Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Positive Bodybuilding Discussion & Talk => Topic started by: MisterMagoo on June 01, 2008, 03:08:02 PM
-
a lot of the time, someone'll put up a comment about such and such bodybuilder's training and someone will say "yeah well, this isn't powerlifting". somewhere along the lines, bodybuilding became far, far too removed from athletic ability.
bodybuilding, really, is about building the ideal physique. we think of a physique as "good" because we assume it indicates greater athleticism. bigger muscles means stronger, less fat means in better shape.
no, it's not powerlifting, but when you see guys doing super light weight pump sets (milos training), they're building muscles that don't represent everything. the physique they end up with is hardly different than synthol, it's an illusion. that's why we like videos from ronnie where they train heavy.
i'm not getting it across perfectly here, my point is mainly that bodybuilding died when everyone decided that it didn't matter if they were actually in anything resembling good physical condition, all that mattered was the appearance. dave palumbo once said "i'd rather bench 300 and look like i bench 600 than the other way around" and that's all that's wrong.
a guy with 21" arms who can't bench more than 315, sitting at 6% bodyfat but gets winded after a 400 meter jog has a body that is intended to LOOK like it's athletic but isn't. and if it's all a mirage, what's the point?
-
I know what you are saying, bodybuilding "the sport" is all about looks, that is why they are not concerned with how much they can lift, but how much they look like they can lift and IMO that is what has led to more drugs than ever. I think if some of these guys laid off the dosages and lifted harder, trained longer in the gym and actually followed a sensible diet/ regimine offseason, they would look much better come comp time. You always see pics of Arnold, etc in the offseason, tiny as hell(OK maybe not tiny) nowadays, these guys are increasing doses in the offseason and gaining 50-60 lbs that they have to shed. It can't be healthy.
So the question remains, how does it change? Where is the line drawn that says enough is enough, let's focus on quality of physique, not size.
-
it's probably not an anomaly that you can tell when someone's actually built more muscle by getting themselves stronger versus artificial muscle inflation. take ronnie, as per my last example. did he get any stronger between The Unbelievable and Cost of Redemption? i'd say no, but yet he's what, 30 pounds heavier or so?
i'm not sure how it can be fixed, or if it can at all. it's why i don't really pay attention to the competition any more. the competitors have zero concern for athleticism. health is irrelevant because no top-level athletes care about how healthy they are beyond how well they can perform.
-
the main problem i see is not the lack of athleticism (among competitive bodybuillders..as it doesnt really matter), its the lack of correct training knowledge among people who workout.
pro bodybuilding i dont give a shit about anymore (they look like shit, nothing you can learn from them, and the competitions are often whos who instead of physique competitions)
people dont know how to build muscle these days, without using drugs.
-
my point is though that the ideal physique should represent something. we consider it the ideal presentation of the human body because it's supposed to represent athletic perfection. muscular, lean, and graceful. all that gay stuff.
it's why bodybuilding has become a stupid pursuit for younger lifters. the best of the best train like nutballs, with giant sets and 20 pound weights for long contractions and other crap. put 'em on a "powerbuilding" program and now you've got something.
how sad is that, though? that bodybuilding has become so far removed from actual athletic progression that the pursuit of muscles that are also strong has a different term. :-\
-
IMO Bodybuiliding is as alive (and dead) as its ever been. Other that the two minor exceptions of the west coast muscle craze of the 50/60's and the attention focused on Arnold, 95% of the population have never had any idea what bodybuilding is.
if anytihng the buffeloes make it more "likable". And by that i mean,
1. sponsers like the mass monsters b/c they can put their picture on whatever bullshit suppliment they are selling and say "you can look like this too."
2. the generla public likes it b/c it gives them a nonsense reason to be fat "i dont want to look like that, pass me the Pringles"
I agree that the saddest part of all of this is young guys (who are in everyones gym) buying into the poor health standards.
-
my point is though that the ideal physique should represent something. we consider it the ideal presentation of the human body because it's supposed to represent athletic perfection. muscular, lean, and graceful. all that gay stuff.
it's why bodybuilding has become a stupid pursuit for younger lifters. the best of the best train like nutballs, with giant sets and 20 pound weights for long contractions and other crap. put 'em on a "powerbuilding" program and now you've got something.
how sad is that, though? that bodybuilding has become so far removed from actual athletic progression that the pursuit of muscles that are also strong has a different term. :-\
i know what your saying. and its all connected: lack of athleticism, lack of correct training. because they are interrelated.
drugs have ruined alot...and if you combine that with insecure narcissistic pathalogical liars .....it can only go one way.
-
I agree that the saddest part of all of this is young guys (who are in everyones gym) buying into the poor health standards.
thats the worst part.
-
look at jack lalanne (sp?). that guy has been a stud for like 9,000 years by excercising, eating well and living well!
-
as for death of bodybuilding..i guess that depends on how you define bodybuilding, and what it constitutes for you.
i solved the problem by not caring anymore.i just worry about my own training these days.
