Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:16:08 AM

Title: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:16:08 AM
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the rec and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on " big" , massive , freaky, etc. This is what I like to call  " GENERATION FLEX" . However , bb is so much more than that . The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos resume to one topic only " not big enough ", " swimmer " , etc. Why do u think simetry , proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and rec level?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Figo on June 19, 2007, 01:23:01 AM
Because Zane, as much as I personally admire his physique, wouldnt place in the Nats nowadays. Whereas physiques of the Ronnie, Jay and Baddell mould are the elite of pro bbing. Dexter should be the physique the "kids" should be trying to emulate, you know, with that thing last seen 10 yrs ago, the "taper".
I blame it on judging, and the mags (which influence judging), pushing the freaks.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: climber on June 19, 2007, 01:35:15 AM
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the recreational and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on "big", massive, freaky, etc. This is what I like to call "GENERATION FLEX". However, bodybuilding is so much more than that. The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos revert to one topic only "not big enough", "swimmer", etc. Why do you think symmetry, proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and recreational level?

1. I cleaned up your post a bit in my reply. Sorry.
2. Size = Freaks = Ticket Sales. That about sums up the argument.

On another note, they call you a swimmer because by the look of your physique in your photos you'd be a much better swimmer than a bodybuilder. just my two cents.  8)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BigCypriate on June 19, 2007, 01:39:46 AM
Is that why you chose to look like a queer bulgarian raver with aids?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:40:40 AM
they call you a swimmer because by the look of your physique in your photos you'd be a much better swimmer than a bodybuilder. just my two cents.  8)
[/quote    U missed the point completely..but don't loose faith.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: will938 on June 19, 2007, 01:40:51 AM
Hmmmm, I fear this is just another thread in which sevastase can post his Yul Bryner esq pictures ::)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BigCypriate on June 19, 2007, 01:47:25 AM
Sevastase at pre-judging

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/music/bars_clubs/images/mr_gay_uk_2004/lineup_150.jpg)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Matt C on June 19, 2007, 01:52:20 AM
How else was bodybuilding to evolve?  If Lee Haney was competitive in this era he would have the same flaws as the pros today do.  If the argument is that pros today are too big, fine.  I just don't like the ironage.us mentality that pros could be just as big but still maintain their great tapers and dainty waists - not possible.  Not saying you're saying that, but some have done so.  I think bodybuilders should develop as much as possible whilst maintaining their shape and lines.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:55:45 AM
I'd take smaller yet symetrical over big at any cost.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Matt C on June 19, 2007, 01:57:17 AM
I'd take smaller yet symetrical over big at any cost.

It's possible to have both...even Ronnie in 2003 had good lines.  Kevin Levrone in 2000 looked awesome.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 02:04:27 AM
It's possible to have both...even Ronnie in 2003 had good lines.  Kevin Levrone in 2000 looked awesome.
Ronnie in 2003 is the most outrageous thing I think we've ever seen on a bb stage but still ... hisstomach was a big baloon . in 98 he was on the money .
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Hendrix on June 19, 2007, 02:30:36 AM
Bigger is definatly not better , Shawn Ray i am sure could have weighed 235 but he stuck to his competition weight of about 206 to 210.Rocco jones weighed just over 200 pound in his NOC and got third to bad he threw in the towell.Darrem Charles has not changed that much in 10 years and won a swag of shows not to recently ago.The asthetic guys in bodybuilding seem to do well in the smaller shows and then get royally screwed at the Arnold Classic and MrO where size is everything.
Hopefully Phil Heath not a mass monster can help bring around a change.The only big guy left with any asthetics is Tony Freeman the rest are in damage control with there stomachs.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Your MAAAAaaaa on June 19, 2007, 02:42:34 AM
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the rec and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on " big" , massive , freaky, etc. This is what I like to call  " GENERATION FLEX" . However , bb is so much more than that . The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos resume to one topic only " not big enough ", " swimmer " , etc. Why do u think simetry , proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and rec level?

Translation, I am shrimply.


ta ta
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Playboy on June 19, 2007, 05:12:11 AM
In order to win a show you need symmetry, proportion, cuts and SIZE. Just being smaller and more ripped willnot even place you 10th now a days. Thats why guys like Haidar will never win a show or beat guys like Ruhl, Cutler, James or Coleman. Bottom line.
Now if your training for personal pleasure, then by all means, go smaller and more cut but don't even think of jumping on a stage as you will get laughed right off it.

