Author Topic: Still the ideal after 65 years?...  (Read 21062 times)

el numero uno

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9405
  • Clean your room, bucko.
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2014, 04:37:20 PM »
Wow that certainly proves he was on  ::)

Well it proves that steroids were available back then, not "6 years after he retired". Again, how did you prove he was natural?

wild willie

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5642
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2014, 04:37:46 PM »
shawn ray was so balanced it wasn't even funny.......the man had symmetry that was out of this world......ok......he may have been a blowhard that turned people off......but as far as his physique goes.......my lord......how do you fault the dude?

BB

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16687
  • I hope I'm not boring you.
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2014, 04:38:03 PM »
Wow that certainly proves he was on  ::)

No, it neither disproves, nor proves, but it proves that bodybuilders had an easily accessible steroid before Dianabol.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #78 on: January 17, 2014, 04:38:13 PM »
No one knows if he was on or not , do you agree ND?

We know he wasn't on d-bol for a fact. Everything else is hearsay

oldtimer1

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17353
  • Getbig!
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #79 on: January 17, 2014, 04:38:33 PM »
Methyl Testosterone tablets were available over the counter right after WWII -

http://books.google.com/books?id=fiYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA258&dq=hudson+methyltestosterone&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xcnZUsi4CuzMsQTyiIGIDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hudson%20methyltestosterone&f=false .

You can see that they weren't a secret product either, Popular Science was a big magazine back then.

So your premise is since straight testosterone was available that's proof he was using? He had a good build even as a 15 year old. For so many decades he was in shape year round until his health started to fail him. So many of you guys believe there is no such thing as a natural bodybuider or an athlete and that's sad.  True the sport of bodybuilding is based on drug use today.  No drugs and the sport would fold.

BikiniSlut

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
  • I'm dating and love Uncle Junior! Xoxoxo
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #80 on: January 17, 2014, 04:40:13 PM »
shawn ray was so balanced it wasn't even funny.......the man had symmetry that was out of this world......ok......he may have been a blowhard that turned people off......but as far as his physique goes.......my lord......how do you fault the dude?

Yes.

At the time he competed there was no one like him. Flex came close....Levrone not as much. Those three were unreal. Bodybuilding should have topped out at them for size.

Vince B

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12947
  • What you!
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #81 on: January 17, 2014, 04:41:02 PM »
Correction. Reeves won the NABBA Mr Universe contest in 1950. There was no contest in 1949. Reg Park came second to Steve Reeves.

When you consider that the first two photos below were taken in 1947 when Steve was 21 you have to wonder what a physique like that could have been with better equipment, methods, etc.

Yes, guys have built bigger muscular bodies but from an aesthetics point of view do they look better? I have photos of Steve up in my weight room beside Arnold and Sergio and Steve stands out like some Greek Adonis.

wes

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66301
  • What Dire Mishap Has Befallen Thee
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #82 on: January 17, 2014, 04:42:39 PM »
shawn ray was so balanced it wasn't even funny.......the man had symmetry that was out of this world......ok......he may have been a blowhard that turned people off......but as far as his physique goes.......my lord......how do you fault the dude?
X 2...awesome physique...........one of the best ever IMO.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #83 on: January 17, 2014, 04:43:07 PM »
So your premise is since straight testosterone was available that's proof he was using? He had a good build even as a 15 year old. For so many decades he was in shape year round until his health started to fail him. So many of you guys believe there is no such thing as a natural bodybuider or an athlete and that's sad.  True the sport of bodybuilding is based on drug use today.  No drugs and the sport would fold.

He was on here too  ::) people want him to be a user in the worse way

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2014, 04:44:33 PM »
Well it proves that steroids were available back then, not "6 years after he retired". Again, how did you prove he was natural?

I don't have to prove he was natural , YOU have to prove he was not.  ;)

and that add doesn't prove shit.

BB

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16687
  • I hope I'm not boring you.
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2014, 04:46:15 PM »
So your premise is since straight testosterone was available that's proof he was using? He had a good build even as a 15 year old. For so many decades he was in shape year round until his health started to fail him. So many of you guys believe there is no such thing as a natural bodybuider or an athlete and that's sad.  True the sport of bodybuilding is based on drug use today.  No drugs and the sport would fold.

No, just that bodybuilders had a easily available drug before Dianabol. Everyone into oldtime bodybuilding points to Dianabol as the start of the steroid era. I am simply pointing out out that it can be widened to just after WWII.

el numero uno

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9405
  • Clean your room, bucko.
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #86 on: January 17, 2014, 04:47:15 PM »
He was on here too  ::) people want him to be a user in the worse way

Guy had great genetics but there's a natural limit, you would know it if you lifted for a decent period of time, like a couple years.


Danimal77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7486
  • Yo Adrian
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #87 on: January 17, 2014, 04:47:32 PM »
You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. Fact is Ciba didn't create d-bol until 1956 , 6 years after Reeves retired. These are facts.

And I actually have the book where that quote is from and you would need to read the book in it's entirety to understand where that quote was coming from. That was AFTER he retired from professional bodybuilding. He didn't achieve that physique from doing that , after he retired Hollywood wanted him to dropped weight for movie roles because he was dwarfing his costars , he went from 215 down to as low as 190

Do the research  ;)

ND, I have read 2 different accounts on his arm size. One where he was stated to have had 19.5" arms and another where he was stated to have 18" arms and one of those measurements equaled his calf measurement. Which of the 2 measurements was it?

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #88 on: January 17, 2014, 04:48:44 PM »
No, it neither disproves, nor proves, but it proves that bodybuilders had an easily accessible steroid before Dianabol.

No it doesn't , it proves there was an ad making a claim.

When The father of steroids ( Dr John Zeigler ) in this country first learned about the Russians using pure test injectables back in 1954 he came back and tried using test on weightlifters and he gave it up after zero success. Lots of ads made claims that never worked , they still do.

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2014, 04:48:51 PM »
Steve Reeves was a world famous bodybuilder. .why would he be taking readily available steroids from a company based in Long Beach CA ?

Ill never understand why people put other people on pedestals...as if he's somehow above taking steroids. Oh that's right...he says he was natural.  Nobody lies either. Roger Clemens didn't take steroids either..just good old hard work according to HIM  ...come on guys.

Not flaming here...just heing a realist.

BB

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16687
  • I hope I'm not boring you.
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #90 on: January 17, 2014, 04:49:19 PM »
Natural as the day is long -

.

No one can prove that he isn't right  ;D.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #91 on: January 17, 2014, 04:50:42 PM »
Guy had great genetics but there's a natural limit, you would know it if you lifted for a decent period of time, like a couple years.



Ouch that hurt  ::) He probably had among the best genetics ever , stop projecting your limitations on him.

BB

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16687
  • I hope I'm not boring you.
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2014, 04:51:02 PM »
No it doesn't , it proves there was an ad making a claim.

When The father of steroids ( Dr John Zeigler ) in this country first learned about the Russians using pure test injectables back in 1954 he came back and tried using test on weightlifters and he gave it up after zero success. Lots of ads made claims that never worked , they still do.

Take the FDA's word for it?

http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/fdanj/bitstream/123456789/13388/3/174001130.txt .

Danimal77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7486
  • Yo Adrian
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #93 on: January 17, 2014, 04:51:27 PM »
shawn ray was so balanced it wasn't even funny.......the man had symmetry that was out of this world......ok......he may have been a blowhard that turned people off......but as far as his physique goes.......my lord......how do you fault the dude?

I agree. Those that hate on Shawn Ray, are just that, HATERS. They don't like him on a personal level knock his body and accomplishments. He had mass on his 5'6" frame, with pretty much perfect symmetry. One that even rivaled that of Lee Labrada. Shawn never gets the respect he deserves. He ALWAYS brought his A game the day of competition.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #94 on: January 17, 2014, 04:55:12 PM »
Steve Reeves was a world famous bodybuilder. .why would he be taking readily available steroids from a company based in Long Beach CA ?

Ill never understand why people put other people on pedestals...as if he's somehow above taking steroids. Oh that's right...he says he was natural.  Nobody lies either. Roger Clemens didn't take steroids either..just good old hard work according to HIM  ...come on guys.

Not flaming here...just heing a realist.

What company had steroids available when he was around?  ???

Why is him being natural placing him on a pedestal? it may be just a fact. Think about it. The guy was 6'1" and 215lbs and had exceptional genetics , he wasn't 6'1" and 240 in 1947 he wasn't even one of the heaviest guys competing back then. He wasn't in exceptional condition either. I mean is it really that hard to be that big naturally? You claimed to be well over that naturally

Think about it , why would he lie? it's not like they would have been illegal? Clemmens has a very good reason to lie apples V oranges

che

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16844
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2014, 04:56:32 PM »


NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2014, 04:57:51 PM »
Take the FDA's word for it?

http://archive.nlm.nih.gov/fdanj/bitstream/123456789/13388/3/174001130.txt .

The FDA is saying he was on?  ??? come on you have to do better than that.

I read about the parachute from da Vinci in 1485 , doesn't mean people were base jumping.

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31563
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #97 on: January 17, 2014, 04:59:22 PM »
shawn ray turned pro at 21 yrs old beating a 'narrow'heavyweight massive phil hill for overall,bombed in 88 debut and never looked back from there placing top 5 13 plus yrs,,there were 2 shawn rays young flatopped version round bellies,good condition,flawless posing,and touted the future,shaved head version was harder.somewhat visually'bigger',even bigger mouth,went upagainst massive bbers then,,guy was flat out one of the best ,,,here's teenage/early 20's and older version...looked great period..

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79864
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #98 on: January 17, 2014, 05:01:29 PM »
I agree. Those that hate on Shawn Ray, are just that, HATERS. They don't like him on a personal level knock his body and accomplishments. He had mass on his 5'6" frame, with pretty much perfect symmetry. One that even rivaled that of Lee Labrada. Shawn never gets the respect he deserves. He ALWAYS brought his A game the day of competition.

What accomplishments?  ??? he won 2 contests

Labrada smokes him in terms of accomplishments , success , physique Lee gets the respect because he earned it , Shawn acted like he was one of the best he never proved it.

Danimal77

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7486
  • Yo Adrian
Re: Still the ideal after 65 years?...
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2014, 05:02:58 PM »
shawn ray turned pro at 21 yrs old beating a 'narrow'heavyweight massive phil hill for overall,bombed in 88 debut and never looked back from there placing top 5 13 plus yrs,,there were 2 shawn rays young flatopped version round bellies,good condition,flawless posing,and touted the future,shaved head version was harder.somewhat visually'bigger',even bigger mouth,went upagainst massive bbers then,,guy was flat out one of the best ,,,here's teenage/early 20's and older version...looked great period..

Yup, he just doesn't get the respect he truly deserves. Dude had an incredible and damn near flawless physique, combining mass with symmetry.