Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Karma on February 26, 2006, 09:23:07 AM
-
k
-
thats about right...
-
Darrem ain't 230 onstage, no fuckin' way, these guys always lie about their weight, Bob Chick claims to be 250 yet in that 30 days show his arms looked all of 17 inches.
-
Darrem ain't 230 onstage, no fuckin' way, these guys always lie about their weight, Bob Chick claims to be 250 yet in that 30 days show his arms looked all of 17 inches.
Lame.
-
i would believe it, especially since Melvin Anthony is around 235 onstage. Chick was a 240-250 guy from what i hear
-
Chicks hair/hair products add 15lbs.
-
That doesnt make sense bro...
They have the exact same proportions ( chest and arms dominant, mediocore back, skinny legs, good midsection), they weigh the same and Darrem is 5 inches shorter...
Even with the difference in conditioning... something doesnt add up....
Their proportions are not the same, how can they be at sifferent heights? THAT is the whole reason they look different. Different shape to the muscles. Arnold was one of a kind. When Arnold flxed shit happened. When most guys today flex they look they same as when they are standing relaxed.
-
/\
I agree with you, Chick in his videos looks pretty big right now.
-
when a person asks you how much you weigh you automatically add pounds why would the pros be different
there is no frekin way darrem is 230 lol
215
-
Take into account joint structure,charles is in harder condition than arnold was too,and believe or not sans calve's charles leg's are bigger and more seperated than arnold's at his prime.
-
I wouldn't say Derem weights more than 200pds and he is not talle than 5'7"!
-
just because people have the same height and bodyweight does not mean they will look the same, because of muscle insertions,shape of the muscle bellies and factors like that. Let alone if someone is shorter...
peace
d
-
Take into account joint structure,charles is in harder condition than arnold was too,and believe or not sans calve's charles leg's are bigger and more seperated than arnold's at his prime.
Darrem's legs were more separated??? mmmmm NO!
-
peace
d
WTF?
-
Their proportions are not the same, how can they be at sifferent heights? THAT is the whole reason they look different. Different shape to the muscles. Arnold was one of a kind. When Arnold flxed shit happened. When most guys today flex they look they same as when they are standing relaxed.
Very true.
Not sure why this is, but when many guys from years back flexed their bodies just exploded, but with many of today's guys this doesn't happen. I was watching Badell's posing routine from last year's ASC and his phsyique and body parts, though impressive in some repsects, hardly changed in set poses compared to his relaxed stance!
-
just because people have the same height and bodyweight does not mean they will look the same, because of muscle insertions,shape of the muscle bellies and factors like that. Let alone if someone is shorter...
peace
d
How does that have anything to do with dareem looking lighter than 230. If anything that would make him look bigger than 230 not smaller
-
(http://static.flickr.com/14/15111035_b780f344d1_o.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/pictures/mro_arnold.jpg)
-
Well darrems bigger in the legs and u never see an arnold lat spread for a reason! however its still hard to work out where all that weight difference comes from
-
ronnies legs are much bigger than 34", they were 35" in 2000 when he weighed in the 260 range. 2 years ago he came along with legs the size ive never seen, even Flex Wheeler said theyre around the 40" mark
-
how much do you think the oil in darrem's shoulders weigh
-
Like it been said when Arnold flexed he looked completly diffrent,further more Arnold seemed to get WAYY bigger when pumped compared to not.You can see it clearly in some pictures and in Pumping Iron (especialy in the bicep scene where he talks about pump).
I would say Darrem is 220~ give or take,diffrent bodies all togther.We all have friends who are big and feather weight or tiny and like weigh a ton.
-
Darrem is not exactly a 'small' guy.
-
i would believe it, especially since Melvin Anthony is around 235 onstage. Chick was a 240-250 guy from what i hear
Melvin Anthony was 233 lbs, fully clothed, last year on the Ironman weigh-in. Is probably more competitive when around 220-225 lbs.
YIP
Zack
-
I get the information on my site from various sources including (but not limited to): musclememory.com, repetrope.com, all pro websites, and from my huge collection of bodybuildings mags. Plus I ask on ironage how tall pros were during their prime all the time.
The general consensus for Darrem is that he is about 5'8 or 5'9 at 230-235. Probably closer to 5'8 actually so maybe I should change that file.
As for Arnold, try to keep in mind he was all chest and arms. Compared to pros today he was lacking everything from behind except for calves (e.g., back and hamstrings).
And before the ironagers start pulling out pics of Arnold from behind looking big, keep in mind he is standing alone in those pics, and keep in mind I'm not saying he is small from the back, but the objective reality is that he is small from the back compared to pros today. Pros these days are thick from head to toe (including midsection too, I don't deny that).
Re: pros whose muscles don't "pop" when they flex. That is because people like Markus Ruhl and other pros today are so damn big to begin with that their muscles can't pop. They are already popping all over the place even when standing relaxed.
