(incidentally look at Phil Heaths chest. It looks great relaxed (and is thick) but it is not as it should be (in bodybuilding perfection) and as such you can see where the muscle stops and the tendon which attaches to the corocoid process begins.
This massively affects the look and shape of it and i think that will restrict his progression for the rest of his career).
Are you saying some men, due to their muscle insertions will never achieve more mass? Should they not, could they not, then be rewarded for shape, vascularity and solidity, like Branch? I am going to have to look at Heath’s pics to understand more of what you mean.
THIS. this is largely why phil’s arms over power his chest especially in MM, this along w/ the clavicle thing is why Phil’s physique is not desirable. both points are related to his narrowness.
[quote]cyruseven75 wrote:
(incidentally look at Phil Heaths chest. It looks great relaxed (and is thick) but it is not as it should be (in bodybuilding perfection) and as such you can see where the muscle stops and the tendon which attaches to the corocoid process begins.
This massively affects the look and shape of it and i think that will restrict his progression for the rest of his career).
Are you saying some men, due to their muscle insertions will never achieve more mass? Should they not, could they not, then be rewarded for shape, vascularity and solidity, like Branch? I am going to have to look at Heath’s pics to understand more of what you mean.
THIS. this is largely why phil’s arms over power his chest especially in MM, this along w/ the clavicle thing is why Phil’s physique is not desirable. both points are related to his narrowness. [/quote]
I wondered what was meant when someone (maybe you) referred to his narrowness… but now you say it like that i obviously get it totally.
…you know the ones that bend at the waist? That is my impression when I look at a BB like that; that you could just flex them at the hips and break it - it’s a delicate look. That is usually associated with ‘femininity’.
Ahh see… i LIKE that.[/quote] That is due to you liking women too much, : D [quote]
I find the more delicate posing of certain physiques to be very tasteful actually, something that reminds me of grecian masculinity or something… achilles maybe.[/quote] Yes,I understand that - however why can’t a blocky man pose gracefully? Isn’t this then primarily a question of identification with a certain image, i.e. “I am sophisticated” x “I am a brute/raw” ? I think there are intra-psychic messages being conveyed in BB and it can be used as a weapon for supremacy of one style of man x another. Think about it.
In retrospect, I think I favor the hardcore style so heavily because my true nature is motivated by justice and where I see an underdog, I immediately turn my attention and add my weight to its cause whereas, if the equity of the human being had been acknowledged I would not favor any particular one style but would hold the attitude: May the best, in that moment in time, win.
It is not just BB, but human nature that tends to turn subjective personal preference into objective standard of perfection and truth: “Apples are better than oranges” ( because I love apples and I am the best/the elite and therefore can call my personal preference absolute truth ) as opposed to ‘apples taste different than oranges’. The elite in every sport does this; whether is aesthetics or performance.[quote]
There is also the view (i hold) of when one is very muscular and highly developed it looks good - modest somehow - to not stomp around grunting. It is more refined IMO.[/quote] Yes, I don’t see how any shape or size can prevent a man from moving gracefully. Power without grace is brutality.[quote]
Sorry, I prefer the hardcore look - SPECIALLY FOR MALES.
Additionally, I adore the shape of Branch’s chest and the way the veins run through it - that jumped at me when I saw him on stage. His inner thighs also are phenomenal - the best in the business and I can’t quite explain why I think this way
( that is what I mean I need to be taught ).
As far as your own taste - i am not sure that can be analyzed without delving into such factors as how you view men in general, your relationship with your father… etc ;)[/quote]
LOL! My father is a disembodied brain. He only has one relationship: with his books and neurology seminars.
In general, I view men as they see themselves reflected through me. And it is always the hardcore ones who do not feel intimidated/overwhelmed or get into direct competition/oposition with me - and see my antics for what it is; just extreme playfulness. So yes, I relate better to the blocky type since they feel physically more capable to handle impact. Ectomorphs usually shy away from me.[quote]
I was having this conversation with a good friend of mine and I tell you, he has one of the best physiques I have seen amongst T-Nation members.
I know to whom you refer[/quote]
You bluff.
challenging smile
Yes, that when well combined achieves “The look of Power” - no?
It cannot be the single units in isolation, as in: the look of symmetry, the look of mass, etc…these are concrete variables I speak of an abstract concept : the concept of what power looks like. That is the whole reason I love BB - don’t destroy my dream now! ; )[quote]
I think there are 1-2 more but cannot think right now. Just as a sprinter needs to run faster than 10 seconds as standard, a bodybuilder needs a minimum shoulder/waist ratio… needs full muscles but not at the sake of losing shape and proportion.[/quote] You are being practical. I was being conceptual. You speak concrete. I was dwelling in abstraction.[quote]
Well what i was saying was that some men, due to the shape or design of their muscle - while they can increase it’s size, it wont be pretty.[/quote] Yes, like Arnold ( I am sorry fans of Arny but I think he pushed his chest to a point where it deformed his true shape - his nipples turned from complete straight to side down and it looked like sagged breasts to my eyes ). I agree a man can push the limit to a point where it deforms and does not enhance his physique.[quote]
Though I don’t like men being modeled after Barbies I do agree on Ruhl.[/quote]
My comment about the Barbie syndrome is our obsession as humans with an ideal: A singular model of perfection.[quote]
But you must remember it is proportion… those men on stage who look to have feminine waistlines are still 31"-32" waists at 3% bodyfat! So the rest of the year they will be pushing 34"-36".[/quote] Yes, I see that. [quote]
It is the illusion of slender aesthetic while being massively muscular that is desired…[/quote]
Illusion is not reality.
Maybe that is why I also favor the hardcore look:
It is more realistic.[quote]
THIS. this is largely why phil’s arms over power his chest especially in MM, this along w/ the clavicle thing is why Phil’s physique is not desirable. both points are related to his narrowness. [/quote]
Yes, his arms are awesome. And I do see what you mean; that they do overpower his chest - which in a way ( the way of being overpowered by the ultra manly arms ) then resemble that of a female BB who has lost her breast tissue ( this is just my first impression ).
I mean no offense to him. He is very masculine, and a very pretty boy, in fact - physically and facially.
What is the ‘clavicle thing’?
I cannot see it in his picture on the previous page.
clavicle refers to the bone below the neck that is above the ribs running shoulder to shoulder, you cannot change it, it is the determining factor in overall shoulder width. you can build your medial deltoids to appear wider but it only gets you so far.