Bob Paris: speaking the truth - 1986

[Cableguy]

judges and fanboys...

That would be it...

[hazbin]

Bob always sounded like Carl Sagan

[Van_Bilderass]

Gaspari of course could ne>er look like Bob. And what he achie>ed was actually more inpressi>e in some ways considering his genetic shortcomings.

Gaspari probably made the most out of his genetics out of any bodybuilder ever. I think 3 2nd places at the Olympia. He was good but you could easily think of dozens of bodybuilders who theoretically were much better bodybuilders yet never even made it to the pros.

[pellius]

Aesthetics and balance is mostly genetic.  Bob used as many drugs as all the rest at that time. Rich Gaspari could never look as aesthetic as Paris... and it's not because Gaspari abused drugs.

The point where a physique becomes grotesque is very subjective. Bob was HUGE. I'm sure grotesque to those who view Reeves as the ideal.

There is no such thing as use and abuse of bodybuilding drugs. Entirely subjective, use for one is abuse to another. I'm sure many would have thought Bob's use of the new drug hGH was abusive since the effects weren't well known.

Surely there must be some objective standard to abuse. It someone eats themselves to a 450 lbs mass of fat can we say they abuse food? They featured this lady who self applied those derma fillers that are used for wrinkles and her face was a bloated mess. She actually looked pretty good when she just started the wrinkle treatment. Downing a few beers on weekends versus someone who gets drunk everyday?

Anabolic hormones/HG can be very healthy if properly use. It makes you a better you -- at least physically. When it gets to the point where compromises your health then maybe we can define that as abuse.

I love advil. When I take it I'm like a new man by the next day. But I only use it when it gets to the point where pain and stiffness has a marked effect on my day to day life. If there were no side effects I'd be on that stuff year round. (Speaking of which, any update to that study you posted way back when on advil actually having positive effects on hypertrophy?)

[cephissus]

To establish standards of use/abuse re: bodybuilding drugs, you need to define a purpose for bodybuilding.

If the purpose is to get as massive as possible, then as long as the drugs are helping you get bigger, there's no abuse.  If the purpose is to achieve a physique that causes envy amongst your male peers, the ceiling separating use from abuse is much, much lower.

If the purpose is to see how many drugs you can take without exploding, well then it seems like there's almost no case qualifying as "abuse."

Coming up with a definition (and therefore purpose) of bodybuilding, is a much trickier task, however...

[Van_Bilderass]

When it gets to the point where compromises your health then maybe we can define that as abuse.

Sure, but any and all use of steroids can potentially compromise your health. Like I said in another thread, even true HRT can cause polycythemia (at like 100mg test/week). It's clearly described in the literature. It's just how much risk are you willing to take?

Surely there must be some objective standard to abuse.

The "objective standard" for the medical community is any use that is not indicated in the PDR. All bodybuilding applications are abuse. We are of course smart enough to see that this isn't very objective at all. But who will we get to set the "abuse standard"?

Bob thought he wasn't abusing. But Reeves may have thought Bob was in fact abusing. Lee Haney thinks modern bodybuilders are abusing drugs when they use GH and insulin. But some other old-timer surely thought Lee was crazy for using "animal steroids" on himself. Who is right?

[cephissus]

I'm right!

[The_Hammer]

Not nearly as much as you might think.

He was 6' 220 lbs.

He was probably on the typical gymrat cycle.

It's all about sculpting the physique and putting the mass in the right areas like Zane.

[maxkane69]

Sure, but any and all use of steroids can potentially compromise your health. Like I said in another thread, even true HRT can cause polycythemia (at like 100mg test/week). It's clearly described in the literature. It's just how much risk are you willing to take?

The "objective standard" for the medical community is any use that is not indicated in the PDR. All bodybuilding applications are abuse. We are of course smart enough to see that this isn't very objective at all. But who will we get to set the "abuse standard"?

Bob thought he wasn't abusing. But Reeves may have thought Bob was in fact abusing. Lee Haney thinks modern bodybuilders are abusing drugs when they use GH and insulin. But some other old-timer surely thought Lee was crazy for using "animal steroids" on himself. Who is right?

I think Haney and Paris are right! I tell you why, with Haney bodybuilding reached is peak : the maximum amount of muscular mass with aesthetic look without the distended gut that came with the advent of Yates (the palumbismo era of bodybuilding). I might add that Yates in the first years of his Olympia domination did not show any sign of palumbismo ,and even in the last part of his competitive career is gut was not as pronunced like today bodybuilder.

[dyslexic]

Looks to me like a guy whose heart wasn't in the sport. He (or it) ran its course and said "C-ya!"-- never to return.

[Reeves]

Bob Paris was fantastic.

