Author Topic: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.  (Read 8527 times)

m8

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10794
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2008, 02:12:39 PM »
Arnold was great all around.

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #26 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
irongearco.com

Moosejay

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #27 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

Bluto

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33175
  • Well?
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2008, 03:12:44 PM »
20 inch calves is only impressive if they were 10 inches starting out

Z

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #29 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
irongearco.com

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #30 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
irongearco.com

Moosejay

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #31 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

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #32 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 ;)
irongearco.com

SweetMuscles

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2111
  • The Grim Repper
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #33 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

Moosejay

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #34 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'

DIVISION

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • Bless me please, father.....
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #35 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
I'm a ghost in these killing fields...

dustin

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #36 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.

Ursus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11338
  • Getbig!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #37 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

SweetMuscles

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2111
  • The Grim Repper
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2008, 05:00:33 PM »
Massive quads are like massive traps: the bedrock of freakdom.

dustin

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #39 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

Ursus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11338
  • Getbig!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2008, 05:02:07 PM »
tough like legs over develope traps look silly

SweetMuscles

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2111
  • The Grim Repper
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2008, 05:05:50 PM »
tough like legs over develope traps look silly

What nationality are you?

Ursus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11338
  • Getbig!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2008, 05:13:22 PM »
Irish..bad keyboard...buttons sticking etc

m8

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10794
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2008, 05:16:43 PM »
buttons sticking etc

LOL!
No more mastubation for you.

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #44 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.

irongearco.com

20inch calves

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #45 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 ;)
irongearco.com

knny187

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22005
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #46 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%

SweetMuscles

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2111
  • The Grim Repper
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #47 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

DIVISION

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • Bless me please, father.....
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #48 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
I'm a ghost in these killing fields...

knny187

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22005
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #49 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.