Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Antony77 on July 24, 2008, 11:45:38 AM

Title: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Antony77 on July 24, 2008, 11:45:38 AM
At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time. So here are some pics from his best showing, the 1974 Mr. Olympia
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia022.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia005.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia025.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia035.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia030.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia034.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia039.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia009.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia038.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1974olympia/1974olympia012.jpg)
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 11:49:18 AM
 They're shit. Good calf implants though.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: JohnnyVegas on July 24, 2008, 11:50:52 AM
They're shit. Good calf implants though.

Arnold is nothing comapred to this mass monster ripped to shreds guy;

Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Team Diver on July 24, 2008, 11:51:31 AM
who is this swimmer?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: slayer on July 24, 2008, 11:55:09 AM
Arnold is nothing comapred to this mass monster ripped to shreds guy;


what the hell is that thing?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Antony77 on July 24, 2008, 12:00:58 PM
Arnold is nothing comapred to this mass monster ripped to shreds guy;


Is that the semi-corporeal ghost of Chris Farley appearing in someone's backyard or just a fat guy taking a photo of his barely reflected image in a window?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Ursus on July 24, 2008, 12:03:31 PM
Arnolds legs wer as good as almost anyones at the time.

I like teh look of the legs being big but not stupid big. He had v good seperation also
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: The ChemistV2 on July 24, 2008, 12:12:45 PM
In 74 his legs were definitely at their best with decent size and gret separation. In 75, they were down a  little and in 80, they were very thin. Of course in 80, it's been said he only trained for the show for about  3 months after not competing in 5 years, so that's probably why he couldn't get his legs up in time for the show. After a layoff, it's harder to bring up weaker bodyparts as fast as your good ones.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Bluto on July 24, 2008, 12:16:09 PM
bigger upperbody is the ideal to this day for everyone but homosexuals and people with genetically bigger legs (a defect by birth)
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: donrhummy on July 24, 2008, 12:24:33 PM
They're shit. Good calf implants though.

Can you explain to me how in 1974, Arnold had amazing calf implants that looked real and that allowed the muscle to change shape when the foot moved but now 34 years later, calf implants are obvious and fake looking?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 12:29:16 PM
Arnold is nothing comapred to this mass monster ripped to shreds guy;




Until you man up and post this pic of your claimed 21 inch guns and 270lb, 5'4 body...he fucking owns you.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: The ChemistV2 on July 24, 2008, 12:31:51 PM
Can you explain to me how in 1974, Arnold had amazing calf implants that looked real and that allowed the muscle to change shape when the foot moved but now 34 years later, calf implants are obvious and fake looking?
That was an absurd rumor started by jealous people who blamed bad genetics rather than a lousy work ethic for their own pathetic calves.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Megalodon on July 24, 2008, 12:34:58 PM
Arnold's quads are among the best ever.The inner thigh adductor muscles look awkward when overdeveloped. But as far as quads go Arnold's were among the deepest and longest quad muscles ever. Plus like Yates he had proportionately long thigh bones and legs in general.

Someone with short legs and overdeveloped adductor muscles looks unaesthetic and genetically inferior. Only in bodybuilding can someone be short, have proportionately short legs with huge chafing inner thighs and yet be considered genetically superior. ;D
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: ibfasport on July 24, 2008, 12:59:20 PM
(http://www.connietalk.com/arnold_pot.jpg)

read the shirt
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 01:12:00 PM
Arnold's quads are among the best ever.

::)
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 01:18:42 PM
they weren;t that bad but they weren;t good either
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 01:21:19 PM
In 74 his legs were definitely at their best with decent size and gret separation. In 75, they were down a  little and in 80, they were very thin. Of course in 80, it's been said he only trained for the show for about  3 months after not competing in 5 years, so that's probably why he couldn't get his legs up in time for the show. After a layoff, it's harder to bring up weaker bodyparts as fast as your good ones.

Chem, were you in Aus for the 80 'O?

And, indeed, at that time (70's) most bb's concentrated more on upper body...not as pointed and specialized as today , for certain.

A's legs stood up very well for that time
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Raz on July 24, 2008, 01:28:34 PM
He's got a naturally wide-ass waist though.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 01:31:05 PM
He's got a naturally wide-ass waist though.

A was very good at postioning himself while posing to hide this and make it look small
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Raz on July 24, 2008, 01:41:37 PM
A was very good at postioning himself while posing to hide this and make it look small


Yeah that's a fair comment for the most part.

