I posted this pic just to show that you can build anything you want if you’re determined enough
i always thought that there is no such thing as a hardgainer, just hard complainers.
looking at Arnold’s physique…I can tell he had built huge muscles on top of a not so naturally big physique.
i myself have no problem whatsoever building muscle either. i have a 28-29 inch waist and weighed around 100 -135 lbs throughout high school
i would be a candidate for a hard gainer, but never would i ever think that actually exists.
genetics should not be used as an excuse… ya know Frank Zane was said to have some of the worst genetics and ironicly was also said to have one of the best physiques ever
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
I posted this pic just to show that you can build anything you want if you’re determined enough
i always thought that there is no such thing as a hardgainer, just hard complainers.
looking at Arnold’s physique…I can tell he had built huge muscles on top of a not so naturally big physique.
i myself have no problem whatsoever building muscle either. i have a 28-29 inch waist and weighed around 100 -135 lbs throughout high school
i would be a candidate for a hard gainer, but never would i ever think that actually exists.
genetics should not be used as an excuse… ya know Frank Zane was said to have some of the worst genetics and ironicly was also said to have one of the best physiques ever
just some food for thought.[/quote]
fool–
Your critique of Arnold is interesting?
I’m not sure what you are looking at to assume his physique was below average for which to build muscle.
You don’t get to the pinnacle of the bb world without both genetics and hard work. Zane may not have had the genetic material of some of his counterparts, but to state that he has terrible genetics is ridiculous.
I’m quite sure most people who aspire a bb physique would kill for his “terrible genetics.”
Yeah I hate thoose soy suckers who do flyes on a medicine ball for benching don’t squat deadlift or overhead press because of thier backs or soem otehr lame exuses always eat a lot protien sort of chineese “health weight loss diet” and enver bulk yet they think there training “smart” enough to give people better built an stronger then them advices and blame everything on thier genetics…
hey look at that guys video on you tube
“nice genetics…” -sounds familiar?
You are right when you say that genetics are somewhat overrated. However using Arnold as an example of poor genetics is idiotic. The Youg Arnold pic you posted is him at his first contest the Jr. Mr.Austria in 1964 - and he had just turned 16 years of age. Keep in mind that back then bodybuilders did not tan and the bright lights do remove a lot of definition on pictures.
Some facts about Arnold and why he DOESN’T have bad genetics:
He won the Jr. Mr. Europe and the Mr.Europe titles at the age of 18.
He won the title of "Best built man in Europe) at 19 years of age.
He finished 2nd at the Mr. Universe contest at 19.
He is the youngest Mr. Universe in history at 20 years of age. The picture above and the two others I will post are from 1966 when Arnold was 19. Not bad for a kid with 4 years of training and BAD genetics
Hard work means a lot more than genetics ever will. ever there is no debating that. Genetics shouldn’t even be brought up, because it’s such a nebulous subject which seems to serve no functional purpose other than making excuses.
Genetics don’t make up for bad motivation, poor discipline, work ethic and drive. If anything, the naturally gifted athlete will be more likely to be lazy and never reach the potential awarded to them by their genetics, solely because they don’t learn the value of hard work.
Arnold may have never been totally skinny, but it’s clear that he’d have been called an ectomorph when he was a teen, just more proof that body types pointless.
i used Arnold as an example of someone with “smaller” genetics. he wasn’t born big nor had natural calves or a big bone structure. Another “Apollonian type physique” flex wheeler…Both built gigantic muscles and were not born that way and had to work hard to get that look.
i used Frank Zane as someone that is said to have horrible genetics by body building standards, but he also known as having one of the best physiques ever.
i understand your statement, but the point i was trying to make wasn’t about good or bad genetics. it was that “genetics don’t matter”
in the end Both Arnold and Zane accomplished their goals regardless of good or bad genetics.
Arnolds genetics were good by body building standards but he had to work extremly hard to make that illusion that he was that big. he was a runt and built himself up to the pont where we now see him as good genetics.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
You are right when you say that genetics are somewhat overrated. However using Arnold as an example of poor genetics is idiotic. The Youg Arnold pic you posted is him at his first contest the Jr. Mr.Austria in 1964 - and he had just turned 16 years of age. Keep in mind that back then bodybuilders did not tan and the bright lights do remove a lot of definition on pictures.
Some facts about Arnold and why he DOESN’T have bad genetics:
He won the Jr. Mr. Europe and the Mr.Europe titles at the age of 18.
He won the title of "Best built man in Europe) at 19 years of age.
He finished 2nd at the Mr. Universe contest at 19.
He is the youngest Mr. Universe in history at 20 years of age. The picture above and the two others I will post are from 1966 when Arnold was 19. Not bad for a kid with 4 years of training and BAD genetics ;)[/quote]
Damn straight. I think he looked pretty solid for 16 in that picture anyhow.
CT, I’m not trying to say that Arnold had “bad genetics at all”. In fact I never said his were bad. I just said he was not born with those muscles. He built bigger muscles than the guy who was born with more natural than Arnold. That is what i mean by Arnold not being born with genetics. when it comes to his overall physique, well thats a little of both, thats what his parents gave him and what he decided to build in the gym.
either way, genetics in the end will not make a bit of difference to someone with the right determination.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
I posted this pic just to show that you can build anything you want if you’re determined enough
i always thought that there is no such thing as a hardgainer, just hard complainers.
looking at Arnold’s physique…I can tell he had built huge muscles on top of a not so naturally big physique.
i myself have no problem whatsoever building muscle either. i have a 28-29 inch waist and weighed around 100 -135 lbs throughout high school
i would be a candidate for a hard gainer, but never would i ever think that actually exists.
genetics should not be used as an excuse… ya know Frank Zane was said to have some of the worst genetics and ironicly was also said to have one of the best physiques ever
just some food for thought.[/quote]
Larry Scott as well. Those guys just wanted it so bad, nothing was going to stop them or get in their way! They took action & attacked like they were heading to war.
In my opinion and experience, genetic potential is best judged in retrospect.
Early pictures of Arnold, Franco or Larry Scott,(in retrospect genetic superiors of the highest order)if published on a milk carton would have prompted donations to charity.
No way to know true potential until you have exercised discipline and persistence under the bar, at meal time and at bedtime.
[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
i used Arnold as an example of someone with “smaller” genetics. he wasn’t born big nor had natural calves or a big bone structure or “Apollonian physique” flex wheeler would be another. Both built gigantic muscles and were not born that way and had to work hard to get that look.
i used Frank Zane as someone that is said to have horrible genetics by body building standards, but he also known as having one of the best physiques ever.
i understand your statement, but the point i was trying to make wasn’t about good or bad genetics. it was that “genetics don’t matter”
in the end Both Arnold and Zane accomplished their goals regardless of good or bad genetics.
Arnolds genetics were good by body building standards but he had to work extremly hard to make that illusion that he was that big. he was a runt and built himself up to the pont where we now see him as good genetics.
[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? Arnold was never a runt by any stretch of the imagination. Also their is no illusion, Arnold Was 6’1" and weighed 240 pounds. So i guess if you are trying to make the point that Arnold worked hard, all I have to say is no shit, you don’t win Mr. Olympia 7 times by sitting on your ass.
