Author Topic: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT  (Read 7758 times)

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« on: June 19, 2007, 01:16:08 AM »
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the rec and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on " big" , massive , freaky, etc. This is what I like to call  " GENERATION FLEX" . However , bb is so much more than that . The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos resume to one topic only " not big enough ", " swimmer " , etc. Why do u think simetry , proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and rec level?

Figo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2007, 01:23:01 AM »
Because Zane, as much as I personally admire his physique, wouldnt place in the Nats nowadays. Whereas physiques of the Ronnie, Jay and Baddell mould are the elite of pro bbing. Dexter should be the physique the "kids" should be trying to emulate, you know, with that thing last seen 10 yrs ago, the "taper".
I blame it on judging, and the mags (which influence judging), pushing the freaks.

climber

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2007, 01:35:15 AM »
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the recreational and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on "big", massive, freaky, etc. This is what I like to call "GENERATION FLEX". However, bodybuilding is so much more than that. The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos revert to one topic only "not big enough", "swimmer", etc. Why do you think symmetry, proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and recreational level?

1. I cleaned up your post a bit in my reply. Sorry.
2. Size = Freaks = Ticket Sales. That about sums up the argument.

On another note, they call you a swimmer because by the look of your physique in your photos you'd be a much better swimmer than a bodybuilder. just my two cents.  8)
Hrmmm

BigCypriate

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
  • F****n Peasants!
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2007, 01:39:46 AM »
Is that why you chose to look like a queer bulgarian raver with aids?

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2007, 01:40:40 AM »
they call you a swimmer because by the look of your physique in your photos you'd be a much better swimmer than a bodybuilder. just my two cents.  8)
[/quote    U missed the point completely..but don't loose faith.

will938

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 682
  • No Bull!
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2007, 01:40:51 AM »
Hmmmm, I fear this is just another thread in which sevastase can post his Yul Bryner esq pictures ::)
Team Efferding

BigCypriate

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
  • F****n Peasants!
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2007, 01:47:25 AM »
Sevastase at pre-judging


Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2007, 01:52:20 AM »
How else was bodybuilding to evolve?  If Lee Haney was competitive in this era he would have the same flaws as the pros today do.  If the argument is that pros today are too big, fine.  I just don't like the ironage.us mentality that pros could be just as big but still maintain their great tapers and dainty waists - not possible.  Not saying you're saying that, but some have done so.  I think bodybuilders should develop as much as possible whilst maintaining their shape and lines.
Bodybuilding Pro.com

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2007, 01:55:45 AM »
I'd take smaller yet symetrical over big at any cost.

Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2007, 01:57:17 AM »
I'd take smaller yet symetrical over big at any cost.

It's possible to have both...even Ronnie in 2003 had good lines.  Kevin Levrone in 2000 looked awesome.
Bodybuilding Pro.com

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2007, 02:04:27 AM »
It's possible to have both...even Ronnie in 2003 had good lines.  Kevin Levrone in 2000 looked awesome.
Ronnie in 2003 is the most outrageous thing I think we've ever seen on a bb stage but still ... hisstomach was a big baloon . in 98 he was on the money .

Hendrix

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1346
  • Male Silverback Gorillas Do Not Take Drugs.
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2007, 02:30:36 AM »
Bigger is definatly not better , Shawn Ray i am sure could have weighed 235 but he stuck to his competition weight of about 206 to 210.Rocco jones weighed just over 200 pound in his NOC and got third to bad he threw in the towell.Darrem Charles has not changed that much in 10 years and won a swag of shows not to recently ago.The asthetic guys in bodybuilding seem to do well in the smaller shows and then get royally screwed at the Arnold Classic and MrO where size is everything.
Hopefully Phil Heath not a mass monster can help bring around a change.The only big guy left with any asthetics is Tony Freeman the rest are in damage control with there stomachs.
BOBB SAPP KILLS

Your MAAAAaaaa

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1402
  • GETBIGS MINISTER OF SEXUAL HEALTH
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2007, 02:42:34 AM »
I have noticed in the past 10-15 years that most of the rec and serious lifters disregard everything else and focus just on " big" , massive , freaky, etc. This is what I like to call  " GENERATION FLEX" . However , bb is so much more than that . The endless arguments and squibbers I had with the in house retardos resume to one topic only " not big enough ", " swimmer " , etc. Why do u think simetry , proportions and aesthetics are so disregarded nowadays at both pro and rec level?

