[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
NO ONE HERE looked/looks like that after two years of lifting. Stop kidding yourselves.[/quote]
You can’t get your arms to 16 inches after 2 years of lifting? Or a little over 15, in the case of a guy of average height? Are you guys all doing starting strength or something?
Again, see smalltobig as one recent example…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
My point is that you guys display a habit of unrealistic categorization.
Clearly well build physiques (exempli gratia Herschel Walker) which are realistically very rare (<1%) are described as “lifts a little bit of weight”.
You XXL guys are what, “ok”, “of decent build” ?
Which leaves at least a big gap for the middle ground. And creates a lot of confusion in the heads of beginners.
This cannot be so hard to understand.[/quote]
The only confusion…is when guys like you who may or may NOT have very good genetics jump into conversations where the parameters have been set around people who do have good genetics.
My genetics don’t suck. I had 18" arms in about 2 and half years of serious training DRUG FREE yet guys like you insist on forcing guys like me to acknowledge every half assed trainer in the gym.
No, YOU may not be able to look like that without drugs. YOU may not be able to even match that size after 10 years of weight lifting. Everyone isn’t made like you and Herschel Walker, while in great shape, isn’t that damned big to think he NEEDED regular weight training to look like that.
If you or anyone else ignored the actual video and just commented on a TOUCHED UP photo then it is YOUR perception that is off.
Bigorexia doesn’t have anything to do with this. Some of us have higher goals and KNOW we can reach them…and then there’s you.[/quote]
You put a strange spin on this, X.
Maybe you and your pals have great genes, good for you.
You can bulk to 600lbs and press a ton, good for you.
But I’m not talking about your goals but your perception.
And of course I’ve seen the fight, are you certain you have seen it?
Have you seen his opponent, an average MMA fighter?
What do you say to him? Malnourished? Weak?
He’s a dude that probably trains very hard. Pushups, plyos, bags, sparring.
He knew he’d fight against a true speciman.
He knew he’d be on TV.
The fight of his life.
But strangely enough, he looks different and distinctively…[b] AVERAGE[/b]?
Just doing some sport won’t produce, in 90% of all cases, a Herschel-like body.
I’ve overheard, over the years, countless locker room gossip and accusations about dudes who train “in secret”.
They all don’t come close to this guy. Only guys who trained for long years with weights (of course), with steroids, topped his body, -barely- aesthetic-wise.
In retrospect, this is so funny!
OMG, he’s a beast!!
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Nope, he MUST have spent years under 400lbs bench presses to look like this!!!
Yes, I clearly have something wrong with MY perception.[/quote]
I’m surprised you could admit that without discrediting someone esle or mentioning how big you are/how much you eat/how seriously you take lifting compared to everyone else.[/quote]
You focus way too much on me. It seems to be the majority of what you post about lately.
You may want to do something about that. I can refer you to some great psychiatric specialists.
Oh and I do apologize if I am not humble enough for you.[/quote]
Dude, you post so fast you beat the mods deleting my post. And, I honestly didn’t expect you to post anything like that. Honestly. Anyone who doesn’t give Walker his appropriate credit is exposing their obvious insecurities. NO ONE HERE looked/looks like that after two years of lifting. Stop kidding yourselves.[/quote]
Dude, the pics in my profile are after about 3 years of serious weight training. I didn’t take any pics before that other than school photos that show my physique but if you want to see how small I was as a high school freshmen, I can post that when I get home tonight.
Now, I doubt Herschel Walker has 18" arms in those photos…yet you think no one can do that in two years?
It is like some of you just WANT to believe that everyone is severely limited.
Casey Butt has a huge following, huh?[/quote]
I hate to break it to you man, but you look big and smooth in your pics. Walker looks big and lean[/quote] No. small and lean. Or mid-sized and lean if you will. The leanness is there, but the level of muscle-mass is late beginner stage with an unusually well-developed abdominal area. [quote]. There is a huge difference between ya’ll. You have an inflated view of yourself. You are a big guy, but if you got down to his level of bf% I doubt you’d be, or at least look much bigger.[/quote]
Does he look like he has 2.5 inches of fat to lose off his arms in that picture?
It’s amazing what an effect leanness has on you guys.
Hershel is far from big. He is lean. The end.
