Who Likes the Old School Bodybuilders?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that. Old school guys used all kinds of routines and there are plenty of new natural trainees. I’m just interested in people’s opinions on which bodybuilders they like the best and possibly if you’ve ever tried their specific routines.

I know that I for one like older guys like Steve Reeves, Vince Gironda, Larry Scott, and of course the one who only goes by one name, Arnold. But Arnold probably reached about as big as you could get and still look good (his competition weight was around 240).

I see these guys on current bodybuilding magazines look like they are over swollen, bloated, and about to explode at any minute. Who really likes this look? Where are the aesthetics and athletic build?

2

I love the look of Coleman, Flex, Levrone, Evan Centopani and a ton of new guys. That’s the look I’m aiming for. I think Arnold and Sergio and Franco all looked fantastic as well but I want the freak factor too.

And when I say new, I mean recent 90’s plus bodybuilders cause obviously Flex and Levrone are no longer in the pro bodybuilding scene.

3

I love the old school guys, just because it’s interesting to see how they experimented. They didn’t have access to all of the info we have, and in many ways that was a blessing.

Some advocate tons of meat, others minimal meat.

Gironda was all about splits and lower carbs, and Reeves was full body (w/ extremely high volume) and was at 60% carbs.

Both looked fantastic.

Other than hard work, the only commonality I’ve been able to find is that these were very genetically blessed individuals.

Some Gironda quotes:

“Rather than take steroids I advise bodybuilders in normal robust health to take up to three dozen eggs daily, to push their muscles to a new plateau.”

“Increase fats while decreasing overall calorie intake. (Fats aid protein assimilation and can step up metabolic rate).”

“Science plays it safe; science is not an experimentor. The real scientist is the guy who is trying to discover something that was there all the time (nature), and takes the first step (unscientific) and discovers natureâ??s secrets. Actually, there is nothing new at all. The facts were always there. I do not subscribe to manâ??s laws (science). My information comes from a different source.”

“I will put my reputation on the line to prove that steroids are not any better or as good as four dozen fertile eggs, 100 liver tabs, and 100 amino acid tablets per day.”

“You must stop combining carbohydrates and protein at the same meal.”

The last one is particularly interesting, and I’ve read it elsewhere. The theory is that you don’t find “protein/carbs” meal items in nature, therefore it is unnatural, therefore not optimum.

That certainly challenges widely held dogma about P+C (esp. peri-workout).

Not saying this is all true info or anything, by the way…just passing it along.

4

I, personally do like the look of the older bodybuilders, more than the ones of present day. The aesthetics were way more pleasing IMHO. The thing is though, you can not take away all of the hard work and dedication that all professional bodybuilders have, old school and new school. In the day of the old school bodybuilders, they were considered the “freaks”, and now times have progressed to what you see now. It is the same thing, just a different time period.

5

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that. Old school guys used all kinds of routines and there are plenty of new natural trainees. I’m just interested in people’s opinions on which bodybuilders they like the best and possibly if you’ve ever tried their specific routines.

I know that I for one like older guys like Steve Reeves, Vince Gironda, Larry Scott, and of course the one who only goes by one name, Arnold. But Arnold probably reached about as big as you could get and still look good (his competition weight was around 240).

I see these guys on current bodybuilding magazines look like they are over swollen, bloated, and about to explode at any minute. Who really likes this look? Where are the aesthetics and athletic build?[/quote]

Please name even 3 current pro bodybuilders who are WINNING CONTESTS today.

Most of you who think like this don’t even follow current bodybuilding and have views that might have fit if this were 1998…but it isn’t 1998 and Brandon Curry, Evan Centopini(sp?), Dexter Jackson, Toney Freeman, and Phil Heath do not have the look you just described.

6

God you’re annoying. This belongs in GAL. Has ZERO to do with training. Just more hate on freaky amounts of muscle.

7

Listen, worthless putain quebecois who’s polluted the forum:

training with Sergio’s routine will not make you look like Sergio. To look like sergio, you need the structure and muscle shape of Sergio…and sergio would look like Sergio even if he’d taken it farther to the extent of Coleman and company, JUST bigger.

The current generation of pro bbers tell you HOW to pick movements that add size, n’import ou/combien…and how to scale up intensity as you add more and more size. YOU decide hwhere and how much you add said size.

