arnold would not win now . but he dont have to . in his days they did not have 45 degeees leg press and seated leg curls not very good leg curls . he had flawws and sergio was not perfect either too smooth regular calves… etc average poser . etc . talking about 45 degrees leg press because his thighs were average . for some years they trained with what they had back then . gym are more complete now .
LOL - they would not have a chance. Ronnie Coleman and Phil Heath would lay them to ruins, despite how much I liked the 70’s era bodybuilders more.
The problem I have if these questions is that the implication of former greats competing in today’s competition climate formally disqualifies their presence in the past. Pioneering personalities displaced to the stage of the present. How would that affect bodybuilding as we know it today?
[quote]winston43 wrote:
arnold would not win now . but he dont have to . in his days they did not have 45 degeees leg press and seated leg curls not very good leg curls . he had flawws and sergio was not perfect either too smooth regular calves… etc average poser . etc . talking about 45 degrees leg press because his thighs were average . for some years they trained with what they had back then . gym are more complete now . [/quote]
Are you saying that the 45 degree leg would have made a big difference in Arnold’s and Sergio’s leg size?
Sergio’s calves were damn good. Not to mention, he had decent thigh size… especially, for that time period.
arnold isn’t a sausage balloon. Sausage balloon is the standard today.
If a sausage balloon is also filled with water it may very well win an O
I’ve been criticized for my stand about today pros muscles looking like water filled balloons and having seen sausages with more interesting shapes. Instead of creating an illusion and sculpting a look today’s bodybuilders lift weights to get the biggest muscles possible. The argument invariably is produced “I don’t want to look huge, I want to be huge” Well, in reality there’s no argument. I’m all for getting as big as one possibly can. However, the people who prefer the golden age tapered physique just want to add the provision that you shouldn’t build up areas of muscle that detract from the one’s body.
We like a physique where dumbbells and barbells were used to sculpt the body, not just to indiscriminately pile on pounds of flesh. For the enthusiast, it’s the easy way out if you just train without bothering to think about what your doing besides the goal of stretching the tape measure. I sometimes think the word bodybuilding is harmful to the progress of our sport. Perhaps it should be called bodyscuplting or physical culture.
When I think of these ideas taken to their fullest I think of Robby Robinson, Lee Haney, Mohamed Mokkawy, Steve Reeves, Sergio Oliva, Bob Paris, Matt Mendenhall, Frank Zane, Danny Padilla. Obviously all these guys had the genetics necessary to be great.
I think professor X has a point when he says that this sport is about freaks. Its a sad truth that no one would go see a 202 lb Olympia winner because given the time and effort while keeping an eye for SHAPE along with size almost anyone with decent genetics could have competed in pro contests in the 70’s. I’m not saying the genetically determined cart horse can be turned into a race horse, but muscle irregularities and inherited weaknesses can be disguised quite well. That is a very good point he made and along with the tapered physique losing to the mass monster has spelling the end to body sculpting for now. Lets bring back the tapered physique!
da fuck happened?
[quote]winston43 wrote:
arnold would not win now . but he dont have to . in his days they did not have 45 degeees leg press and seated leg curls not very good leg curls . he had flawws and sergio was not perfect either too smooth regular calves… etc average poser . etc . talking about 45 degrees leg press because his thighs were average . for some years they trained with what they had back then . gym are more complete now . [/quote]
HUH?!
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I’ve been criticized for my stand about today pros muscles looking like water filled balloons and having seen sausages with more interesting shapes. Instead of creating an illusion and sculpting a look today’s bodybuilders lift weights to get the biggest muscles possible. The argument invariably is produced “I don’t want to look huge, I want to be huge” Well, in reality there’s no argument. I’m all for getting as big as one possibly can. However, the people who prefer the golden age tapered physique just want to add the provision that you shouldn’t build up areas of muscle that detract from the one’s body.
We like a physique where dumbbells and barbells were used to sculpt the body, not just to indiscriminately pile on pounds of flesh. For the enthusiast, it’s the easy way out if you just train without bothering to think about what your doing besides the goal of stretching the tape measure. I sometimes think the word bodybuilding is harmful to the progress of our sport. Perhaps it should be called bodyscuplting or physical culture.
