Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 20, 2014, 04:08:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Larry Scott  (Read 23339 times)
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 17, 2009, 08:31:50 PM »

Yeah Larry had some of the best biceps ever in terms of fullness, length, even to this day he still ranks right up there.

Part of what made him great was that his tris were just as good as his bis-excellent balance. He managed to evoke more of his potential than most with the training and diet IMO.


* ls10.jpg (22.86 KB, 350x275 - viewed 1267 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11882



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: April 17, 2009, 08:59:09 PM »

Pump,
Is it my imagination, or did Larry gain more quality size after he retired from competition?
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 18, 2009, 05:13:51 AM »

Pump,
Is it my imagination, or did Larry gain more quality size after he retired from competition?


I can see why you think that, he looks pretty damn big post-retirement. I think it's that he held on to a lot of the size after retirement because of a lifelong love of hard traing and that those later pics might've been when he briefly resuming competition in the late 70s and probably also went back on hormones.

As you probably know he's in the very rare category of having actually changed his muscle shape much later in life by consistent hard training and now has a more peaked biceps due to spider curls.
Report to moderator   Logged
Andy Griffin
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4340


I own my performance and add value at every turn.


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 18, 2009, 05:22:38 PM »

Larry Scott is not to be confused with actor Larry B. Scott.

Report to moderator   Logged

~
Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11882



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2009, 09:07:38 PM »

I can see why you think that, he looks pretty damn big post-retirement. I think it's that he held on to a lot of the size after retirement because of a lifelong love of hard traing and that those later pics might've been when he briefly resuming competition in the late 70s and probably also went back on hormones.

As you probably know he's in the very rare category of having actually changed his muscle shape much later in life by consistent hard training and now has a more peaked biceps due to spider curls.

I saw a picture of him in his 60's.
I swore his peaks looked more developed than they did in '65.
Juice, or not - that's damn impressive.

Perhaps this is best left for the training board, but while we're here...
How would you rate Larry's style of spider-curls compared with curls done on the 90 degree side of a preacher bench?

Do you have any pics of Larry taken within the last year or so?
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2009, 09:16:59 AM »

Unfortunately the newer equipment is sometimes inferior, and most preacher benches today don't give you the option of a slant on one side and straight-down on the other, nor do they allow adjustable angles. All those things makes a difference. The straight-down side is very similar to spider curls.

On Larry's site you can see recent pics as well as his product line that includes the old designs. Not cheap but nice to look..

http://www.larryscott.com/bio/index.cfm


Early-60s movie "Muscle Beach Party" when he was smaller, on muscle beach amongst a group of lesser and out of shape west coast BBs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob339XlMKm8
Report to moderator   Logged
Figo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8105



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2009, 04:13:35 AM »

i cant train forearms directly without them cramping up real hard.

larry had some of the best arms ever. basically he was a guy who 1. had extremely good arm genetics(very full bellies on bis, tris and forearms, low insertions), 2. was obsessed with arm training, and 3. ate lots of dbol.

you can train all you want and do any kind of neat little exercise or whatever novel little technique or whatever, but it wont matter at all unless you have numbers 1 and 3.

No,

Larry said he took maybe 5mg a day for a short while, and hated it. And this was way after his Olympias and post retirement...








 Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2009, 04:15:29 AM »

Spider  curls?  LMAO!  Larry's biceps are a result of genetics, hard training etc.  It has fuck all to do with certain exercises.
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2009, 12:00:22 PM »

No,

Larry said he took maybe 5mg a day for a short while, and hated it. And this was way after his Olympias and post retirement...

 Roll Eyes


I don't believer that at all, in fact the remarks i've read were that he blew up and had quite the response to hormones back in the 60s, where you can see a fairly drastic increase in size over a few years. No way he was natural for any Olympia.
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2009, 12:01:21 PM »

Spider  curls?  LMAO!  Larry's biceps are a result of genetics, hard training etc.  It has fuck all to do with certain exercises.

The whole "it's all genetics" view is tired as well as simplistic..it's both-genetics matter but at the same time certain exercises are needed to bring out full genetic potential that otherwise remains unrealized.
Report to moderator   Logged
Figo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8105



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2009, 12:59:59 AM »


I don't believer that at all, in fact the remarks i've read were that he blew up and had quite the response to hormones back in the 60s, where you can see a fairly drastic increase in size over a few years. No way he was natural for any Olympia.

Yep
Report to moderator   Logged
lax
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3768


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2009, 05:07:35 AM »

Pumpster, correct me if I'm wrong here but I believe it was Vince Gironda who "invented" the Scott curl apparatus. And I think that he had the only one in Los Angeles at his gym on Ventura Blvd up there by the present Universal Studios location for a good long while.

Larry did all his arm training there and had to go elsewhere on leg training day because Vince was a strong advocate against squatting. His opinion was that it made your waist too big ( if I recall correctly).

And if I also recall correctly, Larry's training partner was a competitive bodybuilder by the name of Bill McArdle (RIP) and Larry trained him to enter the Mr. California contest in the early to mid 60's, but Bill lost to No. California's John Corvello at the old Embassy theater adjacent to downtown LA's Embassy Hotel. That was a big defeat for Bill and a major win for John

Is that old hotel still there?

