Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Scimowser on October 10, 2006, 12:54:29 PM

Title: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Scimowser on October 10, 2006, 12:54:29 PM
fuckin impressive if true, those are some very decent numbers

Chest - 55"
Arms - 21.5"
Legs - 30"
Waist - 31.5"
Calves - 21"

bench - 525
Squat - 675
Leg press - 2100
Bicep curl - 225
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jem123 on October 10, 2006, 01:02:02 PM
That sounds about right for a man of his size.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: tweeter on October 10, 2006, 01:03:17 PM
I don't really doubt the stats regarding his size  but I really doubt he is pushing that much weight currently; Chick has never been known as a very heavy lifter; its possible though
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: chris_mason on October 10, 2006, 01:22:29 PM
Chick benched 405 for 30?  Please!  That is pure and utter bullshit! 

The claims seem like b.s. to me for the mere reason that Chick says that benching is bad.  If you don't practice it you will not be good at it.  Perhaps those numbers are lifetime bests and then I may believe them.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: ARMZ on October 10, 2006, 01:24:28 PM
He did 30 for 405..
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Jr. Yates on October 10, 2006, 01:25:11 PM
yeah 405 for 30 reps?? i think not.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: davidpaul on October 10, 2006, 01:27:31 PM
Sarcasm I hope you are reading this brother!!!!


BTW THOSE CLAIMS ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.

Chick is weak, he legpress, does hammer strength machines like they are going out of fashion.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Lord Humungous on October 10, 2006, 01:29:39 PM
and chick doesnt squat either
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 10, 2006, 01:31:40 PM
Nothing wrong with that as an all time best. You think the guy never lifted heavy because he doesn't lift heavy now? OK but 405 for 30? Not even Coleman.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jaejonna on October 10, 2006, 01:33:03 PM
Chick hasnt touched free wieghts since the Regan Administration...what a crock of BS
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 01:36:25 PM
Fucking LIAR.

I will give him 100 dollars for Waist claim, Bench Claim, Squat Claim RIGHT NOW!

Anyone else want to throw in?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: IceCold on October 10, 2006, 01:41:05 PM
those are all time best lifts for chick.

his calves are not 21 inches.  please.

he also said that he almost tore his ped doing 525 for a double.

if he could really do 405 for 30, 525 would be nothing. 

only superheavy powerlifters who specailize in the bench press (mendelson, kennely, etc.) could do 405 for 30 but not chick. 
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 01:42:18 PM
Fucking LIAR.

I will give him 100 dollars for Waist claim, Bench Claim, Squat Claim RIGHT NOW!

Anyone else want to throw in?

Not this again. Please don't do this to yourself again. These kinds of bets have a way of spinning out of control on this board and people here still remember your bet regarding Tom Prince's weight. I am not saying he weighed 230 or whatever, but words were twisted and things really got out of hand.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: 240 is Back on October 10, 2006, 01:45:35 PM
dammit, i expected to open this thread and see something about a hot chick's chest/waist/hip measurements, not some pure bunk Bbing claims.  who gives a rat's ass what Bob Nautilus does in the gym?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Jr. Yates on October 10, 2006, 01:46:34 PM
dammit, i expected to open this thread and see something about a hot chick's chest/waist/hip measurements, not some pure bunk Bbing claims.  who gives a rat's ass what Bob Nautilus does in the gym?
;D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Farcry on October 10, 2006, 01:53:53 PM
no way his waist is 31,thats just silly to lie about it
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: SUBTRACTION on October 10, 2006, 01:57:02 PM
who gives a rat's ass what Bob Nautilus does in the gym at photoshoots with fake plates?

Fixed.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 02:22:40 PM
With enough calories and juice, you can grow just using nautilus machines.  You can grow just doing pushups and chinups for that matter.

Or not even working out as Medical Evidence points out.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: SUBTRACTION on October 10, 2006, 02:23:33 PM
Or not even working out as Medical Evidence Vince Goodrum points out.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 02:27:41 PM
Fixed.

ROFLMAO to this one and the other one!

hahhah
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gordiano on October 10, 2006, 02:40:24 PM
I thought Chick had a deal with AMI, therefore could not talk to MD?

I guess I'm wrong................or did I miss something?


Regardless, I call bullshit on those claims.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Wombat on October 10, 2006, 02:45:39 PM
All these pros lie about the waist size...Go to a state show and throw a tape measure on all the light heavy weights(thats under 198 guys) and you will be lucky to find one guy with a 31 inch waist....Every one of these pros are pushing 40 inch waists...Including now Melvin....His waist looked bigger then his chest(i know it wasn't but it show did come off that way)
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Jr. Yates on October 10, 2006, 02:47:07 PM
All these pros lie about the waist size...Go to a state show and throw a tape measure on all the light heavy weights(thats under 198 guys) and you will be lucky to find one guy with a 31 inch waist....Every one of these pros are pushing 40 inch waists...Including now Melvin....His waist looked bigger then his chest(i know it wasn't but it show did come off that way)
i know  :'(  I loved melvins condition last year at the 05 mr. O.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 05:56:57 PM
I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch.

The other claims are true. measurements as well.

These are all time best, some exercises I don't do anymore...the waist measurement is also true, it's contest sized...certainly not off season.

I've never claimed to be the strongest guy in the gym, never cared.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: rocket on October 10, 2006, 05:58:44 PM
Who needs strength when you're a part of the shinyshirt pirate alliance. 

You can always unleash squads of pegleg assassins at the drop of a hat.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: AVBG on October 10, 2006, 06:04:51 PM
fuckin impressive if true, those are some very decent numbers

Chest - 55"
Arms - 21.520"
Legs - 3028"
Waist - 31.5 36"
Calves - 2118"

bench - 525 450
Squat - 675500
Leg press - 2100
Bicep curl - 225

Here, this is more like it... I like Romano's line... "How do you tell if a bodybuilder is lying? Their lips move"
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: SUBTRACTION on October 10, 2006, 06:09:25 PM
the shinyshirt pirate alliance. 



Is that sorta like the "Lollypop Guild"?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 06:21:38 PM
I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch.

The other claims are true. measurements as well.

These are all time best, some exercises I don't do anymore...the waist measurement is also true, it's contest sized...certainly not off season.

I've never claimed to be the strongest guy in the gym, never cared.
Lee haney barely gets 8 at 405 at his peak and chick did over 20 at 405?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Bast000 on October 10, 2006, 06:44:53 PM
what's a dik4?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Karl Kox on October 10, 2006, 06:58:39 PM
why was this stuff in MD
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Doublemonk on October 10, 2006, 07:10:14 PM
Here are the results of the king of the bench, held at the olympia expo.

Lightweights
Joe Luther 420 pounds
Joe Mazza 420 pounds

Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 615 pounds

Heavyweights
Brian Siders 625 pounds
Nick Winters 625 pounds


Reps for Lightweights
Joe Luther 225x30
Joe Mazza 225x29

Reps for Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 315x27

reps for Heavyweights
Brian Siders 405x15
Nick Winters 405x14



if that doesn't tell you something............... .

