Phil Heath Calls Out Arnold

Training
81

I’ve always liked Rhoden, and in the past couple of years I’ve said that IMO Phil and Kai have progressed as far as they’re gonna, and all we’re gonna see now are “missed conditionings” and backslides (find the side by side pics online of each of Phil’s Wins and you’ll see what I mean!)

Rhoden seems to me like he can still pack on a bit more size (a “bit” in the right places is all it would take), and despite having excellent conditioning, should he ever bring that scary/close to death/graniness that some guys get, it would certainly help make the case for his physique.

S

82

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve always liked Rhoden, and in the past couple of years I’ve said that IMO Phil and Kai have progressed as far as they’re gonna, and all we’re gonna see now are “missed conditionings” and backslides (find the side by side pics online of each of Phil’s Wins and you’ll see what I mean!)

Rhoden seems to me like he can still pack on a bit more size (a “bit” in the right places is all it would take), and despite having excellent conditioning, should he ever bring that scary/close to death/graniness that some guys get, it would certainly help make the case for his physique.

S[/quote]

Agreed on missed conditionings. It’s really all it comes down to once you reach a certain level.

Rhoden could bring up some aspects in his upper body. I really don’t see him needing more size in his legs.

83

589×778 69.2 KB

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]
arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.[/quote]
In the pic above (from the top down), that’s the 1972, '75, and '80 Mr. Olympia lineup. I think the “Arnold had small legs” thing only comes from looking through a different perspective. I’d say they appear at least on par, if not better than a few, compared to his competition.

But like Stu said, the criteria back in the day was way different than in the modern sport. I do think it was a whiny and misguided cheap shot by Health, no doubt.

FWIW, this is that Bloomberg interview Phil mentioned doing this past October. He did seem to present himself professionally, even if the lady did lump bodybuilding in with “Tough Mudder, BMX, and things like that.”

[/quote]

Chris, two of the pictures of Arnold you’ve chosen happen to be his “worst Olympia leg years” - those being '72 and '80. His best years were '73 and '74, and by any standard, in those two years he lacked nothing. His quads were both massive and separated to the bone. In '72 he took his eye off the ball a little and didn’t prepare as hard as he should have, and Sergio gave him a big scare. But the physique Arnold came back with in '73 was just on a whole other level, and there is no version of Sergio that could beat that. Ditto for '74. In '75 he brought the same conditioning but was a little down on mass in the quads.

People seem to forget when they refer to all of these historic pics that they document the development curve of a bodybuilder who was very young by todays pro standards. Arnold was born in '47, so in his first Olympia win in 1970 he was 23! He hadn’t yet balanced out all of his weak points and trained with the knowledge, maturity and focus that came to him later. He realised his legs were under-trained compared to his upper body, and he sorted it…but the job wasn’t done until '73. So, people should consider those two years his masterpiece, and his idea of the ideal physique. And that includes all aspects…His skin tone & tan, his posing, even the cut of his posing trunks.

Not many people are aware that in '74, after winning the Olympia 5 times, his mind was drifting more towards wanting to find a way to translate his bodybuilding fame and his physique into a movie career, and he had actually decided to retire from competitive bodybuilding. It was only that George Butler and Charles Gains talked him into going for one more Olympia due to them needing him to star in their proposed “Pumpin Iron” movie.

So, in some sense, his mind was already elsewhere and his foot was a little off the gas in terms of needing to prove anything in bodybuilding by that stage. And I think it makes sense that perhaps, in this mindset, having the commitment to squat and hit legs at the same level may have subconsciously gotten a bit tired and old. Nevertheless, he came to the Olympia in '75 in tremendous condition, and this is well documented on film. His upper body was majestic, and his quads still had that trademark deep separation that nobody else had yet achieved.

