freak of nature (Ramy) against physique prettyboy

[One1]

As FutureFreak mentioned, completely agree Arnold in his 20s would compete and win at 300lb if needed if competing in 2015. Also agree with you pitbull, 2 different generations and it comes down to personal preference.

Not taking anything away from todays Bber's, theyr'e incredible athletes and have to do what they have to do to get judges votes to win competitions. Obviously its the judges who dictate what these guys look like. In 2015, mass over all dictates wins, and that was the reason for my original post. Some like it, some don't. For me, Ill take a 6'2 235lb Arnold over a stumpy 5'7 300 pounder. just my opionion

 

[scottswald]

To everyone saying Arnold could be whatever he wanted....... What a load of rubbish! You have no idea what "could" have been and neither does he. You cannot just assume anything.

If Arnold really could be anything he wanted then consider this, Arnold was a perfectionist and strived for the best at everything - his legs never got much attention and they were nowhere near the level of Tom platz's legs. If he really could be whatever he wanted then he wouldn't settle for that and he'd build better legs than Tom platz's, but he didn't..... Why? Because he cudnt

 

[One1]

To everyone saying Arnold could be whatever he wanted....... What a load of rubbish! You have no idea what "could" have been and neither does he. You cannot just assume anything.

If Arnold really could be anything he wanted then consider this, Arnold was a perfectionist and strived for the best at everything - his legs never got much attention and they were nowhere near the level of Tom platz's legs. If he really could be whatever he wanted then he wouldn't settle for that and he'd build better legs than Tom platz's, but he didn't..... Why? Because he cudnt

No, no and no. As was mentioned before, judges in the 1970's judged on a completely different perspective of what was "the ultimate male physique" than today.
As a tall bodybuilder at 6'2-6'3, the leg muscles obviously and naturally look smaller than someone on a 5'6-5'11 frame. OVERALL physique and appeal is what determined Mr Olympia's in the 70s and early 80's and that's why Arnold won 8 of them.

To say Arnold couldn't critique and improve a body part if he wanted is just ludicrous. In his prime he would easily beat out any of todays pros in the leg department in relation to his height. You must understand, massive amounts of HGH and slin were not used back then.

 

[scottswald]

No, no and no. As was mentioned before, judges in the 1970's judged on a completely different perspective of what was "the ultimate male physique" than today.
As a tall bodybuilder at 6'2-6'3, the leg muscles obviously and naturally look smaller than someone on a 5'6-5'11 frame. OVERALL physique and appeal is what determined Mr Olympia's in the 70s and early 80's and that's why Arnold won 8 of them.

To say Arnold couldn't critique and improve a body part if he wanted is just ludicrous. I didn't say he cudnt improve on things, I said he cudnt just be whatever he wanted, he certainly cudnt turn his legs into the best in the world or he would have In his prime he would easily beat out any of todays pros in the leg department in relation to his height. Absolute rubbish, cudnt be further from the truth Infact, his legs are skinny compared to Dennis wolf for example You must understand, massive amounts of HGH and slin were not used back then.

See in bold

 

[Google&Pubmed]

Arnold was an amazing bodybuilder, not an actual God. He had his limits. A lot of guys these days have amazing genetics and could easily beat him. Did we all forget about 1999 Coleman? Dont you think phil could be a challenge to him if they were going toe to toe.

With generation bodybuilding changes and people look for different things. This sport is still pretty damn young

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk