The Grecian Ideal

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol

How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.

On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?

yeah the proportions are comical but maybe it is just a style of the time…wish i could’ve thought of this question when i took my art class… could’ve asked my teacher…[/quote]

The statues represent the Greek ideal physique in antiquity. I recall reading that Socrates once joked about this in fact, (I think it was Socrates anyway), that the ideal look for a man would be one with broad shoulders and a small penis.

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol

How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.

On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?

yeah the proportions are comical but maybe it is just a style of the time…wish i could’ve thought of this question when i took my art class… could’ve asked my teacher…

The statues represent the Greek ideal physique in antiquity. I recall reading that Socrates once joked about this in fact, (I think it was Socrates anyway), that the ideal look for a man would be one with broad shoulders and a small penis.
[/quote]

Maybe it was just cold.

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol

How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.

On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?

yeah the proportions are comical but maybe it is just a style of the time…wish i could’ve thought of this question when i took my art class… could’ve asked my teacher…

The statues represent the Greek ideal physique in antiquity. I recall reading that Socrates once joked about this in fact, (I think it was Socrates anyway), that the ideal look for a man would be one with broad shoulders and a small penis.
[/quote]

I hope he was joking…

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
Imen de Naars wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.

I don’t think that Sandow’s phyisique is hard to achieve; not talking about his strenght at the given size, though.

I thought that too but didn’t have the balls to tell the guy. The Physique isn’t i guess what nowadays we would call all swole but it is still a good goal to shoot for.[/quote]

I know it’s achievable, and I know that he wasn’t exactly gigantic. I just like that look. For my height (6’3"), that would correlate to about 230 lbs, which is a nice weight for me.

Your attention is supposed to be drawn to the muscles.

Thats it.

If this statues sported a Ron Jeremy size dick then it would have changed the dynamics of the art.

I’m still surprised that some of you are let down that he doesn’t have a bigger package…

PS: If others are upset that he not only has a small package, but isn’t erect to show it off in its full glory, please keep it to yourselves.

[quote]Alex630 wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Imen de Naars wrote:
Alex630 wrote:
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.

I don’t think that Sandow’s phyisique is hard to achieve; not talking about his strenght at the given size, though.

I thought that too but didn’t have the balls to tell the guy. The Physique isn’t i guess what nowadays we would call all swole but it is still a good goal to shoot for.

I know it’s achievable, and I know that he wasn’t exactly gigantic. I just like that look. For my height (6’3"), that would correlate to about 230 lbs, which is a nice weight for me.

[/quote]

Ah yes, for your height it’d definitely be remarkable - it’d actually make you look rather gigantic.

[quote]Alex630 wrote:
Here is a picture of Sandow that was posted in an article on here. That’s pretty much what I’d like to look like, and lines up well with the Steve Reeves weight to height chart.
[/quote]
Here by the way are Sandow’s reported measurements:

height: 5’9 1/4"
weight: 202 lbs.
neck: 18"
chest: 48"
biceps: 18 1/2"
forearm: 16 1/2"
wrist: 7 1/2"
waist: 30"
hips: 42"
thigh: 26"
knee: 14"
calf: 18"
ankle: 8 1/2"

I do not think the bicep or forearm measurements are at all truthful, and the chest is probably exaggerated a little too unless it is an expanded measurement; and the waist measurement could only be right if a “vacuum” measurement, but the remainder quite possibly are real measurements that seem to match his pictures.

At 162 lbs, I feel as though my measurements are bad. Am I beating myself up over this or what? All I know is that I want bigger arms…I’m working on CW’s stuff to get there…but as I am now…

height: 5’8 1/4"
weight: 162 lbs.
neck: 17"
chest: 40"
biceps: 14"
forearm: 12 1/2"
wrist: 6 1/2"
waist: 32"
hips: 38"
thigh: 23"
knee: 14 1/2"
calf: 14"
ankle: 9 1/2"

I’ve tried the link, an the formula is close to the same as the calculator on exrx.net an one listed in the collection of John McCullum’s articles "Keys To Progress"book.They all vary by small percentages, only problem I have is if thats Ideal my necks 4 inches to big,calves 2 inches too big.

I hate those things, I say if you think you look good an your not doing it to compete, don’t worry about it.

[quote]Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol

How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.

On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?[/quote]

To the greeks a large penis was thought to be grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians. The ideal penis was small, thin, and covered with a long, tapered foreskin. They thought a circumsised penis was especially grotesque.

Hey badass i just noticed that my wrist is half and inch thicker than the first time i measured using this calculator. that was a long time ago. just more visual proof of bones getting denser through training. you measure the wrist right at the point where your hand and arm meet right? Well im gonna use this calculator for my goals, the numbers aren’t extreme but im not looking for hyoooge. Thanks for the input.

Yes, wrist is at the smallest diameter point as you describe.

I think it’s also muscles and tendons that add thickness from training.

What I would recommend with this calculator, if wanting to use it in the first place, is not to use true wrist size but instead input whatever wrist size gives correct (when in lean condition) hip measurement.

