Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Matt C on January 15, 2006, 04:57:15 PM

Title: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Matt C on January 15, 2006, 04:57:15 PM
Not necessarily the greatest comparison, but they are both about the same height and competed at about the same weight and in similar condition.  They both have relatively weak legs and similar muscularity.  No, I'm not saying Layne beats Zane or anything, but it really puts Zane's size into perspective - and for that matter I'm not saying Layne is small, just that bodybuilding has evolved a lot in the past 20 years where now 22 year old naturals are the same size as top pros from the past.

(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/laynenorton/Layne%20Hand%20on%20Hips%20Most%20muscular.jpg)
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: MattT on January 15, 2006, 05:02:30 PM
pound for pound Zane was alot bigger then Layne..










________________________ ________________________ ______________
New Message Forum!
http://musclemania.com/forums/
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: madmullah on January 15, 2006, 05:07:21 PM
you are f###### mad to compare layne with zane they are a world apart. :(
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: MattT on January 15, 2006, 05:12:24 PM
show then both doing side chest, front bd bi, back db bi.. Then u will see the difference plus Zanes wasit is alot smaller.. Layne does have great condition though..








________________________ ________________________ ______________
New Message Forum!
http://musclemania.com/forums/
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: bigdumbbell on January 15, 2006, 06:19:24 PM
In the picture above Zane is probably around 5'9 and 190.  Layne competes at 5'10 / 190.

Zane beats Layne in terms of SHAPE.  Obviously Zane is the superior bodybuilder, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.  I'm just talking about actual muscle size here.  I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say Layne is pretty comparable to Zane's size.  Don't be wooed by Zane's vacuum.  Standing relaxed in contest condition they are probably a similar size.  And Layne is pretty strong for natural, if indeed he is natural (I have my doubts):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7741986104118163024&q=%22Layne+Norton+pressing+140+lb+dumbbells+music+video%22+playable%3Atrue

music was obnoxious
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: brianX on January 15, 2006, 06:21:51 PM
Zane's legs were actually very big.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: FlexGuns on January 15, 2006, 06:58:46 PM
was Zane a natural bodybuilder...his chest and arms are terrible. Female bodybuilders have more muscle than Zane.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: FlexGuns on January 15, 2006, 07:14:11 PM
Posted by: brianX 
Insert Quote
Zane's legs were actually very big.




hahahhahahahahahahahaahh ahahah
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 15, 2006, 07:38:57 PM
Not necessarily the greatest comparison, but they are both about the same height and competed at about the same weight and in similar condition.  They both have relatively weak legs and similar muscularity.  No, I'm not saying Layne beats Zane or anything, but it really puts Zane's size into perspective - and for that matter I'm not saying Layne is small, just that bodybuilding has evolved a lot in the past 20 years where now 22 year old naturals are the same size as top pros from the past.

(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/laynenorton/Layne%20Hand%20on%20Hips%20Most%20muscular.jpg)

The difference is Zane actually has muscle!
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: HRDCOR on January 15, 2006, 07:43:04 PM
Lane has blue trunks whilst zane has red !!! :-\
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 15, 2006, 07:44:57 PM
Lane has blue trunks whilst zane has red !!! :-\

I can see you're blind like the rest of the 20 year olds!
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 15, 2006, 08:07:49 PM
It is amazing Zane won the O with a MM like that. Ridiculous. Embarrasing.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 15, 2006, 08:10:34 PM
It is amazing Zane won the O with a MM like that. Ridiculous. Embarrasing.

See, I told ya :-\!
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 15, 2006, 08:15:18 PM
See, I told ya :-\!

Just my personal views. Believe what you want. I, on the other hand, think that Zane was highly overrated. That picture above almost looks photoshopped he looks so bad.

Did Zane have a great physique? Yeah, for his time and compared to the average dude. He sure looked a hell of a lot better than me, but that is besides the point. The best bb in the world shouldn't look like a "natural". I mean Robby Robinson or Bertil Fox or any other top competitor at the time should have beat him.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: cauthon on January 15, 2006, 08:18:15 PM
Zane works Layne in every possible way  :-\ . No comparison
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 15, 2006, 08:22:41 PM
Zane works Layne in every possible way  :-\ . No comparison

I don't think that's the point. The point is that Zane was so small (even for his era) that he could be mistaken for a natural bb.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Hurricane Beef ! on January 15, 2006, 08:28:59 PM
The only similarity between Frank and this kid is the " y " chromosome.