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 07:16:53 PM
Here are the results of the king of the bench, held at the olympia expo.

Lightweights
Joe Luther 420 pounds
Joe Mazza 420 pounds

Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 615 pounds

Heavyweights
Brian Siders 625 pounds
Nick Winters 625 pounds


Reps for Lightweights
Joe Luther 225x30
Joe Mazza 225x29

Reps for Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 315x27

reps for Heavyweights
Brian Siders 405x15
Nick Winters 405x14



if that doesn't tell you something............... .


tells us chick is smokin crack
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 07:17:10 PM
TA - are you saying I would gain mass just lifting boxes at Wal-Mart on the drug stacks most pros are on?

Yes!  I`m also saying that if he were on cycle, Flex Wheeler would grow a wonderful set of Delts just by putting on deodorant right before he starts rummaging around the dumpster behind Weider headquarters.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Bast000 on October 10, 2006, 07:22:23 PM
Bob Chickerillo

Testicles: .02 inches
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 07:25:24 PM
Yes!  I`m also saying that if he were on cycle, Flex Wheeler would grow a wonderful set of Delts just by putting on deodorant right before he starts rummaging around the dumpster behind Weider headquarters.

I don't like a lot of what you say but I have to admit that was pretty funny LOL  ;D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 07:25:38 PM
Here are the results of the king of the bench, held at the olympia expo.

Lightweights
Joe Luther 420 pounds
Joe Mazza 420 pounds

Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 615 pounds

Heavyweights
Brian Siders 625 pounds
Nick Winters 625 pounds


Reps for Lightweights
Joe Luther 225x30
Joe Mazza 225x29

Reps for Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 315x27

reps for Heavyweights
Brian Siders 405x15
Nick Winters 405x14



if that doesn't tell you something............... .




For the SECOND time...I never said I did 405 for 30.

I used to do sets of 12 with 405...fairly easily. Theres plenty of people to vouch from Samsons gym in NY.

Try reading AND comprehending.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 07:31:27 PM

For the SECOND time...I never said I did 405 for 30.

I used to do sets of 12 with 405...fairly easily. Theres plenty of people to vouch from Samsons gym in NY.

Try reading AND comprehending.

Three different sets of numbers now. 2 from you and 1 from someone else. Yeah you are right it is our fault we can't read much past a grade 3 level.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 07:36:40 PM
Three different sets of numbers now. 2 from you and 1 from someone else. Yeah you are right it is our fault we can't read much past a grade 3 level.

Where are the 2 different sets of numbers from me?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 07:42:11 PM
Where are the 2 different sets of numbers from me?

For the SECOND time...I never said I did 405 for 30.

I used to do sets of 12 with 405...fairly easily. Theres plenty of people to vouch from Samsons gym in NY.

Try reading AND comprehending.

For some reason your post claiming more than 20 reps with 405 wasn't available for quoting. Sorry I can't provide that kind of evidence. However, another post does in an indirect way. Anyways, your post is still up. I won't say anything crappy to you about reading and short term memory ok? I'll leave that kind of thing to other people.

Lee haney barely gets 8 at 405 at his peak and chick did over 20 at 405?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: SUBTRACTION on October 10, 2006, 07:43:27 PM
There goes Bob...  spreading disinformation again!  ::)


Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 07:44:27 PM
Where are the 2 different sets of numbers from me?

Why do you lie about your waist?  
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 07:44:50 PM
I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch.

The other claims are true. measurements as well.

These are all time best, some exercises I don't do anymore...the waist measurement is also true, it's contest sized...certainly not off season.

I've never claimed to be the strongest guy in the gym, never cared.

Here is the other one. So on one hand we have 405 for 12 on a smith, and on the other we have the above. Sorry we can't read or comprehend.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 07:47:59 PM
chick you said you benched 405 for over 20 reps at one time...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 07:49:15 PM
chick you said you benched 405 for over 20 reps at one time...

No he didn't. You can't read or comprehend  ::)
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: kicker on October 10, 2006, 07:51:29 PM

For the SECOND time...I never said I did 405 for 30.

I used to do sets of 12 with 405...fairly easily. Theres plenty of people to vouch from Samsons gym in NY.

Try reading AND comprehending.

In an earlier post you claimed 20+ reps with 405:

I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch.

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 07:52:52 PM
I have to defend Bob here.  It was what I said that got misconstrued.

Chick squatted 405 for 30.

Chick's bench claim:

I was watching Haney's video last night actually and he got 405 for six.

Haney looked like an amateur compared to Coleman.  Great shape and amazing aesthetics though!  Just small and fat compared to Big Ron.
yeah but was haney small compared to chick in the upper body?

no way chick ever did THREE times the reps lee did at 4 plates ever...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: pobrecito on October 10, 2006, 07:53:57 PM
there is some monster lying and moster gullability in this thread.

Brian Siders, arguable the best powerlifter in the world managed 15 reps, yet chick does "more than 20" :-\
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Luv2Hurt on October 10, 2006, 07:55:09 PM
30 reps squatting with 405, parallel at least and with just a belt is an awesome lift for anyone.  Pro BB or not.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 07:55:22 PM
No he didn't. You can't read or comprehend  ::)
Chick: "I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch."

Looks like my vision is fine...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 07:57:19 PM
Chick: "I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch."

Looks like my vision is fine...

I was being sarcastic ;D. You were correct, and so was I and many others as well.

What I can't stand is being spoken to by someone like Chick in a manner that suggests we are idiots. Some of us might be, but, many are not and he fails to recognize this with some of his ignorant posts.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 07:59:41 PM
I was being sarcastic ;D. You were correct, and so was I and many others as well.

What I can't stand is being spoken to by someone like Chick in a manner that suggests we are idiots. Some of us might be, but, many are not and he fails to recognize this with some of his ignorant posts.
he he pass the nuts brother...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: kicker on October 10, 2006, 08:01:16 PM
Here, this is more like it... I like Romano's line... "How do you tell if a bodybuilder is lying? Their lips move"

Lol... ;D

You're right though, all these BB's lie their asses off about stats.  Take off about 2 inches from the arms and calves, 2-4 from leg & chest and ADD 3-5 inches on the waist and those are the guys' REAL measurements.

Sarcasm would have a field day with this thread :D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 08:02:51 PM
Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...

I've done 405 on the SQUAT for 30 reps...

I've done 1,000 on the leg press for 50...

I was never the strongest, but I could do high reps with heavy weight all day long...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Alex23 on October 10, 2006, 08:04:48 PM
Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...

I've done 405 on the SQUAT for 30 reps...

I've done 1,000 on the leg press for 50...

I was never the strongest, but I could do high reps with heavy weight all day long...

Bob, early on, did your back problems ever prevented from going heavier on squats? Have you given up on squats entirely after the operation?

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Matt C on October 10, 2006, 08:06:12 PM
yeah but was haney small compared to chick in the upper body?

no way chick ever did THREE times the reps lee did at 4 plates ever...

