Scotocus: What is a Bodybuilder?

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
81

[quote]TRAJJ wrote:
Ok, I’ll expound. First off, let me say that I’m not up for a pissing contest on a subjective topic so I’d appreciate no one taking offense to anything I post as it isn’t meant that way.

In ‘my’ opinion the viewpoint of what a body builder should look like has been warped since the late 70’s. It hasn’t gotten better, it has gotten a lot worse. I’ve commented before in the thread with Ronnie and Arnold standing side by side in their prime. I don’t mind ‘huugge’ at all, and both men have worked incredibly hard for what they’ve achieved so I’m taking noting away from either. But Ronnie looks inflated compared to Arnold. I like strong, defined wheels but not so huge they chaff when you walk. I like a six pack but not a bloated abdomen pushing them out. So I prefer Arnold personally, but I use it purely as a comparison. He doesn’t have the look I’m after either. But it is a good example of how pure size has taken over the sport rather than having the complete package.

[/quote] Dexter won this year’s O and almost all mass-monsters have disappeared from the lineup. With the exception of Cutler. [quote]

Kids nowadays see these guys in all the mags and have been indoctrinated into thinking that is what BB really is and that is how you should look. Funny thing is though that the award they covet is of Sandow and bares his name. Yet if Sandow were alive today and posting here on T-Nation he’d be flamed off the board. His physique would be ridiculed by the ‘he’s so small crowd’. Yet it is his award they give…

[/quote] The pictures I’ve seen of Sandow when I was younger told me two things: He didn’t look bad at all, but had no chest and some other weaknesses. Simply due to some exercises not being around back then, I guess. Flamed off the site? Hardly. He is/was a far better representation
of a “bodybuilder” than the other guy you posted in my opinion…

As I’ve said, it’s your opinion and I don’t really mind. But every fitness-competitor is “muscular and conditioned”. In fitness it doesn’t matter so much if guys have small shoulders, arms and backs… But I just don’t see why such guys should now be considered bodybuilders.
From what I can see in that video you posted, the guy has way more potential… He doesn’t need to get drastically bigger or anything, he just needs to get his proportions right and that means a few more lbs on his upper body.

Again, why would you want to have ripped but very small arms? You don’t mind ripped but bigger legs, it seems?

82

That was a well thought out post, I appreciate you taking the time.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:

Again, why would you want to have ripped but very small arms? You don’t mind ripped but bigger legs, it seems? [/quote]

I suppose it is subjective. I don’t see him as having ‘small’ arms. Are they as big as Arnold and the gang? No, of course not. Could they be bigger? Perhaps. Is he working on it? Not sure, he hasn’t mentioned it to me when we’ve spoken. But I see them as well defined and muscular. I see them as a BB’ers arm. I don’t think anyone would wonder if he works out with weights.

Let me put it this way, and perhaps I’m dating myself. Back in the 70’s on the Michael Douglas show there was a man who performed acrobatic feats of strength in a gladiator type outfit. The man wasn’t ‘big’ like the mass monsters, but clearly was cut from granite. Strong beyond belief, ripped, solid, muscular etc. That stuck with me through my life. He clearly worked out with weights as well as other types of conditioning.

To me, that is an example of a more complete BB’er. But again, it subjective and may not be another’s idea. We all work towards what we have been influenced by.

83

What about this dude?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You can NOT mistake the look of someone who got big as a result of bodybuilding and extreme weight lifting. Stocky people simply don’t have the same proportions.[/quote]

84

He IS posting in this thread, you idiot.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?

Funny how he kept stating all he wanted was a debate and didn’t want to ruin the other thread.

[/quote]

85

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
What about this dude?

Professor X wrote:
You can NOT mistake the look of someone who got big as a result of bodybuilding and extreme weight lifting. Stocky people simply don’t have the same proportions.

[/quote]

This is the BODYBUILDING FORUM. I am sure most people are aware that there are some obese fuckers who are into powerlifting. Somewhere under all of that, however, is some muscle mass. We are not talking about OBESE people and that shouldn’t even need to be written.