Beef
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 16, 2006, 09:51:02 AM
Its not how much they weigh its where that muscle is distributed and its not fair to compare the two Layne is young and still progressing but his structure doesn't even compare with Zanes or his back.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Ursus on January 16, 2006, 09:56:59 AM
zane looks very dense
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: robocop on January 16, 2006, 09:59:55 AM
Not necessarily the greatest comparison, but they are both about the same height and competed at about the same weight and in similar condition.  They both have relatively weak legs and similar muscularity.  No, I'm not saying Layne beats Zane or anything, but it really puts Zane's size into perspective - and for that matter I'm not saying Layne is small, just that bodybuilding has evolved a lot in the past 20 years where now 22 year old naturals are the same size as top pros from the past.

(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/laynenorton/Layne%20Hand%20on%20Hips%20Most%20muscular.jpg)

fuck you douchebag
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Bossa on January 16, 2006, 10:04:30 AM
Not to take anything away from that guy...but come on...he in no way compares to Zane...
(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_055.jpg)

(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_011.jpg)

(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_019.jpg)

(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_008.jpg)
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Gord on January 16, 2006, 10:05:11 AM
Layne's conditioning is very good and, as ND said, he's still developing, but I don't really think he comes anywhere near this not only in terms of shape, lines and proportions, but also muscle density or even conditioning.

Also, I remember reading Layne was abut 6', could be wrong on that though.

(http://ironman.prosolutions.tv/gallery/photos/f_zane_image/frank_zane.01.jpg)

Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Van_Bilderass on January 16, 2006, 10:33:50 AM
That last pic is photoshopped.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Borracho on January 16, 2006, 10:35:37 AM
They both look like crap to me.  :-\
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Karl Kox on January 16, 2006, 10:38:24 AM
Got to say Zane he was ripped
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: alexxx on January 16, 2006, 10:40:25 AM
That last pic is photoshopped.

thanks for pointing it out to us, we would've never have guessed ;) I though that was zane at 60 competing at the olympia
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 16, 2006, 10:50:23 AM
Got to say Zane he was ripped

for his time he was. Not compared to today's standards tho
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 16, 2006, 10:54:21 AM
for his time he was. Not compared to today's standards tho

By todays standards he's not as big...but definatly more ripped!
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Gord on January 16, 2006, 11:04:17 AM
That last pic is photoshopped.

Looking at it more closely, you're right.

Zane posing with Franco in 1974.

Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: w8tlftr on January 16, 2006, 11:10:42 AM
This thread is a joke. Zane was one of the best of all time and represents an era before GH bellies and oversized freakazoids.

To compare him to Layne is just laughable.

Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 16, 2006, 03:16:02 PM
By todays standards he's not as big...but definatly more ripped!

What? The guys in the '90s and the top guys now are definitely more ripped. You mean to tell mean Zane was more ripped than Dex Jackson or Darrem Charles?
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: GMCtrk on January 16, 2006, 03:19:31 PM
What a beast!

does he train back?
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: disco_stu on January 16, 2006, 03:31:55 PM
all you morons satying zane was this and that need schooling in history, judging and presentation in physique.

from now on any of you guys that write a post on any subject here gets zero credibility becuase its obvious that you dont have a clue about BB and even less respect for it's evolution and it's champions.

zane went comparison by comparison, head to head, toe to toe, routine to routine against the top guys of his era and beat them....the judging at the time wanted Zane's physique..polished, proportioned, muscular, balanced. The guys he competed against may have been bigger but lacked in certain areas, or their balance wasnt right...so, he wins.

those tossers who say zane was small have no idea...he looks small next to a gorilla...i suppose Lee Labrada was small?...yeah right...

and as far as him having a swimmer's physique..show me a swimmer with zane's physique?...show me a sprinter with that physique?, show me a wide receiver or a running back with that physique...show me a national level competitor with the balance, proportions, separations, presentation, mass etc for his class...

comparing to today is nonesense...why dont we flame dickerson and columbu?...heck, even bannout?...rich gaspari, the challenger for years could be argued as average by some standards today...look at demay's legs...Bob Paris wasnt ''huge'' by todays standards either...i could go on and on.

