[quote]Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.[/quote]
+1. I agree 100%. I wonder what it would take for that to happen tho? maybe the next step after not judging purely for mass anymore.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.[/quote]
But how are we suppose to see their glute striations if they don’t get that dry???
[quote]dre wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.
But how are we suppose to see their glute striations if they don’t get that dry???[/quote]
The only thing gayer than judges being worried about “glute striations” is if they had a penis measuring contest on stage as well.
That would remove calves from the top of the most genetically limited body part list.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
dre wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.
But how are we suppose to see their glute striations if they don’t get that dry???
The only thing gayer than judges being worried about “glute striations” is if they had a penis measuring contest on stage as well.[/quote]
haha, nice.
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.
+1. I agree 100%. I wonder what it would take for that to happen tho? maybe the next step after not judging purely for mass anymore.
[/quote]
Will happen soon, worst thing they ever did was introduce the speedo’s
With it came all the homo erotic BS that still follows bodybuilding around like a bad smell.
It was all JUST for glue striations which as Prof. X pointed out judges really couldn’t give a toss about.
All about:
Back
Back
Back
Back
In that order.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
That would remove calves from the top of the most genetically limited body part list.[/quote]
HA!
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
That would remove calves from the top of the most genetically limited body part list.[/quote]
jelq + roidz
Posted today.
Nvmd I just noticed X said what I did in one of the picture captions =o
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.[/quote]
The gaunt faces don’t help matters any…
But yeah, at least they can’t get any drier and less fat than they do today .
Or maybe sometime in the future bodybuilders will pose onstage with their skin removed for the duration of the contest or something, who knows 
He’s GOT to have some type of pilot license cuz those are some CRAZY wings! Great pics.
His calves are fine IMO the problem is his arms are so massive they make his calves look tiny.
I know a lot of people will say you can never have big enough arms, but IMO his arms are too big, They just look like blobs of meat.
Yeah he has a good back, and is able to make his waist look small, but the stocky legs and long torso may not look as good up agains someone with perfect proportions such as the Blade for example.
oops I didn’t see todays photos! - looking one hell of a lot better! I guess he just needed to cut down more and shed the water
He has simmilar looking abs to Dexter, but looks a little thicker in the waist from the front then Dext.
Looks great from behind.
i live in tampa florida and saw him about 2 months ago with dexter jackson and he looked sick even then hes got great proportions for being a taller guy he looks huge in person.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To tell the truth, wish they didn’t have to get that lean to do well at a contest. Most of these guys look ten times more impressive in the off season right before they start dieting.
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.[/quote]
Personally bodybuilding without the diet would just not be the same. Truth is for all these guys being pros, alot of them screw up their prep badly - just look at the Olympia every year for example.
The competition isn’t just the day of the show. the competition begins 12 weeks out (or so) Who can gut out the cardio e.t.c on the starvation diet the most? Which guy is going to break? It’s like a marthon of endurance really.
As for ripped glutes, If you don’t have em you won’t be sharp enough in other places anyways and will be beat. That doesn’t mean you have to crank up your trunks to show them off to the crowd and judges. That is stupid and gay IMO.
Irregardless of what you wear the bottom of the glues will poke out, as their attachments are fairly well down into the back of the leg. Judges look at these spots where muscles tie into one another. An athlete that isn’t as conditoned will be holding fluid at these tie-in points, more so then his competitor who is better conditioned.
It really is one of the differences between winning and losing. If you want the trophy you gotta be as lean or leaner then the next guy.
[quote]Prisoner wrote:
It really is one of the differences between winning and losing. If you want the trophy you gotta be as lean or leaner then the next guy.[/quote]
…and I am simply saying I don’t agree with that aspect of competition. It used to be about muscle size and shape, not who can be drier than the other guy.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Prisoner wrote:
It really is one of the differences between winning and losing. If you want the trophy you gotta be as lean or leaner then the next guy.
…and I am simply saying I don’t agree with that aspect of competition. It used to be about muscle size and shape, not who can be drier than the other guy.[/quote]
It still is about muscle size and shape. It is a triad actually> To win you have to be comparable in size to the next guy and symetrical to a resonable degree. Conditioning and SHAPE is then considered. Typically if your shape is better but you totally blown your prep you will lose. If your conditioning is as good or even if it is slightly not as good but your shape is kick ass, then it is likely you will win.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Pros in the 1960’s were nowhere near this dried out.[/quote]
Do you mean his physique, or his lawn?
lol