Results 1 to 40 of 66
Thread: over rated arnold
-
04-08-2004, 06:02 PM #1
over rated arnold
well im gonna start a war now, so here goes. arnold is way over rated, his physique for the time was ok, but still wasnt as great as i read guys make it out to be here. no triceps, no obliques, no legs, his chest and bis. thats it, other than his ego... he has nothing. columbo looked 10x better, so did frank zane as far as symntry goes. so thats my view... let the war begin...lol
-
04-08-2004, 06:10 PM #2
Robby Robinson looked way better then Arnold and Frank Zane!
-
04-08-2004, 06:12 PM #3
I was thinking the SAME THING. I caught part of Conan the barbian last night and was looking at his body. Sure he was more into acting at that time but he wasnt all that great compared to most. Even his traps were weak compared to most bodybuilders. Yesteryear in bodybuilding can no longer even compete with todays, but even then, he got lucky and had popularity on his side.
Im glad he won most of the competitions because he helped change the sport and get it more recognized. He also contributes a lot to the sport....
-
04-08-2004, 06:14 PM #4ttuPrincess Guest
I think a lot of the craze over Arnold was started because women were crazy over him because of his accent and muscles, since there wernt a lot of really big guys back when he 1st came around. And that being said, a lot of men may think hes so great because he got a lot of women and good looking women at that. Hummmm maybe im just over analyzing things... like a woman.. oh well
-
04-08-2004, 06:15 PM #5
Arnold's 1980 Mr. O was bull****. Frank Zane should of won!
-
04-08-2004, 06:17 PM #6ttuPrincess Guest
Let me correct something from my last post... there were not a lot of really big guys in the media, and films when he 1st came around.... there were big guys in BBing , etc..
-
04-08-2004, 06:25 PM #7
Franco was better built then Arnold but was overshadowed by Arnolds height. Anyone see pumping iron? Franco should have won that olympia! As for MrO 1980 are we forgetting Mentzer??
-
04-08-2004, 06:27 PM #8
haters.. arnold IS bodybuilding.
-
04-08-2004, 06:54 PM #9
I agree somewhat.
Originally Posted by HiFi
-
04-08-2004, 06:58 PM #10Originally Posted by PumpingIron
decadbal: No tris? how do you figure that!? 22inch arms... his arms were jaw droping amazing
-
04-08-2004, 07:00 PM #11Originally Posted by Prime
-
04-08-2004, 07:07 PM #12
Steve up there is still the ultimate in my book.
-
04-08-2004, 07:09 PM #13
I think Lee Priest looks 10x better than Ronnie Coleman, but does that mean that Ronnie is overrated? Well, probably, but still.
It is the freaks, however they are defined by their generation, that gain the publicity. Franco had much better symmetry, I agree. But for acting, intelligence, drive and perseverence in all aspects of life I think Arnold surpasses any bodybuilder of any generation sans none.
But Sergio... I never understood why he wasn't more popular? Let me rephrase... I'm sure he was, but he never seemed to be in the spotlight nearly as much as Arnold and company. Why was that?
I never liked Zane. Don't know why, just never preferred his body style or asthetics. Mentzer had a solid physique, but I never saw anything he had that would top Arnold, Columbo, or Sergio.
-
04-08-2004, 07:11 PM #14Originally Posted by decadbal
-
04-08-2004, 07:14 PM #15
as far as his 22 inche arms go, imagine if he had some tris.. he doenst, look at his pics, all bicep, tiny girl triceps...
-
04-08-2004, 07:16 PM #16Originally Posted by Carlos_E
-
04-08-2004, 07:24 PM #17
not really, it was all california based, and at the time those ppl were supposedly years ahead of the rest of the US.. i dont see why anyone liked him
-
04-08-2004, 07:27 PM #18Originally Posted by inheritmylife
-
04-08-2004, 07:30 PM #19
He had a look. A look good enough to get him into the movies as a 20 million dollar a movie actor. that is the basis of his poular appeal. Tall, hansome, and jacked. Pretty good building blocks to make someone an idol of sorts.
Bodybuilding wise, he was definately not universaly dominant over his competitors. There were many traits that others had him beat in.
-
04-08-2004, 07:49 PM #20
Well I do agree in 80' Columbo should have won and Robby should have won more.
-
04-08-2004, 08:27 PM #21Originally Posted by decadbal
And this one because his arms are awesome lol
-
04-08-2004, 08:32 PM #22Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Antarctica
- Posts
- 1,919
Originally Posted by juicehoe
Yea no SH!T......This is not even a topic worth debating....Let the pictures speak for them selves.
-
04-08-2004, 08:47 PM #23
they have, and his tris are am. where you from in ga bro
-
04-08-2004, 10:14 PM #24
BOW DOWN before ARNOLD or feel My wrath
-
04-08-2004, 10:43 PM #25ttuPrincess GuestOriginally Posted by decadbal
-
04-08-2004, 11:03 PM #26
I agree that Columbo looked better than Arnold.
-
04-08-2004, 11:11 PM #27
Well, I for one agree that arnold IS overrated.
Red
-
04-09-2004, 12:53 AM #28
The reason Arnold is such a big deal is cuz he was the FIRST big thing to really hit bodyduilding. I still think hes the best BBer ever, i think hes better than the guys now, i think all around the guys back then looked a whole lot better then the guys now, theres too much bull**** today in BBing back then it was just the basics, far better IMO. And i honestly think he looked better than all the guys back then too.
-
04-09-2004, 01:28 AM #29LM1332 Guest
Today top BBs are freaks full of juice. Now all they care about is how big they can get and how many CCs they can shoot before they die. Back then during Arnolds time it was all about shape about sculpting the body.
-
04-09-2004, 09:44 AM #30Originally Posted by Prime
-
04-09-2004, 09:59 AM #31Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Posts
- 608
i think it would be pretty hard to have 22 inch arms without any tris...
-
04-09-2004, 10:00 AM #32Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Posts
- 608
Originally Posted by LM1332
or if they live past 30...
-
04-09-2004, 10:33 AM #33Originally Posted by ross3814
-
04-09-2004, 11:02 AM #34Originally Posted by ross3814
none of the top bodybuilders are under 30, i think ronnie is like going on 40
-
04-09-2004, 11:17 AM #35Originally Posted by decadbal
You guys be the judge:Last edited by monster.; 04-09-2004 at 11:22 AM.
-
04-09-2004, 11:24 AM #36Originally Posted by monster.
-
04-09-2004, 11:25 AM #37
To me Ronnie looks almost bloated, but he is huge and shredded at 294lbs on stage.. I can't imagine 294lbs with 4% bf.. Thats why i say he is like Michael Jordan to bodybuilding, no body comes close..
-
04-09-2004, 11:28 AM #38Originally Posted by Carlos_E
-
04-09-2004, 11:31 AM #39Originally Posted by monster.
-
04-09-2004, 11:43 AM #40
Arnold had bigger calves then Ronnie, now thats freaky, how can we have a mr O without calves!?!?
Arnold is the man, you will all burn for not worshipping him!
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
cutting/ fat loss advice needed...
04-16-2024, 01:34 AM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS