PDA

View Full Version : anybody else on here not like Steve Reeves' build?



BIGGUNS25
03-17-2009, 03:48 PM
I know he's one of the original pioneers of the sport, and I respect him for that, but his physique just looks like it was really lacking. He had no traps whatsoever, and he had pretty poor arm development. I see that they were listed at 17.5'', but they really did not look like it at all. Is there anybody else on here that thinks that his build wasn't that great?

_Pacey_
03-17-2009, 04:20 PM
I don't like it.

iForce Dave
03-17-2009, 04:31 PM
Yes

LevroneFan2002
03-17-2009, 04:32 PM
I know he's one of the original pioneers of the sport, and I respect him for that, but his physique just looks like it was really lacking. He had no traps whatsoever, and he had pretty poor arm development. I see that they were listed at 17.5'', but they really did not look like it at all. Is there anybody else on here that thinks that his build wasn't that great?
He has a nice v taper and he's fairly tall in good condition, but yes some more mass would be ideal. Agreed arms seem smaller, maybe 16.5".

MattyH7688
03-17-2009, 04:39 PM
most overrated physique on here

FLEX_09
03-17-2009, 04:39 PM
I like it.

With them not knowing as much as we know now about nutrition, supplements, the science behind training etc... I think he looks alright, deffinatly better then your average gym goer these days!

BIGGUNS25
03-17-2009, 04:47 PM
i just read a bio on him that said that his arms were 18.5'', that's way off. Mentzer's arms were 18.5, huge difference betwee the two, i don't care if Reeves is taller, he build is so ordinary looking.

LevroneFan2002
03-17-2009, 04:49 PM
i just read a bio on him that said that his arms were 18.5'', that's way off. Mentzer's arms were 18.5, huge difference betwee the two, i don't care if Reeves is taller, he build is so ordinary looking.
I don't think Mentzer's arms were 18.5" lol, probs 17.5", Reeves at 16.5".

MattyJ85
03-17-2009, 04:55 PM
most overrated physique on here

Word.

I guess for his time it was pretty decent, but now... tsk

Nikonguy
03-17-2009, 05:10 PM
I'm trying to fugure out how you can compare a BBer from 40 years ago to one from today. Throw up some pics of Reeves against his contemporaries and then you have something to discuss.

nastyk
03-17-2009, 05:25 PM
Well, if you asked a random girl who's body she likes better between Ronnie Coleman or Steve Reeves, who do you think she'd choose?

Just playing devils advocate.

MattyJ85
03-17-2009, 05:26 PM
Well, if you asked a random girl who's body she likes better between Ronnie Coleman or Steve Reeves, who do you think she'd choose?

Just playing devils advocate.

This is bodybuilding.com, not www.ratemybody.com or some ****.

nastyk
03-17-2009, 05:41 PM
This is bodybuilding.com, not www.ratemybody.com or some ****.

Do you struggle with reading comprehension?

DEVILS ADVOCATE!

Pump Freak 86
03-17-2009, 05:54 PM
i don't think he's overrated so to speak. He's just very important to the growth of the sport and because of that gets talked about a lot, but i don't think that's because he had tremenous amounts of physique development. So it seems, he insprired a lot of people to start bodybuilding. its more of a testament to his historical significance. Frank Zane on the other hand might be in the running for being overrated.

blancmange
03-17-2009, 06:22 PM
he didnt have much to work with back then!! He was a pioneer IMO

pyrolee
03-17-2009, 06:45 PM
I like his physique and structure. Nice long muscle bellies with wide shoulders, low lats, and a small waist. Pretty much was the pioneer for that look. And he had great calves too.

