Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: quadzilla456 on April 14, 2013, 12:04:56 AM
-
Interesting comparison. Arnold was the man!
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BRDIpTJzypI/UNcR2XkkInI/AAAAAAAAOUs/ACfvyrTPG1s/s1600/Arnold+Schwarzenegger+VS++Phil+Heath.jpg)
-
Bit harsh on phil as arnold's forearm is angled a lot more to the camera making it appear bigger. Nonetheless arnie's guns were a big hit with the ladies back in the day
(http://aimbodyfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/arnold-schwarzenegger-with-two-old-ladies.jpg)
-
In pictures like that it really highlights the suspicious shoulder 'development' of todays professionals....Arnold's delts look like all his other muscles in that pic (hard, separated, striated)....whereas Phil's shoulders look smooth with no separation between the three deltoid heads.
I think it's safe to say that more current pros are doing site enhancement than not.
Arnold's body looks strong, Phil looks like a puffy cartoon.
This picture effectively busts Phil for oil use in his shoulders....what a great Mr-O....what a prick.
-
Please don't disgrace Arnold like this. This is more upsetting than the "women love to be raped" thread. Arnold pics should be kept very separate from modern blowupdolls with guts.
-
No doubt Phil would beat Arnold but Arnold was from a different era
and was way ahead of his time. People mainly remember the 1975 Arnold
and 1980 Arnold but the 73-74 versions were in a different league than those
versions.
-
In pictures like that it really highlights the suspicious shoulder 'development' of todays professionals....Arnold's delts look like all his other muscles in that pic (hard, separated, striated)....whereas Phil's shoulders look smooth with no separation between the three deltoid heads.
I think it's safe to say that more current pros are doing site enhancement than not.
Arnold's body looks strong, Phil looks like a puffy cartoon.
This picture effectively busts Phil for oil use in his shoulders....what a great Mr-O....what a prick.
boom
-
If back in the day both were on stage Arnold would wax him, and make a joke later.
-
No doubt Phil would beat Arnold but Arnold was from a different era
and was way ahead of his time. People mainly remember the 1975 Arnold
and 1980 Arnold but the 73-74 versions were in a different league than those
versions.
i dont think so yeah i said it sure phil has thicker legs but everyone knows one gives up seperation
-
i dont think so yeah i said it sure phil has thicker legs but everyone knows one gives up seperation
Agreed. Arnold had great separation in his legs - from the front. From the side he lacked the line separating the hamstrings from the quads. And from the rear his legs were also smooth compared to today's guys. Just a little mass on his legs and separation from the rear would have made him unbeatable even today.
-
philips arm is definitely more muscular than arnolds
-
(http://i.imgur.com/xQjrs.gif)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mC1TEdZ4gks/Sxd7qPOSJSI/AAAAAAAADWY/hdh5z_e2WuQ/s1600/2004-mr-olympia-147_20090831_1033644532.jpg)
-
Most would prefer to have Arnolds look than Phils.
-
Most would prefer to have Arnolds look than Phils.
racist :D
-
I had read years ago Gunter supposedly sported 23's, which by clear comparison there is utter BS. Ronnies arms there were likely legit 23+ and shredded from every angle, never see the likes of them again in my lifetime IMO. I also believe that, despite todays obvious improvements in juice Arnolds arms were better than Heaths. Put them on Arnolds 70's stack and its not even close, Heath would resemble Samir on a good day.
-
;)
-
;)
There you go ND has got the scanner out, again Arnold would wax him if conditions were the same.
-
Phil arms seem to be a new breed like those blue cows
-
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSjblmY6aNKue31mjojcG_TQviQK1YdYlB711jqJlS6qRQgig0rw)
-
In pictures like that it really highlights the suspicious shoulder 'development' of todays professionals....Arnold's delts look like all his other muscles in that pic (hard, separated, striated)....whereas Phil's shoulders look smooth with no separation between the three deltoid heads.
I think it's safe to say that more current pros are doing site enhancement than not.
Arnold's body looks strong, Phil looks like a puffy cartoon.
This picture effectively busts Phil for oil use in his shoulders....what a great Mr-O....what a prick.
But then again, Arnold didn't train shoulders as much as Phil has.... It all comes down to the modern drugs... that gives that puffy look.
-
In pictures like that it really highlights the suspicious shoulder 'development' of todays professionals....Arnold's delts look like all his other muscles in that pic (hard, separated, striated)....whereas Phil's shoulders look smooth with no separation between the three deltoid heads.
I think it's safe to say that more current pros are doing site enhancement than not.
Arnold's body looks strong, Phil looks like a puffy cartoon.
This picture effectively busts Phil for oil use in his shoulders....what a great Mr-O....what a prick.
