Guys that “wow”?
Phil
Kai
Simeon Panda (natty inspiration)
Ced
Cordova
Mad Titan
Brandon Curry
All these guys, IMO, have something about them that give me that WOW factor.
Maybe it’s their proportions or shape or size or combo of them all but whatever “it” is, IMO, they have it.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Didn’t read past the second page and had never seen any of Max’s photos before BUT man, he looks awesome.
He falls into the “too big” category for me (I wouldn’t want to be that size) but I still appreciate guys that do it.
I think he looks good and if that fits his goals (obviously it does since he’s a pro) then good for him.
One thing that has always baffled me about this board is the stance on steroids that most posters seem to have.
Why the hate?
Saying someone is on AAS isn’t an insult and I don’t know why people get offended by it?
The biggest and most impressive guys on this board are taking AAS and that doesn’t diminish their physiques at all.
It’s part of the game.
It’s like wearing a helmet in football.
Using a bat in baseball.
Having a racket for tennis.
You can’t compete without it and its part of the game.
It isn’t an insult to ask about it or mention it.
This boards stance has always puzzled me.
I understand not wanting to be completely open about it because of legal issues but it’s not an insult to say Cutler or Phil are using.
If someone says they want to look like that, asking if they plan on using isn’t a dig, it’s just part of the equation.
Aaaaaaaaanyways
He looks good.
I agree that he doesn’t have the “wow” factor that I can’t put my finger on but he looks great.[/quote]
Doesn’t have a wow factor yet larger than you would want to get ;). What does wow you sir?[/quote]
lol, there are guys that just have “it”
It’s hard to explain (obvi, otherwise I would have done it already) but whatever “it” is, for my liking, isn’t there.
He looks good and is huge but doesn’t have anything distinguishing that sets him apart from the other pros IMO.
It’s not a knock on his physique at all.[/quote]
I know you weren’t knocking him just giving you shit.
I guess I am just jelly of those arms and shoulders
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Didn’t read past the second page and had never seen any of Max’s photos before BUT man, he looks awesome.
He falls into the “too big” category for me (I wouldn’t want to be that size) but I still appreciate guys that do it.
I think he looks good and if that fits his goals (obviously it does since he’s a pro) then good for him.
One thing that has always baffled me about this board is the stance on steroids that most posters seem to have.
Why the hate?
Saying someone is on AAS isn’t an insult and I don’t know why people get offended by it?
The biggest and most impressive guys on this board are taking AAS and that doesn’t diminish their physiques at all.
It’s part of the game.
It’s like wearing a helmet in football.
Using a bat in baseball.
Having a racket for tennis.
You can’t compete without it and its part of the game.
It isn’t an insult to ask about it or mention it.
This boards stance has always puzzled me.
I understand not wanting to be completely open about it because of legal issues but it’s not an insult to say Cutler or Phil are using.
If someone says they want to look like that, asking if they plan on using isn’t a dig, it’s just part of the equation.
Aaaaaaaaanyways
He looks good.
I agree that he doesn’t have the “wow” factor that I can’t put my finger on but he looks great.[/quote]
Doesn’t have a wow factor yet larger than you would want to get ;). What does wow you sir?[/quote]
lol, there are guys that just have “it”
It’s hard to explain (obvi, otherwise I would have done it already) but whatever “it” is, for my liking, isn’t there.
He looks good and is huge but doesn’t have anything distinguishing that sets him apart from the other pros IMO.
It’s not a knock on his physique at all.[/quote]
I know you weren’t knocking him just giving you shit.
I guess I am just jelly of those arms and shoulders [/quote]
Ya that very first photo is pretty outrageous.
He has the “wow” factor or “it” factor when compared to 99.9% of the worlds population.
I was more referring towards standing on stage with all the other top pros.
I don’t see the “wow” or “it” factor compared to the top guys which isn’t a knock.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Didn’t read past the second page and had never seen any of Max’s photos before BUT man, he looks awesome.
He falls into the “too big” category for me (I wouldn’t want to be that size) but I still appreciate guys that do it.
I think he looks good and if that fits his goals (obviously it does since he’s a pro) then good for him.