Yeah I agree, but Haney was only using the 110s on the incline in his video.  I do that every workout as well as 305 for six.  The point that I'm trying to make here is that as huge as Haney's upper body was, his chest workout wasn't as amazing as you would think it would be.  Dude had long arms though, being 5'11 and 1/2.  Then again, the same would apply to Chick.

405 for 22 is still somewhat believable - at least when you take into consideration gym form and some degree of spotter assistance.  It's a good set for sure.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 08:08:16 PM
Bob, early on, did your back problems ever prevented from going heavier on squats? Have given up on squats entirely after the operation?



Yes...I had problems very early on...there seemed to be a point (usually around 550) where I would throw a disc out of whack.

405-455 seemed to be the best of both worlds for me, and I simply used higher reps at that weight.

I've never squated heavy after my operation...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: wannabehuge on October 10, 2006, 08:10:13 PM
I saw Chick at the Emerald Cup in Seattle earlier this year and his arms were easily 21". I will bet anybody a grand on that!
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 08:11:31 PM
Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...

I've done 405 on the SQUAT for 30 reps...

I've done 1,000 on the leg press for 50...

I was never the strongest, but I could do high reps with heavy weight all day long...
yates does 12 at 1200 in blood and guts on a cybex leg press with a full range at close to 300lbs in bodyweight... chick does FOUR times as many reps with 83.5% of yates weight?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Vince B on October 10, 2006, 08:11:31 PM
I wonder how come 21 inch calves can look so small in photos?  
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Matt C on October 10, 2006, 08:11:44 PM
Chick's arms look to be around there.  He's smart for thinking about longevity and not competing all the time since he has a nice contract with BB.com.  Plus training with the heaviest weights possible isn't the only way to train or the smartest, especially after previous injuries.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 08:13:16 PM
I've never lied on stats...age, weight lifted, reps, measurements.

Why lie? People can see me at any event over the course of the year...I never cared that much one way or another about poundages, measurements...they mean nothing on a Pro Bodybuilding stage.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 08:15:06 PM
I've never lied on stats...age, weight lifted, reps, measurements.

Why lie? People can see me at any event over the course of the year...I never cared that much one way or another about poundages, measurements...they mean nothing on a Pro Bodybuilding stage.

Next time you are in contest shape, I will PAYPAL you 500 dollars if you can magically get your waist to read 31 inches.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Alex23 on October 10, 2006, 08:16:38 PM
yates does 12 at 1200 in blood and guts on a cybex leg press with a full range at close to 300lbs in bodyweight... chick does FOUR times as many reps with 83.5% of yates weight?

get your calculator cockhead... ready? 1200 is barely 12 plates on each side. My mom does that on labor's day. No way Yates top at that 12 reps...  1000s for 50 reps is more than beleivable...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 10, 2006, 08:17:37 PM
get your calculator cockhead... ready? 1200 is barely 12 plates on each side. My mom does that on labor's day. No way Yates top at that 12 reps...  1000s for 50 reps is more than beleivable...

Hey positivity boy, that wasn't a very nice post  ;D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 08:18:03 PM
Next time you are in contest shape, I will PAYPAL you 500 dollars if you can magically get your waist to read 31 inches.

Palpal THIS, Jerky...

After you welched on the first bet..I wouldn't take you for your word for anything.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Matt C on October 10, 2006, 08:18:19 PM
I've mentioned my training partner Peter a few times and posted some pics.  These are legit 16.5" calves, 17"+ pumped and in good condition.  Get a picture of Bob's calves to compare.  21" seems a bit high, but 19" or so is probably not out of the question.

Oh yeah, and of course tons of pros lie.  A few are probably being honest though.  For example, Dexter is probably around Shawn's competitive weight of 210, but claims 230.  Shawn was being honest though.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Alex23 on October 10, 2006, 08:19:09 PM
Next time you are in contest shape, I will PAYPAL you 500 dollars if you can magically get your waist to read 31 inches.

STFU. go troll in Greensboro traffic maybe you'll get hit by an 18 wheeler and get your face straightened up..
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 08:19:46 PM
Yeah I agree, but Haney was only using the 110s on the incline in his video.  I do that every workout as well as 305 for six.  The point that I'm trying to make here is that as huge as Haney's upper body was, his chest workout wasn't as amazing as you would think it would be.  Dude had long arms though, being 5'11 and 1/2.  Then again, the same would apply to Chick.

405 for 22 is still somewhat believable - at least when you take into consideration gym form and some degree of spotter assistance.  It's a good set for sure.
Yeah but matt Haney's 110lbs is a super clean set of very wide range presses - practically a fly really
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Alex23 on October 10, 2006, 08:21:25 PM
Palpal THIS, Jerky...
After you welched on the first bet..I wouldn't take you for your word for anything.

Remember this Bob? Should've been even more direct with the troller...

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=97702.0
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 10, 2006, 08:24:15 PM
STFU. go troll in Greensboro traffic maybe you'll get hit by an 18 wheeler and get your face straightened up..

Go enter yourself in an Cyanide capsule eating contest.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Alex23 on October 10, 2006, 08:24:31 PM
Next time you are in contest shape, I will PAYPAL you 500 dollars if you can magically get your waist to read 31 inches.

Oh and  The true Anus, don't forget the bet about entering an NPC show to kick my ass... as I said before, I'm doing both the Orange County and the Contra Costa...

Chicken out as usual ?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Alex23 on October 10, 2006, 08:26:38 PM
Go enter yourself in an Cyanide capsule eating contest.

DNA trash, I told you I was going to call you on this... as in you're not humilated enough as it is... well I like to see bad people suffer..

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=99765.msg1428865#msg1428865
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 10, 2006, 08:33:16 PM
get your calculator cockhead... ready? 1200 is barely 12 plates on each side. My mom does that on labor's day. No way Yates top at that 12 reps...  1000s for 50 reps is more than beleivable...
Looks like you haven't seen blood and guts then...

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: DragonsBreath on October 10, 2006, 08:53:56 PM
Chic, give Rusty back his trophy!

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Palpatine Q on October 10, 2006, 08:54:52 PM
With enough calories and juice, you can grow just using nautilus machines.  You can grow just doing pushups and chinups for that matter.

Same thing goes for a natty too.

Some people think that their muscles have a preference over how a load is delivered. Like your biceps know that you are using a Hammer Strength preacher instead of a dumbell and they refuse to respond because they think machines are for pussies. fucking imbeciles.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 08:58:34 PM
Chic, give Rusty back his trophy!



No trophies for 8th, bro....

Wasn't my call...I would've had him in the top 5 as well.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: OneMoreRep on October 10, 2006, 09:04:16 PM
405 for over 20 reps, come on Robert Michael, if that were true, I'd suck your dick.  Shit, I'd suck your dick without you proving yourself, but really, why lie? 
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 09:06:19 PM
Your guess is as good as mine..it's the age old dilemma when judging- Who do they reward, the guy with the better genetics, shape, proportion... thats soft?
 Or the guy with superior conditioning, hard, ripped, but aestetically challenged?

