STEVE REEVES- behind the scenes (only for getbiggers,,only on getbig!)

[Casey Butt]

I agree, Park did have "that look" (specifically, a large amount of muscle on the delts, traps and upper back, which have the highest density of androgen receptors and, therefore, typically grow the most in response to steroid use) and he was ridiculously strong.  It makes me suspicious of him also.  But his lean body mass was only about 195 (on a fairly large structure - 8" wrist and 9.5" ankle), and the impracticality of obtaining test at that time makes me doubt that he was using it. So, historically, and based on his lean body mass, I'd have to say "No, he was not using." But, visually, based on his appearance, I have my doubts. On the other hand, many drug-tested bodybuilders today equal his level of development and conditioning (albeit, none that I know of have as impressive a physical build due to height and bone structure).

Reeves, I'd have to say undoubtably "no" -- the timing was wrong and his development and strength doesn't indicate it in any way.

After about 1960, practically all high-level bodybuilders had been "exposed" to steroids -- either by using them themselves or knew bodybuilders who were. After 1958 I would suspect any bodybuilder of steroid use, because it was a possibility. From 1952 to '58 I would say that steroid use was possible, but somewhat unlikely. Before 1952, I would seriously doubt that they were using anything. And before 1950 I'd say it was practically impossible that bodybuilders had access to any extraneous hormones.

Some years ago, I did some rather in-depth research into this (actually, it was in tandem with a series of articles I was writing for the now-defunct "Hardgainer" magazine). I've personally corresponded with some "big names" from the iron game (including from that era), as well as some prominent modern researchers at the University level (and above actually). From that, there appears to be a somewhat clear limit as to how much muscle mass a person can develop without the use of exogeneous "drugs". That would appear to be about 25% of untrained, but healthy, lean body mass. Reeves was within that region and Park appears to have been pushing it a little ...but still within the realm of possibility. Jack Delinger, in proportion, was also at about the same developmental level as Park, but he achieved that in 1947 -- when test use was a practical impossibility. Actually, scaled for height, John Berry (from bodybuilding.com's "Brit Show") carries a similar level of development as Park did in 1951 (when he won the Mr. Universe) ...and Berry competes in drug-tested events (which aren't infallible).

In fact, before 1958 or so, there's no physiological reason to conclude that any of the prominent bodybuilders were using steroids. Their lean body masses were clearly attainable without drug use.

For me, this isn't at all about defending or attacking "heroes" because of some religious-like worshipping. I don't attach any moral issues to taking steroids -- other than the deception of people who are setting goals for themselves based on what they believe is attainable without drugs (and that type of deception really angers me). But there's also a tendency for drug-users and people with inferior physiques to accuse Reeves, Park, Grimek, Delinger, Eiferman, Ross, etc of using drugs simply because it provides an excuse for their own lack of development. Many people claim that the "old-timers" were using steroids because they are simply looking for a reason to "justify" their own steroid-use, to put the old-timers on the same "moral level" as current "heroes", or to provide an excuse as to why they haven't achieved the same amout of muscle (i.e. "I'd be that big too, if I was using drugs.").

What's important is that we stick to the facts and look at it unbiasedly.

[stuntmovie]

Great post, Casey!!

Based on my personal experience through the 50's and the 60's, it all rings true!

And I agree with your statement - "After about 1960, practically all high-level bodybuilders had been "exposed" to steroids -- either by using them themselves or knew bodybuilders who were" except that I would be a bit more specific and change 1960 to "1962/1963".

Casey, is your research article posted anywhere on the internet? I'd like to read it.

Can I ask you who participated in that research? If you failed to include Bill Starr, you missed one individual who has a vast amount of knowledge in the field.

In a somewhat related statement - Have any of you GetBiggers ever seen Pat Casey around the time he set the world bench press record at 600 pounds? I was present for that feat of strength back then. Or George Frenn and Bill "Peanuts" West when they were in their prime?

They were the "Pioneers" as far as I am concerned.

[Joe Roark]

why is it so heaRTBREAKING TO FIND OUT THAT your heros were built with the help of drugs....drugs built bodyes and worldwars were fought on drugs...accept the truth...and get on with your life....jesus , Weider was THE master advertiser...gay , drugs, egocentrism, have been around sports since the beginnings.

Speaking for myself, it would not be heartbreaking at all. But I tend to make such decisions based on evidence rather than innuendo.

Just so I am clear on how some of you stand on this issue: What do you consider the last champion builder or lifter to not have used drugs- how far back do you see this going?

I know I am asking for an opinion, but that should not be a problem since that's all you have offered so far.

