What's new
By:

I don't get it (Enes Kanter)

The Black Swordsman

The Black Swordsman

Well-Known Member
Sorry guys I registered mainly to ask this question as I just don't understand it. How does Enes Kanter have 5.9 % and weighs 259 pounds but can only Bench 14 times and has a 26.0 vertical.

If someone is able to weigh 259 pounds with 5.9% body fat I would think that he would be able to bench like 30 times no problems and jump like Blake Griffin style numbers.

To compare some people

Shaq 300 lbs, vertical 36 inches (7'1" height) 12.2% body fat
Derrick Williams 248 lbs, vertical 34.5 inches (6'9" height) 10.8% body fat 19 bench presses
Kevin Love 255 lbs, vertical 35.0 inches (6'9" height) 12.9% body fat 18 bench presses
Derrick Favors 245 lbs, vertical 35.5 inches (6'10" height) 6.5% body fat 14 bench presses
Blake Griffin 248 lbs, vertical 35.5 inches (6'10" height) 8.2% body fat 22 bench presses
Enes Kanter 259 lbs, vertical 32.5 inches (6'11" height) 5.9% body fat 14 bench presses

I'm not saying that we should be worried about him not having a good bench or vertical I am just plain old curious. 5.9% body fat is an insane good number so I was wondering where the 259 pounds went. If not for muscle does he just have like a frame of the gods or something and he is all bone? When I saw that he has a low vertical I was thinking "oh he can just add a bunch of muscle to his leggs" but at 259 lbs he probably can't handle too much more muscle.

The physics doesn't add up!
 
First off, I'm not sure why you have him listed with a 26" vertical and then, when comparing him to others, have him at 32.5".

Also, when were these bench numbers taken during each of the prospective players careers? Meaning, what age were each of them when the lifting was done? I'm not at all worried about Enes' strength. #1 .. he has shown plenty of strength against NBA bigs, and #2 .. he's 19 years old and I suspect he'll gain a lot of strength over the next two years.

As for the physics of it all? Couldn't tell ya'.
 
Those are the pre-draft numbers. Kanter isn't a high-flier, that much is clear, but so what? His game will be built around his solid base, which neither vertical nor bench press numbers account for. The physics do add up; dude has a HUGE lower body (and a pretty big upper body). 14 reps isn't great, but it isn't cause for concern either.
 
Body Fat% doesn't indicate strength. Lance Armstrong has a low body fat %...

It just shows that he's a gym rat and works really hard
 
It adds up just fine. Also the bench press has very little to do with basketball in general.
 
JFFR said:
Body Fat% doesn't indicate strength. Lance Armstrong has a low body fat %...

It just shows that he's a gym rat and works really hard
Click to expand...
Apparently you're not aware of this, but Lance Armstrong is sort of strong... like, superhuman strength. True, he's not NBA power forward material but that's a size issue. Your point is correct, though, because there are all sorts of computer nerds who have no body fat and no strength.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Apparently you're not aware of this, but Lance Armstrong is sort of strong... like, superhuman strength. True, he's not NBA power forward material but that's a size issue. Your point is correct, though, because there are all sorts of computer nerds who have no body fat and no strength.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correcting me on this. Lance Armstrong definitely has superhuman strength. My point was that he has a different build than an NBA power forward. Body fat % does not indicate strength/type of athelticism (it doesn't even mean athleticism... in high school I was 6'3 140lbs, I probably had a body fat % less than 5% but I was no athlete! Just a skinny kid. But seeing how Enes Kanter is 6'9 260lbs, I see where the black swordsman is confused...)
 
It comes down to two things:

1. These guys are not strength athletes.
2. They underestimate the levels of bodyfat. Kanter is not 5.9% bodyfat, every single one of these measurements is WAY too low.

EDIT: Actually, some of them are close. Favors and Kanter are way off, however.
 
mhindy said:
It comes down to two things:

1. These guys are not strength athletes.
2. They underestimate the levels of bodyfat. Kanter is not 5.9% bodyfat, every single one of these measurements is WAY too low.

EDIT: Actually, some of them are close. Favors and Kanter are way off, however.
Click to expand...

If they are underestating the body fat%, then would you say Irving, for example, was higher than 13%?
 
I don't get this thread. Everyone is built differently and has different muscle makeup. Kanter isn't a great athlete, those other dudes you named are. It's that simple.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
I don't get this thread. Everyone is built differently and has different muscle makeup. Kanter isn't a great athlete, those other dudes you named are. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Huh? Actually this thread was more about strength and why he only managed 14. What does that have to do with athleticism?
 
PKM said:
If they are underestating the body fat%, then would you say Irving, for example, was higher than 13%?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure. I know how Kanter and Favors look better than Irving, but I would guess that's about right, maybe he's slightly over that. For a guy like Kanter to buy 5.9% bodyfat, you would be seeing extreme muscle separation between biceps and shoulders, he would likely have veins popping out all over his arms, etc.

I guess all I'm saying is go on ESPN and look at Blake Griffin in the body mag shots. He's distinctly leaner than Kanter, yet is listed 2.5% bodyfat HIGHER.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
I don't get this thread. Everyone is built differently and has different muscle makeup. Kanter isn't a great athlete, those other dudes you named are. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Part of what I'm saying is that he would be a much more explosive athlete if he truly WERE 5.9% bodyfat. You can have a 'different muscle makeup', but at 5.9% bodyfat you basically have no visible fat. 3% of your bodyfat simply goes to protecting vital organs...
 
mhindy said:
Part of what I'm saying is that he would be a much more explosive athlete if he truly WERE 5.9% bodyfat. You can have a 'different muscle makeup', but at 5.9% bodyfat you basically have no visible fat. 3% of your bodyfat simply goes to protecting vital organs...
Click to expand...

What? Just because someone is in really good shape doesnt mean they are an explosive athlete. I could get into amazing shape, but I would still be unathletic and slow.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
What? Just because someone is in really good shape doesnt mean they are an explosive athlete. I could get into amazing shape, but I would still be unathletic and slow.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that came across wrong. I meant he would be MORE explosive than he currently is, were he actually 5.9% bodyfat. Didn't mean to imply he could be Griffin-esque although I can certainly see how you could have got that from my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top