And some years later (if I remember correctly.)
He clearly worked on his pecs and lats between the two.
Personally, I still find this a pretty good goal for now.
And some years later (if I remember correctly.)
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
How many guys on here would pose like this with confidence they would look similar or better?[/quote]
Just wait for the February Check-In thread. Okay, maybe next August’s. You know, when it’s not all wintery and cold.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
How many guys on here would pose like this with confidence they would look similar or better?[/quote]
Just wait for the February Check-In thread. Okay, maybe next August’s. You know, when it’s not all wintery and cold.[/quote]
Not really sure I want to see that, no matter how big the leaf.
Obviously he’s not “perfect” from todays traditional bodybuilding point of view, but most people don’t find the overly muscled bodybuilder look appealing at all. He was lean, strong and pretty damn athletic. His chest and back were lagging, but otherwise he looked pretty damn good.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
No kiddin, this was pre-Anaconda :D[/quote]
You joke, but in the 1900’s Sandow was writing about Plasmon, an egg white or whey powder. And he developed and sold “Sandow’s Health and Strength Cocoa” which I believe was also a whey product (I could be off on that).
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I wish the Mr Olympia trophy design was more up to date. Maybe use a BBer as a model who has had a greater inspirational impact in modern times… someone like Arnold.[/quote]
Blame Boyer Coe.
Supposedly, he made the suggestion to Arnold, who then passed it up the chain to IFBB officials in the late '70s to start presenting a statue instead of a simple gold or silver cup to contest winners. I believe it’s modeled after a statue that Steve Reeves won at his last Mr. Universe.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Sandow sucks.[/quote]
Hates Sandow… posts in Sandow thread. Hates cats… posts in Cat Lovers thread. Hates Branch Warren… posts in every relevant thread. Guess I know which dwarf you really are, Grumpy. ;)[/quote]
Boyer Coe sucks.
[/quote]
you should start a thread about it.
[/quote]
He was the 1st man I can think of that took the strong man demo’s but use it to build his body. I consider him the 1st man to use weights to improve his body for appearance purposes. I could be wrong, but that’s why he is the ‘Sandow’ trophy. Right?
[quote]mbdix wrote:
He was the 1st man I can think of that took the strong man demo’s but use it to build his body. I consider him the 1st man to use weights to improve his body for appearance purposes. I could be wrong, but that’s why he is the ‘Sandow’ trophy. Right?[/quote]
That’s how I understood it. The first “bodybuilder”. The first physique-focused lifter.
And if the accounts I’ve read are true, he focused a lot of his lifting on trying to attain the same proportions as the Greco-Roman statues: the Farnese Hercules especially.
I’d say he did pretty well at doing that. Our standards have just changed since then.
I started a thread and then disappeared lol
I think he had a great physique for his time though those measurements on the article made me laugh!
One thing that always seems to stick out from these old time strongman and body builders is the lack of chest development, not sure why though?
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
I started a thread and then disappeared lol
I think he had a great physique for his time though those measurements on the article made me laugh!
One thing that always seems to stick out from these old time strongman and body builders is the lack of chest development, not sure why though?[/quote]
Part of it was that he bench press wasn’t really around yet. Overhead lifting was the primary test of strength, often one-arm variations.
If you notice, most of those lifters from that time had significant oblique development. One-armed lifting was standard gym work back then. Lots of one-arm snatches, one-arm clean and jerk, one-arm military press, bent presses.
I’m not sure which happened first, but somewhere in the 50’s and 60’s, it seems that people moved away from classical sculpture as an ideal, and instead moved toward getting a good V-taper. And writers stopped talking about one-arm press variations.
It took another few decades for overhead pressing to really fall out of favor. Meanwhile, bench pressing replaced it as a strength standard.
That was a roundabout explanation, but maybe I answered the question in there.
19" arms? LOL at revisionist history.
I hate how people in todays world are nit-picking this guys physique. He was from a time where the only comparable thing was statues, do people understand this part yet?
Fucking hell, its like going into a massive planet fitness for years and only seeing fat girls but then one day this girl walks in and she has the equivalent female version of this guys shape.
Would you be gobsmacked? Sure you would. You’ve never seen it before.
I am pretty sure within 50 years time people will look back at todays methods and laugh. “That guy could only bench press 200kg at 180lbs?” lololol
Pretty much he has a great physique, even by todays standards, fuck bodybuilding. I bet he was stronger than a lot of BB’ers today.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]shorty_blitz wrote:
I started a thread and then disappeared lol
I think he had a great physique for his time though those measurements on the article made me laugh!
One thing that always seems to stick out from these old time strongman and body builders is the lack of chest development, not sure why though?[/quote]
Part of it was that he bench press wasn’t really around yet. Overhead lifting was the primary test of strength, often one-arm variations.
If you notice, most of those lifters from that time had significant oblique development. One-armed lifting was standard gym work back then. Lots of one-arm snatches, one-arm clean and jerk, one-arm military press, bent presses.