[gh15]

"What's important is that we stick to the facts and look at it unbiasedly."

the facts are very sad my friend,,

fact a: bodybuilding was never and will never be olympic sport. if steve reeves was clean which he never was during his prime,,,bodybuilding would have become AN OLYMPIC SPORT. again it didnt and NEVER will,,why? because bodybuilder need constant use of hormones in order to maintain muscle mass and improve it from year to year to an impressive enough level.

fact b: the npc/ifbb purposly keep itself seperated enough from the bodybuilders (with a joke called "drug tests" in some shows that a 10 year old can pass) inorder to simply not be shut down. the npc and ifbb dont go for any out of cult publicity,, as a sport,, world wide because it is  A CULT and an industry. i consider myself athlete but society does not!

fact c: steve reeves was  so consumed with himself that he couldnt bring even 1 single child into the world,,majority of people are not like that! you gotta be immature,,,busy with yourself,,,narcsistic,,,and loving yourself more than you can love others inorder to grow up old and lonely with out off sprinngs. with that good of genetics dont you think any one would try to contiue his family tree?  ill let you think about it


dont believe crap that is sold to you by money hungry publishers,,,there is no reason that a 6'1 beast from russia be 6'1 220 12% as of 2006,,  and reeves be 6'1 220 6% in 1946,,,no reason but the use of sport drugs.

you dont lose 6% bf by only shedding 5lb and doing it naturally..,,,try 30lb. some people as i said in many of my posts on getbig,,need a simple taste of m1t,,dianabol,,rough test versions suspended in oil,,or other rough compounds to get full benefits,,,you dont need to be on aas for long time inorder to explode.

[onlyme]

Reeves was just not built like he took anything.  And as Jayem said, he was really into health and eating clean.  I just don't see it.  If he did I would bet it was a very short time cause he either didn't see results or he didn't like the results he saw.  He was great looking (in face and body), had a successful career in Hollywood and did very well for himself and ate clean as heck.  I just don't see why he would take a chance with roids.  Reg was thick and denser and he looks more like he took stuf than Steve.  Did Steve have any outrageous lifts that possibly could result from usage.  And no matter what, if he used it is miniscule to what they do nowadays.

Theymay have weighed more than the average guy cause they lifted weights.  ANd 25 or even 30pounds of muscle is not that much considering the people back then didn't lift like today and if you lifted regualry you cuold easily get that kind of muscle.

[stuntmovie]

Joe asked .... "" do you consider the last champion builder or lifter to not have used drugs- how far back do you see this going?

My attempt at an answer ..... Joe, I would hesitate to answer "who", but I'll make a good attempt at answering "when".

Based on my experience in those days, I would say that the "last" was in the very late 1950's or very early 1960's.

And to continue a bit ...... Back in them old days, most of the population never heard of "bodybuilding" and even more never had any idea about "Bodybuilding competitions", and fewer still (and even those involved) considered it to be a sport of any type.

I could be wrong here but the "sport" concept did not even arise until someone (possibly the Weiders) gave any thought to Bodybuilding in the Olympics.

And I can recall heated discussions of the IOC's admission of other and various governing bodies whose "sporting" activities were somewhat questionable.

Someone even stated that a trained dog show would be given IOC priority over bodybuilding.

And this was all long before drug usage was common knowledge.

The question of the IOC's acceptance of bodybuilding as a "Sport" was the original and prime factor of the IOC's approval consideration  and not the question of drug usage. (At least initially.)

That drug usage question did not arise until a few years later and was probably the major (but not initial) reason it never became an official part of the Olympics.

Has anyone ever read the official IOC documentation that fully describes Weiders' attempt to get bodybuilding into the Olympics? I am sure theat the IOC keeps those records.

At one time the Weiders were successful enough to get IOC approval for bodybuilding as an "invited sport" (wrong terminology) but not as an official sport within the Olympic venue.

Anyone able to offer the facts on that subject?

And -  if I recall correctly, many years back there was an organization that promoted something similar to the Olympics but on a much smaller scale that invited sporting organizations that were not recognized by the IOC. Bodybuilding was a part of that event, but I forget those details and who won it, etc. (I think it was held in San Jose, California.)

Any help???

[Casey Butt]

Stuntmovie, I've never corresponded personally with Bill Starr, but I certainly would like to. On several occasions I was tempted to contact him (I was given his home address) but, for some reason, I never did it. I figure this stuff must be "old hat" to him and not that interesting.

Several years ago I drafted up a set of equations based loosely on Dr. Harrison Pope's research with the fat-free mass index as well as a regression of drug-tested and 1950's era (and before) bodybuilders. The result was a somewhat clear limit as to the maximum amount of lean body mass that could be developed be a drug-free athlete of a certain height and bone structure. Park, Delinger and Grimek, as well as several modern drug-tested bodybuilders are on that limit ...but none have managed to surpass it. I've never published that in any one source, but there are several websites with articles I wrote. Perhaps the info was referenced in some of those. As for the "Hardgainer" and "Milo" articles, they're the legal property of Stuart McRobert and Randall Strossen.

