# Has Bodybuilding really changed for the better?



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

I'm in my 50's now and recall my disdain when older guys turned their noses up at Arnold S (saying he was a steroid freak!) and said the only shape to go for was a Steve Reeves one! Now I'm one of those older guys but I still attend the NABBA Britain and Universe shows. That said, I'm not convinced what I see up on stage is more appealing than the physiques from over 40 years ago! The attached picture is Frank Richards from 1969! And to me this physique is incredible and I would still prefer to look like this rather than most of the amateurs competing today. No distended gut, and no creosote mahogany paint! To me, Frank looks bigger in 1969 than most amateurs look today. And that is achieved without HGH and whilst I'm sure chemical assistance was most likely used, probably nothing compared to what is used today and well before any notion of PCT! So what do you think? Is Frank something you'd aspire to or am I now most certainly one of the old gits I used to listen to with disdain?


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

Imo there are many members that look better on here


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

At the risk of being flamed, the guy in the pic although in good shape,looks like he ate all the Dianabols.


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

Definately the older bodybuilders looked much better than the jay cuttler and colemans of today

The juice was certainly used tho nothing compared to today.

Its entirely up to the individual what way he or she wants to look especially if your not into competion level.

For me the best era was the 70s and 80s looks,,,my fav being arnold and lou ferrigo

Im also a big fan of Dorian Yates..

I think as far as the heavy weights nowadays its beginning to look a bit freakish and too muscle bound and as you say when off competition some of the guts look like pregnant women

Ps,,,,the very best look is that guy in the avartar with the light blue napoli shirt,,hes huge:whistling:


----------



## phoenix1980 (Apr 27, 2011)

I get what your saying OP, times,technologies, methods etc etc change and with change brings a new breed. What we have up on stage today are no less impressive from an effort/dedication/discipline stand point as well as asthetically. I do however agree with you regarding those with the distended guts, they look horrible and up until recently I just assumed it was insulin/hgh abuse that did it. @Pscarb(sorry all I seem to do is tag you lol) pointed out that its not always the case they are other factors that need to be considered, like muscles increasing in size, dehydration, physicall exhausting from the heat/holding your breath for poses etc.

Im sure though as we progress technologies/drugs/methods will again change and we'll see a new kind of animal on stage.

I'll say it again 40yrs ago or today these men and women who get up on that stage who prepare all year round at the sacrafice of their family/life/sleep any form of slacking off should be commended it is not easy!

Here's a pic from back in the day that I like :-


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

Blue(UK) - You are absolutely right - in 1969, Dianabol was pretty much all these guys could access. Which in my view makes the outcome all the more impressive. In fact, when I look back through bodybuilding history I reckon the 70's and early 80's look is by far more attractive to me (Arnold, Padilla, Mentzer etc) but each to their own of course.

Phoenix1980 - absolutely agree about the hard work and dedication all generations of competitive bodybuilders have applied to reach their goals and I wouldn't wish to come across as dismissive of that.

It's probably just a matter of when you got in to the sport. For me, training was I hoped, a journey that would lead to a physique like this. (I failed, spectacularly, by the way!).


----------



## phoenix1980 (Apr 27, 2011)

Its never to late @Kazza61 whilst you may not achieve the physiques in the pics anymore you can still definately get a kick a$$ physique none the less. Take a look at @Milky journal called Milky he's 43 granted your older but still it can be done so go for it


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Kazza61 said:


> Blue(UK) - You are absolutely right - in 1969, Dianabol was pretty much all these guys could access. Which in my view makes the outcome all the more impressive. In fact, when I look back through bodybuilding history I reckon the 70's and early 80's look is by far more attractive to me (Arnold, Padilla, Mentzer etc) but each to their own of course.
> 
> Phoenix1980 - absolutely agree about the hard work and dedication all generations of competitive bodybuilders have applied to reach their goals and I wouldn't wish to come across as dismissive of that.
> 
> It's probably just a matter of when you got in to the sport. For me, training was I hoped, a journey that would lead to a physique like this. (I failed, spectacularly, by the way!).


You have only FAILED when you give up mate :thumbup1:


----------



## andyhuggins (Nov 21, 2008)

Its all about pesonal preference and working towards those goals.


----------



## phoenix1980 (Apr 27, 2011)

Yup what milky says put me in mind of a quote which is we do not fail because we dont suceed , we fail because we do not try. Anyway sorry to derail thread, back on track OP was expressing his no **** love for bodybuilders past


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

love how @BigTrev mentions not liking the freaks of today yet is a big dorian fan....yea cause he was never a freak 

guys for the 3-4 pictures placed in this thread i could post up double that amount with Pro's of today with better aesthetics etc.....it is all about personal choice and what you like in a physique i love padillas physique but did not like columbo's yet he won more titles?? i am not a big fan of Arnolds physique from a BB standpoint either i am more in awe of what he achieved in bringing the sport mainstream......

this does not mean i like the likes of coleman at his biggest i prefered him when he was smaller in the earlier 2000 years, Phil Heath is exceptional aesthetically speaking he was never matched by the BB in the arnold days....it is all about what you like just like girlfriends and wives what one person finds attractive another will not but BB nowadays is not in a mess nor has it lost its way....there were a handful of decent physiques back then now there are literally hundreds of thousands


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> love how @BigTrev mentions not liking the freaks of today yet is a big dorian fan....yea cause he was never a freak
> 
> guys for the 3-4 pictures placed in this thread i could post up double that amount with Pro's of today with better aesthetics etc.....it is all about personal choice and what you like in a physique i love padillas physique but did not like columbo's yet he won more titles?? i am not a big fan of Arnolds physique from a BB standpoint either i am more in awe of what he achieved in bringing the sport mainstream......
> 
> this does not mean i like the likes of coleman at his biggest i prefered him when he was smaller in the earlier 2000 years, Phil Heath is exceptional aesthetically speaking he was never matched by the BB in the arnold days....it is all about what you like just like girlfriends and wives what one person finds attractive another will not but BB nowadays is not in a mess nor has it lost its way....there were a handful of decent physiques back then now there are literally hundreds of thousands


Who are you a big fan of physique wise mate ?

Who has or had the whole package in your opinion ?


----------



## majormuscle (Oct 24, 2009)

Pscarb said:


> love how @BigTrev mentions not liking the freaks of today yet is a big dorian fan....yea cause he was never a freak
> 
> guys for the 3-4 pictures placed in this thread i could post up double that amount with Pro's of today with better aesthetics etc.....it is all about personal choice and what you like in a physique i love padillas physique but did not like columbo's yet he won more titles?? i am not a big fan of Arnolds physique from a BB standpoint either i am more in awe of what he achieved in bringing the sport mainstream......
> 
> this does not mean i like the likes of coleman at his biggest i prefered him when he was smaller in the earlier 2000 years, Phil Heath is exceptional aesthetically speaking he was never matched by the BB in the arnold days....it is all about what you like just like girlfriends and wives what one person finds attractive another will not but BB nowadays is not in a mess nor has it lost its way....there were a handful of decent physiques back then now there are literally hundreds of thousands


Pretty much sums everything up in one post I'd say perfectly said , although you gotta admire Coleman for adding so much size to his frame even if its not to a particular taste


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> love how @BigTrev mentions not liking the freaks of today yet is a big dorian fan....yea cause he was never a freak
> 
> guys for the 3-4 pictures placed in this thread i could post up double that amount with Pro's of today with better aesthetics etc.....it is all about personal choice and what you like in a physique i love padillas physique but did not like columbo's yet he won more titles?? i am not a big fan of Arnolds physique from a BB standpoint either i am more in awe of what he achieved in bringing the sport mainstream......
> 
> this does not mean i like the likes of coleman at his biggest i prefered him when he was smaller in the earlier 2000 years, Phil Heath is exceptional aesthetically speaking he was never matched by the BB in the arnold days....it is all about what you like just like girlfriends and wives what one person finds attractive another will not but BB nowadays is not in a mess nor has it lost its way....there were a handful of decent physiques back then now there are literally hundreds of thousands


I wouldnt put Dorian Yates in the same way as Ronnie Coleman and co,,,i think hes a better all round look in my eyes maybe not in his younger days tho


----------



## Kimball (Feb 26, 2012)

I'm not a fan of the current 'Olympia' heavyweights. The smaller guys who aren't all out for mass are currently in better condition than ever. I preferred the look of Zane but can't argue the effort and condition the modern guys are in.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Milky said:


