# Arnolds day vs Today



## Bri

*The physiques of arnolds day? or the physiques of today?*​
Arnolds day. 25680.76%Today.6119.24%


----------



## Bri

Arnolds day

Today

Which era of bodybuilders physiques do you guys admire the most?

Personally i think that the physiques from the early to mid 70's (Arnold, Franco, Lou, Ken Waller, Frank Zane. etc.) have more aesthetic physiques than the bodybuilders of today. I just prefer the look, as opposed to the mass monsters of the olympia today.

I'm not going to go into the differences in this post as they are fairly obvious. :lol: Just wanted to know what everybody else thought.

But don't get me wrong the olympians of today are incredible atheletes who i admire and have nothing against nor dislike before people start attacking me lol.

discuss guys.

Bri.


----------



## MillionG

I agree.


----------



## pea head

Both very good.

Personally for me the 1990-2000 era for me.


----------



## russforever

pea head said:


> Both very good.
> 
> Personally for me the 1990-2000 era for me.


dennis newman 1993, very much like the 90's aswel


----------



## GHS

I admire both eras for different reason, hard to say.

I do like the mass monsters out there today though.


----------



## R84

I'm a bit biased to the earlier period from an aesthetic point of view, but both eras have produced some very impressive physiques so it's a tough call.


----------



## Ken Hutchinson

Dennis newman had a great physique.


----------



## coldo

For me personally, i just dont like the stage look nowadays, or back in arnies day either tbh.

Much prefer a lean 9/10% over a mega low 4% anyday.


----------



## Bri

got alot of varying opinions here as i expected!

They don't call the 70's the golden era for no reason though lol!

Bri.


----------



## tuna_man

The physiques today, although they take incredible hard work and 'supplementation' etc, dont seem no where near as aesthetic as those of the 70s-80s, or even the 90s for that matter with kevin levrone, shawn ray, flex wheeler etc.

Personally i think the 70s-80s physiques were the best, as each guy was unique, and had a trademark bodypart or condition, whereas todays competitors look similar, very massive, but with protruding guts also.


----------



## Bri

tuna_man said:


> The physiques today, although they take incredible hard work and 'supplementation' etc, dont seem no where near as aesthetic as those of the 70s-80s, or even the 90s for that matter with kevin levrone, shawn ray, flex wheeler etc.
> 
> Personally i think the 70s-80s physiques were the best, as each guy was unique, and had a trademark bodypart or condition, whereas todays competitors look similar, very massive, but with protruding guts also.


definitelyagree with you there mate. Particuarly on the gut side of things. lol. Go back a few decades and no one had pretruding guts. I've heard people say it's because people neglect practising their vacuum.

I've also heard that it is beacuse of an increase in size of the internal organs. ( which seems more likely to me) Due to excessive steroid and HGH abuse.

Bri.


----------



## rs007

This is a hard question, I mean the guys at the top today are awe inspiring.

But I do love the shape, posing style, proportions of the typical 70s era bodybuilder.

Really difficult, I couldnt say what is best tbh, the 1990-2000 era had some superb physiques, but then that could be just through my eyes, because those were the apex physiques when I started paying attention to bodybuilding.

I suppose I could look at it like if I could snap my fingers, and have any physique... Serge Nubret high on my list... but then so is Bob Paris, Dennis Newman... very difficult, can't say for myself to be totally honest - every era has something outstanding to offer.


----------



## MillionG

The main thing I don't like about todays mass monsters, is the stomach distention they get, when they're not tensing their abs they look like big bloated chubbers.

None of that in Arnies day, I'd take this sort of physique over any of todays top pro's:


----------



## LittleChris

Not all of them do though, Milos Sarcev for instance.

Each era has its own standouts for me, can look at every era and find something less than pleasing to the eye.

90s for me though- Dorian, Milos, JP Fux


----------



## Guest

90s for me too.


----------



## Bambi

I like the 90s era - yates, Levrone, Flex etc

But the guy who made me want to start getting bigger (not just toned crap) was Serge Nubret. The guy looks like a Greek statue. Underrated I think, due to attitudes at the time


----------



## Khaos1436114653

pea head said:


> Both very good.
> 
> Personally for me the 1990-2000 era for me.


yep a LOT of great bods built without loads of *sin.ful.oil:thumb:*


----------



## Mr Eko

That


----------



## BigDom86

was more of a sport back then and less so a chemistry experiment


----------



## Kezz

i prefer the lines of the older guys over the chunky look today


----------



## Huntingground

Arnie or Ronnie.

No contest really. Arnie every time.


----------



## pea head

What i have noticed is the amount of BBs mentioned,not just in this thread but many threads around the board but never seem to hear the name HANEY come up much.....this guy was CLASS !!!!

Some of my fav physiques though are Wheeler,clairmont,leverone,ray


----------



## roberts1974

today def huge and ripped


----------



## Ken Hutchinson

pea head said:


> What i have noticed is the amount of BBs mentioned,not just in this thread but many threads around the board but never seem to hear the name HANEY come up much.....this guy was CLASS !!!!
> 
> Some of my fav physiques though are Wheeler,clairmont,leverone,ray


Agree with you pea head, i think haney is an 8 time winner of the oylimpia title same as ronnie, but no one ever mention's him.


----------



## Heineken

Arnie & Zane for me.

I appreciate the 'sport' has evolved but I agree with Dom totally.. today it seems as if it's a chemistry experiment.


----------



## sizar

.. :thumb:


----------



## LittleChris

http://www.youtube.com/watch#playnext=1&playnext_from=TL&videos=3GrAzwMk3sA&v=Zxz-u9zyi58

:thumb:


----------



## Bri

i really should've included more options in the poll lol. eg an option for each decade.. DOH! is there a way i can change it?

Bri.


----------



## Robw

GHS said:


> I admire both eras for different reason, hard to say.
> 
> I do like the mass monsters out there today though.


X2 ^^^


----------



## dingosteve

prefer arnolds but my mate who is a lass prefers coleman, which is not what i expected, but she a big lass , the reason is , she likes to be made to feel petite, i had to bite my tongue lol


----------



## tjwilkie

its gotta be the freaks of yesteryear Sergio Oliva has always been my fav BB


----------



## Guest

Am I the only person who thinks Arnold *ISNT* all that?


----------



## xzx

Foxy, No 1 in my book. What size could this guy have achieved in the modern day


----------



## jonesy1234cas

Dan said:


> Am I the only person who thinks Arnold *ISNT* all that?


yes!! :lol:


----------



## Bri

jonesy1234cas said:


> yes!! :lol:


x2!!

arnold was absolutly incredible. read some of his books and watch pumping iron. if you haven't already that is! and if you have, then, i really don't know what to say. :confused1:

Bri.


----------



## Guest

He's responsible for chest and bicep boys :lol:


----------



## Bri

Dan said:


> He's responsible for chest and bicep boys :lol:


lmao! unfortunately i think you may be correct there! oh dear never even thought about that before....

bri.


----------



## StephenC

I can't really say I agree with the whole science experiment comments.

Yes there are a lot more different drugs now that are called into play, however from the time Dr Zeigler came up with the wonderful DBol everyone started chomping them down without knowing the long term effects.

It's been the same ever since, I believe most of the guys from the past had a similar mental attitude to "doing whetever it took" to get them where they wanted to be.

Bodybuilders through the era's have been pushing the boundaries of science and will continue to do so as long as new products become available.

Will Bb'ers in 20 years time look back and say "pah, they were only using a few gram per week, slin, peptides, diuretics, plasma expanders..." like we do with the previous era's:confused1:

Sorry for the rant, first time prep messes with your noggin:tongue:

Back OT, IMO I like Levrone's look but also like the look Jay brought to the last Olympia and one of my fave's just now is Ronny Rockel.


----------



## John Wood

I am inspired by all the era's of the B/Building world from 1st seeing Reeves & Reg Park in the epic Hurcules films back in the 50's/60's and the great pleasure of being in their company buy meet them both in the 70's/80's

I also have great memories {when I was competing}and time I had in the company of Zane;Ferrigno;Oliver;Nubret;Fox;Viator;Callender;Robinson;Dickenson;and many other from that eara....it was also memerable because back then all the top American B/Builders plus others from around the world came over to to compete in the UK for all the fans to see live..more's the pity it do'snt happen these days

Every era of bodybuilding{like the above names mentioned}have their own distinction and likley so as you cannot compear with todays physique's as back then they where they where the best in their time and Im honoured to have been part of it


----------



## Jaff0

Dan said:


> Am I the only person who thinks Arnold *ISNT* all that?


Of his time (I'm not including 1980 Mr O in that) he was The Man.

One thing that seems poignant to me, when I watch Pumping Iron, and see those guys walking around, running on a beach, they didn't look out of place, they didn't look as if their physiques made other normal activities look unwieldly.

I saw a youtube clip of Ronnie Coleman running around on a beach, it just didn't look right. It almost looked like a caricature, quite unaesthetic. The guys from the 70s whilst having big, impressive physiques, still seemed to retain some aesthetic and althletic look about them.


----------



## Bri

Jaff0 said:


> Of his time (I'm not including 1980 Mr O in that) he was The Man.
> 
> One thing that seems poignant to me, when I watch Pumping Iron, and see those guys walking around, running on a beach, they didn't look out of place, they didn't look as if their physiques made other normal activities look unwieldly.
> 
> I saw a youtube clip of Ronnie Coleman running around on a beach, it just didn't look right. It almost looked like a caricature, quite unaesthetic. The guys from the 70s whilst having big, impressive physiques, still seemed to retain some aesthetic and althletic look about them.


very true what you're saying here my friend. and as god said earlier, they seem REAL and maybe for a select few even close to acheivable. Which is something i love the idea of  but i'd never wanna look like ronnie even if i could.

Bri.


----------



## Guest

Dan said:


> Am I the only person who thinks Arnold *ISNT* all that?


cant stand the bloke tbh


----------



## Bri

1russ100 said:


> cant stand the bloke tbh


explain?


----------



## Guest

i read a flex interview this was going back a while and he openly slated Dorian yates but the way it came across it was like a jelous little rant because someone was clearly so dominant (yates) in that era. Was really quite pathetic. still got the magazine. went way way down in my estimations after that.


----------



## Bri

1russ100 said:


> i read a flex interview this was going back a while and he openly slated Dorian yates but the way it came across it was like a jelous little rant because someone was clearly so dominant (yates) in that era. Was really quite pathetic. still got the magazine. went way way down in my estimations after that.


oh ok, well yeah that does sound petty ridiculous on Arnolds part. Dorian was excellent though. In Arnolds encyclopedia of bodybuilding he frequently talks about dorain yates and the book features plenty of pictures of arnold praising his physique....But he does also say that it doesn't adhere to the dimensions of a typical olympian because his body is quite "blocky"...i'd be interested to read this interview.. what issue of flex was this as i may try and look for it on ebay...

let me know.

have some rep!

Bri.


----------



## Guest

Bri said:


> oh ok, well yeah that does sound petty ridiculous on Arnolds part. Dorian was excellent though. In Arnolds encyclopedia of bodybuilding he frequently talks about dorain yates and the book features plenty of pictures of arnold praising his physique....But he does also say that it doesn't adhere to the dimensions of a typical olympian because his body is quite "blocky"...i'd be interested to read this interview.. what issue of flex was this as i may try and look for it on ebay...
> 
> let me know.
> 
> have some rep!
> 
> Bri.


it was when dorian yates was champion but ill look tonight for the issue number for you.

i dont doubt they probably respect each other, but reading that just seemed like it was streak of jealousy rather than anything else. :thumb:


----------



## T_Woody

Arnold day for me too.. more specifically Arnold himself. Awesome physique!


