Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: affeman on December 05, 2020, 04:37:09 AM
-
The next Mr Olympia could just pass you by on the streets without u even knowing it 8)
(https://scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/s640x640/129172100_1566756033510529_1838125334104270615_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=6bIGYd2EwrwAX-Ms4TI&tp=1&oh=463c08ae63073145320b21efcc7935af&oe=5FF5F15B)
-
He actually had a lot of muscle for a basketball player, especially if he wasn't lifting weights at all.
-
He was real jacked there in fact. Highly abnormal amount of muscle, especially if he wasn't lifting, though I think he was. So yes you could tell he would most likely respond like crazy to the bb lifestyle.
-
The next Mr Olympia could just pass you by on the streets without u even knowing it 8)
(https://scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/s640x640/129172100_1566756033510529_1838125334104270615_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=6bIGYd2EwrwAX-Ms4TI&tp=1&oh=463c08ae63073145320b21efcc7935af&oe=5FF5F15B)
Affeman, Phil has more muscle in that picture than you ever had. So please stop acting like you know anything about bodybuilding potential. If he passed you on the street, he would feel sorry for you. You are a schmoe, nothing more, nothing less.
-
He looks like he a has a ton of potential in those pics.
-
Side note - that basketball is 1 Heath wide.
-
Side note - that basketball is 1 Heath wide.
This video shows him dwarfing Hadi Choopan
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHLeDmi_OQk
-
He actually had a lot of muscle for a basketball player, especially if he wasn't lifting weights at all.
Exactly. Sometimes - I find this to be especially true with Arnold nut-huggers - I see threads where everyone agrees with the previous poster and it becomes a giant online circle jerk.
I don't join in on such discussions unless I firmly believe that the previous posters in agreement are correct, and to me it seems obvious that Phil had bodybuilding potential here. But I can actually explain that, at least from my POV: Phil has an above average muscle fiber density, which is apparently in those photos. It's completely clear that both his biceps and his triceps extend and proliferate all the way to his elbow joint, which means that - once properly developed - those muscle groups will both be huge.
And eventually they were.
Humble - by lifting, do you mean actual lifting, or do you mean juicing, or do you mean both?
I think he said he didn't start working out until 2002, which would have made him 22 at the time [23 as of December 2002...I think Phil's birthday might be next week].
It's possible that in that photo, he literally walked through a gym only a week earlier, and started an oral steroid [or pro-hormones, which were big at the time - and legal], and literally shot up 7-lb of muscle and water over the course of that week [beginner gains + his amazing genetics], and the result is what we see in that photo.
If I saw a guy who looked like that, it wouldn't be the body size that stood out to me - it would be the muscle fiber density/concentration, which he most definitely has.
He doesn't have a pro bodybuilders size, and if the point is to say that Phil had average person dimensions before he pursued bodybuilding competitively, then yeah. But bodybuilding genetics are more judged based on number of muscle size, shape of the muscle, how small someone's waist can stay while putting on major size, and even how well a person's genetics are to respond to the side effects of steroids. Some people cannot tolerate the side effects of the gear use to become a pro bodybuilder, and that's a part of "genetics" when we're talking about BB.
affeman - with Phil's birthday this month, all I can say is: way to ruin a BB's day. :'( ;D
-
He was real jacked there in fact. Highly abnormal amount of muscle, especially if he wasn't lifting, though I think he was. So yes you could tell he would most likely respond like crazy to the bb lifestyle.
He reminds me of your friend who had pro potential clearly visible at age 17.
Also - huge calves for a knee-grow! And that was before entering competitive BB!
-
Who cares about potential
The great equalizer
(https://images.medicinenet.com/images/appictures/cortisone-injection-s3-pain-reliever-temporary%20remedy.jpg)
-
The closest a man with such narrow clavicles should ever get to even gracing the Olympia stage is sniffing Nasser’s thong
-
If Phil and I walked down the street I can tell you who’d turn more heads
MISE
-
If Phil and I walked down the street I can tell you who’d turn more heads
MISE
Phil Heath 100%
-
Exactly. Sometimes - I find this to be especially true with Arnold nut-huggers - I see threads where everyone agrees with the previous poster and it becomes a giant online circle jerk.
