[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
No one important (in BBing) gives a flying fuck about natural shows.
If you consider that dude as your goal then go for it.
[/quote]
I suppose it depends on your opinion of who’s important.
And yes, that dude is my goal. I think he is an excellent example of what a clean diet, dedicated training ethic and mind set can accomplish.
[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
BTW TRAJJ, aren’t you the combat pyramids guy?[/quote]
Once again, yes I am the ‘pyramid’ guy.
I always liked the shirt test. If someone doesn’t look big while wearing a shirt (not a skin tight one either) then they are not big.
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
I always liked the shirt test. If someone doesn’t look big while wearing a shirt (not a skin tight one either) then they are not big.[/quote]
That’s fine. But the whole matter is subjective depending upon what the individual thinks, feels and desires.
Your image of a BB is ‘big’. And that’s fine, your fully entitled to your view.
My image of a BB is muscularity, fitness, strength and health. I’m entitled to my view.
I can’t link that youtube video at the moment, but he represents my idea of a BB’er. Doesn’t mean someone has to be wrong, it is all in the eye of the beholder.
Kind of glad this Ferencsik came up. Besides calling out Scotocus this is also why I wanted to start this thread.
Now I dont know if he’s small because he’s natural, or small just because he never wwanted to be bigger but growing up I never thought of anybody that small being a Bodybuilder, like DG said maybe a fitness guy but not a bodybuilder.
With more natural competitions and amatuers blowing up, it seems like there is a place for smaller people to become bodybuilders. But I can never look at them that way. I feel like that would just be me ripped, and I’m not genetically inclined, used roids or find myself looking extra muscular so is he a bodybuilder because he took 4 months out of us life to lean out for a competition? For at least the last 10 years it’s obvious that guy never planned on getting bigger so how much is he persuing muscle.
[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
My image of a BB is muscularity, fitness, strength and health. I’m entitled to my view.
[/quote]
So your image of a BBer, is “fitnessy” by your own definition, yet you refuse to acknowledge that the image you seek as achievement, is that of a man who exudes fitness?
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Kind of glad this Ferencsik came up. Besides calling out Scotocus this is also why I wanted to start this thread.
Now I dont know if he’s small because he’s natural, or small just because he never wwanted to be bigger but growing up I never thought of anybody that small being a Bodybuilder, like DG said maybe a fitness guy but not a bodybuilder.
With more natural competitions and amatuers blowing up, it seems like there is a place for smaller people to become bodybuilders. But I can never look at them that way. I feel like that would just be me ripped, and I’m not genetically inclined, used roids or find myself looking extra muscular so is he a bodybuilder because he took 4 months out of us life to lean out for a competition? For at least the last 10 years it’s obvious that guy never planned on getting bigger so how much is he persuing muscle.[/quote]
I don’t see him as small so I can’t lend any credence to your opinion. Looking at the video, he has great wheels, solid back and shoulders and well defined, muscular arms. I’ve seen a lot of photos of posters here, some great and some not so great. He beats a lot of them by a long mile.
I don’t subscribe to the opinions of some here that a BB’er has to be huuuggge. Hey, nothing wrong with huge if that trips your trigger. But for me personally, when I look at the roid monsters these days…well I’m just not impressed. Let me clarify, I don’t doubt they’ve worked hard. I don’t doubt there serious mind set. I also don’t doubt they’re trustys of modern chemistry to a degree never before seen. Again, it is a subjective thing. I prefer Zane to Coleman. Yes, both juiced but in MY opinion Zane has a far superior physique.
Again it’s like this and don’t take offense, my goals aren’t dependent on what others on a message board think or what the general trend of the board seems to be. I can think for myself and have a clearly defined view of what I feel a BB’er is…and is not. Others are not required to subscribe to my view but at the end of the day I’m training for me and not them.
[quote]red04 wrote:
TRAJJ wrote:
My image of a BB is muscularity, fitness, strength and health. I’m entitled to my view.
So your image of a BBer, is “fitnessy” by your own definition, yet you refuse to acknowledge that the image you seek as achievement, is that of a man who exudes fitness?[/quote]
I don’t think I’ve ‘refused to acknowledge’ anything. Fitness is part of my definition but not the whole. In my opinion, things like fitness and health are just as important as size, muscularity, symetry etc. Looking good at the expense of one’s health is to me absurd. Looking good but not having a level of fitness to go along with the look is also absurd, in my opinion. My vocations require health, fitness, strength, mobility etc. My goals are those as well as muscularity, symetry etc.