PB
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BEAST 8692 on June 19, 2007, 05:25:08 AM
ha ha, sevastase, you bring the funny. ;D

all you have gotten from all your heavy test cycles is ingrown nuts and a bald head and now you're bitter because you didn't reach your expectations. lol

did you really think that all it took to get big muscles was a good dealer?

you're not fooling anyone mr 'clean'.

oh btw, how did the swim meet go?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Steve387 on June 19, 2007, 05:32:41 AM
I agree 100%. Also, you have to remember Frank Zane and other similar bb'ers are/were big, just not compared to the likes of Ronnie Coleman.
the competition has a certain judging criteria. whether anyone would want to look like that is a whole nother story, but totally irrelavent for a professional comp, i think u will agree

One thing i really admire about ronnie is his posing, a modern BB who can pose like that, i'm not sure whether it's second to Arnold or not, they are both truly champion posers. Arnold's is more focused on showing all areas, Ronnie's posing adds some other effects with smooth transition between poses, check out his 2003 Olympia routine on youtube, exellent, nothing stupid and not too dramatic..im not a fan of the ass shaking, or the dancing but if thats what the audience likes, thats another story. that thing he does with his arms spread out then pulls them back in the front double bi is cool as well..
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: columbusdude82 on June 19, 2007, 05:55:02 AM
SevenCocksToTease, I think "too big" should be the least of your concerns... except when it comes to your boyfriend Mandingo's massive sausage with which you gleefully impale yourself every morning.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: The_Leafy_Bug on June 19, 2007, 05:57:56 AM
Can we see some new updated pictures sevastase?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Prof Moriarty on June 19, 2007, 05:58:52 AM
Is that why you chose to look like a queer bulgarian raver with aids?

hahaha, classic
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:11:56 PM
this thread is not about me...it's about bb in general..
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: DK II on June 19, 2007, 01:13:25 PM
Can we see some new updated pictures sevastase?

i think he posts an update every 12 hours, just be patient.  ::)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Camel Jockey on June 19, 2007, 01:19:40 PM
SevenCocksToTease, I think "too big" should be the least of your concerns... except when it comes to your boyfriend Mandingo's massive sausage with which you gleefully impale yourself every morning.

Everyone who seriously follows these forums and sevaste's various picture threads knows that he prefers Lexington Steele. Get with the times, buddy.  ::)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Camel Jockey on June 19, 2007, 01:20:55 PM
i think he posts an update every 12 hours, just be patient.  ::)

If you watch his pictures closely, you can almost tell what new pimples have popped up and what he's had for lunch.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Dballn247 on June 19, 2007, 01:21:24 PM
I am completely floored.  No sevastase pics?  :-\  He usually starts a thread as a vehicle to post his pics.  

Bro you look decent for a 175lb.  That being said, if you were actually trying to get into contest shape you would still have about another 15 or so lbs to lose.  Depleted you'd be a skeleton.

You mentioned somewhere that you have competed, what shows were they and how did you place?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:22:40 PM
let's stick to the topic
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:27:08 PM
I am completely floored.  No sevastase pics?  :-\  He usually starts a thread as a vehicle to post his pics. 

Bro you look decent for a 175lb.  That being said, if you were actually trying to get into contest shape you would still have about another 15 or so lbs to lose.  Depleted you'd be a skeleton.

You mentioned somewhere that you have competed, what shows were they and how did you place?
i'm sure not as good or as high as you...I've posted my worst pics ..EVER.. i also posted a pic from when I was 15, after 6 months of training......i'm 31 now...u figure it out baller...
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:28:30 PM
i'm 185 in those pics u mention...do your homework if u wanna bash me...don't talk outta your ass ...pimple ;)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BEAST 8692 on June 19, 2007, 01:29:04 PM
I am completely floored.  No sevastase pics?  :-\  He usually starts a thread as a vehicle to post his pics.  

Bro you look decent for a 175lb.  That being said, if you were actually trying to get into contest shape you would still have about another 15 or so lbs to lose.  Depleted you'd be a skeleton.

You mentioned somewhere that you have competed, what shows were they and how did you place?

come on Dball, you can't be serious? he's a lying sack of shit. the only thing sevastase has competed in is the gayrimmer xmas party egg and spoon race and he was the egg.

Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: The Squadfather on June 19, 2007, 01:33:57 PM
i'm sure not as good or as high as you...I've posted my worst pics ..EVER.. i also posted a pic from when I was 15, after 6 months of training......i'm 31 now...u figure it out baller...
brutal 12 inch arms.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: climber on June 19, 2007, 01:38:26 PM
brutal 12 inch arms.