But comparing him to BB's today is pointless, of course he is gonna seem small.

steezemcgreazee
03-17-2009, 07:13 PM
jesus christ guys he was one of the first bodybuilders, of course hes not gonna have traps bigger than bricks and 30inch quads, lets be real

rocco421
03-17-2009, 07:40 PM
he looked ridiculous for his time, a true pioneer for this sport and has a great physique even by todays standards

iDarren
03-17-2009, 07:44 PM
Steve Reeves had a great build. In reality, on the street, in the flesh, he would look better than many modern BB's. In a photo however, he may not look as imposing as some modern BB's, as photos lie e.g. the term "photogenic", which for the photogenic subject does not necesarily equal looking good in reality.

d16daily
03-17-2009, 07:46 PM
haha this thread is so fukin stupid!! I mean honestly.....

the sole fact that you would critique the pioneer of bodybuildeing blows my mind.

antfarm
03-17-2009, 08:24 PM
I wish my arms lacked the size his did.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e62/towering_flesh/steve-reeves-2.jpg

and another one just for good measure.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e62/towering_flesh/z035e016.jpg

steezemcgreazee
03-17-2009, 08:25 PM
haha this thread is so fukin stupid!! I mean honestly.....

the sole fact that you would critique the pioneer of bodybuildeing blows my mind.

x2, people need to show some ****ing respect

Hengman
03-17-2009, 08:25 PM
Evolution of bodybuilding for you.

LevroneFan2002
03-17-2009, 08:39 PM
Evolution of bodybuilding for you.
He's a lot better looking facially than any of the BBers today lol.

barbarian_ben
03-17-2009, 08:45 PM
He looked awesome! Especially for his time. I mean even by today's standards, he has a great body, great proportions, very aesthetic and pleasing.

Sure he doesn't compare to the bodybuilders of today....but is that really our determining factor in whether somebody has great muscles?

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4847/sreev002.jpg

Riz
03-17-2009, 08:52 PM
He's a lot better looking facially than any of the BBers today lol.

was waiting for someone to say this.

his looks were a big part of the equation. if he had a face like a bull dog, i seriously doubt he wouldve had anywhere near the impact he had as a pioneer, especially as it relates to his shift into movies and entertainment, and that shift is what solidified his legendary status and influence... ex: serge nubret picked up his first weight after seeing steve reeves in a movie, became a legend of his own and inspired a whole generation.. etc.

art_of_war
03-17-2009, 09:15 PM
You gotta give Steve Reeves and Reg Park all the credit in the world. Back then, looking at those physiques is were as impressive to their fans as looking at Ronnie Coleman's physique in 2000-2005 era is to us.

People thought those physiques couldn't be improved, then came Arnold, and that couldn't be improved. Then came Haney, and that coudn't be improved. Then came Ronnie, and that can't be improved. (Obviously there are a lot more names in between, but you get the point, and I'm trying to condense the list.)

Also they didn't know then, what we know now about, nutrition, recuperation, etc. And gym equipment was just basics, a few barbells, dumbells, maybe a squat rack and a few benches. No Hammer machines, belts, straps, etc. They just did the best with what they had.

Like I said, it's all relevant to the times. Could they compare to todays pro physiques on the same stage? No. But back then they were Ronnie and Arnold rolled into one. To the anyone saying those physiques are bad or lacking, do realize that it's almost 50 years later. Of course in the past 50 years physiques have gotten better, I would hope so. No point in going to the Mr. O every year saying "God I hope this year's winner is smaller and worse looking than last years." This sport is about getting bigger, better and improving. Not regressing.

TheSheepdog
03-18-2009, 12:37 PM
You gotta give Steve Reeves and Reg Park all the credit in the world. Back then, looking at those physiques is were as impressive to their fans as looking at Ronnie Coleman's physique in 2000-2005 era is to us.

People thought those physiques couldn't be improved, then came Arnold, and that couldn't be improved. Then came Haney, and that coudn't be improved. Then came Ronnie, and that can't be improved. (Obviously there are a lot more names in between, but you get the point, and I'm trying to condense the list.)

Also they didn't know then, what we know now about, nutrition, recuperation, etc. And gym equipment was just basics, a few barbells, dumbells, maybe a squat rack and a few benches. No Hammer machines, belts, straps, etc. They just did the best with what they had.

