Author Topic: p  (Read 7564 times)

body88

  • Guest
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2006, 04:45:22 PM »
Muvi darrem looks great but his weight claims are complete bullshit, and if he is then that sucks because he looks much lighter
dont get me wrong he looks awsome but not a ripped 235

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2006, 04:54:23 PM »
I'm not sure how Darrem can weigh the same as Arnold.

Bear in mind, Arnold was all upper body compared to pros today.  Darrem's legs are thicker all around.
Oh and before any ironager posts the one picture of Arnold's thighs where they look somewhat comparable to pros of today, taken from a low angle, in black and white high quality photography and close up (probably with a wide angle lens too), spare me, I'll do it first.   ::)


jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5804
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2006, 04:57:56 PM »
Darrem won the mr universe in the under 198lbs class in 1991.

Whether he has put on 35 lean pounds of muscle since then is open to debate.

I personally doubt that he has.

I think he is a great bodybuilder though!

Earl1972

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22050
  • #EarlToo
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2006, 09:12:03 PM »
Arnold is shorter than 6'1

I've heard he's more like 5'11

E
E

JOHN MATRIX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13281
  • the Media is the Problem
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2006, 10:58:06 PM »
arnold did NOT have a mediocre back. he had very low lats and plenty of back thickness and detail. his lats inserted lower than most pros today and were plenty thick.
arnold's weight was always changing; he actually lost weight(apparently) from his teens to his peak. supposedly he was 260 at 19-20 yrs old, and to me looked nothing less than 250 at any point, considering his height and fullness.
theres no question he was much larger than darrem, who is narrow and has narrow legs, no thicker of a torso or anything else than arnold including back.
 

ARMZ

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2006, 11:12:52 PM »
I've talked to Arnold in person and he seemed to be about 6' tall, maybe less. Remember, in the movie biz you add inches.

blaster

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 907
  • If bodybuilding was easy, everyone would be big!
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2006, 12:27:42 AM »
arnold did NOT have a mediocre back. he had very low lats and plenty of back thickness and detail. his lats inserted lower than most pros today and were plenty thick.
arnold's weight was always changing; he actually lost weight(apparently) from his teens to his peak. supposedly he was 260 at 19-20 yrs old, and to me looked nothing less than 250 at any point, considering his height and fullness.
theres no question he was much larger than darrem, who is narrow and has narrow legs, no thicker of a torso or anything else than arnold including back.


I doubt Arnold was ever 260lbs. I heard or read somewhere he was around something like 220lbs at his best. The piece was comparing weights of yesteryear's bodybuilders' weights to current ones. Remebering his height, I know a guy who is about 6" who is not THAT far of Arnold's physique and he was around 105kgs which is about 230lbs.

Just found this on his site:

HOW TALL IS ARNOLD? WHAT WERE HIS MEASUREMENTS AT HIS PEAK?


According to his autobiography, ARNOLD: THE EDUCATION OF A BODYBUILDER, Arnold is 6'2", or 1.88 meters tall. His measurements at the peak of his career were;
Arms: 22 inches
Chest: 57 inches
Waist: 34 inches
Thighs: 28.5 inches
Calves: 20 inches
Weight: 235 pounds



Scimowser

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4111
  • Make them remember you
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2006, 10:57:05 AM »
there are pics of Arnold posing weighing around 260 IN THE OFFSEASON. Onstage he was always around 230-235 from what i gather. Saying that, Reg Park was smaller than him and he was supposed to be 230 onstage and natural
Scouser on Tour

Disgusted

  • Expert
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13610
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2006, 11:32:38 AM »
Arnold is shorter than 6'1
I've heard he's more like 5'11
E

No way, I'm 6ft and I have stood next to Arnold on more than one occasion and he towers over me. Same shoes BTW. (almost)  ;D

DEFCON

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2061
  • LSD, 100 µg, i.m.
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2006, 11:54:05 AM »

Darrem looks retarded, as in a few extra chromosomes.

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2006, 12:46:27 PM »
Ronnie is all upper body compared to pros today.  Is that not obvious?

FREAKgeek

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
  • Fan of the Golden Era
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2006, 09:13:09 PM »
he ain't no 260 here


Special Ed

  • Toms
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4666
  • Special Ed Forever!
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2006, 09:16:18 PM »
arnold did NOT have a mediocre back. he had very low lats and plenty of back thickness and detail. his lats inserted lower than most pros today and were plenty thick.
arnold's weight was always changing; he actually lost weight(apparently) from his teens to his peak. supposedly he was 260 at 19-20 yrs old, and to me looked nothing less than 250 at any point, considering his height and fullness.
theres no question he was much larger than darrem, who is narrow and has narrow legs, no thicker of a torso or anything else than arnold including back.

Arnold looks circumsized. Why would they do that to him? Or is he just poppin' wood at his reflection.

Special "BoneHunter.com" Ed
BigNationRadio.com

DIVISION

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • Bless me please, father.....
Re: This is either bull or highly inaccurate!
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2006, 10:04:35 PM »
Darrem ain't 230 onstage, no fuckin' way, these guys always lie about their weight, Bob Chick claims to be 250 yet in that 30 days show his arms looked all of 17 inches.

Mirzy, are you crippin' on Chick's set?   ???



DIV
I'm a ghost in these killing fields...