Arnold's Genetics

Go_heavy_fool · July 22, 2006, 8:25pm

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
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.[/quote]

i completely agree

pretty much my point, but i went about a different way of stateing it i guess …lol

i don’t see Arnold at all as anything other than a guy that built a killer body and i give him alot of credit. the same even for Ron Coleman. Ron is pushing the limits on how much muscle can actually be obtained on a human. I think Arnold pushed the limit of how much he could attain and still have an aestetic or proportionate physique.

Schwarzfahrer · July 22, 2006, 8:40pm

[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.
[/quote]

Actually, you are gravely mistaken that Flex was not genetically gifted. He is assumed to be a true mutant because his body lacks a hormone which has catabolistic effect.
Two thousand years ago, such a specimen would be either

a) dead at the first famine because he couldn’t catabolise his muscles fast enough

or

b) if from a wealthy family, considered a “hero”

Today, on our era of abundant food in the western hemisphere, it is a rather pointless mutation.

DPH · July 22, 2006, 8:48pm

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
another, this is someone with not geneticly gifted calves[/quote]

note to self…must start working calves!

awesome pic!

harris447 · July 22, 2006, 8:48pm

[quote]drock11 wrote:
AAS[/quote]

You’re a schmuck.

PGJ · July 22, 2006, 8:49pm

Another new-be spouting off. This gets my vote for “dumb thread of the week”. Arnold had bad genetics, my dieing ass. THe dud was a freak of nature in his time. Remember, these pictures were taken 40 years ago. Bad genetics. You have to be kidding. Genetics do matter if you are tying to be among the best. I could train and train and train, but I’ll never be a linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys.

Anyone who is a top level competitor in any sport has superior genetics. About 1 in 16,000 kids makes it to the pro’s in any sport. It’s more than simple hard work that separates them from the rest. You are right, that shouldn’t be an excuse to be the best I personally can be. But to make it to the top genetics is key (and hard work). Arnold was a genetic freak.

sasquatch · July 22, 2006, 8:50pm

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
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 completely agree

pretty much my point, but i went about a different way of stateing it i guess …lol

i don’t see Arnold at all as anything other than a guy that built a killer body and i give him alot of credit. the same even for Ron Coleman. Ron is pushing the limits on how much muscle can actually be obtained on a human. I think Arnold pushed the limit of how much he could attain and still have an aestetic or proportionate physique.[/quote]

You agree that Arnold would have been considered an ectomorph at 16???

You agree that ‘genetically gifted’ are less inclined to reach their potential because they are lazy???

You agree that discussing genetic makeup when talking about or comparing top level bb’ers is useless,nebulous, and non-functional(?)–per your discussion of Arnold and Zane???

I would tend to disagree.

harris447 · July 22, 2006, 8:50pm

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
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.

Actually, you are gravely mistaken that Flex was not genetically gifted. He is assumed to be a true mutant because his body lacks a hormone which has catabolistic effect.
Two thousand years ago, such a specimen would be either

a) dead at the first famine because he couldn’t catabolise his muscles fast enough

or

b) if from a wealthy family, considered a “hero”

Today, on our era of abundant food in the western hemisphere, it is a rather pointless mutation.[/quote]

Wasn’t the rap on Flex that he was one of the laziest trainers out of all pro bb’ers?

Go_heavy_fool · July 22, 2006, 8:52pm

[quote]Bebop07 wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

runt may be a stretch, but lets say he was quite skinny kid…

point was that genetics don’t matter and are pointless, genetics never got in any champions way before. genetics only seem to get in the way of the person that will never be a champion.

i brought this up , because i had a debate on another site about certain races being geneticly more intelligent than other races. once again one of the most rediculous insults or excuse i’ve ever heard for being intelligent.

weak individuals will get defined by their genetics…but to define your genetics takes a strong individual - Go heavy fool

obo1 · July 22, 2006, 8:52pm

Every great champion has some help from genetics.

obo1 · July 22, 2006, 8:53pm

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
another, this is someone with not geneticly gifted calves[/quote]

The best arnold shot I’ve ever seen.

PGJ · July 22, 2006, 9:17pm

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Bebop07 wrote:
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.

