 2:30 (if you are male) is not having a very high level of cardio in my opinion.

Callidice · 10-10-2008 08:52PM

Tingle wrote: »

Thats a good point regarding limiting the really big guys getting in but not being able to run 800m in 2:30 (if you are male) is not having a very high level of cardio in my opinion.

I can't agree with that - you are limited by the amount of weight you are pulling round the track. At the moment I would consider myself to have a higher level of cardio fitness than I had a year ago yet a year ago I was over a stone lighter and could therefore do the 1 1/2 mile significantly faster... at nearly fifteen very muscular stone and 40 years old I can run 1 1/2 miles in 10 minutes flat and do the 5k in 24 minutes... If I were lighter and carrying less muscle I would be faster yet not necessarily fitter... it takes a huge amount of cardio fitness to power 15 stone through 800 meters in any significant time - much much more than it takes a 12 stoner who can virtually glide that distance at that time yet may not be fitter in a relative sense.... For instance, me and a friend do pullups and I can almost match him... just not quite - he is three stone lighter than me... who is the stronger? definitely me, I'm pulling much more weight for nearly the same rep and it probably takes 4 extra lbs of muscle just to offset every 2 extra lbs in absolute weight.

I think 2 minutes 30 seconds would be nigh on impossible for someone around 16 stone yet several gladiators past and present are at this weight and heavier.... contenders are meant to be more 'all rounders' wheras Gladiators have the advantage of 'specialisation'... If contenders were picked as specialists too then gladiators might be beaten regularly....

I think the best 'all rounder' to fit their criteria couldn't really be above 15 stone - they just wouldn't be able to do the endurance stuff and yet 15 stone doesn't equal the biggest gladiators in strength.... the dice are loaded in this game. When was the last time anyone saw a contender pick a gladiator off the pyramid and toss him in the air? Yet plenty of guys could do that - they want the gladiators to be bigger and badder - it's better theatre.

Hanley · 10-10-2008 09:10PM

Callidice wrote: »

I can't agree with that - you are limited by the amount of weight you are pulling round the track. At the moment I would consider myself to have a higher level of cardio fitness than I had a year ago yet a year ago I was over a stone lighter and could therefore do the 1 1/2 mile significantly faster... at nearly fifteen very muscular stone and 40 years old I can run 1 1/2 miles in 10 minutes flat and do the 5k in 24 minutes... If I were lighter and carrying less muscle I would be faster yet not necessarily fitter... it takes a huge amount of cardio fitness to power 15 stone through 800 meters in any significant time - much much more than it takes a 12 stoner who can virtually glide that distance at that time yet may not be fitter in a relative sense.... For instance, me and a friend do pullups and I can almost match him... just not quite - he is three stone lighter than me... who is the stronger? definitely me, I'm pulling much more weight for nearly the same rep and it probably takes 4 extra lbs of muscle just to offset every 2 extra lbs in absolute weight.

I think 2 minutes 30 seconds would be nigh on impossible for someone around 16 stone yet several gladiators past and present are at this weight and heavier.... contenders are meant to be more 'all rounders' wheras Gladiators have the advantage of 'specialisation'... If contenders were picked as specialists too then gladiators might be beaten regularly....

I think the best 'all rounder' to fit their criteria couldn't really be above 15 stone - they just wouldn't be able to do the endurance stuff and yet 15 stone doesn't equal the biggest gladiators in strength.... the dice are loaded in this game. When was the last time anyone saw a contender pick a gladiator off the pyramid and toss him in the air? Yet plenty of guys could do that - they want the gladiators to be bigger and badder - it's better theatre.

Lol... we get it, you're huge and can't do it!!!

I'd listen to Tingle on fitness standards when it comes to running/track. He's the resident expert around here.

Callidice · 10-10-2008 09:14PM

Hanley wrote: »

Lol... we get it, you're huge and can't do it!!!

I'd listen to Tingle on fitness standards when it comes to running/track. He's the resident expert around here.

heh... I can't do it yet but think it's certainly achievable and will be able to do it with appropriate training yet keep my size....

I would be really surprised though if someone a stone heavier could do it - it's very difficult to believe that someone 16 stone + of muscle could run 800m in less than 2.30 even if they have an incredible standard of cardio fitness... It's like a very heavy car with a very powerful engine - it's not as quick as a car with a much less powerful engine yet much lighter. that's all I was saying yet I took a lot of words to say so.... I have no wish to upset your resident expert.... I'm sure he knows more than I do about track but I know a thing or two about muscle

rubadub · 10-10-2008 09:46PM

Callidice wrote: »

I think 2 minutes 30 seconds would be nigh on impossible for someone around 16 stone yet several gladiators past and present are at this weight and heavier.... contenders are meant to be more 'all rounders' wheras Gladiators have the advantage of 'specialisation'.

