Author Topic: Arnold's Best Year? (Read 7396 times)

onlyme · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 10, 2007, 04:13:54 PM

Arnold was a master at hiding his flaws!

LOL

If only Ronnie could do that

phyxsius · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:28:26 AM »

Quote from: onlyme on February 10, 2007, 11:52:11 PM

If only Ronnie could do that

I bet he tried

BEAST 8692 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:53:27 AM »

trying to compare ronnie to arnold is akin to comparing apples with oranges.

74 arnold was most impressive in my book.

GoneAway · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2007, 04:54:23 AM »

It's amazing after 35+ years, almost every pic of Arnold (to me) is awe inspiring and you'll very rarely find a bad pic of him. He was truly a master of posing and displaying his body.

The D-Unit · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:28:09 PM »

Quote from: LoveTheSport on February 11, 2007, 04:54:23 AM

It's amazing after 35+ years, almost every pic of Arnold (to me) is awe inspiring and you'll very rarely find a bad pic of him. He was truly a master of posing and displaying his body.

I think that is a smart statement...hard to say that about todays champions....

of course they were not in this type of information age though...training dvd's and websites and 5 different bbing mags to pic from at the grocery store...

Pollux · « **Reply #30 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:32:49 PM »

Quote from: LoveTheSport on February 11, 2007, 04:54:23 AM

It's amazing after 35+ years, Arnold is awe inspiring

You ain't kidding.

tommywishbone · « **Reply #31 on:** February 11, 2007, 07:46:15 PM »

Quote from: Pollux on February 11, 2007, 07:32:49 PM

You ain't kidding.

Of all the bodybuilding shots, over all the years, that shot is the single greatest picture yet taken. One day it may be outdone, but today it remains the pinnacle of bodybuilding. IMO.

DA BULL · « **Reply #32 on:** February 11, 2007, 08:00:23 PM »

1974.................... .......look how impressive Ferrigno is in those pics also, he hasd to be in his early 20's if not for the Hulk, he takes over for Arnold.

BEAST 8692 · « **Reply #33 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:08:18 AM »

Quote from: Pollux on February 11, 2007, 07:32:49 PM

You ain't kidding.

sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.

arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.

the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?

Sjipes · « **Reply #34 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:10:32 AM »

Your right his forearm looks massive, think because it's been enlarged/zoomed then cropped and/or photo-shopped

phyxsius · « **Reply #35 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:12:28 AM »

Quote from: BEAST 8692 on February 12, 2007, 02:08:18 AM

sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.

arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.

the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?

the shadow · « **Reply #36 on:** February 12, 2007, 02:16:14 AM »

arnold was a god amongst men..any verison of arnold except the 1980 one can beat any pro bodybuilder..arnold is god and you just can't deny that

rccs · « **Reply #37 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:30:56 AM »

I think this pic is from 74

GoneAway · « **Reply #38 on:** February 12, 2007, 04:00:06 AM »

Quote from: phyxsius on February 12, 2007, 02:12:28 AM

Exactly.

Amazing shots. Simply amazing.

M75 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:20:47 AM »

Quote from: ribonucleic on February 10, 2007, 03:29:30 PM

1973?

I really don't know.

I'd say 1974.

Pollux · « **Reply #40 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:24:53 AM »

Quote from: tommywishbone on February 11, 2007, 07:46:15 PM

Of all the bodybuilding shots, over all the years, that shot is the single greatest picture yet taken.

That's exactly how I feel. It's the BEST Arnold shot I've ever seen.

Pollux · « **Reply #41 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:31:11 AM »

Quote from: BEAST 8692 on February 12, 2007, 02:08:18 AM

sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.

arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.

the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?

This forum is beyond critical, and your ignorance is right up there with it.

Arnold's arm was morphed especially for the 1975 cover of Ironman.

BEAST 8692 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:39:12 AM »

Quote from: Pollux on February 12, 2007, 07:31:11 AM

This forum is beyond critical, and your ignorance is right up there with it.

Arnold's arm was morphed especially for the 1975 cover of Ironman.

well, i'm glad you posted this pic because if you look woooooolly woooolly hard you might just see that the peak on the right bicep is somewhat more accentuated in the pic that i'm talking about.

it might be difficult for you though. you might have to get your mom to help.

Pollux · « **Reply #43 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:42:48 AM »

Quote from: BEAST 8692 on February 12, 2007, 07:39:12 AM

well, i'm glad you posted this pic because if you look woooooolly woooolly hard you might just see that the peak on the right bicep is somewhat more accentuated in the pic that i'm talking about.

it might be difficult for you though. you might have to get your mom to help.

Mommy helped and she said you're WRONG.

GoneAway · « **Reply #44 on:** February 12, 2007, 07:56:04 AM »

I tried to make the arms the same size as eachother by cropping the smaller picture to make it bigger. Let it be noted that there is different lighting in these shots and a shadow is hiding a portion of Arnold's arm in the 'smaller' bicep.

Has anyone thought maybe it was his OTHER arm that he used in the IronMan mag, but they flipped it around? I guess I'll find any excuse!

Pollux · « **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:24:58 AM »

Quote from: LoveTheSport on February 12, 2007, 07:56:04 AM

Has anyone thought maybe it was his OTHER arm that he used in the IronMan mag, but they flipped it around? I guess I'll find any excuse!

I'm gonna say it's NOT his other "arm" because in that particular shot, Arnold usually raises up his right arm. And on top of that, there's always been a mole on his left arm in the tricep area. The same way there's always been a mole on his right jaw line.

OK... there's my excuse.

tommywishbone · « **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:25:29 AM »

Quote from: BEAST 8692 on February 12, 2007, 02:08:18 AM

sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.

arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.

the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?

I'm looking at the cover of his book, "Arnold, The education of a Bodybuilder" and the cover was printed in 1977 and the pic is exactly the same. I suppose they had one of the early editions of Photoshop? The pic is real.

jaejonna · « **Reply #47 on:** February 12, 2007, 08:26:12 AM »

1982 by far......

donrhummy · « **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2007, 01:39:54 PM »

Quote from: BEAST 8692 on February 12, 2007, 02:08:18 AM

sorry to inform you of this but that pic is most definitely morphed.

arnold had an amazingly peaked bicep but not to that extent.

the mind boggles at the naivety around here. i thought this was supposed to be a more critical forum?

Wow, the ignorance of the digital age. It's not morphed, i have the cover of that book and it looks exactly like that. It's an insanely peaked bicep and when the picture was printed on the cover of the book ( in the 70's) they did NOT have the ability to fake muscles. Sorry, it's real.

eastcoastbbman · « **Reply #49 on:** February 12, 2007, 03:30:15 PM »

they did, however, morph the waist in that first picture to appear smaller. look at the left hand in the top pic and in the ironman cover.