T Nation

Phil Heath Calls Out Arnold


#1


I saw this on my news feed on facebook. If you have been living in a cave, I'm sure you've even heard of the comments by Arnold to the president of IFBB after his classic saying he doesn't like the direction bodybuilding is going. Mainly due to the "gorilla gut" issue. There was a thread on this months back I believe.

Apparently, Phil didn't like what Arnold had to say about today's bodybuilders. Did he take it too personally? To summarize a recent interview, Phil stated if he didn't like those bodybuilders, don't invite them to your party. Also, saying that Dexter Jackson (2015 Winner) has won more Arnold Classics then anyone, and he's one of the most asthetic bodybuilders that currently competes at that level. Meaning, what is arnold's argument if asthetics beat size in his classic.

Then the comment about Arnold having "no legs". Interested to hear some of your views on the matter.


#2

I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”


#3

Arnolds legs, in my opinion, suited his stature and the fashion of the time.
Lets remember that legs didn’t start to get massive until Platz became famous for his.


#4

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]

Yeah i get it. I’ve heard it before. Just didn’t expect to hear it from Phil himself.

Yes, of course compared to today’s bodybuilders his legs are undersized, but I’d never classify them as small nor go as far to say he had none.


#5

I like the build of the bodybuilders of the 70s and 80s .those guys had bodies that were inspiring. These guys today have ugly bloated body’s.


#6

Phil Heath acts like an insecure spoiled child. Constantly online battling haters. Why would a 4-time champ feel the need to waste such time?

Also, why get all defensive about what Arnold said? He didn’t describe Heath’s physique, and he didn’t call him out by name.


#7

Oh, and it’s ARNOLD’S show. It’s got his name on it, so he can have whatever criteria he wants for his competitors.


#8

I don’t think the growth of the fitness industry is related to bodybuilding becoming more popular. The growth of the fitness industry may be what is holding bodybuilding up for the time being, not the other way around. Also look at any local show, mens physique and womens everything trumps bodybuilding. For the average person all those might get grouped into bodybuilding but that should never get confused for the stuff Arnold was criticizing. TV shows like the biggest loser impact the fitness industry more than bodybuilding these days.


#9

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]

arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.

if you want to nit pick his tris and shoulders could have been bigger to match his biceps and chest.

the reality is 9/10 people would rather wake up tomorrow in arnold’s body than phil’s.

bodybuilding is clearly extremely fucked up. ramy is in shape at 350 i mean come on.


#10

[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Oh, and it’s ARNOLD’S show. It’s got his name on it, so he can have whatever criteria he wants for his competitors. [/quote]

Well I think that’s exactly what Phil was trying to say. It’s his show. If you don’t like the competitors physique that are there, don’t invite them, then the judges don’t have a choice. Phil even said if he was invited, which he hasn’t, and may be butt hurt about that, he wouldn’t even do it because it’s not worth the work put in to make half the money.


#11

Holding Arnold to today’s BBing judging criteria is stupid. Arnold gets the respect he does because he dominated the field he was in, and went far beyond just the little niche sport that we all love (to differing degrees). I actually have heard people rip on Arnold’s legs, but I honestly think it’s because the rest of his physique would still be viewed as impressive today. We could very easily trash Larry Scott (the 1st Mr. Olympia) for not having shredded glutes or a Christmas tree lower back. It just makes the person making such statements look like an ass.

Phil, no question, took it personally, and in his retort, didn’t do himself any favors IMO.

S


#12

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]
arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.[/quote]
In the pic above (from the top down), that’s the 1972, '75, and '80 Mr. Olympia lineup. I think the “Arnold had small legs” thing only comes from looking through a different perspective. I’d say they appear at least on par, if not better than a few, compared to his competition.

But like Stu said, the criteria back in the day was way different than in the modern sport. I do think it was a whiny and misguided cheap shot by Health, no doubt.

FWIW, this is that Bloomberg interview Phil mentioned doing this past October. He did seem to present himself professionally, even if the lady did lump bodybuilding in with "Tough Mudder, BMX, and things like that."


#13

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]

arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.

if you want to nit pick his tris and shoulders could have been bigger to match his biceps and chest.

the reality is 9/10 people would rather wake up tomorrow in arnold’s body than phil’s.

bodybuilding is clearly extremely fucked up. ramy is in shape at 350 i mean come on.
[/quote]

The reality is these same people want to see someone of Phil Heath’s size on the stage and not Arnold’s.


#14

Just so there is no confusion;
I’m a total fan of Arnold. Even as an actor. He’s like a larger than life hero to me. I would never knock him, or his legs. I was just repeating something I’d seen, lurking the forums, years ago. But there is a scene in the movie “Commando” where he is running across the beach, the camera is kinda far away, and the angle almost makes his legs look not huge. But you can’t expect actor Arnold to stay swole like Olympia Arnold.

I’m from Tennessee, so I’m a huge Manning fan too. Like Manning for Governor. Still pissed he didn’t get the Heisman (not really).

I think Larry Scott still looks pretty good. I’d be happy to look like that, maybe just with bigger traps. Phil Heath looks great too, almost like a “throwback.” Like I said, I don’t follow bodybuilding closely, but I picked up the magazine the 1st time I saw him on the over of Muscle Rag.

Serge Nuebrett(?) looks incredible. He can totally hang with or surpass ANY of those legendary guys.


#15

I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”

Looking at the Olympia line ups posted above from 72, 75 and 80, I don’t think ANY of those guys have the legs, shoulders, arms or general thickness that many of today’s top Olympia competitors have, the physiques seem so different. Obviously they all look outstanding, but it’s been a hot topic on here lately how the sport of bodybuilding is changing due to PEDs, I just don’t understand how Phil could even think that there’s anything separating todays BB’ers from the previous generation other than PEDs.


#16

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.


#17

Ok so dosages then, either way, same thing.


#18

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
I’m not a bodybuilding historian, but I’m pretty sure the “classic” knock on Arnold is that he “had no legs.”

Like if someone says Arnold is the greatest, you come back with, he had “no legs.” Just almost like some kind of cliche or something.

Or if you say P. Manning is the greatest ever, and I’m like, “greatest regular season, qb, brah.”[/quote]

arnold is not known as having no legs. have never heard that before.

he had a large chest and biceps as that was in vogue at the time. “smaller” legs were in fashion.

if you want to nit pick his tris and shoulders could have been bigger to match his biceps and chest.

the reality is 9/10 people would rather wake up tomorrow in arnold’s body than phil’s.

bodybuilding is clearly extremely fucked up. ramy is in shape at 350 i mean come on.
[/quote]

The reality is these same people want to see someone of Phil Heath’s size on the stage and not Arnold’s.[/quote]

So true.


#19

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
I never understand how assisted BB’ers can say this kind of nonsense. I think what Phil really means is, “the technology of the PED’s I’ve been able to use is superior and advanced to what was available for Arnold.”
[/quote]

that’s not actually true. The classic steroids that are used by bodybuilders today are pretty much the same as what Arnie and the gang were using. Doses are way higher (supposedly), but the actual compounds are the same for the most part.[/quote]

This is my belief too. Maybe better quality these days with modern technology always advancing. But then you can make the shit in your basement with a basic high school chemistry set.


#20

This.

I’d love to look like Arnold, but Phil looks grotesque. Yes, he’s massive and shredded, but he’s not aesthetically pleasing. Serge Nubret looked fantastic, I’d totally want to wake up looking like that, Jay Cutler no way he just looks bloated and ridiculous. Proportion and scale matter, there is such a thing as being too big.