One thing I liked about “Golden Era” bodybuilders is that their physiques seemed to have more individual “personality”. Franco’s lats, The Eagle’s thighs, Robbie’s peaks…the guys didn’t look so much the same.
This maybe weak points to some but I liked the fact that the body types seemed so unique. Perhaps things have changed because so many more people are into BBing and so those with the best genetics (and helpful AAs) are rising to the top…but honestly I think modern BBlders seem a bit homogeneous.
I could watch Pumping Iron a 100 times and not get tired of it.
Arnold was clever. He admired Reg Park’s shape, but knew his height was more in line with Steve Reeves. People forget the fact that Arnold was critisized early on for his proportions (and 4 pack abs) in comparison to Reeves, and this is where Arnold was clever, because he knew many people were shocked when they saw Reeves in person, not realizing how huge he was. [i]
Reeves proportions were so perfect that he did not seem as big as he actually was in photos or on film[/i]. Arnold knew he would have to, like a sculptor, create slight disproportions to obtain the goal of looking huge in person and in photos/film. Arnold sculpted a combination of both Reg and Reeves’s physiques, with his own spin on huge bi’s, thereby setting a new and unique standard for the taller man. Arnold “broke the rules” and got away with it…Arnold was clever…
[quote]medevac wrote:
One thing I liked about “Golden Era” bodybuilders is that their physiques seemed to have more individual “personality”. Franco’s lats, The Eagle’s thighs, Robbie’s peaks…the guys didn’t look so much the same.
This maybe weak points to some but I liked the fact that the body types seemed so unique. Perhaps things have changed because so many more people are into BBing and so those with the best genetics (and helpful AAs) are rising to the top…but honestly I think modern BBlders seem a bit homogeneous.
[/quote]
good points. I think the numbers of modern bber do ‘even out’ variation in the ‘top guys’ these days, though the role of drugs in that must also be a factor - there’s a certain thick bodied massive look that says gh/steroids. I also think post-platz everyone seemed to be striving for quads that sweep out away from the thighs like never before and not to the advantage of easthetics. There is also the seeming lack of personality among the modern bbers, though not following it closely that may be unfair.
I’ve also commented before but the guys of the 50’s through to somewhere in the 80’s seemed to have more fun with the lifestyle than the guys these days, based on interviews etc.
[quote]VTPower wrote:
austin_bicep, can you please give me your source for Arnold doing squats with 5XX lbs for reps? I think you’re dreaming, bro.[/quote]
watch the movie stay hungry because he does 450 for easy reps in there ill find some other info about the 500’s
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
VTPower wrote:
austin_bicep, can you please give me your source for Arnold doing squats with 5XX lbs for reps? I think you’re dreaming, bro.
watch the movie stay hungry because he does 450 for easy reps in there ill find some other info about the 500’s[/quote]
Makes you miss the time when professional bodybuilders actually looked much better than the average, hardcore gym rat. Instead of like some different species. Today, it’s all about taking it absolutely as far as possible. Without thinking at all about whether it’s a good idea to take it there.
[quote]jwillow wrote: merlin wrote:
… some probably crappy 70’s steroids(joke today, todays roids are super roids) …
Every steroid used today was available in 1970. Dosages used today may be higher, but there are no “super roids”.
What’s changed bodybuilding aesthetics is the use of drugs other than steroids: HGH, IGF-1, insulin, diuretics for contest prep, etc.[/quote]
Bingo. In my opinion insulin use is what seperated the elites of the eighties from the nineties till today. Lee Haney was massive at the 230-240 range onstage and several years later Dorian and other super heavys started showing up 260+ on stage.
I’ve read reports that said Arnold was blasting drugs in his day but since I wasn’t there(neither was anyone else posting here) let’s be fair and not speculate he used X amount and Ronnie uses 4X because we don’t know. What we do know is that newer things like GH and Insulin have become widespread among pros and the bodyweights have jumped off the charts.
