Scotocus: What is a Bodybuilder?

Lonnie123 · December 5, 2008, 5:30am

In response to Brians and Tribunals question, I do think there comes a point where pure Size is not the ultimate goal. I consider myself a body builder, but I dont want to, nor could I ever, build a physique that resembles that of Ronnie Coleman.

There is an art to it in that sense. Guys like Frank Zane, Kevin Levrone, Dex have a more desirable physique to me. I aspire to look like these men. Make no mistake, they are built much bigger than I am (and that is where the “building” comes in). But there does come a point where size is not the ultimate end point.

The art of body building is a blend of size, lines, symmetry, proportion, and the like. Although I will admit size has its own merit, probably above all the others.

bicepenvy · December 5, 2008, 6:13am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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.

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.

Good point, and true.

No, it isn’t. It’s heart warming and maybe even the subject material for a Disney movie, but bodybuilding isn’t and never has been about, “But I tried hard with a disability and should get credit for it even though I made no progress”. There are wheelchair bound people who truly look impressive who have clearly worked beyond their own limitations to achieve what most can’t. Those people deserve all of the praise in the world.

As much as I might cheer someone who is mentally challenged on IN THE GYM, I don’t think they should be on stage just to squeeze a sympathy round of applause out of the audience.
[/quote]

You can’t be serious. Are the kids that compete in the special olympics olympians? Of course they are. Same for bodybuilders. They might not have 18inch biceps,but if they can get to the gym and participate in the sport with passion and to the best of their ability- that counts. I guess in your world somebody with MS can’t be a bodybuilder…

Berserkergang · December 5, 2008, 8:03am

[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
In the video I mentioned he was 182 lbs at around 3% BF. I’m sorry, but I suppose we’ll have to disagree. I don’t see ‘fitnessy’ at all. I see a damn nice BB physique and a lot of dedication to what he does, particularly the legs. The fact that he has accomplished a lot in the sport, in my opinion speaks volumes.

YMMV

[/quote]

Yes he accomplished a lot, especially considering that this guy doesn’t have the ideal frame for the sport (narrow shoulder, comparatively widish waist)
The legs look good to me.

brian_m · December 5, 2008, 12:45pm

while i completely agree with you personally Lonnie, i just think that sometimes these things are lost on people who weigh 100+ lbs less than all these competitors that are worried about their own “lines symmetry, and proportion”

but once somebody were to get to that size, i think we’d probably have similar preferances

Cephalic_Carnage · December 5, 2008, 2:44pm

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
In response to Brians and Tribunals question, I do think there comes a point where pure Size is not the ultimate goal. I consider myself a body builder, but I dont want to, nor could I ever, build a physique that resembles that of Ronnie Coleman.

There is an art to it in that sense. Guys like Frank Zane, Kevin Levrone, Dex have a more desirable physique to me. I aspire to look like these men. Make no mistake, they are built much bigger than I am (and that is where the “building” comes in). But there does come a point where size is not the ultimate end point.

The art of body building is a blend of size, lines, symmetry, proportion, and the like. Although I will admit size has its own merit, probably above all the others.[/quote]

Ok guys… Levrone, Dex and Zane look(ed) aesthetic because their genetic muscle-shape and frame made them look like that. They got bigger like everyone else (didn’t do anything special to get their shape), but it’s not like you can get a Sergio Oliva waist through training.
What was Ronnie supposed to do, stay at 220 (even then his basic shape was the same) so that people wouldn’t hate his physique so much… And lose the O and all his supplement contracts etc ?

If Dex were to get to a size similar to that of Ronnie (relative to height), he would still look more aesthetic than Ronnie does/did.

And take Yates… The guy had to get absolutely huge to be able to mask his weak bicep genetics and unimpressive tri-shape somewhat… 260-270 or whatever he competed at was what it took to actually fill out his frame properly… No type of training, diet and what-have-you is going to make a dorian yates look like a dexter jackson as far as aesthetics go.
Unless they both starve themselves into oblivion, that is.

