Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: James Blunt on April 16, 2010, 10:37:21 AM

Title: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: James Blunt on April 16, 2010, 10:37:21 AM
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/Phil_doublebi.jpg)
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/Phil_Heath_arm.jpg)
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/Phil_Raph_Rob.jpg)
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/DSC_0122.JPG)
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/DSC_0116.JPG)
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/DSC_0088.JPG)
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/DSC_0067.JPG)

(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/DSC_0052.JPG)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: MAXX on April 16, 2010, 10:49:43 AM
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/Phil_Heath_arm.jpg)

looks like 56 cm

meaning 22 inches exactly.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 16, 2010, 10:51:01 AM
Legit 22" arms, DAMN.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Wiggs on April 16, 2010, 10:52:25 AM
Legit 22" arms, DAMN.


Luke will disagree...He'll say they're 19...The tape is shady.. ::)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: MAXX on April 16, 2010, 10:52:51 AM
now when i look again it's 55 cm.

21,7 inches.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: James Blunt on April 16, 2010, 10:56:00 AM
Luke will disagree...He'll say they're 19...The tape is shady.. ::)
The Luke = Asshole.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: CT_Muscle on April 16, 2010, 10:58:34 AM
Berneika DWARFING Phil
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: ChristopherA on April 16, 2010, 11:08:17 AM
Berneika DWARFING Phil
More bf on Rob and looks like shit compared to Phil. Bigger arms but their shape isnt in his league
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 16, 2010, 11:12:07 AM
Luke will disagree...He'll say they're 19...The tape is shady.. ::)

 ::) oh brother...  ::)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: JasonH on April 16, 2010, 11:33:46 AM
Damn - legit 22 inch arms. Shit like that makes you realise how far you've got to go.  :'(
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Mr. Magoo on April 16, 2010, 11:35:05 AM
that first pic  :o
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on April 16, 2010, 11:36:50 AM
Coleman's arms were 2 inches bigger in his prime.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: lesaucer on April 16, 2010, 11:37:39 AM
ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA ROBIRT BRINEIKA
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: JasonH on April 16, 2010, 11:42:12 AM
that first pic  :o

Yep - the shape of those arms look exactly like the NPC logo.  8)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: kiwiol on April 16, 2010, 11:45:52 AM
The Luke = Asshole.

He really is a fool. He admits that Lee Priest's arms onstage are around 21", but after I post pics from the Olympia showing Ronnie's arms to be a couple of inches bigger, talked about misleading angles of pics and other BS and is now back to claiming that Ronnie's arms at their biggest were 21.7" when he weighed 310 lb ::)

Arguing with him is a fcuking waste of time.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: d0nny2600 on April 16, 2010, 11:47:04 AM
Coleman's arms were 2 inches bigger in his prime.
They ain't got nothin' on Klaus
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on April 16, 2010, 11:48:14 AM
who is that white mutant dwarfing heath?? heath has some of the biggest complete arms in the world but that white dude looks at least as big
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Parker on April 16, 2010, 12:55:12 PM
More bf on Rob and looks like shit compared to Phil. Bigger arms but their shape isnt in his league
Yep, and Sean Allen dwarfs both of the (using Sean, who is not pictured, as a reference), but they both don't have what Phil does, a pro card. Rob, after all the hype, couldn't deliver. And Rob has some odd shaped arms, in shape they lacked that highly detailed quality that Phil has, plus his phyisque is about as aesthetic as a block of ice---Rob=all hype.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: spinnis on April 16, 2010, 12:58:13 PM
without dat synthol

(http://i43.tinypic.com/fmtir4.jpg)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Wiggs on April 16, 2010, 02:46:01 PM
without dat synthol

(http://i43.tinypic.com/fmtir4.jpg)

Please.... ::) Tell me you're joking... ::)
Phil is synthol free.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: TRIX on April 16, 2010, 04:49:21 PM
boom!
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/massturbater/hhhh.jpg)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Spike on April 16, 2010, 05:17:34 PM
boom!
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/massturbater/hhhh.jpg)

I;m gettn some of those headphones - add some inches to my shizz :) ;) :D
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: MattT on April 16, 2010, 05:27:06 PM
Phil Stayin very lean i see!
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: The Luke on April 16, 2010, 06:00:50 PM
(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/Phil_Heath_arm.jpg)

Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs allowing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation between chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... well, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enough to admit they were wrong?


The Luke
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Wiggs on April 16, 2010, 06:03:27 PM
Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs alloing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation beteen chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... ell, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enoug to admit they were wrong?