All good points, though in fairness to Heath, I will say this: Phil is stronger than Arnold. Didn't he rep 225 like 50 times at that stupid Weider v. Muscletech bench challenge? Granted, a vast majority of those reps were from the chest to the halfway-up point. But that was also some years ago and he's grown since then. I don't know about his training or that ridiculous FST7XYZ shit, but he is legitimately strong.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mC1TEdZ4gks/Sxd7qPOSJSI/AAAAAAAADWY/hdh5z_e2WuQ/s1600/2004-mr-olympia-147_20090831_1033644532.jpg)
ronnie had the greatest arms ever
-
ronnie had the greatest arms ever
Maybe not ever, but he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there on the "best arms" list, no doubt.
-
Maybe not ever, but he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there on the "best arms" list, no doubt.
who else if not him
-
Maybe not ever, but he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there on the "best arms" list, no doubt.
at his peak greatest arms ever ...
-
Arnold's size for his frame stands the test of time, at 230 he competed against a 275 lb Lou ferrigno and made him look small, no doubt Arnold could stand with the best of today, no present or past bber has the natural physique lines Arnold has, and the way he presents the illusion he knew how to position his body and maximized the natural aesthetics of bbing, not many can do it like Arnold did.
-
Arnold's size for his frame stand the test of time, at 230 he competed against a 275 lb Lou ferruginous and made him look small, no doubt Arnold could stand with the best of today, no present or past bber has the natural physique lines Arnold has, and the way he presents the illusion he knew how to position his body and maximized the natural aesthetics of bbing, not many can do it like Arnold did.
X2.
-
Arnold remains the best. Phil is worthless.
-
at he peak greatest arms ever ...
Arnold schooling Ronnie!
(http://www.bodybuilders.gr/data/main/forum/mainuploadsfolder/vasilic/201022174936_20055833537_arn-ron.jpg)
-
Arnold schooling Ronnie!
(http://www.bodybuilders.gr/data/main/forum/mainuploadsfolder/vasilic/201022174936_20055833537_arn-ron.jpg)
If you don't have an understanding of lines and aesthetics, you simply cannot know how to pose well.
-
The reasons Arnold was so much lighter height for pound than today's guys are:
1. Today's guys have to build fairly large muscles in their glutes to get them striated.
The glutes are the largest muscle in the body and Arnold's weren't big.
2. The legs overall are much bigger today and that accounts for a lot of the extra weight.
3. Arnold had a peeled back but it wasn't super thick like a lot of top guys now.
(Although in 1974 his back was thicker than any other time in his career.)
4. The waists protrude which accounts for more unneeded weight.
Arnold just didn't carry a ton of muscle in the largest muscle groups; glutes, legs and back.
There are only a handful of guys that carried extreme mass with incredible aesthetics.
Arnold is one of them. The best example of a modern BB who had this trait is Levrone.
Arnold also is one of the best examples of a bodybuilder who just explodes when he poses.
Ronnie is a good example too early in his Olympia reign.
We all have seen bodybuilders that look awesome standing there but not much happens
when they start posing. Arnold was the antithesis of that.
Aesthetic Arnold:
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hta2wnn4_Oc/T47ZIlKqMgI/AAAAAAAACJc/lVU_nVOw6bU/s640/22.jpg)
-
who else if not him
A reasonable question, but think about it, broham. There are tons of choices. Ronnie might have the very biggest (at least comparable in size to other 280 lbers., like Ruehl and Dillet. Matarrazzo had some crazy-big arms, too), but biggest doesn't necessarily mean best, even with the kind of mad detail and hardness Ronnie's arms had.
It really depends on the criteria you use. Would you say his arms were more complete than Paul Dillet's? Ronnie's triceps were thick, but consider how they looked in a side-triceps. When he was on top, they were cross-striated, but they didn't have the roundness or flair of Levrone's, Dillet's.
You could make a pretty good argument that Paul Demayo (don't laugh!) had some of the best-ever arm development. Biceps, triceps, giant forearms -- he had it all.
Then there are dudes like Freddy Ortiz, Lee Priest, Danny Padilla, Arnold of course, Terry Pastell, Sergio Oliva, Flex circa '92-'96, Vince Taylor, Brian Buchanan, that squinty-eyed Winklaar dude (at least for tris), Rick Valente for the same reason, Zack Khan, Victor Richards ...
I'm not saying any of the aforementioned necessarily have BETTER arms than Ronnie, but some of them do have things he lacked. Yeah, I know his forearms were huge, but no one in his right mind would suggest he had better upper to lower arm proportions than Priest or Oliva, for example.
Personally, I'd probably go with Dillet for best arms overall, but I have to admit this pic makes me straddle the fence:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mC1TEdZ4gks/Sxd7qPOSJSI/AAAAAAAADWY/hdh5z_e2WuQ/s1600/2004-mr-olympia-147_20090831_1033644532.jpg) Gunter's arms were HUGE there, yet Ronnie was making him look like a pale, smooth jerk-off. And I can only imagine Paul standing next to them; even in his prime, he'd be shaking and cramping up left and right, LOL.
-
(http://futurismic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/belgian-blue-cow.jpg)
-
The reasons Arnold was so much lighter height for pound than today's guys are:
1. Today's guys have to build fairly large muscles in their glutes to get them striated.
The glutes are the largest muscle in the body and Arnold's weren't big.