Didn't he say he was 15 in that pic? At least he wasn't a bald witch at 15.. silly bugger should have listened to his parents and become a swimmer.   8)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: onlyme on June 19, 2007, 01:44:24 PM
Bigger is better if you look good.  I am bigger than I was before but I look like shit now.  So in my case bigger is worse.  I like myself at a small 298 lbs.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 01:48:59 PM
Bigger is better if you look good.  I am bigger than I was before but I look like shit now.  So in my case bigger is worse.  I like myself at a small 298 lbs.
how much did u weigh at your heaviest keith?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: climber on June 19, 2007, 01:49:30 PM
Bigger is better if you look good.  I am bigger than I was before but I look like shit now.  So in my case bigger is worse.  I like myself at a small 298 lbs.

You're a monster! How can you be like 100 pounds more than me.  :'(
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: DK II on June 19, 2007, 01:52:40 PM
<takes already hard cock out his pants, getting ready to wank off>

how much did u weigh at your heaviest keith?

fixed.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Dballn247 on June 19, 2007, 01:59:05 PM
i'm sure not as good or as high as you...

Brutal truth.

i'm 185 in those pics u mention...do your homework if u wanna bash me...don't talk outta your ass ...pimple ;)

Ok so your 185, I guess your a bit taller than you look.  You still have atleast 15 maybe 20 lbs depending on how tall you are before your ready for a contest stage. 

Epic meltdown because you can't accept the fact that you would have to compete as a lightweight or the bottom of the middle weight class, If you walked onstage in that shape and expected to take a MW title you are delusional. 
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: HowieW on June 19, 2007, 04:46:11 PM
How else was bodybuilding to evolve?  If Lee Haney was competitive in this era he would have the same flaws as the pros today do.  If the argument is that pros today are too big, fine.  I just don't like the ironage.us mentality that pros could be just as big but still maintain their great tapers and dainty waists - not possible.  Not saying you're saying that, but some have done so.  I think bodybuilders should develop as much as possible whilst maintaining their shape and lines.

It is a PHYSIQUE contest, bigger is not better when the overal body line and shape is distorted.
The ideals and glorification of being a "freak" and monster have hurt this ideal.     Howard
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 10:12:44 PM
Brutal truth.

Ok so your 185, I guess your a bit taller than you look.  You still have atleast 15 maybe 20 lbs depending on how tall you are before your ready for a contest stage. 

Epic meltdown because you can't accept the fact that you would have to compete as a lightweight or the bottom of the middle weight class, If you walked onstage in that shape and expected to take a MW title you are delusional. 
dballin...my heaviest weight on stage was 219 at 5'11" ...under ron love's guidance in 2003. spot on ..too.        brutal i'm heavier on stage than u ...                                                                                                   
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BEAST 8692 on June 19, 2007, 10:16:55 PM
dballin...my heaviest weight on stage was 219 at 5'11" ...under ron love's guidance in 2003. spot on ..too.        brutal i'm heavier on stage than u ...                                                                                                   

useless w/o contest pics
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 19, 2007, 10:24:13 PM
useless w/o contest pics
of course beast... ::)..just as your comments and anyone elses are useles unles u post pics. How do I know u are not a swimmer?...if u are is ok...
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BEAST 8692 on June 19, 2007, 11:00:43 PM
of course beast... ::)..just as your comments and anyone elses are useles unles u post pics. How do I know u are not a swimmer?...if u are is ok...

i am a swimmer.

i'm not the one making statements sevastase and it's not like you don't like posting pics, so it naturally follows that if you have pics where you're in you best condition at 218 or whatever, that you would post those pics.

you've posted so many pics, why would you not post those?

easy answer, because you are full of shit. ;)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Fulgorre on June 19, 2007, 11:10:55 PM
Bigger is better given the quality of the muscle stays the same.  The problem, as Lee Labrada pointed out on PBW, is the muscle are just bigger.  They lack the intense detail of the 1980's and 1990's pro.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: bigkubby on June 19, 2007, 11:37:37 PM
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the rec and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on " big" , massive , freaky, etc. This is what I like to call  " GENERATION FLEX" . However , bb is so much more than that . The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos resume to one topic only " not big enough ", " swimmer " , etc. Why do u think simetry , proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and rec level?
i think flex is the description of mass with class and thats what i think a  mr olympia should be
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: DK II on June 19, 2007, 11:51:32 PM
i am a swimmer.

