[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]
Arnold had some of the best biceps ever, I agree. But when you say “arms” I assume you mean the triceps and perhaps forearmas as well.
Arnold’s forearms were a genetic weak point and his triceps never matched his biceps. To say he had the best arms ever makes no sense to me.
When you talk about leg quality? Do you mean size or definition? Because Coleman has BOTH on Arnold.
Arnold was great in his day and is certainly the most inspiring, but Coleman swallows him whole in terms of development.
[quote]inthego wrote:
LUEshi wrote:
I think of Arnold of being one in a trinity of the greatest bodybuilders, the other two being Sergio Oliva and Frank Zane.
Any one of those three represents the ideal physique for a man.
dito
“bigger is not better, better is better.”
-Frank Zane[/quote]
You know damn well Frank Zane wanted to be bigger than he was. It cracks me up when these genetic ectomorphs try to market themselves in this way. Why not just admit that you wish you were bigger? I would have more respect for them. I wish I were bigger.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
inthego wrote:
LUEshi wrote:
I think of Arnold of being one in a trinity of the greatest bodybuilders, the other two being Sergio Oliva and Frank Zane.
Any one of those three represents the ideal physique for a man.
dito
“bigger is not better, better is better.”
-Frank Zane
You know damn well Frank Zane wanted to be bigger than he was. It cracks me up when these genetic ectomorphs try to market themselves in this way. Why not just admit that you wish you were bigger? I would have more respect for them. I wish I were bigger.
[/quote]
I’m not convinced, unless he’s said as much. I’d guess most guys interested in building muscle want to be bigger, but that’s just an assumption.
It makes me laugh when people say Zane was small though. If they mean smaller than Sergio et al, sure, if they mean small as in small, then they’re kidding themselves.
I’ve seen comments on Zane to the effect of ‘shouldnt be on the stage, he’s a fitness model’ etc, that simply doesnt make any sense.
My gf just looked over my shoulder at the photo of Arnold and Coleman side by side. I asked her who she preferred, and she said she definitely preferred my body (yeah, cute)
BUT…
then I pulled up a picture of Flex Wheeler and she goes “ooooooooo”
Was that picture of the early Flex (say 1993) or the later Flex? I’d guess the former.
Dorian Yates once said that if Flex had had the mental toughness and discipline to go along with his genetics, he would truly have been unbeatable. I don’t agree with him. What kept Flex from winning multiple Olympias was not a lack of “toughness” but that the judging rewarded sheer mass (Yates’ forte) rather than aesthetics.
I think that’s the point, Flex never really pushed himself and didn’t have all the mass(with his amazing lines and shape) he could have. Add 20+ lbs of muscle on that body with his 1993 conditioning and you’d have something incredible.
If Flex could have kept the same lines and shape while adding 20+ lbs, then yes.
I think every human body has a natural limit, then a greater limit reachable by using AAS, then a still greater limit reachable by using not just AAS but also GH, IGF-1 and insulin. Use of AAS alone tends to enhance the aesthetics of the male body. Adding the other drugs can enable more mass but with the sacrifice of aesthetics.
From the changes he went through over the years I assume Flex resorted to a more advanced drug protocol in his quest for competitive mass. Maybe he didn’t need to; maybe he just didn’t push himself hard enough. It’s all speculation, really.
[quote]jwillow wrote: If Flex could have kept the same lines and shape while adding 20+ lbs, then yes.
I think every human body has a natural limit, then a greater limit reachable by using AAS, then a still greater limit reachable by using not just AAS but also GH, IGF-1 and insulin. Use of AAS alone tends to enhance the aesthetics of the male body. Adding the other drugs can enable more mass but with the sacrifice of aesthetics.
From the changes he went through over the years I assume Flex resorted to a more advanced drug protocol in his quest for competitive mass. Maybe he didn’t need to; maybe he just didn’t push himself hard enough. It’s all speculation, really.
[/quote]
In my opinion Flex couldn’t have been a “blocky” guy if he tried and with more size would have dominated for years.
This of course is ignoring the fact he was one of the top 3-5 bodybuilders of the 90s already ha.
And I believe what you said in the second part about him not pushing himself and resorting to heavier drug use is absolutely the case from accounts close to him at the time.
[quote]merlin wrote:
Here’s a liitle taste for all. See why men worship him for his size and women worship him for his sexy symmetry.
Let me tell you one thing fellas, when a women looks at your body …inately they look at PROPORTION(even if one ear is bigger than the other, or arms too big for your body, or legs too small or too big for your body). You can have the biggest arms in the world, if she thinks you’re out of balance of oversized …well, then she biologically don’t think you’re the best around for mating purposes.
Here check out some REAL proportion…
merlin[/quote]
Totally agree with you Merlz…They had the correct goals back then, massiveness with symettry…today it’s ridiculous for the most part…
And yes, even if Weider exaggerated Arnies arm measurement,(according to Sergio Oliva’s new book), he still had HUGE FUCKING BICEPS. His overall physique was exactly what he wanted…perfectly proportioned…besides, in his top form, his legs were cut to the bone and looked great in comparison to the whole package.
the absolute perfect god like body. it doesn’t matter how many steroids you take your body will grow a certain way, and his genetics were absolutely perfect. sculpted frame. the waistline to chest to height ratio are unmatched.
For the record Arnolds arms wre never 22 inches.That is a myth that grew up through self promotion.I stood next to Arnold in 1977 no way were they that big.When he visited Mautilus in the 1970s Arthur Jones meassured them at I believe 19 5/8.Look at the arms of sergio Olivia they are so big he cannnot contract them fully! they are also wider than his head! His arms only just nudged 20 inches
[quote]coomo wrote:
For the record Arnolds arms wre never 22 inches.That is a myth that grew up through self promotion.I stood next to Arnold in 1977 no way were they that big.When he visited Mautilus in the 1970s Arthur Jones meassured them at I believe 19 5/8.Look at the arms of sergio Olivia they are so big he cannnot contract them fully! they are also wider than his head! His arms only just nudged 20 inches[/quote]
A bit of rounding up maybe, there were times when he got fairly heavy and smooth, and after being totally pumped up from exercise i wouldnt be surprised if he could stretch to 22 if not too strict with the tape!
Agree on Oliva though, incredible mass. Bigger than Mr S.
A bit of rounding up maybe, there were times when he got fairly heavy and smooth, and after being totally pumped up from exercise i wouldnt be surprised if he could stretch to 22 if not too strict with the tape!
.[/quote]
Ha then that’s not a real accurate measurement. Rounding up would be to give him 20, not 2 full inches off season pumped up which is misleading.