I don't join in on such discussions unless I firmly believe that the previous posters in agreement are correct, and to me it seems obvious that Phil had bodybuilding potential here. But I can actually explain that, at least from my POV: Phil has an above average muscle fiber density, which is apparently in those photos. It's completely clear that both his biceps and his triceps extend and proliferate all the way to his elbow joint, which means that - once properly developed - those muscle groups will both be huge.
And eventually they were.
Humble - by lifting, do you mean actual lifting, or do you mean juicing, or do you mean both?
I think he said he didn't start working out until 2002, which would have made him 22 at the time [23 as of December 2002...I think Phil's birthday might be next week].
It's possible that in that photo, he literally walked through a gym only a week earlier, and started an oral steroid [or pro-hormones, which were big at the time - and legal], and literally shot up 7-lb of muscle and water over the course of that week [beginner gains + his amazing genetics], and the result is what we see in that photo.
If I saw a guy who looked like that, it wouldn't be the body size that stood out to me - it would be the muscle fiber density/concentration, which he most definitely has.
He doesn't have a pro bodybuilders size, and if the point is to say that Phil had average person dimensions before he pursued bodybuilding competitively, then yeah. But bodybuilding genetics are more judged based on number of muscle size, shape of the muscle, how small someone's waist can stay while putting on major size, and even how well a person's genetics are to respond to the side effects of steroids. Some people cannot tolerate the side effects of the gear use to become a pro bodybuilder, and that's a part of "genetics" when we're talking about BB.
affeman - with Phil's birthday this month, all I can say is: way to ruin a BB's day. :'( ;D
Matty Aspy, I’ve seen 12 year old blacks kids sitting on the front porch of their ghetto housing, that have never touched a weight, who are built better than you.
50 words maximum Matt or you lose your audience.
-
Matty Aspy, I’ve seen 12 year old blacks kids sitting on the front porch of their ghetto housing, that have never touched a weight, who are built better than you.
50 words maximum Matt or you lose your audience.
LOL
-
LOL
Black boys...
Only 85% of the 12 year old black girls are more muscular than Matty.
-
Phil Heath 100%
Not a hope. With clothes on? Pffff
-
Matty Aspy, I’ve seen 12 year old blacks kids sitting on the front porch of their ghetto housing, that have never touched a weight, who are built better than you.
50 words maximum Matt or you lose your audience.
Lol, yeah, but not usually calves.
It's one of the big racial differences between Black and White bodybuilders, as far as genetics go - White people tend to have bigger calves, and Black people tend to have smaller waists.
There are probably other differences, but those are two prominent ones.
^ 47 words! I made it. Wait. Shit.
-
The next Mr Olympia could just pass you by on the streets without u even knowing it 8)
(https://scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/s640x640/129172100_1566756033510529_1838125334104270615_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=6bIGYd2EwrwAX-Ms4TI&tp=1&oh=463c08ae63073145320b21efcc7935af&oe=5FF5F15B)
He looks freakishly muscular even back then, you see him and you know he has incredible potential and elite genetics for bodybuilding
-
Lol, yeah, but not usually calves.
Yeah ,you have huge calves
(https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=99475.0;attach=1049229;image)
(https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=99475.0;attach=1151395;image)
-
The next Mr Olympia could just pass you by on the streets without u even knowing it 8)
If i saw that kid on the street I would stop him and ask him if he considered bodybuilding. Straight up.
(https://scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com/v/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/s640x640/129172100_1566756033510529_1838125334104270615_n.jpg?_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com&_nc_cat=101&_nc_ohc=6bIGYd2EwrwAX-Ms4TI&tp=1&oh=463c08ae63073145320b21efcc7935af&oe=5FF5F15B)
-
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ttie9YF_rrA/TcC2K_r45fI/AAAAAAAATBs/BUk1729u6R8/s1600/10.jpg)
-
Lol, yeah, but not usually calves.
It's one of the big racial differences between Black and White bodybuilders, as far as genetics go - White people tend to have bigger calves, and Black people tend to have smaller waists.
