Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: alexxx on June 24, 2006, 04:56:20 PM
-
Nobody in the last 30 years has had a better chest than this if not the whole physique!!
-
thats one of my favorite arnie pics,talk about a perfect chest he had it imo
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75219.0;attach=82367;image)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974182578.jpg)
bodybuilding certainly has evolved over the last 30 years...
Guys like Ronnie, Flex and Shawn at their bests were better than the champions of the 70's.
granted, Dorian started the "lets award the big ugly phyisiques over the smaller, but way better one" trend in 1994, but bodybuilding bounced back in the late 90's, with the 1998 and 1999 Olympias being really good. Then 2000 saw Ronnie sporting a big gut, and its been downhill from there.
-
Geezus, Alexxx. Bodybuilding has evolved.... just not for the better. By the way, that Arnold pic, to me, is the BEST "overall" Arnold pic. Good call. 8)
-
Geezus, Alexxx. Bodybuilding has evolved.... just not for the better. By the way, that Arnold pic, to me, is the BEST "overall" Arnold pic. Good call. 8)
thats the one I carry in my wallet. ;D
-
Ronnie is not in Arnold's league. If Arnold competed today Ronnie wouldn't stand much of a chance.
-
that arnold pic is only good because you can't see his toothpicks...er..I mean quads :P
-
the real question is out of 100 people on here how many would prefer arnies look or ronnies look if they could look like either one,id rather have arnies look,arnie even at his biggest could look somewhat normal in dress clothes where ronnie in a suit looks like you just took the suit and put it on a refrigerator,no disrespect to ronnie but thats just my opinion
-
the real question is out of 100 people on here how many would prefer arnies look or ronnies look if they could look like either one,id rather have arnies look
Just to clarify, Arnold's look was considered just as repulsive to some in the 70s-no difference don't kid yourself. If he looked better in street clothes it was because without hormones he lost more than most BBs between contests. He responded to them more than most, which to me made them more artificial to me than someone like Coleman who always seems huge without or without em.
Ronnie is not in Arnold's league. If Arnold competed today Ronnie wouldn't stand much of a chance.
Such a biased assessment only discredits you.
-
Arnold's quads where fine! ::)
The three best chests in history of bodybuilding on the same stage at the same time! :o
-
Personally, I think it wouldn't matter which one I looked like if we are looking at Ronnie back in the day:
(http://www.kulturistika.com/gallery/1115026869_293.jpg)
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc57.jpg)
He looked great, certainly not like his later years:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc16.jpg)
hard to believe its even the same person..
-
His quads looked fine at certain angles only-he knew how to pose em. Looked way too small in shots where he didn't position them.
Of course they also looked better/bigger when he was heavier, as in that shot.
-
Arnold's quads where fine! ::)
The three best chests in history of bodybuilding:
sure they were. Just like Dorian's arms were fine too.
:P
-
sure they were. Just like Dorian's arms were fine too.
:P
No need to be bigger in real life as it becomes harder to walk with huge wheels.. trust me!
-
When he didn't angle them properly, both the quad & ham deficiencies were revealed; he was top-heavy but in all the right places to help you forget the shortcomings.
-
In all seriousness, Arnold's quads weren't that bad, its just that his arms and chest (and calves) were so huge he needed to have Ronnie-sized quads to look balanced.
Which he didn't have.
-
The great upper body & calves along with proper posing, good quad cuts & shape distracted from the imbalance in quad and ham size.
-
The great upper body & calves along with proper posing, good quad cuts & shape distracted from the imbalance in quad and ham size.
true, and the same can be said about his triceps.
-
true, and the same can be said about his triceps.
::)
-
Arnold's tris were a little like Coleman's-very good size but overshadowed by the biceps and also not quite as cut as some others so they didn't stand out as much.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=80709.0;attach=86442;image)
Alexxx thinks littleboy Arnold looks good wearing makeup :-*
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=80709.0;attach=86442;image)
Alexxx thinks littleboy Arnold looks good wearing makeup :-*
That little pic of Reeves is dwarfing your Ronnie avatar one! :-*
-
No need to be bigger in real life as it becomes harder to walk with huge wheels.. trust me!
you are an ass, but you are funny. ;D
-
Almost everything else save calves and chest have progressed today. For whatever reason on chest no comparison today. Some of the sickest chest shots ever.