If looking huge like those that juice in the mags is your goal, and your willing to do what they do…then go for it. But as mentioned above, I don’t let a msg board dictate my goals or viewpoint. I come in and learn what will further my goals and flush the rest. If I feel strongly enough on a topic, I’ll contribute my thoughts. Whether anyone accepts my contributions neither makes nor breaks my day. As mentioned, I train for me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
oneforship wrote:
HK24719 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bodybuilding is a lifestyle that the vast majority of people are not acquainted with in any way. A bodybuilder is someone who lives the lifestyle.
That’s like saying a football player, golfer, or an athlete involved in any other sport needs to follow a certain lifestyle in order to be considered a real participant, which is bullshit.
No it’s not. I used to play baseball in college. I was (emphasis on past tense) a baseball player. I lived a certain lifestyle to support that performance and commitment, that was part of being a baseball player. If you were to put me on a baseball field right now 9 times out of 10 (to be generous on that 10th time) I could kick the average person’s ass at anything baseball related. But I am no longer a baseball player, because I don’t live the lifestyle anymore.
And similarly when guys from this forum (or it could be any BBing forum) get frustrated with twerps (small guys such as myself) who blatantly ignore or argue their advice, I would feel the same way about someone who ignored or argued what I had to say about playing the game of baseball and learning and improving at that particular sport. Because I’ve DONE it, I’ve lived the lifestyle, and succeeded. It is annoying to see people with little or no talent for the sport of baseball try to critique or improve my game, when I’m actually at an elite level. I’m sure it is the same for many of the guys on this site.
Your looking at it from the wrong frame of mind, from a person that lives it,
What oneforship was getting at is…
what about the guy who lives the lifestyle but sucks at baseball? He lives the lifestyle but he’s surely not a baseball player.
Because of bodybuilding’s association with health, people seem to have this whole A for effort concept towards bodybuilding where long as you “Live the Life”. News flash theres a whole lot of people running around who think they “live the life”. I don’t care about anybodies life, if I look at you and my first reaction isn’t “damn he must be a bodybuilder” I just don’t think he should be classified as one. Of course this is my opinion which is the point of the thread, I just felt the need to argue the lifestyle point as necessary.
Agreed. There are no doubt many people on this forum who train 3 days a week who try to call themselves “bodybuilders” in spite of the fact that their progress has been so minimal that NO ONE would ever consider them one on the street.
Progress made is the defining factor. You don’t get a gold star just for showing up.[/quote]
Do you spare exception to a special needs kid that loves the sport, but my never get progress? I do. I don’t think progress is the end all be all. Just a thought.
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
I always liked the shirt test. If someone doesn’t look big while wearing a shirt (not a skin tight one either) then they are not big.[/quote]
a good point, but still flawed. i played amateur rugby for years and came across many guys who looked “big” with a shirt on, but they had never lifted a weight in their life. certainly did not look like a bodybuilder with their shirt off!
the bodybuilders in my gym stand out. in a room of 20 guys who obviously lift weights and have done for years, 3 guys stand out from the pack…with or without shirts on.no matter wether they are at 4%bf of 14%bf,it’s always obvious.
[quote]matsm21 wrote:
well, he is 5’11, which may not sound like a big deal, but it is an important difference. Also. here is a pic at 188. very fitness-y. He has accomplished alot, but not what I would call a bodybuilder. I guess we disagree on ho big you need to be.[/quote]
He has no shoulders, no arms… He doesn’t have a bodybuilder’s proportions. I don’t even care about him being smaller, but this is a typical “fitness”-competitor physique, not a bodybuilder’s.
Why do people always want to redefine bodybuilding? It’s been an established “sport” for a long time and the bodybuilder’s look is fairly well known.
This is like going out, pointing at a kitten and proclaiming it a rottweiler or doberman…
I obviously don’t know when the guy started training, he looks like he isn’t the youngest anymore?
Guys who start training late (mid30’s-40’s or even later) in their life will likely never be “bodybuilder-big” due to their hormone-levels and other factors… Even on AAS (with the odd exception, maybe).