Doing what Ronnie did will not make you look like Ronnie or Arnold. YOU do not have the genetics to look like ANYONE not Frank Zane, heck you won’t even look likle Brad Pitt in fight club no matter what you fucking do. Your genetics and frame suck donkey dick…

Finally, arguing about who looked better is irrelevant on the BB forum because all you can do is add size and lose body fat, and your genetics, frame and muscle shape determine what you’ll look like.

And you will look like crap no matter what you do because you have no clue what this is all about.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that. Old school guys used all kinds of routines and there are plenty of new natural trainees. I’m just interested in people’s opinions on which bodybuilders they like the best and possibly if you’ve ever tried their specific routines.

I know that I for one like older guys like Steve Reeves, Vince Gironda, Larry Scott, and of course the one who only goes by one name, Arnold. But Arnold probably reached about as big as you could get and still look good (his competition weight was around 240).

I see these guys on current bodybuilding magazines look like they are over swollen, bloated, and about to explode at any minute. Who really likes this look? Where are the aesthetics and athletic build?[/quote]

8

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that. Old school guys used all kinds of routines and there are plenty of new natural trainees. I’m just interested in people’s opinions on which bodybuilders they like the best and possibly if you’ve ever tried their specific routines.

I know that I for one like older guys like Steve Reeves, Vince Gironda, Larry Scott, and of course the one who only goes by one name, Arnold. But Arnold probably reached about as big as you could get and still look good (his competition weight was around 240).

I see these guys on current bodybuilding magazines look like they are over swollen, bloated, and about to explode at any minute. Who really likes this look? Where are the aesthetics and athletic build?[/quote]

Please name even 3 current pro bodybuilders who are WINNING CONTESTS today.

Most of you who think like this don’t even follow current bodybuilding and have views that might have fit if this were 1998…but it isn’t 1998 and Brandon Curry, Evan Centopini(sp?), Dexter Jackson, Toney Freeman, and Phil Heath do not have the look you just described.[/quote]

Hey thats not fair X, dont you know there are ONLY 2 body types in body building, Frank Zane and Markus Ruhl? Thats it man, you have to pick one of them and stick with it.

The “Athletic Build” is… In athletics. Athletes look athletic. Body builders look like body builders. You think Arnold looked like a soccer player? Granted the guys today are bigger, but you are using a few sour grapes (guys with HUGE guts, bloated looking…) to judge the entire field of competitors out there.

Go check out the Favorite Body Building Picture thread and you can see a whole thread full of guys, both old and new, who look absolutely incredible. You’ll find very few huge guts in that thread.

9

This again?

10

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that. Old school guys used all kinds of routines and there are plenty of new natural trainees. I’m just interested in people’s opinions on which bodybuilders they like the best and possibly if you’ve ever tried their specific routines.

I know that I for one like older guys like Steve Reeves, Vince Gironda, Larry Scott, and of course the one who only goes by one name, Arnold. But Arnold probably reached about as big as you could get and still look good (his competition weight was around 240).

I see these guys on current bodybuilding magazines look like they are over swollen, bloated, and about to explode at any minute. Who really likes this look? Where are the aesthetics and athletic build?[/quote]

Please name even 3 current pro bodybuilders who are WINNING CONTESTS today.

Most of you who think like this don’t even follow current bodybuilding and have views that might have fit if this were 1998…but it isn’t 1998 and Brandon Curry, Evan Centopini(sp?), Dexter Jackson, Toney Freeman, and Phil Heath do not have the look you just described.[/quote]

Hey thats not fair X, dont you know there are ONLY 2 body types in body building, Frank Zane and Markus Ruhl? Thats it man, you have to pick one of them and stick with it.

The “Athletic Build” is… In athletics. Athletes look athletic. Body builders look like body builders. You think Arnold looked like a soccer player? Granted the guys today are bigger, but you are using a few sour grapes (guys with HUGE guts, bloated looking…) to judge the entire field of competitors out there.

Go check out the Favorite Body Building Picture thread and you can see a whole thread full of guys, both old and new, who look absolutely incredible. You’ll find very few huge guts in that thread.[/quote]

It’s just funny that the guys who NO ONE would think even lifted weights regularly if seen on the street are the first to go on and on about great bodybuilders from the 60’s…when the truth is, none of these guys have the genetics to even come anywhere near even THOSE guys.