One thing that has always baffled me about this board is the stance on steroids that most posters seem to have.
Why the hate?
Saying someone is on AAS isn’t an insult and I don’t know why people get offended by it?
The biggest and most impressive guys on this board are taking AAS and that doesn’t diminish their physiques at all.
It’s part of the game.
It’s like wearing a helmet in football.
Using a bat in baseball.
Having a racket for tennis.
You can’t compete without it and its part of the game.
It isn’t an insult to ask about it or mention it.
This boards stance has always puzzled me.
I understand not wanting to be completely open about it because of legal issues but it’s not an insult to say Cutler or Phil are using.
If someone says they want to look like that, asking if they plan on using isn’t a dig, it’s just part of the equation.
Aaaaaaaaanyways
He looks good.
I agree that he doesn’t have the “wow” factor that I can’t put my finger on but he looks great.[/quote]
Doesn’t have a wow factor yet larger than you would want to get ;). What does wow you sir?[/quote]
lol, there are guys that just have “it”
It’s hard to explain (obvi, otherwise I would have done it already) but whatever “it” is, for my liking, isn’t there.
He looks good and is huge but doesn’t have anything distinguishing that sets him apart from the other pros IMO.
It’s not a knock on his physique at all.[/quote]
I know you weren’t knocking him just giving you shit.
I guess I am just jelly of those arms and shoulders [/quote]
Ya that very first photo is pretty outrageous.
He has the “wow” factor or “it” factor when compared to 99.9% of the worlds population.
I was more referring towards standing on stage with all the other top pros.
I don’t see the “wow” or “it” factor compared to the top guys which isn’t a knock.[/quote]
Considering this was his qualifier for pro he has time to get bigger. Which sucks. His waist will most likely explode like everyone else’s
[quote]jdrannin1 wrote:
For one thing his shoulders and arms come across as disproportional to the rest of his body. Especially his side delts.[/quote]
The fact that his arms and shoulders are disproportionately large (within the context of the Classical ideal) actually puts Charles more in line with the Golden Age bodybuilding ideal (Arnold, Nubret, Olivo, etc.), which emphasized large arms and shoulders and a relatively narrow waist. If you compare the stage pic that Professor X posted on the first page with similar shots of other pros throughout the years, Charles has much more in common with Arnold than he does with, say, Dorian Yates. While both his legs and midsection are a bit larger than those found on Golden Age bodybuilders (the result of evolving goals within the bodybuilding community), Charles clearly displays a nicer x-frame than what was seen 10 years ago or so. Overall, I like the way he’s put together.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Considering this was his qualifier for pro he has time to get bigger. Which sucks. His waist will most likely explode like everyone else’s [/quote]
True, unfortunately.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I don’t care what he looks like when the range of motion is that small. And I originally quoted Whiteflash, who pointed out that this goon was claiming a world record deadlift based on a partial.
I also offered an opinion that that sort of thing didn’t build his physique. I would make an educated guess that the equivalent to his “world record deadlift” on bench would have very little effect, and I would say the same about 1/8 ROM pulldowns.[/quote]
So you are saying a pro body builder basically doesn’t know how to train properly? And you also have yet to explain why partial rom cannot build muscle[/quote]
Are you saying a pro bodybuilder can’t do stupid things? Do you think he does only partials? Brb Jason Huh training with featherweight and 1/16th ROM to get hyooooge.
Why? The length/tension relationship of muscle comes to mind. Even with a huge load, the tension doesn’t compare to a lower load at greater ranges of motion; this wouldn’t be an issue if the partial was something reasonable, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. You inferred incorrectly that I meant all partials are bad, so I’ll state that no, I don’t think they’re all bad for bodybuilding. 8" Rack pull singles need not apply, though.
Then of course you have to consider the reduced time under tension of fractional range of motion, and it doesn’t seem likely to me that extreme partials are doing much of anything. Also, consider that the lift in question was a single, so there’s almost no chance it was doing anything other than feeding his idiocy.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why would he do it if it doesn’t help build his physique?
Once I stopped training full ROM and started doing almost exclusively partial ROM work, my lifts exploded, and I put on some decent mass.