> Who are you a big fan of physique wise mate ?
> 
> Who has or had the whole package in your opinion ?


phil heath certainly has it in bundles and as long as he does not overdo the size gain he will be at the top for a long time, i like Rhodden but he is a little light for his frame at the moment Centopani has a great physique.

has i said i did like Padilla in his day as well as Surge Nubret......there are a few more......

i admire Jay Cutler for what he has achieved not only on stage but in business being one of the few Multi Millionaires in BB his physique was very good when he was chasing Ronnie but i think apart from the year he won the title back is has gone downhill of late.....

but saying that i prefer the newer guys overall as when you take them as a group and compare them as a group to the guys back in the 70's/80's there is no comparison to be made (as a group) there will always be individuals that stand out though.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

BigTrev said:


> I wouldnt put Dorian Yates in the same way as Ronnie Coleman and co,,,i think hes a better all round look in my eyes maybe not in his younger days tho


there is no co when you speak of ronnie, but dorian is a freak at nearly 260lbs shredded onstage what else could he be, aesthetically speaking he was not the best but had enough of the muscle and the freaky hard condition to bring home the trophy each year.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

majormuscle said:


> Pretty much sums everything up in one post I'd say perfectly said , although you gotta admire Coleman for adding so much size to his frame even if its not to a particular taste


exactly to be able to add that amount of muscle at that stage of his development is nothing short of amazing i think he went to far towards the end but still amazing..........well it is called BodyBuilding after all


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> phil heath certainly has it in bundles and as long as he does not overdo the size gain he will be at the top for a long time, i like Rhodden but he is a little light for his frame at the moment Centopani has a great physique.
> 
> has i said i did like Padilla in his day as well as Surge Nubret......there are a few more......
> 
> ...


Cant disagree with any of that TBH, one of my "idols " if you like was Charles Clairemonte back in the day...


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> there is no co when you speak of ronnie, but dorian is a freak at nearly 260lbs shredded onstage what else could he be, aesthetically speaking he was not the best but had enough of the muscle and the freaky hard condition to bring home the trophy each year.....


Yes true tho to look at i always felt he looked better than Ronnie and Jay overall and less freakish at times tho yes a huge guy but put together better in my eyes.

If i had to choose i would personally go with Lou Ferigno as my number one


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Kazza61 said:


> I'm in my 50's now and recall my disdain when older guys turned their noses up at Arnold S (saying he was a steroid freak!) and said the only shape to go for was a Steve Reeves one! Now I'm one of those older guys but I still attend the NABBA Britain and Universe shows. That said, I'm not convinced what I see up on stage is more appealing than the physiques from over 40 years ago! The attached picture is Frank Richards from 1969! And to me this physique is incredible and I would still prefer to look like this rather than most of the amateurs competing today. No distended gut, and no creosote mahogany paint! To me, Frank looks bigger in 1969 than most amateurs look today. And that is achieved without HGH and whilst I'm sure chemical assistance was most likely used, probably nothing compared to what is used today and well before any notion of PCT! So what do you think? Is Frank something you'd aspire to or am I now most certainly one of the old gits I used to listen to with disdain?


to be fair mate most top amateurs these days look better than this in the off season, you mention distention as if everyone has it but they do not for everyone you can mention i can mention 10 who do not........

he looks bigger because he is fat buddy the standard of condition has increased dramatically he is big but then i am bigger when i start my prep than i am on stage the comparison you are making is one that cannot be made......


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I have a huge fondness for many of the old school guys, and in many ways I will always see some of them as more inspirational... but that doesn't mean that I think they are [objectively] better than today's crop.

There are many really good physiques nowadays, and the number of guys who are cut and jacked is probably higher than ever. That said, the last Mr O and the last AC both were fairly disappointing IMO, and neither produced a particularly memorable line up with many guys a little off.

I think maybe that's one area where the older school lineups sometimes win - the overall size and conditioning standards may have been a little lower than today, but more guys seemed to come in on target. Recently more guys in the pro shows seem to me to get their prep slightly wrong - I guess though that's simply reflective of a finer line of judgement nowadays and greater pressure.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

BigTrev said:


> Yes true tho to look at i always felt he looked better than Ronnie and Jay overall and less freakish at times tho yes a huge guy but put together better in my eyes.
> 
> If i had to choose i would personally go with Lou Ferigno as my number one


Lou was a weak BB when all things are considered as he did not carry the mass for his height back in his day, yet when he made a comeback he looked much better......

i stood next to Dorian back in the early 90's (think it was 1993 or 4) before his second or third Olympia title as he guest posed at the Mr Sidmouth and came off stage in his trunks at 22st and lean just as we (novice class) was going on.........now that is not something you need to see as you step onstage to compete lol


----------



## BigTrev (Mar 16, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> Lou was a weak BB when all things are considered as he did not carry the mass for his height back in his day, yet when he made a comeback he looked much better......
> 
> i stood next to Dorian back in the early 90's (think it was 1993 or 4) before his second or third Olympia title as he guest posed at the Mr Sidmouth and came off stage in his trunks at 22st and lean just as we (novice class) was going on.........now that is not something you need to see as you step onstage to compete lol


Geez 22st must have been mad to stand beside....

Im friends with a guy over here who won a lot of competition back in the 80s and when he was shredded and ready for stage looked like a monster at i think 16st


----------



## Delhi (Dec 8, 2005)

I think Paul has touched on something important in his post. There were a handful of good physiques back in the golden era compared today where there are thousands. The quality has definitely increased alongside the quantity also. But back then as there was so little people were truly amazed and this let the personalities shine through and from that Heros and gods were created. I am a huge Arnold fan but in reality he would struggle to win a Scottish amateur show today.

That's the reality. . . The sport has developed as more and more people got involved. Add to that better training, diet, gear and shared knowledge and you have your reasons


----------



## romper stomper (Sep 26, 2012)

Meds- medical advancements - dietary knowledge- training and recovery knowledge have defiantly had a massive part to play in the change of physiques over the years and would have advanced physiques beyond the posted picture- true in the older days there was a limited amount of drugs you could use and a very limited PCT which lead to a smaller (more manageable) physique than today's mass monsters.

I do feel that the sport has been greatly manipulated by federations and supplement company's - for profit- the builders of today use far far far more supplements than yesteryear as competition requires it due to manipulation of judging - this has pushed competitors to take far more gear and supplementation than their predecessors which has pushed the physique well out of many peoples reaches and entering a freak stage ??

Serge nubret had a great shape and I was a fan of bertil fox



> to be fair mate most top amateurs these days look better than this in the off season


which is true - but the average street joe just thinks a freak and for many on here a condition unattainable without massive amount of meds - a bodybuilding competition or chemical warefare ???

i do think bodybuilding should have a more level playing field with a certain amount of juice and peds and hormones allowed and competitors monitored now that could be interesting but impractical and will never happen


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

I'm a fan of the old school physiques rather than the mass monsters of today, I can obviously appreciate the massive amounts of work that go into achieving both, but for me, Arnold in his prime would be the most aesthetically pleasing physique for me.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Thing is, most of the time its not a fair comparrison, because all the photos people post up of the old school guys arent stage photos, they are carefully controlled and timed potoshoot shots when they look their best if not better than they should, compared to stage photos of the pros. IMO unless you are at the show, the stage photos or video just dont do it justice at all, they are never good enough quality to see all the detail, especially the video (with a few exceptions), thats why it really ****es me of that MD doesnt cover the olympia or arnold in HD, its just a pixelly mess in the vids. Ive always preferred the "normal" photos not on stage as i always think they look better.


----------



## DeadlyCoobra (Oct 16, 2011)

Also another thing, Leg development, and how shredded and vascular people get nowadays compared to oldschool, i mean all these photos are shots of amateur bodybuilders (some not even top amateurs), and they just have unbelievable legs and would probably beat most 50's - 70's guys.


