Author Topic: 1974 Arnold vs. 2005 Gunter (Read 11918 times)

Condor · « **on:** April 16, 2006, 05:43:21 PM »

Kinda close.....who do you pick?

LuciusFox · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2006, 05:49:59 PM »

Gunter dwarfs Arnold. Makes him look like a G.I. Joe action figure.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2006, 05:53:37 PM »

65 pound weight advantage he dwafs Arnold lol master of the obvious , thats like saying Ronnie dawfs Shawn Ray

Condor · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2006, 05:54:21 PM »

I'd say Gunter has Arnold in the legs, Arnold has Gunter in upper chest and delt thickness, Gunter has Arnold in vascularity.

Condor · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2006, 07:46:30 PM »

Not sure Gunter had a 65lb. weight advantage, but still, arnold does make up for a lot of weight.

triple_pickle · « **Reply #5 on:** April 16, 2006, 08:21:28 PM »

*** this topic has been moved from ironage ***

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2006, 08:29:41 PM »

that is a crazy shot of gunter, he definitely should have been 2nd place last year.

phyxsius · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2006, 08:32:29 PM »

Quote from: Condor on April 16, 2006, 05:43:21 PM

Kinda close.....who do you pick?

It's always been Arnold.. Imagine Gunter loses all the juices or Arnold consumes the juices that's available in the modern game.

Arnold will win without a doubt

gibberj2 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2006, 08:44:43 PM »

Gimme a break! why is there even a comparison? these guys are 30 years apart

Condor · « **Reply #9 on:** April 16, 2006, 08:59:14 PM »

Quote from: triple_pickle on April 16, 2006, 08:21:28 PM

*** this topic has been moved from ironage ***

No, a picture has been "re"-moved from ironage, but I know nothing of a topic, please, do not insist on giving me so much credit. Thought it was a close comparison, not a CIA cover-up.

Dingleberry · « **Reply #10 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:02:24 PM »

Imagine if Arnold had access to the drugs and nutrition of today.

Condor · « **Reply #11 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:04:56 PM »

Quote from: gibberj2 on April 16, 2006, 08:44:43 PM

Gimme a break! why is there even a comparison? these guys are 30 years apart

Yeah, you're right, nobody has made any such comparisons on this board before. I thought it would be an interesting comparison. I mean, nobody in any sport compares athletes from different decades. Unless, of course, you consider Sanders vs. Brown, Bonds vs. Mays, Clemens vs. Gibson, Tyson vs. Ali, Bryant vs. Jordan, O'neal vs. Chamberlain, etc., etc., or even if you don't consider Gunter and Arnold in the same category, it's worthy of maybe a Manning vs. Staubach? Please, open your eyes a bit.

Lion666 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:16:40 PM »

the oak!

gibberj2 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:42:50 PM »

ok well bryant vs. jordan is retarded. jordan wins every time. ANYWAY bodybuilding is the one that's most difficult to compare because it has changed so much. what IF Arnold had today's drugs? come on that can do on forever. that's like saying "who's better Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov?" Kasparov has computers, databases, a team of Russians to help him and nowadays there's more people playing chess so he has more opponents to learn from AND of course all the games played since Fischer stopped playing... WHAT IF Fischer was young again and had access to all that stuff? how can you argue about that? who the hell knows?

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #14 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:46:56 PM »

Quote from: phyxsius on April 16, 2006, 08:32:29 PM

It's always been Arnold.. Imagine Gunter loses all the juices or Arnold consumes the juices that's available in the modern game.

Arnold will win without a doubt

imagine gunter was from austria instead of germany. imagine arnold was blonde. imagine gunter was able to trick ronnie into walking off stage before the night show. imagine arnold was actually a woman and gunter married her in the mid-80s.

hypotheticals are fucking retarded, prime gunter is bigger and better conditioned than arnold, the rest comes down to your preferences in aesthetics.

ARMZ · « **Reply #15 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:51:45 PM »

Same hight, Gunter on stage at 300.. Arnold on stage at 235.. Too close to call..

gibberj2 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2006, 09:53:47 PM »

that 235 stuff is nonsense

Tigerman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:07:51 PM »

Quote from: gibberj2 on April 16, 2006, 09:42:50 PM

ok well bryant vs. jordan is retarded. jordan wins every time. ANYWAY bodybuilding is the one that's most difficult to compare because it has changed so much. what IF Arnold had today's drugs? come on that can do on forever. that's like saying "who's better Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov?" Kasparov has computers, databases, a team of Russians to help him and nowadays there's more people playing chess so he has more opponents to learn from AND of course all the games played since Fischer stopped playing... WHAT IF Fischer was young again and had access to all that stuff? how can you argue about that? who the hell knows?

Dude, Mr. Garry Kasparov became the youngest world champion when computers were just starting and chess engine strength was very very low. Sure Garry had a team of GM's helping him but so did Fischer... one was a priest or bishop and he's very famous.
Fischer can't touch Kasparov, the strongest player ever.
I agree with you that Jordan dwarfs Bryant anytime!