Professor_X · December 7, 2008, 2:37am

[quote]bicepenvy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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.

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.

Good point, and true.

No, it isn’t. It’s heart warming and maybe even the subject material for a Disney movie, but bodybuilding isn’t and never has been about, “But I tried hard with a disability and should get credit for it even though I made no progress”.

There are wheelchair bound people who truly look impressive who have clearly worked beyond their own limitations to achieve what most can’t. Those people deserve all of the praise in the world.

As much as I might cheer someone who is mentally challenged on IN THE GYM, I don’t think they should be on stage just to squeeze a sympathy round of applause out of the audience.

You can’t be serious. Are the kids that compete in the special olympics olympians? Of course they are. Same for bodybuilders. They might not have 18inch biceps,but if they can get to the gym and participate in the sport with passion and to the best of their ability- that counts. I guess in your world somebody with MS can’t be a bodybuilder…[/quote]

You just contradicted yourself. There is a SPECIAL Olympics for a reason.

TRAJJ · December 5, 2008, 3:53pm

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
I have a quick question.

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about
?

[/quote]

[quote]slimthugger wrote:
I think the dictionary covers this quite well. Just me, but I think this definition is pretty accurate.

bod’y·build’er n.

n. The process of developing the musculature of the body through specific types of diet and physical exercise, such as weightlifting, especially for competitive exhibition.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.[/quote]

This is where the warped perspective I mentioned has taken over, I say warped not as an insult to anyone so don’t take it that way.

According to the dictionary, BB is about developing the musculature. Now increasing muscle size is part of the equation, no dispute there. But as mentioned above, there are other considerations as well that can be and are just as important. Proportion, symetry, balance, muscularity, vascularity etc. So no one is knocking ‘size’ but I think we need to be careful that it isn’t the be-all-to-end-all.

As per my example, pure size isn’t necessarily the prime consideration in many of the natural competitions. And according to the comments someone made above, it appears the pro ranks are following suit. Once again, I’m not down on getting big, but we need to respect the fact that everyone has a different perspective on how big…‘big’ is and how it stacks up in the list of other BB priorities.

Bottom line is that there is more to ‘developing the physique’ than just ‘size’. It is a part to be sure, but other things play a part as well particularly if one wishes to compete. Lets keep perspective.

Professor_X · December 5, 2008, 11:19am

[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
I have a quick question.

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about
?

slimthugger wrote:
I think the dictionary covers this quite well. Just me, but I think this definition is pretty accurate.

bod’y·build’er n.

n. The process of developing the musculature of the body through specific types of diet and physical exercise, such as weightlifting, especially for competitive exhibition.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

This is where the warped perspective I mentioned has taken over, I say warped not as an insult to anyone so don’t take it that way.

According to the dictionary, BB is about developing the musculature. Now increasing muscle size is part of the equation, no dispute there. But as mentioned above, there are other considerations as well that can be and are just as important. Proportion, symetry, balance, muscularity, vascularity etc. So no one is knocking ‘size’ but I think we need to be careful that it isn’t the be-all-to-end-all.

As per my example, pure size isn’t necessarily the prime consideration in many of the natural competitions. And according to the comments someone made above, it appears the pro ranks are following suit. Once again, I’m not down on getting big, but we need to respect the fact that everyone has a different perspective on how big…‘big’ is and how it stacks up in the list of other BB priorities.

Bottom line is that there is more to ‘developing the physique’ than just ‘size’. It is a part to be sure, but other things play a part as well particularly if one wishes to compete. Lets keep perspective.
[/quote]

The guy in the picture YOU posted is NOT proportional. His legs outsize everything else on him. Somehow, this is ok to you as you nitpick others who actually want muscles that stand out AND are proportional. If developing a proportional physique was truly top priority to you, this would stand out to you as well as a representation of what you do NOT want.

No one here is simply talking about being big with no consideration for proportion at all.

