19
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Complete monster. But he’s no uncrowned king with those high lats of his. [/quote]
Dexter and Sergio Oliva did alright though.
I don’t understand what you mean by high lats here, are you referring to high lat insertions? or just high looking lats from the front?.. I can’t seem to find any pictures of his back[/quote]
Dexter was a fluke because no one else showed up in good enough shape to justify a title. But anyway…
You don’t need to see a picture of someone from the back to see high lat insertions. My guess is that there aren’t many pics of his back because it doesn’t stand up to his front, which happens to be phenomenal. His back is big, no doubt, but it isnt balanced compared to his front.
/hijack Back to pics and vids[/quote]
Damn…talk about nitpicking.
Uh, yeah, what a HORRIBLE back! Definitely poor enough to disqualify someone from the Olympia.
[/quote]
Lol I’ll actually take back my statement about his back being big. It’s not. His front and legs dwarf his back. That’s the only point I was making. Who said anything about being disqualified from the O? It’s pretty obvious that if he got on the big stage with the top guys of that time his back would have been completely overshadowed.
richar
ds is one huge sob. he should have competed. i remember him in the 80’s and the mags at the time wondering if he ever would. By the way what is he doing now? he still looks good.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Complete monster. But he’s no uncrowned king with those high lats of his. [/quote]
Dexter and Sergio Oliva did alright though.
I don’t understand what you mean by high lats here, are you referring to high lat insertions? or just high looking lats from the front?.. I can’t seem to find any pictures of his back[/quote]
Dexter was a fluke because no one else showed up in good enough shape to justify a title. But anyway…
You don’t need to see a picture of someone from the back to see high lat insertions. My guess is that there aren’t many pics of his back because it doesn’t stand up to his front, which happens to be phenomenal. His back is big, no doubt, but it isnt balanced compared to his front.
/hijack Back to pics and vids[/quote]
Damn…talk about nitpicking.
Uh, yeah, what a HORRIBLE back! Definitely poor enough to disqualify someone from the Olympia.
[/quote]
Lol I’ll actually take back my statement about his back being big. It’s not. His front and legs dwarf his back. That’s the only point I was making. Who said anything about being disqualified from the O? It’s pretty obvious that if he got on the big stage with the top guys of that time his back would have been completely overshadowed. [/quote]
I don’t see how you could possibly say this, overshadowed by who exactly?
Anyway, you cannot always determine lat insertions from the front. To be sure you must view it from behind. High lat insertions is not the same as having most of your mass high on your lats.
Arnold - low lat insertions
Dexter - high lat insertions
Conversely many people say Dennis James has high lat insertions when he doesn’t, he just has most of his mass high on his lats, his insertions are actually pretty low.
High lats in that most of the mass is high on his lats…
http://www.australianmuscle.com.au/muscle_news/Muscle%20News_files/6wks-276.jpg
but low insertions;
Pretty good interview
.
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Complete monster. But he’s no uncrowned king with those high lats of his. [/quote]
Dexter and Sergio Oliva did alright though.
I don’t understand what you mean by high lats here, are you referring to high lat insertions? or just high looking lats from the front?.. I can’t seem to find any pictures of his back[/quote]
Dexter was a fluke because no one else showed up in good enough shape to justify a title. But anyway…
You don’t need to see a picture of someone from the back to see high lat insertions. My guess is that there aren’t many pics of his back because it doesn’t stand up to his front, which happens to be phenomenal. His back is big, no doubt, but it isnt balanced compared to his front.
/hijack Back to pics and vids[/quote]
Damn…talk about nitpicking.
Uh, yeah, what a HORRIBLE back! Definitely poor enough to disqualify someone from the Olympia.
[/quote]
Lol I’ll actually take back my statement about his back being big. It’s not. His front and legs dwarf his back. That’s the only point I was making. Who said anything about being disqualified from the O? It’s pretty obvious that if he got on the big stage with the top guys of that time his back would have been completely overshadowed. [/quote]
I don’t see how you could possibly say this, overshadowed by who exactly?
Anyway, you cannot always determine lat insertions from the front. To be sure you must view it from behind. High lat insertions is not the same as having most of your mass high on your lats.
Arnold - low lat insertions
Dexter - high lat insertions
Conversely many people say Dennis James has high lat insertions when he doesn’t, he just has most of his mass high on his lats, his insertions are actually pretty low.
High lats in that most of the mass is high on his lats…
http://www.australianmuscle.com.au/muscle_news/Muscle%20News_files/6wks-276.jpg
but low insertions;
http://www.born2bbig.com/viewpic.php?im=images/profilepics/1152077332.jpg[/quote]
Bodybuilders aren’t judged on where their muscles insert. They are judged on what they look like. All I said is that his lats are high, short, shallow whatever you want to call it. The only point I was trying to make is that someone who isn’t particularly proportional is not a KING of bodybuilding. He is what he is, a fucking giant beast. A giant beast that doesnt have a world class back, it’s really not a big deal.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Bodybuilders aren’t judged on where their muscles insert. They are judged on what they look like. All I said is that his lats are high, short, shallow whatever you want to call it.
[/quote]
Fair enough, you seemed to be initially suggesting otherwise.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The only point I was trying to make is that someone who isn’t particularly proportional is not a KING of bodybuilding. He is what he is, a fucking giant beast. A giant beast that doesnt have a world class back, it’s really not a big deal.
[/quote]
I actually think that from the front/side at least, his back looks quite decent. I can hardly believe that someone who competed at around ~300lbs didnt have good back development. I don’t think it matters if proportionally it is smaller than the rest of him at 5ft 10 and 300lbs it’s still going to look well whoever the heck he stands beside.
…But he didnt compete much by the sound of it so we will never know.
I think he is awesome though
Pretty good interview[/quote]
When he says he got a contract from Weider what does that mean? What kind of contract was it?
I like his attitude in the interview, but I dont like his physique. He look like he’s bloated even when he’s lean. I would rather have Arnuld’s physique
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I like his attitude in the interview, but I dont like his physique. He look like he’s bloated even when he’s lean. I would rather have Arnuld’s physique[/quote]
wtf?
he’s like a jacked sergio, i didnt know that was possible
Answer my question dammit
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I like his attitude in the interview, but I dont like his physique. He look like he’s bloated even when he’s lean. I would rather have Arnuld’s physique[/quote]
wtf?[/quote]
x2
Why wouldnt you wanna look like that. Isnt that what we all want… Ah fuck… i just realised it was jamsincar. Nevermind.
goddamn, he is fucking JACKED in that vid 2:01 - 2:06
Just a freak. I remember seeing his name in a few mags way back before the internet, and always wondered who this giant guy was who for whatever reason just seemed uninterested in competing with the top dogs of the time.
S