Pearl defined the modern BB, Sergio made it a freak show, Arnold revolutionised it and made it an art form, Zane re calibrated it, Columbu misaligned it, Dickerson came in on the day, so did Bannout, Haney brought it back, Yates set the new standardand brought the field up, Coleman brought it all together...

So he has his place for sure...im sick of this crap about Zane...

later.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: disco_stu on January 16, 2006, 03:36:33 PM
Looking at it more closely, you're right.

Zane posing with Franco in 1974.



Franco ''huge thick and dense BB according to many'' being matched for mass and owned overall by the ''swimmer ::)''...

how zane didnt win more mr.o's is mind boggling.

Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: gracie bjj on January 16, 2006, 03:50:41 PM
zane was a great bodybuilder imo,he wasnt as small as alot of people are making him out to be,my buddy saw him in cali in the late 70,s and he said zane was pretty damn huge.arnold also said that zane was just as strong as him and yet weighed alot less then arnold
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 16, 2006, 05:05:19 PM
all you morons satying zane was this and that need schooling in history, judging and presentation in physique.

from now on any of you guys that write a post on any subject here gets zero credibility becuase its obvious that you dont have a clue about BB and even less respect for it's evolution and it's champions.

zane went comparison by comparison, head to head, toe to toe, routine to routine against the top guys of his era and beat them....the judging at the time wanted Zane's physique..polished, proportioned, muscular, balanced. The guys he competed against may have been bigger but lacked in certain areas, or their balance wasnt right...so, he wins.

those tossers who say zane was small have no idea...he looks small next to a gorilla...i suppose Lee Labrada was small?...yeah right...

and as far as him having a swimmer's physique..show me a swimmer with zane's physique?...show me a sprinter with that physique?, show me a wide receiver or a running back with that physique...show me a national level competitor with the balance, proportions, separations, presentation, mass etc for his class...

comparing to today is nonesense...why dont we flame dickerson and columbu?...heck, even bannout?...rich gaspari, the challenger for years could be argued as average by some standards today...look at demay's legs...Bob Paris wasnt ''huge'' by todays standards either...i could go on and on.

Pearl defined the modern BB, Sergio made it a freak show, Arnold revolutionised it and made it an art form, Zane re calibrated it, Columbu misaligned it, Dickerson came in on the day, so did Bannout, Haney brought it back, Yates set the new standardand brought the field up, Coleman brought it all together...

So he has his place for sure...im sick of this crap about Zane...

later.

relax. you have your opinion. others, like me, don't like zane's physique. bertil fox, robby robinson, serge nubret, tom platz- all were far better bbs than zane imo.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Bast000 on January 16, 2006, 05:30:07 PM
Yea Zane did not have a lot of muscle but he made the most of it.  Good V-taper, conditioning.. and imagine Ronnie doing this pose..

(http://www.frankzane.com/images/83olympia.jpg)
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 16, 2006, 06:32:09 PM
A lot of people give Zane no credit but I think he was one of the best ever certainly one of my all time favorites.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Borracho on January 16, 2006, 07:41:29 PM
all you morons satying zane was this and that need schooling in history, judging and presentation in physique.

from now on any of you guys that write a post on any subject here gets zero credibility becuase its obvious that you dont have a clue about BB and even less respect for it's evolution and it's champions.

zane went comparison by comparison, head to head, toe to toe, routine to routine against the top guys of his era and beat them....the judging at the time wanted Zane's physique..polished, proportioned, muscular, balanced. The guys he competed against may have been bigger but lacked in certain areas, or their balance wasnt right...so, he wins.

those tossers who say zane was small have no idea...he looks small next to a gorilla...i suppose Lee Labrada was small?...yeah right...

and as far as him having a swimmer's physique..show me a swimmer with zane's physique?...show me a sprinter with that physique?, show me a wide receiver or a running back with that physique...show me a national level competitor with the balance, proportions, separations, presentation, mass etc for his class...

comparing to today is nonesense...why dont we flame dickerson and columbu?...heck, even bannout?...rich gaspari, the challenger for years could be argued as average by some standards today...look at demay's legs...Bob Paris wasnt ''huge'' by todays standards either...i could go on and on.

