The Evolution of Muscularity

Off Topic
61

[quote]Nards wrote:
ditillo2… Are you the blogger of The Tight Tan Slacks of Dezso Ban?

I love your blog!

It’s an absolute treasure[/quote]
Definitely agreed.

It’s a tremendous resource. Thanks for putting it together. I don’t mind saying I read it mostly for the pictures. :wink:

[quote]want2getlean wrote:
Yeah Toney looks good. Better than practically everyone he’s on stage with.
And here’s his compensation for it:

2006 IFBB Mr Olympia, 7th
2007 IFBB Mr Olympia, 14th
2008 IFBB Mr Olympia, 5th
2009 IFBB Mr Olympia, 8th
2010 IFBB Mr Olympia, 9th
2011 IFBB Mr Olympia, 7th[/quote]
I don’t want to be a dick or get too far off-topic, but here’s another snapshot of Freeman’s career:

2006 Europa, 1st
2007 Arnold Classic, 3rd (Dex Jackson, another aesthetic BBer was 2nd), Sacramento Pro, 1st, Ironman Pro, 1st
2008 Europa, 1st, Tampa Bay Pro, 1st, Grand Prix New Zealand, 3rd (streamlined Melvin Anthony and Dex Jackson were 1st and 2nd)
2009 Sacramento Pro, 1st, Arnold Classic, 4th
2010 Phoenix Pro, 3rd (Melvin Anthony 1st)
2011 Europa, 1st, Masters Pro World, 2nd (Dex Jackson 1st, crazy-small waisted Ed Nunn 4th)

62

[quote]SLAINGE wrote:

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
…but overall, none of the statues in the ancient Greeks and none of the bodybuilders today look exactly like what a “useful” male physique “should” look like during most of our existence.

In fact, if Arnold goes back in time to spend all that time, calorie, energy, maintaining a 5 percent bodyfat and perfectly symmetrical bodies in the Stone Age, he wouldn’t make it pass a week.

… they were…ideals to their particular culture.
[/quote]

…or subculture as in the case of modern bodybuilding

This is what the functionalists should understand about bodybuilding

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
When the 70’s bodybuilders achieved what most considered to be the ideal physique, where can the bodybuilders in the future go? Bigger, freakier, and more shocking.
[/quote]

And I’d hasten to add less appealing to the broader public and imo back underground.

Could you imagine the Whitney Museum staging something like this today? Maybe’ but it probably would have a different theme than the one portrayed below.

[/quote]

They probably won’t do it today without a little bit of a twist because bodybuilders aren’t “shocking” anymore as they were in the 70s. But that was an awesome video. Maybe they can pull out some female bodybuilders and have them have sex with 120 pound asian computer nerds in the Whitney.

63

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]SLAINGE wrote:
They did however have rugged, well-etched abs, thick strong midsections, thick strong muscular arms and thighs, naturally long full diamond-shaped calves, round delts, and a wide thickly muscled back.[/quote]
You forgot to mention that small penises and large scrotums used to be “ideal.” :wink:
[/quote]

I suspect tiny peckers were in fact ideal for what they used them for.

64

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I call bollox on the limbs being barbie-doll unrealistic. The head-ratio (1/8) is must certainly unrealisitc in most cases, but it can happen.
The dumb, plastic bimbo look, in contrast, is, ratio-wise, achievable only by the Na’vi.
[/quote]

I used the Barbie doll analogy because it’s a modern equivalent to chasing an impossible ideal:

I didn’t say the bronzes had proportions as extreme as a Barbie doll’s but they aren’t far off. The bronzes carry the illusion of being anatomically accurate but they aren’t. Certain aspects of the casts were deliberately understated (like the clear spinal groove suggesting deep, tense muscle, but with very little definition around) or completely missing (like the tailbone).

If you found a human with those proportions, they would be considered an oddity of nature, not the pinnacle of perfection.

65

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I don’t want to be a dick or get too far off-topic, but here’s another snapshot of Freeman’s career:[/quote]

You ARE being a pedantic dick. The fact that he has placed less than terribly in other competitions doesn’t change the fact that he has consistently placed like shit in the greatest event in bodybuilding.