----------



## Jaff0

1russ100 said:


> it was when dorian yates was champion but ill look tonight for the issue number for you.
> 
> i dont doubt they probably respect each other, but reading that just seemed like it was streak of jealousy rather than anything else. :thumb:


Can't say I've read the article - but you'd have to say, by the time Dorian was winning everything, Arnold had long since moved on - I doubt he really cared.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure at some point, since retiring from bodybuilding, the idea of somebody beating his number of O titles, or bettering his reputation, may well have mattered up to a point, but Dorians reign was well over a decade since Arnold last got on stage to compete, and probably a couple of decades after Arnold was regularly still competing.

That long afterwards, and would Arnold really care that much (to be jealous) about who was big shakes in the world of competitive bodybuilding, given what else he moved on to?


----------



## Guest

ill have a root around for the magazine tonight. i remember yates' response was far from friendly


----------



## geeby112

70's to 90's any time, these days they look unhealthy just by the way they walk, i couldnt imagine any of them running or being able to be flexible enough to play with their kids :confused1:

ultimate for me as a 6ft2 guy was steve reeves


----------



## Mike Davis

Both to be honest.

However we are more educated now than back in the day, up intill 7-10 year ago no1 even used PCT. (some silly boys dont use it now, mmmm saggy man breasts) D


----------



## Huntingground

bump


----------



## MillionG

geeby112 said:


> 70's to 90's any time, these days they look unhealthy just by the way they walk, i c*ouldnt imagine any of them running or being able to be flexible* enough to play with their kids :confused1:
> 
> ultimate for me as a 6ft2 guy was steve reeves


Not strictly true:


----------



## Guest

My estimations of arnie went down when all the posters in gold's were taken down because of his current job :s


----------



## LittleChris

Mike Davis said:


> Both to be honest.
> 
> However we are more educated now than back in the day, up intill 7-10 year ago no1 even used PCT. (some silly boys dont use it now, mmmm saggy man breasts) D


Fairly sure in 10years time that drugs will be there to help recovery and then perhaps people will judge us for not using them, or perhaps not :whistling:

As for playing with children and running around, when you want to be at the top level as the pros do, its a matter of priorities. I am sure they aren't as unfit as people like to maintain though.


----------



## Jaff0

LittleChris said:


> Fairly sure in 10years time that drugs will be there to help recovery and then perhaps people will judge us for not using them, or perhaps not :whistling:
> 
> As for playing with children and running around, when you want to be at the top level as the pros do, its a matter of priorities. I am sure they aren't as unfit as people like to maintain though.


In fairness, I may have sparked some of that - but bearing in mind the topic is about what era people prefer, which largely comes down to aesthetics - then how they appear when moving around doing (largely) normal stuff, does become a factor - at least for some.

And as I said, when I watch Pumping Iron (or the documentaries on it being made) and see the bodybuilders of the 70s, they didn't appear as awkward or cumbersome when outside of the gym, or not on stage. Now true enough, that's going to be partly because they're simply not as big as the pros from nowadays - but that goes full circle to the original question of what people prefer, then or now, and why.


----------



## Jaff0

Dan said:


> My estimations of arnie went down when all the posters in gold's were taken down because of his current job :s


I should imagine so... all the farts that go on in gyms, gotta be bad for the environment, and he is the gov of California :whistling:


----------



## Big Dawg

Can't believe arnold's day is winning - what's the point of being a fan of a sport if you don't want it to evolve? Modern day bbers are objectively "better" than bbers from the 70s. That may sound ridiculous, but they are undeniably more developed, more conditioned, more knowledgeable etc - and they have rear delts nowadays too


----------



## Jaff0

AlasTTTair said:


> Can't believe arnold's day is winning - what's the point of being a fan of a sport


I can only speak personally - I'm not a fan of the sport. Least not unquestionably, nor follow current competitions or competitors.

I've lifted weights since 1985. Some of that time (first 5 or 6 years) I was a bodybuilder.



AlasTTTair said:


> if you don't want it to evolve?


Truth be told, I couldn't care less about the sport these days, hell in a handbasket, or the next big thing - s'all the same to me.



AlasTTTair said:


> Modern day bbers are objectively "better" than bbers from the 70s. That may sound ridiculous, but they are undeniably more developed, more conditioned, more knowledgeable etc


I wouldn't argue with much of that, aside from the concept of objectiveness about the sport. Surely in a sport that isn't objectively measured (it's judged) those objective measures - whilst factors - a) aren't the only factors - symmetry, proportion, aesthetics B) are intepreted by judges anyway (ie, they're not measured).

So competition isn't run objectively - it's most definitely subjective.

And you've only got to see the votes on the poll to realise that people, here, view the sport subjectively, too.



AlasTTTair said:


> and they have rear delts nowadays too


FPWM.

With the good, sometimes comes the bad, though - distended guts don't help the perception of aesthetics, nor do some (in some extremes, almost dysmorphic) use of implants and SEOs.


----------



## Bri

AlasTTTair said:


> Can't believe arnold's day is winning - what's the point of being a fan of a sport if you don't want it to evolve? Modern day bbers are objectively "better" than bbers from the 70s. That may sound ridiculous, but they are undeniably more developed, more conditioned, more knowledgeable etc - and they have rear delts nowadays too


As JAff said it clearly is a very subjective sport. It's all a matter of the judges opinion. And this poll is about which bodybuilding look you prefer. So to be honest is it really a suprise that people are swaying towards Arnold's day? When, as has been said, they mantain an athletic look, which is in my opinon, and clearly most other peoples, generally just more pleasing aesthetically. If Arnold at his peak was in the next olympia, although he may not be as "developed or conditioned" he would place very well i expect.

I also don't understand what you mean when you say what's the point of being a fan of a sport if you don't want it to evolve. People start to love a sport because of how it IS not how they want it to become. Sure in practically every sport, people can never evolve enough, or acheive ultimate perfection. LeBron James for example may be a superb basketball player, but he still misses shots. There will never come a time when he will reach the point where he can't miss. So i agree as far as MOST sports. However, i feel bodybuilding is different. For the most part it's more like a pageant, you get judged on how the physique looks. But it is definitely debatable that a bodybuilder such as Arnold on the olympia stage has reached perfection and couldn't look better. so why would anyone want it to continue to evolve? Eventually it would be over the top. Just because bodybuilders are supposedly improving and becoming more "developed or conditioned" doesn't mean that this improvements create a more aesthetically balanced physique.

if one day there was bodybuilders who were 5' 9" ,100 inch quads and 78 inch arms, with 1% bodyfat. And generally massive perfectly proportioned physiques. So in theory they had evolved from the bodybuilders of today, right? Bigger, more developed and better conditioning. If one of these freaks walked on a stage today lookin like that they woudn't necessarily look better would they? The perfect physique in reality would be alot smaller. Because it's a competition of aesthetics, if people got too big, they wouldn't have aesthetic physiques anymore. They would look completely weird and not good at all.

Thoughts?

Bri.


----------



## Heineken

^ Superb post.


----------



## Jake H

arnolds day imo


----------



## XL

Can you imagine what the BBers of today would look like if in Arnold's day they had the knowledge & drugs we have now.

Very freaky.


----------



## LittleChris

Bri said:


> If Arnold at his peak was in the next olympia, although he may not be as "developed or conditioned" he would place very well i expect.
> 
> .


I would be surprised if he even qualified for the Olympia in this day and age.


----------



## round 2

I prefered the smaller waists and the fact they didnt look terrible off gear like todays bodybuilders! But on stage i would have to say put arnold agaist someone like kevin levrone or phil heath who have somehow kept their waists down (compared to nasser,kai grenn etc.) no contest really.


----------



## Guest

LittleChris said:


> I would be surprised if he even qualified for the Olympia in this day and age.


x2


----------



## Bri

just cause he's too small?

bri.


----------



## Guest




----------



## Guest

Although I will admit Arnie does look good in that pic, Jay looks incredible.


----------



## Bri

no way mate i disagree! Arnold looks absolutly awesome, Cutler is just a bit too much for me..

Bri.


----------



## GHS

Alrnold is smaller than most of the top amatures in Britain these days let alone qualifying for the bloody Olympia.

Stu Core, Alvin Small, Daz Ball....

All bigger and look better....


----------



## Guest

Bri said:


> no way mate i disagree! Arnold looks absolutly awesome, Cutler is just a bit too much for me..
> 
> Bri.


Its like saying i dont watch modern football coz its not as good as older football.. things evolve, everything does. I think people need to catch up with the times.


----------



## Bri

You can't compare football to bodybuilding that is a really weak comparison mate. Obviously football has become better as players have become more skilled. But i personally think that the smaller look of the 70's was better, more aesthetic. Clearly other poeple do as well cos arnolds time is winning in the poll.


----------



## Guest

But im saying why look in the past? yeah they looked good, things change and we've gotta get behind current competitors and admire their dedication and knowledge instead of saying they look sh1t.


----------



## Bri

Dan said:


> But im saying why look in the past? yeah they looked good, things change and we've gotta get behind current competitors and admire their dedication and knowledge instead of saying they look sh1t.


I agree we should admire them they're incredible athletes. The purpose of the poll was to see which look people preferred that's all. And whether you like it or not. I think the older generations are likely to be a prominent part of bodybuilding for a lot of years to come.

Bri.


----------



## Guest

If they look better why didnt people carry on looking like that...


----------



## Bri

I guess they thought bigger was better.... and got greedy!


----------



## LittleChris

To what extent is the poll shaped by the sorts on this forum though?

Of those who voted Arnie, how many of those have competed or have serious aspirations to compete?

Not many I wouldn't have thought.


----------



## dazzla

i like how its 'arnolds days vs today' that says alot about how much arnold did for the sport! everyone in the UK knows who arnold is, i doubt they would jay cutler. just an observation though......


----------



## Guest

dazzla said:


> i like how its 'arnolds days vs today' that says alot about how much arnold did for the sport! everyone in the UK knows who arnold is, i doubt they would jay cutler. just an observation though......


arnie is a film star, jay is not.


----------



## warren

i personally like the aestetics of arnie, but that is just my opinion, i am equally in awe of the mass monsters of today , i think it is incredable. however even if i had the right qualities to reach the level of jay cutler, aestetically i would not want to, ignore the mney cars etc etc that comes with it lets pretend you wouldnt get thos. i would much rather look like arnie than one of todays mass monsters even tho i look at them in awe.

i showed my gf a pic of markus ruhl the other day, and he had a top on, and she said '' e looks like a much larger version on johnny'' johhny is my mate plays rugby has a large body but not ripped , when i showed he a pic without the top she couldnt beleive it. she says he is THAT big that with a top on he looks solid but not as if he has a good body. if that makes sence lol


----------



## dazzla

Dan said:


> arnie is a film star, jay is not.


true, i just cant see anyone being as big (not muscular wise) as arnold.


----------



## Guest

dazzla said:


> true, i just cant see anyone being as big (not muscular wise) as arnold.


yes but hes been in films, bodybuilding and hes now a politician.


----------



## BB_999

The Arnold Era for me, a bit too freaky looking nowadays although I do still appreciate the top physiques and development of the current crop, if I could chose a physique for myself it'd be the 70s/80s look.


----------



## SALKev

Not only the waist but the conditioning?










