Author Topic: Phil Heath Makes Arm Size Liars of all Pros in History! (Read 45917 times)

Figo · « **Reply #25 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:38:14 AM »

Quote from: dutchguy on September 19, 2011, 02:06:52 AM

Haney's were 19 at best, maybe closer to 18.

haneys arms were overshadowed by his immense torso, very thick chest, and huge wide thick lats, much like yates, this makes the arms appear smaller, while they're actually not

haney probably had 19 1/2, maybe 20in arms onstage, the fact he had high biceps didnt help

Naggash · « **Reply #26 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:41:21 AM »

Phils arms look massive when he is alone due to insertions etc

When he was standing next to WOlf they didnt look so huge

mesmorph78 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:42:12 AM »

Quote from: asbrus on September 19, 2011, 02:37:28 AM

Y0U GUYS ARE THICK AS R0CKS. ARN0LD IS 6 2. PHIL IS 5 9. ARN0LD HAS 5 INCHES 0N PHIL Y0U NUMB NUTS. TALLER GUYS HAVE BIGGER ARMS.

This also it depends on shape and also the rest of the body in relation to the arms
Phil has good shoes arms... And a relatively small torso

johnny1 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:50:31 AM »

Although a Totally Different Generation Sergio was Roughly the same height as Heath and was known for his Extra-ordinary Muscle bellys etc Arthur Jones Measured This arm COLD @ just over 20inchs @ 233lbs in 1971.

Figo · « **Reply #29 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:52:52 AM »

gotta be kidding if this is 18 inches,
look at the size of the man, 250lbs, tiny waist, not huge legs, which means bulk of the size is in torso, making big arms (with short bellies) look small

Figo · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2011, 04:54:30 AM »

TheTrueVictor · « **Reply #31 on:** September 19, 2011, 05:04:39 AM »

Arnold for the bicep.

Phil for the tricep.

Sergio for sheer size.

Figo · « **Reply #32 on:** September 19, 2011, 05:20:47 AM »

matarazo admitted the 24 in thing was bullshit for the magazines, off season bout 21 inches he said, bbing is all bout illusion, while mike had humungous arms, levrone and flex were same or bigger, but on mike because of his proportions, they were made to look even bigger

same with his calves and dickersons calves, the fact the thighs were not overdeveloped and they hade big, big calves, made their lower legs appear even bigger

BILL ANVIL · « **Reply #33 on:** September 19, 2011, 06:21:16 AM »

Arnold was 6'2 and had a massive frame, no question his arms were over 21. Its impossible to tell by looking at a picture of him by himself, you need someone else in the picture to compare with to understand the relativity of 'size'. Definition has nothing to do with arm size either. People seem to get thrown way off when they see a little man with arms that look huge and ripped on a tiny frame, and automatically assume their arms are bigger than they actually are. Whats funny is, Heath probably struggles to curl 50lb dumbbells with those "massive" 22 inch arms.

240 is Back · « **Reply #34 on:** September 19, 2011, 06:27:41 AM »

arnold was all synthol

ARNIE1947 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 19, 2011, 06:29:52 AM »

Quote from: Figo on September 19, 2011, 04:52:52 AM

gotta be kidding if this is 18 inches,
look at the size of the man, 250lbs, tiny waist, not huge legs, which means bulk of the size is in torso, making big arms (with short bellies) look small

that pic was shopped...heres the real one....

MB · « **Reply #36 on:** September 19, 2011, 06:31:08 AM »

Phil has big arms for his structure, but he's 4 or 5 inches shorter than Arnold. Put Phil's arms on Arnold and they would look small.

PJim · « **Reply #37 on:** September 19, 2011, 07:13:59 AM »

Quote from: tracks on September 19, 2011, 06:48:43 AM

Always find it a bit weird how in the FDB phil doesnt seem to have any real size advantage over a lot of guys from top-to-bottom of the arm

But in his hands-clasped most muscular he annihilates everyone on arm 'height'

Am sure there's a logical explanation for this

Because he's got a narrow torso.

GraniteCityDon · « **Reply #38 on:** September 19, 2011, 08:57:48 AM »

Matarazzo's arms were ridiculous offseason & in contest condition, however what most neglect to realise is that whilst Arnold's triceps werent great his bicep itself was freakish. The volume of it was far above average even by elite standards, his peak was ridiculous.

BTW i searched "Mike Matarazzo offseason" and came up with this pic lol.....

no one · « **Reply #39 on:** September 19, 2011, 09:25:52 AM »

holy fuck i always keep forgetting just how impressive arnie really was. jesus.

nosleep · « **Reply #40 on:** September 19, 2011, 09:39:34 AM »

Quote from: tracks on September 19, 2011, 06:48:43 AM

Always find it a bit weird how in the FDB phil doesnt seem to have any real size advantage over a lot of guys from top-to-bottom of the arm

But in his hands-clasped most muscular he annihilates everyone on arm 'height'

Am sure there's a logical explanation for this

HIS ARMS ARE AS THICK AS HIS TORSO, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE.

G_Thang · « **Reply #41 on:** September 19, 2011, 09:40:13 AM »

Quote from: asbrus on September 19, 2011, 02:37:28 AM

Y0U GUYS ARE THICK AS R0CKS. ARN0LD IS 6 2. PHIL IS 5 9. ARN0LD HAS 5 INCHES 0N PHIL Y0U NUMB NUTS. TALLER GUYS HAVE BIGGER ARMS.

the douches on here call you assbruise, correct? anyway, i'm thinking the same. phil is a narrow 5.9. 19 in arms would look like 21 on his frame. how would you know the difference? how big were ronnie's, a guy with a big trunk, arms?

dr.chimps · « **Reply #42 on:** September 19, 2011, 09:54:15 AM »

Where's The Luke and his infallible Bicep Volumetric Equation?

BILL ANVIL · « **Reply #43 on:** September 19, 2011, 01:31:32 PM »

Quote from: MB on September 19, 2011, 06:31:08 AM

Phil has big arms for his structure, but he's 4 or 5 inches shorter than Arnold. Put Phil's arms on Arnold and they would look small.

bingo

BILL ANVIL · « **Reply #44 on:** September 19, 2011, 01:34:18 PM »

Quote from: no one on September 19, 2011, 09:25:52 AM

holy fuck i always keep forgetting just how impressive arnie really was. jesus.

His upper body mass was insane, bicep development was just out of this world. They screamed volume.

badlad · « **Reply #45 on:** September 19, 2011, 01:41:10 PM »

Interesting - mate of mine I used to train with had 21 inch arms and he was about 5'7. I'm 6'4 and got mine to almost 20. Got to say - just by looking at us side by side at the time if you knew nothing about it you would assume his arms were like 26 inches or something if someone told you my arm measurement. Total illusion. I agree also - Arnold's arms in some of his pics - if he was 6'2 must have been around the 21/22 inch mark to look commensurate to the rest of his physique.