People who pay their dues early in life and get big in their 20’s and early 30’s can afterwards just cut back a little and enjoy life being pretty damn big (like 230-250 at 5’10) with full abs showing. At least if they consider HRT at some point and if they really put in the work before 
So if that guy started training late, more power to him for his achievements and yeah, I wouldn’t expect him to be huge at all.
But if he’s been training since his early 20’s drug-free, then the progress he’s made is pathetic (unless he just doesn’t want to be bigger but come on…)
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?[/quote]
Not a-once. I’ve been lurking on this thread to see if anyone else would even catch that, haha.
[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
Kind of glad this Ferencsik came up. Besides calling out Scotocus this is also why I wanted to start this thread.
Now I dont know if he’s small because he’s natural, or small just because he never wwanted to be bigger but growing up I never thought of anybody that small being a Bodybuilder, like DG said maybe a fitness guy but not a bodybuilder.
With more natural competitions and amatuers blowing up, it seems like there is a place for smaller people to become bodybuilders. But I can never look at them that way. I feel like that would just be me ripped, and I’m not genetically inclined, used roids or find myself looking extra muscular so is he a bodybuilder because he took 4 months out of us life to lean out for a competition? For at least the last 10 years it’s obvious that guy never planned on getting bigger so how much is he persuing muscle.
I don’t see him as small so I can’t lend any credence to your opinion. Looking at the video, he has great wheels, solid back and shoulders and well defined, muscular arms. I’ve seen a lot of photos of posters here, some great and some not so great. He beats a lot of them by a long mile.
I don’t subscribe to the opinions of some here that a BB’er has to be huuuggge. Hey, nothing wrong with huge if that trips your trigger. But for me personally, when I look at the roid monsters these days…well I’m just not impressed. Let me clarify, I don’t doubt they’ve worked hard. I don’t doubt there serious mind set. I also don’t doubt they’re trustys of modern chemistry to a degree never before seen. Again, it is a subjective thing. I prefer Zane to Coleman. Yes, both juiced but in MY opinion Zane has a far superior physique.
Again it’s like this and don’t take offense, my goals aren’t dependent on what others on a message board think or what the general trend of the board seems to be. I can think for myself and have a clearly defined view of what I feel a BB’er is…and is not. Others are not required to subscribe to my view but at the end of the day I’m training for me and not them.
[/quote]
Zane had arms and a bodybuilder’s proportions. This guy does indeed have nice wheels for his size, but no arms and delts whatsoever. Big arms and broad shoulders have ALWAYS been trademarks of a bodybuilder…
This guy is totally unbalanced, if I had to guess then I’d say that he’s flat out weak on Close-Grip Benches, high inclines and Alt. Curls for 5+ reps… He can still work on that and he should. That has nothing to do with being natural…
[quote]alit4 wrote:
matsm21 wrote:
I always liked the shirt test. If someone doesn’t look big while wearing a shirt (not a skin tight one either) then they are not big.
a good point, but still flawed. i played amateur rugby for years and came across many guys who looked “big” with a shirt on, but they had never lifted a weight in their life. certainly did not look like a bodybuilder with their shirt off!
the bodybuilders in my gym stand out. in a room of 20 guys who obviously lift weights and have done for years, 3 guys stand out from the pack…with or without shirts on.no matter wether they are at 4%bf of 14%bf,it’s always obvious.[/quote]
Was your view of what’s “big” different back then, maybe?
People who aren’t used to big bbers or PLers guys (not even superheavies or anything like that) think that Vin Diesel is huge and has huge arms and big shoulders etc… That opinion changes drastically once you find out what “big” actually looks like.
I agree with the second part of your post though.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?[/quote]
Of course not. He lies in wait for the next decent thread to be posted so that he can mess it up. Can’t mess up a thread easily which is pretty much dedicated to him now, can he?
[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
Dirty Gerdy wrote:
6’ 170-180 will NOT look like a bodybuilder.
DG
Really?
Michael Ferencsik, 45 year old natural BB’er. The photo is from 2006 at around 176 lbs, 4.5% BF. He’s put on about 10 lbs of muscle since that photo. He has placed 1st in his division in mutiple competitions.
He has several videos on youtube, the last one was just a month ago or so and is titled ‘one week out’ or something to that effect. This gives a good example of what he looks like as of a month ago.