I corresponded with Tommy Kono for awhile (who's a real class act, by the way) and I asked him about the issue of steroid use in the 1950s (who better to know!) ...he said he wasn't even aware of such things until the late '50's and never took them personally. Also, I once asked Ray Beck about Reg Park (Mr. Beck owned a gym in Vancouver in the 1950s and hosted Reg Park's trip to Vancouver in 1956. He also wrote an article for a 1956 Iron Man about Reg). Mr. Beck said that Park had no knowledge of steroids at that time. I can't remember exactly who told me this, but I think it was Tommy Kono who said that Zeigler wouldn't test anabolics on the top lifters, such as himself, because he was unsure of the side-effects and Hoffman didn't want to risk the top athletes. That's why March was one of the early guinea pigs (in 1959) - he wasn't an Olympic threat at that time. Kono was already a gold medalist and didn't need to take such a risk.

Over the years I've spoken to quite a few notable people about this. I'd take what Joe Roark has to say very seriously. I don't think these questions will ever be answered definitively. But it is definitive that steroid-use in bodybuilding was very unlikely before the late 1950s ...and the level of muscle mass on someone like Steve Reeves (again, who had a lean body mass of about 190-195 at 6'1") is clearly attainable without the use of drugs.

[Jay Em]

Joe, I would say that your hypothetical question of when the last builder or
lifter not used drugs would be...impossible to intelligently answer.

And again, using that sweeping brush theory, it's not fair to anyone, in any way, to even suggest everyone did this; everyone did that; they were X-amount more strong and built than a normally athletic guy, so therefore that person had to have taken drugs. And they took this amount. They just had to have.

I realize some of these comments come from younger, inexperienced minds--tho intelligent--but for pete's sake, let's try and keep it a little more OBJECTIVE. And keep arguments and points in proper context.

Some example. In 1980 when editor of Muscle Digest, I interviewed one of THE
most intelligent, accomplished Medical Doctor's I had ever met. He was
a highly respected man in his field of specialized medicine and internal organ
research; having won grants from private enterprise and the government. He
was also a firm believer in basic nutrition, unlike many of his counterparts of
the day.

He was also a champion bodybuilder named Don Peterson.

We discussed the drug scene and steroids in particular at length, especially as
it related to bodybuilding as competitive sport (I used to call it an arty-sport
or sporty-art). He laughed at the way most bodybuilders thought of and used
drugs for personal enhancement. He also said everyone is so different in their
genetics and application of diet and training--and their inter-relationship--that
no two bodybuilders could ever expect to respond the same; therefore, no two
could ever respond the same to steroids. Some he said simply could not respond to any appreciative degree. He said the gamet of genetics in relation
to building muscle, burning fat, training, diet, strength, drugs, ranged from
A To Z. He said we could always broadly classify particular groups but that
bodybuilding was an endeavor of centimeters more than inches. But those
centimeters could equate to vast differences as they were applied differently.

He admitted, by the way, openly with no reservation, that he took drugs,
mainly test, but also said he knew exactly what he was doing, used smaller
amounts and monitered his usage expertly. He also cycled them perfectly,
knowing exactly when to quit. Basically, he said steroids were usually more
effective after a layoff and a restart. He also said he had friends and knew
of others that were very muscular and strong and never touched a thing.
He admitted he took steroids when his genetics took him as far as they could
and it wasn't far enough to reach the goals he desired. But later, he said, when his newly enhanced body still couldn't compete with the monsters, he
saw the insanity of his actions and thinking...and quit; drugs and competitive
bodybuilding. He rationalized it this way: With drugs, once personally
committed, it's never enough. A person will always find an excuse to take
more or continue. If this did that, than this will do such and such...and on and
on.

Basic philosophy does work here if one applies it. As does objectivity. As does
common sense and life's experience. My bottom line is painting that canvas
with a broad colored brush--with all its variations--is simply not fair to most
its applied to. There's so many exceptions. And there's exceptions to the
exceptions. Speaking of which...

Sorry, GH15, but why do you continue to harp on Reeves not fathering a child?
What does that have to do with this argument or anything else? And to even
remotely suggest he is this or that because of not bringing an offspring to this
earth is kinda crazy. Geez, if we all were to judge people and one another based on this premise, or anything like it, we'd never get along...on any level.
No wonder we have wars (overstated point). Maybe Steve's wife couldn't bare? Maybe Steve had a problem. Maybe they just put it off, then it became
too late? Maybe, maybe, maybe. Is it even our business? I have four kids and
hopefully that doesn't make me less or more than anyone else here.

