Author Topic: Arnold Schwarzenegger - 💪Muscle gallery (Read 2105071 times)

Cracks me up when people criticize Arnold's quads. He had the best quads in his era and when you include the calves he blew everybody away on legs.

Look how he just destroys Serge, who some feel was better than Arnold. In fact there is a poster on this thread (can't remember whom) who constantly criticizes the Oak's quads and Arnold over all. When I asked him who he considered better during that era he said Serge Nubret.

Arnold was just way, way ahead of the competition in his era.

DroppingPlates · « **Reply #2569 on:** March 04, 2016, 02:23:14 AM »

Quote from: pellius on March 04, 2016, 02:04:15 AM

Cracks me up when people criticize Arnold's quads. He had the best quads in his era and when you include the calves he blew everybody away on legs.

Look how he just destroys Serge, who some feel was better than Arnold. In fact there is a poster on this thread (can't remember whom) who constantly criticizes the Oak's quads and Arnold over all. When I asked him who he considered better during that era he said Serge Nubret.

Arnold was just way, way ahead of the competition in his era.

At least I'm consistent

Yes, I agree, for that era he had pretty good quads. The best? Hard to say. Speaking of his calves, yes they were great, but they were no match with his thighs and that's my my main critique on Arnold: not the best proportions. Everyone talks about his chest, biceps & calves for a good reason, but a well proportioned body (Bob Paris for example) will always look better to me. Good proportions are the fundamentals of a good physique.
Needles to say that Serge had his flaws as well, but his sharp lines, combined with a wasp waist resulted in a great physique.

pellius · « **Reply #2570 on:** March 04, 2016, 03:26:32 AM »

Quote from: DroppingPlates on March 04, 2016, 02:23:14 AM

At least I'm consistent Yes, I agree, for that era he had pretty good quads. The best? Hard to say. Speaking of his calves, yes they were great, but they were no match with his thighs and that's my my main critique on Arnold: not the best proportions. Everyone talks about his chest, biceps & calves for a good reason, but a well proportioned body (Bob Paris for example) will always look better to me. Good proportions are the fundamentals of a good physique.
Needles to say that Serge had his flaws as well, but his sharp lines, combined with a wasp waist resulted in a great physique.

Again, who had better over all leg development than Arnold in his era? Maybe you know someone from that time but I don't. The top bbers in his era were Lou, Zane, Franco, Serge, Sergio, Draper, Bill Grant, Ken Waller.... Anybody else?

Serge did have a great physique. Nobody question that. Just not better than Arnold's. And certainly not even close in leg development. Odd, you should say that Arnold's calves didn't match his thighs when Serge legs didn't come close to matching his upper body. A far, far greater flaw.

BTW, I don't agree that Arnold's calves and quads were out of proportion and have never heard such a criticism. I've heard of the tri/bi disproportion but never ever with his legs.

Has anybody on this thread ever heard of such a thing or is it just another example of DP's obvious bias again Arnold?

DroppingPlates · « **Reply #2571 on:** March 04, 2016, 03:40:15 AM »

Quote from: pellius on March 04, 2016, 03:26:32 AM

Again, who had better over all leg development than Arnold in his era? Maybe you know someone from that time but I don't. The top bbers in his era were Lou, Zane, Franco, Serge, Sergio, Draper, Bill Grant, Ken Waller.... Anybody else?

Serge did have a great physique. Nobody question that. Just not better than Arnold's. And certainly not even close in leg development. Odd, you should say that Arnold's calves didn't match his thighs when Serge legs didn't come close to matching his upper body. A far, far greater flaw.

BTW, I don't agree that Arnold's calves and quads were out of proportion and have never heard such a criticism. I've heard of the tri/bi disproportion but never ever with his legs.

Has anybody on this thread ever heard of such a thing or is it just another example of DP's obvious bias again Arnold?

It's sad that you end like most Arnold fans, when someone expresses some criticism, namely emotional. ('against', 'hate', etc, lol)

I don't care what others say, but the first thing I look for when I observe someone's physique, are his/her proportions, than shape and than mass. I just don't appreciate his proportions, and his quad to calve ratio is one of them, simple as that.

pellius · « **Reply #2572 on:** March 04, 2016, 03:57:00 AM »

Quote from: DroppingPlates on March 04, 2016, 03:40:15 AM

It's sad that you end like most Arnold fans, when someone expresses some criticism, namely emotional. ('against', 'hate', etc, lol)

I don't care what others say, but the first thing I look for when I observe someone's physique, are his/her proportions, than shape and than mass. I just don't appreciate his proportions, and his quad to calve ratio is one of them, simple as that.

What? What are you talking about?: What do you mean emotional?
Why do you put words in my mouth? You have a bias against Arnold. Do you deny that? I have a bias for Arnold and openly admit it. But I back with evidence. You claim his quad/calf ratio is out of proportion. I have never, ever heard this criticism of Arnold and I started following him like a teenage groupie since 1975. But I was willing to concede that maybe I just missed it for the last few decades. I've heard criticism about his waist, tris, narrow slopping shoulders and abs but never ever leg/calf ratio.

That's why I suspect it's just your personal bias and why I want the opinion of others if they had ever heard this criticism.

And if proportions are so important to you why was the first person you mentioned earlier in this thread Serge Nubret who everyone agreed his whole lower body was not in proportion to his upper and things would have been a lot different if he just could bring his legs up?

Don't be so touchy. I mean, this dialogue is getting so disturbingly gay as it is.

ARNIE1947 · « **Reply #2573 on:** March 04, 2016, 07:44:07 AM »

Thespritz0 · « **Reply #2574 on:** March 04, 2016, 07:57:16 AM »

Quote from: pellius on March 04, 2016, 03:57:00 AM

What? What are you talking about?: What do you mean emotional?
Why do you put words in my mouth? You have a bias against Arnold. Do you deny that? I have a bias for Arnold and openly admit it. But I back with evidence. You claim his quad/calf ratio is out of proportion. I have never, ever heard this criticism of Arnold and I started following him like a teenage groupie since 1975. But I was willing to concede that maybe I just missed it for the last few decades. I've heard criticism about his waist, tris, narrow slopping shoulders and abs but never ever leg/calf ratio.

That's why I suspect it's just your personal bias and why I want the opinion of others if they had ever heard this criticism.

And if proportions are so important to you why was the first person you mentioned earlier in this thread Serge Nubret who everyone agreed his whole lower body was not in proportion to his upper and things would have been a lot different if he just could bring his legs up?

Don't be so touchy. I mean, this dialogue is getting so disturbingly gay as it is.

^^
DON'T WORRY PELLIUS- His calf/thigh proportionality H A S to be better than today's behemoths!! Imagine how MANY of Jay Cutler's calves could you fit into his hulking, bloated thighs?

Author Topic: Arnold Schwarzenegger - 💪Muscle gallery (Read 2105071 times)

Simple Simon