----------



## ryda (May 31, 2010)

Kazza61 said:


> I'm in my 50's now and recall my disdain when older guys turned their noses up at Arnold S (saying he was a steroid freak!) and said the only shape to go for was a Steve Reeves one! Now I'm one of those older guys but I still attend the NABBA Britain and Universe shows. That said, I'm not convinced what I see up on stage is more appealing than the physiques from over 40 years ago! The attached picture is Frank Richards from 1969! And to me this physique is incredible and I would still prefer to look like this rather than most of the amateurs competing today. No distended gut, and no creosote mahogany paint! To me, Frank looks bigger in 1969 than most amateurs look today. And that is achieved without HGH and whilst I'm sure chemical assistance was most likely used, probably nothing compared to what is used today and well before any notion of PCT! So what do you think? Is Frank something you'd aspire to or am I now most certainly one of the old gits I used to listen to with disdain?


Always wondered what this guys name was, there's pics of him all over my gym, I believe he's a very good friend of the owner who also competed in the 60,s/70s


----------



## Andy Dee (Jun 1, 2008)

I am more fascinated by the freaks of today (Dorian being my favourite ever BB) than the ones back 40 odd years ago, so id have to say I like the Bodybuilders more today


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

ryda said:


> Always wondered what this guys name was, there's pics of him all over my gym, I believe he's a very good friend of the owner who also competed in the 60,s/70s


Frank Richards made a very successful return to competition in the mid 80's turning pro with the IFBB and competing in several Olympias and doing reasonably well. He had returned from adversity being quite severely injured in an accident on a train line (I believe he worked for the Railways but could be wrong). He was (again, I believe) severely assaulted in a restaurant robbery and received some massive injuries with a Stanley craft knife that put paid to any further competing. I remember reading his story of returning from his original injuries and it was very inspirational. Interesting to see how he adapted from the style of a 60's bodybuilder to an 80's one.


----------



## ryda (May 31, 2010)

Kazza61 said:


> Frank Richards made a very successful return to competition in the mid 80's turning pro with the IFBB and competing in several Olympias and doing reasonably well. He had returned from adversity being quite severely injured in an accident on a train line (I believe he worked for the Railways but could be wrong). He was (again, I believe) severely assaulted in a restaurant robbery and received some massive injuries with a Stanley craft knife that put paid to any further competing. I remember reading his story of returning from his original injuries and it was very inspirational. Interesting to see how he adapted from the style of a 60's bodybuilder to an 80's one.


Lol he sounds like a ****in ninja


----------



## jakob (Sep 1, 2012)

I much prefer physiques from the Arnie era, his, Columbo's etc. but got to admire what the pro's today do even if I don't always like the look of it personally.

As a side note, think the UK will ever produce an Olympia winner again?


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

jakob said:


> As a side note, think the UK will ever produce an Olympia winner again?


I going to be honest with you and say with the way my training has panned out over the last 35 years, I'm starting to think it won't be me who brings the Sandow back home to the UK...............


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

jakob said:


> I much prefer physiques from the Arnie era, his, Columbo's etc. but got to admire what the pro's today do even if I don't always like the look of it personally.
> 
> As a side note, think the UK will ever produce an Olympia winner again?


Forgot about flex wheeler then?


----------



## ryda (May 31, 2010)

cas said:


> Forgot about flex wheeler then?


You mean flex lewis?


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Kazza61 said:


> Blue(UK) - You are absolutely right - in 1969, Dianabol was pretty much all these guys could access. Which in my view makes the outcome all the more impressive. In fact, when I look back through bodybuilding history I reckon the 70's and early 80's look is by far more attractive to me (Arnold, Padilla, Mentzer etc) but each to their own of course.
> 
> Phoenix1980 - absolutely agree about the hard work and dedication all generations of competitive bodybuilders have applied to reach their goals and I wouldn't wish to come across as dismissive of that.
> 
> It's probably just a matter of when you got in to the sport. For me, training was I hoped, a journey that would lead to a physique like this. (I failed, spectacularly, by the way!).


Danny Padilla. And if you look closely at Pumping Iron you'll see him.

That said, there's been the odd few stories / rumours about him and having a cold and all.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Milky said:


> Cant disagree with any of that TBH, one of my "idols " if you like was Charles Clairemonte back in the day...


I got to briefly say 'ello to him when he guest posed at a regional show in '88.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

DeadlyCoobra said:


> Also another thing, Leg development, and how shredded and vascular people get nowadays compared to oldschool, i mean all these photos are shots of amateur bodybuilders (some not even top amateurs), and they just have unbelievable legs and would probably beat most 50's - 70's guys.


The 80s saw great strides (see what I did there...) in leg development, though - and I suspect in the 70s and earlier it was more about a certain aesthetic than anything else - although humourous to hear Ken Waller (I think!) giving Arnie a bit of a swift dig about his legs, in the Pumping Iron outtakes.

Platz, Gaspari and the odd few others, had leg development more in keeping with what would probably be seen as the proportions in modern bodybuilders, and Gaspari certainly took conditioning to a new level.


----------



## cas (Jan 9, 2011)

ryda said:


> You mean flex lewis?


That's the one, fml


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Kazza61 said:


> Frank Richards made a very successful return to competition in the mid 80's turning pro with the IFBB and competing in several Olympias and doing reasonably well. He had returned from adversity being quite severely injured in an accident on a train line (I believe he worked for the Railways but could be wrong). He was (again, I believe) severely assaulted in a restaurant robbery and received some massive injuries with a Stanley craft knife that put paid to any further competing. I remember reading his story of returning from his original injuries and it was very inspirational. Interesting to see how he adapted from the style of a 60's bodybuilder to an 80's one.


I remember Frank Richards from the 80s and reading about his first run of injuries and comebacks.

He used to write a column for one of the BB mags - not sure if it was Flex, or a UK mag. I remember him writing something just after Arnold had starred in The Running Man, talking about how he had been a friend of Arnolds in earlier times, and some sort of comment about how in some films Arnold naming some characters after good friends he'd had and saying something like "Thanks, Arnold..." - but even I knew, as something of a naive teenager, that Arnold's character was called Ben Richards in the book of The Running Man, so it kinda sounded odd at the time.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

Although I have the greatest respect & admiration for today's crop of professionals, I still prefer the look of the 1970's bodybuilders.

I think much of it comes down to what's realistically achievable. I can look at Frank Zane from the 70's & think - with hard work, smart nutrition & maybe a bit of the old Celltech, at least that amount of muscle tissue is within striking distance (even if the conditioning & Greek-God-like aesthetics aren't). And my wife would still fancy me.

I look at a current Olympian & just think that I don't earn enough even to cover the pharmaceuticals bill.



Kazza61 said:


> Frank Richards made a very successful return to competition in the mid 80's turning pro with the IFBB and competing in several Olympias and doing reasonably well. He had returned from adversity being quite severely injured in an accident on a train line (I believe he worked for the Railways but could be wrong). He was (again, I believe) severely assaulted in a restaurant robbery and received some massive injuries with a Stanley craft knife that put paid to any further competing. I remember reading his story of returning from his original injuries and it was very inspirational. Interesting to see how he adapted from the style of a 60's bodybuilder to an 80's one.


When I was just starting out in the early 80's, Frank Richards occasionally trained at the same gym as me up in Wigan. He was just beginning his comeback from his accident in the early 70's. Genuinely nice bloke - even if he was a pie-eyter. He spotted me once on benches, and I just remember thinking "this guy used to train with Arnold - better put some effort in."

It was a railway accident - he fell off a tower & landed on some ironworks IIRC. He was quite badly mangled & was told he would probably never even walk again - let alone compete.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Andy 67 said:


> Although I have the greatest respect & admiration for today's crop of professionals, I still prefer the look of the 1970's bodybuilders.
> 
> I think much of it comes down to what's realistically achievable. I can look at Frank Zane from the 70's & think - with hard work, smart nutrition & maybe a bit of the old Celltech, at least that amount of muscle tissue is within striking distance (even if the conditioning & Greek-God-like aesthetics aren't). And my wife would still fancy me.
> 
> .


but you're comparing a guy who weighed no more than 185lbs on stage to the current crop who weigh 50-100lb more than that not really a good comparison......as for what is achievable i think this is the attraction for the most part as many (wrongly) think they would be able to achieve the muscle mass of the guys from back then but they won't in the main, these guys like arnold, zane, columbo etc where genetic freaks to be able to create such muscular physiques in that era.......

most prefer that physique as they see the current crop of Pro's muscularity and condition unachievable yet think it is achievable to achieve the physiques of the guys who were winning the Sandow trophy back in the 70's


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

can you not admire physiques from all era's tho ?

