Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: TheEgoCrusher on July 24, 2007, 08:16:51 PM

Title: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: TheEgoCrusher on July 24, 2007, 08:16:51 PM
I copy and pasted this from another thread, but you all will get the general idea.  I feel that I.F.B.B. pro's and NPC wannabes are all freaks of science that play the "genetics" card in order to pad their own egos, refusing to admit that DRUGS are the "reason for the season" when it comes to how they are attempting to make their livelihood.

What say you?

Well, if you look at the efforts the competitors must go to to AVOID being CAUGHT using drugs, Track and Field is by FAR the worst when it comes to drug abuse.  The WADA is as strict on testing as any sports association/group in the world.  The name of it's Director, Dick Pound, always cracks me up 

BUT, the I.F.B.B. and N.P.C. being compared to Track and Field, MLB, the NFL or NBA is flat out LAUGHABLE.  Why?  Because those bodybuilding organizations HAVE NO TESTING POLICY.  Their refusal to test simply encourages the use of drugs and further champions the "freaks of science" which their organizations produce.  Notice I didn't say "freaks of nature" because guys like Cutler, Coleman, Yates, Wheeler, etc. are NOT "freaks of nature" or "genetically gifted" like those that are engulfed by those industries would have you believe.  They are freaks of SCIENCE.  Genetics play FAR less of a role than the use of various compounds in HIGH dosages.  For those guys to actually admit that they are NOT "freaks" of nature but simply guys that use a lot of drugs and respond well to them, well, their Ego's would be Crushed...(Might be a good suggestion for a screen name.......)

The NFL, for instance, is FULL of guys that could be HIGH LEVEL N.P.C. competitors or even I.F.B.B. pros IF they choose to use the drugs that those involved in bodybuilding use and dedicated their life to the eating and training.  These people involved in bodybuilding to the extent that they are ALMOST pros or ARE pros do not realize that they are simply the left-overs that didn't have what it takes to make a living playing a SPORT.  The REAL "genetic freaks" in our society are in the NFL and NBA (to an extent), NOT in bodybuilding.  That is reality.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: CARTEL on July 24, 2007, 08:17:51 PM
You lost me at Dick Pound.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: The Squadfather on July 24, 2007, 08:18:33 PM
this guy is a freak of nature, look at those huge arms!!! :o
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Earl1972 on July 24, 2007, 08:20:42 PM
this guy is a freak of nature, look at those huge arms!!! :o

that pic never gets old haha ;D

E
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: TheEgoCrusher on July 24, 2007, 08:24:01 PM
this guy is a freak of nature, look at those huge arms!!! :o

This guy just works out a lot...and has self-respect...

Try it sometime....

BTW, Squad, EVERY TIME I post this pic, you run off.  Please stay dialed in on this thread.  Let me run you into the GROUND.  Please?
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: The Squadfather on July 24, 2007, 08:25:36 PM
This guy just works out a lot...and has self-respect...

Try it sometime....

BTW, Squad, EVERY TIME I post this pic, you run off.  Please stay dialed in on this thread.  Let me run you into the GROUND.  Please?
hahahahaha, i don't run anywhere, dude i don't see what you think is so good about that photo, your condition is good but you're small and flat especially in the legs and chest.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Andre Nickatina on July 24, 2007, 08:28:33 PM
This guy just works out a lot...and has self-respect...

Try it sometime....

BTW, Squad, EVERY TIME I post this pic, you run off.  Please stay dialed in on this thread.  Let me run you into the GROUND.  Please?
Moster detailed 15 inch arms
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: TheEgoCrusher on July 24, 2007, 08:29:26 PM
Dave, my bf% in that picture is 1/6th of the LEANEST you've ever been at any point during your life (including birth from Ms. Squadfather).

You run because I have abs, chest definition, arms which put anything you've had in your life to shame and shoulders which make you want to cry.  And I won't even SPEAK on conditioning.

Dave, have you EVER had a BF % under 10% in your life?  Yes or no?
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: The Squadfather on July 24, 2007, 08:30:56 PM
hahahahaha, my arms are as big as your legs.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: TheEgoCrusher on July 24, 2007, 08:35:21 PM
LMAO!!!!!!

Dave, can you STILL not tell the difference between LEAN MASS and a FAT ASS?

My God...for you to even CONSIDER posting those pics in this thread shows your need for mental help.  Your BF % is OVER 25% and you are comparing yourself to a true exercise fanatic like me?  Honestly, it's insulting.  It really is.  For a flat out fatass like you to even converse with me on here is insulting.

Dave, you're fat.  I'm not.

Hope that helped.

And, to begin with, I wanted to talk about how freaks of SCIENCE that claim to be freaks of NATURE are liars in this thread.  I think it's appropriate.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Theoak* on July 24, 2007, 09:39:21 PM
LMAO!!!!!!

