This exact pic has always been what, in my mind, is a perfect shape
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Love how he made his torso into a nice solid unit[/quote]
Could you explain this one?
If you are referring to how his abs look, that is genetic.[/quote]
No, not [just] his abs. This is getting into really subjective territory here, and I lack good terminology.
It’s more that everything from his abs to his obliques to his lats, pecs, and traps flow really nicely together. Visually (and I’m only going off of that picture), it’s like everything is a single solid triangular piece of muscle, and the detail was then just sculpted out of that shape. I’m blanking on words here.
I would say that with many bodybuilders (such as those posted in this thread), they have many very well developed body parts, and they stand out when you look at them. But as a whole, the whole package doesn’t quite work; there’s visual interruptions when following the outer lines of the body. They have the size, but they’re lacking in balance.
Whereas here, everything seems to be very balanced and flow well.
That’s about the best I can do with an explanation right now.
solid Frank McGrath.
[quote]Bangerangg18 wrote:
1.Arnold
2.Sergio
3.Flex wheeler
4.Dexter Jackson
5.Brandon Curry
The oldies will always beat the mass monsters[/quote]
I don’t know? The height looks to be about right. 5’9" vs 6’2" ish. Thighs look to be correct. Arnolds chest was huge, as well as all of Ronnie. The waist looks to be close. I personally think this is a farely acurate comparison photo, since we could never actually have them standing in these poses. Lets just say that Ronnie was approx 300#s and Arnie 230#s with Ronnies leg size compared to Arnies it looks to me he is approx 70#s heavier in this pic.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Bangerangg18 wrote:
1.Arnold
2.Sergio
3.Flex wheeler
4.Dexter Jackson
5.Brandon Curry
The oldies will always beat the mass monsters[/quote]
I don’t know? The height looks to be about right. 5’9" vs 6’2" ish. Thighs look to be correct. Arnolds chest was huge, as well as all of Ronnie. The waist looks to be close. I personally think this is a farely acurate comparison photo, since we could never actually have them standing in these poses. Lets just say that Ronnie was approx 300#s and Arnie 230#s with Ronnies leg size compared to Arnies it looks to me he is approx 70#s heavier in this pic. [/quote]
I would agree. However, whoever put that shot together chose a bad shot of Ronnie (to make a point I assume). I’ve seen way better pics of Ronnie in a double bi pose.
Also, the shot should have been a straight-on view. There’s too much distortion shooting from that angle, as well as the possibility that Ronnie’s pic was probably shot from a different distance than Arnold’s - further distorting proportions.
These types of virtual comparison are almost never good as far as visual accuracy.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Bangerangg18 wrote:
1.Arnold
2.Sergio
3.Flex wheeler
4.Dexter Jackson
5.Brandon Curry
The oldies will always beat the mass monsters[/quote]
I don’t know? The height looks to be about right. 5’9" vs 6’2" ish. Thighs look to be correct. Arnolds chest was huge, as well as all of Ronnie. The waist looks to be close. I personally think this is a farely acurate comparison photo, since we could never actually have them standing in these poses. Lets just say that Ronnie was approx 300#s and Arnie 230#s with Ronnies leg size compared to Arnies it looks to me he is approx 70#s heavier in this pic. [/quote]
I would agree. However, whoever put that shot together chose a bad shot of Ronnie (to make a point I assume). I’ve seen way better pics of Ronnie in a double bi pose.
Also, the shot should have been a straight-on view. There’s too much distortion shooting from that angle, as well as the possibility that Ronnie’s pic was probably shot from a different distance than Arnold’s - further distorting proportions.
These types of virtual comparison are almost never good as far as visual accuracy.[/quote]
Just so people know…that was the opinion of someone who gets paid to make professional critiques of the way things look.
Simply being at a different angle would make it weak for comparison. Arnold had a great peak to his biceps…but his arms were smaller than Ronnie’s by possibly 2" or more.
Arnold was impressive…but please, if he were standing next to Ronnie in real life, Ronnie would stand out unless just by height difference alone.
Still not a perfect mash-up, but a bit better than the other shot.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Bangerangg18 wrote:
1.Arnold
2.Sergio
3.Flex wheeler
4.Dexter Jackson
5.Brandon Curry
The oldies will always beat the mass monsters[/quote]
I don’t know? The height looks to be about right. 5’9" vs 6’2" ish. Thighs look to be correct. Arnolds chest was huge, as well as all of Ronnie. The waist looks to be close. I personally think this is a farely acurate comparison photo, since we could never actually have them standing in these poses. Lets just say that Ronnie was approx 300#s and Arnie 230#s with Ronnies leg size compared to Arnies it looks to me he is approx 70#s heavier in this pic. [/quote]
I would agree. However, whoever put that shot together chose a bad shot of Ronnie (to make a point I assume). I’ve seen way better pics of Ronnie in a double bi pose.
Also, the shot should have been a straight-on view. There’s too much distortion shooting from that angle, as well as the possibility that Ronnie’s pic was probably shot from a different distance than Arnold’s - further distorting proportions.
These types of virtual comparison are almost never good as far as visual accuracy.[/quote]
Just so people know…that was the opinion of someone who gets paid to make professional critiques of the way things look.
Simply being at a different angle would make it weak for comparison. Arnold had a great peak to his biceps…but his arms were smaller than Ronnie’s by possibly 2" or more.
Arnold was impressive…but please, if he were standing next to Ronnie in real life, Ronnie would stand out unless just by height difference alone.[/quo
I agree with you both. I want to try to get a better comparison picture put together for fun now.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
I agree with you both. I want to try to get a better comparison picture put together for fun now.[/quote]
Try finding straight-on shots. Also, Ronnie was shorter and had a slightly smaller head than Arnold. Use that as your template.
Good luck!
lol
Here is one I found on google. Not great, but yeah. Thanks for the tip
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Still not a perfect mash-up, but a bit better than the other shot.[/quote]
Arnold did that turn style pose alot to give himself a better visual. Great poser
It would be more fair to show both men at their peaks. Ronnie’s best years (IMHO) were '99 and '03.
Arnold’s best was probably 1974.
For drugged up physiques, I like Nasser the best. He’s my favorite IFBB pro.
Favorite natty: Goodin.
Something I whipped together. Don’t think this is either of their primes/best physique. Just f’n around with pictures, but if I say so myself…grainy but I kinda like this one
Lee Haney
i like bodybuilders who actually look good tho
Moses Ashby
it’s easy to like the mass monsters but real talk they look fucking ridiculous
in a bad way
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Something I whipped together. Don’t think this is either of their primes/best physique. Just f’n around with pictures, but if I say so myself…grainy but I kinda like this one[/quote]
Good shots for comparisons! Straight on, both at their peak!
Arnold was probably 240 there.
Still, the ONLY way to truly compare is to have the same lighting situations, as well as angle, camera height, etc.
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
it’s easy to like the mass monsters but real talk they look fucking ridiculous
in a bad way[/quote]
ONLY if they destroyed their proportions in getting to that size. The large, bloated waistlines are the main culprit. If Ronnie Coleman kept his waist the size it was pre-2004, he’d probably STILL be kicking ass at the Olympia (given that he still competed). Jay Cutler would never have won an Olympia (IMHO).