i'm not the one making statements sevastase and it's not like you don't like posting pics, so it naturally follows that if you have pics where you're in you best condition at 218 or whatever, that you would post those pics.

you've posted so many pics, why would you not post those?

easy answer, because you are full of shit. ;)


brutal truth.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: phreak on June 19, 2007, 11:59:31 PM
i am a swimmer.

i'm not the one making statements sevastase and it's not like you don't like posting pics, so it naturally follows that if you have pics where you're in you best condition at 218 or whatever, that you would post those pics.

you've posted so many pics, why would you not post those?

easy answer, because you are full of shit. ;)
Monster confronting with reality. :)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Honour on June 20, 2007, 12:16:24 AM
Yeah I personally like the Shawn Ray type physique or that of Flex Wheeler. It's still a shame to me that either of those guys never won a Mr O (no matter what people may think of their personality's ;)). What year was it that Dorian Yates beat Shawn Ray in the O with like one arm :P. Imo That is the kind of thing that has set a bad president for the way things have been judged in the last 10 years or so. Dennis Wolf and Tony Freeman are 2 guys that i think should be getting good placements nowdays, if they are in great condition etc...
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Zugzwang on June 20, 2007, 03:16:29 AM
That is the kind of thing that has set a bad president...

(http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/includes/images/475/177.jpg)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 20, 2007, 03:23:17 AM
too much oil in flex wheeler...shawn gets my vote.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Honour on June 20, 2007, 03:50:03 AM
(http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/includes/images/475/177.jpg)
Whoops Precedent ;D.

Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BIG ACH on June 20, 2007, 04:41:36 AM

Kai Greene and Dennis Wolfe - Great size and Symmetry.

Victor Martinez - Great size and Symmetry.



But its true, people wanna see freaks, that is what sells the tickets and the magazines.  Hell, when I was younger I just wanted to be a massive freak...  Then I realized that I'm never going to be like that, especially that I'm natural, so now I also regard the importance of symmetry and cuts.  But that is not to say size isn't important!
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Playboy on June 20, 2007, 04:57:56 AM
In bbdg, you need to posses the whole package. Size included. Being small and cut just doesn't win shows. Period. Personally, I would rather look bigger with symmetry and proportion then one of those gimp baywatch characters that weigh 150lbs soaked and wet.

PB
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: bigdumbbell on June 20, 2007, 06:44:21 AM
Bigger is better if you look good.  I am bigger than I was before but I look like shit now.  So in my case bigger is worse.  I like myself at a small 298 lbs.

LOL   hang in there bro.  you can do it again.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Cleanest Natural on June 20, 2007, 08:03:53 AM
In bbdg, you need to posses the whole package. Size included. Being small and cut just doesn't win shows. Period. Personally, I would rather look bigger with symmetry and proportion then one of those gimp baywatch characters that weigh 150lbs soaked and wet.

PB
we get it playboy...u keep mentioning size...u lacking in  that dept?   ;)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: onlyme on June 20, 2007, 08:59:51 AM
how much did u weigh at your heaviest keith?

You know I really don't want to say right now.  I am down in weight but not close yet to my goal of what I was before.  I think I will feel better when I lose a little more.  But I am pretty confident at my heaviest I was the heaviest of any getbigger ever.  And it definitely ain't worth bragging about.  Right now I am trying to stay healthy enough to keep training.  Twisted my ankle carrying a hide-a-bed by myself so that put me out for about 10 days.  Better now.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: HowieW on June 20, 2007, 09:40:19 AM
Kai Greene and Dennis Wolfe - Great size and Symmetry.

Victor Martinez - Great size and Symmetry.



But its true, people wanna see freaks, that is what sells the tickets and the magazines.  Hell, when I was younger I just wanted to be a massive freak...  Then I realized that I'm never going to be like that, especially that I'm natural, so now I also regard the importance of symmetry and cuts.  But that is not to say size isn't important!