I can see how someone who’s not used to seeing muscular people around (and has little frame of reference) will have trouble comparing a lean and a smooth physique and tell who is actually carrying more muscle, but you’ve been on here how long?
And let’s not even talk about the recent t-cell pics…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
My point is that you guys display a habit of unrealistic categorization.
Clearly well build physiques (exempli gratia Herschel Walker) which are realistically very rare (<1%) are described as “lifts a little bit of weight”.
You XXL guys are what, “ok”, “of decent build” ?
Which leaves at least a big gap for the middle ground. And creates a lot of confusion in the heads of beginners.
This cannot be so hard to understand.[/quote]
1% among the general population.
Among the population of people seriously training for physique enhancement (yes, drug free) and doing most things right…
How is that physique so special?
Train for a year or two at most with a sensible routine (no, not stronglifts), make the right kind of strength gains on 1-2 key-lifts per muscle-group (i.e. not just the big three), eat a proper bb diet… And then diet down.
There you go.
Hershel physique.
With bigger arms in relation to your height, to boot.
Have a look at smalltobig, one of the few people on this site who listened to us from the beginning… After 9 months from start to “finish”, he’s already surpassed or at the very least matched most of you in both size, strength and leanness. Imagine that.
If a few more of you guys would stop trying so hard to rebel against the system (or whatever) while championing the cause of mediocrity at the same time, maybe you could do that too and wouldn’t have to go on some sort of quasi-religious crusade over what amounts to a men’s health covermodel physique.
[/quote]
IMPOSSIBLE!! Didn’t you hear, no one can do that!!!
How DARE you imply that I should work harder![/quote]
You really crack me up, guys.
I wasn’t talking about this physique being unattainable.
The point was that this is not a physique you get easily through playing basketball.
[[quote]“but I swear if I drove to South Houston or 3rd Ward when it warms up, you could find 50 brothers that size and bigger who don’t do shit but play basketball all day.”[/quote]
-Can’t believe I actually had to skim through the thread for this]
Is it attainable if you focus solely on BODYBUILDING?
Yes, it is. (although we might have different opinions on how easily this is done, thanks to your somewhat close-minded hardcore attitude)
And that’s it.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
NO ONE HERE looked/looks like that after two years of lifting. Stop kidding yourselves.[/quote]
You can’t get your arms to 16 inches after 2 years of lifting? Or a little over 15, in the case of a guy of average height? Are you guys all doing starting strength or something?
Again, see smalltobig as one recent example…
I think you’re underestimating how small some people start out. I was 5’9" and barely 130lbs. My arms were an awe-inspiring 11". I’m about 180 with 16’s now. I’ve been as high as 190+ with 17’s, but I’m trying to get my speed and hops back so I’ve shifted into other things. Genetics are obviously ones tump card. Mine have always been towards jumping. I was dunking before that 5’9" 130, but it took me almost 7 years to gain 50lbs. Some people have made damn near double those gains. You’ve got to work with what you’ve been given, but to say that most people can have that level of muscle WHILE being that lean [guessing 8% +/- ] after 2 years is a bit presumptuous.
[/quote]
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Does he look like he has 2.5 inches of fat to lose off his arms in that picture?
It’s amazing what an effect leanness has on you guys.
Hershel is far from big. He is lean. The end.
[/quote]
LOL.
Amazing.
I can’t tell if people just like arguing to justify lack of progress or actually think that a lean person with flexed traps and abs actually makes them 40lbs heavier than they actually are.
Walker’s physique leaves a lot to be desired for someone his height.
There’s a saying in bodybuilding that every bodybuilder looks great standing alone. If you stood Walker next to even a regional level bodybuilder that’s 6’ tall you all will see why Walker doesnt come close to a GREAT physique (BY BODYBUILDING STANDARDS for you dense folk out there).
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I think you’re underestimating how small some people start out. I was 5’9" and barely 130lbs. My arms were an awe-inspiring 11". I’m about 180 with 16’s now. I’ve been as high as 190+ with 17’s, but I’m trying to get my speed and hops back so I’ve shifted into other things. Genetics are obviously ones tump card. Mine have always been towards jumping. I was dunking before that 5’9" 130, but it took me almost 7 years to gain 50lbs. Some people have made damn near double those gains. You’ve got to work with what you’ve been given, but to say that most people can have that level of muscle WHILE being that lean [guessing 8% +/- ] after 2 years is a bit presumptuous.