Besides...Maybes are for babies!!

Oh, Figo, I'm glad you...got through your therapy and those tough times...
cause your post made me laugh. It was a nice break in the action.

[slaveboy1980]

i think steve reeves tried em sometime during the 50s but that he didnt use em for long

[gh15]

"Maybe Steve's wife couldn't bare? Maybe Steve had a problem. Maybe they just put it off, then it became..."



adoption would cost him less than test tablets in those days (yes there was such a thing,,still is)

oh mr reeves had a problem,,that problem is called shooting blanks in your american slang ,,,then again he most likely was too selfish and into his loved self inorder to devote time to a child. waste of "genetics" huh?

you dont die at 70 something and claim for healthy life style,,,stop lieing to youself my friend.

healthy people see the number 80,,,90,,,, (gerald ford,,,george bush,,,both had a lot more stress in their life than reeves yet lived to see him dead,,,why? i think you know part of the answer)

pay attention how i never say a thing about jack,,,he is old and healthy! oh,,,and NATURAL.

[onlyme]

"Maybe Steve's wife couldn't bare? Maybe Steve had a problem. Maybe they just put it off, then it became..."



adoption would cost him less than test tablets in those days (yes there was such a thing,,still is)

oh mr reeves had a problem,,that problem is called shooting blanks in your american slang ,,,then again he most likely was too selfish and into his loved self inorder to devote time to a child. waste of "genetics" huh?

you dont die at 70 something and claim for healthy life style,,,stop lieing to youself my friend.

healthy people see the number 80,,,90,,,, (gerald ford,,,george bush,,,both had a lot more stress in their life than reeves yet lived to see him dead,,,why? i think you know part of the answer)

pay attention how i never say a thing about jack,,,he is old and healthy! oh,,,and NATURAL.

I like this post.   SO becasue Steve had no children he was using steroids.   At least that's what I got from it.  Could only read it once. 

[stuntmovie]

Casey, Your study is way over my head but I gotta back you up regarding your regards for Tommy Kono. I've known Tommy for many years and have to admit that I have never met a finer athlete and gentleman. My association with Tommy and the Olympic lifters under his coaching has been a memorial experience on my part.

While on the subject of Mr Kono, let me also mention Dr Peter George and Harold Sakada (Odd Job) who were also close friends of Tommy's and great lifters in their own rights.

But I have to admit that I never discussed drugs with any of them.

And Bill Starr! He can tell you stories that would win the Pulitzer Prize and keep you laughing along the way. A phenominal guy with unbelievable experiences in the Iron Game. I also knew Bill for a good number of years and have the honor of  being mentioned in his book, "Only the Strong Shall Survive!"

I pray that he writes his story one day!

As for your studies, I would be of little help. I only lifted to see and experience the results, but never had a clue on what made it happen other than lifting heavy things.

I seldom brag but the occasion appears right here ..... I really did like lifting heavy things back when lifting heavy things was possible.

I have been told by San Francisco Firemen that something I did while I was in high school is still talked about in Basic Training (?) with new recruits in the Fire Dept.

According to my source, there has only been one fire hydrant stolden and still missing from the city of San Francisco. They are never missing because they are too damn heavy. Cept for one that's still AWOL.

That fire hydrant is still in the basement of my old house in the Sunset District. I picked it up and carried it home two miles away after a drunk hit it on Lincoln Highway ajacent to the Golden Gate Park.

I think I was the guy in the passenger seat!

[Casey Butt]

I was amazed that Tommy Kono would even take the time to correspond with me. I was just learning the Olympic Lifts at the time and his genuine interest in my progress surprised me. I slipped the steroid topic in as respectfully as possible, but he wasn't at all "touchy". Even a year or so later he would check up on my progress. That was several years ago now. He seemed modest about his accomplishments. He mentioned Pete George to me. I think he didn't want to steal all the limelight for himself. If he remembers me it's probably because I'm in Newfoundland, Canada ...quite a contrast to Hawaii.

You reminded me of an old Reg Park story ...when Reg Park first arrived in Vancouver in 1956, Ray Beck took him out on the town. He said that they staggered home fairly drunk early in the morning.  At that time, Mr. Beck lived in the apartment above the gym. A few hours after they "passed out" he was awoken by a clanging in the gym downstairs. He went downstairs to see what was happening and Park was down there Front Squatting with 405 ...he said he couldn't miss his workout.