86

[quote]slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
oneforship wrote:
HK24719 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Bodybuilding is a lifestyle that the vast majority of people are not acquainted with in any way. A bodybuilder is someone who lives the lifestyle.

That’s like saying a football player, golfer, or an athlete involved in any other sport needs to follow a certain lifestyle in order to be considered a real participant, which is bullshit.

No it’s not. I used to play baseball in college. I was (emphasis on past tense) a baseball player. I lived a certain lifestyle to support that performance and commitment, that was part of being a baseball player. If you were to put me on a baseball field right now 9 times out of 10 (to be generous on that 10th time) I could kick the average person’s ass at anything baseball related. But I am no longer a baseball player, because I don’t live the lifestyle anymore.

And similarly when guys from this forum (or it could be any BBing forum) get frustrated with twerps (small guys such as myself) who blatantly ignore or argue their advice, I would feel the same way about someone who ignored or argued what I had to say about playing the game of baseball and learning and improving at that particular sport. Because I’ve DONE it, I’ve lived the lifestyle, and succeeded. It is annoying to see people with little or no talent for the sport of baseball try to critique or improve my game, when I’m actually at an elite level. I’m sure it is the same for many of the guys on this site.

Your looking at it from the wrong frame of mind, from a person that lives it,

What oneforship was getting at is…
what about the guy who lives the lifestyle but sucks at baseball? He lives the lifestyle but he’s surely not a baseball player.

Because of bodybuilding’s association with health, people seem to have this whole A for effort concept towards bodybuilding where long as you “Live the Life”. News flash theres a whole lot of people running around who think they “live the life”. I don’t care about anybodies life, if I look at you and my first reaction isn’t “damn he must be a bodybuilder” I just don’t think he should be classified as one. Of course this is my opinion which is the point of the thread, I just felt the need to argue the lifestyle point as necessary.

Agreed. There are no doubt many people on this forum who train 3 days a week who try to call themselves “bodybuilders” in spite of the fact that their progress has been so minimal that NO ONE would ever consider them one on the street.

Progress made is the defining factor. You don’t get a gold star just for showing up.

Do you spare exception to a special needs kid that loves the sport, but my never get progress? I do. I don’t think progress is the end all be all. Just a thought.[/quote]

Good point, and true.

87

[quote]bicepenvy wrote:
slimthugger wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Agreed. There are no doubt many people on this forum who train 3 days a week who try to call themselves “bodybuilders” in spite of the fact that their progress has been so minimal that NO ONE would ever consider them one on the street.

Progress made is the defining factor. You don’t get a gold star just for showing up.

Do you spare exception to a special needs kid that loves the sport, but my never get progress? I do. I don’t think progress is the end all be all. Just a thought.

Good point, and true.[/quote]

No, it isn’t. It’s heart warming and maybe even the subject material for a Disney movie, but bodybuilding isn’t and never has been about, “But I tried hard with a disability and should get credit for it even though I made no progress”. There are wheelchair bound people who truly look impressive who have clearly worked beyond their own limitations to achieve what most can’t. Those people deserve all of the praise in the world.

As much as I might cheer someone who is mentally challenged on IN THE GYM, I don’t think they should be on stage just to squeeze a sympathy round of applause out of the audience.

88

I’m a bodybuilder, I don’t give a shit if someone else doesn’t consider me one. I participate in the “practice of strengthening and enlarging the muscles of the body through exercise.” So there =P

89

ok, call him a bodybuilder. what if he had 40 lbs more muscle? would he be too big to be a bodybuilder?

90

I’ll consider myself a bodybuilder once a complete stranger, in conversation, looks me over and says something to the effect of; “damn you’re big, are you a bodybuilder?”

Until then, I’m just a guy who lifts weights often and eats a lot of food.

91

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
alit4 wrote:
matsm21 wrote:
I always liked the shirt test. If someone doesn’t look big while wearing a shirt (not a skin tight one either) then they are not big.

a good point, but still flawed. i played amateur rugby for years and came across many guys who looked “big” with a shirt on, but they had never lifted a weight in their life. certainly did not look like a bodybuilder with their shirt off!

the bodybuilders in my gym stand out. in a room of 20 guys who obviously lift weights and have done for years, 3 guys stand out from the pack…with or without shirts on.no matter wether they are at 4%bf of 14%bf,it’s always obvious.

