Author Topic: Charles Poliquin poking fun of Arnold's arm measurement! (Read 32402 times)

Lundgren · « **Reply #50 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:20:04 PM »

He's defiently not 62 there's a picture of him with like a inch on george bush. Who's 5 10-10.5 so he's struggling for 6 foot i donno maybe he shrung 2 full inch's in his old age but that seems a bit much

Scimowser · « **Reply #51 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:25:57 PM »

Quote from: The Squadfather on February 05, 2007, 02:07:56 PM

you're making the mistake of thinking that i'm saying that those are small measurements, they're not, they are GREAT measurements, just because they're not the FAKE 23 inch arm, 36 inch leg, 60 inch chest and 23 inch calf measurement bullshit that todays pros spew doesn't make those measurements less impressive.

look my quads are 26" and my calves are 17" yet his look atleast 2" bigger than mine. Thats the perspective im coming from. Like i said your waist and arm measurements are probably near spot on but his legs were bigger than people give him credit for

The Squadfather · « **Reply #52 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:30:45 PM »

Quote from: Scimowser on February 05, 2007, 02:25:57 PM

look my quads are 26" and my calves are 17" yet his look atleast 2" bigger than mine. Thats the perspective im coming from. Like i said your waist and arm measurements are probably near spot on but his legs were bigger than people give him credit for

a 26 inch leg on one guy can look completely different than 26 inches on another and i don't think you realize how big a 17 inch calf is, very few men have calves that big.

Stavios · « **Reply #53 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:37:21 PM »

I'd say a shredded 26-27 may be true cause he had no hams developement

Scimowser · « **Reply #54 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:39:05 PM »

ive never seen a 17" calf as a major thing, theres plenty of guys in my footy team with calves just as big or bigger than mine. Granted it might be an above average measurement but my legs have always been pretty well developed without any direct training so ive never seen it as a hard to reach goal. Im 6"2 so it doesnt look overly huge either, thats how i can draw a direct comparison with Arnold. And IMO his legs were bigger than mine with room to spare

pumpster · « **Reply #55 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:39:08 PM »

Quote from: Lundgrenisgod on February 05, 2007, 02:20:04 PM

He's defiently not 62 there's a picture of him with like a inch on george bush. Who's 5 10-10.5 so he's struggling for 6 foot i donno maybe he shrung 2 full inch's in his old age but that seems a bit much

He's about 6'1", he was a few feet away backstage at a contest. No shorter than that.

Cap · « **Reply #56 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:40:27 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 05, 2007, 02:39:08 PM

He's about 6'1", he was a few feet away backstage at a contest. No shorter than that.

I can verify. I saw him stand and talk to my dad and took a picture with all of us. My dad is 6' and Arnold loked to be an inch or two taller in the pic.

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #57 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:54:32 PM »

Poliquin is the guy who said that barbell rows are worthless, because you waste too much time acquiring neuromuscular coordination for performing the exercise effectively - too bad you'll end up with a rower's back if you do nothing more than pulldowns: wide and defined, but lacking in thickness and hardness.

He's the guy who said that doing 100 rep leg presses once in a while boosts overral mass gains more than anything - because it causes a miniscule increase of 10% in T levels, which return to baseline levels only two hours after the set is finished.

He's the guy who recommended sprinting on an empty stomach to boost GH levels - no matter if you faint do to sudden accute hypoglycemia.

Poliquin is the guy who is a retard.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Mick33 · « **Reply #58 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:03:52 PM »

Quote from: gtbro1 on February 05, 2007, 01:52:16 AM

Flex Wheelers bodyfat was measured at 0.0% in 93

Who did that? Where did such a thing take place, who did it?

The Squadfather · « **Reply #59 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:39:13 PM »

the picture didn't show up for me, alexxx.

The Squadfather · « **Reply #60 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:42:04 PM »

in all seriousness

arms 15
chest 41
legs 23
calves 15
waist 32

The Squadfather · « **Reply #61 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:46:27 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on February 05, 2007, 03:42:51 PM

You only have one right. Guess which one?

you tell us.

TheAnimal · « **Reply #62 on:** February 05, 2007, 04:43:50 PM »

Quote from: The Squadfather on February 05, 2007, 03:42:04 PM

in all seriousness

arms 15
chest 41
legs 23
calves 15
waist 32

In the real world you are right but this is the internet der!

pumpster · « **Reply #63 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:01:44 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on February 05, 2007, 03:42:51 PM

You only have one right. Guess which one?