Pro shows have, for the last 5 years or more, moved away from simply awarding all out mass for the sake of mass (ie. Markus Rhul). That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still looking for BIG muscles. It does mean they are now back to making sure the guy who wins actually looks esthetic.

alit4 · December 5, 2008, 4:29pm

[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
I have a quick question.

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about
?

slimthugger wrote:
I think the dictionary covers this quite well. Just me, but I think this definition is pretty accurate.

bod’y·build’er n.

n. The process of developing the musculature of the body through specific types of diet and physical exercise, such as weightlifting, especially for competitive exhibition.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

This is where the warped perspective I mentioned has taken over, I say warped not as an insult to anyone so don’t take it that way.

According to the dictionary, BB is about developing the musculature. Now increasing muscle size is part of the equation, no dispute there. But as mentioned above, there are other considerations as well that can be and are just as important. Proportion, symetry, balance, muscularity, vascularity etc. So no one is knocking ‘size’ but I think we need to be careful that it isn’t the be-all-to-end-all.

As per my example, pure size isn’t necessarily the prime consideration in many of the natural competitions. And according to the comments someone made above, it appears the pro ranks are following suit. Once again, I’m not down on getting big, but we need to respect the fact that everyone has a different perspective on how big…‘big’ is and how it stacks up in the list of other BB priorities.

Bottom line is that there is more to ‘developing the physique’ than just ‘size’. It is a part to be sure, but other things play a part as well particularly if one wishes to compete. Lets keep perspective.
[/quote]

you mention developing physique, how would you do that. what are the other things that play a part. with the exception of building bigger muscles and dropping bodyfat/excess water what else is there?

MUthrows94 · December 5, 2008, 5:44pm

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
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]

I agree but, this guy did diet down and probably trained like a bodybuilder. He is in his 40’s to so i respect the hell out of that. He would put to shame a good portion of these abercrombie/Hollister bastards posting in the bodybuilding forums and has done something that alot of people have not done which is have the balls to go out and compete. IMO he is a bodybuilder obviously their is better but, that’s just my 2 c’s though…

slimthugger · December 5, 2008, 7:01pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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.

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.

Good point, and true.

No, it isn’t. It’s heart warming and maybe even the subject material for a Disney movie, but bodybuilding isn’t and never has been about, “But I tried hard with a disability and should get credit for it even though I made no progress”. There are wheelchair bound people who truly look impressive who have clearly worked beyond their own limitations to achieve what most can’t. Those people deserve all of the praise in the world.

As much as I might cheer someone who is mentally challenged on IN THE GYM, I don’t think they should be on stage just to squeeze a sympathy round of applause out of the audience.

You can’t be serious. Are the kids that compete in the special olympics olympians? Of course they are. Same for bodybuilders. They might not have 18inch biceps,but if they can get to the gym and participate in the sport with passion and to the best of their ability- that counts. I guess in your world somebody with MS can’t be a bodybuilder…

You just contradicted yourself. There is a SPECIAL Olympics for a reason.[/quote]

No contradiction. The are still Olympians. You clearly are NOT a professor. Thank goodness for internet role play huh?

Professor_X · December 6, 2008, 10:29pm

[quote]slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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.

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.

Good point, and true.

No, it isn’t. It’s heart warming and maybe even the subject material for a Disney movie, but bodybuilding isn’t and never has been about, “But I tried hard with a disability and should get credit for it even though I made no progress”.

There are wheelchair bound people who truly look impressive who have clearly worked beyond their own limitations to achieve what most can’t. Those people deserve all of the praise in the world.

As much as I might cheer someone who is mentally challenged on IN THE GYM, I don’t think they should be on stage just to squeeze a sympathy round of applause out of the audience.

You can’t be serious. Are the kids that compete in the special olympics olympians? Of course they are. Same for bodybuilders. They might not have 18inch biceps,but if they can get to the gym and participate in the sport with passion and to the best of their ability- that counts. I guess in your world somebody with MS can’t be a bodybuilder…

You just contradicted yourself. There is a SPECIAL Olympics for a reason.