There are probably other differences, but those are two prominent ones.
^ 47 words! I made it. Wait. Shit.
Matty Aspy, I’m familiar with the physical differences between races, but you shouldn’t pretend they apply to you. On your best day you have narrow clavicles, birthing hips, and the bone structure of an anorexic sparrow.
The upside is that with your small glutes, lack of leg development, and love handles, you could easily play the pasty, gay submissive bottom in an all black prison gang bang porno movie.
-
Charles glass told me in the 90s you realise your true potential in bodybuilding in many cases as you continue. But what you get over the last 5 years is very limited compared to what you achieve in your first 5. Basically he could tell you whether you had pro potential after a few years, but if you had top 5 pro olympia style potentiol would take longer and that is realised if an your body keeps responding to the regime, many guys slow down by this stage.
-
Majority of basketball players aren’t built like him, neither are a lot of football players either. He was also exceptionally short for a basketball player where the average height is 6’4. He’s was made for wearing the thong and bbing
-
Matty Aspy, I’m familiar with the physical differences between races, but you shouldn’t pretend they apply to you. On your best day you have narrow clavicles, birthing hips, and the bone structure of an anorexic sparrow.
The upside is that with your small glutes, lack of leg development, and love handles, you could easily play the pasty, gay submissive bottom in an all black prison gang bang porno movie.
Matt is in pretty good shape there.
-
Matt is in pretty good shape there.
Okay Matt.
-
Okay Matt.
:D
-
:D
Sorry...that was a bit harsh.
🤣
-
Matt is in pretty good shape there.
He looks like a dude who just starting working out 8wks ago. But sure he's in pretty good shape
-
He looks like a dude who just starting working out 8wks ago. But sure he's in pretty good shape
Look at the fullness in his arms and delts, he's been clearly hitting the weight room for several years at that point ::)
-
Matt did several oral cycles and he was on one in those pics.
How do I know? I don't, it's my opinion based on the pics. Very obvious to me. I tried to get him to admit it over the years, I think he once half-admitted it :D
-
He was real jacked there in fact. Highly abnormal amount of muscle, especially if he wasn't lifting, though I think he was. So yes you could tell he would most likely respond like crazy to the bb lifestyle.
I would say that is incredible genetics and I would be able to tell miles away.
-
Look at the fullness in his arms and delts, he's been clearly hitting the weight room for several years at that point ::)
Perhaps he can let us know with one of his patented 5000 word essay posts. Just kidding Matt nobody wants to read that shit
-
You saw my potential even at a very early age
-
Exactly. Sometimes - I find this to be especially true with Arnold nut-huggers - I see threads where everyone agrees with the previous poster and it becomes a giant online circle jerk.
I don't join in on such discussions unless I firmly believe that the previous posters in agreement are correct, and to me it seems obvious that Phil had bodybuilding potential here. But I can actually explain that, at least from my POV: Phil has an above average muscle fiber density, which is apparently in those photos. It's completely clear that both his biceps and his triceps extend and proliferate all the way to his elbow joint, which means that - once properly developed - those muscle groups will both be huge.
And eventually they were.
Humble - by lifting, do you mean actual lifting, or do you mean juicing, or do you mean both?
I think he said he didn't start working out until 2002, which would have made him 22 at the time [23 as of December 2002...I think Phil's birthday might be next week].
It's possible that in that photo, he literally walked through a gym only a week earlier, and started an oral steroid [or pro-hormones, which were big at the time - and legal], and literally shot up 7-lb of muscle and water over the course of that week [beginner gains + his amazing genetics], and the result is what we see in that photo.
If I saw a guy who looked like that, it wouldn't be the body size that stood out to me - it would be the muscle fiber density/concentration, which he most definitely has.
He doesn't have a pro bodybuilders size, and if the point is to say that Phil had average person dimensions before he pursued bodybuilding competitively, then yeah. But bodybuilding genetics are more judged based on number of muscle size, shape of the muscle, how small someone's waist can stay while putting on major size, and even how well a person's genetics are to respond to the side effects of steroids. Some people cannot tolerate the side effects of the gear use to become a pro bodybuilder, and that's a part of "genetics" when we're talking about BB.
affeman - with Phil's birthday this month, all I can say is: way to ruin a BB's day. :'( ;D
You narrowly missed your target Matt. Phils gift as they call it is obvious in the pic of him playing basketball. In fact its obvious in every picture of him.