-
Even many second tier pros are bigger and better conditioned than the pros of the 70s. Wake up.
-
Someone like Frank McGrath looks great, reminds of a 70s look that's unlikely to win now.
-
Ruhl has the best chest in bb - it's thick and striated like no other
(http://membres.lycos.fr/bodybuilders/bodybuilding/markus_ruhl/mr25.jpg) (http://membres.lycos.fr/bodybuilders/bodybuilding/markus_ruhl/rhul.jpg)
-
that arnold pic is only good because you can't see his toothpicks...er..I mean quads :P
agreed
-
how can you guys compare Arnold to all these midgets?
-
Bbing has most definitely evolved. The schmoes are more dedicated than ever!
-
Coleman looks great here. Especially his titties. The pros of today are nothing close to the pros of the 80's.
-
Even many second tier pros are bigger and better conditioned than the pros of the 70s. Wake up.
Exept Arnold, Sergio and Frank Zane, Conditioning was better then (for most) than now, example,you don't see this type of conditioning now.............
-
BBing hasn't evolved because the human bone structure can only hold so much muscle and still retain the asthetic/svelte/streamlined look that we've been conditioned to view as nonoffensive.
When guys get to be 270+, the muscle just hangs, gets droopy, and doesn't have the functional and artistic qualities that we've learned to view as desirable.
your average person doesn't want to look any bigger or ripped than Arnold achieved in 1975.
-
240 ,you have absolutely summarized the entire problem with so called modern bodybuilding. It's nothing short of grotesque
-
BBing hasn't evolved because the human bone structure can only hold so much muscle and still retain the asthetic/svelte/streamlined look that we've been conditioned to view as nonoffensive.
When guys get to be 270+, the muscle just hangs, gets droopy, and doesn't have the functional and artistic qualities that we've learned to view as desirable.
your average person doesn't want to look any bigger or ripped than Arnold achieved in 1975.
Agreed thats why some Olympia winners from the early years can still pretty much win today.
-
because arnolds genetics for chest was one of a kind.
-
because arnolds genetics for chest was one of a kind.
he started out with a 39 inch sunken chest... sorta like where gibber is at right now..
-
he started out with a 39 inch sunken chest... sorta like where gibber is at right now..
genetics isnt just about where you start out, it what happens when you do start
apparantely no drugs, training routines, supplements etc can touch that chest 30 years later, so the only reasonable explanation is - it was one of a kind on a genetic level.
-
Other then legs which weren't as big of a deal back then Arnold has bodyparts which are on par or better then many of todays pros, if he competed now he def would still the genetics to do great.
-
genetics isnt just about where you start out, it what happens when you do start
apparantely no drugs, training routines, supplements etc can touch that chest 30 years later, so the only reasonable explanation is - it was one of a kind on a genetic level.
Or he trained the hardest for that masterpiece of a chest!
-
Or he trained the hardest for that masterpiece of a chest!
I think plenty of people been able to train as hard as Arnold in the last 30 years, but also there's no proven connection between training hard and developing muscles.
-
Exept Arnold, Sergio and Frank Zane, Conditioning was better then (for most) than now, example,you don't see this type of conditioning now.............
I think you do, it's just that it's hard, if not impossible to have that kinda conditioning if you're much bigger.
-
BBing hasn't evolved because the human bone structure can only hold so much muscle and still retain the asthetic/svelte/streamlined look that we've been conditioned to view as nonoffensive.
When guys get to be 270+, the muscle just hangs, gets droopy, and doesn't have the functional and artistic qualities that we've learned to view as desirable.
your average person doesn't want to look any bigger or ripped than Arnold achieved in 1975.
Couldn't have put it any better. Peter mcGough once wrote about Flex Wheeler "The thing that makes Flex great is not only where he has muscle, it's where he doesn't" Guys today literally look like 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
-
id rather look like arnold then marcus or ronnie,does that mean arnolds better?ofcoarse not but to me he looked overall better and if i had a choice id take arnolds build
-
When I see recent pics of Ronnie Coleman working out, looking bigger than ever, it apparent that conditioned mass is the only thing that matters today.
For whatever reason, the physiques back in the early 80's, late 70's didn't look like that.