[/quote]
Good for you. You don’t have great genetics for this. I was 150lbs when I started with 15" flexed arms. I had no idea that people with lesser genetics got this pissed that people aren’t on the same level they are.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I can’t tell if people just like arguing to justify lack of progress or actually think that a lean person with flexed traps and abs actually makes them 40lbs heavier than they actually are.
Walker’s physique leaves a lot to be desired for someone his height.
There’s a saying in bodybuilding that every bodybuilder looks great standing alone. If you stood Walker next to even a regional level bodybuilder that’s 6’ tall you all will see why Walker doesnt come close to a GREAT physique (BY BODYBUILDING STANDARDS for you dense folk out there). [/quote]
But…but you didn’t take into account the people who lift weights for 20 years yet can’t look like this!!!
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
My point is that you guys display a habit of unrealistic categorization.
Clearly well build physiques (exempli gratia Herschel Walker) which are realistically very rare (<1%) are described as “lifts a little bit of weight”.
You XXL guys are what, “ok”, “of decent build” ?
Which leaves at least a big gap for the middle ground. And creates a lot of confusion in the heads of beginners.
This cannot be so hard to understand.[/quote]
The only confusion…is when guys like you who may or may NOT have very good genetics jump into conversations where the parameters have been set around people who do have good genetics.
My genetics don’t suck. I had 18" arms in about 2 and half years of serious training DRUG FREE yet guys like you insist on forcing guys like me to acknowledge every half assed trainer in the gym.
No, YOU may not be able to look like that without drugs. YOU may not be able to even match that size after 10 years of weight lifting. Everyone isn’t made like you and Herschel Walker, while in great shape, isn’t that damned big to think he NEEDED regular weight training to look like that.
If you or anyone else ignored the actual video and just commented on a TOUCHED UP photo then it is YOUR perception that is off.
Bigorexia doesn’t have anything to do with this. Some of us have higher goals and KNOW we can reach them…and then there’s you.[/quote]
You put a strange spin on this, X.
Maybe you and your pals have great genes, good for you.
You can bulk to 600lbs and press a ton, good for you.
But I’m not talking about your goals but your perception.
And of course I’ve seen the fight, are you certain you have seen it?
Have you seen his opponent, an average MMA fighter?
What do you say to him? Malnourished? Weak? [/quote] Small… Like most of the regular non-gym-goers who aren’t fat. [quote]
He’s a dude that probably trains very hard. Pushups, plyos, bags, sparring. [/quote] So? [quote]
He knew he’d be on TV.
The fight of his life.
But strangely enough, he looks different and distinctively…[b] AVERAGE[/b]? [/quote] Couldn’t be because he has a totally average physique and is not lean, could it? [quote]
Only guys who trained for long years with weights (of course), with steroids, topped his body, -barely- aesthetic-wise.
In retrospect, this is so funny! [/quote] You need help man. Seriously. Or ocular surgery.
If someone has trained for long years (with steroids or without) and does not top that more than just barely, despite that being their goal, then they have messed up big time (barring cancer etc).
Are you still going off the 'shopped picture? I hope you are, because if you are not then something is just plain wrong with you.
The other fighter looks like someone who has never eaten enough to get any half-serious muscle-size out of his training (plenty of similar cases around these parts of the web…), no matter what kind of training he does, and not lean enough to look muscular at such a small size.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I think you’re underestimating how small some people start out. I was 5’9" and barely 130lbs. My arms were an awe-inspiring 11". I’m about 180 with 16’s now. I’ve been as high as 190+ with 17’s, but I’m trying to get my speed and hops back so I’ve shifted into other things. Genetics are obviously ones tump card. Mine have always been towards jumping. I was dunking before that 5’9" 130, but it took me almost 7 years to gain 50lbs. Some people have made damn near double those gains. You’ve got to work with what you’ve been given, but to say that most people can have that level of muscle WHILE being that lean [guessing 8% +/- ] after 2 years is a bit presumptuous.
[/quote]
Good for you. You don’t have great genetics for this. I was 150lbs when I started with 15" flexed arms. I had no idea that people with lesser genetics got this pissed that people aren’t on the same level they are.