My personal preference is to place the guy with better symmetry and proportion higher...apparently, the jjudges went the other way with high placings for Stewart, Claude, and Stan...

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: AVBG on October 10, 2006, 09:11:18 PM
Your guess is as good as mine..it's the age old dilemma when judging- Who do they reward, the guy with the better genetics, shape, proportion... thats soft?
 Or the guy with superior conditioning, hard, ripped, but aestetically challenged?

My personal preference is to place the guy with better symmetry and proportion higher...apparently, the jjudges went the other way with high placings for Stewart, Claude, and Stan...



So you concede that there were elements of the judging that left something to be desired?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 10, 2006, 09:14:22 PM
No...it's a preference.

Like I said, it's tough to place someone when they have everything except for conditioning. With a different panel, he easily could have been in the top 5...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: AVBG on October 10, 2006, 09:20:46 PM
No...it's a preference.

Like I said, it's tough to place someone when they have everything except for conditioning. With a different panel, he easily could have been in the top 5...

Thats the thing with BB and controversy will be forever around and probably why a reason why there isnt a strong mainstream following, it comes down to personal opinion
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: the shadow on October 11, 2006, 03:34:36 AM
Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...

I've done 405 on the SQUAT for 30 reps...

I've done 1,000 on the leg press for 50...

I was never the strongest, but I could do high reps with heavy weight all day long...
dude i believe you in every sense..your arms are just awesome man.i still remember when you had johnnie jackson on your fit show..you simply looked awesome and you totally dwarfed johnnie and i guess your arms are bigger than 21inches..they looked like 22inches to me...huge
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: chris_mason on October 11, 2006, 04:00:25 AM
Same thing goes for a natty too.

Some people think that their muscles have a preference over how a load is delivered. Like your biceps know that you are using a Hammer Strength preacher instead of a dumbell and they refuse to respond because they think machines are for pussies. fucking imbeciles.

Your point is well taken however there is a bit more to it.  I am not claiming this to be fact but when you consider that the human body has evolved in a world with movements that were much more like barbell training than machine training it is certainly possible that it would respond better to the former than the latter.  There are no constant resistance lifts in nature.  When you pick up a stone you don't have a cam to vary the resistance according to a pre-set formula. 
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: chris_mason on October 11, 2006, 04:03:23 AM
Here are the results of the king of the bench, held at the olympia expo.

Lightweights
Joe Luther 420 pounds
Joe Mazza 420 pounds

Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 615 pounds

Heavyweights
Brian Siders 625 pounds
Nick Winters 625 pounds


Reps for Lightweights
Joe Luther 225x30
Joe Mazza 225x29

Reps for Middleweights
Jeremy Hoornstra 315x27

reps for Heavyweights
Brian Siders 405x15
Nick Winters 405x14



if that doesn't tell you something............... .



I will say one thing, the bench for reps portion was done right after their max attempts.  Nick just missed 650 twice before repping out with 405.  He is good for 20+ fresh. 

That said you have an excellent point and I think Chick's memory is VERY rose tinted on this matter...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bmacsys on October 11, 2006, 05:32:20 AM
Go enter yourself in an Cyanide capsule eating contest.

Fuck, thats funny. :D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 11, 2006, 07:01:58 AM
i have no doubts that Bob is a strong guy but i think he claimed 30 reps in the SQUAT with 405 not BENCH PRESS but realistically i'd put his numbers at 435 bench, 550 squat and 1300 leg press still very respectable numbers but not what he claims.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 11, 2006, 07:07:57 AM
i have no doubts that Bob is a strong guy but i think he claimed 30 reps in the SQUAT with 405 not BENCH PRESS but realistically i'd put his numbers at 435 bench, 550 squat and 1300 leg press still very respectable numbers but not what he claims.

I`d put his waist claim at about 34-36 at best.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: brianX on October 11, 2006, 07:16:03 AM
1000 lb leg press for 50 reps. ::)
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 11, 2006, 07:19:48 AM
I`d put his waist claim at about 34-36 at best.
exactly, i think Bob has one of the better physiques in the IFBB, shit at least he's got some height but i'd put his measurements at 51-52 chest, 34-36 waist, 27-28 legs and 19-20 arms, still very good.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: HUGEPECS on October 11, 2006, 07:22:37 AM
I've never claimed to do 405 on the bench for 3o reps...I know I've done over 20, but 30 would be a stretch.

The other claims are true. measurements as well.

These are all time best, some exercises I don't do anymore...the waist measurement is also true, it's contest sized...certainly not off season.

I've never claimed to be the strongest guy in the gym, never cared.



what's up chick. I watched War for the worlds last night. It's fcuking great, man Where can I can #2 if it's out yet. great job, dude
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 11, 2006, 07:29:02 AM
Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...

I've done 405 on the SQUAT for 30 reps...

I've done 1,000 on the leg press for 50...

I was never the strongest, but I could do high reps with heavy weight all day long...
no offense Bob but there's no way i believe the 405 for 22 reps on the bench, that would make you one of the strongest shirt free benchers ever.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Mars on October 11, 2006, 07:48:51 AM
Haha.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: IceCold on October 11, 2006, 11:17:46 AM

For the SECOND time...I never said I did 405 for 30.

I used to do sets of 12 with 405...fairly easily. Theres plenty of people to vouch from Samsons gym in NY.

Try reading AND comprehending.


no, you said over 20.  that's close to 30.  how is that not reading and comprehending.

i doubt you EVER did 405 for 12. 

you also claimed a max of 525, which is somewhat belieavble.  if you can do 405 for 20, you should be able to do much more than 525.  your max would be close to 600.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: 240 is Back on October 11, 2006, 11:32:32 AM
No trophies for 8th, bro....

Wasn't my call...I would've had him in the top 5 as well.

Which athlete would you have had OUT of the top 5?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: ARMZ on October 11, 2006, 11:36:42 AM
Which athlete would you have had OUT of the top 5?


Himself..





;)  j/k
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 11, 2006, 01:22:33 PM
I've squatted 260 for 6 reps  :D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: ieffinhatecardio on October 11, 2006, 01:28:10 PM
i have no doubts that Bob is a strong guy but i think he claimed 30 reps in the SQUAT with 405 not BENCH PRESS but realistically i'd put his numbers at 435 bench, 550 squat and 1300 leg press still very respectable numbers but not what he claims.

Damn do I hate agreeing with a suicidal 14 year old but I'd say these numbers are accurate except for the squat. I'd bet 550 for ass to ankles squats is a bit high.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Scimowser on October 11, 2006, 02:56:20 PM

no, you said over 20.  that's close to 30.  how is that not reading and comprehending.

i doubt you EVER did 405 for 12. 

you also claimed a max of 525, which is somewhat belieavble.  if you can do 405 for 20, you should be able to do much more than 525.  your max would be close to 600.