Translation, I am shrimply.


ta ta
Pm me for STI advice @ NO COST

Playboy

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11318
  • If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2007, 05:12:11 AM »
In order to win a show you need symmetry, proportion, cuts and SIZE. Just being smaller and more ripped willnot even place you 10th now a days. Thats why guys like Haidar will never win a show or beat guys like Ruhl, Cutler, James or Coleman. Bottom line.
Now if your training for personal pleasure, then by all means, go smaller and more cut but don't even think of jumping on a stage as you will get laughed right off it.

PB

BEAST 8692

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2007, 05:25:08 AM »
ha ha, sevastase, you bring the funny. ;D

all you have gotten from all your heavy test cycles is ingrown nuts and a bald head and now you're bitter because you didn't reach your expectations. lol

did you really think that all it took to get big muscles was a good dealer?

you're not fooling anyone mr 'clean'.

oh btw, how did the swim meet go?

Steve387

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 114
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2007, 05:32:41 AM »
I agree 100%. Also, you have to remember Frank Zane and other similar bb'ers are/were big, just not compared to the likes of Ronnie Coleman.
the competition has a certain judging criteria. whether anyone would want to look like that is a whole nother story, but totally irrelavent for a professional comp, i think u will agree

One thing i really admire about ronnie is his posing, a modern BB who can pose like that, i'm not sure whether it's second to Arnold or not, they are both truly champion posers. Arnold's is more focused on showing all areas, Ronnie's posing adds some other effects with smooth transition between poses, check out his 2003 Olympia routine on youtube, exellent, nothing stupid and not too dramatic..im not a fan of the ass shaking, or the dancing but if thats what the audience likes, thats another story. that thing he does with his arms spread out then pulls them back in the front double bi is cool as well..

columbusdude82

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6896
  • I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2007, 05:55:02 AM »
SevenCocksToTease, I think "too big" should be the least of your concerns... except when it comes to your boyfriend Mandingo's massive sausage with which you gleefully impale yourself every morning.

The_Leafy_Bug

  • Guest
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2007, 05:57:56 AM »
Can we see some new updated pictures sevastase?

Prof Moriarty

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • The greatest evil genius of them all
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2007, 05:58:52 AM »
Is that why you chose to look like a queer bulgarian raver with aids?

hahaha, classic

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2007, 01:11:56 PM »
this thread is not about me...it's about bb in general..

DK II

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31269
  • Call me 4 steroids: 571-332-2588 or 571-249-4163
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2007, 01:13:25 PM »
Can we see some new updated pictures sevastase?

i think he posts an update every 12 hours, just be patient.  ::)

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2007, 01:19:40 PM »
SevenCocksToTease, I think "too big" should be the least of your concerns... except when it comes to your boyfriend Mandingo's massive sausage with which you gleefully impale yourself every morning.

Everyone who seriously follows these forums and sevaste's various picture threads knows that he prefers Lexington Steele. Get with the times, buddy.  ::)

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2007, 01:20:55 PM »
i think he posts an update every 12 hours, just be patient.  ::)

If you watch his pictures closely, you can almost tell what new pimples have popped up and what he's had for lunch.

Dballn247

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6081
  • That's how I roll.
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2007, 01:21:24 PM »
I am completely floored.  No sevastase pics?  :-\  He usually starts a thread as a vehicle to post his pics.  

Bro you look decent for a 175lb.  That being said, if you were actually trying to get into contest shape you would still have about another 15 or so lbs to lose.  Depleted you'd be a skeleton.

You mentioned somewhere that you have competed, what shows were they and how did you place?
\

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: THE " BIGGER IS BETTER " ARGUMENT
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2007, 01:22:40 PM »
let's stick to the topic