Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: ribonucleic on February 10, 2007, 03:29:30 PM
-
1973?
I really don't know.
-
I'd say 73 or 74.
Alexxx probably has pics...I can't find any dated ones.
-
Alexxx probably has pics.
LOL!
-
1992 was a good year, terminator 2 was huge.
-
1974 is the general consensus
-
I think these are all 74
-
All drugs.
[I know... I'm just feeling rowdy. :) ]
-
74....w/o a doubt
-
All drugs.
[I know... I'm just feeling rowdy. :) ]
In the end everyone is ' all drugs ' aren't they?
-
Arnold was a master at hiding his flaws!
LOL ;D
-
1974 is the general consensus
Anyone with any depth of knowledge knows that it's '73 OR '74. Not one specific year.
IMO these are his best shots, from '73.
No coincidence that he got into his best shape expecting Oliva to be there, assuming he'd lost in '72. Being scared's a great motivator. :D
-
Wrong. '74 or '73. One year bigger, the other more cut.
WRONG , 1974 the best of both worlds , size & cuts ;)
-
Wrong. '74 or '73. One year bigger, the other more cut.
If that's the case, then I'll settle on '74. For me, Arnold's legacy is about size.
That sounded incredibly gay, didn't it. :-\
-
I think these are 73! This looks like his best contest condition.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery11/ar415.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery11/ar416.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery11/ar428.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery11/ar429.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery11/ar430.jpg)
-
WRONG , 1974 the best of both worlds , size & cuts ;)
You are an idiot. No one with common sense can make such a definitive statement when he wasn't as sharp in '74. It's apples and oranges. Utter arrogance coupled with stupidity.
-
You are an idiot. No one with common sense can make such a definitive statement after looking at the pics.
Pumpster, I'm calling for a truce...
-
1974 is the general consensus
Yup.
-
Pumpster, I'm calling for a truce...
LOL
-
You are an idiot. No one with common sense can make such a definitive statement when he wasn't as sharp in '74. It's apples and oranges. Utter arrogance coupled with stupidity.
He wasn't as sharp? LMFAO he was 240 pounds and sharp as we ever was , 1974 was the best of both worlds , every word you type we gather how much you know and its NOT much ;)
-
He wasn't as sharp? LMFAO he was 240 pounds and sharp as we ever was , 1974 was the best of both worlds , every word you type we gather how much you know and its NOT much ;)
He looks much better in the pictures I posted. He is developed everywhere equally. Check out the veins in his shoulders, chest is thicker then ever and wheels are way ahead of their time. All time best stage physique Arnold 1973. (unless the pics I posted are 74)
-
Best Olympian showing - 1974
Best condition-1975/1980
best year-1971.
-
I like him in 1973. Definitely the biggest in 1974, though.
-
Looks like '73 or '74.
-
Arnold was freaking light years beyond everyone else..........if he had that kind of size and conditioning NOW no one would even come close................... ..but I'm sure the judges nowadays would find some way to screw it up, Arnold was best with everyone else a waaaaaay distant second!!
-
Arnold was a master at hiding his flaws!
LOL ;D
We already established in the previous Arnold thread all thing equal, ie mirror amounts of muscle mass on both Ronnie and Arnold, that Ronnie is crushed. Says a lot when you consider Ronnie at 225 had a lower body fat, had a smaller frame with more muscle, was over ten years Arnold's senior, had 20 years of training /diet knowledge as an advantage, and far better drugs.
-
Arnold was a master at hiding his flaws!
LOL ;D
If only Ronnie could do that
-
If only Ronnie could do that
I bet he tried
-
trying to compare ronnie to arnold is akin to comparing apples with oranges.
74 arnold was most impressive in my book.
-
It's amazing after 35+ years, almost every pic of Arnold (to me) is awe inspiring and you'll very rarely find a bad pic of him. He was truly a master of posing and displaying his body.
-
It's amazing after 35+ years, almost every pic of Arnold (to me) is awe inspiring and you'll very rarely find a bad pic of him. He was truly a master of posing and displaying his body.
I think that is a smart statement...hard to say that about todays champions....
of course they were not in this type of information age though...training dvd's and websites and 5 different bbing mags to pic from at the grocery store...
-
It's amazing after 35+ years, Arnold is awe inspiring
You ain't kidding.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/ga10.jpg)
-
You ain't kidding.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/ga10.jpg)
Of all the bodybuilding shots, over all the years, that shot is the single greatest picture yet taken. One day it may be outdone, but today it remains the pinnacle of bodybuilding. IMO.
-
1974.................... .......look how impressive Ferrigno is in those pics also, he hasd to be in his early 20's if not for the Hulk, he takes over for Arnold.
-
You ain't kidding.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/ga10.jpg)
sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.
arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.
the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?
-
Your right his forearm looks massive, think because it's been enlarged/zoomed then cropped and/or photo-shopped
-
sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.
arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.
the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?