ARMZ · « **Reply #18 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:09:07 PM »

Quote from: gibberj2 on April 16, 2006, 09:53:47 PM

that 235 stuff is nonsense

http://www.bodybuildbid.com/articles/mrolympia/arnold-schwarzenegger.html

gibberj2 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:15:09 PM »

nah buddy. Fischer didn't have nothing to help him. He only had a second, Lombardy and he wasn't even so strong. Yes it's true Kasparov became youngest champ but that was in 85. Kasparov was at his peak in like 98-2000. Let's look at what Fischer had done. Took out the entire Russian Chess Machine by himself. His rating was 2780 when Spassky's was only 2690! He OWNED Petrossian in a match 6-2. Search for Kasparov's record with Petrossian. Petrossian was passed his prime and did very well against Kasparov. The 20 wins in a row thing from Fischer was insane. Let's look at Fischer's competition. All animals... Petrossian, Geller, Spassky, Tal, Smyslov, Korchnoi. And I also believe that Kasparov prearranged many games. Why don't you also search for Kasparov's against Spassky... he did very well. After Spassky lost the Russians made him throw games and lose to Karpov many times and even to Korchnoi. Everybody knows Spassky was better than Korchnoi.

Tigerman · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:28:49 PM »

Quote from: gibberj2 on April 16, 2006, 10:15:09 PM

nah buddy. Fischer didn't have nothing to help him. He only had a second, Lombardy and he wasn't even so strong. Yes it's true Kasparov became youngest champ but that was in 85. Kasparov was at his peak in like 98-2000. Let's look at what Fischer had done. Took out the entire Russian Chess Machine by himself. His rating was 2780 when Spassky's was only 2690! He OWNED Petrossian in a match 6-2. Search for Kasparov's record with Petrossian. Petrossian was passed his prime and did very well against Kasparov. The 20 wins in a row thing from Fischer was insane. Let's look at Fischer's competition. All animals... Petrossian, Geller, Spassky, Tal, Smyslov, Korchnoi. And I also believe that Kasparov prearranged many games. Why don't you also search for Kasparov's against Spassky... he did very well. After Spassky lost the Russians made him throw games and lose to Karpov many times and even to Korchnoi. Everybody knows Spassky was better than Korchnoi.

Mhmm... it seems we're both chess players. Fischer was a wonderful player but his playing depth was nowhere near the one achieved by Kasparov. You know, the guy got seriously scared by Karpov himself, another great player that Kasparov always edged.
Since you are passionate about statistics, look at the ELO of Kasparov, nobody dominated in the way he did.
Sure Spassky was better than Korchoi, but just for a short period of time. Korchnoi was still winning tournaments in the nineties. I had a draw against Spassky in a simultaneous game in 1996!
Check Kasparov's book, he explains quite well why Fischer style was already surpassed in the late seventies. He wouldn't have a chance against Karpov.
Also Garry, if he just wanted would be still there kicking ass!

gibberj2 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:35:47 PM »

fischer against karpov? that's ridiculous, kasparov can explain whatever he wants. you can't even trust all their games. It's a fact that korchnoi's matches with karpov were fixed. korchnoi said it in inside chess sept 1994. fischer wasn't afraid of anybody he was just so stubborn with his demands. fischer's style surpassed? what does that even mean? fischer had a perfect endgame, he was always on top with openings, he was very creative, he had it all. just comparing the two (fischer and kasparov) Kasparov's got the opening advantage because of modern technology and a little bit better attacker but fischer was more solid and a much better endgame player not to mention an awesome defender.

gibberj2 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:36:53 PM »

Yes from pictures Arnold didn't seem like a bulker. he was very much like Levrone. I don't think Arnold roided in the off-season. Look at the guy's measurements. how can he weigh 235 onstage? in 1975 he wasn't his biggest so maybe then but not in 73 or 74

LuciusFox · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:37:24 PM »

Quote from: cap86 on April 16, 2006, 10:33:11 PM

Didn't Arnold get smaller in the offseason and bulk up for competition, much like Levrone? That's what I always understood to be true. So I don't see how the 260lbs offseason would be accurate.

Yeah, he always grew into contests. In his younger days he did get heavy, though. This was before he lost to Frank Zane.

Tigerman · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2006, 10:42:45 PM »

Quote from: gibberj2 on April 16, 2006, 10:35:47 PM

fischer against karpov? that's ridiculous, kasparov can explain whatever he wants. you can't even trust all their games. It's a fact that korchnoi's matches with karpov were fixed. korchnoi said it in inside chess sept 1994. fischer wasn't afraid of anybody he was just so stubborn with his demands. fischer's style surpassed? what does that even mean? fischer had a perfect endgame, he was always on top with openings, he was very creative, he had it all. just comparing the two (fischer and kasparov) Kasparov's got the opening advantage because of modern technology and a little bit better attacker but fischer was more solid and a much better endgame player not to mention an awesome defender.

No it's not in the endgame Karpov and Kasparov superiority.... They are all great at that. Fischer style was quite tactic, but Karpov brought a more strategic, solid view. He aimed at gaining small, impeceptible advantages. His treatment of the Caro-Kann is still today textbook material.
Your comments on arranged games are baseless.
Btw, I met once Bobby Fischer in a chess club in Budapest, we ended up talking about the big boobs of hungarian girls