Dave, can you STILL not tell the difference between LEAN MASS and a FAT ASS?

My God...for you to even CONSIDER posting those pics in this thread shows your need for mental help.  Your BF % is OVER 25% and you are comparing yourself to a true exercise fanatic like me?  Honestly, it's insulting.  It really is.  For a flat out fatass like you to even converse with me on here is insulting.

Dave, you're fat.  I'm not.

Hope that helped.

And, to begin with, I wanted to talk about how freaks of SCIENCE that claim to be freaks of NATURE are liars in this thread.  I think it's appropriate.

If you walked down the street and I saw you no way would I even take a second glance and think you were into bodybuilding.

SF on the other hand can hold his own regardless of BF.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: warrior_code on July 24, 2007, 09:46:17 PM
Who said that? I am assuming someone who likes to think they know what they are talking about without the proper knowledge.  Track and field is not as dirty as it was and is far from being "The worst when it comes to drug abuse."  I am aware that there are methods to avoid tests however it is extremely hard to do and most of the time you will get caught.  And to all the people who think you can't make it to the top in athletics without using are wrong.  My friend dylan armstrong just won gold in the pan am games, and I can vow he doesn't use anything. 
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: TheEgoCrusher on July 24, 2007, 10:01:41 PM
No, you can make it to the top of a tested sport regardless.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: G o a t b o y on July 24, 2007, 10:12:22 PM
"Posing trunks" are das uber-ghey.


Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Harry Spotter on July 25, 2007, 12:15:59 AM
If you regard those outdoor pics as being fat, look out if he leans up. Those tri's are very thick with outer head clearly visible.

As for the thread, the gene pool in professional bodybuilding is small, and also poorly represented (w/r respect to physical 'gifts') since it involves substance abuse to a significant degree. Ronnie is a freak in all aspects. As you go down the line you quickly reach narcissistic assclowns who are genetically very average but willing to do what it takes, and may also be animals in the gym (ie Tier 2 pros and down).
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: gordiano on July 25, 2007, 12:18:46 AM
I copy and pasted this from another thread, but you all will get the general idea.  I feel that I.F.B.B. pro's and NPC wannabes are all freaks of science that play the "genetics" card in order to pad their own egos, refusing to admit that DRUGS are the "reason for the season" when it comes to how they are attempting to make their livelihood.

What say you?

Well, if you look at the efforts the competitors must go to to AVOID being CAUGHT using drugs, Track and Field is by FAR the worst when it comes to drug abuse.  The WADA is as strict on testing as any sports association/group in the world.  The name of it's Director,Dick Pound, always cracks me up 

BUT, the I.F.B.B. and N.P.C. being compared to Track and Field, MLB, the NFL or NBA is flat out LAUGHABLE.  Why?  Because those bodybuilding organizations HAVE NO TESTING POLICY.  Their refusal to test simply encourages the use of drugs and further champions the "freaks of science" which their organizations produce.  Notice I didn't say "freaks of nature" because guys like Cutler, Coleman, Yates, Wheeler, etc. are NOT "freaks of nature" or "genetically gifted" like those that are engulfed by those industries would have you believe.  They are freaks of SCIENCE.  Genetics play FAR less of a role than the use of various compounds in HIGH dosages.  For those guys to actually admit that they are NOT "freaks" of nature but simply guys that use a lot of drugs and respond well to them, well, their Ego's would be Crushed...(Might be a good suggestion for a screen name.......)

The NFL, for instance, is FULL of guys that could be HIGH LEVEL N.P.C. competitors or even I.F.B.B. pros IF they choose to use the drugs that those involved in bodybuilding use and dedicated their life to the eating and training.  These people involved in bodybuilding to the extent that they are ALMOST pros or ARE pros do not realize that they are simply the left-overs that didn't have what it takes to make a living playing a SPORT.  The REAL "genetic freaks" in our society are in the NFL and NBA (to an extent), NOT in bodybuilding.  That is reality.



HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just got done reading a thread about Steve Blekman......



Edit: Okay, back on topic. Good points, and I agree with you. It's one I've made numerous times. Had it out with Chick about it too.....the reality is that if these guys (the pro bbers) had ANY kind of athletic talent (let alone elite level), they'd have persued that as a career. Instead, guys like Chick would have us believe that they are world class athletes, and that they CHOSE to stick to bbing and its peanuts/crumbs, rather than going for the riches of a legitimate athletic endeavour.  ::)
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: D.L. 5 on July 25, 2007, 12:48:25 AM
hahahahaha, my arms are as big as your legs.