And of course his calves were sensational. His hamstrings nicely balanced his quads, and overall he brought a powerful yet athletic look to his legs. Huge glutes were considered a NEGATIVE back then, as the guys were trying to reduce mass in the centre of their bodies and push it out to the extremes for a more X=shaped look. So in all regards, Arnold was superior to everyone. And…HE HAD THE BEST LEGS OF THE DAY.

1980 is a very different story. Here, he was actually only intending to get in shape for his first Conan movie, and was training casually and quite leisurely for that. At some point during that prep he got a call from the director and was told that the shooting schedule was being brought forward, and he would have to be in shape 3 months earlier than expected. Upon getting that news, he went straight back into his Olympia-prep routine…double split - twice a day 6 days a week.

He wasn’t actually training for an Olympia comeback, but as the weeks went by his friends started to comment “Arnold…you’re starting to look like the old days again” and “You are REALLY starting to look like the old days again!”. Now, this routine commenced about 8 weeks out from the 1980 Olympia. At about 3 weeks out, he looked in the mirror and thought “Hmmm…maybe I could take out the Olympia…maybe I can pull this off!” And so a decision was made to go for it.

As it turned out, that 8 weeks of training was not quite enough to resurrect even his 1975 body, let alone his '73 or '74 physique. And in particular, it was his quads that he couldn’t bring back quick enough. They were very obviously under-mass. But nevertheless, his upper body, even at 85% max condition, still completely overshadowed the lineup in so many poses. And many people were actually shocked at how small he made guys like Mentzer look.

Up till then, Mentzer had looked huge in the close-up shots in Joe Weider’s magazines. But suddenly, standing next to Arnold, it was like “Oh…right…now I get it!” Arnold’s frame, and the way he could make his body explode in the poses, just had more scale and sweep and pop and drama than anyone else could muster.

Finally, coming back to Phil Heath’s remarks, I can only say that if the Arnold of '73 or '74 walk out next to Phil onstage, Phil would very likely find himself suddenly out-gunned in MANY poses. Phil really doesn’t get it…He doesn’t understand the sweep and scale that Arnold had - which of course is very much a genetic thing. Arnold’s frame, and the particular strengths he had, just made certain poses pop in a way that is unique. His front double biceps shot is still the iconic standard by which the other guys, to my eye, fall short.

So many guys these days have flaws such as high Lat insertions, flat non-peaked biceps, small ribcage and no pecs in the side-chest shot, short or weak calves, and of course, horribly huge stomachs. The modern guys cannot match Arnold in the twisting back shots, they cannot vacuum their stomachs, and they can’t raise the biceps peak that he can. The point is that, in most common poses, Arnold’s particular genetic strengths make those poses pop. Sure, his glutes might not be huge and shredded, but frankly, if that’s now one of the criteria that they are judged on, it’s just weird.

We all know that Arnold did have access to chemical help, but we also know that the guys today have access to a greater variety of chemicals, and are likely more reckless in their use of it. The modern guys also have more sophisticated training equipment, and in my opinion the biggest advances in this area are in leg training equipment. One can hit the legs today in greater comfort whilst stressing the muscles in ways not possible in the '70s. All of this adds up. But I still maintain that Arnold at his best was so good in absolute terms - and in so many ways - that anyone dissing him today would want to be very careful what they say.

Phil Heath is wrong.

84

[quote]Huxxy wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]
arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.[/quote]
In the pic above (from the top down), that’s the 1972, '75, and '80 Mr. Olympia lineup. I think the “Arnold had small legs” thing only comes from looking through a different perspective. I’d say they appear at least on par, if not better than a few, compared to his competition.

But like Stu said, the criteria back in the day was way different than in the modern sport. I do think it was a whiny and misguided cheap shot by Health, no doubt.

FWIW, this is that Bloomberg interview Phil mentioned doing this past October. He did seem to present himself professionally, even if the lady did lump bodybuilding in with “Tough Mudder, BMX, and things like that.”