The gladiators do not do much running etc, They just stand there and look big and fight them with their power, the usual job in the games is to prevent the contestant finishing a course. It is not really like a boxing match or one on one sport where both contestants are doing the same thing. It is usually the small guy trying to weasel by the big giant, or on events like standing on the platform with the sticks, just being able to last the time (which again is usually try to dodge the big slow guy).

Callidice wrote: »

When was the last time anyone saw a contender pick a gladiator off the pyramid and toss him in the air? Yet plenty of guys could do that - they want the gladiators to be bigger and badder - it's better theatre.

The aim is to get to the top, to get past the big guy. It does make better theatre when the person beats the big guy, the commentators get cheap slags in and the crowd goes mental "oh you think you're so big & strong" etc.

I can't remember how gladiators works, is it just 2 lads and 2 girls at the start. Then they do events and depending on points they get a faster start at the end?

As I said before it really boils down to the end game, which really suits lighter people. Like Hanley said they could be better dropping off the handbike thing, and they could be better off just dropping out of the other early games too, if it is only 2 people at the start. i.e. if you are guaranteed to be in the final you might be better off entering it fresh and uninjured albeit with a time disadvantage.

There is really no need to be able to run fast in gladiators. I do not run so guess I could not do 800m in that time, I expect some of my mates could, but I also expect I would beat most of them in that final round event.

Racing Flat · 10-10-2008 09:53PM

It's close enough to speed 20 on the TM for 2mins 30. That sounds scary to me even though I can do it on land easily...

@ Tingle, I don't think whether you could do it or not would be a great sign of 'level of cardio' more to do with speed, specific training and maybe speed endurance. e.g. I know older fellows who can do 10 miles in 55mins (an extremely high level of cardio for their age) yet they would be around 2.20-2.25 for an 800 on the track (although they can rattle out 10 with a 90sec recovery in 2.35) - they just don't have the speed anymore. At the same time, most fellows at my club in their 60's can get close enough to 2.30 for 800.

I'd imagine though that most average punters if you asked them to do it they'd struggle to break 3mins but within just 2-3 weeks of training they'd manage it, so you're probably right it's not that hard.

On Topic, did Amadeus ever go to the trial???????

Racing Flat · 10-10-2008 09:59PM

rubadub wrote: »

As I said before it really boils down to the end game, which really suits lighter people. Like Hanley said they could be better dropping off the handbike thing, and they could be better off just dropping out of the other early games too, if it is only 2 people at the start. i.e. if you are guaranteed to be in the final you might be better off entering it fresh and uninjured albeit with a time disadvantage.

I always say this to the better half when watching. Being a smidgeon over 10 stone, I'd probably get hammered on all the 'rounds' but would be confident enough that I could fly around the eliminator and maybe even a 20sec deficit or that could be made up. Being a runner, I'd probably have more speed than most other contestants, and even though I obviously can't have much muscle mass, I can rattle off chin-ups easily enough, don't have much to lift. Climbing the cargo rope would be a cinch, the travelator would be no problem to a light runner etc. The problem might be that my head might be knocked off my shoulders by the time I get to the eliminator (so the better half won't let me apply:().

Racing Flat · 11-10-2008 12:07AM

Callidice wrote: »

I can't agree with that - you are limited by the amount of weight you are pulling round the track. At the moment I would consider myself to have a higher level of cardio fitness than I had a year ago yet a year ago I was over a stone lighter and could therefore do the 1 1/2 mile significantly faster... at nearly fifteen very muscular stone and 40 years old I can run 1 1/2 miles in 10 minutes flat and do the 5k in 24 minutes... If I were lighter and carrying less muscle I would be faster yet not necessarily fitter...

El Caballo , the Horse, Alberto Juantoreno. Over 6 foot, built like a brick sh1thouse and he could do 800m in 1.43. Weight/power need not necessarily limit 800m times.

http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ju/alberto-juantorena-1.html

Full name: Alberto Juantorena Danger
Nickname(s): El Caballo
Gender: Male
Height: 6'3" (190 cm)
Weight: 185 lbs (84 kg)

84kg might not seem much for his height, but Steve Cram was the same height and 3 stone lighter.

If someone got to 15 stone with a lot of weights they might not do a great 800m but if they got there with a lot of sprint work as well (Usain Bolt, Jonah Lomu) they'd do the 2.30 fairly easily.