I’m not sure which happened first, but somewhere in the 50’s and 60’s, it seems that people moved away from classical sculpture as an ideal, and instead moved toward getting a good V-taper. And writers stopped talking about one-arm press variations.
It took another few decades for overhead pressing to really fall out of favor. Meanwhile, bench pressing replaced it as a strength standard.
That was a roundabout explanation, but maybe I answered the question in there.[/quote]
whered you get all that from, is there like a history of fitness book out there?
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
I hate how people in todays world are nit-picking this guys physique. He was from a time where the only comparable thing was statues, do people understand this part yet?
Fucking hell, its like going into a massive planet fitness for years and only seeing fat girls but then one day this girl walks in and she has the equivalent female version of this guys shape.
Would you be gobsmacked? Sure you would. You’ve never seen it before.
I am pretty sure within 50 years time people will look back at todays methods and laugh. “That guy could only bench press 200kg at 180lbs?” lololol
Pretty much he has a great physique, even by todays standards, fuck bodybuilding. I bet he was stronger than a lot of BB’ers today.[/quote]
They already do this. The same goes for newbs logging in saying the bodybuilders of the 60’s look great. The truth is, DURING THE SIXTIES those guys were considered true freaks just like we look at guys like Heath today or Coleman.
I am not knocking Sandow at all, I just find it funny how the immediate response wouldn’t be to laugh at the idea of him actually having 19" arms. The first bodybuilder documented as achieving that was Leroy Colbert.
It was written ladies would pass out at his shows from being so amazed at how “huge” he was.
Compared to today, there are HUNDREDS of guys in most gyms bigger than Sandow now. It doesn’t erase his place in history, but there is no way anyone can be “amazed” by his physique today because we have seen better way too often,.
I don’t get where the disputes lie.
Sandow was the first. He is no different than Bill Gates in the computer industry or the Beatles in the Rock and Roll industry. There’s a reason why they are special; they did what they did when nobody else did it. Comparing today’s stuff with the past is pretty unfair.
It will be interesting to see in 20 or 30 years what the collective thinks of guys like Heath and Coleman. Will we look at them the way we’re looking at Sandow? Sounds impossible now, but who knows.
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
I hate how people in todays world are nit-picking this guys physique. He was from a time where the only comparable thing was statues, do people understand this part yet?
Fucking hell, its like going into a massive planet fitness for years and only seeing fat girls but then one day this girl walks in and she has the equivalent female version of this guys shape.
Would you be gobsmacked? Sure you would. You’ve never seen it before.
I am pretty sure within 50 years time people will look back at todays methods and laugh. “That guy could only bench press 200kg at 180lbs?” lololol
Pretty much he has a great physique, even by todays standards, fuck bodybuilding. I bet he was stronger than a lot of BB’ers today.[/quote]
that’s a really good post
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
It will be interesting to see in 20 or 30 years what the collective thinks of guys like Heath and Coleman. Will we look at them the way we’re looking at Sandow? Sounds impossible now, but who knows.[/quote]
“I don’t want to be all big and muscly, I just want a physique like Phil Heath”
“Lol, newb. Why would you set your sights so low?”
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
whered you get all that from, is there like a history of fitness book out there? [/quote]
There probably is, but I picked it up from lots of critical reading, looking at pictures, and putting it into historical context.
I’m typing on my phone right now, but when I get back, I’ll put up some links to historically relevant books and articles.
I am in no way knocking Sandow, but I don’t believe the body stat #'s in that article 1. I think it’s crazy that yes he has a good build in any time period, but his build was the BEST build in the world at the time. No one was built like him at the time. It really was a ‘no contest’. 2. Crazy how today you could go to almost any city in America and there is a guy that has a physique as devoloped as his. Not saying as strong, I believe his strength was off the chart even by today’s standards. 3. I believe the bench press wasn’t around then. 4. I personally think that we are at the limits of the human body right now in bodybuilding. 50’s 60’s had all of the exercises becoming avaiable, 60’s-70’s the introduction of ped’s and importance of diet, 80’s-now even more and powerfull ped’s and using all that to bring the human body to the absolute limits.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
whered you get all that from, is there like a history of fitness book out there? [/quote]
There probably is, but I picked it up from lots of critical reading, looking at pictures, and putting it into historical context.
I’m typing on my phone right now, but when I get back, I’ll put up some links to historically relevant books and articles.[/quote]
Thanks Lo, I’ve been reading up on Gladiator training. Interesting stuff. Especially the concept of eating barley and oats in the morning, meat during the day and beer. Having extra fat on the stomach was important for protection. As it was all for show they could get cut on the stomach and bleed a lot which looked cool but wouldnt kill them. I was just amazed that there was more thought and reason behind what they did that I had originally thought. Really makes it seem like there hasnt been any really significant changes in fitness and nutrition (also referring to Sandow and McFadden).