Sergio Oliva was a FREAK in his day. You can bet the same types of people back then were claiming he was “too big” and that bodybuilders from the 40’s were the best.

The types of people who would ignore guys like Curry, Heath, Freeman, Jackson, Centopani and many others only to rant about guys who DON’T EVEN FUCKING COMPETE TODAY must either have some serious inferiority complexes…or they really are mentally deficient.

11

467×700 58.5 KB

Just for fun, would the OP please give the rest of us a list of all that is wrong with this bodybuilder’s physique.

You know, tell us about where the bloat is…and all of the other things you find wrong with bodybuilding today compared to the 60’s…since you no doubt follow it closely.

12

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that. Old school guys used all kinds of routines and there are plenty of new natural trainees. I’m just interested in people’s opinions on which bodybuilders they like the best and possibly if you’ve ever tried their specific routines.

I know that I for one like older guys like Steve Reeves, Vince Gironda, Larry Scott, and of course the one who only goes by one name, Arnold. But Arnold probably reached about as big as you could get and still look good (his competition weight was around 240).

I see these guys on current bodybuilding magazines look like they are over swollen, bloated, and about to explode at any minute. Who really likes this look? Where are the aesthetics and athletic build?[/quote]

Please name even 3 current pro bodybuilders who are WINNING CONTESTS today.

Most of you who think like this don’t even follow current bodybuilding and have views that might have fit if this were 1998…but it isn’t 1998 and Brandon Curry, Evan Centopini(sp?), Dexter Jackson, Toney Freeman, and Phil Heath do not have the look you just described.[/quote]

Hey thats not fair X, dont you know there are ONLY 2 body types in body building, Frank Zane and Markus Ruhl? Thats it man, you have to pick one of them and stick with it.

The “Athletic Build” is… In athletics. Athletes look athletic. Body builders look like body builders. You think Arnold looked like a soccer player? Granted the guys today are bigger, but you are using a few sour grapes (guys with HUGE guts, bloated looking…) to judge the entire field of competitors out there.

Go check out the Favorite Body Building Picture thread and you can see a whole thread full of guys, both old and new, who look absolutely incredible. You’ll find very few huge guts in that thread.[/quote]

It’s just funny that the guys who NO ONE would think even lifted weights regularly if seen on the street are the first to go on and on about great bodybuilders from the 60’s…when the truth is, none of these guys have the genetics to even come anywhere near even THOSE guys.

Sergio Oliva was a FREAK in his day. You can bet the same types of people back then were claiming he was “too big” and that bodybuilders from the 40’s were the best.

The types of people who would ignore guys like Curry, Heath, Freeman, Jackson, Centopani and many others only to rant about guys who DON’T EVEN FUCKING COMPETE TODAY must either have some serious inferiority complexes…or they really are mentally deficient.[/quote]

Calm down X calm down. Wouldn’t want to be getting my teeth pulled today. Hahah.

13

I think branch warren looks hardcore.

14

To all who want to come in here with the negatives, I’m not answering your questions. If you don’t like it, don’t read and post here. If you like the modern look, voice your opinion.

15

I prefer the older guys shape too, not so much Gironda or Steve Reeves, Reeves was not cut enough and Gironda had too little in the way of muscle for my taste. Zane was also a bit too lean and whilst I liked his taper I didnt like certain areas such as his chest at all, similar story with Dave Draper, nice guy and all but just never liked his look. Sergio Oliva, Serge Nubret, Robby Robison, Arnold and Don Howorth those are my fav 5 from that era.

Some modern bb like wolf, freeman, dex, I like there overall shape

…oh and Haney too

16

[quote]trextacy wrote:
I love the old school guys, just because it’s interesting to see how they experimented. They didn’t have access to all of the info we have, and in many ways that was a blessing.

Some advocate tons of meat, others minimal meat.

Gironda was all about splits and lower carbs, and Reeves was full body (w/ extremely high volume) and was at 60% carbs.

Both looked fantastic.

Other than hard work, the only commonality I’ve been able to find is that these were very genetically blessed individuals.

Some Gironda quotes:

“Rather than take steroids I advise bodybuilders in normal robust health to take up to three dozen eggs daily, to push their muscles to a new plateau.”

“Increase fats while decreasing overall calorie intake. (Fats aid protein assimilation and can step up metabolic rate).”