I think it's not only the distended bellies but the altering in conditioning that make people choose Arnie's day over todays competitors.

Looking at the picture above, you can tell immediately who's who (last one's Sergio if you're having trouble indentifying).

The difference in conditioning is also noticable.

The old era's guys (excluding Sergio it seems) look dry, carved out of stone.

Now look at Yates + Coleman. Sure they have extra mass but their muscles are a little balloon like. Especially Coleman's.

I think if there were a perfect body it would consist of old era conditioning and waist lines with the phenomenal size that's present on todays stages.

So for me at this time, there is no answer as to which era is 'better'.

Each has its qualities and flaws.


----------



## Guest

From that pic, it looks like they only focussed on what you can actually see in the 70/80s (glutes arent even on show, poor hams, ok calves)


----------



## SALKev

Dan said:


> From that pic, it looks like they only focussed on what you can actually see in the 70/80s (glutes arent even on show, poor hams, ok calves)


I know what you mean, the lower half is a noticable difference between the two ages. That comes under size IMO, though Ronnie's glutes actually look really dry compared to the rest of him.


----------



## Bri

SALKev said:


> Not only the waist but the conditioning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's not only the distended bellies but the altering in conditioning that make people choose Arnie's day over todays competitors.
> 
> Looking at the picture above, you can tell immediately who's who (last one's Sergio if you're having trouble indentifying).
> 
> The difference in conditioning is also noticable.
> 
> The old era's guys (excluding Sergio it seems) look dry, carved out of stone.
> 
> Now look at Yates + Coleman. *Sure they have extra mass but their muscles are a little balloon like. *Especially Coleman's.
> 
> I think if there were a perfect body it would consist of old era conditioning and waist lines with the phenomenal size that's present on todays stages.
> 
> So for me at this time, there is no answer as to which era is 'better'.
> 
> Each has its qualities and flaws.


I have thought that before, very true.

Bri.


----------



## Big Dawg

LittleChris said:


> I would be surprised if he even qualified for the Olympia in this day and age.


Exactly, what a ridiculous post. Arnold probably wouldn't turn pro with the same physique nowadays, and that's a good thing as a sport has to evolve.

If you guys want to keep living in the past so be it. I wonder if people on athletics forums have polls asking if people preferred sprinters who ran under 10 seconds because it was less OTT/ more achievable to the average person etc.

I wonder if other sports have fans who are living in the past. I doubt it. While 100m fans are wanting to see a 9.57, we're sitting here wishing it was the fcuking 70s again! :confused1:


----------



## Bri

AlasTTTair said:


> Exactly, what a ridiculous post. Arnold probably wouldn't turn pro with the same physique nowadays, and that's a good thing as a sport has to evolve.
> 
> If you guys want to keep living in the past so be it. I wonder if people on athletics forums have polls asking if people preferred sprinters who ran under 10 seconds because it was less OTT/ more achievable to the average person etc.
> 
> I wonder if other sports have fans who are living in the past. I doubt it. While 100m fans are wanting to see a 9.57, we're sitting here wishing it was the fcuking 70s again! :confused1:


I admit Arnold may not do well in mordern bodybuilding.....I shouldn't have really said that....

However it clearly doesn't look like you read the rest of my post? It is not a fair comparison to try and talk about bodybuilding alongside another sport such as sprinting or football. It just make no sense? If im being stupid i'm more than open to some sort of justification of these weak analogys..

Bri.


----------



## Guest

Bri said:


> I admit Arnold may not do well in mordern bodybuilding.....I shouldn't have really said that....
> 
> However it clearly doesn't look like you read the rest of my post? It is not a fair comparison to try and talk about bodybuilding alongside another sport such as sprinting or football. It just make no sense? If im being stupid i'm more than open to some sort of justification of these weak analogys..
> 
> Bri.


Does you physique mirror a 70s or 80s one?


----------



## Bri

Dan said:


> Does you physique mirror a 70s or 80s one?


No of course not, what's that got to do with anything?


----------



## Guest

Bri said:


> No of course not, what's that got to do with anything?


why not? :confused1:

If thats what you think looks bettter why arent you aiming to look like that :confused1:


----------



## Bri

oh, well obviously i would love to look like that. But i don't just yet lol.

I thought you meant do i look like that now! :lol:


----------



## barryd

.much prefered the 70s/80s bodybuilder,the physiques were much more shapely,smaller waists etc,no distended midsections and so on.saw you compete a few times in the 70s also john fantastic physique,you had great posing routines,which is something you dont see much of also today.so its the arnold era for me.


----------



## pob80

SALKev said:


> I think if there were a perfect body it would consist of old era conditioning and waist lines with the phenomenal size that's present on todays stages.


So in between the 2 eras say the late 80s to about 92 will be the closest example?



SALKev said:


> So for me at this time, there is no answer as to which era is 'better'.
> 
> Each has its qualities and flaws.


 Very true as with everything it has to evolve I think arnolds style phsique today is more socialy exceptable then it once was with the countless amount of people training now a days to back then then the extreme physiques cutler, coleman etc but this is a sport about extremes building the best physique possible with supirior conditioning and detail thats the way the way the sport is going and its only going to get yet even more extreme with all the peptides becoming available and the genetic research going on.


----------



## bravo9

love the mike mentzer look :thumbup1:


----------



## Bri

bravo9 said:


> View attachment 37660
> 
> 
> love the mike mentzer look :thumbup1:


I agree Mike Mentzer was awesome. R.I.P.


----------



## Bri

Dan said:


> 90s for me too.


Don't mean to sound like an a$$hole Dan but this post you did on the first page makes alot of your other posts seem very contradictory...?

Bri.


----------



## Big Dawg

Bri said:


> I admit Arnold may not do well in mordern bodybuilding.....I shouldn't have really said that....
> 
> However it clearly doesn't look like you read the rest of my post? It is not a fair comparison to try and talk about bodybuilding alongside another sport such as sprinting or football. It just make no sense? If im being stupid i'm more than open to some sort of justification of these weak analogys..
> 
> Bri.


I don't see how it's a weak analogy. Both are spots (IMO at least), and as with any sport each era brings about improvements from the previous era. In sprinting, each era should shave milliseconds off the top times from the previous era as the athletes become faster. In bodybuilding, the bodybuilders try and add more muscle and come in more conditioned than the previous era. If bbers were still coming in 6'2, 220lbs at about 8% body fat then that'd hardly be impressive would it? However, seeing someone 5'11, 296lbs at about 3% body fat is fcuking awesome and it's what was naturally going to happen if athletes remained driven and wanted to keep pushing the boundaries.

If Dorian just tried to show up the same as lee haney then he'd have probably been beaten by someone better. However he was driven to improve every showing, resulting in the biggest and most shredded physique that had ever been seen on stage in 1993! If he tried to come in looking like arnold would he have won?

I'm not sure if this thread is just "who would you rather look like?" - if it is then arnold's era is obviously gonna win if the people voting are just average trainers. However if the question is "who looks better from a bbing perspective?" then surely the answer is obvious! In 30 years time the bbers of that era should look significantly better than Jay Cutler does now. If they don't then the sport has failed to evolve. Similarly, if the best time at the 100m is still 9.58 then that'd be a poor show for the future 100m athletes.


----------



## Guest

Bri said:


> Don't mean to sound like an a$$hole Dan but this post you did on the first page makes alot of your other posts seem very contradictory...?
> 
> Bri.


dorian lee priest etc are my faves and that era was about being massive and thats when it all started


----------



## SALKev

pob80 said:


> So in between the 2 eras say the late 80s to about 92 will be the closest example?
> 
> Very true as with everything it has to evolve I think arnolds style phsique today is more socialy exceptable then it once was with the countless amount of people training now a days to back then then the extreme physiques cutler, coleman etc but this is a sport about extremes building the best physique possible with supirior conditioning and detail thats the way the way the sport is going and its only going to get yet even more extreme with all the peptides becoming available and the genetic research going on.


Yes, I think those years would be the closest example to what I've described.

That's another consideration - the social implications. Arnold etc. would have been freaks back then just as Cutler and the like are freaks right now. In 30-40 years time will the likes of Cutler and Coleman be socially acceptable?


----------



## Bri

AlasTTTair said:


> I don't see how it's a weak analogy. Both are spots (IMO at least), and as with any sport each era brings about improvements from the previous era. In sprinting, each era should shave milliseconds off the top times from the previous era as the athletes become faster. In bodybuilding, the bodybuilders try and add more muscle and come in more conditioned than the previous era. If bbers were still coming in 6'2, 220lbs at about 8% body fat then that'd hardly be impressive would it? However, seeing someone 5'11, 296lbs at about 3% body fat is fcuking awesome and it's what was naturally going to happen if athletes remained driven and wanted to keep pushing the boundaries.
> 
> If Dorian just tried to show up the same as lee haney then he'd have probably been beaten by someone better. However he was driven to improve every showing, resulting in the biggest and most shredded physique that had ever been seen on stage in 1993! If he tried to come in looking like arnold would he have won?
> 
> I'm not sure if this thread is just "who would you rather look like?" - if it is then arnold's era is obviously gonna win if the people voting are just average trainers. However if the question is "who looks better from a bbing perspective?" then surely the answer is obvious! In 30 years time the bbers of that era should look significantly better than Jay Cutler does now. If they don't then the sport has failed to evolve. Similarly, if the best time at the 100m is still 9.58 then that'd be a poor show for the future 100m athletes.


OK well i guess i can't really argue with any of that. If you put it like that i guess your analogy made perfet sense. I agree with everything you've said here mate, you're making it very difficult for me not to do so! Yes from a bodybuilding prospective the mordern athletes are "better i guess. But i just am not a fan of the look!

Seriously think about it, if bodybuilders keep progressing with every generation, imagine how bodybuilders are gonna be looking in like another 50 years....? i reckon they'll look FVCKED UP

Bri.


----------



## Bri

Dan said:


> dorian lee priest etc are my faves and that era was about being massive and thats when it all started


So do you favor these guys because you reckon they're the ones who started off the mordern look? Or do you actually prefer their physiques over jay?


----------



## Bri

SALKev said:


> Yes, I think those years would be the closest example to what I've described.
> 
> That's another consideration - the social implications. Arnold etc. would have been freaks back then just as Cutler and the like are freaks right now. In 30-40 years time will the likes of Cutler and Coleman be socially acceptable?


That is a very good point mate! Only time will tell i guess?

Bri.


----------



## warren

AlasTTTair said:


> I don't see how it's a weak analogy. Both are spots (IMO at least), and as with any sport each era brings about improvements from the previous era. In sprinting, each era should shave milliseconds off the top times from the previous era as the athletes become faster. In bodybuilding, the bodybuilders try and add more muscle and come in more conditioned than the previous era. If bbers were still coming in 6'2, 220lbs at about 8% body fat then that'd hardly be impressive would it? However, seeing someone 5'11, 296lbs at about 3% body fat is fcuking awesome and it's what was naturally going to happen if athletes remained driven and wanted to keep pushing the boundaries.
> 
> If Dorian just tried to show up the same as lee haney then he'd have probably been beaten by someone better. However he was driven to improve every showing, resulting in the biggest and most shredded physique that had ever been seen on stage in 1993! If he tried to come in looking like arnold would he have won?
> 
> I'm not sure if this thread is just "who would you rather look like?" - if it is then arnold's era is obviously gonna win if the people voting are just average trainers. However if the question is "who looks better from a bbing perspective?" then surely the answer is obvious! *In 30 years time the bbers of that era should look significantly better than Jay Cutler does now. If they don't then the sport has failed to evolve*. Similarly, if the best time at the 100m is still 9.58 then that'd be a poor show for the future 100m athletes.


how much more can it really evolve though? even in 30 years? instea of near 300lbs ripped , 400lbs ripped? surley they cant get much bigger or leaner than they do in our days?


----------



## Big Dawg

Bri said:


> OK well i guess i can't really argue with any of that. If you put it like that i guess your analogy made perfet sense. I agree with everything you've said here mate, you're making it very difficult for me not to do so! Yes from a bodybuilding prospective the mordern athletes are "better i guess. But i just am not a fan of the look!
> 
> Seriously think about it, if bodybuilders keep progressing with every generation, imagine how bodybuilders are gonna be looking in like another 50 years....? i reckon they'll look FVCKED UP
> 
> Bri.


I assume the changes in size will be fairly minimal in comparison to what we've seen in the last 40 years - pro level bbing only got started in the 60s and arnold's era started about 5 years after that, so the evolution was obviously going to be huge in the years following. The 90s was the first time that guys were walking around 300lbs lean in their off season really and they've not got a whole lot bigger since dorian (dorian 1993 vs jay 2009 is not as huge a difference as frank zane 1977 vs dorian 1993 although the time period is the same). I reckon we'll see a bit more size, but probably all those vague things we talk about will improve - IE they'll be tighter, drier, more symmetrical, conditioned etc.


----------



## Bri

warren_1987 said:


> how much more can it really evolve though? even in 30 years? instea of near 300lbs ripped , 400lbs ripped? surley they cant get much bigger or leaner than they do in our days?


Who knows? back in the 70's they would've said the same thing about the size of bodybuilders today i expect?

Only time will, yet again!

Bri.


----------



## BillC

Has anyone even considered how big Arnold would have gotten today? He was a genetic freak, better than all his peers at his peak, without the drugs and supplements available today. He obviously has the muscle bellies for massiveness, he chose to go for perfection instead( but overtrained his legs). I always thought bodybuilding was about more than sheer mass, it's proportion and simetry too. Show my misses pics of Arnold, god he was big wasn't he, Dorian, eeurgh he's ugly and horrible, jay cutler, jesus thats disgusting. Years ago, disgusting is what most ordinary people thought of Arnold.


----------



## ostrain

BillC said:


> Has anyone even considered how big Arnold would have gotten today? He was a genetic freak, better than all his peers at his peak, without the drugs and supplements available today. He obviously has the muscle bellies for massiveness, he chose to go for perfection instead( but overtrained his legs). I always thought bodybuilding was about more than sheer mass, it's proportion and simetry too. Show my misses pics of Arnold, god he was big wasn't he, Dorian, eeurgh he's ugly and horrible, jay cutler, jesus thats disgusting. Years ago, disgusting is what most ordinary people thought of Arnold.


I agree with this


----------



## Big Dawg

BillC said:


> Has anyone even considered how big Arnold would have gotten today? He was a genetic freak, better than all his peers at his peak, without the drugs and supplements available today. He obviously has the muscle bellies for massiveness, he chose to go for perfection instead( but overtrained his legs). I always thought bodybuilding was about more than sheer mass, it's proportion and simetry too. Show my misses pics of Arnold, god he was big wasn't he, Dorian, eeurgh he's ugly and horrible, jay cutler, jesus thats disgusting. Years ago, disgusting is what most ordinary people thought of Arnold.


I wouldn't say Arnold's more of a genetic freak than ronnie, flex, levrone etc. These guys had god-like genetics compared to arnold. He was ahead of his time most definitely, but not in a hugely significant way; serge and sergio were pretty close tbh. Arnold had a wide waist as well; IMO he wasn't an amazing genetic freak. Anyway it's impossible to predict how good he'd be now and it's largely irrelevant 

Also, overtrained his legs? Surely he undertrained them, they were tiny!


----------



## BillC

AlasTTTair said:


> I wouldn't say Arnold's more of a genetic freak than ronnie, flex, levrone etc. These guys had god-like genetics compared to arnold. He was ahead of his time most definitely, but not in a hugely significant way; serge and sergio were pretty close tbh. Arnold had a wide waist as well; IMO he wasn't an amazing genetic freak. Anyway it's impossible to predict how good he'd be now and it's largely irrelevant
> 
> *Also, overtrained his legs? Surely he undertrained them, they were tiny![/*QUOTE]
> 
> have you ever followed an Arnold training programme, :lol: , made that mistake a long time ago. If you look at his legs they weren't tiny, the muscles were there just not bulked.


----------



## Big Dawg

BillC said:


> No tbf they looked decent when lean; the style of the day though was to have slightly smaller legs in comparison to upper body I gather.


----------



## LittleChris

Arnie is always catapualted to some sort of God-like status.

His arms weren't over 20inches as some claim either, 19.75 I think Arthur Jones taped them at.


----------



## Bri

yeah i think you're right there AlasTTTair, I'm guessing it was an attempt to make their upper halves appear bigger.


----------



## Judas

I love Mike Mentzers look aswell, I think he looks awesome.


----------



## hilly

GHS said:


> Alrnold is smaller than most of the top amatures in Britain these days let alone qualifying for the bloody Olympia.
> 
> Stu Core, Alvin Small, Daz Ball....
> 
> All bigger and look better....


disagree here pal, they may be bigger but do not look better IMO of course


----------



## Guest

Bri said:


> So do you favor these guys because you reckon they're the ones who started off the mordern look? Or do you actually prefer their physiques over jay?


1st statement.


----------



## Bri

Dan said:


> 1st statement.


 :thumb: wicked! I've enjoyed this thread.


----------



## round 2

Dan said:


> 90s for me too.


Dont normally agrre with dan since he called me a ****ing pr**k. but just for once i do.

Dont know what it is there taking now days but the guts on some of them look awful (just the guts).and it started sort of late 90,s.

Ben weider has even put it out there (before he died) that the IFBB is gonna have no more of it.


----------



## Bri

round 2 said:


> Dont normally agrre with dan since he called me a ****ing pr**k. but just for once i do.
> 
> Dont know what it is there taking now days but the guts on some of them look awful (just the guts).and it started sort of late 90,s.
> 
> Ben weider has even put it out there (before he died) that the IFBB is gonna have no more of it.


Yeah i know it sucks, they would look ten times bette if it weren't for their guts!

Bri.


----------



## MillionG

Bri said:


> Yeah i know it sucks, they would look ten times bette if it weren't for their guts!
> 
> Bri.


Why are there guts like that? Is it just from so much training and stress on the core?

Or is it as someone said on an MD video that it's just the sheer amount of food they eat..


----------



## Bri

MillionG said:


> Why are there guts like that? Is it just from so much training and stress on the core?
> 
> Or is it as someone said on an MD video that it's just the sheer amount of food they eat..


I heard it was to do with an increase in size of the internal organs due to HGH abuse.. don't know if that's true though...

bri.


----------



## round 2

MillionG said:


> Why are there guts like that? Is it just from so much training and stress on the core?
> 
> Or is it as someone said on an MD video that it's just the sheer amount of food they eat..


I think its some sort of blood doping sort of thing.Remember dorian jumped 16lb 92-93.Now there all at it.ronnie being one of the worst culpruts.he never had a big waist when he placed 11th in 1995.


----------



## glen danbury

the guys these days have moved the sport on - after all it is body*building*

however after the 90's there was a tipping point where its very hard to see differences in thephysiques - from the 70's through to the 90's there was a wide range of physiques on stage in all sort s of shapes and sizes

these days they all look very much alike IMO which whilst good for competition and pushing that forward somewhat blunts the competitionas a spectacle


----------



## Britbb

SALKev said:


> Not only the waist but the conditioning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's not only the distended bellies but the altering in conditioning that make people choose Arnie's day over todays competitors.
> 
> Looking at the picture above, you can tell immediately who's who (last one's Sergio if you're having trouble indentifying).
> 
> The difference in conditioning is also noticable.
> 
> The old era's guys (excluding Sergio it seems) look dry, carved out of stone.
> 
> Now look at Yates + Coleman. Sure they have extra mass but their muscles are a little balloon like. Especially Coleman's.
> 
> I think if there were a perfect body it would consist of old era conditioning and waist lines with the phenomenal size that's present on todays stages.
> 
> So for me at this time, there is no answer as to which era is 'better'.
> 
> Each has its qualities and flaws.


Firstly:

This picture is originally from a website called 'ironage' which glorifies the golden era of bodybuilding and tries to super impose pictures (with sh!t lighting and much more shadow to create much higher definition) of old school bodybuilders with modern bodybuilders who are under bright white stage lights.

Secondly, the pictures are all super imposed, ronnie is bigger than everyone in that line up, but yates would also dwarve everyone as well.

A clear reason to see how the editting is totally flawed, look up sergio oliva's condition compared with dorian's, dorian was on a different level entirely.

Thirdly, look at the amount of shadow from the pictures of the oldschool guys, clear give away of the editting and also look at the fat on the back of their legs/glutes, another clear give away of true conditioning.

Fourthly, RONNIE COLEMAN BEATS EVERYONE ON THERE ANYWAY:lol:. Also funny how sergio was 5ft 6 in real life yet in this picture hes as tall as ronnie who is 5ft 11. Again, all super imposed and the proportions have ben changed and lighting/shadow etc...

Thats ironage for you, for their purpose they want to promote. These pictures are totally unreliable.

But at least it shows ronnie easily beating everyone in that photo anyway lol.


----------



## John Wood

Hi Britbb

Sorry to have to correct you...but Sergio was 5'9" and was a Tall Class contender.... I know I've stood next to him on stage

Good post all the same

John


----------



## dtlv

I think it's hard to directly compare eras in a fair way... different styles of physique are 'in fashion' at different times, and bodybuilders of each age reflect that in what they work towards. Had Sergio, or Arnold or our friend John Wood been coming into the sport nowadays they might well have trained differently and aspired to build slightly different proportions to how they did back in their day.

When it comes to what looks best when comparing the best from each era it's always personal opinion. For me pure size, beyond a basic amount that's required, is less impressive than symmetry, posing ability, poise and physique display... the often forgotten aspects of bodybuilding. So, imo, while many of todays competetors are bigger and equally conditioned, I don't necessarily think they make for better bodybuilders.


----------



## Jux

Frank Zane for sure.


----------



## Bri

Dtlv74 said:


> I think it's hard to directly compare eras in a fair way... different styles of physique are 'in fashion' at different times, and bodybuilders of each age reflect that in what they work towards. Had Sergio, or Arnold or our friend John Wood been coming into the sport nowadays they might well have trained differently and aspired to build slightly different proportions to how they did back in their day.
> 
> When it comes to what looks best when comparing the best from each era it's always personal opinion. For me pure size, beyond a basic amount that's required, is less impressive than symmetry, posing ability, poise and physique display... the often forgotten aspects of bodybuilding. So, imo, while many of todays competetors are bigger and equally conditioned, I don't necessarily think they make for better bodybuilders.


Very true, and very good post. :thumbup1:


----------



## John Wood

Even in my competative days it goes without dout that we all strived to get bigger and better...I remember my 1st meeting with Lou Ferrigno he was raw and only 19 but at 6'5" at 265lbs and my thoughts where how big will the lad get in years to come...and at the time in the UK having meet/mixed with Bertil Fox who will match Bertil on muscular mass on a medium frame build

Presentation on the day was 1st and formost with me.... I'd done all the prior hardwork in the gym and wanted to give my best shots on the day.....this is something I find a little disappointing with some of the top names...great physique but could have been presented better


----------



## Lois_Lane

Funny how its always the tiny little guys that liked the smaller guys in the 80s.