66

[quote]want2getlean wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I don’t want to be a dick or get too far off-topic, but here’s another snapshot of Freeman’s career:[/quote]

You ARE being a pedantic dick. The fact that he has placed less than terribly in other competitions doesn’t change the fact that he has consistently placed like shit in the greatest event in bodybuilding.[/quote]
Ha, okay. I’m pretty sure I was just counter-pointing your examples to show that the guy isn’t some consistently-low placing flop. Finishing in the Top 8 four years out of six is placing like shit? I’ll disagree with that.

Anyhow, I was going to say, based on your pic of Heath and preference for that kind of bodybuilder, have you considered just following natural bodybuilding? That would seem to prioritize and “reward” the kinds of builds you’re talking about. The IFBB is absolutely on a different level, in more ways than one.

[quote]digitalairair wrote:
They probably won’t do it today without a little bit of a twist because bodybuilders aren’t “shocking” anymore as they were in the 70s.[/quote]
Interestingly, I think the biggest “shock” people would have about bodybuilders today is when they’re charismatic and personable, unlike what Planet Fitness makes them out to be.

Whether it’s Kai Greene trying to poetically fantasize about chocolate cake while he’s on a treadmill, or Phil Heath talking about being a former D1 basketball player, or Johnnie Jackson showing that his muscles aren’t all weak pillows of fluff, bodybuilding can probably swing slightly more mainstream if the right people are put in the spotlight.

But then, the question edges close to why bodybuilding would want to go more mainstream. It used to be an avenue to promote magazines, and supplements, and equipment. Does the IFBB really want to shoot for something like Nike sponsoring the 2042 Mr. Olympia?

And even if pro bodybuilding becomes as commonplace as MMA is today (which still isn’t all that accepted), I doubt a pro bodybuilder’s physique will ever become an ideal for the majority again, because it’ll still be so unrelatable to the average guy considering joining a gym.

67

?

http://www.thevinylidol.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/normal_analyzing-vintage-tnt-shani.jpg

This is not even remotely possible to achieve, the massive amount of surgery would be unprecedented, if not downright impossible to perform -
look at the proportions, the size of her feet and hands, her waist, the absurdly long and thin legs etc.

Certainly many guys DO look, physique wise, just like the greek statue you posted.
Arguing details (tailbone) is just irrelevant.
Superrealism wasn’t feasible, nobody wanted to glue horse hairs onto marble pubis.
Apart from very minor proportion adjustments (mostly head, but also hands, feet & ankles a bit) these aren’t fantastic creatures but very good looking humans.

68

1958×3415 241 KB

And to put the supposed ideal of small genital to rest

69

490×854 188 KB

Here I just elongated his noodle and refrained from attaching a porn star’s dick unto him.

The point IS still clear (maybe even moreso):

A big dick gets in the way of representing something the artist was about.

70

460×681 209 KB

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
?

http://www.thevinylidol.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/normal_analyzing-vintage-tnt-shani.jpg

This is not even remotely possible to achieve, the massive amount of surgery would be unprecedented, if not downright impossible to perform -
look at the proportions, the size of her feet and hands, her waist, the absurdly long and thin legs etc.

Certainly many guys DO look, physique wise, just like the greek statue you posted.
Arguing details (tailbone) is just irrelevant.
Superrealism wasn’t feasible, nobody wanted to glue horse hairs onto marble pubis.
Apart from very minor proportion adjustments (mostly head, but also hands, feet & ankles a bit) these aren’t fantastic creatures but very good looking humans.
[/quote]

I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue now. I said that trying to become a living doll is an impossible pursuit, just as becoming a living statue that abides by Polyclitus’s rules is equally futile… what I SAID was that it doesn’t stop women from trying achieve that impossible goal.