I tried the same thing one time in a little town south of Odessa, Ukraine. I drank half the vodka in Ukraine the night before, but I remembered what Mr. Beck had told me ...and I was all fired up because the gym was a real weightlifting dungeon and I was lifting those old red plates from the Soviet era. I'd glance over at the cyrillic letters on the plates and pound out another rep with visions of Alexeyev in my head (plus I had to show the Ukrainians how strong us westerners are ). Anyway, I ended up blacking out and woke up with an old Ukrainian lady taking my blood pressure. Certainly the strangest workout I can remember.

[stuntmovie]

Good story, Casey! I first met Reg when he was still a young pup in Oakland, California. (Mid 50's.) He covered for Steve Reeves at a contest in which Steve was supposed to make an appearence but could not show up for some unknown reason.

Reg came out of the audiance to help the promoter and did some strength feats with some special 90 pound dumbells. I don't recall how many times he pressed those dumbells overhead but I do recall that it impressed the hell out of me and I was no slacker when it came to doing that sort of lifting myself. (Nowhere 90's though!)

After Reg's strength demonstration, they held a raffel for an olympic set and I was just one number away from winning it. Strange that I recall that so vividly. An elderly lady won it and I often wondered how she ever got it home and if anyone ever lifted it once it got there.

BTW, is anyone in contact with Jon Jon? Or know what he is doing these days? Last I heard he was in the gym business somewhere down in the L.A. area.

I never did meet Mr Beck. At least I don't recall ever meeting him.

Does anyone here remember the old timer who had an amazing muscle control act during the days when Gene Mozee was MC'en the contests?

Casey, I guess you know that Dr Peter George was/is a dentist. The last time I spoke with him years ago, he was working on a snoring cure. Are you aware that them Hawaiin guys beat the York Olympic Team once? I think Tommy lived in Sacramento at that time but could be mistaken. And are you aware that Tommy won a prestigious bodybuilding contest while he was olympic lifting? That title escapes me at present.

Thanks for the memories, Casey. Great times in them old days.

[Joe Roark]

Good story, Casey! I first met Reg when he was still a young pup in Oakland, California. (Mid 50's.) He covered for Steve Reeves at a contest in which Steve was supposed to make an appearence but could not show up for some unknown reason.

Reg came out of the audiance to help the promoter and did some strength feats with some special 90 pound dumbells. I don't recall how many times he pressed those dumbells overhead but I do recall that it impressed the hell out of me and I was no slacker when it came to doing that sort of lifting myself. (Nowhere 90's though!)

After Reg's strength demonstration, they held a raffel for an olympic set and I was just one number away from winning it. Strange that I recall that so vividly. An elderly lady won it and I often wondered how she ever got it home and if anyone ever lifted it once it got there.

BTW, is anyone in contact with Jon Jon? Or know what he is doing these days? Last I heard he was in the gym business somewhere down in the L.A. area.

I never did meet Mr Beck. At least I don't recall ever meeting him.

Does anyone here remember the old timer who had an amazing muscle control act during the days when Gene Mozee was MC'en the contests?

Casey, I guess you know that Dr Peter George was/is a dentist. The last time I spoke with him years ago, he was working on a snoring cure. Are you aware that them Hawaiin guys beat the York Olympic Team once? I think Tommy lived in Sacramento at that time but could be mistaken. And are you aware that Tommy won a prestigious bodybuilding contest while he was olympic lifting? That title escapes me at present.

Thanks for the memories, Casey. Great times in them old days.

Park was very good at dumbells pressing: by 1956 could manage 125 in each hand.
Was the muscle control artist you mentioned Ed Jubinville?
Kono won the Mr. Universe which was connected sometimes to the World Weightlifting Championships.

If you know any more details about the Olympic set being raffled, please share. I was aware of a set being given away as a door prize at Terlazzo's fourth show in NYC, and always thought it would still be an excellent draw these days as a door prize - especially for someone who had driven to the show and could haul it away.

[Cleanest Natural]

joe, as sad as it sounds, based on my memory and info i bumped into while tracing drugs in sports and even narcotics or opiates in life in general, i'll have to agree with gh15 and say that we need to look at mr sandow for a food aided growth natural athlete.

[Casey Butt]

I think a large part of the problem when discussing the drug-free status of certain bodybuilders is simple jealousy. Drug-users don't want to admit that some people have built superior physiques than them, simply through hard work, time and dedication. And many natural athletes who have failed to achieve their physique goals prefer to believe that they have failed only because they're not taking steroids (i.e. "I'd be just as good as him if I was using steroids). All the strong and very well-built, drug-free lifters I have known have no problem accepting that Reeves, etc were drug-free. It's the drug-users and people who never seem to leave the "beginner" and "intermediate" categories that always point the finger.

Statistically, for my height and bone structure, I'm carrying roughly the same amount of muscle as Reeves. I'm completely drug-free, always was, and always will be ...and I have no problem whatsoever accepting that Reeves didn't take test.

