Who Likes the Old School Bodybuilders?

Training Bodybuilding
101

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

I’ll say this: if bodybuilding is simply about maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symmetry than the bodybuilders of today blow the old ones out of the water. I think it’s a little more than that.
[/quote]

Well, then we simply disagree. The above is exactly what I understand bodybuilding to be. [/quote]

Wait a second, so people think bodybuilding is NOT about [quote]maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symmetry[/quote]???

[/quote]

If you can’t build a body that looks good than what’s the point? Most average people today find pro bodybuilders disgusting.

102

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on.

103

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

I’ll say this: if bodybuilding is simply about maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symmetry than the bodybuilders of today blow the old ones out of the water. I think it’s a little more than that.
[/quote]

Well, then we simply disagree. The above is exactly what I understand bodybuilding to be. [/quote]

Wait a second, so people think bodybuilding is NOT about [quote]maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symmetry[/quote]???

[/quote]

If you can’t build a body that looks good than what’s the point? Most average people today find pro bodybuilders disgusting.[/quote]

This has gotten retarded. You can tell most people are just talking out of their asses.

They did NOT accept Arnold in 1969 any more than they accept Ronnie Coleman in 2008. Bodybuilding had an even smaller following back then. It was a pure cult following, meaning most of the people who even followed what was going on, were also really into getting as big and strong as fucking possible.

That means MANY people in 1969 said Arnold was “grotesque”, “too big” and every ridiculous comment that YOU are now throwing at today’s bodybuild4ers.

The ONLY FUCKING REASON you think they were accepted more is because the guys today have moved far beyond that…so now Arnold doesn’t seem so extreme anymore.

There was no one bigger than the guys in the 60’s DURING THE FUCKING 60’s, so everyone made the same comment back then…which means people will find your comments now just as retarded 30 years from now.

Wake the fuck up.

Bodybuilding is NOT about making sure the average sedentary joe on the street finds the guy attractive.

It has NEVER meant that.

104

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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.[/quote]

What does that even mean?? It makes no sense, literally.

[quote]
With todays pros i don’t think it really works 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.[/quote]

What does this statement have to do with anything? How does a person’s ability to grasp the difficulty of attaining and maintaining an IFBB pro’s physique matter at all when judging them? The fact that you consider it strange for someone have a goal different than your own says everything about your stance on the matter.

Exaggerating your point by saying that current guys are 300+ lbs of MUSCLE is not helping the legitimacy of your opinion either. You can count the number of guys on one hand who have competed at over 280lbs. Off the top of my head Coleman, Ferrigno and Dillet come to mind. Where are these 300 pounders in competition shape? And yes, I am nitpicking simply to prove a point.

105

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.

106

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

Of course, it’s impossible to create an aesthetic ideal. Aesthetics are purely personal.

107

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

I’ll say this: if bodybuilding is simply about maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symmetry than the bodybuilders of today blow the old ones out of the water. I think it’s a little more than that.
[/quote]

Well, then we simply disagree. The above is exactly what I understand bodybuilding to be. [/quote]

Wait a second, so people think bodybuilding is NOT about [quote]maximizing certain characteristics like size, leanness, and symmetry[/quote]???

[/quote]

If you can’t build a body that looks good than what’s the point? Most average people today find pro bodybuilders disgusting.[/quote]

Going by your logic we should all strive to look like Brad Pitt in fight club. Which is fine if that’s what you want, just don’t expect people on a BB forum to be aiming for that.

108

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

Of course, it’s impossible to create an aesthetic ideal. Aesthetics are purely personal.[/quote]

Which is why the judging criteria isn’t just based on “looks good” and “doesn’t look good”. There is a category for size, one for symmetry, one for conditioning and even one for presentation…but there has NEVER fucking been a “does he look pretty enough?” category…like you seem to think.

That is why Jay Cutler can win an Olympia based on conditioning even though several others guys might beat him as far as overall aesthetics.

Though it may ultimately be “subjective”, they do try to create some sort of objective criteria for the winner.

