the death of bodybuilding...

[candidizzle]

by your reply.   

i dont get it. ,maybe im wetawded

[slaveboy1980]

i dont get it. ,maybe im wetawded

[chaos]

i'm not speaking of it in terms of public interest or quality/size of shows. i mean the death of it as an ideal, the death of the bodybuilder as a representation of physical perfection.

mr olympia used to be the peak of human development, but after a while artificial standards started creeping in, making ideas like "symmetry" fly out the window.

Looking back, when did we get away from this ideal? Was it the Dorian era? I think Haney still represented the idea of being strong and functional.

[MisterMagoo]

Looking back, when did we get away from this ideal? Was it the Dorian era? I think Haney still represented the idea of being strong and functional.

it was probably a slow progression. the first guy who said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter if it makes you stronger, the point is it makes your muscles bigger" catalyzed it.

the guys who say to lift with that weird "time under tension" thing, or advocate "pump by any means" training also probably deserve "credit".

[Palpatine Q]

Looking back, when did we get away from this ideal? Was it the Dorian era? I think Haney still represented the idea of being strong and functional.

It was Yates.

He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.


That's when terms like "conditioned mass"  "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.

It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.

[chaos]

It was Yates.

He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.


That's when terms like "conditioned mass"  "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.

It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.

I think so too. It seems to me that Haney had a classical look/athleticism, while Yates just looked big, didn't look like he could run a 1/4 mile to save his own life.

[MisterMagoo]

It was Yates.

He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.


That's when terms like "conditioned mass"  "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.

It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.

i can agree. the disconnect between the "package" in favor of "most mass with best conditioning" happened then. i've said for the longest time that conditioning is an overrated aspect of bodybuilding. guys like sergio and arnold had horrendous conditioning compared to what we expect out of guys today. there was no such thing as a striated tricep then, no separated hamstrings or striated glutes.

if you have the right drugs you can suck all the water and fat out from under your skin, the real hard part is actually "building" a great "body".

[leon]

Come on people. When did the IFBB ever have an athletic points requirement? Pro- bodybuilding hasn't been drug free since the mid fifties if not before. And as for Mister Natural jack LaLanne we're supposed to just ignore his gay for pay nude photos? Pro-bodybuilding is pretty much what it's always been plus or minus a few grapefruit here or there.

[slaveboy1980]

It was Yates.

He's the first BBer that had a disconnect between all the accolades thrown at him and what he actually looked like.


That's when terms like "conditioned mass"  "granite-like density" were first thrown around as reasons why a guy that basically looked like shit was supposedly the best BBer on the planet.

It used to boggle my mind as you watched these contests. Guys like Flex, Levrone, Ray...that had great aesthetic physiques with plenty of muscle, were relegated to second place to a guy that looked like a cow.

wasnt yates in my opinion...the slide started in the 60s when bb drugs became widespread (drugs were used before that too..i know), but it depends on what we are discussing.

[candidizzle]

if you want to be real then it started with the mr olympia contest when larry scott was awarded the best physsique on earth with those biceps he had wich wouldnt have EVER looked remotely like they did without bb'ing drugs

but i dont think bb'ing is dead i think that its alive and well.

its just never gonna be mainstream though, not even if it becomes stringently drug tested and the judging criteria awards david beckham look alikes

[MisterMagoo]

drugs are not the problem. drugs can be used to aid athletic performance, look at... every top-level athlete today. pick a sport from WSM to tennis, and they use drugs.

the point is not drugs, the point is that the sport shifted from an ideal physique which is seen as the peak of human development to "mass with conditioning" and no other qualifiers, meaning the owner of the physique could be an unathletic blob but as long as he's got the size and low BF he's the "winner".

bodybuilding was intended to represent the ideal, and while that can change over time, we're far from that now. people saw arnold as superhuman, people see jay cutler as grotesque. our eyes can tell when a body is athletic versus when it is muscle that represents nothing.

[candidizzle]

jay trains very similar to how arnold trained though

[chaos]

Using Magoo's comparison........if you had a physique like Arnolds and were standing side by side with Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler and asked 50 people or 100 people from the general public who they would rather look like, I think 90% would choose Arnolds physique.


A physique like Arnolds or Francos or Larry Scott, etc....seems attainable to most people. A physique like Jays or Ronnies looks unattainable and therefore most people aren't going to appreciate it.


Whether or not any of these physiques I've used as an example is attainable is beside the point, some look attainable, some don't.

[slaveboy1980]

drugs are not the problem. drugs can be used to aid athletic performance, look at... every top-level athlete today. pick a sport from WSM to tennis, and they use drugs.

the point is not drugs, the point is that the sport shifted from an ideal physique which is seen as the peak of human development to "mass with conditioning" and no other qualifiers, meaning the owner of the physique could be an unathletic blob but as long as he's got the size and low BF he's the "winner".

bodybuilding was intended to represent the ideal, and while that can change over time, we're far from that now. people saw arnold as superhuman, people see jay cutler as grotesque. our eyes can tell when a body is athletic versus when it is muscle that represents nothing.

cant completely agree with that. obviously its a mix of things, including changing ideals but you cant seperate drugs from the equation.

its human nature: faster, bigger, stronger etc.

i know what your saying tho.

[slaveboy1980]

Using Magoo's comparison........if you had a physique like Arnolds and were standing side by side with Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler and asked 50 people or 100 people from the general public who they would rather look like, I think 90% would choose Arnolds physique.


A physique like Arnolds or Francos or Larry Scott, etc....seems attainable to most people. A physique like Jays or Ronnies looks unattainable and therefore most people aren't going to appreciate it.


Whether or not any of these physiques I've used as an example is attainable is beside the point, some look attainable, some don't.

yes, a physique being  (somewhat atleast) attainable is a very important factor. it inspires people more (in general!) than the "ronnie look".

i think bodybuilding should give people both : question is how to do it.

[MisterMagoo]

cant completely agree with that. obviously its a mix of things, including changing ideals but you cant seperate drugs from the equation.

its human nature: faster, bigger, stronger etc.

i know what your saying tho.

i agree that drugs are a problem, on second thought. specifically, remember Teh Chad's thread involving plasma expanders? the drugs that simply pump water into the muscles, causing artificial inflation with no actual muscle growth.

[slaveboy1980]

i agree that drugs are a problem, on second thought. specifically, remember Teh Chad's thread involving plasma expanders? the drugs that simply pump water into the muscles, causing artificial inflation with no actual muscle growth.

yeah lol remember it. everyone was talking about em.  huge thing over at mayhem.