Intersting read by Chris Aceto (pay attention noobs)

[Gunsmith]

I totally agree with Phil about the Body Building part , to the point of building big mass but being able to get lean at the same time , not realy pealed back granite hard look but lean.
it sucks to see a guy bust his ass all year just to starve diet away muscle just to try to get more lines on his ass.
at the same time I don't think its productive to stay to "full" to the point it distorts striations.

this I think is what sets guys like Shelby who has added noticeable amounts of muscle every year AND still manages to bring striated glutes to the stage apart from guy who get crazy lean but never move up in weight class

Also being able to identify and bring up lagging body parts to BUILD a more symmetric body

 

[Tinyshrek]

Just listen to what ced said about Chris in his post show interview on RX....

 

[ajdonutz]

Phil i have a question, and i ask because i honestly am curious. I get what youre saying for sure and it makes tons of sense, but correct me if im wrong, youre saying once you have size on your side, the show is less about being the most conditioned guy on stage and more about being the biggest and most proportionate, correct? So saying that instead of dieting down to extremely low bf% and sacrificing muscle and looking small and flat, true bodybuilders are better of becoming large and proportionate and coming in very lean, but at a level to where it was moderately comfortable to get to without starving away muscle, say 7-8%, correct?

 

[Gunsmith]

Phil i have a question, and i ask because i honestly am curious. I get what youre saying for sure and it makes tons of sense, but correct me if im wrong, youre saying once you have size on your side, the show is less about being the most conditioned guy on stage and more about being the biggest and most proportionate, correct? So saying that instead of dieting down to extremely low bf% and sacrificing muscle and looking small and flat, true bodybuilders are better of becoming large and proportionate and coming in very lean, but at a level to where it was moderately comfortable to get to without starving away muscle, say 7-8%, correct?

from what I've seen it seems to be up to the judges
I've seen a guys 6'1" 205 pounds win an over all because he was by far the leanest guy their and posed well , their was a guy in his class that was about 5'6" and same weight , in my oppinion had buch better lines and much much more muscle thickness and maturity but he wasent super lean , had he dieted down another 10-12 pound to lose 1-2 pounds of fat he would have won but at the cost of ALOT of muscle

 

[ajdonutz]

from what I've seen it seems to be up to the judges
I've seen a guys 6'1" 205 pounds win an over all because he was by far the leanest guy their and posed well , their was a guy in his class that was about 5'6" and same weight , in my oppinion had buch better lines and much much more muscle thickness and maturity but he wasent super lean , had he dieted down another 10-12 pound to lose 1-2 pounds of fat he would have won but at the cost of ALOT of muscle

Yeah i figure its hugely dependent on judges especially at lower level comps, basically depends what they personally like. But i was curious of phils view on it in the pro sense and in general.. i mean obviously if phil was at a local show against a guy shredded and phil was phil and 1-2% bf higher, hes gonna win..

 

[HenryHill1]

Thanks for the info !

 

[PHIL HERNON]

Yes

Phil i have a question, and i ask because i honestly am curious. I get what youre saying for sure and it makes tons of sense, but correct me if im wrong, youre saying once you have size on your side, the show is less about being the most conditioned guy on stage and more about being the biggest and most proportionate, correct? So saying that instead of dieting down to extremely low bf% and sacrificing muscle and looking small and flat, true bodybuilders are better of becoming large and proportionate and coming in very lean, but at a level to where it was moderately comfortable to get to without starving away muscle, say 7-8%, correct?

I say yes.........its healthier.........the judging needs to change to reward size, shape, symmetry and POTENTIAL, instead of look how shredded my glutes are........getting shredde dbeyond belief is not bodybuilding.......now if you have it PERFECT, but it should be rewarded less.

 

[ajdonutz]

I say yes.........its healthier.........the judging needs to change to reward size, shape, symmetry and POTENTIAL, instead of look how shredded my glutes are........getting shredde dbeyond belief is not bodybuilding.......now if you have it PERFECT, but it should be rewarded less.

Thanks for the response. I agree with you wholeheartedly.. i actually prefer the very lean (7-8%) bf ballpark as opposed to 5% or so.. it looks healthier and better IMO.. and with enough size can still be plenty vascular and see size perfectly fine.. hell, arnold came in ata 8% on stage all the time and he looked great.. the crazy low unhealthy bf % do not look that great imo... thus why when people plan to get in insane shape for a comp, they say something like "yeah i plan on getting pretty disgusting), because it is most of the time lol.. dont get me wrong, vascularity and separation is fantastic, but too low i dont like as much.. and sacrificing all that muscle is such a waste imo... glad to hear a pro who shares the view ..

i actually have a friend who has competed in 2 shows, hes only 19 and took first place in each weighing ~230 in both, id say he came in 10% on the first, but it was pretty small, but he took first nonetheless. And the second he came in probably 9ish, maybe 8... but very vascular as well and took first, his size and genetics are great for the sport. The second show was apparently the biggest one day event or something like that.. sponsored by beverly.. more that goes to show that size and proportion and overall look play the largest role most of the time.