When I think of these ideas taken to their fullest I think of Robby Robinson, Lee Haney, Mohamed Mokkawy, Steve Reeves, Sergio Oliva, Bob Paris, Matt Mendenhall, Frank Zane, Danny Padilla. Obviously all these guys had the genetics necessary to be great.
I think professor X has a point when he says that this sport is about freaks. Its a sad truth that no one would go see a 202 lb Olympia winner because given the time and effort while keeping an eye for SHAPE along with size almost anyone with decent genetics could have competed in pro contests in the 70’s. I’m not saying the genetically determined cart horse can be turned into a race horse, but muscle irregularities and inherited weaknesses can be disguised quite well. That is a very good point he made and along with the tapered physique losing to the mass monster has spelling the end to body sculpting for now. Lets bring back the tapered physique![/quote]
Cedric and a couple of others are now carrying that torch.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
Its a sad truth that no one would go see a 202 lb Olympia winner because given the time and effort while keeping an eye for SHAPE along with size almost anyone with decent genetics could have competed in pro contests in the 70’s. I’m not saying the genetically determined cart horse can be turned into a race horse, but muscle irregularities and inherited weaknesses can be disguised quite well.[quote]
Please explain this. It does not make any sense at all. Sorry if English is not your first language.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The problem I have if these questions is that the implication of former greats competing in today’s competition climate formally disqualifies their presence in the past. Pioneering personalities displaced to the stage of the present. How would that affect bodybuilding as we know it today?[/quote]
People forget this in all sports. Arnold has an amazing ability to succeed specially where politics is involved. If he needed a different body he probably would’ve got it, or convinced people that whatever look he presented is the look everybody is looking for.
I think Frank Zane would be successful in the natural organizations nowadays… but, then again…he was on drugz
surprised to hear tha zane was taking those drugs . they were taking small amounts back then . arnol was the best in his day . does he speak his voice about the current state of bodybuilding now . does he likes those physiques . he semms pretty silent .
[quote]winston43 wrote:
surprised to hear tha zane was taking those drugs . they were taking small amounts back then . arnol was the best in his day . does he speak his voice about the current state of bodybuilding now . does he likes those physiques . he semms pretty silent .[/quote]
He was critical of Yates’ non-publicity seeking persona back in the mid 90’s. Made some negative cracks, can’t recall all the details, but it really came across sounding like sour grapes that people weren’t fawning all over him while Dorian was king of the mountain.
@Iron Dwarf- recall any details from this little incident? You’re usually good filling in the gaps in my memory.
S
[quote]winston43 wrote:
surprised to hear tha zane was taking those drugs . they were taking small amounts back then .
[/quote]
And you know this how?
By his day’s standards, yes.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I’ve been criticized for my stand about today pros muscles looking like water filled balloons and having seen sausages with more interesting shapes. Instead of creating an illusion and sculpting a look today’s bodybuilders lift weights to get the biggest muscles possible. The argument invariably is produced “I don’t want to look huge, I want to be huge” Well, in reality there’s no argument. I’m all for getting as big as one possibly can. However, the people who prefer the golden age tapered physique just want to add the provision that you shouldn’t build up areas of muscle that detract from the one’s body.
We like a physique where dumbbells and barbells were used to sculpt the body, not just to indiscriminately pile on pounds of flesh. For the enthusiast, it’s the easy way out if you just train without bothering to think about what your doing besides the goal of stretching the tape measure. I sometimes think the word bodybuilding is harmful to the progress of our sport. Perhaps it should be called bodyscuplting or physical culture.
When I think of these ideas taken to their fullest I think of Robby Robinson, Lee Haney, Mohamed Mokkawy, Steve Reeves, Sergio Oliva, Bob Paris, Matt Mendenhall, Frank Zane, Danny Padilla. Obviously all these guys had the genetics necessary to be great.
