Lo, what type of phone are you using? I seriously hate using my phone for posts. A rare thing. Galaxy s2.
Could someone post a pic of someone with genuine 19 inch arms for comparison?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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,.[/quote]
I am not on about his 19" arms, I am on about how good he looks.
He has a low bodyfat % and has a very strong look to him. I’d guess at my height which is 6’3" the comparable weight to him would be an easy 250+lbs or 270.
Also, his physique still stands out as good because IT IS good.
People would pay thousands to try and get that body and women would love looking at it.
There are all sorts of physiques but alas, the internet has made every guy and his dog think the likes of Ronnie Coleman is the be-all-end-all and anything less is nothing.
Its like how porn has de-senitized men when it comes to what to expect from women and their bodies.
There are a lot of really good historical books on bodybuilding. One of my favorites (read it through several times since it was first published a year or two ago) is Bodybuilding; Tracing the Evolution of The Ultimate Physique, by Gordon Lavelle. Puts things in a very concise chronological order with clear emphasis on key moments and accomplishments.
S
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
A solid 180lbs at 5’7.5" is nothing to scoff at. I think most would be pretty proud to replicate that - it’s not like he was 20% bodyfat. From the pictures I’ve seen was at least 10%.
Sandow deserves a good deal of respect. His phsyique should be easier to achieve today but I don’t see a bunch of Sandow look-a-likes even here on T-Nation, anyway.
How many guys on here would pose like this with confidence they would look similar or better?
Maybe Zraw, Stu, Maiden and others… but not even half of T-Nation I’d bet.[/quote]
I’d do it, but I would need a raffia palm leaf to adequately cover my nether region.[/quote]
Best. Post. Ever.
[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
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. [/quote]
That’s what I was trying to get at!
Today we have a far better understanding of training, the human body, nutrition, and even PED’s… it is just weird to me to look at Sandow and then compare oneself to him for the sake of saying how much better people are today.
Of course there are plenty of people who are more built than Sandow… but if it weren’t for that guy – none of us would be doing anything close to it today.
So we are just going to ignore how that article lista Tom Hardy and Daniel Craig as today’s ideal male physiques?
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
[quote]IFlashBack wrote:
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. [/quote]
That’s what I was trying to get at!
Today we have a far better understanding of training, the human body, nutrition, and even PED’s… it is just weird to me to look at Sandow and then compare oneself to him for the sake of saying how much better people are today.
Of course there are plenty of people who are more built than Sandow… but if it weren’t for that guy – none of us would be doing anything close to it today.
[/quote]
Good post
Lorez’s post about the overhead lifts is spot on. Lifters didn’t bench press in those days. They put weight above their head, often with one hand. Hence: thick midsections, relatively undeveloped pecs. Just as much as people in Arnie’s day would scoff at Sandow’s chest, Sandow would have called Arnie a willow-waisted waif.
Here’s a link to a research essay I wrote in one of my graduate history classes a while back.
“The Bent Press to the Bench Press: Assertions of Male Strength and Beauty from Sandow to Schwarzenegger”:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByZkfEj7fkPrN3haUXZrbFRJaVU
The premise is this:
“However, the bodies of Sandow and Schwarzenegger, as displayed in photographs taken at the height of their body display careers, exhibit significant differences in muscular size and shape, despite both being heralded as ideal in their respective historical contexts. The visible differences between the physiques of Sandow and Schwarzenegger signal differences in ideals of strength and aesthetic beauty, practices of the assertion of these ideals through competitive muscular display, and the training methods by which the muscular qualities â?? aesthetic and functional – were pursued.”
It is an academic essay, so there is quite a bit of historical theory, but it should still be of interest to the average lifter.
There are two biographies of Sandow that I would recommend: “Sandow the Magnificent: Eugen Sandow and the Beginnings of Bodybuilding” by David Chapman, and “The Perfect Man: The Muscular Life and Times of Eugen Sandow, Victorian Strongman” by David Waller. Check the references of my essay for more.
There was a long thread on stronglifts where I originally shared this essay and discussed some other aspects of Sandow’s training which would be interesting to revists, but unfortunately the prick that owns that website has turned into an “inner circle” exclusive tree-house club.
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
whered you get all that from, is there like a history of fitness book out there? [/quote]
here you go…
I got vol 2 the other day. I was reading that in 1975 Serge Nubret was disqualified 2 weeks out from the Olympia (weider snake move) only to be allowed back in at the last minute allowing Arnold to win and then announce his retirement at the top of his game. Serge would have beaten him hands down! Anyway these books are cool…
[quote]andrew_live wrote:
[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).
[/quote]
Yeh it looks like gladiators were fat bastards and not the sleek ninjas we see in ‘Spartacus Blood and Sand’ who would have thought lol
Check out the link…
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So we are just going to ignore how that article lista Tom Hardy and Daniel Craig as today’s ideal male physiques? [/quote]
No! It quotes a mens fitness magazine as saying that the cover models people want to see and therefore the look people want are more like Craig and Hardy, than 10 years ago when everybody wanted to look like David Beckham!!!