The burden of proof lies on the accusers in this case. There's no physiological reason to believe that the pre-1960s lifters were hormone-users -- their levels of muscular development simply didn't necessitate it  (that and the fact that they would not have had access to what was then an experimental drug that wasn't even FDA-approved for prescription). Statistical analyses of the American Weightlifting team performances (which have been published several times over the years in peer reviewed academic journals) indicates that it was the 1960s before western teams began using anabolics/androgenics.

So rather than cling desperately to the comforting illusion that all successful lifters have used drugs, it would be of much greater benefit to people if they used drug-free lifters as positive role models and examples of what can be achieved. Making unsubstantiated claims about people, based simply on unqualified personal bias, doesn't help the accuser or the accused in this case.

[Cleanest Natural]

u and reeves are alike ?...riiiight u are either a beginer and/or delussional....sorry..bu t it's true

[BEAST 8692]

I think a large part of the problem when discussing the drug-free status of certain bodybuilders is simple jealousy. Drug-users don't want to admit that some people have built superior physiques than them, simply through hard work, time and dedication. And many natural athletes who have failed to achieve their physique goals prefer to believe that they have failed only because they're not taking steroids (i.e. "I'd be just as good as him if I was using steroids). All the strong and very well-built, drug-free lifters I have known have no problem accepting that Reeves, etc were drug-free. It's the drug-users and people who never seem to leave the "beginner" and "intermediate" categories that always point the finger.

Statistically, for my height and bone structure, I'm carrying roughly the same amount of muscle as Reeves. I'm completely drug-free, always was, and always will be ...and I have no problem whatsoever accepting that Reeves didn't take test.

The burden of proof lies on the accusers in this case. There's no physiological reason to believe that the pre-1960s lifters were hormone-users -- their levels of muscular development simply didn't necessitate it  (that and the fact that they would not have had access to what was then an experimental drug that wasn't even FDA-approved for prescription). Statistical analyses of the American Weightlifting team performances (which have been published several times over the years in peer reviewed academic journals) indicates that it was the 1960s before western teams began using anabolics/androgenics.

So rather than cling desperately to the comforting illusion that all successful lifters have used drugs, it would be of much greater benefit to people if they used drug-free lifters as positive role models and examples of what can be achieved. Making unsubstantiated claims about people, based simply on unqualified personal bias, doesn't help the accuser or the accused in this case.

i noticed you have pointed out your achievements as compared to reeves. god knows how you've done this (comparison). are you the same body fat, structure, height, etc, etc or have you used some sort of scaling. if so you could probably refer to a dwarf or even a dog comparing with reeves. needless to say it's fraught with danger ie stating that park and reeves were the same muscle mass wise gave me a good belly laugh.

look, let's not get all defensive or turn this into a pissing contest worthy of the gossip section. jesus, maybe we could go 700 pages or something.

people on this thread no a shit load more than me on bbing history i can tell you that much and, as for reeves, i will reserve judgement.

but please, don't tell me i'm jealous because i can tell the difference between urine and lemonade and know when i've been pissed on, which is exactly what bbing 'authorities' have being doing to us for decades, telling us a WHOLE bunch of BULL SHIT.

i happen to be interested in just how far this fraud goes and how far back. i am not judging any of the competitors because they did what they had to do, whether that be eating bananas or dianabol, but i'm curious.

why wouldn't i be curious? scientists and doctors were telling us that anabolics didn't even build muscle whilst weider was selling milk powder marked up by about a million %. well, i guess he got rich as hell in the end, but i feel cheated out of the 20 odd dollars i spent on the mail order tub of 'massive weight gainer' when i was 16 years old. i didn't get anything but a severe case of diarrhoea from that stuff (thank god. i might have bought some more).

i want to know just how much anabolics actually made a difference. i am not remotely interested in individuals (sorry, i couldn't give a shit about reeves, park or arnold for that matter), but excuse me for being a little confused when i see a guy at one end of the spectrum recommending all day sessions 6 days a week along with 600 odd grams of protein (arnold, nubret, callender) and then the other side there's the complete opposite ie least amount of time possible (training) and nil emphasis on protein (mentzer, viator), then there's some in between, some that emphasize diet, some training, etc. i've got arthur jones disciples telling me they know exactly what truly develops muscle and then the most recent article i've read on jones has the man himself stating that neither he nor anyone else KNOW exactly what develops muscle and strength.

i know there has to be one consistant amongst all these individuals apart from genetics (which no one can do anything about so why even mention it?).

i assure you i am not jealous. i am not even a bber (although i have a vested interest in speed, power and strength in relation to my chosen sport) and i weigh 230lbs in very good shape (although i have taken steroids so that should make the heroes feel better. i've just eliminated myself from any potential pissing contest). i have no doubt i can get a great deal bigger if i wanted to (with anabolics as an essential inclusion of course;D) but it would impede my goals ie speed, agility, stamina, skill. having a shit load of muscle on my frame is sometimes tempting (i'd personally take being as big and strong as a gorilla over agility and endurance any day), but i know it absolutely kills my performance every time i get seduced.

enough about you and i. on with the pursuit of knowledge.

the wonderful thing about message boards is that we can totally disregard established societal criterion re burden of proof/political correctness/religious belief/prejudice/bias. let the discussion flow and the anal retentive go f**k themselves i say.

