[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Thick inner legs is a valuable commodity. Its the abductors that you dont want to overdevlop. Look at Johnnie Jacsksons abductors. Then look at Branch Warren’s adductors. Branch has the gold standard of leg development. JOJ’s legs dont have good shape at all. [/quote]
Quit calling them aBductors! [/quote]
He was actually talking about JJ’s abductors, not adductors. Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, the internet can be tricky that way.
[/quote]I’m going to narrow my stance stance because I have more adductor development than I’d like. They’re fine when I’m lean but a little too much when I’m less so.
I believe Bonez is saying that JJ has very large abductors which take away from the outer quad sweep, it makes it appear more like a straight line from knee to waist.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
I believe Bonez is saying that JJ has very large abductors which take away from the outer quad sweep, it makes it appear more like a straight line from knee to waist.
I dunno for sure though, haha.[/quote]
Exactly. His hips are almost wider than the widest point of his quads. ALMOST. He actually looked a lot better at the O. Im just using that picture to talk in general about abductors getting too big.
Branch’s adductors (inner thighs) are tremendous. The only one bigger may be Paco Bautista (google at your own risk, gargoyle looking mother fucker).
Big inner thigh (adductors) = good for bodybuilding aesthetics. And also help prevent groin injuries (super functional)
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Thick inner legs is a valuable commodity. Its the abductors that you dont want to overdevlop. Look at Johnnie Jacsksons abductors. Then look at Branch Warren’s adductors. Branch has the gold standard of leg development. JOJ’s legs dont have good shape at all. [/quote]
Quit calling them aBductors!
I’m going to narrow my stance stance because I have more adductor development than I’d like. They’re fine when I’m lean but a little too much when I’m less so.
[/quote]
No that’s my fault. I was talking about two completely different things at the same time.
Inner quad mass is good for bodybuilding. While abductor mass (the muscles up around the hip flexors) are not good for aesthetics.
And so no one takes this the wrong way. It’s impossible to not work the abductors, nor would you want to avoid that. But if you backsquat and you feel it in your hips, those are the muscles doing the work. This is my reason for not back squatting anymore. But I’ve always been a natural deadlifter, cant win em all.
[quote]Akuma01 wrote:
I love how you can see Branch’s Tensor fascia latte and sartorius.[/quote]
I don’t know who it was but one guy in the 202 at the Olympia this year had sartorius muscles that just jumped out of his thigh, looked awesome! I will have to find out who it was, I have never seen it to that extent before.
Doyle
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Branch is doing it right[/quote]
Although Branch Warren has built gigantic thighs, and yes obviously he looks great, I don’t think his legs are very aesthetic.
I personally don’t like the look of inner thighs that overshadow the rest of the leg. I think a great bodybuilding leg has disproportionately (for lack of a better word) large outer sweeps and teardrops, and that these muscles give a much more long and muscular appearance to the lower body (especially if they’re followed by a large set of calves, which if you have big adductors and small calves that is like a double whammy of puke).
Added a photo of the House to show what I mean, but even still I’ve never been a fan of the modern trend of having enormous thighs in bodybuilding. I prefer the sleeker lower body of the 80s, but that’s a personal thing obviously.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Branch is doing it right[/quote]
Although Branch Warren has built gigantic thighs, and yes obviously he looks great, I don’t think his legs are very aesthetic.
I personally don’t like the look of inner thighs that overshadow the rest of the leg. I think a great bodybuilding leg has disproportionately (for lack of a better word) large outer sweeps and teardrops, and that these muscles give a much more long and muscular appearance to the lower body (especially if they’re followed by a large set of calves, which if you have big adductors and small calves that is like a double whammy of puke).
Added a photo of the House to show what I mean, but even still I’ve never been a fan of the modern trend of having enormous thighs in bodybuilding. I prefer the sleeker lower body of the 80s, but that’s a personal thing obviously.[/quote]
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Branch is doing it right[/quote]
Although Branch Warren has built gigantic thighs, and yes obviously he looks great, I don’t think his legs are very aesthetic.
I personally don’t like the look of inner thighs that overshadow the rest of the leg. I think a great bodybuilding leg has disproportionately (for lack of a better word) large outer sweeps and teardrops, and that these muscles give a much more long and muscular appearance to the lower body (especially if they’re followed by a large set of calves, which if you have big adductors and small calves that is like a double whammy of puke).
Added a photo of the House to show what I mean, but even still I’ve never been a fan of the modern trend of having enormous thighs in bodybuilding. I prefer the sleeker lower body of the 80s, but that’s a personal thing obviously.[/quote]
That guy looks incredible[/quote]
X2
But seeing him at the olympia next to the other guys he didn’t look as impressive or I should say as big. It’s nuts to me how diffrent some guys look when they’re not standing next to another competitor.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Branch is doing it right[/quote]
Although Branch Warren has built gigantic thighs, and yes obviously he looks great, I don’t think his legs are very aesthetic.
I personally don’t like the look of inner thighs that overshadow the rest of the leg. I think a great bodybuilding leg has disproportionately (for lack of a better word) large outer sweeps and teardrops, and that these muscles give a much more long and muscular appearance to the lower body (especially if they’re followed by a large set of calves, which if you have big adductors and small calves that is like a double whammy of puke).
Added a photo of the House to show what I mean, but even still I’ve never been a fan of the modern trend of having enormous thighs in bodybuilding. I prefer the sleeker lower body of the 80s, but that’s a personal thing obviously.[/quote]
That guy looks incredible[/quote]
X2
But seeing him at the olympia next to the other guys he didn’t look as impressive or I should say as big. It’s nuts to me how diffrent some guys look when they’re not standing next to another competitor.[/quote]
That’s gotta be the best pic of Fankhouser I’ve seen. I agree about the olympia though, he looked like a noob standing next to the top 10 guys. Pretty crazy considering how awesome he looks.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
That’s gotta be the best pic of Fankhouser I’ve seen. I agree about the olympia though, he looked like a noob standing next to the top 10 guys. Pretty crazy considering how awesome he looks.[/quote]
What is Frankhouser’s deal? Did he just lose way too much muscle in preparation for the O? Because he usually looks pretty fucking big in the offseason.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
That’s gotta be the best pic of Fankhouser I’ve seen. I agree about the olympia though, he looked like a noob standing next to the top 10 guys. Pretty crazy considering how awesome he looks.[/quote]
Sort of like you and me. Step your game up Way[/quote]
[quote]Guilty77 wrote:
What is Frankhouser’s deal? Did he just lose way too much muscle in preparation for the O? Because he usually looks pretty fucking big in the offseason.[/quote]
The current gossip is that his contest prep got screwed up big time (it doesn’t sound like he had much guidance there in the first place), and that he wasn’t willing to use certain “supplements” for fear of his health and the well-being of his family.
I don’t know about any of that stuff, but I do know that this was his first Olympia contest, and he’s only been a pro since 2007.
I also think he’s one of those genetic freaks with insane potential, and I would love to see someone who knows how to handle that take him under their wing for a couple of years (like a flex wheeler & charles glass situation).
He got on stage for his first Olympia weighing 220lbs, with an awesome lower body and a streamlined waist. Yes he needs to add another 30-50lbs of muscle (maybe not even, with his structure) in order to start placing top 5, but I don’t consider him a failure at all.
[/quote]