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.

runt may be a stretch, but lets say he was quite skinny kid…

point was that genetics don’t matter and are pointless, genetics never got in any champions way before. genetics only seem to get in the way of the person that will never be a champion.

i brought this up , because i had a debate on another site about certain races being geneticly more intelligent than other races. once again one of the most rediculous insults or excuse i’ve ever heard for being intelligent.

weak individuals will get defined by their genetics…but to define your genetics takes a strong individual - Go heavy fool[/quote]

When was he a skinny kid? The guy was winning competitions at 16! Look at that picture you posted of him at 16. That’s skinny?! Most of the people on this site whish they were that big. All that without a real gym, modern supplementation, advanced training principles. Ever read anything about him back in the day? He and his buddies used to go out in the forrest and squat logs all day. Just stop now, new guy. When amazing genetics meets exceptional ambition and drive you get an Arnold. You have no idea. Go back to the other site, please.

Go_heavy_fool · July 22, 2006, 9:19pm

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Another new-be spouting off. This gets my vote for “dumb thread of the week”. Arnold had bad genetics, my dieing ass. THe dud was a freak of nature in his time. Remember, these pictures were taken 40 years ago. Bad genetics. You have to be kidding. Genetics do matter if you are tying to be among the best. I could train and train and train, but I’ll never be a linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys.

Anyone who is a top level competitor in any sport has superior genetics. About 1 in 16,000 kids makes it to the pro’s in any sport. It’s more than simple hard work that separates them from the rest. You are right, that shouldn’t be an excuse to be the best I personally can be. But to make it to the top genetics is key (and hard work). Arnold was a genetic freak.[/quote]

wow, this is a weird site

i was putting an article up for those who maybe dont have the best genetics or were not born naturally muscular like “ARNOLD” and actually had to build their muscles…you never know your potential until you give it some effort.

instead i got taken the wrong way. my point again was that “GENETICS WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO A CHAMPION”

good or bad genetics is an OPINION…so whatever anybody says is fine with me, i would say he had both good or bad, it woulnt make a difference.

Why because when Arnold was 120 lbs, he wanted to be 240

I’m sorry this article didn’t provide some motivation, rather it just started differences in opinion and debate.

Well that wasnt its intended purpose. Opinion is also highly over rated as about as much as genetics are.

Malevolence · July 22, 2006, 9:35pm

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
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 completely agree

pretty much my point, but i went about a different way of stateing it i guess …lol

i don’t see Arnold at all as anything other than a guy that built a killer body and i give him alot of credit. the same even for Ron Coleman. Ron is pushing the limits on how much muscle can actually be obtained on a human. I think Arnold pushed the limit of how much he could attain and still have an aestetic or proportionate physique.

[quote]
You agree that Arnold would have been considered an ectomorph at 16???[/quote]

Tall and thin, not much inherent mass, yeah. I would.

[quote]
You agree that ‘genetically gifted’ are less inclined to reach their potential because they are lazy???[/quote]

That’s not what I said. I said it is more likely they will be lazy. When you’re spoon-fed something your whole life, it is more likely you’ll lack the initiative to get it for yourself. This is true in almost everything in life. Someone who gains muscle very easily, is less likely to put in all the hard work required to truly make it to the top of their potential because they don’t understand what that hard work means. This is not a rule of course, just an observation.

Some people recognize where they are innately gifted and use that as motivation in and of itself to strive harder. But, a lot of people are just lazy.

[quote]
You agree that discussing genetic makeup when talking about or comparing top level bb’ers is useless,nebulous, and non-functional(?)–per your discussion of Arnold and Zane???[/quote]

Talking genetics < talking work ethic. Period. There is no point in it. What do you say if you compare the top 10 bodybuilders in the world by genetics? what information does that give you? why even bring it up? To be the best you have to work hard, genetics matter, but they will only take you so far, you could have the best genetics in the world and a terrible work ethic and never make it to the top level at all, despite having the inherent capacity to do it. When discussing top level athletes I’m far more interested in what work they did to get there than what sort of innate advantages they were born with.

Malevolence · July 22, 2006, 9:35pm

[quote]oboffill wrote:
Every great champion has some help from genetics. [/quote]

Agreed 100%

Kratos · July 22, 2006, 9:36pm

Genetics may be overrated, but they are definitely a factor. If you are bigger and stronger than someone who works twice as hard as you do, you have better genes, and a definite advantage. And a champion is always going to be a champion, regardless of any other circumstances.

jsbrook · July 22, 2006, 9:38pm

We understand your point. You are mostly correct. But you chose a bad example. Arnold had great genetics. He was very solid for a sixteen year old. Maybe he was skinny before he ever learned the importance of eating enough and started to lift heavy weights. At the age of 12. That doesn’t say much. Genetics do matter, anyhow. Like I said, most anyone can get big even with suboptical genetics, with proper training and diet. They are unlikly to be top champions.

Go_heavy_fool · July 22, 2006, 9:38pm

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Bebop07 wrote:
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.