^Master’s Olympia. The only one he ever did well in.
Lou had size, Arnold had superior shape, particularly in his chest and arms.
[quote]LIONZ wrote:
I just don’t get it, people are talking about height and height “shrinkage” and comparing Arnolds HEIGHT to RONNIE COLEMAN’s HEIGHT, in other words, this thread has completely gone off the topic and has evolved into talking about height and comparing someone’s height to somebody else’s height. My question was why did Arnold look more WIDER than Lou even though the official statistics always show Lou to be the bigger, heavier guy??? I don’t give a shit about the minor height differences between both guys.[/quote]
Maybe because Arnold’s shoulders were wider than lou’s? He had a better V-taper as well (IMO) that can play a factor in the ‘wider’ look. However Louie was not taller than Arnold.
Technically Louie was the bigger and heavier guy. His arms and legs were recorded to be larger than arnolds, I do not know about chest or other measurments… Arnold took the cake at olympia because of definition.
[quote]LUEshi wrote:
Lou had size, Arnold had superior shape, NAMELY in his chest and arms.[/quote]
You can’t be the Oaks chest and upper body, but any regular old gym rat that trains legs seriously has him on the lower body department. THATS JUST MY OPINION! So go ahead and burn me on a cross.
Lou was taller than Arnold, just thought i’d quickly throw that in, but let’s just make sure this thread spends more time talking about the size (width) of both guys and NOT talk about “Oh i’m this tall and i’m taller than him and i met him and he is alot shorter than me” and so on.
who is bigger here?
In the picture where you have Serge Nubret, Arnold and Lou, Lou looks bit bigger in THAT pic. As far as height goes, yeh they are pretty similar, but still, Lou was roughly 2 or 3 inches taller, no big deal really, minor difference. It’s all about which out of the 2 guys had the better body of that night.
[quote]LIONZ wrote:
In the picture where you have Serge Nubret, Arnold and Lou, Lou looks bit bigger in THAT pic. As far as height goes, yeh they are pretty similar, but still, Lou was roughly 2 or 3 inches taller, no big deal really, minor difference. It’s all about which out of the 2 guys had the better body of that night.[/quote]
u my friend are an idiot
[quote]zraw wrote:
LIONZ wrote:
In the picture where you have Serge Nubret, Arnold and Lou, Lou looks bit bigger in THAT pic. As far as height goes, yeh they are pretty similar, but still, Lou was roughly 2 or 3 inches taller, no big deal really, minor difference. It’s all about which out of the 2 guys had the better body of that night.
u my friend are an idiot[/quote]
Erm…ok, i’m an “idiot” cos i was giving my opinions and a few facts. Yeh sure, i’m the “idiot”
Ur the idiot for not understanding, after 10 reply telling it, that the reason was the height difference
Want me to emphasize on the role height plays?
Who will look the fattest
a 6’6 340lbs dude
or a
5’ 280lbs dude
No argument here; Arnold’s legs sucked in comparison to the rest of him. That is to say, his legs were merely okay (for the times) but his upper body was so goddamn impressive the judges gave him a pass on his quads and hams.
And they didn’t exactly prize heavy leg development until around the time Platz and Bertil came on the scene, anyway.
I like Lou, and I even like his physique but he was no Arnold. For example;
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
lets talk about height,I have seen arnold and ronnie on stage together arnie with shoes and hair high and ronnie barefoot and bald and arnie doesnt tower over him like he should if he was really 6’3".I have stood right next to ronnie coleman and he cant be more than 5’10". and im 6’5"[/quote]
First, so far as I know the apparently-best height figure commonly given for Arnold in his prime, and the only one having the testimony of a person doing an official measurement, is 6’1.5", not 6’3".
Second, people shrink with age.
My guess is Arnold is one inch taller than I am.
I used to be 6’0.5", when younger.
I am 5’11.5" by now.
It’s believable to me that Arnold is a half inch over 6 feet now, but was 6’1.5" when younger.
As to appearance: Some look much bigger than their actual weight, height, and bodyfat level can account for. This is a blessing for bodybuilding.
Arnold was blessed to look much bigger in his prime than what possibly makes sense from his weight.
Ferrigno, while of course looking big, didn’t look bigger than his weight.
Lastly, Ferrigno has severe flaws. Not relative to the average individual of course, but relative to top-level bodybuilding. Arnold’s legs were Platzian compared to Ferrigno’s: and as poor as Lou’s quads were, the hams were even worse. Poor triceps as well. (Relatively speaking.)
Have fun guys.
[quote]zraw wrote:
Ur the idiot for not understanding, after 10 reply telling it, that the reason was the height difference
Want me to emphasize on the role height plays?
Who will look the fattest
a 6’6 340lbs dude
or a
5’ 280lbs dude[/quote]
Thank you, this thread was a bit pointless, but the pics are alright.
[quote]zraw wrote:
u my friend are an idiot[/quote]
Tou-fucking-che.
Lou was much bigger imo, but he had thick joints whereas Arnie had small joints. Thick joints do not make muscles look as impressive. He was obviously taller than Arnold, but Lou was heavier and I’d venture to say his measurements over all were bigger. Arnold had “the look” of a very big guy when in reality there were and have been bigger guys.
I can’t think of anyone whose chest has looked as impressive as Arnold, but that isn’t to say their have not been bigger chests.
To the OP who is obviosly confused. Lou was bigger. Taller,bigger frame, more lean muscle mass. Arnold looked better and “bigger” in bodybuilding terms because bodybuilding is about visual impact not measurements. However, a taller, heavier guy is bigger. Shaq is bigger than either one but no one would call him a bodybuilder or use the terms jacked, or thick to describe his physique. Do you understand?
Wow, another useless thread! Of course Lou was bigger. Still, gotta say it’s always cool to see some old pics of the guys. I just read the original ‘Pumping Iron’ book (which the movie was based on), and there’s a section where a young Lou, touted as the biggest BBer ever, in the midst of bulking, considers entering a small contest and walks fully dressed to the posing platform to stomp on it, apparently testing if it could fully support his “280 lbs”.An older spectator in the audience comments to the book’s author “No class, that guy” -lol.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Wow, another useless thread! Of course Lou was bigger. Still, gotta say it’s always cool to see some old pics of the guys. I just read the original ‘Pumping Iron’ book (which the movie was based on), and there’s a section where a young Lou, touted as the biggest BBer ever, in the midst of bulking, considers entering a small contest and walks fully dressed to the posing platform to stomp on it, apparently testing if it could fully support his “280 lbs”. An older spectator in the audience comments to the book’s author “No class, that guy” -lol.
S
[/quote]
Heh heh. I remember that passage. I still have my original copy of that book from the 70’s. Now I’m inspired to dust it off and read it again.
I re-read it so many times as a teen, that I used to be able to recite from memory many of the most important passages and quotes! lol
[quote]LUEshi wrote:
You can’t be the Oaks chest and upper body, but any regular old gym rat that trains legs seriously has him on the lower body department. THATS JUST MY OPINION! So go ahead and burn me on a cross.
No argument here; Arnold’s legs sucked in comparison to the rest of him. That is to say, his legs were merely okay (for the times) but his upper body was so goddamn impressive the judges gave him a pass on his quads and hams.
And they didn’t exactly prize heavy leg development until around the time Platz and Bertil came on the scene, anyway.
I like Lou, and I even like his physique but he was no Arnold. For example;[/quote]
Arnolds most muscular is so badass.