which professional bbers would you say..

Dave_19 · Aug 31, 2006

are highly reconzied in the sport and successfull, but don't have and never had the genetics to try competitively bbing as a career in the first place? Im watching some of the battle for olympias tapes, and It seems like certain guys like art atwood and king kamali just look odd compared to the eletie geneticly blessed bbers like both of the Jacksons, phil heath, flex, dareem, ect..

I'm thking once this sport carries on over time in about 50 or so years guy placing 20th in olympia will look like guys in the top 3 today. A lot of these bbers with terrible genetics probably will have a tough time getting a pro card.

mike1107 · Aug 31, 2006

Dave_19 said:
are highly reconzied in the sport and successfull, but don't have and never had the genetics to try competitively bbing as a career in the first place? Im watching some of the battle for olympias tapes, and It seems like certain guys like art atwood and king kamali just look odd compared to the eletie geneticly blessed bbers like both of the Jacksons, phil heath, flex, dareem, ect..

I'm thking once this sport carries on over time in about 50 or so years guy placing 20th in olympia will look like guys in the top 3 today. A lot of these bbers with terrible genetics probably will have a tough time getting a pro card.

art arwood IMO
rich gaspari was not genitcally gifted too I think and did sooooo well

Big Bapper · Aug 31, 2006

Craig Titus or mabe he had the gentics and did not use them.

Dave_19 · Aug 31, 2006

Big Bapper said:
Craig Titus or mabe he had the gentics and did not use them.

no i dont think his are too great, his arms make for a bad weak spot imo.

Macdaddy · Aug 31, 2006

Dave Palumbo back in the day. Also Greg Kovaks with all the Muscletech ads. Neither of them had the genetics.

BigWilly · Aug 31, 2006

Dave_19 said:
no i dont think his are too great, his arms make for a bad weak spot imo.

I actually thought his arms were pretty sick...maybe lacking in the chest dept. though...

Ashop · Sep 1, 2006

Big Bapper said:
Craig Titus or mabe he had the gentics and did not use them.

I never liked Craig or his physique.

JETHRO TULL · Sep 1, 2006

DAVE19? CRAIGS ARMS WEAK?

I AM WITH BIG WILLY ON THIS ONE. CRAIGS ARMS DIDN'T SEEM UNDERDEVELOPED TO ME. HIS WAIST GOT BIG AS HELL FOR A WHILE...BUT I THOUGHT HIS CHEST WAS THE LAGGING AREA AS WELL.

ANYWAY....I GUESS OPINIONS VARY...THAT'S WHY THERE IS MORE THAN ONE JUDGE AT SHOWS!

I GUESS HIS MORAL FIBER WASN'T A REAL STRENGTH EITHER?

Fullybuilt · Sep 1, 2006

If Atwood came in leaner and found a way to get his waste smaller, I think he could do some serious damage. I guess if I had to pick it would probably be Bob Cicerello

Jarconis · Sep 2, 2006

jeremy freeman

TRAINHD · Sep 2, 2006

Jarconis said:
jeremy freeman

My god I forgot all about him, Yeah I agree Jeremy Freeman

LATS · Sep 2, 2006

well.. going from a amatuer to a pro is a big leap.. freeman, king ect all deserved to go pro.. they looked great in their national wins.. but, looking great at the nationals and doing great as a pro is a different story.. look at those who have turned pro with qualifying wins.. many will never make it big in the pros.. the quality is prteey deep.. for every ken jones, there is coleman, dexter, cormier, cutler, jame, anthony, ect who excel.. guys like ergas win the nationals and derserve their pro wins.. but, do not have the genes to be top notch .. but, they are pros none the less.. for every tiger woods there are many more who are ranked out of the top 50.. they all derserve to be pro.. but, only a few will make a mark..

JETHRO TULL · Sep 2, 2006

LATS, YOU EXPLAINED THAT VERY WELL.

NICE JOB!

LATS said:
well.. going from a amatuer to a pro is a big leap.. freeman, king ect all deserved to go pro.. they looked great in their national wins.. but, looking great at the nationals and doing great as a pro is a different story.. look at those who have turned pro with qualifying wins.. many will never make it big in the pros.. the quality is prteey deep.. for every ken jones, there is coleman, dexter, cormier, cutler, jame, anthony, ect who excel.. guys like ergas win the nationals and derserve their pro wins.. but, do not have the genes to be top notch .. but, they are pros none the less.. for every tiger woods there are many more who are ranked out of the top 50.. they all derserve to be pro.. but, only a few will make a mark..

Dave_19 · Sep 2, 2006

LATS said:
well.. going from a amatuer to a pro is a big leap.. freeman, king ect all deserved to go pro.. they looked great in their national wins.. but, looking great at the nationals and doing great as a pro is a different story.. look at those who have turned pro with qualifying wins.. many will never make it big in the pros.. the quality is prteey deep.. for every ken jones, there is coleman, dexter, cormier, cutler, jame, anthony, ect who excel.. guys like ergas win the nationals and derserve their pro wins.. but, do not have the genes to be top notch .. but, they are pros none the less.. for every tiger woods there are many more who are ranked out of the top 50.. they all derserve to be pro.. but, only a few will make a mark..

a very good way to look at it. I'm just trying to see which guys defied the odds and made it pro. Obviously genetics are no ones fault unless you want to blame there parents