One last thing about Vince .... He was a cantankerous old fart but he knew his business just about as well as any school trained "expert'. (Back then the AMA was proclaiming that steroids did not work and any results achieved by steroid users was only due to the Pablov effect (Pablov???).

He excelled in his knowledge of Protein and when to take it and what to take it with. I forget those details  but it was very radical for that time period in the world of BB. Those were the good old days when competitive bodybuilding was just beginning to crawl.

Anyone remember Dale Adrian, Joe Nazzario, Mel Knoll, Curt Haywood, or Jim Holovichik? All former gym acquaintences who have passed through my lifetime at one time or another.

Dale Adrian....1975 Mr. A, I think, great abs, very ripped, was pushed hard by Clint Beyerle
Nazzario....word of a comeback...must be about 60 now, lives in fla...won Mr.International
Curt Haywood...had unfortunate exp of being in class with big A at 1970 Mr. World
Report to moderator   Logged
MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 28, 2009, 02:00:51 AM »

The whole "it's all genetics" view is tired as well as simplistic..it's both-genetics matter but at the same time certain exercises are needed to bring out full genetic potential that otherwise remains unrealized.

I said his arms are a result of genetics and hard training.  It had fuck all to do with special exercises.  Guys love to complicate the shit out of things.  The bicep moves in two directions.  flexes and extends the arm and it supinates the hand.  Other than that no magical exercise is going to turn your arms into Scott's arms, no matter how many different exercises you do.  Look at him when he was 18.  They were thick as shit.  In fact that was probably his most "natural" bodypart. 
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 28, 2009, 07:30:49 AM »

I said his arms are a result of genetics and hard training.  It had fuck all to do with special exercises.  

You're not very bright actually, and seem uninformed. Scott and Gironda endorsed more special and unique exercises than anyone before or since, instead of the usual exercises. Scott and Gironda popularized the preacher bench, which wasn't used by anyone then, it wasn't a standard exercise. Same with the pedestal and v dip bar that no one else uses. Drag curls. Bench press to the neck, burns, 6 x 6, etc. Scott didn't even do standard standing BB curls.

Furthermore and as already stated, Scott changed the shape of his biceps later through specific exercises.

Thanks for playing, you lose.
Report to moderator   Logged
MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 28, 2009, 02:59:59 PM »

You're not very bright actually, and seem uninformed. Scott and Gironda endorsed more special and unique exercises than anyone before or since, instead of the usual exercises. Scott and Gironda popularized the preacher bench, which wasn't used by anyone then, it wasn't a standard exercise. Same with the pedestal and v dip bar that no one else uses. Drag curls. Bench press to the neck, burns, 6 x 6, etc. Scott didn't even do standard standing BB curls.

Furthermore and as already stated, Scott changed the shape of his biceps later through specific exercises.

Thanks for playing, you lose.

I'm uninformed?  You're the fucking moron that thinks you can change the shape of a muscle.  LMAO!  Muscles get bigger and they get smaller.  They don't change their shape.  I'm very familiar with Girondas principles and various exercises.  He was ahead of his time in many ways.  But he wasn't right about everything and wasn't the end all be all of bodybuilding.  If you honestly thing the preacher bench is going to make your arms grow bigger than a basic machine curl or standing BB curls more power to you.  But if you come talking that smack to physiologically savvy individuals like myself......you'll get laughed out of the gym. 
Report to moderator   Logged
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: April 28, 2009, 08:12:36 PM »

I'm uninformed?  You're the fucking moron that thinks you can change the shape of a muscle.  LMAO!  Muscles get bigger and they get smaller.  They don't change their shape.  I'm very familiar with Girondas principles and various exercises.  He was ahead of his time in many ways.  But he wasn't right about everything and wasn't the end all be all of bodybuilding.  If you honestly thing the preacher bench is going to make your arms grow bigger than a basic machine curl or standing BB curls more power to you.  But if you come talking that smack to physiologically savvy individuals like myself......you'll get laughed out of the gym. 

MELTDOWN

Scott DID change the shape you asswipe!

Learn some history and more about BB.
Report to moderator   Logged
MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2009, 03:23:22 AM »

MELTDOWN

Scott DID change the shape you asswipe!

Learn some history and more about BB.

Hey dipshit I have the IronMan magazine with him on the cover when he was 18 fucking years old.  His biceps had the same shape and almost the same size then as they did for the rest of his career.  LMAO!  You retard.  Go back to working out on your bowflex fatty. 
Report to moderator   Logged
jpm101
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2537


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2009, 08:55:41 AM »

Scott's arms may have become more mature and  reached their full  potential in size, but the arm shape would be the same as from birth.  Unless he had extreme surgery to reconnect the muscle tendons, ligaments, etc to the arm bone. If you could/would change the basic muscle shape (again, location of the inserts attached to any bone structure) than most all the brothers would have great lower calfs rather than the  higher up calf development some  have (actually that higher type calf is built for leverage/speed). Any high peak or flat bicep is  the genetic hand you were dealt. Always improve any muscle group beyond your dreams, but the basic shape will always be there. Kind of poorly misinformed or lacking in understand if thinking otherwise.