-
Either Arnolds measurements are totally fucked or everyone else is lying... I dont see how this shit is possible....Arnold had a 57 inch chest, what is Ronnies like 63 or something? There is a much bigger difference in back than 6 inches between them... Ronnie has the biggest legs in the pros and he said himself that they were 34 inches, Arnold says his were 27 inches but there are numerous pros that claim between 30-40 inches.. no one has bigger legs than Ronnie that means that a a majority of these guys legs are like 29 inches around....
I know bodybuilding is about looks and not measurements but honestly something is totally fucked here.
Wow! This REALLY bothers you, huh? ::)
-
Muvi darrem looks great but his weight claims are complete bullshit, and if he is then that sucks because he looks much lighter
dont get me wrong he looks awsome but not a ripped 235
-
I'm not sure how Darrem can weigh the same as Arnold.
Bear in mind, Arnold was all upper body compared to pros today. Darrem's legs are thicker all around.
Oh and before any ironager posts the one picture of Arnold's thighs where they look somewhat comparable to pros of today, taken from a low angle, in black and white high quality photography and close up (probably with a wide angle lens too), spare me, I'll do it first. ::)
(http://bodybuildingpro.com/arnold2.jpg)
-
Darrem won the mr universe in the under 198lbs class in 1991.
Whether he has put on 35 lean pounds of muscle since then is open to debate.
I personally doubt that he has.
I think he is a great bodybuilder though!
-
Arnold is shorter than 6'1
I've heard he's more like 5'11
E
-
arnold did NOT have a mediocre back. he had very low lats and plenty of back thickness and detail. his lats inserted lower than most pros today and were plenty thick.
arnold's weight was always changing; he actually lost weight(apparently) from his teens to his peak. supposedly he was 260 at 19-20 yrs old, and to me looked nothing less than 250 at any point, considering his height and fullness.
theres no question he was much larger than darrem, who is narrow and has narrow legs, no thicker of a torso or anything else than arnold including back.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a212/corndog7/4.jpg)
-
I've talked to Arnold in person and he seemed to be about 6' tall, maybe less. Remember, in the movie biz you add inches.
-
arnold did NOT have a mediocre back. he had very low lats and plenty of back thickness and detail. his lats inserted lower than most pros today and were plenty thick.
arnold's weight was always changing; he actually lost weight(apparently) from his teens to his peak. supposedly he was 260 at 19-20 yrs old, and to me looked nothing less than 250 at any point, considering his height and fullness.
theres no question he was much larger than darrem, who is narrow and has narrow legs, no thicker of a torso or anything else than arnold including back.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a212/corndog7/4.jpg)
I doubt Arnold was ever 260lbs. I heard or read somewhere he was around something like 220lbs at his best. The piece was comparing weights of yesteryear's bodybuilders' weights to current ones. Remebering his height, I know a guy who is about 6" who is not THAT far of Arnold's physique and he was around 105kgs which is about 230lbs.
Just found this on his site:
HOW TALL IS ARNOLD? WHAT WERE HIS MEASUREMENTS AT HIS PEAK?
According to his autobiography, ARNOLD: THE EDUCATION OF A BODYBUILDER, Arnold is 6'2", or 1.88 meters tall. His measurements at the peak of his career were;
Arms: 22 inches
Chest: 57 inches
Waist: 34 inches
Thighs: 28.5 inches
Calves: 20 inches
Weight: 235 pounds
-
there are pics of Arnold posing weighing around 260 IN THE OFFSEASON. Onstage he was always around 230-235 from what i gather. Saying that, Reg Park was smaller than him and he was supposed to be 230 onstage and natural
-
Arnold is shorter than 6'1
I've heard he's more like 5'11
E
No way, I'm 6ft and I have stood next to Arnold on more than one occasion and he towers over me. Same shoes BTW. (almost) ;D
-
(http://static.flickr.com/14/15111035_b780f344d1_o.jpg)
Darrem looks retarded, as in a few extra chromosomes.
-
Ronnie is all upper body compared to pros today. Is that not obvious?
-
he ain't no 260 here
(http://www.entwagon.com/celeb/Arnold_Schwarzenegger/images/arnold13.jpg)
-
arnold did NOT have a mediocre back. he had very low lats and plenty of back thickness and detail. his lats inserted lower than most pros today and were plenty thick.
arnold's weight was always changing; he actually lost weight(apparently) from his teens to his peak. supposedly he was 260 at 19-20 yrs old, and to me looked nothing less than 250 at any point, considering his height and fullness.
theres no question he was much larger than darrem, who is narrow and has narrow legs, no thicker of a torso or anything else than arnold including back.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a212/corndog7/4.jpg)
Arnold looks circumsized. Why would they do that to him? Or is he just poppin' wood at his reflection.
Special "BoneHunter.com" Ed
-
Darrem ain't 230 onstage, no fuckin' way, these guys always lie about their weight, Bob Chick claims to be 250 yet in that 30 days show his arms looked all of 17 inches.
Mirzy, are you crippin' on Chick's set? ???
DIV