[/quote]

Chris, two of the pictures of Arnold you’ve chosen happen to be his “worst Olympia leg years” - those being '72 and '80. His best years were '73 and '74, and by any standard, in those two years he lacked nothing. His quads were both massive and separated to the bone. In '72 he took his eye off the ball a little and didn’t prepare as hard as he should have, and Sergio gave him a big scare. But the physique Arnold came back with in '73 was just on a whole other level, and there is no version of Sergio that could beat that. Ditto for '74. In '75 he brought the same conditioning but was a little down on mass in the quads.

People seem to forget when they refer to all of these historic pics that they document the development curve of a bodybuilder who was very young by todays pro standards. Arnold was born in '47, so in his first Olympia win in 1970 he was 23! He hadn’t yet balanced out all of his weak points and trained with the knowledge, maturity and focus that came to him later. He realised his legs were under-trained compared to his upper body, and he sorted it…but the job wasn’t done until '73. So, people should consider those two years his masterpiece, and his idea of the ideal physique. And that includes all aspects…His skin tone & tan, his posing, even the cut of his posing trunks.

Not many people are aware that in '74, after winning the Olympia 5 times, his mind was drifting more towards wanting to find a way to translate his bodybuilding fame and his physique into a movie career, and he had actually decided to retire from competitive bodybuilding. It was only that George Butler and Charles Gains talked him into going for one more Olympia due to them needing him to star in their proposed “Pumpin Iron” movie.

So, in some sense, his mind was already elsewhere and his foot was a little off the gas in terms of needing to prove anything in bodybuilding by that stage. And I think it makes sense that perhaps, in this mindset, having the commitment to squat and hit legs at the same level may have subconsciously gotten a bit tired and old. Nevertheless, he came to the Olympia in '75 in tremendous condition, and this is well documented on film. His upper body was majestic, and his quads still had that trademark deep separation that nobody else had yet achieved.

And of course his calves were sensational. His hamstrings nicely balanced his quads, and overall he brought a powerful yet athletic look to his legs. Huge glutes were considered a NEGATIVE back then, as the guys were trying to reduce mass in the centre of their bodies and push it out to the extremes for a more X=shaped look. So in all regards, Arnold was superior to everyone. And…HE HAD THE BEST LEGS OF THE DAY.

1980 is a very different story. Here, he was actually only intending to get in shape for his first Conan movie, and was training casually and quite leisurely for that. At some point during that prep he got a call from the director and was told that the shooting schedule was being brought forward, and he would have to be in shape 3 months earlier than expected. Upon getting that news, he went straight back into his Olympia-prep routine…double split - twice a day 6 days a week.

He wasn’t actually training for an Olympia comeback, but as the weeks went by his friends started to comment “Arnold…you’re starting to look like the old days again” and “You are REALLY starting to look like the old days again!”. Now, this routine commenced about 8 weeks out from the 1980 Olympia. At about 3 weeks out, he looked in the mirror and thought “Hmmm…maybe I could take out the Olympia…maybe I can pull this off!” And so a decision was made to go for it.

As it turned out, that 8 weeks of training was not quite enough to resurrect even his 1975 body, let alone his '73 or '74 physique. And in particular, it was his quads that he couldn’t bring back quick enough. They were very obviously under-mass. But nevertheless, his upper body, even at 85% max condition, still completely overshadowed the lineup in so many poses. And many people were actually shocked at how small he made guys like Mentzer look.

Up till then, Mentzer had looked huge in the close-up shots in Joe Weider’s magazines. But suddenly, standing next to Arnold, it was like “Oh…right…now I get it!” Arnold’s frame, and the way he could make his body explode in the poses, just had more scale and sweep and pop and drama than anyone else could muster.

