I want to look like the guys from Pumping Iron. I dont see the point of being freakier, but if you wanna die young…
I think Thib has a great body ( in a very heterosexual way ).
what do you guys think of Thibs muscular development?
as you can see I am from norway, do you guys now about tommy thorvildsen. think he have competed in the us.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I think Thib has a great body ( in a very heterosexual way ).
what do you guys think of Thibs muscular development?[/quote]
Seriously with this question?? lol
Is it not a bit strange to be critique someone who doesnt present himself for such criticism? Unless you pull up a picture of CT on stage for evaluation this is just weird.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I think Thib has a great body ( in a very heterosexual way ).
what do you guys think of Thibs muscular development?[/quote]
Seriously with this question?? lol
Is it not a bit strange to be critique someone who doesnt present himself for such criticism? Unless you pull up a picture of CT on stage for evaluation this is just weird.
[/quote]
it was weird I admit that, its because I am not a great english speller. I ment more like is his development what you guys aim for?
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I want to look like the guys from Pumping Iron. I dont see the point of being freakier, but if you wanna die young…[/quote]
Hoping that my sarcasm detector is broken and that you weren’t serious with that second statement. But at this point, I wouldn’t be shocked it was serious.
X is dead on…Toney Freeman is 6’2’’ 330lbs in the off season. I’ve seen him at Lifetime in Duluth (Ga) from time to time…the man isn’t bloated in the offseason he’s in better shape year round than Cutler or even my personal favorite Heath. As X stated he’s over 40…rethink your stance, look up the Barry Bond’s speech on steroids to the media. Analyze it and apply it to this situation. Long Story short you have to have an extreme diet to have an extreme physique, some do it better than others true…but never critized someone in a higher postion than yourself it makes you look really dumb.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that.[/quote]
[quote]BBriere wrote:
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]
No, you’re not trying to start a debate about fullbody vs. splits or roids vs. natural, you’re trying to start a debate about old school vs modern bodybuilding, a discussion which has been had many times on practically every bodybuilding forum on the net.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]
That’s right. The types of people who think like this generally have no idea about modern bodybuilding. They see one picture of a GH gut and assume that all modern bodybuilders look like that.
Newsflash for the uninformed: There are plenty of “bodybuilders” today who look exactly like the guys in the 70’s did. They’re just not competing in bodybuilding. They’re modeling instead, because the sport of bodybuilding has far surpassed the point where those types of physiques could be considered competitive.
To say you love the look of old school bodybuilders is the same thing as saying you love the look of male fitness models.
[quote]Jbrew wrote:
X is dead on…Toney Freeman is 6’2’’ 330lbs in the off season. I’ve seen him at Lifetime in Duluth (Ga) from time to time…the man isn’t bloated in the offseason he’s in better shape year round than Cutler or even my personal favorite Heath. As X stated he’s over 40…rethink your stance, look up the Barry Bond’s speech on steroids to the media. Analyze it and apply it to this situation. Long Story short you have to have an extreme diet to have an extreme physique, some do it better than others true…but never critized someone in a higher postion than yourself it makes you look really dumb.[/quote]
Hey, do you know if he works out regularly there?
This is off topic but I am in Roswell, also do you know if they are doing any promotion at Lifetime?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]BBriere wrote:
Ok, I’m not trying to start some debate of fullbody vs. splits, roids vs. natural, or anything like that.[/quote]
[quote]BBriere wrote:
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]
No, you’re not trying to start a debate about fullbody vs. splits or roids vs. natural, you’re trying to start a debate about old school vs modern bodybuilding, a discussion which has been had many times on practically every bodybuilding forum on the net.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]
That’s right. The types of people who think like this generally have no idea about modern bodybuilding. They see one picture of a GH gut and assume that all modern bodybuilders look like that.
Newsflash for the uninformed: There are plenty of “bodybuilders” today who look exactly like the guys in the 70’s did. They’re just not competing in bodybuilding. They’re modeling instead, because the sport of bodybuilding has far surpassed the point where those types of physiques could be considered competitive.
To say you love the look of old school bodybuilders is the same thing as saying you love the look of male fitness models. [/quote]
Why does a National Socialist have a picture of Patrick Buchanan for his avatar?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
I’m relatively new to the site but here is a suggestion: Maybe we can get a men’s fitness forum for the guys that don’t like or appreciate muscle? You could post Fitness Routines, Conditioning Drills and Crossfit workouts all in one place.[/quote]
In Colorado, Tim stated that is exactly the mindset he was trying to move away from…thus why everything got labeled “bodybuilding” so that these people would know what the deal was.
They keep posting anyway for no reason though.[/quote]
You keep saying this, but it makes no sense.
If the site admins actually cared about keeping the BB forum an actual BB forum they would have to mod it heavier. Start removing threads like this before they get to 8 pages of pure off-topic bullshit, and the skinny fat dweebs should cease and desist soon enough.