His gift is something you lack. You can diet lift take whatever drugs but this something is what bodybuilding judges look for
Its called Separation Matt, muscle separation. That is Phils gift.
-
Charles glass told me in the 90s you realise your true potential in bodybuilding in many cases as you continue. But what you get over the last 5 years is very limited compared to what you achieve in your first 5. Basically he could tell you whether you had pro potential after a few years, but if you had top 5 pro olympia style potentiol would take longer and that is realised if an your body keeps responding to the regime, many guys slow down by this stage.
law of diminishing returns
-
Charles glass told me in the 90s you realise your true potential in bodybuilding in many cases as you continue. But what you get over the last 5 years is very limited compared to what you achieve in your first 5. Basically he could tell you whether you had pro potential after a few years, but if you had top 5 pro olympia style potentiol would take longer and that is realised if an your body keeps responding to the regime, many guys slow down by this stage.
most pros get where they are in 5 years, just look at Haney, Gaspari, Ray ,National or World Champs before 22
A year training natty
two years juicing and another 2 years juicing and GH
After 5 years you can tell if someone has the right genetics to make it
-
Matty Aspy, I’ve seen 12 year old blacks kids sitting on the front porch of their ghetto housing, that have never touched a weight, who are built better than you.
50 words maximum Matt or you lose your audience.
Typical Matt C. post:
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863
On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner referred to the most famous speech ever given by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called the Gettysburg Address a "monumental act." He said Lincoln was mistaken that "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here." Rather, the Bostonian remarked, "The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech."
There are five known copies of the speech in Lincoln's handwriting, each with a slightly different text, and named for the people who first received them: Nicolay, Hay, Everett, Bancroft and Bliss. Two copies apparently were written before delivering the speech, one of which probably was the reading copy. The remaining ones were produced months later for soldier benefit events. Despite widely-circulated stories to the contrary, the president did not dash off a copy aboard a train to Gettysburg. Lincoln carefully prepared his major speeches in advance; his steady, even script in every manuscript is consistent with a firm writing surface, not the notoriously bumpy Civil War-era trains. Additional versions of the speech appeared in newspapers of the era, feeding modern-day confusion about the authoritative text.
Bliss Copy
Ever since Lincoln wrote it in 1864, this version has been the most often reproduced, notably on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. It is named after Colonel Alexander Bliss, stepson of historian George Bancroft. Bancroft asked President Lincoln for a copy to use as a fundraiser for soldiers (see "Bancroft Copy" below). However, because Lincoln wrote on both sides of the paper, the speech could not be reprinted, so Lincoln made another copy at Bliss's request. It is the last known copy written by Lincoln and the only one signed and dated by him. Today it is on display at the Lincoln Room of the White House.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Nicolay Copy
Named for John G. Nicolay, President Lincoln's personal secretary, this is considered the "first draft" of the speech, begun in Washington on White house stationery. The second page is writen on different paper stock, indicating it was finished in Gettysburg before the cemetery dedication began. Lincoln gave this draft to Nicolay, who went to Gettysburg with Lincoln and witnessed the speech. The Library of Congress owns this manuscript.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate we can not consecrate we can not hallow, this ground The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.