[/quote]
I get why you would ask such a question, but it’s not complicated to answer. He either believes it helps him, is stupid enough to think he’s a world-class deadlifter, or is trying to market himself as a Johnny Jackson-esque bodybuilder. If it’s 1, that still doesn’t tell you anything. You aren’t going to convince me that Jason Huh is an elephant because of his weird constant tension bullshit and not the 700x4 full ROM squats he does, and you aren’t going to convince me that a single at 1035 and barely discernible ROM is making Maxx Charles the size he is. 2 doesn’t seem humanly possible, and 3 seems the most likely scenario for me. It is probably obvious to any huge guy that they can say/do stupid things and smaller guys will defend it to the end because of his size.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I don’t care what he looks like when the range of motion is that small. And I originally quoted Whiteflash, who pointed out that this goon was claiming a world record deadlift based on a partial.
I also offered an opinion that that sort of thing didn’t build his physique. I would make an educated guess that the equivalent to his “world record deadlift” on bench would have very little effect, and I would say the same about 1/8 ROM pulldowns.[/quote]
So you are saying a pro body builder basically doesn’t know how to train properly? And you also have yet to explain why partial rom cannot build muscle[/quote]
Are you saying a pro bodybuilder can’t do stupid things? Do you think he does only partials? Brb Jason Huh training with featherweight and 1/16th ROM to get hyooooge.
Why? The length/tension relationship of muscle comes to mind. Even with a huge load, the tension doesn’t compare to a lower load at greater ranges of motion; this wouldn’t be an issue if the partial was something reasonable, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. You inferred incorrectly that I meant all partials are bad, so I’ll state that no, I don’t think they’re all bad for bodybuilding. 8" Rack pull singles need not apply, though.
Then of course you have to consider the reduced time under tension of fractional range of motion, and it doesn’t seem likely to me that extreme partials are doing much of anything. Also, consider that the lift in question was a single, so there’s almost no chance it was doing anything other than feeding his idiocy.[/quote]
Yes I am saying Bbers can’t do stupid things? Good reading
Did I say all he does are partials? Again good reading
So since they don’t “seem” like they do anything to you that means they don’t do anything? Come on. One thing you are missing is the insane activation you get from pulling a huge weight for a partial rom. Which will carry over to use more weight in a full rom lift. But hey since partials seem like they do anything better start getting those out of everybody’s programs 
[quote]leon79 wrote:
[quote]jdrannin1 wrote:
For one thing his shoulders and arms come across as disproportional to the rest of his body. Especially his side delts.[/quote]
The fact that his arms and shoulders are disproportionately large (within the context of the Classical ideal) actually puts Charles more in line with the Golden Age bodybuilding ideal (Arnold, Nubret, Olivo, etc.), which emphasized large arms and shoulders and a relatively narrow waist. If you compare the stage pic that Professor X posted on the first page with similar shots of other pros throughout the years, Charles has much more in common with Arnold than he does with, say, Dorian Yates. While both his legs and midsection are a bit larger than those found on Golden Age bodybuilders (the result of evolving goals within the bodybuilding community), Charles clearly displays a nicer x-frame than what was seen 10 years ago or so. Overall, I like the way he’s put together.[/quote]
This is exactly why I like his build
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I don’t care what he looks like when the range of motion is that small. And I originally quoted Whiteflash, who pointed out that this goon was claiming a world record deadlift based on a partial.
I also offered an opinion that that sort of thing didn’t build his physique. I would make an educated guess that the equivalent to his “world record deadlift” on bench would have very little effect, and I would say the same about 1/8 ROM pulldowns.[/quote]
So you are saying a pro body builder basically doesn’t know how to train properly? And you also have yet to explain why partial rom cannot build muscle[/quote]
Are you saying a pro bodybuilder can’t do stupid things? Do you think he does only partials? Brb Jason Huh training with featherweight and 1/16th ROM to get hyooooge.