But any sort of straight-on pic (like a couple of those posted above) and it spoils his physique IMO.

Very little can be done about structure though.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Megalodon on July 24, 2008, 01:52:33 PM
Arnold's quads are among the best ever... if not the best ever structure-wise. Don't confuse quads for total thigh. Here is what Arnold's thighs would look like if his quads stayed the SAME but he had more inner thigh adductors. Arnold had longer, fuller, and deeper quads than "Quadzilla" Paul DeMayo.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 01:55:04 PM

Yeah that's a fair comment for the most part.

But any sort of straight-on pic (like a couple of those posted above) and it spoils his physique IMO.

Very little can be done about

He'd rarely hit a db straight on...twist the hips and make em look loads smaller
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 01:56:13 PM
Arnold's quads are among the best ever... if not the best ever structure-wise. Don't confuse quads for total thigh. Here is what Arnold's thighs would look like if his quads stayed the SAME but he had more inner thigh adductors. Arnold had longer, fuller, and deeper quads than "Quadzilla" Paul DeMayo.



Hmmm...I dunno....great quads for a tall guy.

Best ever?

I am not sure of that. Good pic though.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: TrueGrit on July 24, 2008, 01:59:09 PM
  I've always preferred the old school look of smaller , but still developed, legs. The likes of Reeves, Zane and Nubret. I think that was a more aesthetic and appealing look. Obviously, chicken legs totally out of proportion looks ridiculous but this modern phenomenon of freaky, chaffing legs is not something I, personally, think looks good. Then again.. since HGH and slin, what does?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 02:03:45 PM
  I've always preferred the old school look of smaller , but still developed, legs. The likes of Reeves, Zane and Nubret. I think that was a more aesthetic and appealing look. Obviously, chicken legs totally out of proportion looks ridiculous but this modern phenomenon of freaky, chaffing legs is not something I, personally, think looks good. Then again.. since HGH and slin, what does?

agreed imo
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: m8 on July 24, 2008, 02:12:39 PM
Arnold was great all around.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 02:51:12 PM
  I've always preferred the old school look of smaller , but still developed, legs. The likes of Reeves, Zane and Nubret. I think that was a more aesthetic and appealing look. Obviously, chicken legs totally out of proportion looks ridiculous but this modern phenomenon of freaky, chaffing legs is not something I, personally, think looks good. Then again.. since HGH and slin, what does?


guys that have small legs or have a hard time getting bigger legs would usually say that
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 02:58:55 PM

guys that have small legs or have a hard time getting bigger legs would usually say that

If you have 20 inch calves, you MUST have 20" arms to match them
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Bluto on July 24, 2008, 03:12:44 PM
20 inch calves is only impressive if they were 10 inches starting out

Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 03:40:11 PM
If you have 20 inch calves, you MUST have 20" arms to match them


actually they are 21 right now. i am fat though..offseason mode. eating what i want..fat and happy ;D

ps don't really care if you believe or not
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 03:54:52 PM
If you have 20 inch calves, you MUST have 20" arms to match them


we all can't be 170 middleweights
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 03:59:39 PM

we all can't be 170 middleweights

190 at my best which smokes you, as it would be likely with your bowed legs, greenhorn ;D
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 04:13:35 PM
190 at my best which smokes you, as it would be likely with your bowed legs, greenhorn ;D

i looked better in my first show than you have in any of your sorry pics that you continue to post from the 80's ;)
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 04:29:21 PM
i looked better in my first show than you have in any of your sorry pics that you continue to post from the 80's ;)

Post some pics. At least moose does that and defends his position from there. Btw, if you're as fat as you say you are then big calves are nothing as I have never seen a fat fuck with no calves ;D
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 24, 2008, 04:30:57 PM
i looked better in my first show than you have in any of your sorry pics that you continue to post from the 80's ;)

well, if you have any honor and respect and kn ow what it takes to get into contest shape, then you wouldn't speak this way.

Shape up with your poor attitude.

Without that, your accomplishments mean nothing, as do the the platic trophies we all 'earn'
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: DIVISION on July 24, 2008, 04:38:40 PM

Arnold overall was great, but he got a few "gift" wins due to his association with Weider and that cannot be denied.

Oliva was better.



DIV
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: dustin on July 24, 2008, 04:47:52 PM
I also think that he had a great pair of legs. I don't care for out-of-proportion tree trunks. I'm bottom heavy and laying off the leg training. They're as big as I want them. Just need more inner thighs, more "hang" to my hams and cuts, cuts, cuts. Of course you can never have enough muscle maturity.. but too much size is just blah.

