Author Topic: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.  (Read 8487 times)

DIVISION

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16278
  • Bless me please, father.....
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2008, 07:04:35 PM »
I don't agree to the point if I had to wake up & have either Arnolds or Sergios physique....

it would be Arnolds.

Arnold had a better chest, back & arms IMO

Serio's lower half edges arnold a little.

Sergio had great arms...but the shape was big & blah.  Arnolds was big, shaped, peaked, & diced.



I wouldn't want either's physique.

I'm a strength athlete........not a bodybuilder.

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would use the amount of drugs required to attain a temporary physique putting their health at risk just for a trophy......

Lifting because you love it is one thing.......but there's no payoff for most bodybuilders.

Even if you're an egomaniac, most women don't like the mass monster look.........it will work against you for the most part.

Unless you like fucking with fitness and bodybuilder chicks....


DIV
I'm a ghost in these killing fields...

bizzy

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
  • Getbig!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2008, 08:38:21 PM »
Some front shots of Arnold where his quads look
pretty good either in size, defintion or both.


bizzy

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
  • Getbig!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2008, 08:41:16 PM »
...

JohnnyVegas

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2008, 08:47:59 PM »
Arnold had GREAT seperation in his legs. His thighs are sliced uo very nicely, and have greaqt shape. 1980 not withstanding.


Get Rowdy

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1704
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2008, 09:00:09 PM »
Arnold's legs were pretty much perfect imo.

If you look at a pic of when he's 16, the muscle bellies of his quads look quite short, but in his prime it seems as if they've lengthened somehow.  ???

Megalodon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7699
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2008, 10:19:36 PM »


If you look at a pic of when he's 16, the muscle bellies of his quads look quite short, but in his prime it seems as if they've lengthened somehow.  ???


That's true. It looks like Arnold's tear drop shaped vastus medialis actually became considerably longer. He probably got much better control of flexing the quads. He also had unusual separation/detail in the upper quads. My guess is that Arnold practiced flexing the upper quads standing with both legs straight--not just flexing when doing leg extensions with the upper body bent and not just extending one leg forward and flexing. 

Tombo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4725
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2008, 10:21:29 PM »
calf implants lol...

kinda hard for Arnold to look bad back then

Pollux

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
  • I'm kind of a big deal!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2008, 06:48:00 AM »
 8)


Moosejay

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2008, 06:49:35 AM »
8)



You know he'd be ripped on TODAY with legs like that.

The ChemistV2

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2008, 07:36:31 AM »
You know he'd be ripped on TODAY with legs like that.
That's because bodybuilding has evolved from an Art form to a mere Freak show.

dantelis

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Mesmerizing, isn't it.
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2008, 07:45:31 AM »
  I've always preferred the old school look of smaller , but still developed, legs. The likes of Reeves, Zane and Nubret. I think that was a more aesthetic and appealing look. Obviously, chicken legs totally out of proportion looks ridiculous but this modern phenomenon of freaky, chaffing legs is not something I, personally, think looks good. Then again.. since HGH and slin, what does?

I agree.  Bring back the Y shape over the X shape as the pro BB ideal. 

JohnnyVegas

  • Guest
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2008, 08:01:32 AM »

That's true. It looks like Arnold's tear drop shaped vastus medialis actually became considerably longer. He probably got much better control of flexing the quads. He also had unusual separation/detail in the upper quads. My guess is that Arnold practiced flexing the upper quads standing with both legs straight--not just flexing when doing leg extensions with the upper body bent and not just extending one leg forward and flexing. 

This is 100% true-Arnold is on recrd numerous times stating that he ALWAYS flexed his legs, even  just when standing in the line up. And if you look at his shots witht he trophy, with joe and others, his epper legs are flexed ALWAYS so you see the seperation in his upper thighs (rectus femoris). I don't really think anyone else was doing that back then, just Arnold.

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31394
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2008, 08:07:03 AM »
This is 100% true-Arnold is on recrd numerous times stating that he ALWAYS flexed his legs, even  just when standing in the line up. And if you look at his shots witht he trophy, with joe and others, his epper legs are flexed ALWAYS so you see the seperation in his upper thighs (rectus femoris). I don't really think anyone else was doing that back then, just Arnold.
ZANE?

Pollux

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
  • I'm kind of a big deal!
Re: At his best Arnolds legs weren't that bad for the time.
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2008, 08:09:17 AM »
That's because bodybuilding has evolved from an Art form to a mere Freak show.

LOL!  :D

Bingo!