Originally Posted by otisbean
I've been a strength coach for over 16 years, I hate the 225 test. There's a story about a bodybuilder and powerlifter having a squat contest. The PL squatted over 900lbs while the BB put up 800 (for the record the PL was the first man to squat over 1,000 in competition so 900 wan't a max). Then they put on 625 to see who could perform the most reps, the PL hit 12-15 and the BB hit 25. If you just look at their 625 numbers you would think the BB was the stronger of the 2, but in reality the PL is WAAAY stronger. It's the same thing with the 225 test. The theory is the stronger guy will bench 225 more times, but you need to factor in limb length and the athlete's genetic make up (fast twitch vs slow twitch ect..). Truth is you can't serve two masters. You can be good at reps or you can be good at a max output, but not both, they're too dissimilar.
There are so many cool aspects of the combine, but there are a bunch of things that I would love to see changed - a fully electronically timed 40, a better upper body strength/power evaluation, more position specific drills ect..
I hear bigger guys say this but I think it's bunk. A 6'5'' 300 pound OL probably has longer arms than a 5'11'' 190 pound CB, right? But a 300 pound guy isn't pressing MORE than his own body weight, in fact it's much less % wise than what the CB is faced with: pressing MORE than his own weight. Any perceived disadvantage in arm length is hilarious when you've got bigger, stronger muscles to lift with. They ask 190 lb. guys to lift 225 but they don't ask 300 lb. guys to lift 350.