I was a fan of Louey, Serge Nubret, then Clairemonte, Wheeler, Shawn Ray, then Cutler and now Heath and Rhoden....

Surely you cant stop admiring these people and what they have acheived unless you have fallen out with the sport.

In yrs to come we will be seeing others we admire etc, its called evolution surely ?


----------



## romper stomper (Sep 26, 2012)

All sports have made progressions due to more knowledge and medical advancements- roger banister made history by breaking the 4 minute mile !! where would that get a person today in competition ???- like arnold stepping on stage in his best condition would probably not place today.

the sport has become more popular with masses more bodybuilders than yesteryear - so for more better physiques will be seen

Current builders are pushing their bodies to the very limit - stage conditions that can only be kept for a few days at most - with body fat levels so low - striated glutes are a must these days to compete.

290 lb ripped competitors - massive great swings in weight gain and loss - that as we all know is not that healthy - is it less healthy than having 3 square meals a day and working out 3 x per week ??

My question is where will bodybuilding be in 10 years ??? how big will these guys get 350 lbs ??? on stage the human body can only hold so much muscle before serious damage to tendons, ligaments and joints not to mention the stress and strain to organs - one has to ponder the future and what direction the sport is going.

It is up to judges and federations to point the direction of the sport - how do people think it will go ???


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

romper stomper said:


> All sports have made progressions due to more knowledge and medical advancements- roger banister made history by breaking the 4 minute mile !! where would that get a person today in competition ???- like arnold stepping on stage in his best condition would probably not place today.
> 
> the sport has become more popular with masses more bodybuilders than yesteryear - so for more better physiques will be seen
> 
> ...


It is very possible that BB may go full circle. it is now reaching saturation point in sups and drugs to the point that it has become a fringe sport.

So a more accepted branch of BB May begin where health, fitness and an aesthetic look become the goal. ( As it was many years ago, even before Arnolds time.)


----------



## romper stomper (Sep 26, 2012)

> It is very possible that BB may go full circle. it is now reaching saturation point in sups and drugs to the point that it has become a fringe sport.


agree with that - it has always been a fringe sport in they eyes of the average Joe - but how far wil it go ??? before it borders on the absolute insanity ??


----------



## C.Hill (Nov 21, 2010)

romper stomper said:


> All sports have made progressions due to more knowledge and medical advancements- roger banister made history by breaking the 4 minute mile !! where would that get a person today in competition ???- like arnold stepping on stage in his best condition would probably not place today.
> 
> the sport has become more popular with masses more bodybuilders than yesteryear - so for more better physiques will be seen
> 
> ...


350lbs ripped! Give it 10 years and that will probably be possible!


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

romper stomper said:


> agree with that - it has always been a fringe sport in they eyes of the average Joe - but how far wil it go ??? before it borders on the absolute insanity ??


When the champions at the top of the sport can no longer run to catch a bus but are still considered as champions. ( We are very nearly if not at that point.)


----------



## romper stomper (Sep 26, 2012)

> 350lbs ripped! Give it 10 years and that will probably be possible!


thats the scary thing !!


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

The Vegetarian said:


> When the champions at the top of the sport can no longer run to catch a bus but are still considered as champions. ( We are very nearly if not at that point.)


because the sport has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness it is bodybuilding.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

kingdale said:


> because the sport has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness it is bodybuilding.


Not that I don't get the point you are making - but that flies in the face of all it's history, apart from a relative "5 minutes" of recent history.

For the longest time, bodybuilding has had something to do with health and fitness, it's only a recent, and revisionist time, when that's been something of an inconvenient truth.

Hell look at the naming of one of Weiders biggest publications (is it still in print) Muscle and Fitness - that was emblazoned with bodybuidlers, and may not have been solely devoted to bodybuilding, but certainly was largely focused that way.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

kingdale said:


> because the sport has absolutely nothing to do with health or fitness it is bodybuilding.


But that to me is where it went wrong. You should not just look the part, you should be better, stronger and faster than others. Otherwise your muscles are just ornaments


----------



## andyhuggins (Nov 21, 2008)

What if you could build your complete BB using any bb,s Back, chest Legs etc from all the ages of BB. What would they be?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

The Vegetarian said:


> When the champions at the top of the sport can no longer run to catch a bus but are still considered as champions. ( We are very nearly if not at that point.)


How do you know this?

There are many assumptions in this thread concerning the guys at the top normally whilst praising those of Arnold's era who was also at the top?? There is no 300lb ripped BB onstage so not sure why guys are assuming this.....

I know several Pro's and to assume they are all big lumps with bad health is so so far from the truth it is stupid........this is what they do to earn money it is there job they look after there health as much as other sportsmen and women.......


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> How do you know this?
> 
> There are many assumptions in this thread concerning the guys at the top normally whilst praising those of Arnold's era who was also at the top?? There is no 300lb ripped BB onstage so not sure why guys are assuming this.....
> 
> I know several Pro's and to assume they are all big lumps with bad health is so so far from the truth it is stupid........this is what they do to earn money it is there job they look after there health as much as other sportsmen and women.......


Personally on the fitness and mobility front, I can only compare that video of Ronnie Coleman (least I think it was) running around on a beach somewhere, to the footage in Pumping Iron, of Arnie running in the surf. True enough, their physiques may be in quite different places, but also, in terms of mobility and moving around with gusto, they also appear to be in different places.

And in fairness, that would have likely been comparing Numero Uno from one era to Numero Uno from another.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Has bodybuilding changed for the better?

IMO; Hell no.

Bodybuilding used to be about building an amazing looking physic, small waists and proportionate bodies. Now days it seems all its about is being as big and as ripped as possible, with most pro's having disgusting bulging guts. Look hideous IMO.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jaff0 said:


> Personally on the fitness and mobility front, I can only compare that video of Ronnie Coleman (least I think it was) running around on a beach somewhere, to the footage in Pumping Iron, of Arnie running in the surf. True enough, their physiques may be in quite different places, but also, in terms of mobility and moving around with gusto, they also appear to be in different places.
> 
> And in fairness, that would have likely been comparing Numero Uno from one era to Numero Uno from another.


video of Kevin levrone taking on drained chambers


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Has bodybuilding changed for the better?
> 
> IMO; Hell no.
> 
> Bodybuilding used to be about building an amazing looking physic, small waists and proportionate bodies. Now days it seems all its about is being as big and as ripped as possible, with most pro's having disgusting bulging guts. Look hideous IMO.


Your opinion is valid in the terms of what BB is for YOU, but you are making a large statement about guts and most of the Pro' as this is not true


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> Your opinion is valid in the terms of what BB is for YOU, but you are making a large statement about guts and most of the Pro' as this is not true


Indeed, which is why I stated 'IMO'

Watch most of the pro shows and after their flexing is done half of them relax and walk off stage with bulging bellies.

Also even when flexing, they all look very 'thick' in the middle and big with less 'shape' and finesse compared to the old school BB pros, good stomach vacumes and small waists are very rare now compared to before, but this is of course my opinion that this is bad, and why I said



> Now days it seems all its about is being as big and as ripped as possible


 because it seems the judging and general thought is that the best body now is to be as big and shredded as possible and not look too out of proportion.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> How do you know this?
> 
> There are many assumptions in this thread concerning the guys at the top normally whilst praising those of Arnold's era who was also at the top?? There is no 300lb ripped BB onstage so not sure why guys are assuming this.....
> 
> I know several Pro's and to assume they are all big lumps with bad health is so so far from the truth it is stupid........this is what they do to earn money it is there job they look after there health as much as other sportsmen and women.......


paul I BB not to make money, I do it to look good, be healthy and strong and live my life as it should be. Just like 99.9% of everyone who lifts weight.

To me it is about following the right diet and respecting my body. The lessons I learn lifting weights teach me lessons in other aspects of my life, self discipline and respect for myself. it also teaches me that I can push myself beyond boundaries that I previously thought impossible. it also teaches me that, as an individual, I count and that I can improve myself both physically and mentally.

The lessons I learn from lifting weights make me a better person and a happier person. But you knocked the nail on the head as soon as you mentioned money, that is where BB has gone wrong.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

I found this you tube entry from Steve Reeves, who to me, was a real BB hero. Some of the younger members on ukm may never heard of him but he spoke a lot of sense and to me, was a true example of BB.