The Luke


False...19 inches at best...the tape is shady and cleary skewed.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: The Luke on April 16, 2010, 06:16:35 PM
Zack Khan has 1.5 inches bigger arms. But he is taller so it's only natural.

...based on his bodyweight and height, Zack Khan has arms maybe half an inch to three quarters of an inch bigger.

The pics of his arms taped show that too.


Remember, you need to add a muge amount of bodyweight to increase an inch when your arm is already over 20 inches.

The guideline weight for a 21'' arm is 294 lbs (assuming average height and 10% bf)
The guideline weight for a 22'' arm is 323 lbs
The guideline weight for a 23'' arm is 353 lbs

Zack Khan's arms are just over 22''... but that's still a full 7% bigger than Heaths (and there just so happens to be a 7% difference in their lean bodyweights too).


The Luke
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: no one on April 16, 2010, 06:16:46 PM
Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs allowing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation between chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... well, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enough to admit they were wrong?


The Luke

you've been smoking too much rock if you think phil heath is anywhere near 290 in those pics.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: The Luke on April 16, 2010, 06:24:26 PM
you've been smoking too much rock if you think phil heath is anywhere near 290 in those pics.

...isn't he 270-280 most off-seasons; 240-250 in contest shape? He's 5'8''-5'9'' right? He might be lighter but still have those measurements if he's 5'7'' or shorter.


One thing is for sure... those pictures put to rest the fantasy that Arnold ever had a 22'' arm.


The Luke
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: TRIX on April 16, 2010, 06:30:40 PM
Phil is probably 255 - 260 there
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: tendonitis on April 16, 2010, 06:32:23 PM
Phil is 260 tops there at 5'9"
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 16, 2010, 06:38:04 PM
Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs allowing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation between chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... well, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enough to admit they were wrong?


The Luke

You're obsessed beyond delusional, quite teh mental dwarf...seek medical attention immediately
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Flexb on April 16, 2010, 06:41:10 PM
Burnieka is a meatball. Pretty cocky for a guy that can't get shredded yet thinks he's Mr. O already
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: lesaucer on April 16, 2010, 06:42:56 PM
You're obsessed beyond delusional, quite teh mental dwarf...seek medical attention immediately


hahahahhaa seriously luke, you're a fucking retard, and your formula, is shit
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: The Luke on April 16, 2010, 06:43:40 PM
You're obsessed beyond delusional, quite teh mental dwarf...seek medical attention immediately

Weren't you one of the guys claiming Ronnie had 24s and most pros ha 22-23s...?

I realise I'm open for criticism and personal attack for daring to question the truth as handed down from on high by FLEX magazine, but we're all agreed on the math, right?


The Luke
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 16, 2010, 06:46:16 PM
Weren't you one of the guys claiming Ronnie had 24s and most pros ha 22-23s...?

I realise I'm open for criticism and personal attack for daring to question the truth as handed down from on high by FLEX magazine, but we're all agreed on the math, right?


The Luke

You've got to have some bitch ass arms to be hating this hard on every pro with big arms...what are they, seriously ? like method's 13" canons?
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: The Luke on April 16, 2010, 06:50:09 PM
hahahahhaa seriously luke, you're a fucking retard, and your formula, is shit

But it predicts bodyweights and real arm measurements accurately.


The Luke
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: kiwiol on April 16, 2010, 06:51:59 PM
You've got to have some bitch ass arms to be hating this hard on every pro with big arms...what are they, seriously ? like method's 13" canons?


Either he's trolling to get a rise out of people here or one big imbecile. According to him, Lee Priest's arms are around 21" in the pic below, but Ronnie's can't be even that much, cause his arm was measured at 21.7" at a body weight of 317 lb (he's 260 lb in the pics) on some occasion that's the only acceptable one to our genius arm expert, lol

Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: lesaucer on April 16, 2010, 06:56:22 PM
its crazy how ronnie is seriously dominating everyone! shit, his arms are double the size of those of lee priest
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: kiwiol on April 16, 2010, 07:05:16 PM
its crazy how ronnie is seriously dominating everyone! shit, his arms are double the size of those of lee priest

All the pics from that contests as well as video clips show the exact same thing - Ronnie's arms were a good 1.5" - 2" bigger than Lee's. Luke agrees that Lee's arms are 21", but won't accept Ronnie's arms are over 22", because it negates the unquestionable, irrefutable measurement of 21.7" that was measured at a body weight of over 300 lb.