No contradiction. The are still Olympians. You clearly are NOT a professor. Thank goodness for internet role play huh?[/quote]

I’m sorry, but please name ONE mentally handicapped person in the SPECIAL Olympics who was acknowledged as winning a medal in the Chinese Olympics this year.

On top of that, explain why you have never heard of the character Professor X and why you would assume that this means I am a professor.

My profession is listed in my profile and has been for a long time now. You fail at this discussion and quite possibly life.

TRAJJ · December 5, 2008, 9:34pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:
TRAJJ wrote:
tribunaldude wrote:
I have a quick question.

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about
?

slimthugger wrote:
I think the dictionary covers this quite well. Just me, but I think this definition is pretty accurate.

bod’y·build’er n.

n. The process of developing the musculature of the body through specific types of diet and physical exercise, such as weightlifting, especially for competitive exhibition.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

This is where the warped perspective I mentioned has taken over, I say warped not as an insult to anyone so don’t take it that way.

According to the dictionary, BB is about developing the musculature. Now increasing muscle size is part of the equation, no dispute there. But as mentioned above, there are other considerations as well that can be and are just as important.

Proportion, symetry, balance, muscularity, vascularity etc. So no one is knocking ‘size’ but I think we need to be careful that it isn’t the be-all-to-end-all.

As per my example, pure size isn’t necessarily the prime consideration in many of the natural competitions. And according to the comments someone made above, it appears the pro ranks are following suit.

Once again, I’m not down on getting big, but we need to respect the fact that everyone has a different perspective on how big…‘big’ is and how it stacks up in the list of other BB priorities.

Bottom line is that there is more to ‘developing the physique’ than just ‘size’. It is a part to be sure, but other things play a part as well particularly if one wishes to compete. Lets keep perspective.

The guy in the picture YOU posted is NOT proportional. His legs outsize everything else on him. Somehow, this is ok to you as you nitpick others who actually want muscles that stand out AND are proportional.

If developing a proportional physique was truly top priority to you, this would stand out to you as well as a representation of what you do NOT want.

No one here is simply talking about being big with no consideration for proportion at all.

Pro shows have, for the last 5 years or more, moved away from simply awarding all out mass for the sake of mass (ie. Markus Rhul). That doesn’t mean that they aren’t still looking for BIG muscles. It does mean they are now back to making sure the guy who wins actually looks esthetic.[/quote]

Engaging in discussion and offering opinion is not nitpicking, it is one of the reasons for this msg board. My origninal response was to the poster who stated that someone at 6 ft and 175lbs is a ‘terrible bodybuilder’. I’ve demonstrated that is not always the case.

Now it can still be considered subjective but in my opinion my example has an exceptional physique. Is there room for improvement? Yes, but then that can be said with most.

The fact that he has not only placed but won his division in multiple international contests in one of the largest natural associations places him well above the normal. Without intentionally trying to offend anyone, it is more than most here have or ever will accomplish. I respect him for that.

matsm21 · December 5, 2008, 9:35pm

[quote]slimthugger wrote:

You just contradicted yourself. There is a SPECIAL Olympics for a reason.

No contradiction. The are still Olympians. You clearly are NOT a professor. Thank goodness for internet role play huh?[/quote]

quit it with the everyone is equal bullshit. this isn’t a lifetime movie.

SteelyD · December 5, 2008, 9:40pm

[quote]slimthugger wrote:
You clearly are NOT a professor. Thank goodness for internet role play huh?[/quote]

Yeah, PX… and, and, and, I bet you’re not even a cartoon, either!… and, and, clearly, “X” is not even a letter in the alphabet!!

You been pwn3d!!!111

Lonnie123 · December 5, 2008, 10:10pm

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ok guys… Levrone, Dex and Zane look(ed) aesthetic because their genetic muscle-shape and frame made them look like that. They got bigger like everyone else (didn’t do anything special to get their shape), but it’s not like you can get a Sergio Oliva waist through training.