LOL. but get cut up u will look 100 times better and probably bigger too.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Beefjake on July 25, 2007, 04:55:48 AM
I think it takes a freak of NATURE to be able stand such a large amounts of SCIENCE
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: HalloweenMan on July 25, 2007, 05:45:23 AM
Who said that? I am assuming someone who likes to think they know what they are talking about without the proper knowledge.  Track and field is not as dirty as it was and is far from being "The worst when it comes to drug abuse."  I am aware that there are methods to avoid tests however it is extremely hard to do and most of the time you will get caught.  And to all the people who think you can't make it to the top in athletics without using are wrong.  My friend dylan armstrong just won gold in the pan am games, and I can vow he doesn't use anything. 

sure you can   ::)
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: njflex on July 25, 2007, 06:26:37 AM
I think it takes a freak of NATURE to be able stand such a large amounts of SCIENCE
agreed a little of both or in bbing case a lot goes a loooooong way....
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: SGT BARNES on July 25, 2007, 06:54:44 AM
this fatass talks alot of shit for being a skinny fuck under a fat suit.

dipshit taking pictures of himself in a moms back door window reflection desperately trying to show any seperation betwween fat lumps.

dude is the most insecure child i have seen here. hiding under a layer of fat while living with mommy and calling everyone out and talking like captain hardcore.


try not to choke on your krispy kreme when you read this marshmallow boy...
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: rockyfortune on July 25, 2007, 07:01:35 AM
agreed...freaks of the drugs they use..look at pics of levrone off...he looks like he runs cross country...tom prince looks like an aids patient now...world class nothing--if not for the needles, pills and injections these guys would be pumping gas...oh yeah..i'm supposed to believe the BS about muscle insertions, big bone structure and all that pseudo-physiology nonsense these guys spew...take a look at paul dillet's pic without the sauce and he's nothing more than a fat ass.

Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Mars on July 25, 2007, 07:02:37 AM
He looks so bad in that picture.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: No Patience on July 25, 2007, 07:27:12 AM
This guy just works out a lot...and has self-respect...

Try it sometime....

BTW, Squad, EVERY TIME I post this pic, you run off.  Please stay dialed in on this thread.  Let me run you into the GROUND.  Please?

you have an awesome physique....fuck squad...fat dudes with hidden muscles don't get chicks, period!!

he is just a perfect example of a self made asshole with low self esteem/high body fat attmepting to take out his insecurities on others that are better than him
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: No Patience on July 25, 2007, 07:29:39 AM
i absolutely agree with the "freaks of science"

of course genetics will make slight differences BUT the pros love to blow that shit up to make
them feel like they are not just another guy scared to show their REAL potential, naturally

right Chick!! hahahahaha
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: SS on July 25, 2007, 07:36:53 AM
oh brother here we go again with these pencil neck geeks, that couldn't fill out a medium shirt ::)
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: RagingBull on July 25, 2007, 07:45:09 AM
This guy just works out a lot...and has self-respect...

Try it sometime....

BTW, Squad, EVERY TIME I post this pic, you run off.  Please stay dialed in on this thread.  Let me run you into the GROUND.  Please?

"Just works out?"  You obviously use "other" means to achieve your size/conditioning as you do not even look like a marathon runner in the photo taken at the aquarium.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: nycbull on July 25, 2007, 08:05:53 AM
This guy just works out a lot...and has self-respect...

Try it sometime....

BTW, Squad, EVERY TIME I post this pic, you run off.  Please stay dialed in on this thread.  Let me run you into the GROUND.  Please?


monster indoor outdoor carpet.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: chester_bbb on July 25, 2007, 08:15:25 AM
this guy is a freak of nature, look at those huge arms!!! :o

He got those crazy eyes. :o
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: The Squadfather on July 25, 2007, 08:17:22 AM
He got those crazy eyes. :o
hahahaha, he had to pop 15 ephedrine capsules to deal with all of his "womans" black bruthas when he takes her back to da hood.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: rockyfortune on July 25, 2007, 10:49:49 AM
off the sauce...
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Earl1972 on July 25, 2007, 12:54:27 PM
off the sauce...

look at those forearm veins bulging out

you can tell he's shredded 8)

but you guys like to think that your fat makes you more impressive ::)

E
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: The Squadfather on July 25, 2007, 01:19:30 PM
off the sauce...
epic bug eyes, homosexual size small silk Hollister shirt, 5 inch wrists, 9 inch forearms, 13 inch upper arms, woman's belt, women hip hugger jeans and sweater tied around waist in mid July heat.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: Mars on July 25, 2007, 01:34:09 PM
Good to see he's not one of those insecure pro bodybuilders who needs to be jacked all life at all costs.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: TheEgoCrusher on July 26, 2007, 10:35:59 PM
K.L. is far beyond most of you.
Title: Re: Freaks of NATURE or freaks of SCIENCE?
Post by: rockyfortune on July 27, 2007, 05:50:23 AM
mmmm..far beyone what?

all i see is an ex steroid/drug abusing/ former bodybuilder who is making cheap, cheesy b-movies...that makes him beyone what?