It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Hay Copy
Believed to be the second draft of the speech, President Lincoln gave this copy to John Hay, a White House assistant. Hay accompanied Lincoln to Gettysburg and briefly referred to the speech in his diary: "the President, in a fine, free way, with more grace than is his wont, said his half dozen words of consecration." The Hay copy, which includes Lincoln's handwritten changes, also is owned by the Library of Congress.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate we can not consecrate we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Everett Copy
Edward Everett, the chief speaker at the Gettysburg cemetery dedication, clearly admired Lincoln's remarks and wrote to him the next day saying, "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." In 1864 Everett asked Lincoln for a copy of the speech to benefit Union soldiers, making it the third manuscript copy. Eventually the state of Illinois acquired it, where it's preserved at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here, have, thus far, so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Bancroft Copy
As noted above, historian George Bancroft asked President Lincoln for a copy to use as a fundraiser for soldiers. When Lincoln sent his copy on February 29, 1864, he used both sides of the paper, rendering the manuscript useless for lithographic engraving. So Bancroft kept this copy and Lincoln had to produce an additional one (Bliss Copy). The Bancroft copy is now owned by Cornell University.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives, that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-
most pros get where they are in 5 years, just look at Haney, Gaspari, Ray ,National or World Champs before 22
A year training natty
two years juicing and another 2 years juicing and GH
After 5 years you can tell if someone has the right genetics to make it
Sounds about right.
Then we have the ridiculous idea where they award pro cards to masters competitors. These guy may not have placed top 10 in the open class but are awarded cards anyway. Doesn't make sense, the card winners should be best in show, period.
-
Sounds about right.
Then we have the ridiculous idea where they award pro cards to masters competitors. These guy may not have placed top 10 in the open class but are awarded cards anyway. Doesn't make sense, the card winners should be best in show, period.
UK used to get one pro card a year....overall EFBB winner, and that was the option to apply, not a straight get one..
-
Yeah ,you have huge calves
(https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=99475.0;attach=1151395;image)
This second shot of the two you posted proves what I'm saying - bodybuilding "potential" is judged based on various things, one of which is where the muscle insertions are. I have trained calves under five times in my life. I don't train calves. And they are 16".
You can see that my calves are low and insert in a way that would make them wide if developed.
I'm not sure if I could get 20" calves, but I suspect that I could go from 16" to 18" with training [I assume anyone can put 2" on their calves with training].
But you can't build what isn't there - if my calves were high and narrow, adding two inches to them wouldn't do very much.
For not training my calves, that photo does show that they have potential for development. Just like the original photos show that Phil Heath has potential. I was just north of 190-lb in that photo, and I had been training for 5.5 years at the time. Phil Heath and I are the same height, and Phil was probably 20-lb lighter than me, and even at that weight looks more muscular than I do [or normal gym rat with experience training and who had a bench of 315-lb x2 at the time, which is above what most people get to]. If Phil looked like the OP photo without even training, then to me that his potential was clear. Just like the potential of my calves in the photo above, which is the only part I have in addition to shoulders that have the potential for good growth [IMO].
-
you would think i had potential based on me at 14 years.
but i never accomplished shit, and i trained harder than
most
-
you would think i had potential based on me at 14 years.
but i never accomplished shit, and i trained harder than
most
Cmon man,,,for one you had one of he best builds here ,and ok pro wise you were a notch below and that’ sucks .but you were close to getting there.
-
you would think i had potential based on me at 14 years.
but i never accomplished shit, and i trained harder than
most
LMAO @ Getbig's definition of never accomplishing sh*t! I would say that you had potential there, even if you were 17-19 in that photo. In conditioning, and in shape/structure. For 14, I suspect you were the most developed male in your grade level, in grade 8-9- or 10 [depending on what month you were born, and what month that photo was taken, you would have been in one of those three grades, and you don't see too many guys that age in shape like that].
You can also see that your biceps extends all the way to your elbow joint, and you are leaner than most people ever get, even with training.
I don't know what gyms people go to where they see mounds of people in such great shape.
Reading Getbig is probably why I didn't compete in strength sports until age 24, and was immediately doing well for my weight class when I finally did start.
Didn't you compete in Nationals, hazbin? If you did, how is that "not accomplishing" anything?
If we are to say that one needs to be Mr. Olympia to prove they have potential, then I guess you didn't have potential - and I guess if you need to be the best Mr. Olympia winner to prove you have potential, then Phil Heath doesn't have potential either.
-
You narrowly missed your target Matt.
Saw what you did there.
Phils gift as they call it is obvious in the pic of him playing basketball. In fact its obvious in every picture of him.
His gift is something you lack. You can diet lift take whatever drugs but this something is what bodybuilding judges look for
Its called Separation Matt, muscle separation. That is Phils gift.
We're on the same page.