What was Ronnie supposed to do, stay at 220 (even then his basic shape was the same) so that people wouldn’t hate his physique so much… And lose the O and all his supplement contracts etc ?

If Dex were to get to a size similar to that of Ronnie (relative to height), he would still look more aesthetic than Ronnie does/did.

And take Yates… The guy had to get absolutely huge to be able to mask his weak bicep genetics and unimpressive tri-shape somewhat… 260-270 or whatever he competed at was what it took to actually fill out his frame properly…

No type of training, diet and what-have-you is going to make a dorian yates look like a dexter jackson as far as aesthetics go.
Unless they both starve themselves into oblivion, that is.

[/quote]

Fair enough.

Although you have guys like Tom Platz with legs that, while being huge and absolutely stunning, dont really flow with the rest of his body. He had to build them up to an out-of-proportion size. Simply getting bigger alone is not all there is to it.

I dont in any way condemn what he did, and he probably wouldnt go down in the annals of BB history as a guys whose name you think of instantly for a particular body part without his legs, so theres always that to consider.

roybot · December 6, 2008, 12:32am

[quote]slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:

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.

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.

Good point, and true.

No, it isn’t. It’s heart warming and maybe even the subject material for a Disney movie, but bodybuilding isn’t and never has been about, “But I tried hard with a disability and should get credit for it even though I made no progress”.

There are wheelchair bound people who truly look impressive who have clearly worked beyond their own limitations to achieve what most can’t. Those people deserve all of the praise in the world.

As much as I might cheer someone who is mentally challenged on IN THE GYM, I don’t think they should be on stage just to squeeze a sympathy round of applause out of the audience.

You can’t be serious. Are the kids that compete in the special olympics olympians? Of course they are. Same for bodybuilders. They might not have 18inch biceps,but if they can get to the gym and participate in the sport with passion and to the best of their ability- that counts. I guess in your world somebody with MS can’t be a bodybuilder…

You just contradicted yourself. There is a SPECIAL Olympics for a reason.

No contradiction. The are still Olympians. You clearly are NOT a professor. Thank goodness for internet role play huh?[/quote]

I agree with Professor X. A bodybuilder with mental and/or physical disabilities may have all the heart and determination in the world, but they are rarely going to achieve a level of development comparable to that of a serious, able-bodied competitor, no matter how badly they want to.

That’s not to take anything away from what they may have achieved as individuals, but the fact remains that the chances of them winning a high level ‘conventional’ bodybuilding comp are slim to non-existent.

This sort of thing is addressed in Olympic sports - there is a clear distinction between the special Olympics and ‘conventional’ Olympics, because putting elite athletes up against handicapped athletes is obviously not a fair playing field.

Again, I’m not taking anything away from special Olympians. I know a golfer who has competed in the special Olympics, and he dominates the local players, so he is clearly above average when it comes to sporting prowess. I just wonder why bodybuilding competitions don’t make the distinction as well…

Hatari_Samaki · December 6, 2008, 4:46am

[quote]TRAJJ wrote:

Engaging in discussion and offering opinion is not nitpicking, it is one of the reasons for this msg board. My origninal response was to the poster who stated that someone at 6 ft and 175lbs is a ‘terrible bodybuilder’. I’ve demonstrated that is not always the case.

Now it can still be considered subjective but in my opinion my example has an exceptional physique. Is there room for improvement? Yes, but then that can be said with most.

The fact that he has not only placed but won his division in multiple international contests in one of the largest natural associations places him well above the normal. Without intentionally trying to offend anyone, it is more than most here have or ever will accomplish. I respect him for that.
[/quote]

Frankly, the fact that he did so well in multiple international contests at 6 ft/175 lbs seems to say more about the state of natural competitions than about his physique. I don’t mean to denigrate your opinion, which is certainly better stated than many.

However, I do find it fascinating that a natural competitor with that build has done so well, and wonder what his competition must look like.

bicepenvy · December 6, 2008, 5:34am

[quote]Professor X wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote: