T Nation

What's With The 70s and 80s BB?!

Every now and then someone makes a remark on how greatwere the BBuilders from the “old school”…

Now explain to a total beginner (me) what’s the hype about the 70s and 80s in BB.
I am not being sarcastic,it’s a genuine question.

Thankyou.
Horazio

I think the biggest complaint is that the judging was more focused on symmetry back in the 70’s and 80’s. In more recent times the focus has been purely on mass.

Some people blame it on the massive doses of HGH/Steroids, etc. which has allowed the top BB’ers to get so massive, whereas the old school guys didn’t use such high doses (whether or not this is true is probably just speculation).

So when someone talks about the old school bodybuilders, they often are referring to a more symmetrical build with a smaller waistline vs the more massive modern day bodybuilder.

They are referring to a look that is largely considered to be more aesthetic due to less hardcore steroid use.

Today’s Olympia contenders are a lot more huge and “freaky” due to again, heavy steroid use. Their look cannot be achieved without this. Take a look at a pic of Frank Zane or Arnold and compare it to Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler. Use the “google” on the “internets” if you don’t know who these are.

D

[quote]Dedicated wrote:
They are referring to a look that is largely considered to be more aesthetic due to less hardcore steroid use.

Today’s Olympia contenders are a lot more huge and “freaky” due to again, heavy steroid use. Their look cannot be achieved without this. Take a look at a pic of Frank Zane or Arnold and compare it to Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler. Use the “google” on the “internets” if you don’t know who these are.

D [/quote]

What?!?! modern bodybuilders use steroids? Huh? wow. I thought that it was just creatine.

(sarcasm)

It’s because to a lot of people symmetry is much more aesthetically pleasing than superflous mass.

I’ll take my V shape over an X any day.

I see…
I thought that training techniques were also involved somehow…

[quote]Fulmen wrote:
It’s because to a lot of people symmetry is much more aesthetically pleasing than superflous mass.

I’ll take my V shape over an X any day.[/quote]

Uh, not really. There’s plenty of symmetry to an X shape. It’s a developed upper body and scrawny chicken legs that looks odd. That is not to say that today’s bodybuilders wouldn’t look better if they weren’t as wide as they are tall with guts bigger than most fratboys but 3% bodyfat. The greats 30 years ago had legs.