As long as no one's walking on bean poles with birdy calves and the quads of a young Chinese girl then it's all good.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Ursus on July 24, 2008, 04:57:24 PM
I do have smaller legs proportionately than my upperbod but i dont care.

I still do prefer the slighlty small look like arnolds than say branch...just sill yllookin
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 05:00:33 PM
Massive quads are like massive traps: the bedrock of freakdom.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: dustin on July 24, 2008, 05:01:46 PM
Massive quads are like massive traps: the bedrock of freakdom.

That's true. But I'd trade those in for much more conditioned legs.

IMHO conditioned legs > fat, overgrown cum stumps for legs
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Ursus on July 24, 2008, 05:02:07 PM
tough like legs over develope traps look silly
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 05:05:50 PM
tough like legs over develope traps look silly

What nationality are you?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Ursus on July 24, 2008, 05:13:22 PM
Irish..bad keyboard...buttons sticking etc
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: m8 on July 24, 2008, 05:16:43 PM
buttons sticking etc

LOL!
No more mastubation for you.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 06:10:52 PM
well, if you have any honor and respect and kn ow what it takes to get into contest shape, then you wouldn't speak this way.

Shape up with your poor attitude.

Without that, your accomplishments mean nothing, as do the the platic trophies we all 'earn'


don;t understand why you say i have a poor attitude..not that i care but if you look back at the posts you started with the whole i look better than you stuff.... YOU  not me are the one that said i look better than you at 190.  u got in shape i applaud you for that but don;t start on somone and expect them not to say anything back.

Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: 20inch calves on July 24, 2008, 06:14:09 PM
Post some pics. At least moose does that and defends his position from there. Btw, if you're as fat as you say you are then big calves are nothing as I have never seen a fat fuck with no calves ;D


i will try to post some pictures. i personally think its silly as i have nothing to prove. i have done 2 shows and won first in the novice class and best new competitor award and i won my class in the other show i did with 2nd overall. nothing to brag about but i have gotten to shape

as far as my calves go they were right at 20inch when i dieted down for both of my shows..now what ;)
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: knny187 on July 24, 2008, 06:36:18 PM
Arnold overall was great, but he got a few "gift" wins due to his association with Weider and that cannot be denied.

Oliva was better.



DIV

Although I don't agree with you....but everyone knows that Arnold was scared shitless of Olivia & going toe to toe when Olivia was 100%
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: SweetMuscles on July 24, 2008, 06:50:02 PM

i will try to post some pictures. i personally think its silly as i have nothing to prove. i have done 2 shows and won first in the novice class and best new competitor award and i won my class in the other show i did with 2nd overall. nothing to brag about but i have gotten to shape

as far as my calves go they were right at 20inch when i dieted down for both of my shows..now what ;)

Cool, if you look better than moose then I'll say. You said you blow him away that's why I said that.
You have to understand we have guys like JohnnyVegas slamming the guys who post their pics and claiming he smokes them with his 21 inch arms and 5'4 270lb monster physique. Of course, no pic to back up his claims ;D
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: DIVISION on July 24, 2008, 06:56:03 PM
Although I don't agree with you....but everyone knows that Arnold was scared shitless of Olivia & going toe to toe when Olivia was 100%

You don't agree with me on which point, young Kenneth?

Oliva had thicker muscle bellies and was more massive than Arnold.

Arnold got some "gift" wins due to Weider, that is known.........no disputing that.

As great as Arnold was, he really was overrated towards the end of his competition days.

He stole wins from guys who probably deserved it more........the same way Yates did with his torn tricep/biceps.

No one should get gift placing because they are Weider's pet, nor due to reputation as Yates did even when his bi/tri injuries should have DQ'd him from winning those Olympias.


DIV
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: knny187 on July 24, 2008, 06:59:52 PM
You don't agree with me on which point, young Kenneth?

Oliva had thicker muscle bellies and was more massive than Arnold.

Arnold got some "gift" wins due to Weider, that is known.........no disputing that.

As great as Arnold was, he really was overrated towards the end of his competition days.

He stole wins from guys who probably deserved it more........the same way Yates did with his torn tricep/biceps.

No one should get gift placing because they are Weider's pet, nor due to reputation as Yates did even when his bi/tri injuries should have DQ'd him from winning those Olympias.


DIV

I don't agree to the point if I had to wake up & have either Arnolds or Sergios physique....

it would be Arnolds.

Arnold had a better chest, back & arms IMO

Serio's lower half edges arnold a little.