Any curling movement is a variation on a theme. A curl is a curl, twisting the wrist as the forearm is brought up to the contraction point close to the shoulder. Now if Scott got outstanding bicep development from doing Gironda type angle bench curls than that suited his bicep muscle inserts to take advantage of his full muscle building potential. But some other guy's may do the same exercise with the same intensity, reps and sets as Scott and have little to show for their efforts.

 But if changing to a simple standing BB or EZ bar curl, these same guy's might gain outstanding results, taking advantage of their full muscle building potential. My own personal view is that more people have build great size and power with just those BB/EZ curls. But than again, I am into more of power BB'ing. Also adding (another personal view, that's all), the injury ratio could be higher on a Gironda/Scott/Preacher bench. Probably due to the full stretch some do, which is really not needed anyway, in that exercise. Good Luck.
Report to moderator   Logged

F
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: April 29, 2009, 01:21:43 PM »



The standard "genetics are fixed" dogma that some lazily rely on is simplistic and doesn't address the reaility that there's more to it.

While muscle shape is genetically determined, it can take unsual means to fully evoke underlying potential, means that most BBs don't follow. Scott was the exception, as was Schwarzenegger did re: cavles. If he'd used the genetics argument he wouldn't have unlocked fully potential.

He rejected that line of reasoning and tried new things that finally worked-If he'd just followed the standard thinking that is rampant here and elsewhere,  that wouldn't have happened.
Report to moderator   Logged
Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11882



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: April 29, 2009, 01:45:37 PM »

Um, I think what Pump is getting at is that Larry changed the shape of his arm’s  **appearance**  by developing previously undeveloped parts.
If true, then I believe Pumpster’s right.

JPM suggests that if “Scott” Curls, etc. gave Larry his fantastic results, then it’s because Larry responded well to those exercises. It does NOT mean everyone will. As JPM mentions, many folks can and do respond better to conventional movements like standing bb curls, etc.
JPM is right.

MuscleMcMannus, I think, is saying that a muscle’s shape is genetically determined. While certain exercises may be needed to FULLY DEVELOP that muscle, you’ll never alter it beyond that.
MMcM is right.

Montague says he’s spent too long thinking about and typing this.
Montague is right.

Report to moderator   Logged
jpm101
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2537


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: April 29, 2009, 04:59:44 PM »

Glad to see that pumpster agrees with me (and 99% of the BB'ing world) that, in simple terms, muscle shape is a genetic factor. It will, and can not, change by exercise. As is muscle size limits with it's own set of limitations, for each of us.

Montague seems to be right on with p, McM and me.  Though I tend to accept most of what McM posted above. Gironda was not right about everything, but most things.
Report to moderator   Logged

F
pumpster
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 18897

If you're reading this you have too much free time


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: April 29, 2009, 08:16:13 PM »

I think "jpm" is senile, as i don't agree with his canned view at all lol neither did Arnold or Larry.
Report to moderator   Logged
jpm101
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 2537


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: May 01, 2009, 08:45:04 AM »

Glad to see that pumpster agrees with me that he knows very little about  exercise and/or muscle structure and the effect (or lack of) on the human body. Example would be the following.

"While MUSCLE SHAPE IS GENETICALLY DETERMINED, it can take unusual  means to fully evoke underlining potential". Not sure he really knows what that means himself, just more of his spin. Unusual Means (WTF?).... would that mean drastic surgery? That may be a confirmation that pumpster needs a little more study time on exercise science. May I suggest him starting with BB'ing for Dummies.

Perhaps pumpster would like to present his personal interviews with Scott and Arnold on how they changed their basic genetic muscle inserts and muscle shape? Without surgery, that is. Rumor is that pumpster coached Scott and Arnold on the use of the "V" bar also. Is that true?

Feel free to delete some of the above post of yours, you usually do.
Report to moderator   Logged

F
MuscleMcMannus
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6242


View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 01, 2009, 05:32:27 PM »

Like I said look at pictures of Larry Scott when he was 18 years old.  Look at pictures of Arnold when he was at his biggest at 19 years old.  They have the SAME BODYPARTS as they did throughout their career.  The only thing that changed was their size and definition.  Arnold had the same damn attachment points. 

So explain to me pumpster how does a muscle physiologically change shape?  LOL.  Do the fibers reorganize?  Muscle shape is determined at conception and birth.  A muscle only gets bigger or smaller based on hypertrophy and hyperplasia.  If you want to argue that hyperplasia appears to change the shape of a muscle than fine.  Have at it.  But physiologically speaking it's not changing shape, only getting bigger, so it's almost an illusion. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Montague
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 11882



View Profile
« Reply #74 on: May 01, 2009, 08:23:09 PM »

If you want to argue that hyperplasia appears to change the shape of a muscle than fine.

I suspect/hope that's what he's getting at.

Larry changed the perceived/optical shape of his biceps – not their genetic shape.
And he did it by using less common methods that apparently worked very well for him.

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!