Although tbf Danial Craig would be a pretty good look to aim for.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Amazing how much things have changed. My measurements are pretty comparable to Sandow’s across the board… I’m a little taller, but the rest of the numbers are similar.
And I consider myself to be a little guy.[/quote]
That’s because you are.
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
A solid 180lbs at 5’7.5" is nothing to scoff at. I think most would be pretty proud to replicate that - it’s not like he was 20% bodyfat. From the pictures I’ve seen was at least 10%.
Sandow deserves a good deal of respect. His phsyique should be easier to achieve today but I don’t see a bunch of Sandow look-a-likes even here on T-Nation, anyway.
How many guys on here would pose like this with confidence they would look similar or better?
Maybe Zraw, Stu, Maiden and others… but not even half of T-Nation I’d bet.[/quote]
Don’t forget Prof X, he could pull that pose/look off probably the best of anyone including Sandow.
There’s reproductions of books by Sandow, Saxon, Jowett, Calvert, etc. here:
Lots of articles here (look on the right, in the treeview). Stuff by Louis Cyr, and Jowett.
Highly recommend giving Super Strength a read here.
For a more “golden age” set of articles, there’s “The Tight Tan Slacks of Deszo Ban”. There’s a TON of stuff there, many from the muscle mags of the time.
I recommend articles there by Bradley Steiner, John McCallum, Peary Rader, Reg Park, John Grimek and Charles Smith (mainly stuff on overhead pressing.)
I know it’s just a nudge in the direction.
Again, though, read Super Strength by Calvert. That covers a lot of history, and basic lifting ideas from that point in time.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s reproductions of books by Sandow, Saxon, Jowett, Calvert, etc. here:
Lots of articles here (look on the right, in the treeview). Stuff by Louis Cyr, and Jowett.
Highly recommend giving Super Strength a read here.
For a more “golden age” set of articles, there’s “The Tight Tan Slacks of Deszo Ban”. There’s a TON of stuff there, many from the muscle mags of the time.
I recommend articles there by Bradley Steiner, John McCallum, Peary Rader, Reg Park, John Grimek and Charles Smith (mainly stuff on overhead pressing.)
I know it’s just a nudge in the direction.
Again, though, read Super Strength by Calvert. That covers a lot of history, and basic lifting ideas from that point in time.
[/quote]
Apparently mods removed the links. I guess (?) at least one of those was a competing site.
That being said… worth looking into those authors above.
[quote]SLAINGE wrote:
Yeh it looks like gladiators were fat bastards and not the sleek ninjas we see in ‘Spartacus Blood and Sand’ who would have thought lol
Check out the link…
http://www.archaeology.org/.../gladiator.html
[/quote]
The link doesnt seem to work but I did find the article on that site called The Gladiator Diet. Pretty cool stuff. The way they knew calcium was important and made their own nasty calcium supplement.
He had a brilliant physique for those days, one that I would consider very respectable today. But you can tell they hadn’t figured out how to bench press yet.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]krazykoukides wrote:
A solid 180lbs at 5’7.5" is nothing to scoff at. I think most would be pretty proud to replicate that - it’s not like he was 20% bodyfat. From the pictures I’ve seen was at least 10%.
Sandow deserves a good deal of respect. His phsyique should be easier to achieve today but I don’t see a bunch of Sandow look-a-likes even here on T-Nation, anyway.
How many guys on here would pose like this with confidence they would look similar or better?
Maybe Zraw, Stu, Maiden and others… but not even half of T-Nation I’d bet.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s anything to scoff at. But I think the fact that you just named 3 guys from this site off the top of your head who compare favorably to Sandow highlights how relatively easy it is today to achieve this sort of physique (or better). Nobody’s saying his physique is easily achievable, or that everyone off the street has achieved more. But in Sandow’s day, he was one of a kind. Today, I would bet most big box gyms have at least a few guys that are built like Sandow or better.[/quote]
Don’t sell him so short. He was flying mostly blind by today’s standards. He advocated protein in a time when the relationship between muscles and protein wasn’t so well understood. The guy was hard working and amazingly genetically gifted. Also, back then most people worked hard (manual labor) for a living, unlike today. His feats of strength would have impressed someone who roped cattle or forged iron for a living, so while he might not have been big, he was probably freakishly strong like some huge gymnast. People might look a lot like him, but who here can hoist a pony overhead?
Just saying that being first means you get to do the hard bits for everyone else and it’s easy to lose sight of how difficult that might have been.
– jj
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
People might look a lot like him, but who here can hoist a pony overhead?
[/quote]
But how often does someone ask you do hoist a pony? I toss around a little 14 lb dog pretty frequently though. Impressed? 
S