----------



## SALKev

Britbb said:


> Firstly:
> 
> This picture is originally from a website called 'ironage' which glorifies the golden era of bodybuilding and tries to super impose pictures (with sh!t lighting and much more shadow to create much higher definition) of old school bodybuilders with modern bodybuilders who are under bright white stage lights.
> 
> Secondly, the pictures are all super imposed, ronnie is bigger than everyone in that line up, but yates would also dwarve everyone as well.
> 
> A clear reason to see how the editting is totally flawed, look up sergio oliva's condition compared with dorian's, dorian was on a different level entirely.
> 
> Thirdly, look at the amount of shadow from the pictures of the oldschool guys, clear give away of the editting and also look at the fat on the back of their legs/glutes, another clear give away of true conditioning.
> 
> Fourthly, RONNIE COLEMAN BEATS EVERYONE ON THERE ANYWAY:lol:. Also funny how sergio was 5ft 6 in real life yet in this picture hes as tall as ronnie who is 5ft 11. Again, all super imposed and the proportions have ben changed and lighting/shadow etc...
> 
> Thats ironage for you, for their purpose they want to promote. These pictures are totally unreliable.
> 
> But at least it shows ronnie easily beating everyone in that photo anyway lol.


The picture was used because it was convenient. Look at seperate pictures if you must, most of my points stand true.


----------



## dtlv

John Wood said:


> Even in my competative days it goes without dout that we all strived to get bigger and better...I remember my 1st meeting with Lou Ferrigno he was raw and only 19 but at 6'5" at 265lbs and my thoughts where how big will the lad get in years to come...and at the time in the UK having meet/mixed with Bertil Fox who will match Bertil on muscular mass on a medium frame build
> 
> Presentation on the day was 1st and formost with me.... I'd done all the prior hardwork in the gym and wanted to give my best shots on the day.....this is something I find a little disappointing with some of the top names...great physique but could have been presented better


That's exactly what I mean... I think (in general) guys of your generation put more effort into really posing and presenting the muscle, and I think that's an important part of what bodybuilding is about.

I sometimes feel a bit 'let down' by some of the pros who don't seem to put that much effort into posing etc, and act like anything other than a most muscular pose or front & back double biceps is a waste of time.


----------



## dtlv

Lois_Lane said:


> Funny how its always the tiny little guys that liked the smaller guys in the 80s.


I have a theory that many people most like the physiques of the pros who have most similar structures to them... obviously not the case for everyone but I think this is quite common.


----------



## Jux

I'd love to have the build of frank zane but i have too bulky abs  thank god they're hidden lol!


----------



## SALKev

Dtlv74 said:


> I have a theory that many people most like the physiques of the pros who have most similar structures to them... obviously not the case for everyone but I think this is quite common.


I think it's just people goals.

A 10st lad who's never picked up a weight in his life wants to build muscle. The most likely inspiration for him is something like a Men's Health cover model as it is closest to his physique therefore he will like it above all other tpyes of physique.

Once he reaches/or is close to MH physique, he'll look for further inspiration which would be the guys in Arnolds day. Because this stage takes so long to get close to, it seems like everyone in the BB world wants that kind of physique.

Only the people who are close to, or have exceeded the Arnolds day physique will they look to current competitors. Only a small percentage of the bodybuilding population are here which is why these people come out with remarks such as 'Funny how its always the tiny little guys that liked the smaller guys in the 80s.'. :whistling:


----------



## Testoholic

Dtlv74 said:


> I have a theory that many people most like the physiques of the pros who have most similar structures to them... obviously not the case for everyone but I think this is quite common.


yeah id agree with that, one think about todays competitors against arnolds day is height, guys today are mostly between 5'4-5'9, guys back then were more commonly taller. its hard to compare them when you take 6'2 arnie and 6'6 lou ferrigno and match them against branch, heath, kai ect. all under 5'9.

one guy you can is toney freeman, think when you compare him to arnold he has him beaten in every way, size, condition, proportion.


----------



## Britbb

John Wood said:


> Hi Britbb
> 
> Sorry to have to correct you...but Sergio was 5'9" and was a Tall Class contender.... I know I've stood next to him on stage
> 
> Good post all the same
> 
> John


Hi john, actually i much appreciate it.

Infact of course he was tall class as he was against arnold in 69 and 73?

Hmmm, i wonder why all the details of him on the internet say his height to be 5ft 5-5ft 6. You are right, this is definately wrong.

Thanx mate, take care.


----------



## Britbb

SALKev said:


> The picture was used because it was convenient. Look at seperate pictures if you must, most of my points stand true.


You made a point that the older guys are more dry and ripped than the current guys.

Then you put up ronnie and dorian.

Ronnie and dorian are/were way ahead of the old school bodybuilders in conditioning. To suggest that dorian and ronnie had worse condition is just ridiculous.

Your quote:



> The difference in conditioning is also noticable.
> 
> The old era's guys (excluding Sergio it seems) look dry, carved out of stone


That is because of the shadow and the lighting. Dorian and ronnie have been taken in bright white stage lights...the others have not. Dorian and ronnie had far superior condition to the oldschool bodybuilders.

Like you say...just look at single pictures.


----------



## Raladoc

Personally i thought that Ed Kawak's size with aesthetics was very impressive


----------



## SALKev

Britbb said:


> You made a point that the older guys are more dry and ripped than the current guys.
> 
> Then you put up ronnie and dorian.
> 
> Ronnie and dorian are/were way ahead of the old school bodybuilders in conditioning. To suggest that dorian and ronnie had worse condition is just ridiculous.
> 
> Your quote:
> 
> That is because of the shadow and the lighting. Dorian and ronnie have been taken in bright white stage lights...the others have not. Dorian and ronnie had far superior condition to the oldschool bodybuilders.
> 
> Like you say...just look at single pictures.


I was abit loose with my words in saying that Yates had worse condition but Coleman, I stand by what I say. Apart from 1998 and maybe 1999 I just don't see it.

Aye, part of it is to do with the lighting but there are some pictures in which some of the old school guys are in decent lighting, but they are incredibly hard to find.

We could debate this through the night but my opinion isn't changing any time soon and I doubt yours is either. :beer:


----------



## Bri

My thread has been revived!!!!


----------



## Britbb

SALKev said:


> I was abit loose with my words in saying that Yates had worse condition but Coleman, I stand by what I say. Apart from 1998 and maybe 1999 I just don't see it.
> 
> Aye, part of it is to do with the lighting but there are some pictures in which some of the old school guys are in decent lighting, but they are incredibly hard to find.
> 
> We could debate this through the night but my opinion isn't changing any time soon and I doubt yours is either. :beer:


Ok fair enough, i respect your right to have an opinion.

But i am now just putting a picture up of ronnie coleman's condition.

When people talk of 'condition' in this country, there seems to be this massive talk of dorians 'dry ripped grainy' look... and its true he did have that.

But ronnie was on another level. I never understand how people can not give ronnie his dues. Ronnie's condition at his peak was insane, to say that arnold had better condition than ronnie, i just dont know what to say...except leaving you with a picture of probably the most dry and shredded glutes in bodybuilding history... of course they belong to ronnie coleman.

You seriously think that arnold, franco and sergio had better condition (lower bodyfat and less water retention) than ronnie? Mate look at how shredded his hams and glutes are, the oldschool guys dont even come anywhere near close!


----------



## Jaff0

Britbb said:


> Ok fair enough, i respect your right to have an opinion.
> 
> But i am now just putting a picture up of ronnie coleman's condition.
> 
> When people talk of 'condition' in this country, there seems to be this massive talk of dorians 'dry ripped grainy' look... and its true he did have that.
> 
> But ronnie was on another level. I never understand how people can not give ronnie his dues. Ronnie's condition at his peak was insane, to say that arnold had better condition than ronnie, i just dont know what to say...except leaving you with a picture of probably the most dry and shredded glutes in bodybuilding history... of course they belong to ronnie coleman.
> 
> You seriously think that arnold, franco and sergio had better condition (lower bodyfat and less water retention) than ronnie? Mate look at how shredded his hams and glutes are, the oldschool guys dont even come anywhere near close!


I'd agree, that the guys from the 70s didn't quite get to those degrees.

But guys in the 80s did - look at Gaspari in his prime, he - and a few others of his time - took condition and definition to a level beyond what most guys from the 70s and early 80s did.


----------



## SALKev

Britbb said:


> Ok fair enough, i respect your right to have an opinion.
> 
> But i am now just putting a picture up of ronnie coleman's condition.
> 
> When people talk of 'condition' in this country, there seems to be this massive talk of dorians 'dry ripped grainy' look... and its true he did have that.
> 
> But ronnie was on another level. I never understand how people can not give ronnie his dues. Ronnie's condition at his peak was insane, to say that arnold had better condition than ronnie, i just dont know what to say...except leaving you with a picture of probably the most dry and shredded glutes in bodybuilding history... of course they belong to ronnie coleman.
> 
> You seriously think that arnold, franco and sergio had better condition (lower bodyfat and less water retention) than ronnie? Mate look at how shredded his hams and glutes are, the oldschool guys dont even come anywhere near close!


Ok, I've had abit of a wander round the net trying to find pictures that back up both of our points of view and have found the below.

Here's a better picture of Ronnie:










and Arnold:










There's a colour shot of the same pose somewhere that I can't seem to find again but this will do as you can see what you need to.

Looking at these two pictures, I've got to say I completely agree with you. Arnold's back certainly shows great conditioning but Ronnie has him on the lower body and I don't need a picture to prove that.

What I don't understand is why we are provided with pictures that don't do any fvcking justice whatsoever to Ronnie and cause debates such as these when a better picture would sort it out instantly. :cursing:

I apologise - my judgement has only been based on the pictures I've seen.

I've forgotten to say something so if I remember it, it will be posted instead of this sentence.


----------



## Britbb

SALKev said:


> Ok, I've had abit of a wander round the net trying to find pictures that back up both of our points of view and have found the below.
> 
> Here's a better picture of Ronnie:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arnold:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a colour shot of the same pose somewhere that I can't seem to find again but this will do as you can see what you need to.
> 
> Looking at these two pictures, I've got to say I completely agree with you. Arnold's back certainly shows great conditioning but Ronnie has him on the lower body and I don't need a picture to prove that.
> 
> What I don't understand is why we are provided with pictures that don't do any fvcking justice whatsoever to Ronnie and cause debates such as these when a better picture would sort it out instantly. :cursing:
> 
> I apologise - my judgement has only been based on the pictures I've seen.
> 
> I've forgotten to say something so if I remember it, it will be posted instead of this sentence.


No worries mate. I can understand that you personally prefere arnolds physique, i can agree to an extent as well that arnold has a totally different look, in his own way he looks fantastic.

One could see arnold had the 'nicest' physique. But in terms of bodybuilding, ronnie is far superior obviously.

'Nicest' doesnt win shows, thats the point. Massive and ripped with shape = show winner.

Even arnold in that pic, the shadow is immense so his definition (whilst v good) also is increased. For true definition in upper body, look at the definition in the detail of the arms, not the contours but the striations in the triceps!

Ronnie has striated triceps, arnold has no stiations through his triceps.

It is the shadow that brings out more of arnolds definition in the photo to make it look like the muscles are jutting out further, but in reality you can see striations through ronnies triceps as well as amazing contours...thats the difference (but that is a bodyfat issue).