[/quote]
There seems to be some misunderstanding going on. I’m not pissed about anything. I figured out a long time ago I don’t have the genetics, muscle structure [tendon length, insertion points,etc], or the discipline to be HUGE. I’m really ok with that. What I’m saying is this dude is 6’1", 225 with what appears to be about 7-8% bf. He looks pretty damn good. I’ve already said he doesn’t look like he should be standing on a stage and he clearly has some physique flaws from an aesthetic standpoint. But, saying his physique isn’t impressive or that anyone with decent genetics can look like that after a couple of years of solid training is a little silly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I can’t tell if people just like arguing to justify lack of progress or actually think that a lean person with flexed traps and abs actually makes them 40lbs heavier than they actually are.
Walker’s physique leaves a lot to be desired for someone his height.
There’s a saying in bodybuilding that every bodybuilder looks great standing alone. If you stood Walker next to even a regional level bodybuilder that’s 6’ tall you all will see why Walker doesnt come close to a GREAT physique (BY BODYBUILDING STANDARDS for you dense folk out there). [/quote]
But…but you didn’t take into account the people who lift weights for 20 years yet can’t look like this!!![/quote]
I think people just don’t understand what full muscle bellies and short tendon attachment do for a lean physique.
I know that since I’ve used AAS before my opinion means less in a lot of people’s minds. That’s fine. But he simply isn’t that big. He just has a pretty torso. His shoulders and traps have the POTENTIAL to be great solely because of their fullness. But his pecs are thin, broad but thin, even in the photoshopped pic. Forget his legs, nice calves but no leg development that doesnt come from running a lot (big calves). If someone lifted weights seriously in a bodybuilding fashion and looked that unproportional there is a problem (excluding new guys obviously).
[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Sorry but I’m calling bullshit on never having touched a weight or resistance training of any form in his life. He wouldn’t be the first athlete to make bullshit claims to make himself look like superman.
He might have great genetics, but genetics don’t get a guy that developed on “pushups and eating once a day”[/quote]
I’m glad someone else said it and I cosign it. First, he’s been known for being “eccentric” throughout the years and that is being kind. I can accept he could achieve a fine physique with a ton of bodyweight training and good genetics. I can accept that his genetics have allowed him to overcome less than ideal nutritional intake. What I am finding difficult to accept is his trap development and I’m surprised on one else here has questioned it. I know of no way to develop traps like that thru bodyweight exercise alone. I know of no one ever being born with that kind of trap development either - even the naturally gifted. I don’t mean to make absolute statements - it is an invitation for someone to correct and educate me.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I think you’re underestimating how small some people start out. I was 5’9" and barely 130lbs. My arms were an awe-inspiring 11". I’m about 180 with 16’s now. I’ve been as high as 190+ with 17’s, but I’m trying to get my speed and hops back so I’ve shifted into other things. Genetics are obviously ones tump card. Mine have always been towards jumping. I was dunking before that 5’9" 130, but it took me almost 7 years to gain 50lbs. Some people have made damn near double those gains. You’ve got to work with what you’ve been given, but to say that most people can have that level of muscle WHILE being that lean [guessing 8% +/- ] after 2 years is a bit presumptuous.
[/quote]
Good for you. You don’t have great genetics for this. I was 150lbs when I started with 15" flexed arms. I had no idea that people with lesser genetics got this pissed that people aren’t on the same level they are.
[/quote]
There seems to be some misunderstanding going on. I’m not pissed about anything. I figured out a long time ago I don’t have the genetics, muscle structure [tendon length, insertion points,etc], or the discipline to be HUGE. I’m really ok with that. What I’m saying is this dude is 6’1", 225 with what appears to be about 7-8% bf. He looks pretty damn good. I’ve already said he doesn’t look like he should be standing on a stage and he clearly has some physique flaws from an aesthetic standpoint. But, saying his physique isn’t impressive or that anyone with decent genetics can look like that after a couple of years of solid training is a little silly.[/quote]
I’m not getting in the middle of whatever disagreement you have.
But no one said his physique isn’t impressive. He’s just not big.
Not only COULD his level of musculature be achieved in a few years. It SHOULD be achieved. 6’1 220 is NOT big (I’m going by the numbers Ive seen in the thread). He has full shoulders and deep tendon attachemetns around his biceps. It doesn’t make him big. It just makes him look better than guys with shittier aesthetics.
