I’d have to say B.
no dout goldberg is a beast and amazingly stron but he doesnt look like a massive beast in my opion. and i beluieve he is 6’6 and 280 now. but look at stineir at 6’0 and 290 he is massive. and i think both are two of the most physically functional athleats in wreastling. but remember when chriss beniot was around 270-290? and he is only 5’6. hell last i saw him he was still 230 plus. thats massive for such a small guy with low body fat
I wouldn’t say that Scott Steiner was very functional, in his late career at least. And what about Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Shelton Benjamin, and The Rock? You can’t fail to make an argument for the functional strength and athleticism of the former two at least, and Shelton as Brock’s college teammate with an additional background in track and field. Rock is no joke either, having been a national championship football athlete and spending his days now at 7% bodyfat. (Remember the training footage for the Rock vs. Brock championship match in 2002?) For their heights, I would say their physiques are C, D, C, and B (The Rock’s movie career has ‘mainstreamed’ his physique somewhat).
P.S. Nowadays, the best physique of any wrestler belongs to Batista, but he’s gotta be 'roided 9 ways to Sunday. Not 6, 7 or even 8, but 9.
C AND D like the Rock before he started making movies… but since im only 5’8" Chris Benoit would be good
B
I am a bike racer, and power to weight is quite important. I can’t be very competitive if I go over 200lbs.
right now I am 6’2" 177lbs, haven’t gained any weight since i started lifting in the fall, but i think thats because I am losing fat. I look a little better, a few more months and it will be really noticable i think.
right now, a very high % of my food intake is protien. i don’t eat a ton of calories, i just try to get in at least 200 grams of protien a day.
i don’t understand the idea of eating tons of food to bulk up. protien is what builds muscles, but if you eat more calories than you burn, you are going put to fat on too. why not just eat massive amounts of protien foods/supplements?
I would have to go with 70% F and 30% E. I like being/going for strong as hell but being a freak of nature definatley sounds good (especially at 5’ 7").
Kilosprinter- I just like to chew a whole lot. Shakes aren’t very chewwy. If you chew a whole lot you can get nice big head muscles like a pitbull!
A for me…its all about bein lean and lookin good naked and functionally athletic. Speed/quickness and bein healthy.
Knee jerk reaction is to choose D.
I would, however be satisfied with C, which is more in line with my current goals.
The “F” lifestyle is fun and all and I definitely attack the gym in that fashion to this day. But now that I’ve turned 30 and realized I can’t be a punk-ass brhama bull forever, things like picking fights, drooling on myself, chewing with my mouth open, using furniture as a napkin, and having farts that reek like a chimney from a crematorium are no longer appealing.
I still find myself using furniture as a napkin though, old habits die hard indeed.
Keep on Truckin’
B.
[quote]Knuckles14 wrote:
Just for sake of argument, I really object to the characterization of Olympic lifters as big and strong without being lean. While many of the heavier lifters do fit that description, Oly lifters like Dimas, Kolecki, Huster to name a few all are extremely strong but all possess physiques that any athlete would be happy to have. Check out the June 2002 cover of MILO, for a guy thats not a “body builder” Dimas has some incredible definition, in addition to strength. Sorry to rant but all too frequently the public at large and lifters that should know better seem to equate all Olympic lifters as big fat tubs o’ crap that lack definition. Maybe that helps to explain some of the lack of interest in the olympic lifts.[/quote]
I’ll second this remark, too. Check out Naim Suleymanoglu in his prime, too; when he’s pulling a max clean you can see that he has ridiculously good muscle definition and low bodyfat.
To answer the question: Not Naim Suleymanoglu (because I’m 6’ tall, not 4’11"). I’m not really sure where I fall in among these types; I’d like to be 190, heavy enough to lift some weight but light enough to run. Goals are more important than looks: Double bodyweight squat, sub-five mile, iron cross.
I have to go with D even though I am no where close to it at this point.
Wherever the dudes on the cover of Mens Health fit in there.
Option E. and DeterminedNate’s Option F.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right.
B.C., only not your “b” or “c”…
Brad Cardoza.
That guy is a friggin’ machine!
Matt
B
decent mass, no catastrophic heart failure due to weighing 300 + pounds. Also no cooking 24/7.