[quote]hardgnr wrote:
95% of people that say this are the ones who have no idea about bodybuilding. The last few years haven’t been exactly great but the physiques are damn awesome at the moment, and for the last 10-20 years.[/quote]
The last few years have actually been pretty damned good. The interest in it is rising again.
But I agree with that first sentence. Most of these guys do not follow bodybuilding much at all so they watch Pumping Iron one day and suddenly act like there has been no improvement for 50 fucking years.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
It’s many factors, which include better knowledge of recovery, training, supplementation, and of course drugs.
It’s not unlike progress made in nearly all the science and technology sectors. The more we learn, the more we can apply.[/quote]
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Why can’t “purists” let people theorize that it is INDEED substance abuse that’s ONE OF the factors?
Read IDs first post. Holy fuck.
Because substance ABUSE is the wrong term completely. If you want to claim that todays pros are using a wider array of drugs than those in the past, fine. But there is no way that ANYONE here knows the magnitude of drugs used today compared to 40 years ago.
The fact of the matter is that professional bodybuilders have elite genetics. Elite genetics doesn’t just apply to the shape of their muscles or how easily they gain mass or the thickness of their muscle facsia. It also has to do with how well they respond to androgens. There is no doubt in my mind that larger amounts of total drugs are being used by amateurs messing around at the national level or guys who barely turn pro and never win a big show then the guys who fly up the ranks and make an impact at the big shows.
Kai Greene is an excellent example of how good professionals respond to drugs. He was absolutely huge when he was competeing at a natural. Lee Priest has also been very vocal about the relatively small amount of drugs he would take, going as far as saying he would only use PEDs in contest prep.
These arguments stem from the fact that people toss around the term ‘substance abuse’ and ‘drug abusers’ like they are referring to junkies who are ruining their own lives and the lives of people around them. [/quote]
Well said. “Substance abuse” makes it sound like we are discussing heroine addicts. If these top pros are under the care of a physician, how much “abuse” is going on? It’s like having discussions with one of those anti-drug posters in high school hallways.
[quote]MikeHunt wrote:
MEYMZ wrote:
Dexter looks better in all senses.
dexter almost looks like a collection of body parts. incredible definition. but i do prefer serge’s physique[/quote]
That’s all well and good, but Sergio would be looked at like he was out of shape if he tried to get on stage like that today. There may be as much as a 5% or more difference in body fat between those two in those pics so I am not even sure comparing them directly without acknow3ledging that is even fair.
While I personally feel the focus on how “ripped” these guys are needs to be toned down a little, I can still be aware of the fact that not you nor anyone else has any idea what Sergio would look like dieted down like Dexter jackson and dried out.
I wouldn’t call that “a collection of body parts”. That is simply how many of those guys, even the ones from the 60’s, would look if every muscle was exposed in full detail like competitors today.
I think Flex is perfect, but I see Coleman as one of the great wonders of the world like the Grand Canyon or the Great Pyramid of Giza, or hardgnr’s avatar.
Oliva’s chest looks great in that picture. He appears “offseason” in the pic relative to today’s standards and that is a primary difference, today guys are getting to sub 4% BF. Additionally, as others mentioned, leg and back prioritizing creates larger guys. The drugs have improved but as mentioned don’t smear today’s athlete, hard work is still the driving force.
While I personally feel the focus on how “ripped” these guys are needs to be toned down a little[/quote]
Why?
I do think a little higher bodyfat does look a little better(if this is what you were implying), but conditioning is also a pretty large part of the competion and probably scoring process I would say.
Here are some of the things I’ve noticed after comparing allot of “classic” physiques to “modern” physiques.
For the most part arms, chest, and lat development has not changed as significantly from the 70s as most other parts. The major differences are deltoids, legs and abdominal. I feel that allot of people dislike modern physiques because they appear unproportional when compared with the human head. It doesn’t matter how proportional you keep your body development. The human head only gets so big. If you don’t believe me take a look any modern physique with the head covered. They all look fantastic. Once the head comes into the picture something feels a little off…
[quote]porkpie wrote:
xxxwtfxxx wrote:
bodybuilders like arnold,lou and serge win in my book if u put them agaist jay cutler,ronnie,or dennis wolf.but why do they have a diffrent shape then bodybuilders today?is it the way they train or supplements or what and NO i am not trolling.
I agree, there was a much more aesthetic appeal to their shape than the current trend!!
I do fear though that Professor X will come on hear and try and flame the bejesus out of it.
He will say that it is BODYBUILDING, building as big a body as possible.