405 * 20 = 405*1.63 = 660
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Jr. Yates on October 11, 2006, 03:03:26 PM
405 * 20 = 405*1.63 = 660
you can go by those equations but only to an extent. like people saying your deadlift should be higher than your bench and things like that. everyone is different.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 11, 2006, 03:35:07 PM
yea. i can squat but not deadlift
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 11, 2006, 04:08:09 PM
Which athlete would you have had OUT of the top 5?

I would have had Rusty and Nathan Wonsley in the top 5...Stan and Claude out.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 11, 2006, 05:13:32 PM

For the SECOND time...I never said I did 405 for 30.

I used to do sets of 12 with 405...fairly easily. Theres plenty of people to vouch from Samsons gym in NY.

Try reading AND comprehending.
hold on a second Bob, in one post you said you benched 405 for 22 then in this post you say 405 for 12, which is it? i MIGHT believe the 405 for 12 MAYBE but even that's stretching it but 12 is a LONGGGGG way from 22 reps, almost double.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 11, 2006, 05:50:52 PM
hold on a second Bob, in one post you said you benched 405 for 22 then in this post you say 405 for 12, which is it? i MIGHT believe the 405 for 12 MAYBE but even that's stretching it but 12 is a LONGGGGG way from 22 reps, almost double.

SETS OF 12....SETS!!! S-E-T-S

Jesus Christ...can anyone read????
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 11, 2006, 05:51:45 PM
SETS OF 12....SETS!!! S-E-T-S

Jesus Christ...can anyone read????
i would believe that Bob but did you really do 22?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Bast000 on October 11, 2006, 05:52:16 PM
SETS OF 12....SETS!!! S-E-T-S

Jesus Christ...can anyone read????

 ::)

Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Bast000 on October 11, 2006, 05:52:53 PM
in case it's too small to read:

Yes, I've done 405 for 22-23, can't remember...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 11, 2006, 05:57:58 PM
Holy shit...I think we've reached a new level of retardedness.

What part of these posts don't you people understand...?

I did over 20 reps ONCE...with 405.

I used to do SETS of 12 with 405 on the bench.

They're two different lifts, on different occasions...

Maybe if some of you were to actually step foot into a gym, you would be more familiar with the lingo...

I'm out....If you can't figure it out on your own...I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YA.........
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 11, 2006, 06:04:19 PM
Holy shit...I think we've reached a new level of retardedness.

What part of these posts don't you people understand...?

I did over 20 reps ONCE...with 405.

I used to do SETS of 12 with 405 on the bench.

They're two different lifts, on different occasions...

Maybe if some of you were to actually step foot into a gym, you would be more familiar with the lingo...

I'm out....If you can't figure it out on your own...I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YA.........

Give it a rest man and stop speaking to people like they are stupid when it is you that is posting misleading information on here if you want to keep any fans. 

You posted several rep ranges for 405, nobody else did. Some people here are trying to keep this thread civil and you are getting very defensive for such a big successful guy.

Anyways congrats on your one time bench of 405 for 22 or whatever, and on the rest of sets of 405x12. Either is huge.

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 11, 2006, 06:10:33 PM
1000 lb leg press for 50 reps. ::)
since most americans use a VERY shallow range of motion on those candy ass FLEX leg press machines with that cruisy 35 degree angle (the nebula ones are even easier to go heavier on btw) i'm sure chick can do a lot of reps with 1000lbs (11 plates each side) but 50 is stretching it even with the shallow depth and easy angle machine - don't forget some of these guys take 5 second rests between reps toward the end of these high rep sets and still count the total as one set when it's really a rest-pause set technically.

Yates does about 12 reps with about 1200lbs on a proper 45 degree CYBEX leg press with a FULL range of motion in blood and guts and that is still impressive in my book.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: swilkins1984 on October 11, 2006, 06:34:16 PM
since most americans use a VERY shallow range of motion on those candy ass FLEX leg press machines with that cruisy 35 degree angle (the nebula ones are even easier to go heavier on btw) i'm sure chick can do a lot of reps with 1000lbs (11 plates each side) but 50 is stretching it even with the shallow depth and easy angle machine - don't forget some of these guys take 5 second rests between reps toward the end of these high rep sets and still count the total as one set when it's really a rest-pause set technically.

Yates does about 12 reps with about 1200lbs on a proper 45 degree CYBEX leg press with a FULL range of motion in blood and guts and that is still impressive in my book.

Those leg presses in Blood and Guts were INSANE...as a matter of fact every movement Dorian did was brutal.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Bast000 on October 11, 2006, 06:34:44 PM
Holy shit...I think we've reached a new level of retardedness.

What part of these posts don't you people understand...?

I did over 20 reps ONCE...with 405.

I used to do SETS of 12 with 405 on the bench.

They're two different lifts, on different occasions...

Maybe if some of you were to actually step foot into a gym, you would be more familiar with the lingo...

I'm out....If you can't figure it out on your own...I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YA.........

all drugs and lies
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: IceCold on October 11, 2006, 06:37:26 PM
bob,

no way you ever did 405 for 20.

i doubt you could even do/did 315 for 20.

you - yourself- said that you were never very strong and 405 for 20 is extremely strong. 
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Brutal_1 on October 11, 2006, 06:45:57 PM
Holy shit...I think we've reached a new level of retardedness.

What part of these posts don't you people understand...?

I did over 20 reps ONCE...with 405.

I used to do SETS of 12 with 405 on the bench.

They're two different lifts, on different occasions...

Maybe if some of you were to actually step foot into a gym, you would be more familiar with the lingo...

I'm out....If you can't figure it out on your own...I'VE GOT TWO WORDS FOR YA.........

LOL  ;)

Buncha friggin geeks ;D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Bast000 on October 11, 2006, 07:19:00 PM
Chick is talking about some girly machine that is 40% easier than free weights though.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Chick on October 11, 2006, 07:26:17 PM
Chick is talking about some girly machine that is 40% easier than free weights though.

No...It was 4,200% easier....it was built by Muscletech!!
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Wombat on October 11, 2006, 07:44:22 PM
I`d put his waist claim at about 34-36 at best.

I'll give chick the 35 to 36 inch waist in contest shape...But Chick doesn't have the bloated GH/slin belly either...On top of that, Chick has a thinner set of abs then the other slin mosters...So Chick to me gets a pass on the huge waist...

The rest can't be said about 95% of all the other competing pros...Take Cutler for instance...Look at any picture of him...If his Quads are over 30 inches, and we can all say they are probably pushing 34 ect...And then take a look at his waist from the front and the side...You can clearly see that his waist is much bigger then one of his quads...Even when you take hamstring into consideration...I would bet my house that his waist is well over 40 inchs...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 11, 2006, 07:49:01 PM
Those leg presses in Blood and Guts were INSANE...as a matter of fact every movement Dorian did was brutal.
Okay I just pulled out the tape of blood and guts...

After 3 progressively heavier sets of leg extensions and 2 progressively heavier sets of leg presses yates does the following on his final set of presses on a CYBEX leg press:

11 x 20kg plates each side (all that will fit - yate's gym has those old thick lipped weider plates btw) plus 3 x 10kg plates on top: That is 470 kilos which is 1034lbs.

