Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: che on February 14, 2010, 07:11:36 PM

Title: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: che on February 14, 2010, 07:11:36 PM

Thanks to IFBB judges for ruining bodybuilding.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: che on February 14, 2010, 07:13:23 PM

 :)

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: che on February 14, 2010, 07:14:41 PM

 :)

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: TRIX on February 14, 2010, 07:31:28 PM

People like seeing freaks. I didn't get into bodybuilding to be some pussy symmetrical  twink

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Marty Champions on February 14, 2010, 07:36:13 PM

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y256/honigga/getbig1275.jpg)

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Hulkotron on February 14, 2010, 09:02:24 PM

Did Kamali tear both biceps or something?

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Beener on February 15, 2010, 12:25:41 AM

Quote from: TRIX on February 14, 2010, 07:31:28 PM

People like seeing freaks. I didn't get into bodybuilding to be some pussy symmetrical  twink

QTF

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Mars on February 15, 2010, 12:51:39 AM

damn kamalis arms actually looked pretty good there. see what an illusion bbing is.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: calfzilla on February 15, 2010, 12:53:18 AM

Yes I noticed that when someone just turns pro, they look better than they do after being a seasoned pro.  I'm all for mass, but at what cost? 

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Kwon on February 15, 2010, 01:30:06 AM

King was good back then, before he swelled up.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Meso_z on February 15, 2010, 03:01:04 AM

Quote from: TRIX on February 14, 2010, 07:31:28 PM

People like seeing freaks. I didn't get into bodybuilding to be some pussy symmetrical  twink

seems that youre quite the "freak" yourself. ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: wes on February 15, 2010, 03:26:38 AM

Bigger isn`t better,better is better!!

Most guys look like crap when they turn pro after putting on 30-50 more disproportionate pounds,which would be impossible to do normally  without upping the dosages to epic proportions,staying on indefinately,using Gh and insulin,eatinf tons of food, and training like sloths.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: G_Thang on February 15, 2010, 03:33:04 AM

in the offseason someone advised king to play the 300lb offseason game and that was the end of him.  he never had the genetics to pull it off.   even jay stays sub-300.  ronnie n guys over 72".  no way a guy under 69" should be 300lbs.  forget that i'm growning nonsense...just an excuse to get fat.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: wes on February 15, 2010, 04:24:57 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
X2

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: jon cole on February 15, 2010, 04:27:24 AM

nasser can add 30 pounds without losing definition.
jay clearly ruined his shape.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: saopl on February 15, 2010, 05:23:55 AM

third picture down looks like Tom Hanks.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: spinnis on February 15, 2010, 05:28:15 AM

Kevin,Nasser,Coleman all looked better bigger

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on February 15, 2010, 05:43:49 AM

I think there is something very wrong with Levrone's most muscular, it looks really messy and unbalanced.

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: spinnis on February 15, 2010, 06:24:36 AM

Quote from: #1 Klaus fan on February 15, 2010, 05:43:49 AM

I think there is something very wrong with Levrone's most muscular, it looks really messy and unbalanced.

maby the complete lack of deffenition in his synthol arms..

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: affeman on February 15, 2010, 06:44:51 AM

That's the same dude?? ??? Wow, roids make you handsome....

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319995.0;attach=359771;image) (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319995.0;attach=359772;image)

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: spinnis on February 15, 2010, 06:49:50 AM

Quote from: affeman on February 15, 2010, 06:44:51 AM

That's the same dude?? ??? Wow, roids make you handsome....

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319995.0;attach=359771;image) (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=319995.0;attach=359772;image)

looks fine to me?

(http://www.heinrichvos.co.za/library/hvosbwarren2.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kwTdwId7b9M/STqN2JFaF2I/AAAAAAAAEjo/IXnbuUvfRIs/s400/IMG_3868.JPG)

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: Meso_z on February 15, 2010, 08:50:44 AM

Quote from: Swede! on February 15, 2010, 06:49:50 AM

looks fine to me?

(http://www.heinrichvos.co.za/library/hvosbwarren2.jpg)(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kwTdwId7b9M/STqN2JFaF2I/AAAAAAAAEjo/IXnbuUvfRIs/s400/IMG_3868.JPG)

Branch is a actually a good looking dude, its just the contest dehydration which makes him look "ugly".

Title: Re: In bodybuilding bigger is not necessarily better
Post by: HTexan on February 15, 2010, 09:28:51 AM

(http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj167/Dwendel23/skinnyman.jpg)