Pearl defined the modern BB, Sergio made it a freak show, Arnold revolutionised it and made it an art form, Zane re calibrated it, Columbu misaligned it, Dickerson came in on the day, so did Bannout, Haney brought it back, Yates set the new standardand brought the field up, Coleman brought it all together...

So he has his place for sure...im sick of this crap about Zane...

later.

Meltdown
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Gord on January 16, 2006, 08:00:50 PM
Another shot, courtesy of DeepArchive on IronAge board.

Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: njflex on January 16, 2006, 08:10:25 PM
totally off base to compare a former mr o to this kid who will never look or compete in same league as zane.zane has competed and trained for over 40 year's give him his due and not insult his legacy.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Borracho on January 16, 2006, 09:12:23 PM
I can't believe you're still comparing these two. I think Zane sucked but that other guy is 10 times worse. He should consider steroids.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Onondaga on January 16, 2006, 09:21:18 PM
Matt C, put down the crack pipe.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: rocket on January 16, 2006, 10:01:43 PM
This is the most creative way to hate on Frank Zane I've ever seen ..

Congrats ;D

Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: flexfan on January 16, 2006, 10:37:48 PM
This is the most creative way to hate on Frank Zane I've ever seen ..

Congrats ;D



Yeah, I admire it too  ;D
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Bast000 on January 16, 2006, 10:46:55 PM
I think it is called an "objective fact" to point out that Zane and Layne are roughly the same physical size.

There is no way that they are the same height.  Zane is shorter.  Also they have completely different bone structure so your point that they weigh the same is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: rocket on January 16, 2006, 10:52:54 PM
There is no way that they are the same height.  Zane is shorter.  Also they have completely different bone structure so your point that they weigh the same is irrelevant.

I agree with that quite a lot.. norton has a way bigger waist, he looks alot taller than a one inch difference and is nowhere near as shredded.

That condition that zane was in though, he was a lot larger at times.  It wasn't like he didn't choose to be a bit swimmeresque.. he did bring a very size compromised ripped package.  I don't really dig it and its easy to criticise when you've got a guy like norton pictured next to him but what this is really about is having to grudgingly give layne norton some props which just about anybody here would rather not do ;D

What a terrible dilemna.. giving layne norton credit or hating on zane.  That my friends is a piece of well developed subversion
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: bigdumbbell on January 17, 2006, 05:31:27 AM
There is no way that they are the same height.  Zane is shorter.  Also they have completely different bone structure so your point that they weigh the same is irrelevant.

just curious and i really dont care but
how does this guys resume compare with frank zane?
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: sinbad on January 17, 2006, 08:14:39 AM
In the picture above Zane is probably around 5'9 and 190.  Layne competes at 5'10 / 190.

Zane beats Layne in terms of SHAPE.  Obviously Zane is the superior bodybuilder, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.  I'm just talking about actual muscle size here.  I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say Layne is pretty comparable to Zane's size.  Don't be wooed by Zane's vacuum.  Standing relaxed in contest condition they are probably a similar size.  And Layne is pretty strong for natural, if indeed he is natural (I have my doubts):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7741986104118163024&q=%22Layne+Norton+pressing+140+lb+dumbbells+music+video%22+playable%3Atrue

Oh Man, I thought he was going to press that over his head, that would have been impressive.

From a size perspective they may be close, but that is about it. Zane had a very Aesthetically pleasing physique, which is genetic, he then added very dense muscle, which likely improved over time. It was Zane's genetically pleasing structure that made him a stand out in bodybuilding. This other guy will never have that. I give him credit for working hard and building a nice body, but no comparison here.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Earl1972 on January 17, 2006, 10:43:03 AM
I don't get it why does everybody hate this Layne guy?