Arnold looks fuking amazing...

But ronnie is the best bodybuilder ever.

The only real way to see how good a bodybuilder is, is in the flesh.

I saw ronnie in the 2004 british grand prix at 300 lbs on stage when he won, one week after he won the olympia.

When i saw him, when he came on, the crowd gasped, everyone moved forward to the front of the stage, everyone stood up, everyone was silenced. He was head and shoulders above chris cormier, markus ruhl and the other pro's against him on that day. He was head and shoulders above jay cutler (who i saw in person in the 2003 british gp but ronnie didnt compete in that one). When ronnie came into the crowd, up close, it is so clear and easy to see how he beats the likes of flex wheeler, jay cutler and kevin levrone. When you actually saw the ripped mass and contours in person it was like no one else, ever. Judging is all done in person, in real time, not by photos or videos and thats what most people forget. Sometimes the whole 3 dimensional effect just doesnt show in pictures of film as much.


----------



## Jaff0

Britbb said:


> No worries mate. I can understand that you personally prefere arnolds physique, i can agree to an extent as well that arnold has a totally different look, in his own way he looks fantastic.
> 
> One could see arnold had the 'nicest' physique. But in terms of bodybuilding, ronnie is far superior obviously.
> 
> 'Nicest' doesnt win shows, thats the point. Massive and ripped with shape = show winner.
> 
> Even arnold in that pic, the shadow is immense so his definition (whilst v good) also is increased. For true definition in upper body, look at the definition in the detail of the arms, not the contours but the striations in the triceps!
> 
> Ronnie has striated triceps, arnold has no stiations through his triceps.
> 
> It is the shadow that brings out more of arnolds definition in the photo to make it look like the muscles are jutting out further, but in reality you can see striations through ronnies triceps as well as amazing contours...thats the difference (but that is a bodyfat issue).
> 
> Arnold looks fuking amazing...
> 
> But ronnie is the best bodybuilder ever.
> 
> The only real way to see how good a bodybuilder is, is in the flesh.
> 
> I saw ronnie in the 2004 british grand prix at 300 lbs on stage when he won, one week after he won the olympia.
> 
> When i saw him, when he came on, the crowd gasped, everyone moved forward to the front of the stage, everyone stood up, everyone was silenced. He was head and shoulders above chris cormier, markus ruhl and the other pro's against him on that day. He was head and shoulders above jay cutler (who i saw in person in the 2003 british gp but ronnie didnt compete in that one). When ronnie came into the crowd, up close, it is so clear and easy to see how he beats the likes of flex wheeler, jay cutler and kevin levrone. When you actually saw the ripped mass and contours in person it was like no one else, ever. Judging is all done in person, in real time, not by photos or videos and thats what most people forget. Sometimes the whole 3 dimensional effect just doesnt show in pictures of film as much.


Here's the thing, though - as somebody who prefers physiques from the 70s, voted that way, and replied to this thread accordingly - accepting all that, I don't dispute anything you've written, there.

From a purely "Which era shows the best physique as viewed from judging in a bodybuilding competition?" you are absolutely correct - and I suspect that nobody, seriously, would contend that.

However, the initial question posed - and the point of the poll - was which era of bodybuilding do people most admire the physiques - which is a different question to which era has the superior physique from a competition perspective.

On a similar theme, I wonder how voting would go if the question were similar, but with a slightly different tack "Which era of physiques (Arnold's day vs Today) would you prefer to see in bodybuilding competitions?". I suspect much of the same arguments would ensue, but I think it's one thing to contend about what is almost the objective perception of the current physiques, another to contend with what people should prefer.

I also see why people are saying you can't go back, you can't uninvent, un-develop the levels that bodybuilding has evolved to. That said, I don't think it's worthwhile to dispute whether people should prefer one era or the other.

Ronnie has an amazing physique - no doubt - and whilst I can appreciate that, it doesn't draw me, or make me want to look that way. When I was, truly, a bodybuilder, I would have wanted to achieve something like Arnold's physique. I think that's what the question posed, and the poll was trying to question.

And I accept that may well be significantly different for bodybuilders that are already approaching, at, or maybe beyond Arnold's then development. I also accept that under the standards of today, in terms of bodybuilding competition, there are criticisms that can easily be made of bodybuilders from Arnold's era.

Accepting that, though, and approaching 40 years since Arnold was at his peak, and you have to say that some of his photos do still look very impressive.

The one thing I found slightly amusing about the thread (I'm not suggesting you are saying this) is that there seemed to be some people posting that sounded a little irked that so many people voted in favour of Arnold's era. One thing that's been true of many sports - especially when the landscape has changed, fairly dramatically, over decades - is that many, whilst appreciating the current levels of extreme, actually prefer another era - a "golden era" if you will - that represents what they prefer most. Bodybuilding won't be alone in that, I've seen similar debates in cycling / mountain biking, motorsport, etc...

I don't buy that this is a bad thing, or that participating in a sport or merely as a hobby or pastime means that you must necessarily buy into, or prefer the current degree of competition. Personally, I no longer consider myself a bodybuilder - truth be told, it's probably nearing 20 years since I did - some of that is a change in lifestyle and demands, some in changes in actually what I want to achieve - but I'm committed to lifting and working out, which I've so far been doing for 25 years, and hope to be still doing in another 25 years+.


----------



## Bulkamania

coldo said:


> For me personally, i just dont like the stage look nowadays, or back in arnies day either tbh.
> 
> Much prefer a lean 9/10% over a mega low 4% anyday.


Same here mate, I prefer the 10% bodyfat, bulky kind of look to the ripped to fvck competition look. Just my opinion though


----------



## SALKev

Britbb said:


> No worries mate. I can understand that you personally prefere arnolds physique, i can agree to an extent as well that arnold has a totally different look, in his own way he looks fantastic.
> 
> One could see arnold had the 'nicest' physique. But in terms of bodybuilding, ronnie is far superior obviously.
> 
> 'Nicest' doesnt win shows, thats the point. Massive and ripped with shape = show winner.
> 
> Even arnold in that pic, the shadow is immense so his definition (whilst v good) also is increased. For true definition in upper body, look at the definition in the detail of the arms, not the contours but the striations in the triceps!
> 
> Ronnie has striated triceps, arnold has no stiations through his triceps.
> 
> It is the shadow that brings out more of arnolds definition in the photo to make it look like the muscles are jutting out further, but in reality you can see striations through ronnies triceps as well as amazing contours...thats the difference (but that is a bodyfat issue).
> 
> Arnold looks fuking amazing...
> 
> But ronnie is the best bodybuilder ever.
> 
> The only real way to see how good a bodybuilder is, is in the flesh.
> 
> I saw ronnie in the 2004 british grand prix at 300 lbs on stage when he won, one week after he won the olympia.
> 
> When i saw him, when he came on, the crowd gasped, everyone moved forward to the front of the stage, everyone stood up, everyone was silenced. He was head and shoulders above chris cormier, markus ruhl and the other pro's against him on that day. He was head and shoulders above jay cutler (who i saw in person in the 2003 british gp but ronnie didnt compete in that one). When ronnie came into the crowd, up close, it is so clear and easy to see how he beats the likes of flex wheeler, jay cutler and kevin levrone. When you actually saw the ripped mass and contours in person it was like no one else, ever. Judging is all done in person, in real time, not by photos or videos and thats what most people forget. Sometimes the whole 3 dimensional effect just doesnt show in pictures of film as much.


:laugh: I have no preference and havn't voted. Like I've said before, each era has it's qualities and drawbacks so for me there is no 'winner'. Someone mentioned Edward Kawak and his balance between size, condition and a small waist - I completely agree.

Thanks for the tip on triceps striations, I'll keep that in mind.

I understood the implications of the shadow in Arnold's picture, this is what I think I forgot to mention but you are absolutely right mate.

That is the precise reason I mentioned only from pictures, I had a feeling you might have seen Ronnie in the flesh and for all I know it's most likely he looks infintely better in real time than in a photo.

I've learnt alot from this thread and it's posters, kudos in particular to yourself, Jaff0 and the OP.


----------



## Bri

SALKev said:


> :laugh: I have no preference and havn't voted. Like I've said before, each era has it's qualities and drawbacks so for me there is no 'winner'. Someone mentioned Edward Kawak and his balance between size, condition and a small waist - I completely agree.
> 
> Thanks for the tip on triceps striations, I'll keep that in mind.
> 
> I understood the implications of the shadow in Arnold's picture, this is what I think I forgot to mention but you are absolutely right mate.
> 
> That is the precise reason I mentioned only from pictures, I had a feeling you might have seen Ronnie in the flesh and for all I know it's most likely he looks infintely better in real time than in a photo.
> 
> I've learnt alot from this thread and it's posters, kudos in particular to yourself, Jaff0 and the OP.


Hey I've leant alot from this thread too, nice one Kudos for the OP!

Very detailed posting guys and some great opinions have been put forward great read you two.


----------



## Dan86

coldo said:


> For me personally, i just dont like the stage look nowadays, or back in arnies day either tbh.
> 
> Much prefer a lean 9/10% over a mega low 4% anyday.


X2:thumbup1:


----------



## SALKev

God said:


> There are lots of bodybuilders I like out of both eras. The largest bodybuilders like Coleman and Cutler are without doubt the better bodyBUILDERS (more muscle and better condition).
> 
> However saying that in the below picture, I do think Ronnie looks a lot more pleasing to the eye in the left image but that's just my opinion.


That's the thing isn't it, like Brit said, pleasing to the eye doesn't win bodybuilding competitions.

And don't say 'yeah, but he did win a competition like that' because I KNOW THAT. :lol:


----------



## Bri

God said:


> There are lots of bodybuilders I like out of both eras. The largest bodybuilders like Coleman and Cutler are without doubt the better bodyBUILDERS (more muscle and better condition).
> 
> However saying that in the below picture, I do think Ronnie looks a lot more pleasing to the eye in the left image but that's just my opinion.


x2!


----------



## Bulkamania

Yeah, apparently he went on Dat Dere Cell Tech after his first olympia :lol:


----------



## LunaticSamurai

Arnold is a no brainer for me, maybe its my age and the reason i got into BB in the first place.

But there is a diference most of todays bodybuilders are short, and in my opinion, (sorry short people) muscle mass on a short guy looks no where near as good as it does on a tall guy, witht the exception of Franco Columbo, but then he was a 70's BB.

Coleman is 5ft10/11 (2010)

Jay Cutler 5ft 9 (2010)

Arnie was 6ft2, (1970)

Lou Ferrigno 6ft 5, (1970)

Ken Waller 6ft, (1970)

Serge Nubret 6ft-6ft 1, (1970)

I have also heard some people mention that looking pleasing doesn't win comps, Arnie 7 times Mr Olympia???????

Dont get me wrong, Coleman is massive, mixed report on his size say that he was the same size if not smaller in areas than Arnie, Arnie had 23inch arms, Colemans are 22inch or 24? so mixed reports, but does he look better and is he a better bodybuilder, No, sorry.

Ok, so he can leg press massive weights, but in bodybuilding it dont matter what you can lift, its the size and symetry that you get which is the goal.

Lets not also forget that Arnie was said to have the most perfect body in the world ever according to the Guiness book of records.

And whilst Arnie was training, (started at the age of 15) winning competitions, Coleman never even looked at a gym.

Kudos to Coleman and BB alike, they work hard and have made an achievment that far outways anything i could ever do, and to the OP; Arnie is my pic.


