[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]dez6485 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]dez6485 wrote:
in fact, ill add to my post about Arnold and his arms- the pic of Dave in this thread, he’s fucking huge, and definitely heavier than 235lbs, at 5’11". Call him up and ask if his arms are 23". answer: nope, smaller. (not that theyre small)[/quote]
Now youre just ruining your credibility.
I have no idea what Arnolds arms measured. But to compare Arnold to Dave is retarded. Dave isn;'t in competition condition. Even by 1970’s competition condition standards. You are aware that the weight of competitive body builders fluctuates, right?
The point is neither you nor anyone else here has any idea how tall, heavy or how big Mike The situations arm are. What is known is they are disproportionally large likely because of genetics and because he wants them that way. [/quote]
Let me rephrase for you since I guess you missed my point-
Dave Tate, who is 5’11" and about 260lbs at about 8% bodyfat in that pic, does not have 23" arms. Therefore it would stand to reason that Arnold, who is said to have been 6’1"-6’2.5" at 228-235lbs at probably 5% bodyfat, would NOT have larger arms than the shorter, significantly heavier man. Unless Arnold was running around looking like “the situation” with arms that were much too big for his torso, and I’ve never seen him look like that.
I’m not sure why I need to argue this? I thought we had all acknowledged and accepted long ago that Arnold’s supposed 23" arm was wildly exaggerated? If you got anything other than that from my post about Arnold v Tate size comparison, then I don’t know what to tell you. Yes, I realize bodybuilders’ weight fluctuates between competition condition and their off-season…not too different from when Tate put his efforts towards leaning down. I’m not sure how any of this “ruins my credibility” but frankly I don’t care because I know what I said makes sense. [/quote]
I think you have a poor ability to judge the size of someone’s arms. I have no idea how big Arnolds arms ever were. But if you think that the Situations arms are 19" at 6’ tall (you said that in another post responding to Sam) and you also think that Arnolds arms are smaller than 23" at around 6’ then thre is a problem. There is no chance in hell that the difference between their arms is 3" or less. Batshit insane. [/quote]
Judging by the first picture in the thread, if the guy were my height (5’10), then I’d guess his arms at roughly 16 lean with longish (not levrone long or anything, but long enough) bicep bellies and surprisingly decent tris (just from that picture). In a most muscular or true relaxed pose, his arms would probably look significantly less “impressive”.
It’s a simple matter of muscle-belly length, leanness (not all that important in this case, actually) and angles.
His forearms look smallish there simply because of the way they are turned vs. camera angle vs. pose. Even McGrath’s forearms would look small compared to his upper arms if he were standing and photographed in the same way.
If the photographer had made the picture from several meters to the right (flexing dude not changing position), the forearms of the guy would look significantly bigger.
Bit surprised that any of this needs explaining on here… Come on people…
As for Arnold’s arms… Who knows. It’s not even sure how tall he was, he claims 6’2 I believe, but many are calling bs on that… Pumped up and if he were over 6, then he might have reached 22.5 flexed (there is one well known photo of him having his arms out in front of him in the same pose larry scott sometimes used, shot from the side), but only pumped to the max… Otherwise, I’m guessing 21 flexed at his best, probably 19 relaxed. Way smaller during his movie career.
He has the advantage of both long/full AND very well peaked biceps… Flat tris though…
The poliquin equation thing is no universal truth and only works if you do not increase your arm size in relation to everything else (no specialization and no focus on getting very strong on arm work). It’s entirely possible to have ~20 inch arms at 5’10 240 (maybe even 21 if if you have a very high peak and or very good tricep sweep), and then diet down to 210 or so and still sport way over 19 inch arms, though it’s not “easy” and most all-out mass programs do not allow for this as they’re geared towards putting on mass as fast as possible all over.
If you train everything equally with not too much volume, what you look like after 2 years or so of serious training is what you’re going to look like 50 lbs or even 100 lbs heavier… Just larger overall… So if you have lagging arms, you may end up at 5’10 with 17.5-18 inch arms at 240-250 pounds that way… Which kind of sucks particularly in relaxed poses where they’ll be even smaller or if you have shitty attachments.
That’s what specialization is for… And not just the “3-4 weeks” spec programs, but some long-term plan to really bring your proportions up to snuff… None of the “50 different crazy exercises and a million different rep ranges”-crap, but serious focus on bringing main exercises for the muscle-groups in question up to serious strength levels…
For natties, long-term shoulder, trap, tri and back specialization is imo a necessity if you want to look seriously impressive in clothes, rather than wide-ish but not very thick/powerful (the way most natties look).