E
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: kaylos on January 17, 2006, 10:50:20 AM
That last pic is photoshopped.
Yes, of course.
Those kids posting photoshopped pics are laughable...  :)
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: anabolichalo on March 07, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
Its not how much they weigh its where that muscle is distributed and its not fair to compare the two Layne is young and still progressing but his structure doesn't even compare with Zanes or his back.
bahahahahahahaa layne looks so awkward
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: njflex on March 07, 2013, 11:55:41 AM
Not to take anything away from that guy...but come on...he in no way compares to Zane...
(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_055.jpg)

(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_011.jpg)

(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_019.jpg)

(http://athlete.ru/fotos/profi/frank_zane/frank_zane_008.jpg)
HOLY CRAP GREAT PIC NEVER SAW IT,,,
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: erics on March 07, 2013, 01:40:05 PM
Not necessarily the greatest comparison, but they are both about the same height and competed at about the same weight and in similar condition.  They both have relatively weak legs and similar muscularity.  No, I'm not saying Layne beats Zane or anything, but it really puts Zane's size into perspective - and for that matter I'm not saying Layne is small, just that bodybuilding has evolved a lot in the past 20 years where now 22 year old naturals are the same size as top pros from the past.

(http://www.spam.com/laynenorton/Layne%20Hand%20on%20Hips%20Most%20muscular.jpg)

Zane had weak legs?

Size is 'easy' to gain. But aesthetic balance is not. There are drugs for size. Anyone can take them. There are drugs for losing fat and conditioning. Anyone can take them

What drug or supplement helps with using your brain to create illusion through balance and proportions?

Bodybuilding, I'm afraid, has not evolved.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: erics on March 07, 2013, 01:48:40 PM
all you morons satying zane was this and that need schooling in history, judging and presentation in physique.

from now on any of you guys that write a post on any subject here gets zero credibility becuase its obvious that you dont have a clue about BB and even less respect for it's evolution and it's champions..... So he has his place for sure...im sick of this crap about Zane...

The rest of your post was spot.

People are idiots to think that Zane was nothing.

Anyone can get bigger and think that they have improved.

Not everyone can create quality and Zane had that in spades.

A swimmer...  ::)
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Borracho on March 07, 2013, 02:48:01 PM
They both look like crap to me.  :-\


hahahah you nearly 7 years ago drunk bastard you have no idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: el numero uno on March 07, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
One must be fucking retarded to compare Zane with Layne.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Hulkotron on March 07, 2013, 03:17:11 PM
"They" said you had no chance.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: njflex on March 07, 2013, 07:21:41 PM

hahahah you nearly 7 years ago drunk bastard you have no idea what you're talking about.
lol....borracho that prick borracho know's nothing about bbing,,,
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: saucetradomous on March 07, 2013, 08:34:33 PM
Matt C was quite the character.  I wonder how bodybuildingpro is doing these days?
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: jaejonna on March 07, 2013, 08:37:29 PM
200 meter freestyle medley
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Figo on March 08, 2013, 04:17:55 AM
One must be fucking retarded to compare Zane with Layne.

Was Matt C banned for starting this thread ?

Cause this fucking blasphemy warrants a lifetime ban.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: TrueGrit on March 08, 2013, 04:30:44 AM
Borracho owning the shit out of Borracho in this thread.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: dj181 on March 08, 2013, 04:31:41 AM
Borracho owning the shit out of Borracho in this thread.

lol
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: oldtimer1 on March 08, 2013, 07:24:09 AM
Zane was one of the best of all time. Yes, I said that. He would stand next to a whole line up that out weighed him. They would look like crap next to him. Many would look bloated and soft looking compared to the cut out of ice Zane. Same could be said for Dickerson.
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: dj181 on March 08, 2013, 07:33:57 AM
(http://blog.muscle-build.com/wp-content/uploads/zane-vacuum.jpg)
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Figo on March 08, 2013, 08:04:38 AM
Zane was one of the best of all time. Yes, I said that. He would stand next to a whole line up that out weighed him. They would look like crap next to him. Many would look bloated and soft looking compared to the cut out of ice Zane. Same could be said for Dickerson.

Of course he was. If not for the injury, politics aside, he could've been mr O till 82

Dickerson at his prime, 80, 81 was great. Real class & a showman
Title: Re: Zane versus Layne.
Post by: Wiggs on March 08, 2013, 11:45:49 AM
What a shitty comparison.  LOL.Layne....oh brother.