----------



## SK-XO

Imo probs have to say arnies day physique. Much more aesthetically pleasing and "healthy" looking.

Got to say that the whole "hgh gut" look looks awful. Albeit the effort and dedication the olympians put in is outstanding.

Imo my fav physique is Dennis Newman, carved out of stone look. Though one olympians physique that I have always admired is Victor Martinez:



















imo not OTT, great shape. Wouldn't mind being that big myself. But we all strive to be bigger and stronger and leaner etc etc so on. But we all do because it's bodybuilding, we all have goals, some of us want to look like fitness model type, some like arnold, some like victor, some even like jay cutler. End of the day everyone has different views on what their preference is.


----------



## LunaticSamurai

God said:


> I agree with some of your points however the arguments behind them seem a little flawed.
> 
> I think to conclude most average people would much prefer Arnold's look, however there will be many competitive bodybuilders who would much prefer to look like Ronnie.
> 
> I don't compete which is why I would be quite happy with a physique from the 70's.


 I kinda agree with what your saying but most bodybuilders and gym rats of today grew up knowing the latter of the professionals. People my age saw Arnie massive from young, so i should imagine that most 35+ers would say Arnie.

I only say about the size differnce according to measurments, Arnie was only 240lbs 6weeks out of Mr Olympia, yet he still had a 56/8 inch chest and 23 inch arms, So Coleman is 60lbs heavier and still only the same size?

I'd like to know how big Colemans waist is for comparison, Arnie's being 34inch.


----------



## SK-XO

LunaticSamurai said:


> I kinda agree with what your saying but most bodybuilders and gym rats of today grew up knowing the latter of the professionals. People my age saw Arnie massive from young, so i should imagine that most 35+ers would say Arnie.
> 
> I only say about the size differnce according to measurments, Arnie was only 240lbs 6weeks out of Mr Olympia, yet he still had a 56/8 inch chest and 23 inch arms, So Coleman is 60lbs heavier and still only the same size?
> 
> I'd like to know how big Colemans waist is for comparison, Arnie's being 34inch.


Arnie was very lean, very trim and small waist. Colemans carrying a lot more muscle on his legs for example. I think a lot is to do with genetics at the same time though, but arnies arms were massive.


----------



## SALKev

No one can seem to give an accurate figure.

'Apparantly' they were actually 19 3/4" or something close - in the 19's anyway - according to Arthur Jones. But where that came from I don't know.

Then there's that video at that prison with the black guy who says they were 22".

Arnold, we could use a little help here... :lol:


----------



## weeman

SALKev said:


> No one can seem to give an accurate figure.
> 
> *'Apparantly' they were actually 19 3/4" or something close - in the 19's anyway - according to Arthur Jones. But where that came from I don't know.*
> 
> Then there's that video at that prison with the black guy who says they were 22".
> 
> Arnold, we could use a little help here... :lol:


they were taped at that size backstage after he won the 1974 Olympia iirc,keep in mind also that Arnie was notoriously bigger in contest nik than he was in offseason,the 23'' arms claim is total falacy,Coleman's arms were taped at a legit 23'' mid contest prep,theres a vid on youtube somewhere showing it.


----------



## Jaff0

weeman said:


> keep in mind also that Arnie was notoriously bigger in contest nik than he was in offseason


That's how it looked in one of the opening scenes in Pumping Iron - the bit in the first few scenes where he goes to the gym, and there's a shot of a board showing how many days to the Universe and Olympia.

That said, Arnold's arms (at his peak) don't look shabby by todays standards. It's often a cheap shot to talk about tricep size in relation to his biceps, but I think that's mainly an artifact of him having quite peaked biceps. So when compared when he's flexing his biceps, his triceps look like they should be bigger, yet in poses where he wasn't flexing his biceps, his triceps don't seem underdeveloped then.


----------



## Smitch

LittleChris said:


> Arnie is always catapualted to some sort of God-like status.
> 
> His arms weren't over 20inches as some claim either, 19.75 I think Arthur Jones taped them at.


Yeah, he was tiny....... :confused1:


----------



## LunaticSamurai

weeman said:


> they were taped at that size backstage after he won the 1974 Olympia iirc,keep in mind also that Arnie was notoriously bigger in contest nik than he was in offseason,the 23'' arms claim is total falacy,Coleman's arms were taped at a legit 23'' mid contest prep,theres a vid on youtube somewhere showing it.


You seriously cannot be serious?

A friend of mine has got 19 and a bit arms, we measured them and they are no-where near the size of Arnie's, bearing in mind that the guy was 6ft 2, do you really think that they were 19 inches, lmao.


----------



## SALKev

Was your mate in Arnolds era contest condition?


----------



## LunaticSamurai

SALKev said:


> Was your mate in Arnolds era contest condition?


 If he competed his arms would be about 18.5, he's not far off it.

I have read a few threads regarding the size of the pro's of that time and to be honest, the replies are from people who have competed with 19inch arms and even they say that they are no-where near the size of Arnold.

Maybe when Arnold was 40 years old, his arms where 19inches, but now when he was competing.


----------



## SALKev

Again, pictures...



















If Arnie's were 19 3/4 and Ronnie's 23 or thereabouts you can easily see it in the two pictures.


----------



## LunaticSamurai

Picture 2 isn't there


----------



## SALKev

Is now


----------



## LunaticSamurai

Sorry but you cannot compare 2 photo's in different places with different people.


----------



## SALKev

LunaticSamurai said:


> Sorry but you cannot compare 2 photo's in different places with different people.


So what the fvck do you want me to do? Give you two identical shots of Arnie? :cursing:


----------



## LunaticSamurai

Ok, here's my attempt to prove it.

This is a picture of Franco Columbu, with a tape measure around his arm, he was 5ft 5inch tall.

This tape clearly shows his arm being just above 18 inches.










Next is Arnie next to Franco.

Now are you telling me that his arms were only 1 inch or so bigger. Think about it.


----------



## LunaticSamurai

SALKev said:


> So what the fvck do you want me to do? Give you two identical shots of Arnie? :cursing:


Calm down pal, this is a debate not an argument.


----------



## SALKev

LunaticSamurai said:


> *Sorry but you cannot compare 2 photo's in different places* with different people.





LunaticSamurai said:


> Ok, here's my attempt to prove it.
> 
> This is a picture of Franco Columbu, with a tape measure around his arm, he was 5ft 5inch tall.
> 
> This tape clearly shows his arm being just above 18 inches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next is Arnie next to Franco.
> 
> Now are you telling me that his arms were only 1 inch or so bigger. Think about it.





LunaticSamurai said:


> Calm down pal, this is a debate not an argument.


Well can you read what you've written again before posting it? There's no 'debate' whatsoever that Ronnie's arms are bigger than Arnie's. For all you know those two pics could be taken in different place and as you very know, *you can't compare 2 photos in different places.*

It's not your fault I'm angry, just you elevated it a bit.


----------



## LunaticSamurai

SALKev said:


> Well can you read what you've written again before posting it? There's no 'debate' whatsoever that Ronnie's arms are bigger than Arnie's. For all you know those two pics could be taken in different place and as you very know, *you can't compare 2 photos in different places.*
> 
> It's not your fault I'm angry, just you elevated it a bit.


Complete rubbish, what you have tried to do is create an argument with nothing.

If you put up a photo of Ronnie with a tape measure around his arm, then again standing next to Arnie, that would have been something.

I produced a photo of Franco with a tape around his arm, then again standing next to Arnie.

Figure it out.


----------



## LunaticSamurai

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, majority of people have said that Arnies day wins over today, which is what the OP is... Not the size of Arnies arms...


----------



## SALKev

Fine, whatever. Why am I discussing pointless things when I could be in bed...

Goodnight :beer:


----------



## LunaticSamurai

SALKev said:


> Fine, whatever. Why am I discussing pointless things when I could be in bed...
> 
> Goodnight :beer:


 exactly, :beer:


----------



## Huntingground

Salkev, Arnie's physique is so much more aesthetically pleasing than Ronnie's in those two pictures. No doubt about that.


----------



## SALKev

I didn't say it wasn't


----------



## lumberjack

Old School physiques are so much more pleasing to the eye. The muscle has crispness to it.


----------



## Bri

lumberjack said:


> Old School physiques are so much more pleasing to the eye. The muscle has crispness to it.


These guys look really amazing!


----------



## tom0311

Prefer the Arnold years simply because that's the physique I would choose. Today's BBer's still look fantastic but I wouldn't like to be that big.


----------



## jakelad

Y and how have the physiques changed so much over the years??

Is it the type of gear they use? Amount they use? the way they train? diet??


----------



## Mjc1

Arnolds size with such a tiny waist and bicep peak always looked awesome


----------



## Suprakill4

jakelad said:


> Y and how have the physiques changed so much over the years??
> 
> Is it the type of gear they use? Amount they use? the way they train? diet??


From various places i have read, its because of the use of GH, different AAS that wasnt available back then, and primarily Insulin. Many places i researched insulin, it says its allowed people to get alot bigger than they could have through AAS alone......


----------



## jakelad

kieren1234 said:


> From various places i have read, its because of the use of GH, different AAS that wasnt available back then, and primarily Insulin. Many places i researched insulin, it says its allowed people to get alot bigger than they could have through AAS alone......


Cheerrz bro :thumbup1:


----------



## MarkFranco

Some of my favourites


----------



## Milky

I like the Flex Wheeler / Shawn Ray / CHarles Clairemont look, dont know if its an "era" as such.


----------



## Jaff0

gemilky69 said:


> I like the Flex Wheeler / Shawn Ray / CHarles Clairemont look, dont know if its an "era" as such.


I saw and very briefly later met, Shawn Ray at a seminar in the late 80s (he and Tonya Knight did this kind of joint seminar thing).

I also saw Charles Clairmonte guest pose at a show in the late 80s. He was in good shape, not quite as he would to compete, but in good shape nevertheless, and looked big, too.

I also saw a maahhaaasiiivvvee Victor Richards in seminar - probably around 1990. He was HUGE, in fairly good shape, but initially came up with some blag about how he wasn't expecting to pose.


----------



## barryd

Arnies day wins it for me,much more aesthetic physiques back then.dont like the freak look of today,with the distended stomachs.what looks good about that.as frank zane said recently someone is going to explode onstage,so if youre sitting in the front row seats make sure youre wearing a plastic mack.


----------



## Big chris

I cant choose one or the other, i like both looks, the big and bulky and also the slimmer waist, i think that both can co-exist anyway, if you like the big guys watch the open show if you like more aestecically pleasing watch the 202s, i like to watch all.


----------



## Bucknut

I think, and this is just my opinion......the look prevailant during Arnold's era was, maybe, achievable by a great many people (perhaps not to the level Arnold and Co. reached mind) through sheer dedication to training diet and help from AAS.

The look of today is a million miles from the hard training clean living guy in the gym, who trains hard, eats well, lives a clean lifestyle etc.

I read an article by Robby Robinson a few years back and he said BBers of today rely far far more on drugs to get where they want to be....that's not to say they don't train with the same determination as previous generations, obviously they do....but the science involved today just wasn't there 40 years ago and he reckoned todays top pros had become reliant on the drugs available to help them along the way.

I think I would have to vote for the Arnold era, however my fave physique would have to be Flex Wheeler of the mid 90's.

I also like Bob Paris circa '88 Olympia and Denis Newman...never a big fan of Yates' physique...big isn't best IMO.