While I agree with TA's comment years back that Phil's gift is a package in the mail, I think he has advantages in bodybuilding that extend beyond gear use - be it in separation as you said, or in terms of long muscle belly attachments as I said, or in other areas.
He is under 5'10", and he is narrower than most Mr. Olympia winners in history...but that may also have to do with him having a big head. If you look at bodybuilders like Sergio Oliva and Orville Burke, and compare them to bodybuilders like Rich Gaspari or Phil Heath, you can see that head size makes a difference in the perception of width.
-
Cmon man,,,for one you had one of he best builds here ,and ok pro wise you were a notch below and that’ sucks .but you were close to getting there.
On Getbig, you can be 6'4" and 320-lb in contest shape, and still "suck" [Morgan Aste]:
Lmao
Typical getbig
A 6"4 shredded 350 lbs monster of a man is not impressive ;D
Btw he is doing a show september 5th.
Don't know if he will be good as a bodybuilder but still impressive as hell
LOL.
-
LMAO @ Getbig's definition of never accomplishing sh*t! I would say that you had potential there, even if you were 17-19 in that photo. In conditioning, and in shape/structure. For 14, I suspect you were the most developed male in your grade level, in grade 8-9- or 10 [depending on what month you were born, and what month that photo was taken, you would have been in one of those three grades, and you don't see too many guys that age in shape like that].
You can also see that your biceps extends all the way to your elbow joint, and you are leaner than most people ever get, even with training.
I don't know what gyms people go to where they see mounds of people in such great shape.
Reading Getbig is probably why I didn't compete in strength sports until age 24, and was immediately doing well for my weight class when I finally did start.
Didn't you compete in Nationals, hazbin? If you did, how is that "not accomplishing" anything?
If we are to say that one needs to be Mr. Olympia to prove they have potential, then I guess you didn't have potential - and I guess if you need to be the best Mr. Olympia winner to prove you have potential, then Phil Heath doesn't have potential either.
ya i did the nationals first in 1991 and last in 2007. never got looked at, as i never competed two years in a row
which seems to be important.
here's me in grade 12 age 17 and drug free til i was 21
-
ya i did the nationals first in 1991 and last in 2007. never got looked at, as i never competed two years in a row
which seems to be important.
here's me in grade 12 age 17 and drug free til i was 21
8)
-
ya i did the nationals first in 1991 and last in 2007. never got looked at, as i never competed two years in a row
which seems to be important.
I hadn't thought about that, regarding competitors...when Antoine Vaillant won his pro card, I heard the 2nd place finisher was really good...or maybe I'm thinking of the champion in another weight class [I remember there was a bit of controversy when he won, and that his name and social media success/following somewhat helped him to get his pro card]. Then Antoine competed in 2013 about 20-lb heavier [at least 15-lb heavier, I would say], just because I think Antoine felt that he needed more mass to be competitive [I think the number "250" for stage weight was in his head], and he was very smooth. Then I noticed just recently, he looked to be in the 250-260 range at his most recent contest.
So yes, I think competing twice in a row may have had a hand in Antoine getting his pro card earlier than he probably should have, in 2013. I think things like that factor in, as well as social media reach, popularity, and possibly regional judging bias - Chris Cormier was upset that Lee Priest won the Australia Pro in either 2005 or 2006, and I could see French Canadian judges giving Antoine the win, which Nick Diaz thought was corruption that extended to his UFC fight with GSP, where Georges was allowed to weigh in 3-lb heavier than the 170 cutoff, in 2013. And one last example, also 2013, was when Jay Cutler beat Big Ramy at the 2013 Mr. Olympia...I think Jay was more or less where I expected him to be...maybe 4th or 6th...I can't remember...but since Jay didn't mean as much for the brand as he previously did since he was obviously close to retiring, so the places were able to judge him fairly, LOL. Dennis James was coaching Ramy at the time, and posted a comparison shot between him and Jay in a most muscular, and it wasn't close.