[quote]gswork wrote:
medevac wrote:
One thing I liked about “Golden Era” bodybuilders is that their physiques seemed to have more individual “personality”. Franco’s lats, The Eagle’s thighs, Robbie’s peaks…the guys didn’t look so much the same.
This maybe weak points to some but I liked the fact that the body types seemed so unique. Perhaps things have changed because so many more people are into BBing and so those with the best genetics (and helpful AAs) are rising to the top…but honestly I think modern BBlders seem a bit homogeneous.
good points. I think the numbers of modern bber do ‘even out’ variation in the ‘top guys’ these days, though the role of drugs in that must also be a factor - there’s a certain thick bodied massive look that says gh/steroids. I also think post-platz everyone seemed to be striving for quads that sweep out away from the thighs like never before and not to the advantage of easthetics. There is also the seeming lack of personality among the modern bbers, though not following it closely that may be unfair.
I’ve also commented before but the guys of the 50’s through to somewhere in the 80’s seemed to have more fun with the lifestyle than the guys these days, based on interviews etc.[/quote]
Even though some of it might come from the roids, I think it is also comes from the fact that everytime a person comes out with perfect size and symmetry. Within a few years another person comes out that is just sooo big people don’t even care about symmetry then the next round is all about building size again.
how bout we forget about the drugs and remeber that these proffesionals put in so much time and effort into there training. they also have great genetics. drugs just amplify there amazing physiques. many people can go on cycles and never amount to anything
[quote]gswork wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
VTPower wrote:
austin_bicep, can you please give me your source for Arnold doing squats with 5XX lbs for reps? I think you’re dreaming, bro.
watch the movie stay hungry because he does 450 for easy reps in there ill find some other info about the 500’s
[quote]jwillow wrote: merlin wrote:
… some probably crappy 70’s steroids(joke today, todays roids are super roids) …
Every steroid used today was available in 1970. Dosages used today may be higher, but there are no “super roids”.
What’s changed bodybuilding aesthetics is the use of drugs other than steroids: HGH, IGF-1, insulin, diuretics for contest prep, etc.[/quote]
I would argue that Jwillow here has pretty much no idea what he is talking about, but he thought it sounded good at the time. I am sure he researched everything too Thanks for your input Jwillow. Next time I will use a magic eight ball though.
Arnold was 6 feet 2 inches and a few lbs shy of 250lbs on stage. Best arms EVER of any competitor EVER- no comparison. Lucky if coleman is actially 5-10 , probably 5-9.
Coleman has bigger legs but come on, where’s the quality? Looks like he’s smuggling small guatemalan children in them. Why does anybody find it hard to believe that a man with one of the best chests in the game, gigantic triceps, and a monster back can bench press 500 lbs? You do realize that not only power lifters bench 500+…don’t you?
I won’t even waste the time talking about the waists.
I just don’t see how , aside from the legs, you can say that coleman is overall sperior. Unless you like the blocky non symmetrical look…
[quote]USNS physique wrote:
Arnold was 6 feet 2 inches and a few lbs shy of 250lbs on stage. Best arms EVER of any competitor EVER- no comparison. Lucky if coleman is actially 5-10 , probably 5-9.
Coleman has bigger legs but come on, where’s the quality? Looks like he’s smuggling small guatemalan children in them. Why does anybody find it hard to believe that a man with one of the best chests in the game, gigantic triceps, and a monster back can bench press 500 lbs? You do realize that not only power lifters bench 500+…don’t you?
I won’t even waste the time talking about the waists.
I just don’t see how , aside from the legs, you can say that coleman is overall sperior. Unless you like the blocky non symmetrical look…
[/quote]
what are you saying tht ronnie and arnold can or cant bench 500? because both can ive seen ronnie rep 500 on youtube and many articles have been published w/ arnold haveing over a 500 pound bench
[quote]Jhuczko wrote:
jwillow wrote: merlin wrote:
… some probably crappy 70’s steroids(joke today, todays roids are super roids) …
Every steroid used today was available in 1970. Dosages used today may be higher, but there are no “super roids”.