Therefore, no one gives a shit if you think Kai Greene is too big. You doubtfully even follow bodybuilding at all currently making your opinion fucking useless.

YOU have not built a body anywhere near that of Reeves. You more than likely never will.

You will forever sit on the sidelines throwing rocks at anyone who has goals that go far beyond what you think is “pretty”…and again no one cares.

Bodybuilding isn’t about looking acceptable to fat people who don’t lift.

109

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Absolutely. They were trying to get as big, lean and symmetrical as they could. A lot of them didn’t really try to build their legs as big as they could though. That is until Platz came along and raised the bar for leg development.

They just didn’t have the level of knowledge of things like nutrition, training, and supplements that today’s top level guys have. Like you said, if Arnold had hit his peak today, you can bet that he’d have been bigger, leaner, and have better legs than he ever had in the 70’s-80’s.

I was just pointing out that they were no more “aesthetic” (in absolute terms) than today’s pros.

110

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then.

111

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Absolutely. They were trying to get as big, lean and symmetrical as they could. A lot of them didn’t really try to build their legs as big as they could though. That is until Platz came along and raised the bar for leg development.

They just didn’t have the level of knowledge of things like nutrition, training, and supplements that today’s top level guys have. Like you said, if Arnold had hit his peak today, you can bet that he’d have been bigger, leaner, and have better legs than he ever had in the 70’s-80’s.

I was just pointing out that they were no more “aesthetic” (in absolute terms) than today’s pros.[/quote]

I really wasn’t aiming that directly at you though. But you are right…as usual, bodybuilding progressed based on the achievements of those involved.

Platz had a huge effect on leg development n bodybuilding once people started taking notice of his huge quads.

Haney set the standard for HUGE back development…that is now seen on anyone who does well.

The guys in the 60’s would have built on what those who came before them accomplished.

It was NEVER the intention for all progress to stop at 1969.

The ONLY people who seem to even think like this…are the same fuckers who will never reach any level of extreme development to start with.

112

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then. [/quote]

Do you realize how many times I heard, “that’s nasty” from girls when movies like Commando and Total Recall came out?

His movies did well because he was a spectacle…and NOW his image is more accepted only because some of you always had those images in your lives from birth onward…BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER THE FUCKING INITIAL REACTION.

113

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

Of course, it’s impossible to create an aesthetic ideal. Aesthetics are purely personal.[/quote]

Which is why the judging criteria isn’t just based on “looks good” and “doesn’t look good”. There is a category for size, one for symmetry, one for conditioning and even one for presentation…but there has NEVER fucking been a “does he look pretty enough?” category…like you seem to think.

That is why Jay Cutler can win an Olympia based on conditioning even though several others guys might beat him as far as overall aesthetics.

Though it may ultimately be “subjective”, they do try to create some sort of objective criteria for the winner.

Therefore, no one gives a shit if you think Kai Greene is too big. You doubtfully even follow bodybuilding at all currently making your opinion fucking useless.

YOU have not built a body anywhere near that of Reeves. You more than likely never will.

You will forever sit on the sidelines throwing rocks at anyone who has goals that go far beyond what you think is “pretty”…and again no one cares.

Bodybuilding isn’t about looking acceptable to fat people who don’t lift.[/quote]

Fantastic, I disagree with you. Try handling that okay?

And my goals are my own X, keep them out of this. i’m not putting down your goals or anyone elses because of how i feel. What I’m trying to tell you is that the bb’s mission is ultimately moving away from what most people find aesthetic. My belief is that that’s counterproductive. That’s all.

114

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then. [/quote]

Youre a fool.

Movies and TV are what’s accepted. No one gives a shit that Arnold and Lou Ferrigno were bodybuilders before going mainstream.

Arnold is the only bodybuilder most people can name SOLELY because he did movies and became governor, NOT because he was one of the best bodybuilders ever.

Lou Ferrigno became famous in the mainstream because he played the Hulk on TV. His bodybuilding career didn’t make him a household name.