-
i know what your saying. and its all connected: lack of athleticism, lack of correct training. because they are interrelated.
drugs have ruined alot...and if you combine that with insecure narcissistic pathalogical liars .....it can only go one way.
i suppose that's what happens when you have a contest intended to award physical perfection, but the contest involves no tests of athleticism. if anything, women's fitness has it right because those girls have to be able to DO something.
and yeah, drugs definitely have killed it. when you have a guy that goes from 230 on stage to 270 but hasn't gotten any stronger, you know we've got a problem.
-
The only tests of strength now are strongman comps and most of those guys aren't ripped or lean, but they are strong and athletic.
-
The only tests of strength now are strongman comps and most of those guys aren't ripped or lean, but they are strong and athletic.
isn't that the funny thing? the guys who are capable of the most difficult feats of athleticism also have physiques most gym-rats don't want.
-
I know, it's kind of funny really.
-
personally i am on the opposite side of this issue. to me bodybuilding is entirely about creating a work of art with your body. its entirely based on appearance.
would you judge a da vinci based on how good it would look in a dining room? (the purpouse of a painting...decoration )... and the same question..= judge a physique based on how it performs athletically ( the purpouse of a body... physical activity )..
no i think a da vinci is judged based on its own beauty not based on how it functions as a painting, and i think a bb'ers physique is judged based on its beauty not based on how it functions as a human body
-
you can't compare the two at all, candi. you've got an analytical mind, so go with me on this one.
you have to ask yourself WHY we think that appearance is good. why did we decide that this look is "ideal"? why did a bunch of people get together and say "hey, big muscles and low fat with a tight waist is how we should look"? the answer goes right to the thread on the origin of bodybuilding.
bodybuilding originated from strongmen. guys who had great physiques that performed. the ideal physique was because lean, muscular bodies could perform superhuman feats. guys like arnold and franco were amazingly strong considering they competed at relatively low weights.
these days there's a good reason synthol and huge drug use: the sport is so far removed from any connection to physical performance that the "athletes" have no reason to avoid artificial enhancements be it extra doses of hormones or oil to inflate the muscle.
that's why the anti-synthol argument is hard these days. it doesn't matter if the body is remotely functional, it just has to have a given appearance. the only reason anyone says synthol is bad is because it doesn't quite look right. not because it's fake, because it doesn't look good.
-
I don't think it's the death of bodybuilding. EVERY muscle represents something. It represents muscle designed to be best at doing the training that created it. In the case of pumpers like that, they're really good at maintaining tension for long periods without relaxation. Sometimes you do need this.
-
I don't think it's the death of bodybuilding. EVERY muscle represents something. It represents muscle designed to be best at doing the training that created it. In the case of pumpers like that, they're really good at maintaining tension for long periods without relaxation. Sometimes you do need this.
maybe you need to think some more
-
The death of bodybuilding??? I have been hearing that for years.
There is pro competitive bodybuilding, and there is bodybuilding for the fun of it.
Competitive bodybuilding is pretty much the same as it was 10-15 years ago.
It is different, but the interest is still there.
-
The death of bodybuilding??? I have been hearing that for years.
There is pro competitive bodybuilding, and there is bodybuilding for the fun of it.
Competitive bodybuilding is pretty much the same as it was 10-15 years ago.
It is different, but the interest is still there.
no, most pros look like shit these days. the 90s were the glory days of professional bodybuilding.
and as has been said before: is bodybuilding dead? depends on how you define bodybuilding.
-
no, most pros look like shit these days. the 90s were the glory days of professional bodybuilding.
and as has been said before: is bodybuilding dead? depends on how you define bodybuilding.
the 90s were also time of the most steroid usage in pro bb'ing
you cant have it both ways !
-
the 90s were also time of the most steroid usage in pro bb'ing
you cant have it both ways !
your living proof of the contrary. :D
-
your living proof of the contrary. :D
you know this how ?
-
you know this how ?
by your reply.
-
The death of bodybuilding??? I have been hearing that for years.
There is pro competitive bodybuilding, and there is bodybuilding for the fun of it.
Competitive bodybuilding is pretty much the same as it was 10-15 years ago.
It is different, but the interest is still there.
i'm not speaking of it in terms of public interest or quality/size of shows. i mean the death of it as an ideal, the death of the bodybuilder as a representation of physical perfection.
mr olympia used to be the peak of human development, but after a while artificial standards started creeping in, making ideas like "symmetry" fly out the window.
-
by your reply.
i dont get it. ,maybe im wetawded
-
i dont get it. ,maybe im wetawded
-
i'm not speaking of it in terms of public interest or quality/size of shows. i mean the death of it as an ideal, the death of the bodybuilder as a representation of physical perfection.
mr olympia used to be the peak of human development, but after a while artificial standards started creeping in, making ideas like "symmetry" fly out the window.
Looking back, when did we get away from this ideal? Was it the Dorian era? I think Haney still represented the idea of being strong and functional.
-
Looking back, when did we get away from this ideal? Was it the Dorian era? I think Haney still represented the idea of being strong and functional.
it was probably a slow progression. the first guy who said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter if it makes you stronger, the point is it makes your muscles bigger" catalyzed it.
the guys who say to lift with that weird "time under tension" thing, or advocate "pump by any means" training also probably deserve "credit".