I found that 2013 shot of Big Ramy and Jay Cutler that Dennis James posted, being upset with the judging:
-
here's me in grade 12 age 17 and drug free til i was 21
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=669993.0;attach=1286057;image)
Your physique at 17 confirms what I thought, which is that your bodybuilding potential was present at an early age...look at your picture compared to back shot of me that che posted. I was 24 years old at the time and deadlifting close to 500-lb, and my back was less developed than yours at age 17. I know they are not the same pose [and my rear double biceps was a lot better than my rear lat spread], but it's clear to me that your lats are much lower, and that there is simply more muscle there to develop to begin with. In my case, my lats are high, and low in muscle fiber density...and I can't build what isn't there to begin with. In your case, it's clear that your lats could have been brought up, which you obviously did later on.
As for your pro potential...maybe competing more would have done that [twice in a row]. If you did everything you felt you possibly could have, and you just missed becoming a pro, then ok...so you're just below pro potential. If THAT is the standard we're using to judge potential, fine...or is this thread about Mr. Olympia winning potential? Only 15 men have won Mr. Olympia ever...but since this implies even Phil doesn't have potential, is THAT standard not even high enough?
I guess it boils down to what standard by which you are judging "potential". "Potential" was always used as an excuse by fans as to why Flex Wheeler and Chris Cormier didn't win Mr. Olympia. But if they didn't have the heart to commit to the training...even heart is genetic. Dorian once said that Flex was complaining that a certain back exercise pinched his back or something, and said at that moment he knew that Flex would never be a threat to his Mr. Olympia title.
-
Your physique at 17 confirms what I thought, which is that your bodybuilding potential was present at an early age...look at your picture compared to back shot of me that che posted. I was 24 years old at the time and deadlifting close to 500-lb, and my back was less developed than yours at age 17. I know they are not the same pose [and my rear double biceps was a lot better than my rear lat spread], but it's clear to me that your lats are much lower, and that there is simply more muscle there to develop to begin with. In my case, my lats are high, and low in muscle fiber density...and I can't build what isn't there to begin with. In your case, it's clear that your lats could have been brought up, which you obviously did later on.
As for your pro potential...maybe competing more would have done that [twice in a row]. If you did everything you felt you possibly could have, and you just missed becoming a pro, then ok...so you're just below pro potential. If THAT is the standard we're using to judge potential, fine...or is this thread about Mr. Olympia winning potential? Only 15 men have won Mr. Olympia ever...but since this implies even Phil doesn't have potential, is THAT standard not even high enough?
I guess it boils down to what standard by which you are judging "potential". "Potential" was always used as an excuse by fans as to why Flex Wheeler and Chris Cormier didn't win Mr. Olympia. But if they didn't have the heart to commit to the training...even heart is genetic. Dorian once said that Flex was complaining that a certain back exercise pinched his back or something, and said at that moment he knew that Flex would never be a threat to his Mr. Olympia title.
yes, it was a mistake to only compete every few years. you show up, make an impression and the next year they are looking for you from the start.
odd, but consistent.
-
yes, it was a mistake to only compete every few years. you show up, make an impression and the next year they are looking for you from the start.
odd, but consistent.
So there could be at least two reasons for that, that I can think of:
[1] You took three years off between shows in order to make improvements to turn pro [this seems unlikely to me, because I only ever hear about this for people who turn pro...not people who are attempting to turn pro.
[2] You weren't giving bodybuilding 100% of your time, or making a career out of it [I could see you picking up some sponsorships, but if you were making lots of money with it, I assume you would have competed more].
So if [2] is the correct one here [or possibly something else that I didn't consider], then we wouldn't know what your potential was...and I don't see it being impossible for you to have turned pro, given how close you were.
How well you would have done as a pro would have been a whole other level of hypotheticals, but I don't think it is such a big stretch to think that if you dedicated to competing every year, that you may have refined things to a point that you could have gotten a pro card, given that you didn't try this [so can't rule it out as being possible], and because you were so close to the pro level as it was.
Did you have pro level? I think so.
Did you have successful pro or Mr. Olympia potential? That's yet another level of hypotheticals as I said, so I won't answer that. You did have a few things in your favour - height, width, and vascularity, and probably some that I'm missing.
On Getbig, if you haven't won nine Mr. Olympia titles, you suck at bodybuilding. ;D