[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Yea - and as soon as he started training you can see his potential, and the round muscle bellies and the fullness he displays, even at the beginning…
And Yates probably had the worst genetics of any Mr. O, mind you…
[/quote]
How so?
I would think being able to come in as heavy as he did would indicate good genetics? Or are you coming from an aesthetic standpoint?
King Kamali’s genetics weren’t anything special he is an IFBB pro and placed third at the IRON man. He is a success story despite bad genetics though his pro career hasn’t been anything spectacular
[quote]tnt2005 wrote:
King Kamali’s genetics weren’t anything special he is an IFBB pro and placed third at the IRON man. He is a success story despite bad genetics though his pro career hasn’t been anything spectacular[/quote]
his shape is almost exactly the same as Kovac’s.
[quote]the.israeli wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Genetics make a HUGE difference at an elite level in ALL disciplines
Lifelong training, sometimes starting at AGE THREE, makes a HUGE difference at elite level, in all disciplines
Please show me examples of people who have achieved phenomenal results at an elite level but a) started really late in life and / or b) were average in their teens and / or c) have average or just good genetics
More common in the martial arts world. Many known masters are known to have started between 20-30 with some minus-average genetics. Ma Hong, a teacher of Chen Tai Chi, started when he was 40 years old.
Here he is age 76:
Just proof there exist some physical disciplines that can contradict this claim.
[/quote]I would think the disciplines where age would matter the least are bodybuilding and powerlifting (as shown by the high age of the succesful ones),and whatever is related. Weightlifters quit earlier,though some have peaked at 40. I think it may be PART related to busting out their joints from those terrible lifts.
There are bodybuilders who started middle-age and could pass for some Olympia candidates in the eyes of the common folk. It has zero athletism into it so it kind of makes sense. Muscle can be added at any age. Flexibility dies first,followed by speed/explosiveness,followed by stamina and strength.
Do you think lee only grew to be 5’4" because he started training so young?
I mean BBing is pretty strenuous on the body…
Like it maybe stunted his growth in some way?
Either way, its pretty ridiculous for someone to get into BB at 12-13
i dont think training has anything to do with his height, im pretty sure there is an interview where he said he is taller than him mum and dad so its just genetic
Yeah, Priest was destined to be short from the start so blaming his height on steroids could not be proved either way.
[quote]tnt2005 wrote:
King Kamali’s genetics weren’t anything special he is an IFBB pro and placed third at the IRON man. He is a success story despite bad genetics though his pro career hasn’t been anything spectacular[/quote]
The only part of his genetics which sucks are some of his attachments (biceps, triceps especially). Those throw off his symmetry/shape…
Chances are he still easily blew past his old training partners (who likely did the same drugs, routine, etc), a thing that yates didn’t manage until much later in his career, by comparison. (The two aren’t that dissimilar in some ways though)
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Yea - and as soon as he started training you can see his potential, and the round muscle bellies and the fullness he displays, even at the beginning…
And Yates probably had the worst genetics of any Mr. O, mind you…
How so?
I would think being able to come in as heavy as he did would indicate good genetics? Or are you coming from an aesthetic standpoint?[/quote]
He had shitty arm genetics among other things. (high, but fairly peakless biceps, relatively short triceps) etc.
If you look at his earlier pics, he really didn’t look like a mr. o candidate until he sort of blew up later on… His arms were absolutely horrible and there wasn’t much thickness going on.
He did improve his own training program significantly though (and, I guess, found a hidden stache full of insulin lol) and at some point he got so big/full that the sheer mass sort of compensated for his attachment-lengths.
His back also wasn’t anything to write home about at first, he started deadlifting heavy later… Other Pro’s get great back development from rows and pulldowns alone, it seems, but he didn’t (by comparison).
Deadlifting and his underhand rows (I suppose) made a real difference…
And let’s face it, there were other guys back then which overall looked much better. He still had them as far as backwidth/thickness go though, and once he tore his already short triceps/biceps… He still won, that was imo a real fucking stretch.
Edit: He also didn’t really overtake everyone else at his gym so easily at first as guys like Ronnie do, from what I can tell.
Okay, I can see a lot of that. And yes, young Yates showed hardly any potential or sign of what he would become.
I’m sometimes clueless when people talk about genetics, that’s all. I get it to some extent and with certain cases, but sometimes I need clarification.
[quote]Rape Weight wrote:
Okay, I can see a lot of that. And yes, young Yates showed hardly any potential or sign of what he would become.
I’m sometimes clueless when people talk about genetics, that’s all. I get it to some extent and with certain cases, but sometimes I need clarification.[/quote]
No problem. The thing is, yates would most definitely not win the O today… Nowadays we have the super-genetics-ultra-aesthetics crowd on top… Too many of those for even good old dorian to beat.
And yeah… Genetics influence many things.
Wheeler had great shape, but wasn’t meant to be a superheavy. He tried to get there via extra-gear and fucked himself up.