Why? The length/tension relationship of muscle comes to mind. Even with a huge load, the tension doesn’t compare to a lower load at greater ranges of motion; this wouldn’t be an issue if the partial was something reasonable, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. You inferred incorrectly that I meant all partials are bad, so I’ll state that no, I don’t think they’re all bad for bodybuilding. 8" Rack pull singles need not apply, though.
Then of course you have to consider the reduced time under tension of fractional range of motion, and it doesn’t seem likely to me that extreme partials are doing much of anything. Also, consider that the lift in question was a single, so there’s almost no chance it was doing anything other than feeding his idiocy.[/quote]
Yes I am saying Bbers can’t do stupid things? Good reading
Did I say all he does are partials? Again good reading
So since they don’t “seem” like they do anything to you that means they don’t do anything? Come on. One thing you are missing is the insane activation you get from pulling a huge weight for a partial rom. Which will carry over to use more weight in a full rom lift. But hey since partials seem like they do anything better start getting those out of everybody’s programs :)[/quote]
Good job picking up on the tit-for-tat there, Ryan. Ask a stupid question and…
I’m well aware of load does to muscle activation. I’ve read countless EMG studies and researched in that area myself. I’m confident I have a lot more experience with it than you do, actually. But you’re still taking the black and white approach here, which is odd considering my last post, but you obviously just like to argue. There is a point of diminished returns for partials. Try not to ignore that last statement because it’s pretty important to my central point here, i.e. the kind of partial he did for a single out of the rack did not build his back. But maybe you should go slap the nearest quarter squatter on his ample ass…it is obviously is working for his ilk in building massive wheels across the country in a gym near you:)
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why is it that we are concluding he has succeeding in spite of his training rather than because of it?[/quote]
It is confusing to me…so rack pulls all of a sudden are not a good movement for upper back. Better tell Ct to never program them. Partials pressing isn’t good for overloading the chest and triceps. Partials pulldowns also suck I guess. [/quote]
I don’t care what he looks like when the range of motion is that small. And I originally quoted Whiteflash, who pointed out that this goon was claiming a world record deadlift based on a partial.
I also offered an opinion that that sort of thing didn’t build his physique. I would make an educated guess that the equivalent to his “world record deadlift” on bench would have very little effect, and I would say the same about 1/8 ROM pulldowns.[/quote]
So you are saying a pro body builder basically doesn’t know how to train properly? And you also have yet to explain why partial rom cannot build muscle[/quote]
Are you saying a pro bodybuilder can’t do stupid things? Do you think he does only partials? Brb Jason Huh training with featherweight and 1/16th ROM to get hyooooge.
Why? The length/tension relationship of muscle comes to mind. Even with a huge load, the tension doesn’t compare to a lower load at greater ranges of motion; this wouldn’t be an issue if the partial was something reasonable, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. You inferred incorrectly that I meant all partials are bad, so I’ll state that no, I don’t think they’re all bad for bodybuilding. 8" Rack pull singles need not apply, though.
Then of course you have to consider the reduced time under tension of fractional range of motion, and it doesn’t seem likely to me that extreme partials are doing much of anything. Also, consider that the lift in question was a single, so there’s almost no chance it was doing anything other than feeding his idiocy.[/quote]
Yes I am saying Bbers can’t do stupid things? Good reading
Did I say all he does are partials? Again good reading
So since they don’t “seem” like they do anything to you that means they don’t do anything? Come on. One thing you are missing is the insane activation you get from pulling a huge weight for a partial rom. Which will carry over to use more weight in a full rom lift. But hey since partials seem like they do anything better start getting those out of everybody’s programs :)[/quote]
Good job picking up on the tit-for-tat there, Ryan. Ask a stupid question and…
I’m well aware of load does to muscle activation. I’ve read countless EMG studies and researched in that area myself. I’m confident I have a lot more experience with it than you do, actually. But you’re still taking the black and white approach here, which is odd considering my last post, but you obviously just like to argue. There is a point of diminished returns for partials. Try not to ignore that last statement because it’s pretty important to my central point here, i.e. the kind of partial he did for a single out of the rack did not build his back. But maybe you should go slap the nearest quarter squatter on his ample ass…it is obviously is working for his ilk in building massive wheels across the country in a gym near you:)[/quote]
I wasn’t talking about emgs but ok. And I hope we all know that what looks good on paper many times does not transfer to real world. So keep reading studies and critiquing an ifbb pro and saying he is doing wrong. I can’t comprehend that.