-
Looking back, when did we get away from this ideal? Was it the Dorian era? I think Haney still represented the idea of being strong and functional.
It was Yates.
He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.
That's when terms like "conditioned mass" "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.
It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.
-
It was Yates.
He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.
That's when terms like "conditioned mass" "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.
It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.
I think so too. It seems to me that Haney had a classical look/athleticism, while Yates just looked big, didn't look like he could run a 1/4 mile to save his own life.
-
It was Yates.
He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.
That's when terms like "conditioned mass" "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.
It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.
i can agree. the disconnect between the "package" in favor of "most mass with best conditioning" happened then. i've said for the longest time that conditioning is an overrated aspect of bodybuilding. guys like sergio and arnold had horrendous conditioning compared to what we expect out of guys today. there was no such thing as a striated tricep then, no separated hamstrings or striated glutes.
if you have the right drugs you can suck all the water and fat out from under your skin, the real hard part is actually "building" a great "body".
-
Come on people. When did the IFBB ever have an athletic points requirement? Pro- bodybuilding hasn't been drug free since the mid fifties if not before. And as for Mister Natural jack LaLanne we're supposed to just ignore his gay for pay nude photos? Pro-bodybuilding is pretty much what it's always been plus or minus a few grapefruit here or there.
-
It was Yates.
He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.
That's when terms like "conditioned mass" "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.
It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.
wasnt yates in my opinion...the slide started in the 60s when bb drugs became widespread (drugs were used before that too..i know), but it depends on what we are discussing.
-
if you want to be real then it started with the mr olympia contest when larry scott was awarded the best physsique on earth with those biceps he had wich wouldnt have EVER looked remotely like they did without bb'ing drugs
but i dont think bb'ing is dead i think that its alive and well.
its just never gonna be mainstream though, not even if it becomes stringently drug tested and the judging criteria awards david beckham look alikes
-
drugs are not the problem. drugs can be used to aid athletic performance, look at... every top-level athlete today. pick a sport from WSM to tennis, and they use drugs.
the point is not drugs, the point is that the sport shifted from an ideal physique which is seen as the peak of human development to "mass with conditioning" and no other qualifiers, meaning the owner of the physique could be an unathletic blob but as long as he's got the size and low BF he's the "winner".
bodybuilding was intended to represent the ideal, and while that can change over time, we're far from that now. people saw arnold as superhuman, people see jay cutler as grotesque. our eyes can tell when a body is athletic versus when it is muscle that represents nothing.
-
jay trains very similar to how arnold trained though
-
Using Magoo's comparison........if you had a physique like Arnolds and were standing side by side with Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler and asked 50 people or 100 people from the general public who they would rather look like, I think 90% would choose Arnolds physique.
A physique like Arnolds or Francos or Larry Scott, etc....seems attainable to most people. A physique like Jays or Ronnies looks unattainable and therefore most people aren't going to appreciate it.
Whether or not any of these physiques I've used as an example is attainable is beside the point, some look attainable, some don't.
-
drugs are not the problem. drugs can be used to aid athletic performance, look at... every top-level athlete today. pick a sport from WSM to tennis, and they use drugs.
the point is not drugs, the point is that the sport shifted from an ideal physique which is seen as the peak of human development to "mass with conditioning" and no other qualifiers, meaning the owner of the physique could be an unathletic blob but as long as he's got the size and low BF he's the "winner".
bodybuilding was intended to represent the ideal, and while that can change over time, we're far from that now. people saw arnold as superhuman, people see jay cutler as grotesque. our eyes can tell when a body is athletic versus when it is muscle that represents nothing.
cant completely agree with that. obviously its a mix of things, including changing ideals but you cant seperate drugs from the equation.
its human nature: faster, bigger, stronger etc.
i know what your saying tho.
-
Using Magoo's comparison........if you had a physique like Arnolds and were standing side by side with Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler and asked 50 people or 100 people from the general public who they would rather look like, I think 90% would choose Arnolds physique.
A physique like Arnolds or Francos or Larry Scott, etc....seems attainable to most people. A physique like Jays or Ronnies looks unattainable and therefore most people aren't going to appreciate it.
Whether or not any of these physiques I've used as an example is attainable is beside the point, some look attainable, some don't.
yes, a physique being (somewhat atleast) attainable is a very important factor. it inspires people more (in general!) than the "ronnie look".
i think bodybuilding should give people both : question is how to do it.
-
cant completely agree with that. obviously its a mix of things, including changing ideals but you cant seperate drugs from the equation.
its human nature: faster, bigger, stronger etc.
i know what your saying tho.
i agree that drugs are a problem, on second thought. specifically, remember Teh Chad's thread involving plasma expanders? the drugs that simply pump water into the muscles, causing artificial inflation with no actual muscle growth.
-
i agree that drugs are a problem, on second thought. specifically, remember Teh Chad's thread involving plasma expanders? the drugs that simply pump water into the muscles, causing artificial inflation with no actual muscle growth.
yeah lol remember it. everyone was talking about em. huge thing over at mayhem.