Ronnie has the genetics for being huge, but he doesn’t look very aesthetic. Even at 210 he didn’t.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
tnt2005 wrote:
King Kamali’s genetics weren’t anything special he is an IFBB pro and placed third at the IRON man. He is a success story despite bad genetics though his pro career hasn’t been anything spectacular
his shape is almost exactly the same as Kovac’s.[/quote]
nice observation likely more “palumboism” from insulin abuse, Ronnie Coleman was aesthitic looking in the 90’s he looked great. Ronnie never had very much ab development but it wasn’t until he blew up and became a so heavy in the 2000’s that he lost alot of his symmetry and was alot less pleasing to the eye.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Rape Weight wrote:
Okay, I can see a lot of that. And yes, young Yates showed hardly any potential or sign of what he would become.
I’m sometimes clueless when people talk about genetics, that’s all. I get it to some extent and with certain cases, but sometimes I need clarification.
No problem. The thing is, yates would most definitely not win the O today… Nowadays we have the super-genetics-ultra-aesthetics crowd on top… Too many of those for even good old dorian to beat.
And yeah… Genetics influence many things.
Wheeler had great shape, but wasn’t meant to be a superheavy. He tried to get there via extra-gear and fucked himself up.
Ronnie has the genetics for being huge, but he doesn’t look very aesthetic. Even at 210 he didn’t.
[/quote]
Really? I thought Ronnie looked amazing in his early days. His waist looked super tight and his back was still huge/wide. Still had big arms and legs but wasn’t really a freak yet.
and some people try to act like genetics isn’t a factor…ha
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
He had shitty arm genetics among other things. (high, but fairly peakless biceps, relatively short triceps) etc.
If you look at his earlier pics, he really didn’t look like a mr. o candidate until he sort of blew up later on… His arms were absolutely horrible and there wasn’t much thickness going on.
He did improve his own training program significantly though (and, I guess, found a hidden stache full of insulin lol) and at some point he got so big/full that the sheer mass sort of compensated for his attachment-lengths.
His back also wasn’t anything to write home about at first, he started deadlifting heavy later… Other Pro’s get great back development from rows and pulldowns alone, it seems, but he didn’t (by comparison).
Deadlifting and his underhand rows (I suppose) made a real difference…
And let’s face it, there were other guys back then which overall looked much better. He still had them as far as backwidth/thickness go though, and once he tore his already short triceps/biceps… He still won, that was imo a real fucking stretch.
Edit: He also didn’t really overtake everyone else at his gym so easily at first as guys like Ronnie do, from what I can tell.
[/quote]
This is actually why I respect Dorian the most out of all the Mr.Olympias. He is the easiest to identify with and in my opinion… most respectable. Probably one of the better ones to listen to too.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Really? I thought Ronnie looked amazing in his early days. His waist looked super tight and his back was still huge/wide. Still had big arms and legs but wasn’t really a freak yet.
[/quote]
He looked more aesthetic than he does now, but you can hardly compare him to wheeler now, can you?
Or to Levrone… Levrone looked more aesthetic at 240 or whatever than Ronnie at 210.
Or check Toney Freeman, your avatar.
Guy weighs a LOT, yet his waist is super-ultra-mega-tight.
Look at others at that weight, even guys of somewhat similar height. How many can keep that kind of waist while getting huge?
Or, for a completely different example of how genetics affect people… Max Charles food intake and what he eats/drinks. Now look at Ronnie’s or Dorian’s for comparison. Or Trey’s.
dennis wolf is about the only person who springs to mind?
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
waylanderxx wrote:
Really? I thought Ronnie looked amazing in his early days. His waist looked super tight and his back was still huge/wide. Still had big arms and legs but wasn’t really a freak yet.
He looked more aesthetic than he does now, but you can hardly compare him to wheeler now, can you?
Or to Levrone… Levrone looked more aesthetic at 240 or whatever than Ronnie at 210.
Or check Toney Freeman, your avatar.
Guy weighs a LOT, yet his waist is super-ultra-mega-tight.
Look at others at that weight, even guys of somewhat similar height. How many can keep that kind of waist while getting huge?
Or, for a completely different example of how genetics affect people… Max Charles food intake and what he eats/drinks. Now look at Ronnie’s or Dorian’s for comparison. Or Trey’s.
[/quote]
IDK I’d have to compare them at the same time period. Obviously flex was unbeatable in the aesthetics department, but I still thought Ronnie looked sick. I think you are right though that he could not win going the “pretty” route.
There’s a clip on youtube called “ronnie coleman early days” I believe, and he poses for about 2 minutes and he is just peeled as hell. Looks like muscle is going to break through the skin.
Here’s the video:
I think he looked crazy. That waist looks like it’s under 30 inches haha.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Here’s the video:
I think he looked crazy. That waist looks like it’s under 30 inches haha.[/quote]
I doubt that it was under 30 inches lol
Still, he sure looked more aesthetic back then.
Probably ate a lot less than he does today, too… (obviously… And let’s face it, that sure does affect how bloated you look, esp. if you eat stuff which you’re slightly “allergic” to/which gives you lots of gas etc… Drinking milk makes me look pregnant, for example)
Anyway, still didn’t have a waist like Wheeler, Freeman, Dex or any of those guys… He’s also cursed with fairly ugly abs lol
How much did he weigh in that vid?
Edit: Doesn’t look like his 210 lbs days to me