2. The legs overall are much bigger today and that accounts for a lot of the extra weight.
3. Arnold had a peeled back but it wasn't super thick like a lot of top guys now.
(Although in 1974 his back was thicker than any other time in his career.)
4. The waists protrude which accounts for more unneeded weight.
Arnold just didn't carry a ton of muscle in the largest muscle groups; glutes, legs and back.
There are only a handful of guys that carried extreme mass with incredible aesthetics.
Arnold is one of them. The best example of a modern BB who had this trait is Levrone.
Arnold also is one of the best examples of a bodybuilder who just explodes when he poses.
Ronnie is a good example too early in his Olympia reign.
We all have seen bodybuilders that look awesome standing there but not much happens
when they start posing. Arnold was the antithesis of that.
Aesthetic Arnold:
5. They exaggerate their bodyweights because bigger is always better.
6. They could stand to lose another 30 pounds of water even in stage condition but they won't because no-one is ripped so no-one will really notice if you're smooth as fuck.
These are the main reasons.
-
No doubt Phil would beat Arnold but Arnold was from a different era
and was way ahead of his time. People mainly remember the 1975 Arnold
and 1980 Arnold but the 73-74 versions were in a different league than those
versions.
the austrian oak is no match for the ebony mountains of muscle
-
Nobody compares to Arnold, especially the narrowest bodybuilder to ever step onstage.
-
Nobody compares to Arnold, especially the narrowest bodybuilder to ever step onstage.
X2.
-
A reasonable question, but think about it, broham. There are tons of choices. Ronnie might have the very biggest (at least comparable in size to other 280 lbers., like Ruehl and Dillet. Matarrazzo had some crazy-big arms, too), but biggest doesn't necessarily mean best, even with the kind of mad detail and hardness Ronnie's arms had.
It really depends on the criteria you use. Would you say his arms were more complete than Paul Dillet's? Ronnie's triceps were thick, but consider how they looked in a side-triceps. When he was on top, they were cross-striated, but they didn't have the roundness or flair of Levrone's, Dillet's.
You could make a pretty good argument that Paul Demayo (don't laugh!) had some of the best-ever arm development. Biceps, triceps, giant forearms -- he had it all.
Then there are dudes like Freddy Ortiz, Lee Priest, Danny Padilla, Arnold of course, Terry Pastell, Sergio Oliva, Flex circa '92-'96, Vince Taylor, Brian Buchanan, that squinty-eyed Winklaar dude (at least for tris), Rick Valente for the same reason, Zack Khan, Victor Richards ...
I'm not saying any of the aforementioned necessarily have BETTER arms than Ronnie, but some of them do have things he lacked. Yeah, I know his forearms were huge, but no one in his right mind would suggest he had better upper to lower arm proportions than Priest or Oliva, for example.
Personally, I'd probably go with Dillet for best arms overall, but I have to admit this pic makes me straddle the fence:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mC1TEdZ4gks/Sxd7qPOSJSI/AAAAAAAADWY/hdh5z_e2WuQ/s1600/2004-mr-olympia-147_20090831_1033644532.jpg) Gunter's arms were HUGE there, yet Ronnie was making him look like a pale, smooth jerk-off. And I can only imagine Paul standing next to them; even in his prime, he'd be shaking and cramping up left and right, LOL.
Ronnies tries were super big see COD or unbelievable... just wasnt as seperatedon the outer head as levrones.....
inner head and overall tricep and arm is bigger than levrone...
however neither levrone or dillet can be mentioned in the same sentence as ronnie when it comes to bis... vascularity and qualty...
coleman wins
-
Maybe not ever, but he's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there on the "best arms" list, no doubt.
who else is ahead of him ???
-
Bit harsh on phil as arnold's forearm is angled a lot more to the camera making it appear bigger. Nonetheless arnie's guns were a big hit with the ladies back in the day
(http://aimbodyfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/arnold-schwarzenegger-with-two-old-ladies.jpg)
yes as Phil is the one that is use to stepping closer to the camera...Now he knows how it feels ;)
-
arnold thing was biceps phil arms are mor complete . 40 years difference . almost a different sport .
-
5. They exaggerate their bodyweights because bigger is always better.
6. They could stand to lose another 30 pounds of water even in stage condition but they won't because no-one is ripped so no-one will really notice if you're smooth as fuck.
These are the main reasons.
i think it would probably be better to either state one's real weight or lie and under represent your weight. It would really mess with someone's head if they were beaten by a lighter person a la 97 Arnold Flex vs Nasser.
-
Please don't disgrace Arnold like this. This is more upsetting than the "women love to be raped" thread. Arnold pics should be kept very separate from modern blowupdolls with guts.
outstanding post!!!
-
Please don't disgrace Arnold like this. This is more upsetting than the "women love to be raped" thread. Arnold pics should be kept very separate from modern blowupdolls with guts.
yup
comparing a bodybuilder to a freakshow cartoon lookalike, apples and oranges.