And because of it, the simply are better.
That generation still gets beaten on condition, but their lines and symmetry is better, making for overall better physiques.
Samir Bannout wouldn't win the Olympia today with his 1983 form. But he should.
As should Serge Nubret, Roy Callender, Mohamed Makkawy, Betil Fox, Mike Mentzer (1979 form).
And a lot of other great bodybuilders that have better physiques than Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler.
But just happens to have a balanced physique.
Where's the fcuking balance? When did pro BB become a biz for schmoozing "judges" to trig the Pro's to up the dosages?
YIP
Zack
-
id rather look like arnold then marcus or ronnie,does that mean arnolds better?ofcoarse not but to me he looked overall better and if i had a choice id take arnolds build
word.
-
Coleman looks great here. Especially his titties. The pros of today are nothing close to the pros of the 80's.
The drug use has increased. Classic moon face. Coleman's a bloated water tank cause he's on a shitload of test. Yates, Cutler, Nasser, etc. all look like the michelin man off season. Plus, I don't think offseason posing was the norm back then. I may be wrong but there's a dearth of pics to support my argument.
-
Who cares what they look like off-season. Only thing that matters are those minutes on stage.
-
Who cares what they look like off-season. Only thing that matters are those minutes on stage.
If they don't care what they look like year round, no one else will care either, thats why bb is a dying sport. Did you see that pic of Ronnnie up there? He looks like a fucking pig. And he is supposedly the best out there ???
-
Who cares what they look like off-season. Only thing that matters are those minutes on stage.
imo i think they should care cause they are representing a sport that supposed to stand for health and fitness,a guy who is recognized as the reigning mr olympia shouldnt be walkin around lookin like hes 8 and ahalf months pregnant when hes not getting ready for the olympia imo,in the 70,s guys looked decent in between shows,arnold did anyway
-
If they don't care what they look like year round, no one else will care either, thats why bb is a dying sport. Did you see that pic of Ronnnie up there? He looks like a fucking pig. And he is supposedly the best out there ???
So? You care about how Mick Jagger performs when he's not on stage or in the studio, maybe he doesn't sing so well when he has a cold! Boo-hoo! Let's post samples of that as mp3 files so we can ridicule him for not being his best year round!
-
imo i think they should care cause they are representing a sport that supposed to stand for health and fitness,a guy who is recognized as the reigning mr olympia shouldnt be walkin around lookin like hes 8 and ahalf months pregnant when hes not getting ready for the olympia imo,in the 70,s guys looked decent in between shows,arnold did anyway
Who says it's suppose to stand for that. I'm sure most fans don't care, and those who complain don't go to the shows anyway.
-
So? You care about how Mick Jagger performs when he's not on stage or in the studio, maybe he doesn't sing so well when he has a cold! Boo-hoo! Let's post samples of that as mp3 files so we can ridicule him for not being his best year round!
most retarded post of the year.
-
i personally dont care what those guys look like in the offseason just as long as they look great onstage,i said that bodybuilding and weight training is supposed to stand for health and strong muscles,joe weiders muscle and fitness magazine was all about promoting a healthy lifestyle thru weight training and proper eating habits,the mr olympia was supposed to represent this also
-
being their best year round and not looking like Nell fucking Carter are two totally different things. If anyone saw that pic of Ronnie with those big ole titties and is still arguing on his behalf, they have serious problems.
-
On the one hand the more muscle the better, i mean it is called bodybuilding. Ronnie Coleman is massive beyond belief but does it look good? I have to say no, Arnold has less muscle but his physique is much much more refined and better to look at.
-
i personally dont care what those guys look like in the offseason just as long as they look great onstage,i said that bodybuilding and weight training is supposed to stand for health and strong muscles,joe weiders muscle and fitness magazine was all about promoting a healthy lifestyle thru weight training and proper eating habits,the mr olympia was supposed to represent this also
well things changed!
-
most retarded post of the year.
why? why does it matter what they look like off stage? maybe you want two competitions, one for best on stage performance, and one for best off-season performance huh?
maybe we should have people look up maurice greene and see how fast he runs outside of competition too?
-
why? why does it matter what they look like off stage? maybe you want two competitions, one for best on stage performance, and one for best off-season performance huh?
maybe we should have people look up maurice greene and see how fast he runs outside of competition too?