Callidice · 11-10-2008 09:56AM

Uh.... yeah look at his bodyweight - just over 13 stone.... the guy is built like a gazelle in comparison.

as I said in my post above... when I was running at 13 stone I was at my fastest ever - there's a big difference in running times on the 800 when you're 15 stone and a huge difference when you're 16 stone regardless of your cardio fitness - believe me, I know.

I never said a 15 stoner couldn't do the 800 in 2.30... I believe I can attain it myself (and I'm nearly 40) - I said that I think 15 stone is near the upper limit size of someone who can do the 800 in that time... anyone much bigger just wouldn't be able - regardless of their relative cardio fitness - that is how the programme makers limit the physical size of the contenders without it being obvious that they want smaller contenders. They do it by knowing this, thus they are setting an upper-size limit which effectively rigs the contest in the gladiators' favour.... two of the current gladiators are 17 stone ! does anyone seriously think that they can do the 800 in 2.30?

It's no good posting examples of 13 stone runners - who's saying that someone of that weight can't go fast? But 13 stone would not give you anything like the upper body strength needed to take on 17 stone gladiators in several key events... they wouldn't see a 13 stone opponent as being 'built like a brick sh1thouse', they'd see it as being like a hobbit. Having greater strength in a contender would offset any advantage lost from lack of agility - in events like the pyramid, instead of just running round like a headless chicken, getting knackered and being tossed down the slope, a big strong (16 stone+) contender could simply wrestle, chuck the gladiator off and climb to the top unhindered.

Racing Flat · 11-10-2008 10:32AM

Callidice wrote: »

I said that I think 15 stone is near the upper limit size of someone who can do the 800 in that time... anyone much bigger just wouldn't be able - regardless of their relative cardio fitness

I disagree with this. Having worked with a pro rugby team, where one of the fitness tests was to run a 3k as fast as you can, the second row and flankers were 16stone plus and they could do 10.30. You can be big and fast, and even big with speed endurance if you train the right way. All I'm saying is don't let size be an excuse for not doing 800m in 2.30, it's more likely the way you train.

Callidice · 11-10-2008 10:49AM

Racing Flat wrote: »

I disagree with this. Having worked with a pro rugby team, where one of the fitness tests was to run a 3k as fast as you can, the second row and flankers were 16stone plus and they could do 10.30. You can be big and fast, and even big with speed endurance if you train the right way. All I'm saying is don't let size be an excuse for not doing 800m in 2.30, it's more likely the way you train.

16 stone plus, 3k in 10.30? I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe. To attain an 'excellent' rating in fitness for the British army is anything under 10.30 minutes for the 2.4 km and that's 600 metres less.... There ain't that many 16 stone squaddies at that level I can tellya from personal experience - I've never seen a sixteen stone Royal Marine capable of that kind of middle-distance speed even though they are at a peak level of fitness.

If big guys could run that quickly then why don't we see loads of 16 stone + rugby-type contenders?

Racing Flat · 11-10-2008 11:08AM

Callidice wrote: »

16 stone plus, 3k in 10.30? I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe. To attain an 'excellent' rating in fitness for the British army is anything under 10.30 minutes for the 2.4 km and that's 600 metres less.... There ain't that many 16 stone squaddies at that level I can tellya from personal experience - I've never seen a sixteen stone Royal Marine capable of that kind of middle-distance speed even though they are at a peak level of fitness.

If big guys could run that quickly then why don't we see loads of 16 stone + contenders?

The slowest on the team was 13.30, but he was 23 stone and not all muscle. Average for the forwards was 11-11.30, fair enough the 20stone front rows were more like 12.30. The backs were all well under 11 and the back row and one of the second rows 6'6" and 16stone (he did play internationally*) were around 10.30.

10.30 for 2.4k is not all that fast. It's 7 minute mile pace, or 45mins for a 10k, so doing it for only 10mins would or should be fairly easy for most people. Rating that as 'excellent' just means their standards are low. That's just jogging pace for a lot of people.

*Maybe supporting your point, he was told after his first cap that if he wanted more caps he'd have to do two things to be able to hold his own at international level as a second row, 1) get heavier to have more body strength and 2) get faster around the field. The player thought this was a bit of a contradiction and found it hard to do the two at the same time.

I think Hanley and some of the others were making the point that you don't see fast heavy fellows on the show, because they don't want the gladiators to look bad, look small or get beaten to easily. Not because they're not out there. Imagine 18/19 stone Jonah Lomu on Gladiators...

Racing Flat · 11-10-2008 11:10AM

Callidice wrote: »

There ain't that many 16 stone squaddies at that level I can tellya from personal experience - I've never seen a sixteen stone Royal Marine capable of that kind of middle-distance speed even though they are at a peak level of fitness.

Probably just because they don't do any middle distance speed training. I bet if they did, they could do that 800m in 2.30 within a few weeks.