What are you going to say next? That Pumping Iron was their breakout role??

You don’t know what youre talking about.

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then. [/quote]

Do you realize how many times I heard, “that’s nasty” from girls when movies like Commando and Total Recall came out?

His movies did well because he was a spectacle…and NOW his image is more accepted only because some of you always had those images in your lives from birth onward…BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER THE FUCKING INITIAL REACTION.[/quote]

and yet ronnie coleman or jay cutler will never be movie stars.

116

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

and yet ronnie coleman or jay cutler will never be movie stars.[/quote]

Do you think maybe, just maybe, Arnold’s charisma had something to do him becoming an actor?

Who cares anyhow. What does becoming a movie star have to do with bodybuilding anyway?

117

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then. [/quote]

Do you realize how many times I heard, “that’s nasty” from girls when movies like Commando and Total Recall came out?

His movies did well because he was a spectacle…and NOW his image is more accepted only because some of you always had those images in your lives from birth onward…BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER THE FUCKING INITIAL REACTION.[/quote]

and yet ronnie coleman or jay cutler will never be movie stars.[/quote]

Maybe they don’t want to act? That’s not exactly a conclusive argument.

118

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then. [/quote]

Do you realize how many times I heard, “that’s nasty” from girls when movies like Commando and Total Recall came out?

His movies did well because he was a spectacle…and NOW his image is more accepted only because some of you always had those images in your lives from birth onward…BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER THE FUCKING INITIAL REACTION.[/quote]

I remember seeing an old episode of a crime tv drama in which Arnold played an aspiring BB’er who had anger issues. Can’t for the life of me remember what the name of the show was (hopefully someone can help me out).

Anyway, if you watch that episode, you’ll see a pretty accurate depiction of the mainstream sentiments towards BB’ing in Arnold’s time. And let’s just say that it wasn’t hero worship.

119

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[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 works 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.[/quote]

The thing is that aesthetics is a purely subjective quality. It played no more of a role in Arnold’s day than it does in today’s BB’ing contests. It’s just that the aesthetic ideal of modern BB’ing is different.

Today’s top pros are considerably more muscular and leaner than those of Arnold’s day. Many of them are actually more balanced and symmetrical than Arnold ever was, have a better V taper, and much better legs.

If you like the aesthetic ideal of the golden era better than that of today, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But don’t pretend that there is just one “aesthetic ideal” which all BB’ers must be judged on. [/quote]

When the fuck has bodybuilding EVER been accepted by the general public?

The guys in the 60’s were not trying to look like fitness models. They didn’t give a shit if the average house wife found them to be too big. If any of them were the same age now, they would trying just as hard as guys today to get even bigger than they were then.[/quote]

Gee X i don’t know… How about when one of the winningest bodybuilders became an icon and a movie star for generations… Arnold was immensely popular and accepted, as were most of the bb’s back then. [/quote]

Do you realize how many times I heard, “that’s nasty” from girls when movies like Commando and Total Recall came out?

His movies did well because he was a spectacle…and NOW his image is more accepted only because some of you always had those images in your lives from birth onward…BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO REMEMBER THE FUCKING INITIAL REACTION.[/quote]

and yet ronnie coleman or jay cutler will never be movie stars.[/quote]

Well A. Arnold Pursued acting. He wanted to leave bodybuilding and get into Cinemas. If someone doesnt want to do something like that, then they probably wont end up doing it. Who says Jay or Ronnie, or any other of them WANT to be an actor? Not to say that it would be impossible for them either though. There is a huge demand on Super hero movies today. There is a huge uproar about the tiny shit heads playing the roles of the massive super heroes today from a majority of the movie fan base. Having Vinnie Jones as the Juggernaut, Topher Grace as Venom, or Kellen Lutz from twilight playing the new Conan can just kill movies for the DIRE hard fans.

120

[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
Kellen Lutz from twilight playing the new Conan can just kill movies for the DIRE hard fans.[/quote]

Please tell me that you’re joking.