-
arnold was a god amongst men..any verison of arnold except the 1980 one can beat any pro bodybuilder..arnold is god and you just can't deny that
-
I think this pic is from 74
-
Exactly. :)
Amazing shots. Simply amazing.
-
1973?
I really don't know.
I'd say 1974.
-
Of all the bodybuilding shots, over all the years, that shot is the single greatest picture yet taken.
That's exactly how I feel. It's the BEST Arnold shot I've ever seen.
-
sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.
arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.
the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?
This forum is beyond critical, and your ignorance is right up there with it. :)
Arnold's arm was morphed especially for the 1975 cover of Ironman. ::)
(http://vintagemusclemags.com/magCovers/im/im3405.jpg)
-
This forum is beyond critical, and your ignorance is right up there with it. :)
Arnold's arm was morphed especially for the 1975 cover of Ironman. ::)
(http://vintagemusclemags.com/magCovers/im/im3405.jpg)
well, i'm glad you posted this pic because if you look woooooolly woooolly hard you might just see that the peak on the right bicep is somewhat more accentuated in the pic that i'm talking about.
it might be difficult for you though. you might have to get your mom to help.
-
well, i'm glad you posted this pic because if you look woooooolly woooolly hard you might just see that the peak on the right bicep is somewhat more accentuated in the pic that i'm talking about.
it might be difficult for you though. you might have to get your mom to help.
Mommy helped and she said you're WRONG. :-* :-* :-*
-
I tried to make the arms the same size as eachother by cropping the smaller picture to make it bigger. Let it be noted that there is different lighting in these shots and a shadow is hiding a portion of Arnold's arm in the 'smaller' bicep.
Has anyone thought maybe it was his OTHER arm that he used in the IronMan mag, but they flipped it around? I guess I'll find any excuse! ;D
-
Has anyone thought maybe it was his OTHER arm that he used in the IronMan mag, but they flipped it around? I guess I'll find any excuse! ;D
I'm gonna say it's NOT his other "arm" because in that particular shot, Arnold usually raises up his right arm. And on top of that, there's always been a mole on his left arm in the tricep area. The same way there's always been a mole on his right jaw line.
OK... there's my excuse. ;D
-
sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.
arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.
the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?
I'm looking at the cover of his book, "Arnold, The education of a Bodybuilder" and the cover was printed in 1977 and the pic is exactly the same. I suppose they had one of the early editions of Photoshop? The pic is real.
-
1982 by far...... ;D
-
sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.
arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.
the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?
Wow, the ignorance of the digital age. It's not morphed, i have the cover of that book and it looks exactly like that. It's an insanely peaked bicep and when the picture was printed on the cover of the book ( in the 70's) they did NOT have the ability to fake muscles. Sorry, it's real.
-
they did, however, morph the waist in that first picture to appear smaller. look at the left hand in the top pic and in the ironman cover.
-
they did, however, morph the waist in that first picture to appear smaller. look at the left hand in the top pic and in the ironman cover.
It's not the same pic.
It's from the same photoshoot, but it's a different one
-
It's not the same pic.
It's from the same photoshoot, but it's a different one
Agreed. His head is turned differently, and the shadows are not the same. Same day, not the same picture.
-
they did, however, morph the waist in that first picture to appear smaller. look at the left hand in the top pic and in the ironman cover.
Dave, you ain't hating on Arnold because of YOUR waist now, are you? :D
-
You ain't kidding.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/ga10.jpg)
arnold had an amazingly peaked right bicep but it NEVER looked like this.
the pic has very obviously been messed with.
-
Here's an untouched similar shot. Slight enhancements in peak, triceps and forearms in the first one.
-
Arnold was incredible.
-
Here's an untouched similar shot.
Good job by Joe at controlling his erection there.
-
Good job by Joe at controlling his erection there.
damn, you've got good eye sight!
-
they did, however, morph the waist in that first picture to appear smaller. look at the left hand in the top pic and in the ironman cover.
uh, no. Those are two different pictures from the same day/photoshoot. Look at his head/eyes, they're pointing in diff. places in the pictures.
-
Wow, the ignorance of the digital age. It's not morphed, i have the cover of that book and it looks exactly like that. It's an insanely peaked bicep and when the picture was printed on the cover of the book ( in the 70's) they did NOT have the ability to fake muscles. Sorry, it's real.
::)
-
Arnold was a master at hiding his flaws!
LOL ;D
if your talking about is quads they weren't really flaws back then. Arnolds quads probably set the starndard at the time, it wasn't until Platz came along that everyone started having these gigantic legs. Platz and Tim Belknap hit the scene and shocked everyone. I'd like to see some pics of the 78 olympia-which I've never seen and compare them to the legs of guys onstage in 80 or 81, that woulld be something.
-
Good job by Joe at controlling his erection there.
;D
-
To this day I still wonder, how the hell did he keep his waist so small .!??!
-
To this day I still wonder, how the hell did he keep his waist so small .!??!
Lack of drug technology back in the day
-
Lack of drug technology back in the day
So, thesedays the technology is so good that you get a gut with each GH injection into the abs. Wow, how we've improved.