Thigh Size Standards

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I have a hard time believing Arnold’s legs were 24 inches…Is that really true?

Doubtful. I personally wouldn’t believe any measurements of any of these guys for the most part, at least until recently, but his legs weren’t that small. There are guys who don’t lift weights with quads that size.

Arnold wasn’t known for small quads when he was competing. His legs were about as developed as everyone else’s. Huge gigantic quads were not wanted back then. Before the likes of Tom Platz, no one had even seen too many guys with legs that developed.
[/quote]

Exactly. The game of bodybuilding has certainly changed. Still, I can’t quite believe that my own legs substantially outclass Arnold’s in his prime. That number can’t be right.

22

24" seems like a haterade measurement. Here are some I found on a google search for “arnold measurements”:

*  Arms: 22 inches
* Chest: 57 inches
* Waist: 34 inches
* Thighs: 28.5 inches
* Calves: 20 inches
* Weight: 235 pounds
* Height: 6 feet 2 inches

I’d say for average height, 30" is bordering on massive, while between 24" and 30" can look decent too.

23

chad aichs says his thighs are 36 inches, and he aint lean. He also has a 1100+ squat i believe.

24

349×522 31.4 KB

[quote]rander wrote:
chad aichs says his thighs are 36 inches, and he aint lean. He also has a 1100+ squat i believe.[/quote]

not lean by any stretch, but huge none the less.

25

[quote]Kalle wrote:
rander wrote:
chad aichs says his thighs are 36 inches, and he aint lean. He also has a 1100+ squat i believe.

not lean by any stretch, but huge none the less. [/quote]

They should put a normal sized person next to him in the picure so it’s easier to get some perspective.

Arnolds thighs were 29" I believe, 36" things just doesn’t sound right, Arnold had a 34" waist for crying out loud!

26

[quote]Ackrite wrote:
24" seems like a haterade measurement. Here are some I found on a google search for “arnold measurements”:

*  Arms: 22 inches
* Chest: 57 inches
* Waist: 34 inches
* Thighs: 28.5 inches
* Calves: 20 inches
* Weight: 235 pounds
* Height: 6 feet 2 inches

I’d say for average height, 30" is bordering on massive, while between 24" and 30" can look decent too. [/quote]

Sounds MUCH more reasonable. 28.5 inches is still a bit small for someone with 22 inch arms. But much more believable for Arnold. As far as the original question, much depends on the height of the person. But unless you’re quite short, I think anything less than 26 inches is not really impressive.

27

[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
The “shoe” joke is a little outdated. It’s not even remotely funny. You didn’t get the memo?[/quote]

The shoe joke is funny. You are outdated.

28

There is a big difference between a 24 inch “off season” /regular leg and a 24 inch “he’s so lean you can see individual muscle fibers” leg. I don’t really care what the measurements are, it’s all about how it looks when it comes to bodybuilding.

He’s huge haha
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=59510&tid=

29

I’m almost a 24 on both legs and at my peak leg lifting/running track days I had 28’s… I don’t think I looked ‘big’ being 5’9 with those, but I think my legs look a little skinny with 24’s. The biggest difference was definition on my 28’s vs now. I had big tear drops, and lots of definition showing the split on the front and my calves were defined as all heck get out. Now I have a ‘little’ drop but nothing defined. Add into the fact that back then I was 8-10% body fat and now i’m 15-16% and theres another reason my legs don’t look as nice.

30

I seriously doubt most bodybuilder’s measurement claims, ESP the waist measurement.
Whomever said that anyone 5’9"-ish can build 30" thighs: Really? No offense intended, but how many guys do you see in the gyms with anything bigger than 24"? How many even do legs?!
I personally have thighs that grow just talking about legs. Wish my scrawny upper body would catch up some day. Upper arms, calves and neck are all within 0.5" of each other, if that means anything.

31

[quote]Radjxf wrote:
No offense intended, but how many guys do you see in the gyms with anything bigger than 24"? How many even do legs?!
[/quote]

Quite a few. In fact, if your gym has no one in it who looks like they could compete within a few months of dieting, your gym sucks ass.

32

let’s not forget that arnold’s claim of having 22" arms is fake, he had 20 at most, there’s an article around here somewhere about a dude that mesured most of the guys of arnold’s eara and only sergio got to 20" (probably because of monstrous triceps).

33

Anything over 28" legs is pretty impresive, if your in ok shap and not taller than 6 feet

34

[quote]Radjxf wrote:

Whomever said that anyone 5’9"-ish can build 30" thighs: Really? No offense intended, but how many guys do you see in the gyms with anything bigger than 24"? How many even do legs?!

[/quote]

Even in a lame ass college rec center there are always 3-4 guys who are very well built and could compete(and not be embarassed) within 3-5 months on the local-state level for some. The guy I was training next to(we both were doing back) told me he can’t wear anything but sweatpants anymore because he can’t afford to have all his pants tailored for his thighs, I think he’s a little over 24 inches there. I haven’t asked him to tape up for me, but I’d say he’s in the 28-32 inch range on about 5’10. The fact that he buries 500-550 lb squats for reps is a good indication he didn’t get them by accident as well.

35

[quote]Agon wrote:
let’s not forget that arnold’s claim of having 22" arms is fake, he had 20 at most, there’s an article around here somewhere about a dude that mesured most of the guys of arnold’s eara and only sergio got to 20" (probably because of monstrous triceps).

[/quote]

That was Arthur Jones. Cold and on the first flex which is how I always thought arms were to be measured, it seems to bruise a lot of egos that way haha.

And are you sure it was Sergio’s triceps? haha He had footballs for triceps, no significant biceps peak because they attached about halfway down his forearm it seemed.

36

24" legs are not big unless they are on a smaller bodybuilder at contest time…

One of my weird kind of goals is to have my legs by as big as I am tall. at 5’6 I would need 33" thighs.

When I decide to move up to the 231’s I think this could happen…

37

Tom Platz had 36" thighs from what I’ve found. Ronnie Coleman has 34" thighs.

Chicken legs to me would be below 30" inches.

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Radjxf wrote:
No offense intended, but how many guys do you see in the gyms with anything bigger than 24"? How many even do legs?!

Quite a few. In fact, if your gym has no one in it who looks like they could compete within a few months of dieting, your gym sucks ass. [/quote]

My gym sucks ass.

39

hmm so when most ppl talk about thigh measurements they are actually talking about the thickest part … not midway up the thigh?

40

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Radjxf wrote:
No offense intended, but how many guys do you see in the gyms with anything bigger than 24"? How many even do legs?!

Quite a few. In fact, if your gym has no one in it who looks like they could compete within a few months of dieting, your gym sucks ass. [/quote]

You hit the nail on the head, my gym(s) suck ass! My little 27.5" thighs are amongst the biggest there. Well, there is this one lady…