If you can spare ten minutes take a look.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Poke said:


> Indeed, which is why I stated 'IMO'
> 
> Watch most of the pro shows and after their flexing is done half of them relax and walk off stage with bulging bellies.
> 
> Also even when flexing, they all look very 'thick' in the middle and big with less 'shape' and finesse compared to the old school BB pros, good stomach vacumes and small waists are very rare now compared to before, but this is of course my opinion that this is bad, and why I said because it seems the judging and general thought is that the best body now is to be as big and shredded as possible and not look too out of proportion.


Mate half the reason they are bulging is because they are blowing out of there ar*es to get there breath...

I ask this with all due respect but have you ever tried to pose when you haven't eaten all day ?

Give it a go if you haven't, in fact do it now, do a double bicep pose 3 times for spells of 15 seconds, like your on stage and trying to win, man it hurts and it fu*king drains you :thumbup1:


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Milky said:


> Mate half the reason they are bulging is because they are blowing out of there ar*es to get there breath...
> 
> I ask this with all due respect but have you ever tried to pose when you haven't eaten all day ?
> 
> Give it a go if you haven't, in fact do it now, do a double bicep pose 3 times for spells of 15 seconds, like your on stage and trying to win, man it hurts and it fu*king drains you :thumbup1:


Haha nah Ive never really tried to pose.

Im just talking about the visual differences between old style bodybuilders and modern ones, and what has changed with the aims of what a pro bodybuilder should look like.

For example, compare Franco Columbo, Arnie, Serge Nubret and Steve Reeves The Veg mentioned in the last post to Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, Phill Heath and a majority of other modern pro's

They all look like big bricks compared to the old school guys with way more shape and a better looking body IMO

Whether its because they take different meds in their cycles, or more quantities of them, or different training methods, I dont know but I think its a step backwards.


----------



## andyhuggins (Nov 21, 2008)

Milky said:


> Mate half the reason they are bulging is because they are blowing out of there ar*es to get there breath...
> 
> I ask this with all due respect but have you ever tried to pose when you haven't eaten all day ?
> 
> Give it a go if you haven't, in fact do it now, do a double bicep pose 3 times for spells of 15 seconds, like your on stage and trying to win, man it hurts and it fu*king drains you :thumbup1:


Have to agree with milky unless you have been on stage totally de hydrated and crying out for food you can,t understand how much those poses hurt. But don,t forget to smile.


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Poke said:


> Haha nah Ive never really tried to pose.
> 
> Im just talking about the visual differences between old style bodybuilders and modern ones, and what has changed with the aims of what a pro bodybuilder should look like.
> 
> ...


For a laugh mate try it, seriously....


----------



## andyhuggins (Nov 21, 2008)

You will soon stop laughing and think OMG that is a great cardio workout LOL.


----------



## dentylad (Nov 19, 2011)

My two ideal physiques are that of Reg Parks (a classic b'ber) and a mens health cover model called Paul Amos (the abs man)

Yes both were natty and yes both werent huge but google them and tell me most people wouldnt mind looking like either. Neale Cramwell (Mr Universe a couple times) has the bulging gut look but hey the lads STILL a fantastic body builder and knows his stuff!


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Milky said:


> For a laugh mate try it, seriously....


Lol I actually tried it and to be completely honest its nowhere near as taxing as a round of boxing :tongue:

But I can imagine for a beast of a man at a low bf contracting all those muscles on a caloric def would be exhausting and completely understand your point, and agree fully. But that wasn't opinion I was projecting, just how the bodies of pro BBers have changed, regardless of their post flex bellies :stuart:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Indeed, which is why I stated 'IMO'
> 
> Watch most of the pro shows and after their flexing is done half of them relax and walk off stage with bulging bellies.


relaxing there posture and breathing heavy is far far from distention which is what you are talking about with bulging guts, even frank zane if he pushed his stomach out would have a bulging gut.

i noticed in the post above you said you just tried posing and it was not taxing as a bout of boxing, but that is like someone who has never boxed throwing a few punches and saying it is easy......

i have done both i have boxed and i have competed at the highest amatuer level both in the UK and Internationally and i tell you that you have no clue about what it takes to pose, think about the hardest ever training session you have ever had then follow that with 30min HIIT cardio and you will be about 75% of what it takes to pose in a comparison shot maybe 3-4 times in the space of 5-10 minutes tensing every muscle in your whole body (as that is what it takes)........then when you have done that training session and HIIT cardio keep your stomach flat......

this is no different to back in Arnolds day but back then there was 1 or 2 cameras at the stage not 20-30 that catch every angle......

yes there is more distention on some of the Pro's (and amateurs) now than there was back then but it is not in the majority and to say so is wrong.....



Poke said:


> Also even when flexing, they all look very 'thick' in the middle and big with less 'shape' and finesse compared to the old school BB pros, good stomach vacumes and small waists are very rare now compared to before, but this is of course my opinion that this is bad, and why I said because it seems the judging and general thought is that the best body now is to be as big and shredded as possible and not look too out of proportion.


Judging is about all 3 not one over the other, i am a qualified judge for NABBA and you judge a show not on just condition or size or even aesthetics you judge the people onstage against each other (not what you feel is ideal) the winner should be the one who has the best of all three (notice i say should)

but small waists are genetic but what is small? i am certain you can name Zane, Padilla and a few others (Buchanan was a freak) but then i can name Pro's now with small waists....Freeman, Rhodden, Henry, Heath......where as there will always be guys with distention there will always be guys with tiny waists but having a thick waist is more to do with genetics and the thickness is normally hip to hip.....distention true distention is different and i think this is where the confusion is, if a BB has distention even when they are posing with there arms in the air you see it true distention cannot be hidden, having a wide waist through genetics or breathing out your ass after posing can be hidden when you pose....plus vacumes are genetic as not all in fact only a few could do a proper vacum back in Arnolds day, having a small waist when you do a front Dbl bicep shot is not a vacum (a common shot for Arnold)



The Vegetarian said:


> paul I BB not to make money, I do it to look good, be healthy and strong and live my life as it should be. Just like 99.9% of everyone who lifts weight.
> 
> To me it is about following the right diet and respecting my body. The lessons I learn lifting weights teach me lessons in other aspects of my life, self discipline and respect for myself. it also teaches me that I can push myself beyond boundaries that I previously thought impossible. it also teaches me that, as an individual, I count and that I can improve myself both physically and mentally.
> 
> The lessons I learn from lifting weights make me a better person and a happier person. But you knocked the nail on the head as soon as you mentioned money, that is where BB has gone wrong.


why do you think it has GONE wrong?? Pro BB has always been about the money and fame it may not have been what the likes of Arnold used to fuel his hunger in the beginning but it certainly was what fuelled his comeback in 1980 (which he should not have won)

granted there is more money now but these guys make a living from it but i can tell you it is more about the fame and the titles that push guys at the very top to stop at nothing to be the best it is not money, Jay Cutler one of the few Multi Millionaires made his money not from BB but from wise and sound investments but he carried on for the titles.....this happens now and it happened back then......

i admire guys from back in the day because they were the best at what they did at that time they pushed the limits to the extreme (to think not is naive) the difference nowadays through technology and knowledge that extreme marker has moved so the Pro's now have to push further and further, just as Haney was a freak in his day and Dorian and Ronnie were in theres Heath is now, but you tell me would you of expected a Mr O to be 245-250lbs after Ronnie was stepping onstage in the high 280lbs-290lbs region? Heath is lighter than Haney.......so if Pro BB is getting worse and they are just going after mass why O why is Phil Heath a 2 time Mr Olympia.....

guys there will always be exceptions to the rules there will always be a slighter BB who can do a vacum and there will always be a BB who has distention but a blanket claim cannot be made over the whole Pro ranks


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> relaxing there posture and breathing heavy is far far from distention which is what you are talking about with bulging guts, even frank zane if he pushed his stomach out would have a bulging gut.
> 
> i noticed in the post above you said you just tried posing and it was not taxing as a bout of boxing, but that is like someone who has never boxed throwing a few punches and saying it is easy......
> 
> ...