I like the example of quarter squats. You mister John Schlecht, the beast on here likes to use those in his training. The guy has bigger legs than waist. You can do all the full rom perfect form squats you want and if you don’t eat to recover and build muscle guess what your legs will still be tiny. So not sure how your quarter squatting bros 100% your hypothesis that partials suck.
You are right though this is going no where. You just keep critiquing pros and how they train. I will stick thinking they might actualky know what works for them. And I will keep using partials in my training because I believe they do work. This was fun though.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Why would he do it if it doesn’t help build his physique?
Once I stopped training full ROM and started doing almost exclusively partial ROM work, my lifts exploded, and I put on some decent mass.
[/quote]
I get why you would ask such a question, but it’s not complicated to answer. He either believes it helps him, is stupid enough to think he’s a world-class deadlifter, or is trying to market himself as a Johnny Jackson-esque bodybuilder. If it’s 1, that still doesn’t tell you anything. You aren’t going to convince me that Jason Huh is an elephant because of his weird constant tension bullshit and not the 700x4 full ROM squats he does, and you aren’t going to convince me that a single at 1035 and barely discernible ROM is making Maxx Charles the size he is. 2 doesn’t seem humanly possible, and 3 seems the most likely scenario for me. It is probably obvious to any huge guy that they can say/do stupid things and smaller guys will defend it to the end because of his size. [/quote]
I feel as though we will have to agree to disagree.
The limited ROM on some of Charles’ lifts (not all, as evidenced by the shoulder training video that was already posted) is an odd thing to pick at within a bodybuilding context. First of all, comparing him to your average “quarter squatter” is illogical, as the latter is limiting their ROM out of either ignorance or laziness and sees little results due to lack of proper progression, load, volume, TUT, etc., while Charles clearly limits his ROM to target and overload a specific aspect of a body part, and then almost certainly pairs it with ample volume to make it work for his goals.
Also, since every successful bodybuilder known to man has utilized a range of lifts for every body part, its not as if he’s neglecting anything. Anything not stimulated by one lift, due to limited ROM or any other reason, is taken care of by another (i.e. seated press + laterals + lateral machine = complete stimulation).
And, as others have pointed out, stating that a successful professional bodybuilder with an impressive build is training “wrong” seems a bit misguided.
For what it’s worth, limiting the ROM on certain lifts has been a bodybuilding standard since the beginning of the sport (for that matter, so has other people dismissing it as wrong, usually strength athletes with an axe to grind). Watch any video of Arnold bench pressing and see how much he limits his ROM. Read any honest accounts of bodybuilders through the years (Chet Yorton and Sergio Oliva come to mind) and you’ll find that many, if not all, limited their ROM on certain lifts, usually to maintain tension where they wanted it along the muscle.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
You are right though this is going no where. You just keep critiquing pros and how they train. I will stick thinking they might actualky know what works for them. And I will keep using partials in my training because I believe they do work. This was fun though. [/quote]
I use partial ROMS on some lifts and it as helped tremendously.
I never go all the way down to my collar bone on shoulder press. Does that mean it is a useless partial ROM lift? Seems to work just fine.
My theory is just that he does use partial ROM, but on camera, he goes a bit heavier then he does usually.
So he ends up limiting the ROM a bit more for the heavier weight, when in reality his ROM 9/10 of his workouts is larger.
He also uses straps on his pressing movements, like I said earlier.
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
My theory is just that he does use partial ROM, but on camera, he goes a bit heavier then he does usually.
So he ends up limiting the ROM a bit more for the heavier weight, when in reality his ROM 9/10 of his workouts is larger.
He also uses straps on his pressing movements, like I said earlier. [/quote]
From watching the video, I imagine the straps are due to his thumbless grip. It’s actually a pretty interesting solution.
That video turned out to be extremely relevant to the discussion going on in here. Nice job, Spidey. He straight up says he does it how he wants to and it works for him. Enough said.