Sergio had great arms...but the shape was big & blah.  Arnolds was big, shaped, peaked, & diced.

Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: DIVISION on July 24, 2008, 07:04:35 PM
I don't agree to the point if I had to wake up & have either Arnolds or Sergios physique....

it would be Arnolds.

Arnold had a better chest, back & arms IMO

Serio's lower half edges arnold a little.

Sergio had great arms...but the shape was big & blah.  Arnolds was big, shaped, peaked, & diced.



I wouldn't want either's physique.

I'm a strength athlete........not a bodybuilder.

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would use the amount of drugs required to attain a temporary physique putting their health at risk just for a trophy......

Lifting because you love it is one thing.......but there's no payoff for most bodybuilders.

Even if you're an egomaniac, most women don't like the mass monster look.........it will work against you for the most part.

Unless you like fucking with fitness and bodybuilder chicks....


DIV
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: bizzy on July 24, 2008, 08:38:21 PM
Some front shots of Arnold where his quads look
pretty good either in size, defintion or both.

Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: bizzy on July 24, 2008, 08:41:16 PM
...
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: JohnnyVegas on July 24, 2008, 08:47:59 PM
Arnold had GREAT seperation in his legs. His thighs are sliced uo very nicely, and have greaqt shape. 1980 not withstanding.

Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Get Rowdy on July 24, 2008, 09:00:09 PM
Arnold's legs were pretty much perfect imo.

If you look at a pic of when he's 16, the muscle bellies of his quads look quite short, but in his prime it seems as if they've lengthened somehow.  ???
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Megalodon on July 24, 2008, 10:19:36 PM


If you look at a pic of when he's 16, the muscle bellies of his quads look quite short, but in his prime it seems as if they've lengthened somehow.  ???


That's true. It looks like Arnold's tear drop shaped vastus medialis actually became considerably longer. He probably got much better control of flexing the quads. He also had unusual separation/detail in the upper quads. My guess is that Arnold practiced flexing the upper quads standing with both legs straight--not just flexing when doing leg extensions with the upper body bent and not just extending one leg forward and flexing. 
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Tombo on July 24, 2008, 10:21:29 PM
calf implants lol...

kinda hard for Arnold to look bad back then
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Pollux on July 25, 2008, 06:48:00 AM
 8)

(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w142/Flex2000/164.jpg)
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Moosejay on July 25, 2008, 06:49:35 AM
8)

(http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w142/Flex2000/164.jpg)

You know he'd be ripped on TODAY with legs like that.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: The ChemistV2 on July 25, 2008, 07:36:31 AM
You know he'd be ripped on TODAY with legs like that.
That's because bodybuilding has evolved from an Art form to a mere Freak show.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: dantelis on July 25, 2008, 07:45:31 AM
  I've always preferred the old school look of smaller , but still developed, legs. The likes of Reeves, Zane and Nubret. I think that was a more aesthetic and appealing look. Obviously, chicken legs totally out of proportion looks ridiculous but this modern phenomenon of freaky, chaffing legs is not something I, personally, think looks good. Then again.. since HGH and slin, what does?

I agree.  Bring back the Y shape over the X shape as the pro BB ideal. 
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: JohnnyVegas on July 25, 2008, 08:01:32 AM

That's true. It looks like Arnold's tear drop shaped vastus medialis actually became considerably longer. He probably got much better control of flexing the quads. He also had unusual separation/detail in the upper quads. My guess is that Arnold practiced flexing the upper quads standing with both legs straight--not just flexing when doing leg extensions with the upper body bent and not just extending one leg forward and flexing. 

This is 100% true-Arnold is on recrd numerous times stating that he ALWAYS flexed his legs, even  just when standing in the line up. And if you look at his shots witht he trophy, with joe and others, his epper legs are flexed ALWAYS so you see the seperation in his upper thighs (rectus femoris). I don't really think anyone else was doing that back then, just Arnold.
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: njflex on July 25, 2008, 08:07:03 AM
This is 100% true-Arnold is on recrd numerous times stating that he ALWAYS flexed his legs, even  just when standing in the line up. And if you look at his shots witht he trophy, with joe and others, his epper legs are flexed ALWAYS so you see the seperation in his upper thighs (rectus femoris). I don't really think anyone else was doing that back then, just Arnold.
ZANE?
Title: Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
Post by: Pollux on July 25, 2008, 08:09:17 AM
That's because bodybuilding has evolved from an Art form to a mere Freak show.

LOL!  :D

Bingo!