Legs are 15?

davidpaul · « **Reply #64 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:05:12 PM »

arms 16.5
chest 43
legs 26
calves 16
waist 35

for alexxx

buffbong · « **Reply #65 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:11:58 PM »

come on franco no way franco had less than 17 inch arms he was 5-5 and 200 in contest shape. im no freak but as a senior i had 16 inch arms at 150 but they didnt get over 17s till i was 180 of course that was years later......

benchmstr · « **Reply #66 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:48:48 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on February 04, 2007, 08:47:02 PM

"Anyhow, the Olympian who keeps bragging about his arms having been over 22 inches (in fact, I think that he may have won an Olympia, or maybe two, or seven) is, in fact, pissing mighty rivers down your leg and insisting that the mother of all rain storms is upon you. At 6'1" tall, this Olympian would have had to weigh about 308 pounds for his arms to be even close to 22 inches around. However, his competition weight was roughly 235 pounds. Of course, maybe his bodyfat was minus 15%..."

Who does this clown think he is to question Arnold's integrity?

i will never agree with the fact that arnold is over 6 foot tall,and i have shook hands with the man so i am not talking out of my ass

chris_mason · « **Reply #67 on:** February 05, 2007, 05:59:46 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on February 05, 2007, 03:40:33 PM

What are my measurements?

You are a tall guy.

Arms=16.75" (cold, measured properly)
Legs=26.5" (relaxed, measure just below the buttocks line)
Calves=17"
Chest=46" (not expanded)
Waist=34" (measured at navel level)

chris_mason · « **Reply #68 on:** February 05, 2007, 06:06:52 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on February 05, 2007, 06:03:55 PM

Wow you are good.

Waist is 32 inches though.

No sucking it in!

I have been in this game a long time and have a pretty good feel for things.

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #69 on:** February 05, 2007, 06:28:09 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on February 05, 2007, 06:15:44 PM

I take my measurements flexed. So when I flex my abs are 32 inches. 32 1/2 when I just measure it relaxed. Chest is 45 expanded maybe more I don't know how to take it accurately.

hey Champ, you need to start eating...

daddywaddy, is crushing you these days

ARNIE1947 · « **Reply #70 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:11:34 AM »

At 6'1" tall, this Olympian would have had to weigh about 308 pounds for his arms to be even close to 22 inches around.

----------------------------------------------------
WHAT DOES CHARLES POLIQUIN MEAN BY THIS ABOVE STATEMENT ?

IS POLIQUIN REFERING THE David P. Willoughby.SIZE CHART ...WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ARM SIZE MEASUREMENTS OF THE PRE-STEROID ERA BODYBUILDERS.. ?

IF STEVE REEVE CAN HAVE 18 INCH ARMS DRUG FREE ..WHY CANT ARNIE HAVE 22 INCH ARMS..DURING THE POST STEROID ERA ?

ARNIE1947 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:16:49 AM »

HERE'S FRANCO -ARMS AT 18 INCHES...

ARNIE1947 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:33:02 AM »

"Anyhow, the Olympian who keeps bragging about his arms having been over 22 inches (in fact, I think that he may have won an Olympia, or maybe two, or seven) is, in fact, pissing mighty rivers down your leg and insisting that the mother of all rain storms is upon you. At 6'1" tall, this Olympian would have had to weigh about 308 pounds for his arms to be even close to 22 inches around.
---------------------------------------
THE ABOVE WORDS ARE SAID BY CHARLES POLIQUIN ....WHO BASES HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE charts , developed by David Willoughby.
WHICH CAN BE FOUND AT ...
http://www.mm2k.com/bodybuilding-chart.html

Bodybuilding Muscle Charts
Anthropometrics - How Do I Measure Up?

By Wesley James

TRIX · « **Reply #73 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:47:19 AM »

Too put it into perspective, chris cormier says his chest is 52 inch contest and 54 inch offseason, and ronnie claims his chest is 8 inches bigger and so does arnold? :S chest is a tricky one, because they measure around the back, lats etc. So its not really chest size.

Steve Namat · « **Reply #74 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:48:05 AM »

I don't know the truth, but I think the most of the competitors are lie about their arm sizes. And I don't know why...

Anyway if you have good genetics and good proportions then I don't think that you have to have a big arm size (in inches) to have a big (or big enough) looking arm onstage.

For example this year my arms were between 18.75 and 19 inches on stage. At 198-200 lbs, 5'7".

I think they're proportional, but I think I'll need much bigger arms because that's seems like a requirement on the pro stages.

Author Topic: Charles Poliquin poking fun of Arnold's arm measurement! (Read 32402 times)

Stavios

suckmymuscle