To me, he looks like a body builder.
[/quote]
To me he looks like someone with very little muscle (except for thighs) dieted down.
Again: No arms, no shoulders, nothing.
When did that fascination for small upper bodies and bigger lower bodies develop, anyway? People today avoid working their arms etc at all costs and I constantly see “What, only 1 day for legs?” and such posted in the forums…
Edit: Ok, so don’t get me wrong: I don’t mind you having your own opinion. Just flat out wondering about it, especially since you like Zane but this guy isn’t even vaguely similar…
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Edit: Ok, so don’t get me wrong: I don’t mind you having your own opinion. Just flat out wondering about it…[/quote]
Ok, I’ll expound. First off, let me say that I’m not up for a pissing contest on a subjective topic so I’d appreciate no one taking offense to anything I post as it isn’t meant that way.
In ‘my’ opinion the viewpoint of what a body builder should look like has been warped since the late 70’s. It hasn’t gotten better, it has gotten a lot worse. I’ve commented before in the thread with Ronnie and Arnold standing side by side in their prime. I don’t mind ‘huugge’ at all, and both men have worked incredibly hard for what they’ve achieved so I’m taking noting away from either. But Ronnie looks inflated compared to Arnold. I like strong, defined wheels but not so huge they chaff when you walk. I like a six pack but not a bloated abdomen pushing them out. So I prefer Arnold personally, but I use it purely as a comparison. He doesn’t have the look I’m after either. But it is a good example of how pure size has taken over the sport rather than having the complete package.
Kids nowadays see these guys in all the mags and have been indoctrinated into thinking that is what BB really is and that is how you should look. Funny thing is though that the award they covet is of Sandow and bares his name. Yet if Sandow were alive today and posting here on T-Nation he’d be flamed off the board. His physique would be ridiculed by the ‘he’s so small crowd’. Yet it is his award they give…
Same with Michael. He’s natural and in his mid-40’s has garnered with his dedicated life style and hard work more trophies, medals and swords than 99% of the posters here will ever achieve. He has won international contests as well as the respect of the judges and fellow competitors. Yet those who are not even close to where he is at or those who will never accomplish what he has judge him to be to ‘small’ or he doesn’t have a ‘BB’ look. Interesting. Or…‘gasp’…it’s just a ‘natty’ competition.
Well…I’ve been lifting for longer than many here have been alive. I’ve come back from injury and illness. I’ve seen a lot come and go. Based upon ‘my’ goals and what the alternative is I’ll take the natural road. I like the physique he demonstrates in the video as it meets what I consider a true BB should be i.e. muscular, conditioned, healthy etc. And to me it demonstrates that someone can look great at or near 6’ and less than 200 lbs.
As always everyone is welcome and entitled to their view and I’m not upset if it’s different from mine. That is why there are so many flavors of ice cream.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
alit4 wrote:
matsm21 wrote:
I always liked the shirt test. If someone doesn’t look big while wearing a shirt (not a skin tight one either) then they are not big.
a good point, but still flawed. i played amateur rugby for years and came across many guys who looked “big” with a shirt on, but they had never lifted a weight in their life. certainly did not look like a bodybuilder with their shirt off!
the bodybuilders in my gym stand out. in a room of 20 guys who obviously lift weights and have done for years, 3 guys stand out from the pack…with or without shirts on.no matter wether they are at 4%bf of 14%bf,it’s always obvious.
Was your view of what’s “big” different back then, maybe?
People who aren’t used to big bbers or PLers guys (not even superheavies or anything like that) think that Vin Diesel is huge and has huge arms and big shoulders etc… That opinion changes drastically once you find out what “big” actually looks like.
I agree with the second part of your post though.
[/quote]
Good post. There is a big difference between someone who is simply “stocky” who does not lift and someone who clearly has huge shoulders, a big chest and huge arms even if they are carrying a lot of body fat at the moment.
Small lifters think anyone bigger than them is “big”. I used to think “Slater” on Saved By The Bell was huge. That was because I was a rail at the time. Obviously I wouldn’t think the same now.
You can NOT mistake the look of someone who got big as a result of bodybuilding and extreme weight lifting. Stocky people simply don’t have the same proportions.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?
[/quote]
Funny how he kept stating all he wanted was a debate and didn’t want to ruin the other thread.