Finally, coming back to Phil Heath’s remarks, I can only say that if the Arnold of '73 or '74 walk out next to Phil onstage, Phil would very likely find himself suddenly out-gunned in MANY poses. Phil really doesn’t get it…He doesn’t understand the sweep and scale that Arnold had - which of course is very much a genetic thing. Arnold’s frame, and the particular strengths he had, just made certain poses pop in a way that is unique. His front double biceps shot is still the iconic standard by which the other guys, to my eye, fall short.

So many guys these days have flaws such as high Lat insertions, flat non-peaked biceps, small ribcage and no pecs in the side-chest shot, short or weak calves, and of course, horribly huge stomachs. The modern guys cannot match Arnold in the twisting back shots, they cannot vacuum their stomachs, and they can’t raise the biceps peak that he can. The point is that, in most common poses, Arnold’s particular genetic strengths make those poses pop. Sure, his glutes might not be huge and shredded, but frankly, if that’s now one of the criteria that they are judged on, it’s just weird.

We all know that Arnold did have access to chemical help, but we also know that the guys today have access to a greater variety of chemicals, and are likely more reckless in their use of it. The modern guys also have more sophisticated training equipment, and in my opinion the biggest advances in this area are in leg training equipment. One can hit the legs today in greater comfort whilst stressing the muscles in ways not possible in the '70s. All of this adds up. But I still maintain that Arnold at his best was so good in absolute terms - and in so many ways - that anyone dissing him today would want to be very careful what they say.

Phil Heath is wrong.[/quote]

DAMN GOOD POST!

85

It’s always gonna come back to a few things when this gets stirred up:

1- Each era has the look the judges reward, and you can’t compare two examples 40 years apart
2- Arnold was “the man” at the time, snd 3/4 of the judges were his buddies, so his wins will always be argued by some
3- Phil obviously takes things personally because despite having a good handful of Sandows, there’s still a lot of hate/dislike of him and his physique amongst fans.

S

86

[quote]Huxxy wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]
arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.[/quote]
In the pic above (from the top down), that’s the 1972, '75, and '80 Mr. Olympia lineup. I think the “Arnold had small legs” thing only comes from looking through a different perspective. I’d say they appear at least on par, if not better than a few, compared to his competition.

But like Stu said, the criteria back in the day was way different than in the modern sport. I do think it was a whiny and misguided cheap shot by Health, no doubt.

FWIW, this is that Bloomberg interview Phil mentioned doing this past October. He did seem to present himself professionally, even if the lady did lump bodybuilding in with “Tough Mudder, BMX, and things like that.”

[/quote]

Chris, two of the pictures of Arnold you’ve chosen happen to be his “worst Olympia leg years” - those being '72 and '80. His best years were '73 and '74, and by any standard, in those two years he lacked nothing. His quads were both massive and separated to the bone. In '72 he took his eye off the ball a little and didn’t prepare as hard as he should have, and Sergio gave him a big scare. But the physique Arnold came back with in '73 was just on a whole other level, and there is no version of Sergio that could beat that. Ditto for '74. In '75 he brought the same conditioning but was a little down on mass in the quads.

People seem to forget when they refer to all of these historic pics that they document the development curve of a bodybuilder who was very young by todays pro standards. Arnold was born in '47, so in his first Olympia win in 1970 he was 23! He hadn’t yet balanced out all of his weak points and trained with the knowledge, maturity and focus that came to him later. He realised his legs were under-trained compared to his upper body, and he sorted it…but the job wasn’t done until '73. So, people should consider those two years his masterpiece, and his idea of the ideal physique. And that includes all aspects…His skin tone & tan, his posing, even the cut of his posing trunks.

Not many people are aware that in '74, after winning the Olympia 5 times, his mind was drifting more towards wanting to find a way to translate his bodybuilding fame and his physique into a movie career, and he had actually decided to retire from competitive bodybuilding. It was only that George Butler and Charles Gains talked him into going for one more Olympia due to them needing him to star in their proposed “Pumpin Iron” movie.