Another point, if I may.  Has anyone else noticed how comparatively articulate Bob, Mike, Rich and Tom were in those interviews?  Especially so in light of the absolute morons we have today.  Coleman is a mental eunuch incapable of expressing himself and he is just one example and to be honest perhaps the most egregious amongst today's bodydoping retards, but still...What the fuck?  Morons the lot of them. 

Plus today's chumpions train with a very limited range of motion.  Contrast that with the majority of the men of the 40s through theearly 90s.  There is more to life than weight training, but when looking at the posers of today it would seem that there is less to them than meets the eye.  Especially if you hear them talk.

[Van_Bilderass]

I think Haney and Paris are right! I tell you why, with Haney bodybuilding reached is peak : the maximum amount of muscular mass with aesthetic look without the distended gut that came with the advent of Yates (the palumbismo era of bodybuilding). I might add that Yates in the first years of his Olympia domination did not show any sign of palumbismo ,and even in the last part of his competitive career is gut was not as pronunced like today bodybuilder.

Well you are talking aesthetics not health. Aesthetics is pretty subjective. Most would not disagree that big guts don't look too good, but it's still subjective. I have seen old timers complain that "today's bodybuilders" (speaking of 80s bodybuilders) all look the same. All chemically developed and all are pretty symmetrical. Saying how it was much better in their day when one guy had a good chest and another had good arms. Now everyone looked identical. Even pretty recently older bodybuilders have complained that now everyone's thighs are too big, when others think they are now finally in proportion. Remember Gironda's ideal? Thighs should not be bulbuous, they should measure the same at the top as at the knee.
I remember Arnold saying that today's bodybuilders have too big necks and look shit, they look like powerlifters instead of bodybuilders. 

So you see, it's pretty hard to set an aesthetics standard everyone agrees with. And if it was set, it would take even the little competition element that is there out of it. The one with genetically correct proportions would always win and the other guys couldn't do shit to beat him, as the guy was already the ideal.

[Reeves]

Well you are talking aesthetics not health. Aesthetics is pretty subjective. Most would not disagree that big guts don't look too good, but it's still subjective. I have seen old timers complain that "today's bodybuilders" (speaking of 80s bodybuilders) all look the same. All chemically developed and all are pretty symmetrical. Saying how it was much better in their day when one guy had a good chest and another had good arms. Now everyone looked identical. Even pretty recently older bodybuilders have complained that now everyone's thighs are too big, when others think they are now finally in proportion. Remember Gironda's ideal? Thighs should not be bulbuous, they should measure the same at the top as at the knee.
I remember Arnold saying that today's bodybuilders have too big necks and look shit, they look like powerlifters instead of bodybuilders. 

So you see, it's pretty hard to set an aesthetics standard everyone agrees with. And if it was set, it would take even the little competition element that is there out of it. The one with genetically correct proportions would always win and the other guys couldn't do shit to beat him, as the guy was already the ideal.

The ideal used to be that the arms, neck and calves measured the same while your chest was the equivalent measurement of both of your thighs.  Your waist should be just that, a waist and not a waste.  Today's bloated, beached whales have the latter of those two.   

[Van_Bilderass]

This is the ideal. It should have stopped there. Much better than the chemical look of Bob Paris et al.

[tbombz]

I think Haney and Paris are right! I tell you why, with Haney bodybuilding reached is peak : the maximum amount of muscular mass with aesthetic look without the distended gut that came with the advent of Yates (the palumbismo era of bodybuilding). I might add that Yates in the first years of his Olympia domination did not show any sign of palumbismo ,and even in the last part of his competitive career is gut was not as pronunced like today bodybuilder.

BODYBUILDING DID NOT PEAK WITH HANEY. FLEX WHEELER, KEVIN LEVRONE, SEAN RAY, CHRIS CORMIER, LEE PREIST, DEXTER JACKSON, VICTOR MARTINEZ, VINCE TAYLOR, ... SO MANY GUYS HAD AESTHETIC, v TAPERED, NO DISTENSION PHYSIQUES THAT SURPASS ANYTHING THE 80'S HAD TO OFFER.

[Parker]

This is the ideal. It should have stopped there. Much better than the chemical look of Bob Paris et al.

That is easily attainable---you have 19 yr olds who look like that, and dudes coming out of prison looking bigger and more cut...

[Van_Bilderass]

That is easily attainable---you have 19 yr olds who look like that, and dudes coming out of prison looking bigger and more cut...

Nah, you gotta have the right proportions, not just size. It's hard to train so you have no ugly quad sweep and a small ass. Like I said, quads should measure same top, middle and bottom.