What’s changed bodybuilding aesthetics is the use of drugs other than steroids: HGH, IGF-1, insulin, diuretics for contest prep, etc.
I would argue that Jwillow here has pretty much no idea what he is talking about, but he thought it sounded good at the time. I am sure he researched everything too Thanks for your input Jwillow. Next time I will use a magic eight ball though.[/quote]
Testosterone - first synthesized in 1936; first available in injectable form (testosterone propionate) in 1937
The dates I’ve listed are mostly when the steroid was first patented or first described in the scientific literature. In every case a prescription version was on the market within a few years.
I’ll grant you that trenbolone was not widely used by US bodybuilders until the 1980s, but it was already popular in Europe in the 1970s and no doubt the top competitors worldwide had access to it.
Perhaps you can use that magic eight ball of yours to tell us about anything I’ve overlooked.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
sed26 wrote:
Could someone possibly tell me who this BEAST IS!?
mustafa mohammad[/quote]
Now I realize this guy is just practicing his posing, but if you compare this video to the one of Arnold at the 1975 Olympia pre-judging you can’t help but notice how much more graceful and smooth Arnold’s posing is/was. One of the comments below this video is how “constipated” he looks when he’s pulling a pose.
The only time you see any strain on Arnold’s face is at the end when he does the most muscular pose, but the rest of the time he looks calm and at ease through the posing while guys today look choppy, robotic and in pain. Just another difference, in my mind at least, in the quality between competitors of these 2 eras. Arnold will always be the most inspiring bodybuilder of all time.
[quote]Phil E wrote:
austin_bicep wrote:
sed26 wrote:
Could someone possibly tell me who this BEAST IS!?
mustafa mohammad
Now I realize this guy is just practicing his posing, but if you compare this video to the one of Arnold at the 1975 Olympia pre-judging you can’t help but notice how much more graceful and smooth Arnold’s posing is/was. One of the comments below this video is how “constipated” he looks when he’s pulling a pose.
The only time you see any strain on Arnold’s face is at the end when he does the most muscular pose, but the rest of the time he looks calm and at ease through the posing while guys today look choppy, robotic and in pain. Just another difference, in my mind at least, in the quality between competitors of these 2 eras. Arnold will always be the most inspiring bodybuilder of all time.[/quote]
Some are just better posers than others. I do think that modern bbers are so heavy that the strain of tensing all the muscles is just too much - they dont hold it as well and they dont move well.
Older BBers cant match them for most musculars because of the mass but in all other poses, especially some of kneeling or other interesting poses the BBer from the earlier periods are better.
Not that the modern BBers dont try, i just dont think they can carry it off as well. Also, i’m not sure but get the impression posing was seen in a better light back then, as something more important or an opportunity to show off and do something artistic.
The reason ARNOLD has a bigger fan base than every other BB’er put together is this …HE CREATED THE MOST PERFECTLY DEVELOPED PHYSIQUE …there isn’t even anyone who comes close. His ratios and measurements are just hard to match.
agree wit wat merlin has to say.
but arnold wasnt a very nice person .a shrewd athlete,astute businessman,opportunistic politician,…yes.but not a really nice guy to kno.
he was a consummate lech, pawed robbie robinsons wife,made moves on girlfriends of many of his friends.
i think he was really insecure,and willing to do nething to get his way.
the way he psyched out frank zane,sergio oliva serge nubret an with weider put them all on the backburner,doesnt say good abt him.
but one things certain,he was a fantastic physical specimen,an only one word comes u when u say biceps…ARNOLD BICEPS.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
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.[/quote]
That is not true. Sergio, Mike Mentzer and Lou Ferrigno all had better legs than Arnold. I think Arnold lost his passion for leg training to some degree. They were bigger when he was a young and hungry bodybuilder.
Somewhere in the early seventies he gave up squatting heavy and his legs never looked as good as before.
The bigger waists are also often due to having bigger backs. Your abs and back are antagonist muscle groups. There is no way to build an enormous back without adding some abdominal size.
Thanks for your input Jwillow. Next time I will use a magic eight ball though.