I think professor X has a point when he says that this sport is about freaks. Its a sad truth that no one would go see a 202 lb Olympia winner because given the time and effort while keeping an eye for SHAPE along with size almost anyone with decent genetics could have competed in pro contests in the 70’s. I’m not saying the genetically determined cart horse can be turned into a race horse, but muscle irregularities and inherited weaknesses can be disguised quite well. That is a very good point he made and along with the tapered physique losing to the mass monster has spelling the end to body sculpting for now. Lets bring back the tapered physique![/quote]
Have you ever thought that maybe it’s called bodyBUILDING for a reason, instead of something else silly-sounding? If you like how physique competitors looks more than bodybuilders, by all means, compete in that and keep tabs on them. Otherwise, it’s pretty inane to complain about one sport, rather than just keep tabs on another already existing sport that fulfills your preferences.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
I’ve been criticized for my stand about today pros muscles looking like water filled balloons and having seen sausages with more interesting shapes. Instead of creating an illusion and sculpting a look today’s bodybuilders lift weights to get the biggest muscles possible. The argument invariably is produced “I don’t want to look huge, I want to be huge” Well, in reality there’s no argument. I’m all for getting as big as one possibly can. However, the people who prefer the golden age tapered physique just want to add the provision that you shouldn’t build up areas of muscle that detract from the one’s body.
We like a physique where dumbbells and barbells were used to sculpt the body, not just to indiscriminately pile on pounds of flesh. For the enthusiast, it’s the easy way out if you just train without bothering to think about what your doing besides the goal of stretching the tape measure. I sometimes think the word bodybuilding is harmful to the progress of our sport. Perhaps it should be called bodyscuplting or physical culture.
When I think of these ideas taken to their fullest I think of Robby Robinson, Lee Haney, Mohamed Mokkawy, Steve Reeves, Sergio Oliva, Bob Paris, Matt Mendenhall, Frank Zane, Danny Padilla. Obviously all these guys had the genetics necessary to be great.
I think professor X has a point when he says that this sport is about freaks. Its a sad truth that no one would go see a 202 lb Olympia winner because given the time and effort while keeping an eye for SHAPE along with size almost anyone with decent genetics could have competed in pro contests in the 70’s. I’m not saying the genetically determined cart horse can be turned into a race horse, but muscle irregularities and inherited weaknesses can be disguised quite well. That is a very good point he made and along with the tapered physique losing to the mass monster has spelling the end to body sculpting for now. Lets bring back the tapered physique![/quote]
Dude, Arnold was a freak in his day. There were people back then saying the same things about him that you are now trying to say about guys like Phil Heath.
The tapered physique is still there. Tony Freeman has won enough shows for those whining about the contests to stop now.
This is about building big muscles. There was no one bigger than the guys like Arnold back then. They were the biggest. If they had listened to guys like you back then, they never would have even reached the size they were.
Bodybuilding isn’t about conforming. It’s about standing out in the room because you built muscles that damned big.
^^exactly.
Arnold and those guys were freaks in their day. When you watch Pumping Iron you can see it during some of the scenes. Arnold is outside and people are just stopping and staring at him… People don’t stop and stare at guys who aren’t “freaks” in the size department.
Also LOL@ people saying that the pro’s back in the day werent using steroids as much as the guys now days are. There is no way you could possibly know that, you’re just talking out of you… Well you get the picture.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]winston43 wrote:
surprised to hear tha zane was taking those drugs . they were taking small amounts back then . arnol was the best in his day . does he speak his voice about the current state of bodybuilding now . does he likes those physiques . he semms pretty silent .[/quote]
He was critical of Yates’ non-publicity seeking persona back in the mid 90’s. Made some negative cracks, can’t recall all the details, but it really came across sounding like sour grapes that people weren’t fawning all over him while Dorian was king of the mountain.
@Iron Dwarf- recall any details from this little incident? You’re usually good filling in the gaps in my memory.
S[/quote]
I think you just called me OLD!
lol
Actually, I’ve never read anything like that. Zane usually maintained an air of mystery, which usually meant he didn’t comment about much. lol
However I can almost see him commenting on Yates’ lack of self-promotion because Frank would have definitely been on the side of bodybuilding’s broader acceptance in the mainstream.
Maybe Yates didn’t realize he didn’t do much for the cause of bodybuilding while keeping a low profile. He was a man of few words himself, but then he let his physique do the talking.