[evandatp]

He said abuse, not use. Ob>iously, Bob wasn't against the use of AAS, but the abuse of it to the point where the physique becomes grotesque as opposed to aesthetic and balanced. I still don't understand why the 90's standard isn't adhered to today. They reached the ideal combination of size, density, and shape, without the distended bellies and slin look. Who the fuck actually thinks that today's standard is progress? Boggles my mind...

Homosexuals who love hypermasculinity.

[tbombz]

Homosexuals who love hypermasculinity.

flex wheeler was the pinnacle for aesthetic bodybuilding.

ronnie/dorian/ruhl are the pinnacle for beastly(hypermasculine) bodybuilding.

[Parker]

Nah, you gotta have the right proportions, not just size. It's hard to train so you have no ugly quad sweep and a small ass. Like I said, quads should measure same top, middle and bottom.

You have to take genetics into account, some people have fuller muscle bellies, so having quads the same at the top, middle, and bottom is almost impossible...and if you look at the quads from a side view, and visually draw a line, they flare out from the hip, widen at the top, and taper at the bottom. One of the reasons why when you draw you use ovals, not squares, as the body encompasses oval shapes, not squares.

[Van_Bilderass]

You have to take genetics into account, some people have fuller muscle bellies, so having quads the same at the top, middle, and bottom is almost impossible...and if you look at the quads from a side view, and visually draw a line, they flare out from the hip, widen at the top, and taper at the bottom. One of the reasons why when you draw you use ovals, not squares, as the body encompasses oval shapes, not squares.

I'm just making a point. That aesthetic ideals differ. That was Gironda's ideal. He was against squats because they gave you a big ass and turnip shaped thighs. Someone else may think a small ass is ugly as hell, man or woman.

It was his genetics that gave him those proportions, for the most part, and not training.

[GroinkTropin]

You cannot say bodybuilding has "regressed" quite the opposite is true. Guys are bigger and leaner than ever before.

The problem I think comes down to one big thing- bodybuilding is dead in terms of mainstream appeal and profitability for the athletes. What this means is that the genetic pool of up and comers and guys who want to get into the sport is dwindling. Guys with the best genetics are playing other sports. For the most part no one wants to be a bodybuilder except a small group like the Ronnie Colemans, Jay Cutlers etc (who could have excelled at other sports), your homo types like Will Harris and Kai Green and here and there your genetic oddity's who do very little and achieve a lot (Wolf jumps to mind).

I mean overall this whole debate over mass vs aesthetics and what have you does come down to genetics by and large. The reason why so many top guys look like shit is because they are not that great genetically and are super huge because they are mega responders to GH and Slin. That pretty much sums it up. They don't need to train hard, just pump more and more drugs and stand onstage at 250 260 270 and collect a check. But you can see right away when you look at them that the look is not good. It's just an odd look, I cannot put it into words.

The bottom line is that as long as there is no money or fame to be had, 9/10 guys with great genetics aren't going to do it and thus you are left with an inferior gene pool. The guys who do make it aren't going to look nearly as good as the 70's 80's and 90's there is no way around it. The Bob Paris type guys, the Shawn Rays, Kevin Levrones, guys who looked fantastic without 36 IU's of GH are playing basketball, baseball, boxing, MMA etc. Everyone cites the same group of bodybuilders as being "the best ever" and not having "the bloated mess" look and for good reason- they were genetically superior and did not need mega doses to get huge and ripped. They naturally had wide shoulders small waist, great arms and back etc. The drugs simply took great genes and multiplied with great training produced amazing physiques.

I could go on but that is the gist of it. Phil Heath has damn near no competition right now because he is a genetic elite. He should be competing against the Shawn Rays, Kevin Levrones and Lee Haney's of today BUT THERE AREN'T ANY! But he is a great example of how shallow the gene pool is now. His genetics aren't the best ever, they are up there for sure, but there should be at least 8-9 guys who have similarly great genetics that he could battle it out with and there isn't. So we the fans of the sport sit around bitching about the good ol days because it's the fucking truth. Bodybuilding today ain't what it used to be.

[Jaime]

flex wheeler was the pinnacle for aesthetic bodybuilding.

ronnie/dorian/ruhl are the pinnacle for beastly(hypermasculine) bodybuilding.

No he wasn't, he was very narrow, average chest, bad calves.

[GroinkTropin]

No he wasn't, he was very narrow, average chest, bad calves.

You are thinking post- car accident flex. Before his car wreck he was easily THE best a bodybuilder has EVER looked. Check out 1993 Arnold Classic if you doubt me. You will never find a better onstage physique.

[Jaime]

You are thinking post- car accident flex. Before his car wreck he was easily THE best a bodybuilder has EVER looked. Check out 1993 Arnold Classic if you doubt me. You will never find a better onstage physique.

Good muscle belly's, average structure. Any version.