Author Topic: Most muscular bodybuilder ever? (Read 23837 times)

Captain Equipoise · « **Reply #26 on:** April 19, 2006, 08:29:28 PM »

Jay looks like a little boy next to Dilett in the earlier shot.. goddamn.

Bear · « **Reply #27 on:** April 20, 2006, 07:16:47 AM »

Quote from: Bear on April 19, 2006, 06:38:03 AM

I know his gut blew but for pure muscular size this guy was Fuxing massive!

I win the thread.

michael arvilla · « **Reply #28 on:** April 20, 2006, 07:25:54 AM »

i have seen 99% of the pros in person
(going to shows/venice beach etc)

hands down in his prime................... ..VICTOR RICHARDS

Ex Coelis · « **Reply #29 on:** April 20, 2006, 10:31:09 AM »

Quincy Taylor

At 6'4 290-340 lbs, he's a monster. I hear he's unreal in person . . .

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #30 on:** April 20, 2006, 10:39:29 AM »

why is ALEXXX not in this thread?

willie mosconi · « **Reply #31 on:** April 20, 2006, 10:45:19 AM »

Quote from: Matt C on April 18, 2006, 01:20:47 PM

Markus Ruhl is so jacked his muscles don't even "pop" when he poses. They are already exploding off his frame. That's what I mean by "most muscular".

Mo was definitely one of the better short men in bodybuilding history.

Synthol

HICKSON · « **Reply #32 on:** April 20, 2006, 10:52:47 AM »

Quote from: michael arvilla on April 20, 2006, 07:25:54 AM

i have seen 99% of the pros in person
(going to shows/venice beach etc)

hands down in his prime................... ..VICTOR RICHARDS

I agree

Big Vic is the most insane human that has graced bodybuilding.... IMO

natural al · « **Reply #33 on:** April 20, 2006, 11:09:03 AM »

Quote from: willie mosconi on April 20, 2006, 10:45:19 AM

Synthol

I usually don't put alot of credence in the synthol accusations but in ruhl's case I'll make an exception...I'm sure there's alot more "wierd" shit going on with him than just synthol..compare pics of him from his pro debut to now..where has all his muscularity gone?

apollo99 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 20, 2006, 12:50:27 PM »

Sergio Oliva was the man.

LuciusFox · « **Reply #35 on:** April 20, 2006, 02:37:31 PM »

Quote from: michael arvilla on April 20, 2006, 07:25:54 AM

i have seen 99% of the pros in person
(going to shows/venice beach etc)

hands down in his prime................... ..VICTOR RICHARDS

Kovacs was far bigger in his prime.

alexxx · « **Reply #36 on:** April 20, 2006, 02:39:34 PM »

Quote from: JOHN MATRIX on April 20, 2006, 10:39:29 AM

why is ALEXXX not in this thread?

Good Observation!

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #37 on:** April 20, 2006, 06:49:41 PM »

what a BEAST! MrO 2007 no doubt.

Oliver Klaushof · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2006, 06:53:44 PM »

Answer : KOVAKS!!!!

pumpster · « **Reply #39 on:** April 20, 2006, 07:07:04 PM »

Quote

Answer : KOVAKS!!!!

3Dkiller · « **Reply #40 on:** April 20, 2006, 08:12:14 PM »

Quote from: Big Poppa J on April 20, 2006, 10:31:09 AM

Quincy Taylor

At 6'4 290-340 lbs, he's a monster. I hear he's unreal in person . . .

hes no mass monster

Oliver Klaushof · « **Reply #41 on:** April 20, 2006, 08:14:22 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on April 20, 2006, 07:07:04 PM

Whatta beast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

phyxsius · « **Reply #42 on:** April 20, 2006, 08:17:25 PM »

Quote from: JOHN MATRIX on April 20, 2006, 06:49:41 PM

what a BEAST! MrO 2007 no doubt.

More like Mr. Gay For Pay 2007

Ex Coelis · « **Reply #43 on:** April 20, 2006, 08:33:19 PM »

Quote from: willie mosconi on April 20, 2006, 10:45:19 AM

Synthol

I'll assume you mean his biceps - I seriously doubt they're from synthol - its jsut his genetic shape.

Consider Darrem Charles:

Obviously you wouldnt accuse Darrem's biceps of synthol so why Ruhl's? They both just have crazy peaks and a specific genetic shape. Synthol? Hardly . . .

tommywishbone · « **Reply #44 on:** April 20, 2006, 08:48:11 PM »

If someone doesn't post a picture of Vince Goodrum, I'm going to kill myself!

LuciusFox · « **Reply #45 on:** April 20, 2006, 10:09:21 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on April 20, 2006, 07:07:04 PM

He might not look good, but his muscularity was never in question!

willie mosconi · « **Reply #46 on:** April 21, 2006, 08:46:26 AM »

Quote from: Big Poppa J on April 20, 2006, 08:33:19 PM

I'll assume you mean his biceps - I seriously doubt they're from synthol - its jsut his genetic shape.

Consider Darrem Charles:

Obviously you wouldnt accuse Darrem's biceps of synthol so why Ruhl's? They both just have crazy peaks and a specific genetic shape. Synthol? Hardly . . .

I think Ruhl has oil in several parts of his body. Biceps, Delts, and parts of his back. He looks like shit.

LuciusFox · « **Reply #47 on:** April 21, 2006, 01:20:13 PM »

I forgot to mention the back, but you are right. He had a big lump in one of his lats once. $:-\$

the_doc · « **Reply #48 on:** April 22, 2006, 08:46:56 AM »

Quote from: alexxx on April 20, 2006, 02:39:34 PM

Good Observation!

I know you're not 240lbs as you once said, but in all fairness your back looks good and unlike many who give you grief on getbig you look like a weightlifter or atleast a gymnast.(gymnast is not a joke, ever see the gymnasts in the olympics, like mini BB's.
keep up the training, just ease up on the wild weight claims,
regards, the Doc

triple_pickle · « **Reply #49 on:** April 22, 2006, 11:21:53 AM »

Quote from: Matt C on April 18, 2006, 01:11:23 PM

And by "most muscular" I mean to have muscles just oozing off your frame to the point where it looks like you will blow up.

I'm sure some of you reading this met Rich Gaspari in person back in his heyday. By the looks of things, he probably came closest to fulfilling his genetic potential in terms of muscularity:

I swear the guy would burst if he even put on another kilo of lean mass.

gaspari was never "most muscular," perhaps most ripped or driest or most conditioned. his head was too big for his body or rather his muscles were not big enough to compensate for the big head.