Based on those pics and pics of the 1997 Olympia, anyone can see that guys like Nasser, Dillett, Levrone and Flex all had arms well over 22" at body weights ranging from 240 lb - 270 lb. Guess teh Luke pulled out that formula from the same place where he hides his buttplug ;D
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Flexb on April 16, 2010, 07:06:34 PM
I'd give Ronnie 3 more inches on his arms judging on those pics with priest
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: tendonitis on April 16, 2010, 07:07:39 PM
Ronnie's arms are AT LEAST 2 inches bigger than Lee's in those pics.  AT LEAST
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Pollux on April 16, 2010, 07:08:13 PM
Holy shit!  :o

(http://www.europeanbodybuilding.com/tl_files/galerien/PhilHeath_RobertBurneika/Phil_doublebi.jpg)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Hulkotron on April 16, 2010, 07:09:32 PM
It must be really irritating to frequently remove all your armpit hair.

What "The Luke" does not understand about all this scaling bullshit is that it only applies across different species and very large (i.e. order of magnitude) differences in size.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Tapeworm on April 16, 2010, 07:10:18 PM
He really is a fool. He admits that Lee Priest's arms onstage are around 21", but after I post pics from the Olympia showing Ronnie's arms to be a couple of inches bigger, talked about misleading angles of pics and other BS and is now back to claiming that Ronnie's arms at their biggest were 21.7" when he weighed 310 lb ::)

Arguing with him is a fcuking waste of time.

Blood sweat and tears in every single post.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: kiwiol on April 16, 2010, 07:12:05 PM
Blood sweat and tears in every single post.

What can I say? Men in thongs = serious business.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Flexb on April 16, 2010, 07:12:20 PM
...based on his bodyweight and height, Zack Khan has arms maybe half an inch to three quarters of an inch bigger.

The pics of his arms taped show that too.


Remember, you need to add a muge amount of bodyweight to increase an inch when your arm is already over 20 inches.

The guideline weight for a 21'' arm is 294 lbs (assuming average height and 10% bf)
The guideline weight for a 22'' arm is 323 lbs
The guideline weight for a 23'' arm is 353 lbs

Zack Khan's arms are just over 22''... but that's still a full 7% bigger than Heaths (and there just so happens to be a 7% difference in their lean bodyweights too).


The Luke

height and weight don't for sure mean a guy will have a said arm measurement. Some people obviously grow some bodyparts more than others
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: The Luke on April 16, 2010, 07:12:59 PM
All the pics from that contests as well as video clips show the exact same thing - Ronnie's arms were a good 1.5" - 2" bigger than Lee's. Luke agrees that Lee's arms are 21", but won't accept Ronnie's arms are over 22", because it negates the unquestionable, irrefutable measurement of 21.7" that was measured at a body weight of over 300 lb.

Based on those pics and pics of the 1997 Olympia, anyone can see that guys like Nasser, Dillett, Levrone and Flex all had arms well over 22" at body weights ranging from 240 lb - 270 lb. Guess teh Luke pulled out that formula from the same place where he hides his buttplug ;D

A month after the 2004 Olympia Ronnie weighed 305 lbs but only had a 21.7'' arm... as seen on tv.

Yet you guys insist Ronnie had 23-24'' arms ON STAGE?


That's pretty delusional. Come visit planet earth sometime guys.


The Luke  
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: TRIX on April 16, 2010, 07:16:08 PM
You gotta understand ronnies were ripped 22 inches at 305 lbs. Lees are a shady picture 21.5 no where near contest condition.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: kiwiol on April 16, 2010, 07:17:29 PM
Come visit planet earth sometime guys.

I can't. I'm afraid Bigfoot will come get me.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Lion666 on April 16, 2010, 07:57:50 PM
that 1st pic is awesome

 :o
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Tapeworm on April 16, 2010, 08:14:12 PM
What can I say? Men in thongs = serious business.

I mean Luke's posts.  The dy/dx analysis over everything.  He seems like a pretty smart dude but goddamn he looks to be the hardest working poster on Getbig sometimes.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: JOCKTHEGLIDE on April 16, 2010, 08:16:40 PM
i LOVE THIS FELLA,,,,I MEAN GIMMICK ACCOUNT,,,NOW HE CANT JUDGE OFF SEASON WEIGHT,,BUT A MASTER AT ARM SIZE,,,HA HA HA,,,LUKE IF YOU EVER COME TO MR. OLYMPIA YOU PM ME,,,I CAN EVEN FLY YOU OUT TO MR. O AT MY EXPENSE FELLA,,,YOU SOUND LIKE SUSAN FITNESS EVERYDAY,,,
...isn't he 270-280 most off-seasons; 240-250 in contest shape? He's 5'8''-5'9'' right? He might be lighter but still have those measurements if he's 5'7'' or shorter.