“Science plays it safe; science is not an experimentor. The real scientist is the guy who is trying to discover something that was there all the time (nature), and takes the first step (unscientific) and discovers natureâ??s secrets. Actually, there is nothing new at all. The facts were always there. I do not subscribe to manâ??s laws (science). My information comes from a different source.”

“I will put my reputation on the line to prove that steroids are not any better or as good as four dozen fertile eggs, 100 liver tabs, and 100 amino acid tablets per day.”

“You must stop combining carbohydrates and protein at the same meal.”

The last one is particularly interesting, and I’ve read it elsewhere. The theory is that you don’t find “protein/carbs” meal items in nature, therefore it is unnatural, therefore not optimum.

That certainly challenges widely held dogma about P+C (esp. peri-workout).

Not saying this is all true info or anything, by the way…just passing it along.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s interesting how both guys had such a different take on training, but both got incredible results. Vince liked short, intense workouts while Steve like long (sometimes 3+ hour) workouts. I think I would have to give the nod to Vince since he sort of revolutionized working out purely for aesthetics (splits, new muscle specific movements, low carb dieting). Plus Vince looked better and trained a bunch of guys.

17

Let me qualify that I’m not hating all modern bodybuilders. Darem Charles has a pretty good physique. It’s bigger than normal, but that’s kind of the point. He carries the extra mass well. I personally don’t care for guys like Jay Cutler, Branch Warren, and many of the rest, but that’s just my personal opinion. Afterall, that’s why we are here, personal opinion.

18

[quote]NIguy wrote:
I prefer the older guys shape too, not so much Gironda or Steve Reeves, Reeves was not cut enough and Gironda had too little in the way of muscle for my taste. Zane was also a bit too lean and whilst I liked his taper I didnt like certain areas such as his chest at all, similar story with Dave Draper, nice guy and all but just never liked his look. Sergio Oliva, Serge Nubret, Robby Robison, Arnold and Don Howorth those are my fav 5 from that era.

Some modern bb like wolf, freeman, dex, I like there overall shape too[/quote]

Admiring the older generations is great. Every now and then threads pop up for specific guys where everyone throws the pics up that they have saved. Those threads are great.

The problem is that some people see the need to bash certain bodybuilders simply because they like someone else better. The negativity is completely unnecessary and reeks of jealously. It brings this whole place down as a whole. What’s the thought process behind presenting an unsolicited negative opinion other than to express jealousy or start an unproductive argument?

19

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]NIguy wrote:
I prefer the older guys shape too, not so much Gironda or Steve Reeves, Reeves was not cut enough and Gironda had too little in the way of muscle for my taste. Zane was also a bit too lean and whilst I liked his taper I didnt like certain areas such as his chest at all, similar story with Dave Draper, nice guy and all but just never liked his look. Sergio Oliva, Serge Nubret, Robby Robison, Arnold and Don Howorth those are my fav 5 from that era.

Some modern bb like wolf, freeman, dex, I like there overall shape too[/quote]

Admiring the older generations is great. Every now and then threads pop up for specific guys where everyone throws the pics up that they have saved. Those threads are great.

The problem is that some people see the need to bash certain bodybuilders simply because they like someone else better. The negativity is completely unnecessary and reeks of jealously. It brings this whole place down as a whole. What’s the thought process behind presenting an unsolicited negative opinion other than to express jealousy or start an unproductive argument?

[/quote]

Exactly. The OP wrote:

Why the hell would someone really into bodybuilding enough to have goals of a bodybuilder degrade every new competitor like this?

Guys who do shit like this are at NO RISK AT ALL of ever looking like Reeves or anyone else. They will lose the next 20 years bitching about how everyone who has big muscles is on steroids and how “bloated” every current pro is.

The truth is, these same types would be doing the same shit if this were 1962. They would just be aiming this crap at different people.

This is NOT a thread to simply give credit to past bodybuilders. It was a weak ass attempt to degrade what many of us have as goals.

20

I personally like the 80’s bodybuilders a smidge better if only because I find it easier to differentiate who and who based upon their body (arnold’s biceps, Nubret’s chest, etc…). I can still spot different bbers nowadays, but… yeah, not as easy.

Offtopic, but does anyone know what’s up with the lack of Haney talk? I seldom hear anyone talk about him, it’s always arnold, zane, etc etc etc… skip over 8 time olympia haney and go to talk about Yates.