He does 10 non stop reps then rests for 5 seconds and does one more rep for a total of 11 reps with a very clean, deep action.

So 11 reps at 1034lbs...

Chick has done 50 at 1000lbs?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 11, 2006, 08:13:32 PM
Even if 405 for 12 was Bob's best lift, it is a very good one.  It's especially good for a taller dude.
Very good considering lee haney could only do 6 without a spot during the 1988 off season... ;)
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Matt C on October 11, 2006, 08:21:41 PM
Very good considering lee haney could only do 6 without a spot during the 1988 off season... ;)

Yeah true!  How many other pros have claimed to ever done 405 for 20?

Haney looked awesome in that video.  I just plugged in the VCR player last night and watched it.  He was incredibly confident and motivational to boot.  He was a great voice for bodybuilding.

http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Olympia-Workout-Lee-Haney/dp/6301887581 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FMr-Olympia-Workout-Lee-Haney%2Fdp%2F6301887581&tag=bodybuildingp-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Olympia-Workout-Lee-Haney/dp/6301887581)
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: HowieW on October 11, 2006, 08:26:35 PM
I don't really doubt the stats regarding his size  but I really doubt he is pushing that much weight currently; Chick has never been known as a very heavy lifter; its possible though

Chic is a big strong guy, big frame, I have stood next to him a few times. While the measurements seem right I doubt he has done benches in years , by his own admission he said he does not bench or squat. The leg press seems a bit heavy, even Yates didn't do more than 1200 maybe??? for full reps in his video blood and guits, he said too many guys did "knee presses". Who cares? the guy won his 1st pro show and is a class act overall.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 11, 2006, 08:27:33 PM
Yeah true!  How many other pros have claimed to ever done 405 for 20?

Haney looked awesome in that video.  I just plugged in the VCR player last night and watched it.  He was incredibly confident and motivational to boot.  He was a great voice for bodybuilding.

http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Olympia-Workout-Lee-Haney/dp/6301887581 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FMr-Olympia-Workout-Lee-Haney%2Fdp%2F6301887581&tag=bodybuildingp-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Olympia-Workout-Lee-Haney/dp/6301887581)
Oh yeah he was great!

"there is nothing wrong with a healthy ego... thats why there is sheep and there are shepards!"
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: flexingtonsteele on October 11, 2006, 10:01:32 PM
Who fucking care about how much weight he lifts.

Its all about he looks onstage.

He is a pro BODYBUILDER, not a pro weightlifter, so who gives two fucks about this topic.

You guys need to find something else to try to bury a guy with than his "stats" who gives ten fucks. .................I certainly dont
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 11, 2006, 10:13:51 PM
Who fucking care about how much weight he lifts.

Its all about he looks onstage.

He is a pro BODYBUILDER, not a pro weightlifter, so who gives two fucks about this topic.

You guys need to find something else to try to bury a guy with than his "stats" who gives ten fucks. .................I certainly dont
maybe he shouldn't BS people then...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Van_Bilderass on October 11, 2006, 11:43:34 PM
22-23 reps with 405 in the bench is an absolute joke! He would have been one of the, if not THE, best benchers at the time he did it! Guys like Ted Arcidi did 20 with 405 and here comes bodybuilder Chicherillo and does 22-23 LOL
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 12:33:05 AM
Maybe he had a horrible range of motion?
maybe he can't count past 10?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Instints on October 12, 2006, 03:03:30 AM
It's just ironic and obvious that nothing of chick will ever please anyone here. People pick on him for the slighest thing, sometimes without any basis. The man has kept himself well, and arguably one of the healthiest pro around. He is a smart pros who has secured himself financially without the many sacrifes that other pro go through. At the end, what does matter is how one looks on stage and not the poundage one lifts, or else who could ever beat Ronnie or Johnny Jackson. The comments are always to pin him down, for heaven sake most of us here dont measure up to him in the depth of knowledge in Bodybuilding the man has. Let be a bit moderate with our comments, so people can freely share experience. No one care about what weight one lifts anyway
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 04:43:19 AM
It's just ironic and obvious that nothing of chick will ever please anyone here. People pick on him for the slighest thing, sometimes without any basis. The man has kept himself well, and arguably one of the healthiest pro around. He is a smart pros who has secured himself financially without the many sacrifes that other pro go through. At the end, what does matter is how one looks on stage and not the poundage one lifts, or else who could ever beat Ronnie or Johnny Jackson. The comments are always to pin him down, for heaven sake most of us here dont measure up to him in the depth of knowledge in Bodybuilding the man has. Let be a bit moderate with our comments, so people can freely share experience. No one care about what weight one lifts anyway
C'mon mate we love chick don't you realize thats why we give him so much stick... ;D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Doublemonk on October 12, 2006, 10:32:55 AM
I will say one thing, the bench for reps portion was done right after their max attempts.  Nick just missed 650 twice before repping out with 405.  He is good for 20+ fresh. 

That said you have an excellent point and I think Chick's memory is VERY rose tinted on this matter...

I know that it was done after their max attempts. And it was never my intention to induce a shitstorm for Bob.
I personally believe that Bob has done 20+ reps on the bench. The main point is, that you cannot compare the stats of a strength athlete (like NickW and Siders) to the stats of a bodybuilder. For the simple reason. Strength athletes use full range of motion, bodybuilders mostly not. Just look at the shoulder presses Bob and Johnnie Jackson were doing at the fit show. Many reps but no full range of motion.

Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 12:57:47 PM
I know that it was done after their max attempts. And it was never my intention to induce a shitstorm for Bob.
I personally believe that Bob has done 20+ reps on the bench. The main point is, that you cannot compare the stats of a strength athlete (like NickW and Siders) to the stats of a bodybuilder. For the simple reason. Strength athletes use full range of motion, bodybuilders mostly not. Just look at the shoulder presses Bob and Johnnie Jackson were doing at the fit show. Many reps but no full range of motion.


well then bodybuilders should not post their stats in mags if they aren't legit lifts... a REAL bench press is to lock out in my universe and most people's.

end of the day chick has said to MD these are my stats... most of us think he is living in fantasyland because 22-23 at 405 in INCREDIBLE for anyone especially a guy with chick's lanky structure.

No way he ever did THREE times the reps Haney did at his peak...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Dredlock Rasta on October 12, 2006, 01:02:50 PM
Your guess is as good as mine..it's the age old dilemma when judging- Who do they reward, the guy with the better genetics, shape, proportion... thats soft?
 Or the guy with superior conditioning, hard, ripped, but aestetically challenged?

My personal preference is to place the guy with better symmetry and proportion higher...apparently, the jjudges went the other way with high placings for Stewart, Claude, and Stan...