This isn’t happening, and that’s why I think it is simply not a priority. Which is understandable enough, really, because we all bring it on ourselves when we dignify this shit with a response.
Truth be told I think you guys like being able to rip into these clueless posters and would be sorry to see these threads go. lol
I wonder how many of the people that think old school bodybuilders are better than modern bodybuilders think so because they see those physiques as attainable, and are just making themselves feel better about the fact they will never reach the size of a Mr olympia.
[quote]Anonymas wrote:
I wonder how many of the people that think old school bodybuilders are better than modern bodybuilders think so because they see those physiques as attainable, and are just making themselves feel better about the fact they will never reach the size of a Mr olympia.[/quote]
Ahhh, the old ‘lowered expectations’ approach,… didn’t think of that, but it does make a hell of a lot of sense. Sure I’ll never look like Yates (especially as a natty), but it won’t be from lack of trying,… I couldn’t respect myself in that case, and that would just be sad -lol)
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Anonymas wrote:
I wonder how many of the people that think old school bodybuilders are better than modern bodybuilders think so because they see those physiques as attainable, and are just making themselves feel better about the fact they will never reach the size of a Mr olympia.[/quote]
Ahhh, the old ‘lowered expectations’ approach,… didn’t think of that, but it does make a hell of a lot of sense. Sure I’ll never look like Yates (especially as a natty), but it won’t be from lack of trying,… I couldn’t respect myself in that case, and that would just be sad -lol)
S
[/quote]
The thing is, that stance would actually be somewhat respected…if even 1% of guys like this EVER reached even the level of Steeve Reeves back then. With today’s knowledge of nutrition and training, you would think they would at least reach the very goal they keep degrading everyone else in favor of.
But they don’t…and they continue knocking the very people who have made that type of progress and more.
[quote]Anonymas wrote:
I wonder how many of the people that think old school bodybuilders are better than modern bodybuilders think so because they see those physiques as attainable, and are just making themselves feel better about the fact they will never reach the size of a Mr olympia.[/quote]
…why in the name of fuck would a person make that a reason for liking old school bodybuilders. I can’t seriously believe that people geninely like old school simply because their look is attainable. If anyone think that this is attainable with minimum effort they need to fucking wise up;
can’t embed this sorry
[quote]NIguy wrote:
[quote]Anonymas wrote:
I wonder how many of the people that think old school bodybuilders are better than modern bodybuilders think so because they see those physiques as attainable, and are just making themselves feel better about the fact they will never reach the size of a Mr olympia.[/quote]
…why in the name of fuck would a person make that a reason for liking old school bodybuilders. I can’t seriously believe that people geninely like old school simply because their look is attainable. If anyone think that this is attainable with minimum effort they need to fucking wise up;
can’t embed this sorry[/quote]
That picture has been morphed…but you are right…none of these guys will ever look like or even come close to ANY of the guys from back then making their rants about today’s bodybuilders that much more ridiculous.
Silly thread.
I’m going to add to the silliness:
If you could wake up tomorrow with the physique size (contest ready) of your BB idol, would you? Damn right I would LOVE to wake up with the mass and proportion of Lee Priest at his peak! But that’s my choice. Knocking someone else’s aesthetic ideal is ridiculous. This is a bodybuilding forum of course. If you want to be built like Steve reeves, go for it. But don’t knock my dream of wanting to look like my heroes.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Anonymas wrote:
I wonder how many of the people that think old school bodybuilders are better than modern bodybuilders think so because they see those physiques as attainable, and are just making themselves feel better about the fact they will never reach the size of a Mr olympia.[/quote]
Ahhh, the old ‘lowered expectations’ approach,… didn’t think of that, but it does make a hell of a lot of sense. Sure I’ll never look like Yates (especially as a natty), but it won’t be from lack of trying,… I couldn’t respect myself in that case, and that would just be sad -lol)
S
[/quote]
It’s also step one, you have to look like those guys before you can get big enough to look like the more recent body builders. Every time I come back and look at current BB I gain a little more respect for them. I was exposed to the golden era long before I got into body building, hence why it has shaped my perceptions.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
I’ll say this: if bodybuilding is simply about maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symetry than the bodybuilders of today blow the old ones out of the water. I think it’s a little more than that.
[/quote]
You’re confusing bodybuilding with a beauty pagent. Bodybuilding IS about building the biggest, leanest, most proportional and symmetrical body possible. It’s not a show for you to judge which men you find more attractive.[/quote]
Its not a gay thing, it’s just an aesthetic choice (aesthetics definitely played a larger role in arnolds day ie surge nubret). Most people simply don’t have the genetics to become way too large, so most people try to maximize size as much as possible. With todays pros i don’t think it really doesn’t work though… I don’t think most people could ever understand how strange it would really be to walk around at 300+ pounds of pure muscle.