The reason is that I do not believe that people, especially women, instinctively evaluate a physique by comparing with the wrist. That relation is a subtle point. It is well established though that waist/hip ratio is a highly critical factor in instinctive attractiveness, and I would think chest/hip ratio (as well as chest/waist ratio) is also critical. And then the arms, legs, and neck should be in good proportion to that. Really head size ought to match too but there is nothing one can do about that.

A large head makes the body look smaller than it is. I look smaller than I am because my head diameter is, unfortunately, 1 inch larger than what some other Grecian ideal says it should be relative to the rest of me. I do think this is a quite substantial factor in subjective impression: e.g., Muhammad Ali, Ken Norton, the young George Foreman etc gave the impression of being big men but check out their measurements sometime. 42 inch (Foreman) or 45 inch (Norton) chests, etc. Very ordinary, but on video or pictures they look big. I can only attribute this to the eye using head size as the standard of scale.

On the wrist size, if the wrists are half an inch different from the value obtained the above way, is the eye really going to think that that makes things wrong or that the chest needs to differ by three inches on account of that? You need a 3" smaller chest because your wrist is 1/2" smaller than it “ought” to be for your wrist size, or 3" more on the chest because the wrist is thicker? That seems ridiculous, not to mention unobtainable for many with thicker wrists.

So while the chest/waist/hips/neck/thighs/calves/arms ratios are I think aesthetic, if also weight proportionate for height, the wrist value is just nonsensical to base things off of.

If anything, a thicker wrist makes one look bigger and stronger, not relatively weaker.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yes, wrist is at the smaller diameter point as you describe.

I think it’s also muscles and tendons that add thickness from training.

What I would recommend with this calculator, if wanting to use it in the first place, is not to use true wrist size but instead input whatever wrist size gives correct (when in lean condition) hip measurement.

The reason is that I do not believe that people, especially women, instinctively evaluate a physique by comparing with the wrist. That’s a subtle point. It is well established though that waist/hip ratio is a highly critical factor in instinctive attractiveness, and I would think chest/hip ratio (as well as chest/waist ratio) is also critical. And then the arms, legs, and neck should be in good proportion to that. Really head size ought to match too but there is nothing one can do about that. (A large head makes the body look smaller than it is.)

If the wrists are half an inch different from that figure, is the eye really going to think that that makes things wrong or that the chest needs to differ by three inches on account of that?

So while the chest/waist/hips/neck/thighs/calves/arms ratios are I think aesthetic, if also weight proportionate for height, the wrist value is just nonsensical to base things off of.

If anything, a thicker wrist makes one look bigger and stronger, not relatively weaker.

[/quote]

so i find the proper wrist size that hits my hips, k.

Yup, that’s what I would do.

By the way, along the same line of interest I think it’s interesting to look at modern physiques that are fairly attainable, look very good, and for which we have actual measurements that are reliable on at least most points. (Claimed measurements of bodybuilders are about as accurate as claimed dick size of porn stars.)

E.g., these are the figures, from the Boxing Hall of Fame, for Muhammad Ali when still Cassius Clay and for Ken Norton. Both I thought very good looking men physique-wise:

Muhammad Ali
Height 6’3"
Weight 210.5 (205 in first Liston fight I believe)
Chest/Norm. 43"
Chest/Exp. 45.5"
Waist 34"
Biceps 15"
Neck 17.5"
Wrist 8"
Calf 17.5" (this has to be wrong, I would say at most 15")
Thigh 25"
Forearm 15" (this also has to be a little high: he had excellent forearms but not that much)

Ken Norton
Height 6’3"
Weight 215.5"
Chest/Norm. 45"
Chest/Exp. 48"
Waist 33"
Biceps 16"
Neck 18"
Wrist 8"
Calf 15"
Thigh 25"
Forearm 13"

These are very attainable for a large percentage of guys that are say 6’ even, let alone 6’3".

[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol

How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.

On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?

yeah the proportions are comical but maybe it is just a style of the time…wish i could’ve thought of this question when i took my art class… could’ve asked my teacher…

The statues represent the Greek ideal physique in antiquity. I recall reading that Socrates once joked about this in fact, (I think it was Socrates anyway), that the ideal look for a man would be one with broad shoulders and a small penis.
[/quote]

I believe in the case of statue of David that the smaller penis accurately portrays his emotional state: one of fear or anxiety prior to the fight. If that’s the case, some historians argue that Michelangelo was right on point with his shrinkage.

[quote]double1 wrote:
Nikiforos wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
Tulkastaldo wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Since I have small wrists, I have already reached the Grecian Ideal. I think I’ll stop training now. lol

How much do you think Hercules Farnese would weigh as a 6 foot tall person? 9 Feet is a little much.

On kind of a related note, how come, in classical sculpture, do we have these huge, godlike guys like Herculese Frenese, with such tiny packages? I mean, granted if it was based on a model there would be some shrinkage if it was cold out, but it always seems disproportionate. Was there a point when underendowment was stylish?

yeah the proportions are comical but maybe it is just a style of the time…wish i could’ve thought of this question when i took my art class… could’ve asked my teacher…

The statues represent the Greek ideal physique in antiquity. I recall reading that Socrates once joked about this in fact, (I think it was Socrates anyway), that the ideal look for a man would be one with broad shoulders and a small penis.