So, in some sense, his mind was already elsewhere and his foot was a little off the gas in terms of needing to prove anything in bodybuilding by that stage. And I think it makes sense that perhaps, in this mindset, having the commitment to squat and hit legs at the same level may have subconsciously gotten a bit tired and old. Nevertheless, he came to the Olympia in '75 in tremendous condition, and this is well documented on film. His upper body was majestic, and his quads still had that trademark deep separation that nobody else had yet achieved.

And of course his calves were sensational. His hamstrings nicely balanced his quads, and overall he brought a powerful yet athletic look to his legs. Huge glutes were considered a NEGATIVE back then, as the guys were trying to reduce mass in the centre of their bodies and push it out to the extremes for a more X=shaped look. So in all regards, Arnold was superior to everyone. And…HE HAD THE BEST LEGS OF THE DAY.

1980 is a very different story. Here, he was actually only intending to get in shape for his first Conan movie, and was training casually and quite leisurely for that. At some point during that prep he got a call from the director and was told that the shooting schedule was being brought forward, and he would have to be in shape 3 months earlier than expected. Upon getting that news, he went straight back into his Olympia-prep routine…double split - twice a day 6 days a week.

He wasn’t actually training for an Olympia comeback, but as the weeks went by his friends started to comment “Arnold…you’re starting to look like the old days again” and “You are REALLY starting to look like the old days again!”. Now, this routine commenced about 8 weeks out from the 1980 Olympia. At about 3 weeks out, he looked in the mirror and thought “Hmmm…maybe I could take out the Olympia…maybe I can pull this off!” And so a decision was made to go for it.

As it turned out, that 8 weeks of training was not quite enough to resurrect even his 1975 body, let alone his '73 or '74 physique. And in particular, it was his quads that he couldn’t bring back quick enough. They were very obviously under-mass. But nevertheless, his upper body, even at 85% max condition, still completely overshadowed the lineup in so many poses. And many people were actually shocked at how small he made guys like Mentzer look.

Up till then, Mentzer had looked huge in the close-up shots in Joe Weider’s magazines. But suddenly, standing next to Arnold, it was like “Oh…right…now I get it!” Arnold’s frame, and the way he could make his body explode in the poses, just had more scale and sweep and pop and drama than anyone else could muster.

Finally, coming back to Phil Heath’s remarks, I can only say that if the Arnold of '73 or '74 walk out next to Phil onstage, Phil would very likely find himself suddenly out-gunned in MANY poses. Phil really doesn’t get it…He doesn’t understand the sweep and scale that Arnold had - which of course is very much a genetic thing. Arnold’s frame, and the particular strengths he had, just made certain poses pop in a way that is unique. His front double biceps shot is still the iconic standard by which the other guys, to my eye, fall short.

So many guys these days have flaws such as high Lat insertions, flat non-peaked biceps, small ribcage and no pecs in the side-chest shot, short or weak calves, and of course, horribly huge stomachs. The modern guys cannot match Arnold in the twisting back shots, they cannot vacuum their stomachs, and they can’t raise the biceps peak that he can. The point is that, in most common poses, Arnold’s particular genetic strengths make those poses pop. Sure, his glutes might not be huge and shredded, but frankly, if that’s now one of the criteria that they are judged on, it’s just weird.

We all know that Arnold did have access to chemical help, but we also know that the guys today have access to a greater variety of chemicals, and are likely more reckless in their use of it. The modern guys also have more sophisticated training equipment, and in my opinion the biggest advances in this area are in leg training equipment. One can hit the legs today in greater comfort whilst stressing the muscles in ways not possible in the '70s. All of this adds up. But I still maintain that Arnold at his best was so good in absolute terms - and in so many ways - that anyone dissing him today would want to be very careful what they say.

Phil Heath is wrong.[/quote]

A lot of people would find this point of view polarizing, but i completely agree. Probably the best 1st post ever. lol

87

What irked me the most was his tone especially of him saying that he would basically walk the main Arnold Classic but he cant be bothered because the 6 figure prize(and Hummer!, goodies and watch etc) is not enough money for him.