My opinion is my opinion friend :thumb:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> My opinion is my opinion friend :thumb:


at no point did i say it was not, it is just an ill informed one


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> at no point did i say it was not, it is just an ill informed one


Nope, just my opinion that classic pro BBers had better bodies than modern pro BBers  you got caught up in the gut sticking out after a show, this has nothing to do with my opinion, just mentioned it.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Nope, just my opinion that classic pro BBers had better bodies than modern pro BBers  you got caught up in the gut sticking out after a show, this has nothing to do with my opinion, just mentioned it.


never got caught up in anything i answered your 2 assumptions

1 - posing is not taxing on the cardiovascular system

2 - BB are not judged on aesthetics

you made assumptions based on an opinion that you had no grounding to make......

if all you wanted to say is



> just my opinion that classic pro BBers had better bodies than modern pro BBers


 then just say that...

this is the second thread you have said something and then claimed not to be meaning that, i can only debate with what is written in your posts which is what i did, and you DID make assumptions about the two points above so i addressed them


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> never got caught up in anything i answered your 2 assumptions
> 
> 1 - posing is not taxing on the cardiovascular system
> 
> ...


I think you delve into things too deep ignoring common sense of what someone is saying and go out your way to create your own argument, I never said "posing is not taxing on the cardiovascular system" in the slightest and I never said BB are judged on aesthetics (although *you* did :confused1: . I just said what i think and my opinions.

Anyone can create/mis quote or twist things people say so they can feel like they are right about something for whatever reason or that someone else can be 'wrong' about something, but seriously, someones opinion is their opinion mate... its just my opinion that classic pro BBers had better bodies than modern pro BBers.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> video of Kevin levrone taking on drained chambers


I'll start off by adding mitigation that he was in flippers... but all the same, dayum:-






Can't find a youtube clip of the pumping iron beach thing, but I'm sure you can remember.



Pscarb said:


> Pro BB has always been about the money and fame it may not have been what the likes of Arnold used to fuel his hunger in the beginning but it certainly was what fuelled his comeback in 1980 (which he should not have won)


Arnold came back in 80 for one thing, and one thing only - ego. IMO it had nothing to do with fame nor money - whatever he would have got from that would have paled into insignificance to the fame and money he was earning elsewhere.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> I think you delve into things too deep ignoring common sense of what someone is saying and go out your way to create your own argument, I never said "posing is not taxing on the cardiovascular system" in the slightest and I never said BB are judged on aesthetics (although *you* did :confused1: . I just said what i think and my opinions.
> 
> Anyone can create/mis quote or twist things people say so they can feel like they are right about something for whatever reason or that someone else can be 'wrong' about something, but seriously, someones opinion is their opinion mate... its just my opinion that classic pro BBers had better bodies than modern pro BBers.


i am not arguing nor twisting what you have said, you have a habit of saying something then saying you meant something different, if you actually read my posts instead of getting your frilly panties in a twist you will see i have not said anyone is wrong i have said a blanket statement cannot be made concerning the whole modern pro ranks just as not all classic Pro's had better proportions etc.........

try and read what you are replying to before you try to debate it......


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jaff0 said:


> I'll start off by adding mitigation that he was in flippers... but all the same, dayum:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the fame is the ego being the best coming back and being back on top granted not the money but the fame he got from that will have fuelled his ego more than any cheque could have done......although like i say on that stage on that day he was not the best BB up there.....


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> i am not arguing nor twisting what you have said, you have a habit of saying something then saying you meant something different, if you actually read my posts instead of getting your frilly panties in a twist you will see i have not said anyone is wrong i have said a blanket statement cannot be made concerning the whole modern pro ranks just as not all classic Pro's had better proportions etc.........
> 
> try and read what you are replying to before you try to debate it......


In all seriousness Im a cool cucumber, I think its you clearly making yourself a bit frustrated. Sorry pal but you just posted



Pscarb said:


> never got caught up in anything i answered your 2 assumptions
> 
> 1 - posing is not taxing on the cardiovascular system
> 
> ...


When I never said or claimed those 2 points in the first place (especially the posing point), so your wasting your time and making yourself frustrated and writing paragraphs for no reason, maybe you should either read posts properly before you reply to them, or not try and twist what someone says so you can make your own argument :thumbup1:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Lol I actually tried it and to be completely honest its nowhere near as taxing as a round of boxing :tongue:
> 
> But I can imagine for a beast of a man at a low bf contracting all those muscles on a caloric def would be exhausting and completely understand your point, and agree fully. But that wasn't opinion I was projecting, just how the bodies of pro BBers have changed, regardless of their post flex bellies :stuart:





Poke said:


> In all seriousness Im a cool cucumber, I think its you clearly making yourself a bit frustrated. Sorry pal but you just posted
> 
> When I never said or claimed those 2 points in the first place (especially the posing point), so your wasting your time and making yourself frustrated and writing paragraphs for no reason, maybe you should either read posts properly before you reply to them, or not try and twist what someone says so you can make your own argument :thumbup1:


ha ha i am not frustrated i do not get frustrated by guys who know nothing of what they speak  this was fun at the start but you seem to have a real issue with debating and others not agreeing with your opinion.........i have clearly made my points and corrected your assumptions now this is boring so run along now


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> the fame is the ego being the best coming back and being back on top granted not the money but the fame he got from that will have fuelled his ego more than any cheque could have done......although like i say on that stage on that day he was not the best BB up there.....


"fame" is very tenuous, there. Outside of the world of bodybuilding nobody would have probably cared about his opponents nor his record of titles. I'll repeat, from a fame perspective he was way beyond this, it was all about ego.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> ha ha i am not frustrated i do not get frustrated by guys who know nothing of what they speak  this was fun at the start but you seem to have a real issue with debating and others not agreeing with your opinion.........i have clearly made my points and corrected your assumptions now this is boring so run along now


You dont hide it very well :tongue:

You have clearly and *evidently* corrected none existing points I never even said, well done haha.

Seriously, Im not that stupid, I have shown what your about here  unlucky pal


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jaff0 said:


> "fame" is very tenuous, there. Outside of the world of bodybuilding nobody would have probably cared about his opponents nor his record of titles. I'll repeat, from a fame perspective he was way beyond this, it was all about ego.


i do agree but you have to remember at that time he was breaking into movies and was a celebrity of sorts, by fame i mean being known being famous this is what drove him to comeback IMO and i do believe that due to his popularity to the average joe on the street is why he won that title that year.....


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> You dont hide it very well :tongue:
> 
> You have clearly and *evidently* corrected none existing points I never even said, well done haha.
> 
> Seriously, Im not that stupid, I have shown what your about here  unlucky pal


really and what am i about????


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> really and what am i about????


Either not reading posts properly and trying to correct someone on something they never said.

Or intentionally taking a misquote and using it to create your own argument so you can feel better thinking you have proven someones non existent point wrong :tongue: (maybe because you are agitated in you private life and want to feel better? idk lol)

And then you have shown when proven that your whole argument or correction was completely irrelevant that you resort to the classic " Oh it was fun but now its boring" :thumb:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Either not reading posts properly and trying to correct someone on something they never said.
> 
> Or intentionally taking a misquote and using it to create your own argument so you can feel better thinking you have proven someones non existent point wrong :tongue: (maybe because you are agitated in you private life and want to feel better? idk lol)
> 
> And then you have shown when proven that your whole argument or correction was completely irrelevant that you resort to the classic " Oh it was fun but now its boring" :thumb:


firstly you bring my private life into this again and your banned....

secondly you clearly said posing was not tasking.....

and you clearly said that judging these days is more on size and condition which is incorrect......

now you did say these things but you're trying to be smart for what reason i am unsure but now you have agitated me by making a comment about my private life....you do that again and you're gone....hows that for agitated??


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> firstly you bring my private life into this again and your banned....
> 
> secondly you clearly said posing was not tasking.....
> 
> ...


Ok, Boss.

This is all I ever said about posing;



Poke said:


> Lol I actually tried it and to be completely honest its nowhere near as taxing as a round of boxing :tongue:
> 
> But I can imagine for a beast of a man at a low bf contracting all those muscles on a caloric def w*ould be exhausting and completely understand your point, and agree fully.* But that wasn't opinion I was projecting, just how the bodies of pro BBers have changed, regardless of their post flex bellies :stuart:


As you see, if you read it properly, I never said posing was no tasking *in the slightest*

And this is what I said about Judging;



Poke said:


> Also even when flexing, they all look very 'thick' in the middle and big with less 'shape' and finesse compared to the old school BB pros, good stomach vacumes and small waists are very rare now compared to before,* but this is of course my opinion that this is bad*, and why I said
> 
> because* it seems* the judging and general thought is that the best body now is to be as big and shredded as possible and not look too out of proportion.


