My point exactly is that I see these vids looking back that there was no internet then for me to see them, and I'm like WTF?. Seriously, how can you look at Gutler, Kai, Branch, and some others and see progress? And these are the guys winning/ placing high at shows now. It boggles my mind when I see vids from back in the day that remind me what a quality build looks like.
Bob, if you are willing to give an honest and open assessment.....what do you think is the most significant factor that contributes to the difference we see now? I mean, obviously it is drugs, but is it higher doses in general or the the addition of GH, Insulin, IGF? Something went astray somewhere. As someone who does it professionally, and has been around it at a high level for so long what was finally the tipping point "supplement" wise?
Contrary to popular belief, it's not taking more thats ruining physiques, as the receptors will only recognise so much...it's the funky stuff thats the culprit, mainly insulin. GH is over rated, steroids have been around forever and probably arent as good as the "good ol days" as ost of it is watered down or counterfit....jury is out o IGF-1 so far.
Proportionately, you only see someone with what I would consider GREAT genetics, about once every 20 years or so....Reeves (50's), Arnold (70's), Haney (80/90's), Coleman (2000's)...not much different than other sports
As I said earlier, I'm not so sure that it's just not the idea of only being able to put X amount of muscle onto a frame...difference between the late , great 80's and today is simply that a guy 5'8 today is competing at 260 lbs, as opposed to a 6'4 Ferigno, or a 6'2 Arnold at 240....bottom line is, you cant stuff 10 lbs of shit into a 5 lb bag and have it look "aesthetic"