Great way to alienate 90% of your fans.

88

[quote]Huxxy wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]
arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.[/quote]
In the pic above (from the top down), that’s the 1972, '75, and '80 Mr. Olympia lineup. I think the “Arnold had small legs” thing only comes from looking through a different perspective. I’d say they appear at least on par, if not better than a few, compared to his competition.

But like Stu said, the criteria back in the day was way different than in the modern sport. I do think it was a whiny and misguided cheap shot by Health, no doubt.

FWIW, this is that Bloomberg interview Phil mentioned doing this past October. He did seem to present himself professionally, even if the lady did lump bodybuilding in with “Tough Mudder, BMX, and things like that.”

[/quote]

Chris, two of the pictures of Arnold you’ve chosen happen to be his “worst Olympia leg years” - those being '72 and '80. His best years were '73 and '74, and by any standard, in those two years he lacked nothing. His quads were both massive and separated to the bone. In '72 he took his eye off the ball a little and didn’t prepare as hard as he should have, and Sergio gave him a big scare. But the physique Arnold came back with in '73 was just on a whole other level, and there is no version of Sergio that could beat that. Ditto for '74. In '75 he brought the same conditioning but was a little down on mass in the quads.

People seem to forget when they refer to all of these historic pics that they document the development curve of a bodybuilder who was very young by todays pro standards. Arnold was born in '47, so in his first Olympia win in 1970 he was 23! He hadn’t yet balanced out all of his weak points and trained with the knowledge, maturity and focus that came to him later. He realised his legs were under-trained compared to his upper body, and he sorted it…but the job wasn’t done until '73. So, people should consider those two years his masterpiece, and his idea of the ideal physique. And that includes all aspects…His skin tone & tan, his posing, even the cut of his posing trunks.

Not many people are aware that in '74, after winning the Olympia 5 times, his mind was drifting more towards wanting to find a way to translate his bodybuilding fame and his physique into a movie career, and he had actually decided to retire from competitive bodybuilding. It was only that George Butler and Charles Gains talked him into going for one more Olympia due to them needing him to star in their proposed “Pumpin Iron” movie.

So, in some sense, his mind was already elsewhere and his foot was a little off the gas in terms of needing to prove anything in bodybuilding by that stage. And I think it makes sense that perhaps, in this mindset, having the commitment to squat and hit legs at the same level may have subconsciously gotten a bit tired and old. Nevertheless, he came to the Olympia in '75 in tremendous condition, and this is well documented on film. His upper body was majestic, and his quads still had that trademark deep separation that nobody else had yet achieved.

And of course his calves were sensational. His hamstrings nicely balanced his quads, and overall he brought a powerful yet athletic look to his legs. Huge glutes were considered a NEGATIVE back then, as the guys were trying to reduce mass in the centre of their bodies and push it out to the extremes for a more X=shaped look. So in all regards, Arnold was superior to everyone. And…HE HAD THE BEST LEGS OF THE DAY.

1980 is a very different story. Here, he was actually only intending to get in shape for his first Conan movie, and was training casually and quite leisurely for that. At some point during that prep he got a call from the director and was told that the shooting schedule was being brought forward, and he would have to be in shape 3 months earlier than expected. Upon getting that news, he went straight back into his Olympia-prep routine…double split - twice a day 6 days a week.

He wasn’t actually training for an Olympia comeback, but as the weeks went by his friends started to comment “Arnold…you’re starting to look like the old days again” and “You are REALLY starting to look like the old days again!”. Now, this routine commenced about 8 weeks out from the 1980 Olympia. At about 3 weeks out, he looked in the mirror and thought “Hmmm…maybe I could take out the Olympia…maybe I can pull this off!” And so a decision was made to go for it.

