U can't judge potential !!

[Matt]

here's me in grade 12 age 17 and drug free til i was 21

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.

[hazbin]

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.

[Matt]

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.