----------



## barryd

Bucknut said:


> I think, and this is just my opinion......the look prevailant during Arnold's era was, maybe, achievable by a great many people (perhaps not to the level Arnold and Co. reached mind) through sheer dedication to training diet and help from AAS.
> 
> The look of today is a million miles from the hard training clean living guy in the gym, who trains hard, eats well, lives a clean lifestyle etc.
> 
> I read an article by Robby Robinson a few years back and he said BBers of today rely far far more on drugs to get where they want to be....that's not to say they don't train with the same determination as previous generations, obviously they do....but the science involved today just wasn't there 40 years ago and he reckoned todays top pros had become reliant on the drugs available to help them along the
> 
> I think I would have to vote for the Arnold era, however my fave physique would have to be Flex Wheeler of the mid 90's.
> 
> I also like Bob Paris circa '88 Olympia and Denis Newman...never a big fan of Yates' physique...big isn't best IMO.


very well put mate,best answer iv herd yet.


----------



## [email protected]@-ter

Ok, I have just read this entire thread.

What amazes me is that I thought it was simply a poll, who do you like best etc etc.

What it has turned into is that most of the people who prefe Arnolds era look have then verbally harangued those wh say they prefer the look of today's BB'ers.

Jesus!! Isnt anyone allowed an opinion anymore! What is the point in asking for peoples opinion to then try and tear it to bits and makes the person giving that opinion justify it simply because it is different to yours?

I like both eras physiques, AND the years between, for different reasons but i wouldn't slate anyone who specifically preferred one over the other.

I think some people need to remind themselves what an opinion is and climb down off their soapbox.

MB


----------



## LunaticSamurai

Can't remember if i have posted on this, can't be bothered to go through it all.

For me, Arnie is the epitome of bodybuilding, can't stand the fatties of today. My mate has a distented gut and he gets ripped apart all the time.


----------



## hamsternuts

LunaticSamurai said:


> *Can't remember if i have posted on this, can't be bothered to go through it all.*
> 
> For me, Arnie is the epitome of bodybuilding, can't stand the fatties of today. My mate has a distented gut and he gets ripped apart all the time.


if you have they'll be a dot in the folder icon in the list of threads (i only just learned this too)

i've voted for the old school shape, love it, HGH has a lot to answer for.

respect the modern fellas just as much, just prefer the older shape.


----------



## FatScrub

I agree with the comments about liking something you can identify with, or something that you think is (more or less) achievable.

If I work really hard, I can aim for a mini Arnold physique. Which is already far more than my personal expectations. However it's unlikely that I will mirror Coleman's size and rippedness regardless of how much effort I put in. Does not mean I don't have the utmost respect for how he looks. Both Arnold and Coleman for that matter.


----------



## dezikrate

I'm pretty sure if Arnold et al had the drugs available then, that are available to b.builders now we would have seen a different Arnold...technology/science moves on thus we have the b.builders of today,its a short, hard, dedicated lifestyle that would'nt suit all and anyone that undertakes it amateur or pro I admire them all........ :thumbup1:


----------



## hamsternuts

hmmmm, Arnie with today's technology, HGH, supps etc..... what a thought, i'd like to think he'd still look awesome, although he'd be bigger.


----------



## Rekless

HGH has changed the game forever! guys are abusing it from a very young age! Lee Priest is said to have started when he was 12, hence him being so small!


----------



## BlitzAcez

An actual response from the legend himself:

Dear Arnold,

I was wondering how big you were when in peak condition? How much did you weigh? How big were your calves, thighs, waist, chest, biceps?

- [email protected]*******.net

I had to look this up. During the peak of my career my calves were 20 inches, thighs 28.5 inches, waist 34 inches, chest 57 inches and 22 inch arms. For the sake of argument, we'll assume these measurements are still correct ;-)


----------



## danny1871436114701

I dont think its HGH to be honest, I generally think it is putting mass on to quickly look at KAI greene, he gained loads and walks around like a fatty, my opinion is Hgh gut is a myth and probably to do with diet.

wasnt human cadavers available in arnies time ??


----------



## bigdaveuk

Not sure about the eras but to me arnie and flex wheeler are the best built guys ever, watch pumping iron, in comparison to todays standards arnie was small but soo much more impressive with a tiny waist, how many guys nowadays vacume their gut in. Come to think of it shawn ray was the last guy i remember doing it. Dexter jackson looks good too.


----------



## Rekless

bigdaveuk said:


> Not sure about the eras but to me arnie and flex wheeler are the best built guys ever, watch pumping iron, in comparison to todays standards arnie was small but soo much more impressive with a tiny waist, how many guys nowadays vacume their gut in. Come to think of it shawn ray was the last guy i remember doing it. Dexter jackson looks good too.


Flex had a amazing physique!


----------



## BoxerJay

Arnolds by far tbh


----------



## hsmann87

Gotta take my hat of to Arnold. The dude turned bodybuilding 180 degrees and popularised it beyond belief.

Yes he had an amazing upper body.

But lets face it...his thighs were sh1t...especially in comparison to his upper arms. I personally believe he was a worthy olympia winner. But not a worthy 7 time olympia winner. He was an excellent posterboy for the sport though.

I know my comments divulge from the OP. And i know people are gonna think im hating on Arnie. Im not. He is a legend. But im just telling it how i see it.


----------



## Smitch

Serge Nubret from the Arnold era also looked awesome.

I'm reading Arnolds book called Arnold: Education of a bodbuilder, at the moment and it's really good and i'd reccommend it.


----------



## Wardy211436114751

Out of pretty much all the pics I've seen in this thread the only body I can actually say I'd like to have is Arnolds. For examplbe that Ronnie Coleman pic I tohught was disgusting. I like the big ripped look but would much rather be at about 7.5% fat as opposed to like sub 5% and too many veins are a turn-off(BB-wise  ) IMO!


----------



## Britbb

On The Rise said:


> Out of pretty much all the pics I've seen in this thread the only body I can actually say I'd like to have is Arnolds. For examplbe that Ronnie Coleman pic I tohught was disgusting. I like the big ripped look but would much rather be at about 7.5% fat as opposed to like sub 5% and too many veins are a turn-off(BB-wise  ) IMO!


Cool mate, entitled to your opinion.

Well, when you get to the same size that schwarzenegger was, then just maintain. Dont diet quite so hard for shows either and youll only be 7% bodyfat instead of 4% and you can just maintain your peak schwarzenegger size, just incase you ended up training a bit too hard and started to look like ronnie coleman! If you start adding a bit more mass and looking like ronnie coleman did, then take a few months off training and just go back down to 3 meals a day, then you can maintain the look that you want all year round and not have to worry about ever being as big or ripped as ronnie coleman was mate.


----------



## MWVEC

I chose arnolds era, but i prefer the 90's etc little bigger than arnie years without the bloat animation type look of nowadays.

I also think the old skool boys always stayed in shape all year round, or maybe we just didnt see it as the world wasnt as publicised.

Dont get me wrong as you can see from my avatar of Branch, I am in awe and disbelief of how those guys have the abitily to get that size. I do think tho that it is an aquired taste lol.

My favourite bodybuilder atm is Zack 'KING' Kahn!


----------



## Glassback

Good points here both all eras but something mentioned alot about the gut pushing out more in more modern bodybuilders - what is that all about?


----------



## ian73

Big Lou was awsome also ....


----------



## thermique

Great little insight into the diet of the 70's here:






THis channel has lots of other stories from the 70's bbing.


----------



## Jordan08

Earlier era for me. Kevin levrone was last of that kind.


----------



## MattyHall

70s/80s. For me, the idea of having such a large waist like nowadays defeats the object. The bigger the difference between chest and waist, the more aesthetic.


----------



## godspeed

Arnold Era. Franko is the reason i started going to the gym.


----------



## SENATORE

Hi guys  .

The King of freaks Vic Richards


----------



## Big ape

Frank Zane / Bob Paris ... Olympia last year was awful just mass monsters with no aesthetics and huge guts


----------



## p.cullen

definately prefer Arnolds era, the top bodybuilders of today, to me look like genetic freaks!

where as in his day they were more pleasing to the eye, more aesthetic


----------



## bjaminny

Heineken said:


> Arnie & Zane for me.
> 
> I appreciate the 'sport' has evolved but I agree with Dom totally.. today it seems as if it's a chemistry experiment.


3 names came up for me straight away. Arnie, Frank Zane and Serge Nubret. The cuts FZ had in his quads were awesome. Nubret was polished as! And Arnie......well, it's Arnie. Led from the beginning.


----------



## nWo

> Hi guys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The King of freaks Vic Richards


One of the biggest guys you'll ever see and no gut either, if he chose to compete on the Olympia circuit back in his era he'd have done so well.


----------



## Carbon-12

I prefer the golden era, like most I would assume. As Arnold said in an interview, when people looked at them, they said they wanted to look like that; nobody wants to look like a 280 lbs monster.

Mirin hard...

View attachment 117052


----------



## bjaminny

Bri said:


> As JAff said it clearly is a very subjective sport. It's all a matter of the judges opinion. And this poll is about which bodybuilding look you prefer. So to be honest is it really a suprise that people are swaying towards Arnold's day? When, as has been said, they mantain an athletic look, which is in my opinon, and clearly most other peoples, generally just more pleasing aesthetically. If Arnold at his peak was in the next olympia, although he may not be as "developed or conditioned" he would place very well i expect.
> 
> I also don't understand what you mean when you say what's the point of being a fan of a sport if you don't want it to evolve. People start to love a sport because of how it IS not how they want it to become. Sure in practically every sport, people can never evolve enough, or acheive ultimate perfection. LeBron James for example may be a superb basketball player, but he still misses shots. There will never come a time when he will reach the point where he can't miss. So i agree as far as MOST sports. However, i feel bodybuilding is different. For the most part it's more like a pageant, you get judged on how the physique looks. But it is definitely debatable that a bodybuilder such as Arnold on the olympia stage has reached perfection and couldn't look better. so why would anyone want it to continue to evolve? Eventually it would be over the top. Just because bodybuilders are supposedly improving and becoming more "developed or conditioned" doesn't mean that this improvements create a more aesthetically balanced physique.
> 
> if one day there was bodybuilders who were 5' 9" ,100 inch quads and 78 inch arms, with 1% bodyfat. And generally massive perfectly proportioned physiques. So in theory they had evolved from the bodybuilders of today, right? Bigger, more developed and better conditioning. If one of these freaks walked on a stage today lookin like that they woudn't necessarily look better would they? The perfect physique in reality would be alot smaller. Because it's a competition of aesthetics, if people got too big, they wouldn't have aesthetic physiques anymore. They would look completely weird and not good at all.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Bri.
> 
> [IMG alt="post-30978-143614156119_thumb.jpg" data-fileid="25513"]<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_02_2010/post-30978-143614156119_thumb.jpg[/IMG]


 Just to clear something up, for me, this picture has been photoshopped right?


----------



## RedStar

bjaminny said:


> Just to clear something up, for me, this picture has been photoshopped right?


 Either that or it's synthol abuse to a new level.


----------



## Dezw

Lee Haney, 8 time Mr O.

Better than Arnie and Ronnie.


----------



## zak1990

would of been interesting to see what arnold would have looked like with all todays drugs available to him


----------



## zak1990

bertil fox looked about right for me size etc...


----------



## Winston0555

Frank Zane :thumb


----------



## daltrey

I prefer the bodybuilders of the 80ies. They really looked aesthetic and didn't have these bloated midsections like todays pros.


----------