As it turned out, that 8 weeks of training was not quite enough to resurrect even his 1975 body, let alone his '73 or '74 physique. And in particular, it was his quads that he couldn’t bring back quick enough. They were very obviously under-mass. But nevertheless, his upper body, even at 85% max condition, still completely overshadowed the lineup in so many poses. And many people were actually shocked at how small he made guys like Mentzer look.

Up till then, Mentzer had looked huge in the close-up shots in Joe Weider’s magazines. But suddenly, standing next to Arnold, it was like “Oh…right…now I get it!” Arnold’s frame, and the way he could make his body explode in the poses, just had more scale and sweep and pop and drama than anyone else could muster.

Finally, coming back to Phil Heath’s remarks, I can only say that if the Arnold of '73 or '74 walk out next to Phil onstage, Phil would very likely find himself suddenly out-gunned in MANY poses. Phil really doesn’t get it…He doesn’t understand the sweep and scale that Arnold had - which of course is very much a genetic thing. Arnold’s frame, and the particular strengths he had, just made certain poses pop in a way that is unique. His front double biceps shot is still the iconic standard by which the other guys, to my eye, fall short.

So many guys these days have flaws such as high Lat insertions, flat non-peaked biceps, small ribcage and no pecs in the side-chest shot, short or weak calves, and of course, horribly huge stomachs. The modern guys cannot match Arnold in the twisting back shots, they cannot vacuum their stomachs, and they can’t raise the biceps peak that he can. The point is that, in most common poses, Arnold’s particular genetic strengths make those poses pop. Sure, his glutes might not be huge and shredded, but frankly, if that’s now one of the criteria that they are judged on, it’s just weird.

We all know that Arnold did have access to chemical help, but we also know that the guys today have access to a greater variety of chemicals, and are likely more reckless in their use of it. The modern guys also have more sophisticated training equipment, and in my opinion the biggest advances in this area are in leg training equipment. One can hit the legs today in greater comfort whilst stressing the muscles in ways not possible in the '70s. All of this adds up. But I still maintain that Arnold at his best was so good in absolute terms - and in so many ways - that anyone dissing him today would want to be very careful what they say.

Phil Heath is wrong.[/quote]

Well welcome to the forum! Great post.

89

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
What irked me the most was his tone especially of him saying that he would basically walk the main Arnold Classic but he cant be bothered because the 6 figure prize(and Hummer!, goodies and watch etc) is not enough money for him.

Great way to alienate 90% of your fans.[/quote]

Agreed. Its not the difference of opinion that bothers me, its his arrogance.

Am i the only one that feels like im listening to a 15 year old in all his interviews?

90

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]RampantBadger wrote:
What irked me the most was his tone especially of him saying that he would basically walk the main Arnold Classic but he cant be bothered because the 6 figure prize(and Hummer!, goodies and watch etc) is not enough money for him.

Great way to alienate 90% of your fans.[/quote]

Agreed. Its not the difference of opinion that bothers me, its his arrogance.

Am i the only one that feels like im listening to a 15 year old in all his interviews?[/quote]

He just wants to be a celebrity. A money making champion. He cares more about the money than his fans. I think he’s made that pretty obvious.

91

[quote]Steez wrote:
He just wants to be a celebrity. [/quote]

I’ve joked around with competitor friends of mine before, that even in regard to the IFBB, once you step outside the venue of a BBing show, no one, and I mean NO ONE cares about the sport. IMO the healthiest competitors - mentally as well as physically - are the ones who can keep everything in perspective. I’m certainly not crapping on the sport at all, I am a big fan, but Heath will never have the appeal and spectator loyalty that other Olympia winners have had.

S

92

Ric Drasin explains how Arnold and the boys used to train legs.

