What I dont understand is how exactly did the pros back then achieve their aesthetical physiques. Did they do any type of exercises that we don’t do today?
The one thing that I noticed was how much smaller their midsection was compared to today’s standards. How exactly did they achieve this state? Is it simply because they didn’t use as much drugs as today, exercise selection? what is it?
I’m pretty sure it’s because they didn’t use and/or abuse the use of steriods back in the Golden Era like today’s pros. Don’t hold me on that.
Read some of Vince Gironda’s work as well as stuff from the 30’s and 40’s. Part of it is exercise selection, part of it is diet and a lot of it is hard work!
I believe it is HGH abuse.
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
What I dont understand is how exactly did the pros back then achieve their aesthetical physiques. Did they do any type of exercises that we don’t do today?
The one thing that I noticed was how much smaller their midsection was compared to today’s standards. How exactly did they achieve this state? Is it simply because they didn’t use as much drugs as today, exercise selection? what is it?[/quote]
I think you are missing the obvious. First, there are many bodybuilders competing today who have small waists. Toney Freeman who won the last Arnold has a 30" waist in contest condition and the man is over 280lbs. You are lumping every single guy on stage into one category and are no doubt ONLY looking at the largest bodybuiulders in the Mr. Olympia contest while completely ignoring the hundreds competing in every other contest.
Second, the bigger someone is at average height, the LESS the chance that they will have a dainty little waist like someone who is 5’6" and weighs less than 200lbs. Outside of those who are simply genetically gifted in some extreme way, to expect someone who is average height and weighs over 250lbs to have the same sized waist as someone 50-80lbs lighter than him is absolutely ridiculous.
Third, it is strange that on a bodybuilding forum, some of you seem to know so little about actual bodybuilders. There are many competing in NPC contests that make many “Golden Era” competitors look like children. It is one thing to respect the guys who did this first, and quite another to ignore everyone out there today simply because you don’t look at all.
As I understand it’s the GH that gave them huge guts. Other than that they seem to be doing the same thing.
Which means that if you’re still getting a big gut you’re not training hard enough.
Stomach vacuums. No question.
Toney Freeman didnt win the arnold he placed 3rd.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
B.b. in stress! wrote:
What I dont understand is how exactly did the pros back then achieve their aesthetical physiques. Did they do any type of exercises that we don’t do today?
The one thing that I noticed was how much smaller their midsection was compared to today’s standards. How exactly did they achieve this state? Is it simply because they didn’t use as much drugs as today, exercise selection? what is it?
I think you are missing the obvious. First, there are many bodybuilders competing today who have small waists. Toney Freeman who won the last Arnold has a 30" waist in contest condition and the man is over 280lbs. You are lumping every single guy on stage into one category and are no doubt ONLY looking at the largest bodybuiulders in the Mr. Olympia contest while completely ignoring the hundreds competing in every other contest.
Second, the bigger someone is at average height, the LESS the chance that they will have a dainty little waist like someone who is 5’6" and weighs less than 200lbs. Outside of those who are simply genetically gifted in some extreme way, to expect someone who is average height and weighs over 250lbs to have the same sized waist as someone 50-80lbs lighter than him is absolutely ridiculous.
Third, it is strange that on a bodybuilding forum, some of you seem to know so little about actual bodybuilders. There are many competing in NPC contests that make many “Golden Era” competitors look like children. It is one thing to respect the guys who did this first, and quite another to ignore everyone out there today simply because you don’t look at all.[/quote]
I do note that Frank Zane and I forget who else stated that regular squats increase waist size overtime.
[quote]glenbeckham wrote:
Toney Freeman didnt win the arnold he placed 3rd.
[/quote]
He came in first at the Ironman this year. My mistake. The point was, there are more contests going on than just the Olympia and they do seem to have changed their standards to some degree as far as who is winning these contests.
im sorry prof.
shame of me to single out every bber today into the huge gut category; i was just making a vast overgeneralization.
i have to bump u on that fact that NPCs today absolutely dwarf the golden age bbers.
however, there a few things that i failed to recognize: many poses back then had the bbers do stomach vaccuums, their legs were much smaller compared to today.
however, rusty jeffers hit a couple of stomach vaccuums but still failed to look aesthetical (at least to me).
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
im sorry prof.
shame of me to single out every bber today into the huge gut category; i was just making a vast overgeneralization.
i have to bump u on that fact that NPCs today absolutely dwarf the golden age bbers.
however, there a few things that i failed to recognize: many poses back then had the bbers do stomach vaccuums, their legs were much smaller compared to today.
however, rusty jeffers hit a couple of stomach vaccuums but still failed to look aesthetical (at least to me).[/quote]
I have to disagree with you there and I doubt I am alone. Rusty nailed that pose. Unfortunately, he looked better doing it 2 weeks BEFORE the contest.
The legs of most competitors in the 60’s would be considered very small by today’s standards which accounts for much of the weight difference as far as heavy weights. Their backs were largely not as developed either.
ya that pose looked much better than when he did it on stage - thats what i meant.
but wouldn’t an underdeveloped back lose the aesthetical image?
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
but wouldn’t an underdeveloped back lose the aesthetical image?[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean. Lee Haney set a new standard as far as back development that few bodybuilders before him had come close to. That was why he won the Olympia so many times. No one could outdo him in sheer thickness.
Before him, while back development was decent, there wasn’t an all out push to be MONSTROUS is that department. Most competing NPC heavy weights have better back development than most well known Golden Age bodybuilders.
obviously a wider more developed back = more aesthetical appeal
[quote]B.b. in stress! wrote:
obviously a wider more developed back = more aesthetical appeal[/quote]
Well, if that was all there wad to it, that would make Orville Burke one of the most “aesthetic” bodybuilders ever.
Two more worth mentioning, Melvin Anthony and Chris Cormier, have great proportions along with the likes of David Henry and Mark Dugdale.
I think the era of the mass monsters is slowly starting to fade which is why the likes of Markus Ruhl are starting to place so low. We’ll just have to see how Victor Martinez does at the Olympia.
Sasha
How about a non-warped pic of Melvin . . . sorry.
Sasha
[quote]SashaG wrote:
How about a non-warped pic of Melvin . . . sorry.
Sasha[/quote]
Photoshop!