[knny187]

Some of you guys kill me.


Who cares if Steve did or did not use gear?


You all make it sound that if any guy (even with poor genetic disposition) took gear.....they would be huge, large & strong.

Steve very well may have been natural.  Then again...he may have experimented once or twice...who cares.  Honestly, Steve has a great physique....but it's nothing I would aspire wanting to look like.  In the Golden Age of bodybuilding....I look at Arnold, Franco, Dave, & Bill as aspirations.

[BEAST 8692]

Some of you guys kill me.


Who cares if Steve did or did not use gear?


You all make it sound that if any guy (even with poor genetic disposition) took gear.....they would be huge, large & strong.

Steve very well may have been natural.  Then again...he may have experimented once or twice...who cares.  Honestly, Steve has a great physique....but it's nothing I would aspire wanting to look like.  In the Golden Age of bodybuilding....I look at Arnold, Franco, Dave, & Bill as aspirations.

i absolutely agree

[Jay Em]

Gh15, I just have to say that it certainly seems like when it comes to Steve
Reeves, your thoughts and words are driven more by (some sort of) jealousy than by logic (as in philosophy).

'47 America competitor, Eric Pedersen was said to feel and act quite jealous towards Reeves. Might you be GH15 a competitor from those days? You obviously do not live in America (not that that's important, but just as point).

What axe are you grinding, and why? I guess it was a great idea to start your
thread on Reeves, etc., but geez, how many daggers must you throw. Your
comments on Reeves and an absence of children just makes nooooo sense. How many children do you have? Has that made you a better person than the next guy (other than the importance all good fathers place on being just that...). Also, does being a father mean a person is excempt from any wrongdoing, or indecretion in life. Further, a fatherless man is one more selfish and deceitful than not?

It's great in this alleged debate that we can have people like Joe Roark, Only,
and Stuntmovie (I'm biased with stunt cause he's a former Marine officer
and Vietnam Vet, for personal reasons only) provide their input because of
their vast experience and in some cases, first-hand.

And Casey you have brought forth some great research elements, not to mention what looks like, a very muscular physique. And I understood your
analogy was for example. I didn't take it as self-adulation at all. That's the
biggest problem I have with the net and these forums: People have a
tendency to take things out of context and formulate their own slant or
agenda, whatever that may be (and get away with it).

Really, though, most contributors have added to the discource of this subject.
But, in a way, we just end up going around towards 360 degrees and ending
up in the same place. Some contributors I feel have not really taken the time
to read every sentence and paragraph to ascertain proper context. Sometimes,
all of us should re-read things others say or write before jumping off a bridge
with baited breath. Some of these points that seem to know no bounds, just
keep a life of their own...when they don't deserve the time of day!  (Stunt,
can you imagine going around in circles with broken compass in the jungle?)

What more can a person say about the same thing(s)? Repetition works much
better in the weight room than it does on a message board (and I tend to be
a lower rep man, so...).

More dittos!

[pumpster]

look, let's not get all defensive or turn this into a pissing contest worthy of the gossip section. jesus, maybe we could go 700 pages or something.

Funny because this Beastiality does everything he just listed on other boards, due to the fact that he has no life.

[gh15]

Gh15, I just have to say that it certainly seems like when it comes to Steve
Reeves, your thoughts and words are driven more by (some sort of) jealousy than by logic (as in philosophy).

'47 America competitor, Eric Pedersen was said to feel and act quite jealous towards Reeves. Might you be GH15 a competitor from those days? You obviously do not live in America (not that that's important, but just as point).

What axe are you grinding, and why? I guess it was a great idea to start your
thread on Reeves, etc., but geez, how many daggers must you throw. Your
comments on Reeves and an absence of children just makes nooooo sense. How many children do you have? Has that made you a better person than the next guy (other than the importance all good fathers place on being just that...). Also, does being a father mean a person is excempt from any wrongdoing, or indecretion in life. Further, a fatherless man is one more selfish and deceitful than not?

It's great in this alleged debate that we can have people like Joe Roark, Only,
and Stuntmovie (I'm biased with stunt cause he's a former Marine officer
and Vietnam Vet, for personal reasons only) provide their input because of
their vast experience and in some cases, first-hand.