I think that bodybuilding should be about building that most impressive physique possible which to my mind is the incredible v-taper and conditioning.
Beware the Prof x[/quote]
bodybuilding is about building the perfect physique not about getting as big as possible.
but if a person dicedes he wants to get that big i got nothing against that but they should not be winning because they are the biggest and dont nessasarly have the best physique.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
Why can’t “purists” let people theorize that it is INDEED substance abuse that’s ONE OF the factors?
Read IDs first post. Holy fuck.
They had completely different standards in the 60’s. No one was even trying to build legs up like people today. They didn’t even start to focus on that until the 80’s around the time that Tom Platz hit the scene. Like all things in bodybuilding, those who take things to an extreme help redefine the sport. To jump over all of that and blame “substance abuse” isn’t just short sighted, it takes away from the hard work of the guys competing today.
Most of the people even making these threads about how great guys were in the 60’s completely ignore current bodybuilding which is why Ronnie Coleman gets mentioned first when he isn’t even the current Mr. O…Dex is. [/quote]
Okay, I agree, “drug/substance abuse” is taking it too far. But like I said, I agree with ID’s first post, that guys today PROBABLY use more or have access to a WIDER VARIETY of performance enhancing drugs.
And no, I’m not saying they lack work ethic. I’d be stupid if I even thought of that. In fact, Bodybuilders are THE MOST disciplined and one of the hardest working group of athletes I know. We all know morons try to imply that because they take steroids that thats all they do and by god it must happen overnight.
People forget that Bodybuilders work as hard, if not harder than anyone in the gym. But who cares right? Its all unfunctional muscle anyway…
The Brits among us who know their BB will know who i mean when i say i find the pure muscularity AND perfect symmetry and balance of James Llewellin to be truly awe inspiring, better than Flex Lewis in my book.
Brook[/quote]
I met James LLewellin in person and I can say your words about him echo truth.
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
MiJuggernaut wrote:
Do natty’s today look like old schoolers? That answer and maybe some pic evidence would be helpful to this debate.
Yes I think so, look at Jeff Rodriguez at 10 weeks out for this year’s TU for example. He weighed about 195lbs at 10 weeks out.
[/quote]
But as with the original argument, training techniques, diet and of course drugs (yes, drugs ARE used in tested events) have all progressed dramatically over the past 40 years too… so it is any wonder that today’s tested are superior then in the past?
I am not saying a physique like Rodriguez isn’t possible naturally, i happen to know for a fact it is - just a general statement as per the post above.
While I personally feel the focus on how “ripped” these guys are needs to be toned down a little
Why?
I do think a little higher bodyfat does look a little better(if this is what you were implying), but conditioning is also a pretty large part of the competion and probably scoring process I would say.[/quote]
Because they look better, because it allows for better feeling of health (instead of feeling like shit while also smiling and squeezing every muscle in your body making your bp go up to about 180/120), and because the overuse of diuretics causes more physical damage and carries more health risk than the use of steroids.
If these top pros are under the care of a physician, how much “abuse” is going on? It’s like having discussions with one of those anti-drug posters in high school hallways.[/quote]
I for one, miss the good old days of football when the fastest player in the league ran a 4.7 sec 40 yard dash. The 4.2-.3 second 40 yard sprints these days are just awful, I much prefer the slower ones.
Now Serially, you guys like the old physiques because you feel like that’s something you have a chance of obtaining. You see the pro’s of today and are so in awe of their development that it discourages you, so you bitch about it.
[/quote]
Don’t be an idiot. Comparing apples to oranges.
Guys running 4.2s look great. Guys who weigh 300 look like shit. Even if they have 3 percent bodyfat.
Let me guess. Your dream is to be Mr. Olympia. Good luck.
I for one, miss the good old days of football when the fastest player in the league ran a 4.7 sec 40 yard dash. The 4.2-.3 second 40 yard sprints these days are just awful, I much prefer the slower ones.
Now Serially, you guys like the old physiques because you feel like that’s something you have a chance of obtaining. You see the pro’s of today and are so in awe of their development that it discourages you, so you bitch about it.
Don’t be an idiot. Comparing apples to oranges.
Guys running 4.2s look great. Guys who weigh 300 look like shit. Even if they have 3 percent bodyfat.
Let me guess. Your dream is to be Mr. Olympia. Good luck.
[/quote]
haha that makes absolutely no sense. You just basically called yourself an idiot because you made the same argument I just did but flipped it. Smart one aren’t you?