BrianD3 · 22-12-2008 12:36AM

Anyone see tonight's "The Legends Strike Back" programme on sky. Similar format to the previous new gladiators vs legends programme. If you missed it, it will probably be repeated a few times in the coming weeks.

It was not as good as the previous Legends programme and the performances of the legends were quite disappointing. Cobra was one of the legends, he is now aged 45 and has aged badly and looked to be carrying a fair amount of fat. His weight was given as 13 stone, I thought he looked a lot heavier than that. His height was given as 5 foot 10 but in the original series on ITV it was given as 6 foot. Trojan looked quite skinny, his weight was given as 13.5 stone, I think he was 15 stone in the first Legends programme and possibly 18 stone in the old ITV series.

rubadub · 22-12-2008 11:24AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

Cobra was one of the legends, he is now aged 45 and has aged badly and looked to be carrying a fair amount of fat. His weight was given as 13 stone, I thought he looked a lot heavier than that.

Was he the one in the skirt? he had to be more than 13stone.

BrianD3 wrote: »

Trojan looked quite skinny, his weight was given as 13.5 stone, I think he was 15 stone in the first Legends programme and possibly 18 stone in the old ITV series.

Yeah he was huge in the replays, said he weighed 100lb more back then.

The small blonde one looked well, if a bit too lean, muscles popping out everywhere, crazy abs on her.

Seems there will be loads of new gladiators in the new series, and were they saying wolf would be back in it normally?

wahlrab · 22-12-2008 02:14PM

i just found out a few weeks ago that my gym instructor on my course(i'm doing an itec gym instructor course) was the 1997(i think) female champion of gladiators, her name was audrey garland. That was the year of the ulrike scandal i think, anyway it was very funny/cool to find out she was the champion of that year. Also wolf was meant to be a lovely fellow

Guvnor · 22-12-2008 05:46PM

Hanley wrote: »

Anyone else wanna call foul and say they pick the smaller guys to put the stack in the gladiators favour?

Well the gladiators this time round are small. One of the men weighs less than 13st. If you look at the contestants on the old show some of them were fit and built weighing as much as 14st or more - some of these guys in their prime would p1ss all over the current gladiators, who are imo useless.

Compare Saracen or Hunter with the current crop - not good. Saw one of the new shows where the glads all looked hard pushed to hold onto the handles in hang tough let alone catch the contender!

The criteria for the show was mens fitness not muscle and fitness - know one or two UK bodybuilders who were turned away with the words 'too big'.

The new show is all wrong - think I saw the old glads v new ones and it looked like they would have minced them on the eliminator if Trojan did not spend so long faffing around with the cargo net - perhaps a fix - not sure.

Guvnor · 11-01-2009 12:11PM

I watched the first of the new series I think this AM - not sure why I bother tbh but it's fun in a give out to the TV kind of way.

A number of things stood out:

Oblivion seems to have gained some weight - like a stone or more?!
Now they seem to have opted for bigger Glads with the 20st evil 'Russian'!
Bigger than all of the former glads - bit of a turnaround.
Gallagher sprinted away from the sinking ship?
The contestants are as small as ever!
Wolf is there for purely pantomime effect - no issues here.

Overall it's getting better but still cannot compete with the previous show but I think being fair this is down to the arena size - hard to replicate the atmosphere and intensity when the events all look more compact and the crowd is so much smaller etcetera. Think Wright is doing a bang up job with the mic much better than last year.

It's one of those shows that you know is cheesy and you know it sucks a bit but you still watch it just to see if the glads get their asses handed to them!:D

Reganio 2 · 11-01-2009 12:52PM

Oblivion is bulking up, he will be heading off to wrestle in America soon for the wrestling promotion TNA. So they might have told him to bulk up.

Can I just say as well in relation to your post before that. Preadator would wipe the floor with the old galdiators absoloute beast of a man.

Guvnor · 11-01-2009 02:18PM

Hi Reg,

Cheers for the info on Oblivion.

Predator is DU'AINE LADEJO ex 400m runner. He is 6ft2 and 13st5lb (must have gained a few pounds as well) - he was/is obviously very quick and possibly very agile as well. I do disagree however that he would wipe the floor with the old Gladiators.

I know it all depends on the events but him vs shadow on pugil stick - don't see him winning. Hunter and Saracen were both extremely fast and mobile for big guys which imo would aid them against predator in some events.

I'm pretty certain he 'might' win the eliminator against any of the old glads, although hunter tbf was very fast in his prime!:D

I was only referencing him in the previous post because he was lighter than one of the women which you must admit on a gladiator show is a bit odd?!

Gladiator audition

Comments