One thing is for sure... those pictures put to rest the fantasy that Arnold ever had a 22'' arm.


The Luke
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: JOCKTHEGLIDE on April 16, 2010, 08:17:43 PM
I mean Luke's posts.  The dy/dx analysis over everything.  He seems like a pretty smart dude but goddamn he looks to be the hardest working poster on Getbig sometimes.
HE IS GOING AT A RATE OF SQUADATHER,,I REMEMBER SQUAD PM ME ONE TIME AND TOLD ME HIS GOAL AT GETBIG WAS 50 PLUS POST,,,A DAY IF NOT MORE AND HE LOVED TO ARGUE EVERY POST,,, ;D
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: doison on April 16, 2010, 08:20:42 PM
Wow!

56cm... which would be 54cm with a tight tape and a proper perpendicular measurement... but that's just nit-picking.

54cm = 21.2598 inches
55cm = 21.6535 inches
56cm = 22.0472 inches

...so assuming he's training arms and has a bit of a pump; let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him a legitimate 21.5'' cold arm.

Using the basic formula I posted:
((21.5'')2/(15)2)x150lbs = 308 lbs

...allowing for Phil being an inch or so shorter than average he should weigh 290-295 lbs in those pics.

Which would be 280-290 lbs allowing for his small frame (clavicle-wise; there is a cube relation between chest measurement and bodyweight)... which is probably exactly what he weighs in those pics.


Seems like all the guys claiming "Ronnie had 24'' arms"; "Levrone had 24'' arms"; "Arnie had 22'' arms" and criticising the basic math I used to calculate the guideline ratios in that other thread... well, it seems they all owe me an apology.

So, how about it? Anyone man enough to admit they were wrong?


The Luke

Do you have a PhD or MS in Physics?
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Captain Equipoise on April 16, 2010, 08:22:40 PM
Either he's trolling to get a rise out of people here or one big imbecile. According to him, Lee Priest's arms are around 21" in the pic below, but Ronnie's can't be even that much, cause his arm was measured at 21.7" at a body weight of 317 lb (he's 260 lb in the pics) on some occasion that's the only acceptable one to our genius arm expert, lol



LOL seriously... I wonder where he got this obsession with 24" arms and 315lbs.+ from !?!?

that's already flawed, there's guys that have had 20" arms at a bodyweight of 207 (a friend of mine that competes in Toronto) bodyweight has no strict correlation to arm size, I mean of course you won't see a 145lb guy with 19" arms but within a certain range there's a lot of room
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: TRIX on April 16, 2010, 09:16:07 PM


looking yoked
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Flexb on April 16, 2010, 09:35:00 PM


looking yoked

anyone else catch the copyright warning that keeps scrolling through the video. You'll be penalized to the "full extent" for copying the video. Oh gawd, who the fuk is gonna do that ::)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: IrishMuscle84 on April 16, 2010, 10:12:54 PM
that first pic  :o
Yup. Agreed. Big mofo. Anotha "genetic" freak like levrone.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Tapeworm on April 16, 2010, 10:18:25 PM
Tom Cruise in Miramar

(http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/tom-cruise-top-gun.jpg)
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: alnassak on April 18, 2010, 01:48:14 AM
Yup. Agreed. Big mofo. Anotha "genetic" freak like levrone.

X10
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on April 18, 2010, 02:07:16 AM
Lets get real. Priest never had 20" arms on stage. Come on.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Adder on April 18, 2010, 03:03:27 AM
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Wiggs on April 18, 2010, 03:12:23 AM


man look at the lat meat just hanging from Ronnie's back.  no homo

monster ILS on that permabulker
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: crownshep on April 18, 2010, 03:52:42 AM
Phil has avery similar arm shape to Edwardo Kawak.
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: Gino30 on April 18, 2010, 04:29:10 AM
More bf on Rob and looks like shit compared to Phil. Bigger arms but their shape isnt in his league

x2

Phil is pure quality and mass....that other dude is a mess
Title: Re: Phil Heath in Colmar
Post by: G_Thang on April 18, 2010, 09:47:49 AM
anyone else catch the copyright warning that keeps scrolling through the video. You'll be penalized to the "full extent" for copying the video. Oh gawd, who the fuk is gonna do that ::)

so you saying i cant take time out of my life schedule and build a phil heath fan site to help sell his name in good nature and his videos...given if i add this vid to my site...i'm in court.  these MFers aint even real.  and who the hell is dream vids?  mits would never do this s##t.