To get to the heart of the matter-just because something wins shows in the past (i.e. [i]swimmers physiques, small arms[/i]) does not necessarily mean it was better than something in the future. It's all subjective. You can't make a claim objectively that swimmers physique look better than monster huge muscles and expect it to hold any truth. How do you expect that argument to hold up. In other words, guys that look like swimmers have better physiques than guys that have tons of mass because that's in the future. Oh brother.
First off, Arnold, Serge, Frank Zane all carry quite a bit more muscle mass than any swimmer I've ever seen and had rather large arms so that makes no sense. Secondly, you could make an argument that the bodybuilder's physique's of old holds more merit objectively than current ones. Why? Because a physique that has no gut, uses less amounts of drugs, is usually symbolic of being healthier. To illustrate-you may have the opinion that a 400 lb slob looks better than a long distance runner and yes you are entitled to that view but there is no way you can rationalize that the slob's physique has more merit than the runner's.