All I said is from my opinion and stand point *it seems* as though judgeing is based on being as big and shredded as possible while not looking too out of proportion, as opposed to the shape of the body, I never said is was a fact so it cant be incorrect... is what it seems to be from my opinion. and *you yourself* contradicted this anyway and actually *agreed with my statement* by saying ;



Pscarb said:


> *Judging is about all 3 *not one over the other, i am a qualified judge for NABBA and you judge a show not on just *condition* or *size* or *even **aesthetics* you judge the people onstage against each other (not what you feel is ideal) the winner should be the one who has the* best of all thre*e (notice i say should)


Here you have clearly stated that BBers are judged on *Size/Condition/'even' Asthetics* (in other words [mine] "*it seems* as though judging is based on being as big and shredded as possible while not looking too out of proportion")

Seriously, read posts properly, make your mind up on what you want to be right about, and dont get annoyed or upset about your posts/argument/corrections being proved irrelevant.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Poke said:


> Ok, Boss.
> 
> This is all I ever said about posing;
> 
> ...


thats the thing i was not annoyed as i like a debate, i am now because you mentioned my private life......

you clearly said posing was not as taking as boxing what did you mean if you did not mean cardiovascular wise?? especially seeing that was the direction of the debate. did you mean your hands hurt more??

as for the aesthetics i clearly said you are making assumptions that BB is judged on Size and condition only, using the words *it seems* which is the same as *assumes*

you say i twist things yet it is clear what you have said, my other point is correct though your opinion is formed with no grounding, you have no judging experience, no experience on stage posing yet you have formed an opinion on these things and seem to believe you are correct.......

i have said many times in this thread that there are aspects of the modern BB that is not nice and my intervention was because for some reason many make out that all or the majority Pro BB have distention which is not true


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> i do agree but you have to remember at that time he was breaking into movies and was a celebrity of sorts, by fame i mean being known being famous this is what drove him to comeback IMO and i do believe that due to his popularity to the average joe on the street is why he won that title that year.....


Not that I want to argue with you, you understand - but I never read it that way.

By that point Arnold was preparing for a fairly major movie role, and had done minor roles and TV work. The world of bodybuilding, to a certain degree wasn't of key importance. My take on it, is that he found himself in reasonable shape due to preparing for a film role, and his ego egged him on.

I would agree - his fame, reputation, and being bigger than it all, was probably quite a factor in him winning.

But I truly believe he didn't do it really because of his own fame - or perception by the masses - he had that covered - nor for money, he long since didn't need whatever he would have got out of that. I think he did it just because he could.

I think the bigger, wider world that he was entering wouldn't have given a damn about it, outside of his own ego and record of Mr Os, nobody, I suspect, in the world he was now living and working in probably cared.

I think he just wanted to brandish his ego, and put a few people in their place. I don't buy it was anything to aid his fame, or wealth, I think it was more about his ego and belief in himself and how great he was (which he was), albeit - as you say - I think that probably made him over-confident.

I suppose you could say he was lucky, and that fortune smiled on him - but I don't believe it was anything to do with luck.

It's just my take on it - but the reason why I've not bought into the fame and money thing, being it wouldn't add to whatever he was then getting. He just did it because he could - and if a few pretenders got their noses pushed out of joint a bit (and they did), well that was fortunate for him to.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jaff0 said:


> Not that I want to argue with you, you understand - but I never read it that way.
> 
> By that point Arnold was preparing for a fairly major movie role, and had done minor roles and TV work. The world of bodybuilding, to a certain degree wasn't of key importance. My take on it, is that he found himself in reasonable shape due to preparing for a film role, and his ego egged him on.
> 
> ...


i agree and i think we are actually on the same side on this just looking at it from different angles.........i think his over confidence (ego, self belief) was a great weapon for him but i do believe this was fuelled in part by his stardom as such at the time


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> thats the thing i was not annoyed as i like a debate, i am now because you mentioned my private life......
> 
> you clearly said posing was not as taking as boxing what did you mean if you did not mean cardiovascular wise?? especially seeing that was the direction of the debate. did you mean your hands hurt more??
> 
> ...


There is no argument here lol, here is the break down;

You evidently said:



Pscarb said:


> you clearly said posing was not tasking.....


Incorrect and couldn't be more wrong, I said it would be exhausting and wasn't even arguing about that point and actually agreed:



Poke said:


> Lol I actually tried it and to be completely honest its nowhere near as taxing as a round of boxing
> 
> But I can imagine for a beast of a man at a low bf contracting all those muscles on a caloric def *would be exhausting* and completely understand your point,* and agree fully*.


The above are the facts of the matter, you cant argue facts mate, fact is your chasing the train here, your getting nowhere.

As for the aesthetics, you agreed with my statement and contradicted yourself in the process.

Come on Pscarb, Im not being an idiot here but seriously, it takes a real man to admit to himself something or just simply let it go, there is no arguing here it is the way it is.


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

poke the above was unnecessary, this thread has been so far a good discussion with some very well laid out points from everyone, please refrain from cheap shots just to try and win the day. It will cheapen a very good thread.


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

It was interesting to see how a difference of opinion plays out on this forum...

However, back to my original point as to whether bodybuilding has changed for the better or not. For me the waistline is certainly a very important issue. Back 30 years ago, no-one seemed to be struggling to keep their waist under control when posing. If you look back at say the 1980 Olympia, the biggest waist (from side to side) was probably Tinnerino and (back to front) Mentzer. Neither exhibited a look that one would call distended (although Mentzer did take some undeserved stick from Schwarzenegger on the size of his!). No matter how hard posing is, it surely can't be the issue here? Posing certainly hasn't suddenly got harder than it was in 1980!

There are some guys who appear to have carried on developing the 70s and 80s style look though. A few have both massive and very aesthetic physiques - Phil Heath for certain, Shawn Rhoden definitely. I also met Toney Freeman at a trade stand a little over a year ago and he was wearing just a T-Shirt and Jeans. The guy had an incredible V-taper that just blew me away - a really tight, tiny waist for such a big man. So whilst in general, I'm not convinced bodybuilding has changed for the better, I'm more than happy to acknowledge there are indeed exceptions to the rule.


----------



## Poke (May 31, 2012)

The Vegetarian said:


> poke the above was unnecessary, this thread has been so far a good discussion with some very well laid out points from everyone, please refrain from cheap shots just to try and win the day. It will cheapen a very good thread.


Why?

I got argued with and corrected on things I never even said, I was just setting it straight, nothing wrong with that, I wasn't in the wrong.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Milky said:


> Mate half the reason they are bulging is because they are blowing out of there ar*es to get there breath...
> 
> I ask this with all due respect but have you ever tried to pose when you haven't eaten all day ?
> 
> Give it a go if you haven't, in fact do it now, do a double bicep pose 3 times for spells of 15 seconds, like your on stage and trying to win, man it hurts and it fu*king drains you :thumbup1:


The issue won't be they haven't eaten all day... the exact opposite (which I think you were trying to say).

Last comp I'd carb'd up on over 3kg on the proceeding three days and then about 600g or so of carbs on the day (I went on stage at about 7pm). Your belly is full of carbs to keep you that full muscularly and dry and detailed.

People forget that most pro's from back in the day really don't compare to todays conditioning levels, IMO. Most of them (again IMO) back in the day look quite soft and perhaps a month out from comp, in todays comps - even compared to people just doing UKBFF and NABBA, they will have better conditioning.

Make no mistake, IMO, things have moved on, dietary understanding has moved on and to see the dry levels of conditioning without insane amounts of diuretics, you need the food inside you.

I know last time I came off stage, I wanted to throw up due to the amount of carbs I had to keep going into to maintain my fullness all day - esp because in UKBFF at least, the comps never run smoothly and you don't know when you are due on...


----------



## Milky (Nov 30, 2008)

Papa Lazarou said:


> The issue won't be they haven't eaten all day... the exact opposite (which I think you were trying to say).
> 
> Last comp I'd carb'd up on over 3kg on the proceeding three days and then about 600g or so of carbs on the day (I went on stage at about 7pm). Your belly is full of carbs to keep you that full muscularly and dry and detailed.
> 
> ...