Would you consider yourself aesthetically challenged BOB?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 01:05:12 PM
LOL!!!

jwb - are you suggesting some bodybuilders are meatheads?  ;D
nah man chick is the man... smart cookie for getting a website as his main sponsor considering what is gonna happen to the mags in the nexy 5 years...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 01:08:23 PM
To think that BB.com is more powerful than any mag right now - or probably all of them combined for that matter.
Whoever has access to the supplement customer controls the sport brother... they should start cracking heads soon IMO
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: lilwoday09smb on October 12, 2006, 01:11:23 PM
every 1 of those stats are bullshit, his lifts are extremly exagerrated, his waist is 36 or above and his arms are under 20
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 12, 2006, 01:28:11 PM
Why isn`t anyone questioning the Waist claim??

That, my friends, is a gross exaggeration.   Bob must have borrowed  Jim Quinn`s nifty little analysis kit to come up with a 31 inch waist.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 12, 2006, 01:30:34 PM
Why isn`t anyone questioning the Waist claim??

That, my friends, is a gross exaggeration.   Bob must have borrowed  Jim Quinn`s nifty little analysis kit to come up with a 31 inch waist.
exactly, i'd say more like at least 35 inches but i think of the current IFBB pros that Bob has one of the better looking physiques but that waist is still big.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Gord on October 12, 2006, 03:31:06 PM
Maybe a picture of Bob at (or near) his best would help.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: dorkeroo on October 12, 2006, 03:43:14 PM
Maybe a picture of Bob at (or near) his best would help.


Has Chick ever brought a physique like that to a pro show? He looks great there.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: AVBG on October 12, 2006, 03:45:40 PM
Has Chick ever brought a physique like that to a pro show? He looks great there.

No, its a shame because if he did he would have scored the first pro victory well before 2006.  :-\
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The True Adonis on October 12, 2006, 03:53:14 PM
Bob in 2000 looks great.

No idea why he decided he needed more size as his waist seems to have grown.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 03:56:03 PM
Bob in 2000 looks great.

No idea why he decided he needed more size as his waist seems to have grown.
Maybe he never wanted to suffer as bad as he did that year again?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 12, 2006, 03:56:48 PM
jwb don't be ignorant. if Dorian only did 10 reps and THEN 5 seconds rest and another 11 that's light weight for him. Especially since his legs were very pre-exhausted. that's like calling someone a bitch for only squatting 3 plates after they did like 6 sets of extensions.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: lilwoday09smb on October 12, 2006, 03:58:01 PM
in the good pic of chic i say hes stats in contest shape in that pic are, waist 33, arms 18.8. legs, 26, calves 17.5
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 03:58:53 PM
jwb don't be ignorant. if Dorian only did 10 reps and THEN 5 seconds rest and another 11 that's light weight for him. Especially since his legs were very pre-exhausted. that's like calling someone a bitch for only squatting 3 plates after they did like 6 sets of extensions.
he did 10 then stopped, then 1 (one) more rep for a total of 11...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 12, 2006, 04:01:31 PM
well nevertheless you must understand dorian's training was about intensity and fatiguing the muscle as fast as possible. if the leg press was his last exercise it's understandable because his legs were already cooked. what do you think he could have done if they were totally fresh?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 12, 2006, 04:07:11 PM
well nevertheless you must understand dorian's training was about intensity and fatiguing the muscle as fast as possible. if the leg press was his last exercise it's understandable because his legs were already cooked. what do you think he could have done if they were totally fresh?
it was his second exercise and his first big compound movement, he did leg extensions first.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 04:23:22 PM
well nevertheless you must understand dorian's training was about intensity and fatiguing the muscle as fast as possible. if the leg press was his last exercise it's understandable because his legs were already cooked. what do you think he could have done if they were totally fresh?
I understand exercise science I have a degree in it (waste of time but it was when university education in australia was practically free).

The point is nobody is going to jump on a 1000lb leg press with no step-up sets and just go for it.

Yates does 3 sets of leg extensions first.

the first set is medium weight but he still stops at around 10 reps - well short of faliure.

the second set is heavier but again, he stops short of failure - at least a few reps short.

in essence he is saving himself for the 3rd set his work set.

the 3rd set is pretty intense. positive failure and a couple of forced reps- still it is leg extensions it ain't that bad.

leg press go the same way... first set medium weight (for him) stopping at 8-9 reps, second set is heavier but still not balls to the wall and not to failure.

the 3rd set he goes for it and gets 11 at 1034lbs... he is hardly totalled from the previous work

rest wise he would be taking at least a couple of minutes between each set. his partner does his set, they change the weights, he psyches up, spits on the floor etc - 2 minutes easy probably more

my point was his work set is a GREAT set on a true 45 leg press with deep deep action and no resting between reps except for the final rep but he is hardly toasted before he does it though...

 
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 12, 2006, 04:43:41 PM
and the bigger point is chick said he could do nearly FIVE times the reps that yates could do with only 34lbs less on the machine.

the yates example is a yardstick to go off when someone does the reps perfectly on a legit leg press
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 13, 2006, 02:06:09 PM
i dont find anything unbelievable about it. in fact what's your legpress? must be pretty low if you think it's so hard to do.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: D_1000 on October 13, 2006, 02:25:59 PM
he also said that he almost tore his ped doing 525 for a double.

if he could really do 405 for 30, 525 would be nothing. 

only superheavy powerlifters who specailize in the bench press (mendelson, kennely, etc.) could do 405 for 30 but not chick. 

The 405 for 30 is in squat.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Man of Steel on October 13, 2006, 02:28:59 PM
1000 lb leg press for 50 reps. ::)

Honestly, I believe the 50 reps because most bbs use about a 4 inch range of motion on the leg press anyways.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: HowieW on October 13, 2006, 02:36:50 PM
Honestly, I believe the 50 reps because most bbs use about a 4 inch range of motion on the leg press anyways.

Yeah, those Pat Robertson knee presses and then pray for legs.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Man of Steel on October 13, 2006, 02:41:15 PM
Yeah, those Pat Robertson knee presses and then pray for legs.

Exactly, everyone made fun of that video, but most bbs train with a range of motion only a couple inches greater than that.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 13, 2006, 06:38:56 PM
i dont find anything unbelievable about it. in fact what's your legpress? must be pretty low if you think it's so hard to do.
I do a clean very deep 650 for 12 dude... nothing special... when I went to golds venice I was pushing 800 on that FLEX machine they have there though - the angle on that thing is way shallow...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: youandme on October 13, 2006, 08:38:48 PM
Just some more clarification to this thread, I've seen Bob and can say his stats are real...on size.

Can't believe this thread went to page 7...


Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 13, 2006, 11:49:57 PM
Just some more clarification to this thread, I've seen Bob and can say his stats are real...on size.

Can't believe this thread went to page 7...



listen, people involved in the sport for a long time - i've been training natural since 1981 - get the shits when people bullshit like chick has here.

why should he get away with myths like 50 rep 1000lb leg presses and 22 reps on the bench at 405? they are SUPERHUMAN numbers.