And Casey you have brought forth some great research elements, not to mention what looks like, a very muscular physique. And I understood your
analogy was for example. I didn't take it as self-adulation at all. That's the
biggest problem I have with the net and these forums: People have a
tendency to take things out of context and formulate their own slant or
agenda, whatever that may be (and get away with it).

Really, though, most contributors have added to the discource of this subject.
But, in a way, we just end up going around towards 360 degrees and ending
up in the same place. Some contributors I feel have not really taken the time
to read every sentence and paragraph to ascertain proper context. Sometimes,
all of us should re-read things others say or write before jumping off a bridge
with baited breath. Some of these points that seem to know no bounds, just
keep a life of their own...when they don't deserve the time of day!  (Stunt,
can you imagine going around in circles with broken compass in the jungle?)

What more can a person say about the same thing(s)? Repetition works much
better in the weight room than it does on a message board (and I tend to be
a lower rep man, so...).

More dittos!

no my friend,,as i said over 100 times before,,im a CURRENT IFBB pro bodybuilder. i LIKE steeve reeves the bodybuilder
but i know what it takes since i been there and still are (Thank you lord)

yes steve reeves didnt have my muscle mass,,but so are many other wonderful physiqes around the usa and the rest of the world,,,that visit gyms day in day out and are hormonized to some degree.

the reason i mentioned children here is to show you how selfish one can be,,,you know you can adopt kids at your late 40s,,,you dont have to actually make them,,,he didnt bother with kids because he was self centered,,,no time for kids in his world,, period.

the reason i mentioned age 73,,,,is to demonstrate how an "amazing genetics" went kapoot at quite young age for this times. its not like he was born in 1824,,,you are talking here about a "HEALTH" freak that passed away before he touched the number 75. you got ronald reagan with ALZHEIMER living to see age 94!! you gotta get back to reailty my friend,,,this sport is very concited full of blown egos and fragile self esteems,,,when you build your career as a "natural",,,you wont let any one destroy you,,,even as of 2000s,,just ask skip,,,or maybe not

you dont need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots. listen to someone who is in the game and big big time in the game,,sandow was natural,,,jack L was natural (not london ) ......reeves,, ummm he was what we call today clean.
 

[Casey Butt]

Reeves carried just under 25% more lean body mass than the average "fit" man of his height and structure ...as do I. That assessment is based on about 10 years of research into, and analysis of, anthropometric data. I have degrees in mathematics and statistics, physics and engineering that allow such analysis. I don't mean to throw credentials around, I mention it merely to assure you that I'm no stranger to the scientific process or the analysis of data ...in fact, it's my "job".

Many natural trainees around the world, carry a similar (and greater) level of development than me. I didn't claim that I have a better physique than Reeves, that my "achievement" is in any way equal to his, or that we are "alike". I simply stated that, proportionally, we have added roughly the same amount of muscle mass to our frames. I will also state that with the proper training, dedication and patience almost anybody can do the same thing. If that offends some people then I think they probably aren't mature enough to warrant a response anyway. But I would also add that it is easy to call me delusional, but I am one of the few people here who is posting under his real name with his real photo in the corner. I may be under a "delusion", but I am not attempting to hide behind an "illusion" of any sort.

How I compared Reeves and Park: There is nothing funny about it. Reeves weighed 213 when he won the Mr. Universe in 1950. Park weighed 214 when he won it the following year. They are both the same height, however Park had an 8" wrist versus Reeves' 7.5" wrist. They both had the same ankle measurement. Also, Park was slightly leaner in 1951 than Reeves was in 1950. Therefore, Park carried, at most, only a few pounds more muscle mass than Reeves, and his heavier upper body bone structure would predict that.

It really doesn't matter to me if Reeves used drugs or not. However, for some people it does because strong positive role-models are necessary for drug-free beginners and intermediates. People need to know what is capable without drugs so they know where to set ambitious, but realistic, goals for themselves ...without the use of drugs.

I joined this board compulsively when I saw some obvious misinformation being spread by people who, quite honestly, aren't qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject. I don't consider myself an "authority" but I do know a lot more than most people about this - I've been at this for a long time and I've seen this stuff hashed around for years. At the same time, there are some people on here who do speak with some authority on these matters. I cannot state emphatically that any of these men did or did not use drugs. However, given the history of anabolic steroids, and the level of development they carried, I can say that it was highly unlikely that they were drug-users.

Ahhh Jay -- a perfect example of a man with a well-developed physique who feels no need to doubt or slander the "old-timers". Thanks for the "support", by the way, but I'm afraid this thread definitely has that "gettin' ugly" smell to it.