I believe in the case of statue of David that the smaller penis accurately portrays his emotional state: one of fear or anxiety prior to the fight. If that’s the case, some historians argue that Michelangelo was right on point with his shrinkage.

[/quote]

In the case of Hercules Farnese, I guess he just fought the Nemean Lion or something, which would be a similarly anxiety inducing. I guess ball-retracting ordeals come part and parcel with heroism.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yup, that’s what I would do.

By the way, along the same line of interest I think it’s interesting to look at modern physiques that are fairly attainable, look very good, and for which we have actual measurements that are reliable on at least most points. (Claimed measurements of bodybuilders are about as accurate as claimed dick size of porn stars.)

E.g., these are the figures, from the Boxing Hall of Fame, for Muhammad Ali when still Cassius Clay and for Ken Norton. Both I thought very good looking men physique-wise:

Muhammad Ali
Height 6’3"
Weight 210.5 (205 in first Liston fight I believe)
Chest/Norm. 43"
Chest/Exp. 45.5"
Waist 34"
Biceps 15"
Neck 17.5"
Wrist 8"
Calf 17.5" (this has to be wrong, I would say at most 15")
Thigh 25"
Forearm 15" (this also has to be a little high: he had excellent forearms but not that much)

Ken Norton
Height 6’3"
Weight 215.5"
Chest/Norm. 45"
Chest/Exp. 48"
Waist 33"
Biceps 16"
Neck 18"
Wrist 8"
Calf 15"
Thigh 25"
Forearm 13"

These are very attainable for a large percentage of guys that are say 6’ even, let alone 6’3".
[/quote]

Are those biceps measurements flexed? Because if that’s the case I’m pretty close to having Ken Norton’s build at 6 foot, which I find surprising.

That’s something I’ve considered also as I don’t know for a fact how the measurement is taken but it seems completely impossible that either Norton’s “tale of the tape” arm size is that on the hang, or Ali’s for that matter.

The figures would be way high for the arm being extended, though as a guess I would have thought Norton’s arms were about half an inch bigger than that.

16" on the hang would be about 18" flexed. Arnold’s arms were only approximately 19" (despite claims) since Oliva’s were an actual 20" and Arnold was noticeably less. There’s no way that Norton was within an inch of Arnold Schwarzenegger, as one comparison of why not.

Another reason I think it’s not flexed is because Lennox Lewis is listed at 18.5" and could not possibly be that on the hang, and a couple others are listed at 17" or 17.5" and likewise that would have to be flexed.

Either this or the measurements are just consistently wrong, which I guess could be the case. Though it does seem odd that all sorts of different officials making the measurements would consistently give truthful figures on for example chest size, but not bicep size. If they were going to lie about one, why not both? If anything, the public knows more about what a given chest size means, because of how their clothing fits, than they do arm size, which the general public has no reference on at all.

The apparent size in photos and video versus actual size is an interesting illusion, as none of the measurements of any of various heavyweight champions is what we would think is too impressive in the context of six-foot and taller men, including modern guys like Evander Holyfield or even Tyson, who looked pretty thick although not tall. In fact the only modern heavyweight champions with normal chest measurements over 45" are Riddick Bowe and Oliver McCall (both 46") and Frank Bruno (48".) Well also the old fat Foreman, but fat doesn’t count. Everyone else from Liston on was 40" to 45", most being about 42" or 43." Really not big. And that, being usually 6’2" or better.

Even Mike Weaver has an official chest measurement of only 44.5" at 6’1": and this guy was called “Hercules” and did look like it. Seems amazing, I agree.

(For a complete list of official measurements of heavyweight boxing champions: http://www.ibhof.com/ibhftape.htm )

I suppose we must all or mostly suffer from body dysmorphia and perceive ourselves smaller than really is the case, and so can see these men who may be no or little better built or even not as much and find it extremely hard to believe we are that size. Yet I suppose others do see it that way, or at least relative to if they saw these men in person. (It’s possible that as is commonly said the camera adds apparent weight – supposedly 10 lb for the average person so perhaps 15 lb for a bigger person isn’t impossible.)

Interesting to note that lots of Greek statues sport thick obliques – I’d guess this has something to do with the Greek fondness for wrestling. Regardless, Hercules there looks like a strong, athletic mofo.

I don’t know if Poliquin is right that the obliques have relatively less potential for development than the rest of the body, as for example I’ve had a lot of improvement there, but if that is so then perhaps it stands to reason that men who lived back then that were muscular without any weight training might have proportionally greater obliques than those today who weight-train, as basically they had to have had outstanding genetics to look that way with nothing except as you say wrestling or whatever.

The reasoning being that someone today with the same size overall musculature with weight training would be far smaller than these men if not for the weight training, with the obliques, if Poliquin is correct, not matching up to the rest of the development.