Author Topic: What were arnolds olympia measurments? (Read 2371 times)

obtuse_waiter · « **on:** April 23, 2011, 06:08:54 PM »

curious?

jwb · « **Reply #1 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:10:32 PM »

Big enough to win

obtuse_waiter · « **Reply #2 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:22:56 PM »

well obviously and to look way better than felx wheeler ever looked but does anyone have the numbers

Boost · « **Reply #3 on:** April 23, 2011, 06:27:24 PM »

24 inch quads with a 44 inch waist,

Oh no wait, you're asking about Arnold, not Bob Cicherillo

TRIX · « **Reply #4 on:** April 23, 2011, 07:31:53 PM »

22 inch arms
34 inch waist
58 inch chest
28 inch legs
20 inch calves

6'2

robcguns · « **Reply #5 on:** April 24, 2011, 06:08:24 AM »

Quote from: TRIX on April 23, 2011, 07:31:53 PM

22 inch arms
34 inch waist
58 inch chest
28 inch legs
20 inch calves

6'2

Ya right,try 19.5" arms,34" waist,52" chest,26" legs,19" calves at 6'0 225.

JasonH · « **Reply #6 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:25:01 AM »

There's no way that Arnold ever had a 58 inch chest.

funk51 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:16:32 AM »

arnold's chest

Reeves · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:32:04 AM »

Purported to be the following;

Chest: 57"
Thighs: 28 1/2"
Arms": 22 1/2"
Calves: 20 1/2"
Waist: 34"

Note that the thigh measurements together equal the chest measurement. The calf measurement should equal the arm but it is within a couple of inches which is better than most bodybuilders. And, Arnold has a waist while today's shitheaps have wastes.

I do recall that the folks from the Guinness Book of World Records stated that his chest was 57". Regardless, the Oak is pretty much regarded as the best that's ever been. Given that, bodybuilding is highly subjective when it comes to such things, but again with regard to folks at Guinness, if they did indeed state that as Arnold's chest size then that is what it was. They are quite strict when it comes to such things so they would have measured him in person.

dyslexic · « **Reply #9 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:48:51 AM »

Ask Vince Gironda about those arm measurements...

Oh wait, you can't. My bad.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #10 on:** April 24, 2011, 12:33:02 PM »

Boom baby

obtuse_waiter · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2011, 02:26:20 PM »

arnold still #1

lift 456 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 24, 2011, 02:38:12 PM »

Nubret was totallly robbed, lets be honest.

Reeves · « **Reply #13 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:53:23 PM »

Quote from: lift 456 on April 24, 2011, 02:38:12 PM

Nubret was totallly robbed, lets be honest.

Nope. Arnold beats him but if there hadn't been the wussified under 200 lbs. class Nubret should have placed ahead of Franco. The aesthetics of the Nubian Lion were so superior to everyone with the exception of perhaps Zane, that it is no wonder he easily surpassed Ferrigno and in my opinion should have won over Columbu. But not the Oak. Arnold had it all. Nubret was close, very close indeed and that is why bodybuilding is quite often a highly subjective contest.

I just thought of something. Since we (i.e., old guys) used to refer to Nubret as the Nubian Lion, perhaps its high time we give Ronnie Coleslaw a more fitting nickname:

The Nubain Lion. What a BIG piece of shit he is too.

SomeKindofMonster · « **Reply #14 on:** April 24, 2011, 09:57:27 PM »

What set Arnold apart from almost any bodybuilder ever
is that he had herculean size and mass with extremely good aesthetics.
Zane, Wheeler, Nubret, ect. - mainly aesthetics.

Coleman, Yates, ect. Mainly extreme mass with incredible condition.

Arnold was those rare few who blew you away with his aesthetics, flow
and extreme mass.

SomeKindofMonster · « **Reply #15 on:** April 24, 2011, 10:03:13 PM »

Figo · « **Reply #16 on:** April 25, 2011, 01:18:12 AM »

arnold was always aware and in control of his body, always sucking in the lower abdomen, and great posture, turning his torso to create illusion from angles of a smaller waist, keeping thighs flexed..

a man that knows how to manipulate being in the limelight constantly

has this guy ever complained bout his privacy or papparazzi?

The_Infidel · « **Reply #17 on:** April 25, 2011, 01:29:10 AM »

Quote from: robcguns on April 24, 2011, 06:08:24 AM

Ya right,try 19.5" arms,34" waist,52" chest,26" legs,19" calves at 6'0 225.

Ya right, try killing yourself

disco_stu · « **Reply #18 on:** April 25, 2011, 02:00:25 AM »

Quote from: robcguns on April 24, 2011, 06:08:24 AM

Ya right,try 19.5" arms,34" waist,52" chest,26" legs,19" calves at 6'0 225.

TYPICAL moron 5'5" GB member and gh15 fan club ticket holder.

is anyone here over 5'8"?

20" arms on a 6'2" guy are going to appear very small...let alone 19.5" arms...and 26" legs?!!!!!...rofl...

those measurements might look ok for a 5'6" guy or 5'8" but they are going to not cut it for someone 6-8" taller.

seriously you guys should go into a gym, walk up to a 6' dude with half decent arms and measure them..so you stop this shit right here.

OTHstrong · « **Reply #19 on:** April 25, 2011, 04:57:21 AM »

Quote from: robcguns on April 24, 2011, 06:08:24 AM

Ya right,try 19.5" arms,34" waist,52" chest,26" legs,19" calves at 6'0 225.

52 inch chest, dont be dumb. 58- obviously not, maybe 55-56, but 52, cmon now

_bruce_ · « **Reply #20 on:** April 25, 2011, 06:00:48 AM »

Arnold's arms were pretty big - he wasn't short and had long muscle bellies esp. regarding his bicep.