[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Check the video
It’s funny. I was going to post the exact same video.
The stats you posted earlier (which you got from where, by the way?) are supposedly Sandow in 1902, but that video was shot in 1894. In 1893, when he was much closer to the peak of his performing career, a Doctor in New York measured Sandow’s stats as being:
Height: 67.7 inches (5’7 1/2")
Weight: 180 pounds
Right wrist: 7.3
Left wrist: 7.1
Right forearm: 13.4
Left forearm: 13.0
Right biceps: 16.9
Left biceps: 16.1
Neck: 15.5
Shoulders: 20.3
Chest, normal: 44.1
Chest, expanded: 46.9
Waist: 32.7
Hips: 38.0
Right thigh: 23.2
Left thigh: 22.8
Right calf: 15.4
Left calf: 15.6
sorry, he is frikking tiny even by normal standards.
If you keep getting hung up on the numbers, I have to think you don’t really know how to appreciate the sport/art of bodybuilding. The measurement numbers are secondary to the physique that’s being presented.
Guys on the site here like Stu and OneMoreRep might, technically, be called “tiny,” but they have damn solid physiques.
Without a doubt, the build that Sandow displayed in that video is, from a bodybuilding standpoint, on par and as impressive as the top 10% of well-built members on this site. Are there some flaws and weaknesses, yes. But it sounds like you’re really underestimating what he accomplished.[/quote]
Well said…also, they modeled their own physiques back then according to Greek sculptures. They didn’t even consider the idea of getting WAY bigger than that. Sandow would pass the fuck out if he saw Ronnie Coleman winning an Olympia contest.