Similarly, guys that LOOK like the Riace bronzes don’t have the proportions of the statues. They can only emulate them, not reproduce them. Fact. A missing tailbone is not an “irrelevant detail” when it contributes to the look of the statue. It was a deliberate omission, not an oversight. “Superrealism” wasn’t at the forefront of the sculptor’s mind when some qualities are deliberately favored over others. The small penises, often the object of amusement, were deliberately shrunk down as large phalluses were associated with lust and unrestrained abandon (Satyrs were depicted with massive raging hard-ons)- a big no-no for the ultra-disciplined Greeks. But that too, is an “irrelevant detail”…

The Greeks had actually already achieved realism with the Kritian boy. The Riace bronzes mark the next step where they sought to express something more than real, and capture the aspirational side of human progress. Which of course is evident in the difference in style between the KB and the RBs. The reason the statues don’t become fantastic creatures is because the Ancient Greeks were very wary of trangressing beyond the boundaries set for them by the gods.

Often, the monstrous was paired with trangression. These statues embody what the Greeks saw as the best of man…but they were still recognisably men and didn’t overstep the divine mark.

71

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

A big dick gets in the way of representing something the artist was about.[/quote]

I see what you mean - the focus has shifted somewhat from the statues physique (and what it represents) to his micky. Maybe if more statues had bigger dicks this wouldnt be so apparent, idk? Anyway I’m too tired to think about the intricacies of an artists intentions at the moment becasue there are so many idea’s, political / social / personal at play when these fellas did what they did, but very interesting!

72

I always tried to find out who Dezso Ban is but if I google it keeps coming back to your blog…can you tell me who he is?

Some lifter guy from the wrong side of the world?
Here’s some stuff about him and his training:

Maybe the tiny dick has something to do with certain ancient Greeks love of pedophilia back then.
I really don’t want to study up on that too much.

73

[quote]SLAINGE wrote:

Don’t women play with balls anymore or are balls not what they used to be or are balls never how they are portrayed in the media mmm…? (scratches balls)

Fuckin artists messin with our balls…[/quote]

LOL!

Sexy bouncy large balls to compensate for the lack of stimuli from minuscule penises.

74

[quote]dirtman wrote:
And as for the sculptures …anyone ever figured that Greeks were “man/boy lovers” and maybe some of/or most of the artists were gay. Also the renaissance(Ancient Greek revival) artists, lots were gay and so they tend to exaggerated what attracted them. Same as most men that are straight amplify sexual features on women (hip to waste ratio …breast size). And everything was curved slightly to what was acceptable for that time period.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

75

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
And to put the supposed ideal of small genital to rest[/quote]

Nah… he was getting ready for some action… with his mace…

76

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Here I just elongated his noodle and refrained from attaching a porn star’s dick unto him.

The point IS still clear (maybe even moreso):

A big dick gets in the way of representing something the artist was about.[/quote]

But…

I was still staring at the minuscule penis before the change… the beautiful muscles definition didn’t matter at all…

77

I think the answer is pretty simple really.
Back in the day it was artists that set the norm for aesthetics and the artists actually used mathematical proportions to determine the perfect form.
That is exactly what Eugene re-discovered by measuring the statues he admired and trained to look like them.
In later years stupidity caught up with people and in the place of mathematical proportions we put “the bigger the better” mentality. Inevitably pecs dominated just because of their ability to grow, their location and their size potential.

78

That guy doesn’t need a large pen0r as he had the world’s largest dildo -.studded for her pleasure.

Anyway, I assume the focus on the chest came into vogue around Arnold’s time

(Yes, I realise this is an ancient thread but I can’t let an opportunity to post about dildos go by)

79

Interesting considering everyone I know who Prefers gender roles live in in an urban or suburban area, are not hicks, not “ignorant” (that good old liberal gem of a word), and are educated (whatever this other gem of a word means, as if someone has to go to a Marxist adult sleep away camp to have common sense or formulate ideas or culture), some with advanced degrees (this goes for me). Come to think of it, all of them are civic minded people earning honest livings.

80

Actually my brother who makes a very fine upper middle class income for his age purposely avoided dating careerist women in order to get the woman he has, a waitress who works part time.

By the way, how does education on ones trade or profession have anything to do with preferred roles in a marriage and child raising?