93

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:
He just wants to be a celebrity. [/quote]

I’ve joked around with competitor friends of mine before, that even in regard to the IFBB, once you step outside the venue of a BBing show, no one, and I mean NO ONE cares about the sport. IMO the healthiest competitors - mentally as well as physically - are the ones who can keep everything in perspective. I’m certainly not crapping on the sport at all, I am a big fan, but Heath will never have the appeal and spectator loyalty that other Olympia winners have had.

S
[/quote]

Agreed.

It might just be me, but even if Phil wins #5 this year (and i feel like this may be the year he finally gets knocked off) his legacy still doesnt even seem as strong as Cutler’s is, let alone Ronnie or Arnold.

94

Looking at those pictures you can also see that Arnold is a tall long-limbed guy. There is actually a fair bit of muscle mass there. I reckon about 99.9% of the people here would swap legs with Arnie!

Kinda funny to think that back in the day the general public was agog at “freaky” bodybuilders- when you look at that lineup the look is much more “aesthetic” or “athletic” than today.

95

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:
He just wants to be a celebrity. [/quote]

I’ve joked around with competitor friends of mine before, that even in regard to the IFBB, once you step outside the venue of a BBing show, no one, and I mean NO ONE cares about the sport. IMO the healthiest competitors - mentally as well as physically - are the ones who can keep everything in perspective. I’m certainly not crapping on the sport at all, I am a big fan, but Heath will never have the appeal and spectator loyalty that other Olympia winners have had.

S
[/quote]

Agreed.

It might just be me, but even if Phil wins #5 this year (and i feel like this may be the year he finally gets knocked off) his legacy still doesnt even seem as strong as Cutler’s is, let alone Ronnie or Arnold.
[/quote]

speaking of legacy, anyone else think it’s weird no one ever talks about Lee Haney? I mean the dude won the O 8 times but it seems no one ever mentions him when talking about the greats. It’s all Arnie this, Coleman that.

96

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Steez wrote:
He just wants to be a celebrity. [/quote]

I’ve joked around with competitor friends of mine before, that even in regard to the IFBB, once you step outside the venue of a BBing show, no one, and I mean NO ONE cares about the sport. IMO the healthiest competitors - mentally as well as physically - are the ones who can keep everything in perspective. I’m certainly not crapping on the sport at all, I am a big fan, but Heath will never have the appeal and spectator loyalty that other Olympia winners have had.

S
[/quote]

Agreed.

It might just be me, but even if Phil wins #5 this year (and i feel like this may be the year he finally gets knocked off) his legacy still doesnt even seem as strong as Cutler’s is, let alone Ronnie or Arnold.
[/quote]

speaking of legacy, anyone else think it’s weird no one ever talks about Lee Haney? I mean the dude won the O 8 times but it seems no one ever mentions him when talking about the greats. It’s all Arnie this, Coleman that.[/quote]

Im with you. I think Lee arguably had the best bodybuilding genetics of any Mr O, even over Arnold and Sergio. He had a beautiful physique, i think he just gets a bit lost in the shuffle because the mass monster phase was kicked off immediately after his reign as Mr O.

97

Phil could learn a thing or two from this duo, both in terms of bodybuilding and especially in the way they present themselves. I could listen to Haney talk about his career for days.

98

Cedric would be a FINE Mr Olympia. He possesses a classic, tall and massive physique, tiny waist, and has probably the best personality of any BBer right now. Great charisma, he’s funny as hell, and I can’t imagine him fighting with teenage haters on the web (like Phil does).

99

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Cedric would be a FINE Mr Olympia. He possesses a classic, tall and massive physique, tiny waist, and has probably the best personality of any BBer right now. Great charisma, he’s funny as hell, and I can’t imagine him fighting with teenage haters on the web (like Phil does).[/quote]

Agreed.

Not only do I like his physique above many others, he seems like a stand up guy.

100

Has anyone seen Phil’s “Road To The Olympia (2011)” videos on YouTube? Interesting to note the difference in personality and character pre-Olympia title to now. He is much more humble in the 2011 videos, and even mentions Arnold a few times with high praise.