The man himself!
Ultimate beast imo. Just perfect 
All Biceps and Chest.
No legs. Granted legs weren’t as much as a priority back then.
[quote]Quark79 wrote:
All Biceps and Chest.
No legs. Granted legs weren’t as much as a priority back then.[/quote]
Totally agree w/ you there man. There are now guys in the NPC that are better than Arnold is in that clip.
As much as I really got into Bodybuilding with the reign of Yates, and am a big fan of a lot of the guys today, Just looking at Arnold’s waist to shoulder differencential makes me want to look more like him than anyone else.
-S
agreed. today these guys are too concerned with getting every single muscle group as large as possible and don’t seem to concern themselves with proportion as much. it’s like arnie was explaining in pumping iron how his goal always was to even out every muscle group and attain the most perfect balance and harmony.
if one muscle increases a half inch, the rest of the body has to increase. and as he said “everything fits together now”. so even tho his quads themselves were perceived as “weak”, they were actually perfect in size and shape in matching against the rest of his physique.
i really think if his thighs were larger and had more bulging sweep like the guys of today, it would actually have taken away from his overall sculpture-like presence.
Can’t agree that there are guys in the NPC better than arnold, at least not in some general sense as if such guys are common. Bigger - yes and more cut too, but too often lacking symmetry and without the same ability to pose, project personality and so on.
On the whole though BB is more popular so in sheer numbers i guess some among the NPC guys may actually have the whole package down better than Arnold.
I’ve often heard about Arnold’s legs being bad too and sure they werent his strong point but i think there’s roughly pre and post Platz legs in BB and Arnold belongs to the pre era. If you see Cutler posing his legs are sick, and i dont mean sick to mean cool or good either!
One thing about the modern guys, because they are so massive all over they dont seem as impressive, oddly, as if it’s so over the top that they’re massive arms, legs, everything just don’t stand out anymore. Stu’s comment about waist to shoulder says it all, you can pick that out more on 60’s to 80’s BBers than now.
No one from the past can stand against a modern BBer on a most muscular though, they’re just, well, shocking!
I don’t care if todays guys are bigger then Arnold, Arnold is still the best bodybuilder ever. If you look at Arnold’s chest, and arms measurements they’re bigger or equivalent to the guys today and when you add in his small waistline it even amplifies those measurements giving him a much more massive look.
Basically no one had big legs when arnold was competing in the 70’s and his quad to calf ratio is much better then the pros today. This movie looks to be the 1980 Mr. Olympia, take it back to 76 nd Arnold was even more massive.
Classic Picture
I’m fairly sure those size comparisons are a little bit off with the Arnold/Coleman comparisons.
Ronnie’s not that much shorter than Arnold when he’s barefooted.
And he’s much more massive come competition time.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
I’m fairly sure those size comparisons are a little bit off with the Arnold/Coleman comparisons.
Ronnie’s not that much shorter than Arnold when he’s barefooted.
And he’s much more massive come competition time.[/quote]
Ronnie is 5’11" and 247 pounds in the first pic shot while Arnold is 6’1" and 225 pounds.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
And another.
There are a lot more here.
www.ironage.us/virtual/index.html
[/quote]
pretty awesome sight bro
Ronnie’s legs are unreal! I think he’s got Arnold. I have books with him in there and I was stunned by his legs.
[quote]sed26 wrote:
Ronnie’s legs are unreal! I think he’s got Arnold. I have books with him in there and I was stunned by his legs.[/quote]
his legs look gross and yes he is more massive then arnold especially in the stomach region but i think arnie’s chest and bis top colemans
[quote]Quark79 wrote:
All Biceps and Chest.
No legs. Granted legs weren’t as much as a priority back then.[/quote]
Maybe were not talking about the same Arnold, but this just isn’t true. His back was awe inspiring and his shoulder, while not monstrous were perfectly proportioned to the rest of his upper body. Traps in a most muscular were just right etc. I don’t see how anybody can say he was all pecs n bi’s.
This brings up a question. Why do some bodybuilders’ arms so HUGE and their biceps look like little play toys compared to the rest of the arm? Is it genetics?
All chest and biceps?
[quote]sed26 wrote:
This brings up a question. Why do some bodybuilders’ arms so HUGE and their biceps look like little play toys compared to the rest of the arm? Is it genetics?[/quote]
ya, look at colemans bis there big but not huge, the tricep makes up the difference in the mass and measurement
His legs were a weak point, I guess, but looking at these pictures, he’s more or less in proportion, peiod.