His measurements stats might be close to real i grant that he is a very good bodybuilder afterall...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 14, 2006, 01:07:26 PM
for someone training so long you can't leg press anything.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 14, 2006, 02:25:24 PM
for someone training so long you can't leg press anything.
dollars to donuts says you're one of these clowns who puts the seat all the way up and puts 10 plates on each side and does three inch "reps".
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 14, 2006, 02:48:39 PM
yes and we know you like donuts... ANYWAY why are you defending someone who legpresses so little after over 20 years of training? to answer your garbage i don't even know how to move the seat on the leg press i used in the gym. did know you could even do that. I thought it was just racking it lower if you have midget legs.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 14, 2006, 04:32:03 PM
for someone training so long you can't leg press anything.
being 6'3 doesn't help with the leverage factor... you wanna compare cock size now you wanker?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on October 14, 2006, 04:42:28 PM
you wanna compare cock size now you wanker?

man you can't go 3 minutes without asking to see someone's meatstick, can you?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gibberj2 on October 14, 2006, 05:14:17 PM
haha monster gayness. by the way what do you squat? if your leg press is 650... can you squat 3 plates? i can't by the way i'm just asking to you see if you're  a BS man like sarcasm and danielson.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 15, 2006, 12:49:04 PM
man you can't go 3 minutes without asking to see someone's meatstick, can you?
Coming from someone called anal iceman lubeth that is pretty rich don't you think...

The only cock comment i've made on here in 2 years is that if I had a wanger as skinny as daddywaddy's I wouldn't be posting pics of it on the world wide web...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 15, 2006, 12:51:02 PM
haha monster gayness. by the way what do you squat? if your leg press is 650... can you squat 3 plates? i can't by the way i'm just asking to you see if you're  a BS man like sarcasm and danielson.
Haven't done a squat since 1992 due to an L4 problem...

what is your point btw? My stats weren't plastered all over MD with the world expected to believe their inflated numbers...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on October 15, 2006, 01:14:29 PM
Coming from someone called anal iceman lubeth that is pretty rich don't you think...

The only cock comment i've made on here in 2 years is that if I had a wanger as skinny as daddywaddy's I wouldn't be posting pics of it on the world wide web...

I might be broke, but I can always go to school and get a good job.

you however will always be a sausage smuggler. sorry.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Zach Trowbridge on October 15, 2006, 01:18:03 PM
fuckin impressive if true, those are some very decent numbers

Chest - 55"
Arms - 21.5"
Legs - 30"
Waist - 31.5"
Calves - 21"

bench - 525
Squat - 675
Leg press - 2100
Bicep curl - 225

Not a single word about a 225 barbell curl yet?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: sarcasm on October 15, 2006, 01:22:16 PM
Not a single word about a 225 barbell curl yet?
i might believe he swing curled 2 plates on each side of an EZ curl bar but no way on an Olympic bar, besides Bob has said before how much he hates straight bars.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: jwb on October 15, 2006, 01:22:23 PM
I might be broke, but I can always go to school and get a good job.

you however will always be a sausage smuggler. sorry.

mate if I was gay i wouldn't be ashamed/in denial of it the way you are.

BayGBM seems like more of a man than you since he isn't ashamed of his sexuality...
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: gordiano on September 01, 2007, 06:49:21 PM
Bob Chickerillo

Testicles: .02 inches


HAHAHAHAHA!


Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 01, 2007, 07:29:54 PM
fuckin impressive if true, those are some very decent numbers

Chest - 55"
Arms - 21.5"
Legs - 30"
Waist - 31.5"
Calves - 21"

bench - 525
Squat - 675
Leg press - 2100
Bicep curl - 225
those are very believable, especially the measurement claims.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Ursus on September 02, 2007, 08:44:07 AM
Bob was this lift done with full ROM? Qnd with free weights?

It is an incredibly strong lift. I just dont believe it compared to what the top benchers in the world can do. Could ronnie have done 405x20 before

Even stes of 12 is unreal with that weight. It makes it hard to believe. Tho not impossible
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: spinnis on September 02, 2007, 08:49:40 AM
those are very believable, especially the measurement claims.

Legs - 30"
Waist - 31.5"

........no
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 02, 2007, 08:50:36 AM
Legs - 30"
Waist - 31.5"

........no
i believe the waist was probably more like 33 but that's still pretty close, Bob has some big legs.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: spinnis on September 02, 2007, 09:07:05 AM
i believe the waist was probably more like 33 but that's still pretty close, Bob has some big legs.
maby, but even more, chci is a tall guy, and have a big frame and so on...
maby super dieted and vacuum puse lol
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bigdumbbell on September 02, 2007, 09:13:14 AM
a 34 is considered wide on a 55 chest
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 02, 2007, 09:15:06 AM
a 34 is considered wide on a 55 chest
hahahahaa, ok "bigdumbbell", we can't all live up to the incredible standards you've set with your massive 65 inch chest and 24 inch waist. ::)
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Dballn247 on September 02, 2007, 09:19:48 AM
Chicks a big dude, in the Olympia series he looked bigger than Ron.  I would def believe the measurement claims. 
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bigdumbbell on September 02, 2007, 09:20:01 AM
hahahahaa, ok "bigdumbbell", we can't all live up to the incredible standards you've set with your massive 65 inch chest and 24 inch waist. ::)

cupcake, i made no such claim but that is the perception of some of our members who never leave their houses and look at pictures of bodybuilders and play cartoons all day.  
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 02, 2007, 09:24:20 AM
cupcake, i made no such claim but that is the perception of some of our members who never leave their houses and look at pictures of bodybuilders and play cartoons all day.  
hahahahhaa, this coming from a gay black dude from Beirut, i'm sure everyone here thinks you're word is Gospel. ;D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bigdumbbell on September 02, 2007, 09:27:14 AM
hahahahhaa, this coming from a gay black dude from Beirut, i'm sure everyone here thinks you're word is Gospel. ;D

What?! :D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 02, 2007, 09:28:08 AM
What?! :D
it's right there in black and white, you're black, you're gay and you're from Beirut, what's so hard to understand?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bigdumbbell on September 02, 2007, 09:31:26 AM
it's right there in black and white, you're black, you're gay and you're from Beirut, what's so hard to understand?

 ::)  anyway, this thread is about chick and his wide 31.5 inch waist
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 02, 2007, 09:36:22 AM
::)  anyway, this thread is about chick and his wide 31.5 inch waist
come on man, do us all a favor and post a picture and show us what a ripped mountain of shredded muscle mass you are. :D
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bigdumbbell on September 02, 2007, 09:38:23 AM
come on man, do us all a favor and post a picture and show us what a ripped mountain of shredded muscle mass you are. :D

i have on another site cupcake
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: The Squadfather on September 02, 2007, 09:38:55 AM
i have on another site cupcake
post them here too, what's the problem?
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: Dballn247 on September 02, 2007, 09:40:35 AM
Yeah 8905 posts and no pic yet.....throw em up.
Title: Re: Chick Stats in MD
Post by: bigdumbbell on September 02, 2007, 09:46:18 AM
post them here too, what's the problem?
yeah right   hahaha  owe you an explanation