I’d be pretty disappointed if I didn’t look bigger than that at 47.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I can’t tell if people just like arguing to justify lack of progress or actually think that a lean person with flexed traps and abs actually makes them 40lbs heavier than they actually are.
Walker’s physique leaves a lot to be desired for someone his height.
There’s a saying in bodybuilding that every bodybuilder looks great standing alone. If you stood Walker next to even a regional level bodybuilder that’s 6’ tall you all will see why Walker doesnt come close to a GREAT physique (BY BODYBUILDING STANDARDS for you dense folk out there). [/quote]
But…but you didn’t take into account the people who lift weights for 20 years yet can’t look like this!!![/quote]
I don’t think people will still grasp the concept that Walker is NOT A BODYBUILDER!!! I repeat…HERSCHEL WALKR IS NOT A BODYBUILDER!!! He is an ATHLETE!! Big difference. And to the person who pointed out the differences between Nagy and Walker, you are a tool that doesn’t understand training and martial-arts in general. Nagy was not prepared for that fight, physically or mentally. He was not well conditioned at all. Like Walker, he is a neo-phyte in the sport of MMA. He is not an athlete. Nagy is someone who no matter how much they train, they will not be much of an athlete. I put him in a class of “technique” fighter, rather than “athletic” fighter. Given two fighters, one with technique and little strength and conditioning, and the other with little technique and the strength of a gorilla and the lungs of say…Michael Phelps…I think we all know who would walk out of that fight the winner. Now, let’s please leave this bad episode of “When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong!”
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Hard-work is where its at, just ask Prof X. He has become successful in his profession (making 6 figures) and has become a physique king. One of the reasons none of us can challenge his arguments is because of these facts, even though some on this forum are smarter than him.[/quote]
Jesus christ, take the guy’s dick out of your mouth. You can respect him without fawning all over him like you caught The Ghey.[/quote]
Ditto, I felt like I was flipping thru porn on the internet and was just insulted with a scene of gay porn. If six figures and being big are the key, please form the line to start sucking my dick as well. I think Prof X just got e-raped in the ass by a passing homo. Watch your back X, there is a man crush upon you 
LOL
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
NO ONE HERE looked/looks like that after two years of lifting. Stop kidding yourselves.[/quote]
You can’t get your arms to 16 inches after 2 years of lifting? Or a little over 15, in the case of a guy of average height? Are you guys all doing starting strength or something?
Again, see smalltobig as one recent example…
[/quote]
I think you’re underestimating how small some people start out. I was 5’9" and barely 130lbs. My arms were an awe-inspiring 11". I’m about 180 with 16’s now. I’ve been as high as 190+ with 17’s, but I’m trying to get my speed and hops back so I’ve shifted into other things. Genetics are obviously ones tump card. Mine have always been towards jumping. I was dunking before that 5’9" 130, but it took me almost 7 years to gain 50lbs. Some people have made damn near double those gains. You’ve got to work with what you’ve been given, but to say that most people can have that level of muscle WHILE being that lean [guessing 8% +/- ] after 2 years is a bit presumptuous.
[/quote]
The being lean part takes from a few weeks to a few months of dieting…
7 years for 50 lbs? I’m not even going to say genetics here. I think you did a thing or two wrong. Plain and simple. Or maybe you started in your 40’s? (I have no idea how old you are). What were you training for back then?
50 lbs is what I’d expect a total beginner to gain in their first year at least (starting in their 20’s or 30’s), at least those guys who start out underweight (like 120-140 at average height with 12(or less) to 13 inch arms). I don’t mean to insult your progress either, you’ve eventually gotten to a nice size for a non-bodybuilder/powerlifter over the years.
But I think you guys like to overlook a lot of things here that are far more likely to be responsible for your progress being slower than genetics/ (and drugs)…
What was your training like back then and your diet? Party/drink much or anything like that?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
I’m really ok with that. What I’m saying is this dude is 6’1", 225 with what appears to be about 7-8% bf. He looks pretty damn good. I’ve already said he doesn’t look like he should be standing on a stage and he clearly has some physique flaws from an aesthetic standpoint. But, saying his physique isn’t impressive or that anyone with decent genetics can look like that after a couple of years of solid training is a little silly.[/quote]
Where do you keep getting 225 from? He weighed in at 214. 10 lbs of muscle is a big difference at that size.