It is pretty simple when it comes to this issue.
Bodybuilding is after all about building large visible muscles, no question about that. However, we need to always remember it is a PHYSIQUE contest (* or should be). The unnatural size is only possible with extreme use of anabolic/androgenic drugs. The root of this issues stems from and ends with DRUG use out of control in BB.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: bigdumbbell on June 20, 2007, 09:45:58 AM
It is pretty simple when it comes to this issue.
Bodybuilding is after all about building large visible muscles, no question about that. However, we need to always remember it is a PHYSIQUE contest (* or should be). The unnatural size is only possible with extreme use of anabolic/androgenic drugs. The root of this issues stems from and ends with DRUG use out of control in BB.

are you a strict creationist in applied bodybuilding theory?
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: HowieW on June 20, 2007, 09:55:26 AM
are you a strict creationist in applied bodybuilding theory?

LOL no  am devotee to the evolution side of things  :D

Another core issue is in judging a physique. Dog shows do a much better job. For example, you have to adhere to the breed standard. You can't win with a poodle that has chest of a bulldog just because you think he looks "freaky" or "massive".

Zane , in my opinion was the ideal classic physique.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: bigdumbbell on June 20, 2007, 10:08:41 AM
LOL no  am devotee to the evolution side of things  :D

Another core issue is in judging a physique. Dog shows do a much better job. For example, you have to adhere to the breed standard. You can't win with a poodle that has chest of a bulldog just because you think he looks "freaky" or "massive".

Zane , in my opinion was the ideal classic physique.


you are correct about the judging standards/application.  If the IFBB cleaned itself up and gone with the AKC business model there wouldnt be all this inbreeding and cartoon looking freak show winners.  judges would be respected, promoters would have integrity, the IFBB brand valued greater and it would be less of a circus.

Betil Fox would be my ideal classic winner

Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: BEAST 8692 on June 20, 2007, 10:29:52 AM
LOL no  am devotee to the evolution side of things  :D

Another core issue is in judging a physique. Dog shows do a much better job. For example, you have to adhere to the breed standard. You can't win with a poodle that has chest of a bulldog just because you think he looks "freaky" or "massive".

Zane , in my opinion was the ideal classic physique.

i see your reasoning but zane was considered a fill in between oliva and schwarzenegger. he was unremarkable which is, perhaps, unfair but that is the reality of entertaining paying customers. they want to be dazzled, awestruck, see something they've never seen before, which is why bbers will keep getting freakier and more unattainable.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Yorkie T on June 20, 2007, 12:54:47 PM
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the rec and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on " big" , massive , freaky, etc. This is what I like to call  " GENERATION FLEX" . However , bb is so much more than that . The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos resume to one topic only " not big enough ", " swimmer " , etc. Why do u think simetry , proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and rec level?

People who cant get big say they are going for aesthetics.

Generation flex  ::)
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Playboy on June 20, 2007, 01:09:59 PM
we get it playboy...u keep mentioning size...u lacking in  that dept?   ;)
::) No Sev, I mentioned the whole package which includes symmetry, proportion, defenition & size as well. If you lack anyone in particular, you loose on the stage. Thats all.

PB
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Figo on June 20, 2007, 01:32:51 PM
i see your reasoning but zane was considered a fill in between oliva and schwarzenegger. he was unremarkable which is, perhaps, unfair but that is the reality of entertaining paying customers. they want to be dazzled, awestruck, see something they've never seen before, which is why bbers will keep getting freakier and more unattainable.

Very well put.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Herc on June 20, 2007, 10:55:06 PM
I think one big problem today is the big guts these guys have.  It should just be a powerlifting contest if it isnt about having a good physique.  There should be a different bodybuilding federation that emphasises symatry and asthetics although I think the whole idea of wearing a speedo in front of a bunch of people is gay anyhow but if it must be done they should go more for asthetics.
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: bigdumbbell on June 21, 2007, 05:24:39 AM
I think one big problem today is the big guts these guys have.  It should just be a powerlifting contest if it isnt about having a good physique.  There should be a different bodybuilding federation that emphasises symatry and asthetics although I think the whole idea of wearing a speedo in front of a bunch of people is gay anyhow but if it must be done they should go more for asthetics.

are you an advocate for the invisible girdle? :o
Title: Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
Post by: Playboy on June 21, 2007, 05:28:33 AM
I think one big problem today is the big guts these guys have.  It should just be a powerlifting contest if it isnt about having a good physique.  There should be a different bodybuilding federation that emphasises symatry and asthetics although I think the whole idea of wearing a speedo in front of a bunch of people is gay anyhow but if it must be done they should go more for asthetics.
I agree, the guts are brutal today. That can be attributed to the excessive HGH/IGF-1 abuse. Bbdr's of the eighties and early ninties were very large but they didn't have the pot bellies that the top guys today have, Flex Wheeler excluded.

PB