I think he would much rather have them perform in his roon with the lights closed. ;D
-
why? why does it matter what they look like off stage? maybe you want two competitions, one for best on stage performance, and one for best off-season performance huh?
maybe we should have people look up maurice greene and see how fast he runs outside of competition too?
Because Mick Jagger couldn't possibly ever sound as bad as Ronnie looked in that pic. If that pic was photoshopped, then I admit I am totally wrong. But if that is really Ronnie, come on. Look at him. He is supposed to be the best, yet he looks like the fridge. what a piece of shit. I used to think he was a good bber, but I lost all respect for him when he decided to put on his trunks and get up there looking like that. Pathetic. The title of this thread is why hasn't bb evolved in the last 30 years, and the answer lies with that one pic. Cuz the best bber is a fat fuck, who has no respect for the way he looks, therefore neither do most other people. Give me Arnold anyday.
-
The drug use has increased. Classic moon face. Coleman's a bloated water tank cause he's on a shitload of test. Yates, Cutler, Nasser, etc. all look like the michelin man off season. Plus, I don't think offseason posing was the norm back then. I may be wrong but there's a dearth of pics to support my argument.
What's moon face mean?
-
Geezus, Alexxx. Bodybuilding has evolved.... just not for the better. By the way, that Arnold pic, to me, is the BEST "overall" Arnold pic. Good call. 8)
post above is spot on. Obviously the sport has evolved - just in the wrong direction. The reason is simple.....DRUGS!
Guys today dont train harder. Yes they do have better food choices but the real reason is that most top pros are like a fuckin walkin chemistry set.
Yes they took drugs back in the seventies but not like all the shit they take today such as insulin, synthol, HGH ETC ETC..................... ........................
-
U ALL R SMOKIN CRACK.......bodybuilding these days is waaaaaaay better than the 1980's era..we have bigger,thicker and more mass monsters than ever before...the 80's bodybuilding had those small as bodies wich by todays standrad r more or less a normal physiue..bodybuilding has progressed alot and from the beginning to the end this sport will and always b dominated by the bigger guy wat so ever..the increase in the weight of the bodybuilders both during onseason and offseason..we r seeing more and more shredded and at the same time bigger physiues than ever before..how can we not see 275lb ripped jay cutler or 280lbs ripped coleman and markus ruhl who have enough aesthetics to with their mass..i think so bodybuilding has progressed alot..and also the great dorian yates who introduced the mass trend is credited the most..without yates there would have been no mass freaks....
-
U ALL R SMOKIN CRACK.......bodybuilding these days is waaaaaaay better than the 1980's era..we have bigger,thicker and more mass monsters than ever before...the 80's bodybuilding had those small as bodies wich by todays standrad r more or less a normal physiue..bodybuilding has progressed alot and from the beginning to the end this sport will and always b dominated by the bigger guy wat so ever..the increase in the weight of the bodybuilders both during onseason and offseason..we r seeing more and more shredded and at the same time bigger physiues than ever before..how can we not see 275lb ripped jay cutler or 280lbs ripped coleman and markus ruhl who have enough aesthetics to with their mass..i think so bodybuilding has progressed alot..and also the great dorian yates who introduced the mass trend is credited the most..without yates there would have been no mass freaks....
And what was Lee Haney, chopped liver?
When bodybuilding pundits make lists about "mass monsters" and a separate one about aesthetic bodybuilders, Haney usually ends up in BOTH categories. That's why he's called the "Awesome One". He can be massive and freaky WITHOUT LOOKING as if he's six months pregnant.
Markus Ruhl looks like a big block, with all the aesthetics of a dump truck, which might explain why he often loses to bodybuilders much smaller than he is (i.e. Melvin Anthony, Darrem Charles, etc.). Jay Cutler is pushing it, as well.
As for Coleman, many people will argue that Coleman's all-time best shape was in 2001, when he won the Arnold Classic. They'll get no argument from me. Size, symmetry, proportion, aesthetics, definition.....it's all there.
-
Bodybuilding reached it's evoltionary peak around the mid 90s when guys like cormier, flex, levrone, Ronnie, Matarazzo, Ray, Long etc were all competing together and there wasn't so much emphasis on ripped asses over good lines!