Even pre judging you had eaten ?

That goes against everything l thought happened before going on stage, l say THOUGHT as l have never done it so no expert by any means...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Different strokes for different folks some do most don't to any real degree, if it is a qualifier then I would have breakfast at around 7am then pick through the morning as all my carbing up had been done the night before (this allow fullness but stomach to settle) I have never eaten a great deal the morning of well apart from last years NABBA Worlds where I had not anticipated the team hotel to be in the middle of nowhere so could not get food forbthe night begore carb up so carbed up in the morning, this left me bloated come pre-judge better for the evening but big mistake on my part......

There is no one way that is used for all you find what is best for your body and go with that


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

For me in UKBFF I've never done a show with pre-judging - just straight into the show. I'm a tall guy and heavy for my size (don't look it, just am) and I find that I shrink unless I keep myself carbed.

Not saying my protocol is the best, and always willing to learn!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Papa Lazarou said:


> For me in UKBFF I've never done a show with pre-judging - just straight into the show. I'm a tall guy and heavy for my size (don't look it, just am) and I find that I shrink unless I keep myself carbed.
> 
> Not saying my protocol is the best, and always willing to learn!


My post was in no way a reflection on your method


----------



## Fit4life (Sep 16, 2011)

This is the dilemma , I am a natural therapist , PT, hypnotherapist . Reflexologist, Masseuse, Aromatherapist and Master Herbalist so for me everything is about achieving your ends through working with YOUR body , diet and natural herbs etc and exercise. Yet I also understand that the body may need a bit of a boot at times. What I cannot abide though is the criticism of those training genuine sports people who are fat lazy unqualified and seem to get off on telling or rather bullying those with potential to succeed into using drugs because they make money out of it.

EXERCISE, EAT CLEAN, SET GOALS THAT YOU CAN REACH, DONT BE A HYPOCRIT, and more importantly ENJOY EVERY ASPECT OF TRAINING

Kaza

Oh and I think that implants of any kind are just wrong , surely it sends the wrong message about body building as a sport , in some respects it panders to the idea that a woman's body is purely sexual .........


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Fit4life said:


> This is the dilemma , I am a natural therapist , PT, hypnotherapist . Reflexologist, Masseuse, Aromatherapist and Master Herbalist so for me everything is about achieving your ends through working with YOUR body , diet and natural herbs etc and exercise. Yet I also understand that the body may need a bit of a boot at times. What I cannot abide though is the criticism of those training genuine sports people who are fat lazy unqualified and seem to get off on telling or rather bullying those with potential to succeed into using drugs because they make money out of it.
> 
> EXERCISE, EAT CLEAN, SET GOALS THAT YOU CAN REACH, DONT BE A HYPOCRIT, and more importantly ENJOY EVERY ASPECT OF TRAINING
> 
> Kaza


you`ll get taken outside and shot.


----------



## Dangerous20 (May 20, 2012)

@Pscarb back to that comment about the 1980, who do you think should have won?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Dangerous20 said:


> @Pscarb back to that comment about the 1980, who do you think should have won?


Mentzer,You Only have to do the math if nothing else.Arnold 6 ft plus, 215lbs,Mentzer 5ft 8 215 ish lbs.Sorry PScarb didnt mean to hijack.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dangerous20 said:


> @Pscarb back to that comment about the 1980, who do you think should have won?





essexboy said:


> Mentzer,You Only have to do the math if nothing else.Arnold 6 ft plus, 215lbs,Mentzer 5ft 8 215 ish lbs.Sorry PScarb didnt mean to hijack.


no problem mate i agree Mentzer looked much better on the day in my opinion Arnold won because of who he was not what he looked like on the day....


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> no problem mate i agree Mentzer looked much better on the day in my opinion Arnold won because of who he was not what he looked like on the day....


Intererestingly, Mentzer was training with his brother and Casey Viator for that show.A guy who owned a gym where they trained at (Roger Shwartz?) was asked who looked the most impressive.Without hesitation, he said that Viator was far more unbelievable in the flesh, than either of the Mentzer Brothers.He said it looked like "dad" training with his two younger sons.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

I think it was in 80, too, that Platz looked really well. Great condition, and in that year, from what I vaguely recall, he looked at his most impressive and proportionate ie not mainly all legs as he seemed to do in later years.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Jaff0 said:


> I think it was in 80, too, that Platz looked really well. Great condition, and in that year, from what I vaguely recall, he looked at his most impressive and proportionate ie not mainly all legs as he seemed to do in later years.


I always liked Platz alot. I don't think that he was particularly well-balanced - his legs were enormous and overshadowed his upper body. But I also think that was maybe part of his appeal.

He also had the most well-developed cheek muscles I've ever seen - not joking either - they really were damn huge!


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Bull Terrier said:


> I always liked Platz alot. I don't think that he was particularly well-balanced - his legs were enormous and overshadowed his upper body. But I also think that was maybe part of his appeal.
> 
> He also had the most well-developed cheek muscles I've ever seen - not joking either - they really were damn huge!


Well all I'd say - and largely I buy that his legs tended to overshadow his upper body - is look at his physique for the 80 Olympia - I'm sure it was that year, when I saw the footage and thought he looked in exceptional condition, but also that his upper body didn't seem dwarfed by his legs.

I'll agree, as years progressed, it just seemed to be more his legs that stood out, that your eye was drawn to.

edit: take a look at this video, maybe you'll see what I mean (you'll probably want to turn the sound down, because the music is fvcking irritating):-


----------



## romper stomper (Sep 26, 2012)

so how do we see the sport in 5 or 10 years time ???

what direction do people think it will take ??? bigger more ripped mass monsters ?? or will it change - will it take a few more deaths to make a change ??? that is in tha hands of the federations and judges @Pscarb as a seasoned competitor and judge - where do you see the sport going ??


----------



## johnnya (Mar 28, 2013)

I'd like to see some smoothness coming back although vascularity shows a lot of commitment imo it looks Shi#te ,also serge nubret the black panther was up there amongst the best.


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

johnnya said:


> also serge nubret the black panther was up there amongst the best.


I agree, Serge Nubret had an incredible physique! I met him at the NABBA Universe a couple of years back. He was sat quietly in a corner selling his DVDs. Hardly anyone went near him. I bought one (£20!!!) and shook his (massive!) hand. When I got the DVD home it was the biggest pile of sh*te I'd ever bought! An old 30 minute VHS recording, complete with bad tracking, had been poorly copied over to DVD! The content was just diabolical too!

Mind you, I still think he was fantastic and it was sad how over-looked he was in Pumping Iron - particularly as he did beat Lou and come second overall! Sorry to hear he passed away last year - even if he did rob me of £20!!


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

People that are complaining about mass monsters there are lots of different weight classes but they just arent as popular as the mass monsters are. The way people go on about it you would think there was only weight class and everyone had to be 280 lbs + lean.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

romper stomper said:


> so how do we see the sport in 5 or 10 years time ???
> 
> what direction do people think it will take ??? bigger more ripped mass monsters ?? or will it change - will it take a few more deaths to make a change ??? that is in tha hands of the federations and judges @Pscarb as a seasoned competitor and judge - where do you see the sport going ??


more deaths from what? hopefully you do not mean steroids as they will certainly not harm as much as diuretic and other meds and their use...

i certainly do not believe it will return to the smoother look of yesteryear why would it, it is the natural nature of any sportsman to be better be that bigger, more conditioned or both.........but in saying that i do not believe we will see huge 300+ guys onstage.......

i am sure 10yrs ago no one would've thought a 245lb BB would be a two time Mr Olympia and does not look like he will be removed any time soon, many preach about not liking the mass monsters blah blah but how many so called mass monster are in the top 10 of the Olympia?

you see i like the majority of the Pro's now i think they are better than the years of Arnold but then i look at the physique as a whole not focus on the issue of distention and believe it is all over the Pro ranks, i don't like Branch Warrens physique as in my opinion it does not flow, but i like Heath, centopani even cutler........


----------



## paulandabbi (Mar 13, 2013)

kingdale said:


> People that are complaining about mass monsters there are lots of different weight classes but they just arent as popular as the mass monsters are. The way people go on about it you would think there was only weight class and everyone had to be 280 lbs + lean.


Its like boxing though most of the money/fame is in the bigger weights really


----------