"Was your view of what’s “big” different back then, maybe?

People who aren’t used to big bbers or PLers guys (not even superheavies or anything like that) think that Vin Diesel is huge and has huge arms and big shoulders etc… That opinion changes drastically once you find out what “big” actually looks like."

I agree with the second part of your post though.
[/quote]

definately. like professor X said. the differences between just stocky and a bodybuilder are obvious. personally i think you can tell someone who has gained good size in the gym, as to just being stocky, while still wearing the shirt by the size of the shoulders and the way their clothes hang.

really enjoying this thread!

92

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
TRAJJ wrote:

Kids nowadays see these guys in all the mags and have been indoctrinated into thinking that is what BB really is and that is how you should look. Funny thing is though that the award they covet is of Sandow and bares his name.

Yet if Sandow were alive today and posting here on T-Nation he’d be flamed off the board. His physique would be ridiculed by the ‘he’s so small crowd’. Yet it is his award they give…

The pictures I’ve seen of Sandow when I was younger told me two things: He didn’t look bad at all, but had no chest and some other weaknesses. Simply due to some exercises not being around back then, I guess. Flamed off the site? Hardly.

He is/was a far better representation
of a “bodybuilder” than the other guy you posted in my opinion…

[/quote]

i just wanted to comment on this, as its a pet peeve of mine…

we need to stop taking past phyisques out of the context of their eras. sandow WAS a freak in his time - he was possibly the most well developed man alive. the sandow of today would not look the way he did then.

he would see the average person (who is generally taller/larger today) he would see what other bodybuilders look like, and he would strive to be the best, just as he did then. with better training, nutrition, and ‘other things’, his apperance would be a far cry from the physique of a century ago.

this holds true for all the greats of all times - oliva, arnold, zane, haney, etc. they wouldnt have built the same physique today that they did back then - they would take it as far as they could, just as they did back then. and even in their own day, some people still considered them ‘freaks’ and too musclebound’.

bodybuilding has always been about taking it as far as you can.

what about other sports? the football player of 30-40 years ago doesnt look like the player of today. lou gherig was 6’ and 195 pounds, large for his time in baseball - but average by todays standards. who is to say what an athlete (or bodybuilder) is supposed to look like?

and why arent bodybuilders allowed to eveolve and advance, the way other pro athletes do? why must they, in some peopels minds, stay stagnant to a standard of 30 years ago?

sry fopr the long rant

93

You are a bodybuilder when you tell people you are one and they dont say “really?”

94

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
You are a bodybuilder when you tell people you are one and they dont say “really?”[/quote]

hahahaha. AWESOME!

Or if you tell people your dieting for a show and they go “show”

Yes it happened to me :frowning: but not ANYMORE! haha

DG

95

[quote]SSC wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?

Not a-once. I’ve been lurking on this thread to see if anyone else would even catch that, haha.[/quote]

God, what a pussy. Spouting all what shit about wanting to debate, and now he fucking wusses out.

96

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
He IS posting in this thread, you idiot.

Airtruth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Has Scrotus-minimus answered the question?

Funny how he kept stating all he wanted was a debate and didn’t want to ruin the other thread.

[/quote]

Where?

97

arent these the reasons why there is fitness competitions And bodybuilding shows? -if its not about building your body bigger, (aka BIGGER muscles) than what is it aboutÉ

man…-using the example of people on èroids with legs so big they chaff…my legs rub constantly and chaff and i’m still skinny, and sure as shit dont qualify as a bodybuilder

98

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about

thats why they have body building shows and fitness competitions…separately

as for the example of not liking huge legs that rub and chaff…my legs always do that and ièm still skinny, nevermind huge and roided up like you describe, and i sure as shit wouldnt call myself a bodybuilder

99

I have a quick question.

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about
?

100

[quote]tribunaldude wrote:
I have a quick question.

if bodybuilding isnt about building your body…aka adding to it, aka making it bigger, what is it about
?

[/quote]

QFT, I was thinking that exact thing.