Like I said, it's all relevant to the times. Could they compare to todays pro physiques on the same stage? No. But back then they were Ronnie and Arnold rolled into one. To the anyone saying those physiques are bad or lacking, do realize that it's almost 50 years later. Of course in the past 50 years physiques have gotten better, I would hope so. No point in going to the Mr. O every year saying "God I hope this year's winner is smaller and worse looking than last years." This sport is about getting bigger, better and improving. Not regressing.

i agree, reps

Hengman
03-18-2009, 02:59 PM
You gotta give Steve Reeves and Reg Park all the credit in the world. Back then, looking at those physiques is were as impressive to their fans as looking at Ronnie Coleman's physique in 2000-2005 era is to us.

People thought those physiques couldn't be improved, then came Arnold, and that couldn't be improved. Then came Haney, and that coudn't be improved. Then came Ronnie, and that can't be improved. (Obviously there are a lot more names in between, but you get the point, and I'm trying to condense the list.)

Also they didn't know then, what we know now about, nutrition, recuperation, etc. And gym equipment was just basics, a few barbells, dumbells, maybe a squat rack and a few benches. No Hammer machines, belts, straps, etc. They just did the best with what they had.

Like I said, it's all relevant to the times. Could they compare to todays pro physiques on the same stage? No. But back then they were Ronnie and Arnold rolled into one. To the anyone saying those physiques are bad or lacking, do realize that it's almost 50 years later. Of course in the past 50 years physiques have gotten better, I would hope so. No point in going to the Mr. O every year saying "God I hope this year's winner is smaller and worse looking than last years." This sport is about getting bigger, better and improving. Not regressing.

I AGREE 100%. However, in the bold, I just wanted to say that Ronnie doesn't use the new equipment we got now. He's all basics and oldschool training. Maybe cable-crossover, but that was around since like Arnold's time. Ronnie is considered the best to ever live.

But yeah, imagine if the diet they had back then was like now. Everybody would of been different looking. Steve Reeves could of looked like Ronnie if he wanted to, but science back then sucked. The more and more science got advanced, the more and more we got bigger and better in the art of bodybuilding.

adam247
03-18-2009, 03:26 PM
WOW

Show respect to a guy who has a better physique than most people talking about him , even with drugs better food and better gyms : (

Outlined
03-18-2009, 03:37 PM
I dig reeves physique very much, but then again im very into classic proportions and thin waists.

maverick000
03-18-2009, 04:34 PM
WOW

Show respect to a guy who has a better physique than most people talking about him , even with drugs better food and better gyms : (

no one has respect anymore its sad

sentinel3
10-12-2013, 09:16 AM
I know this is an old thread. But these jokers havent a clue. Im 5 8" with 16.5 inch arms. If you have decent eye sight its as plain as day. Reeves had 18" arms. And all the other measurements. There are alot of people who want to look like some bunched up freak.

With no personality. You know all look the same. Thats exactly why Reeves has one of the greatest physiques of alltime. Built fair and square with hard work and good sensible diet. And incomparable symmetry.

There is a picture of reeves on a beach doing a single bicep stroke lat pose. To this day I havent seen a greater pic of a male physique. And doubt I everwill. Reeves was blessed with unbelievable natural proportions. Super square full tie in pecs Broad shoulders and narrow hips. And a great bone structure.

IF we ever saw a guy with a physique very close to him. Even today. He would stand out amongst these awful drugged up freaks. With 32" thighs on top of 19" calves. And pregnant abs. Absolutely disgusting. Anybody wanting to look like that wants their head tested.

Reeves has THEE physique. To get even close to that symmetry and proportion should be the standard. Sadly once again the greed for money has destroyed the greatness of true body sculpture.

darscogre
10-12-2013, 10:22 AM
I know he's one of the original pioneers of the sport, and I respect him for that, but his physique just looks like it was really lacking. He had no traps whatsoever, and he had pretty poor arm development. I see that they were listed at 17.5'', but they really did not look like it at all. Is there anybody else on here that thinks that his build wasn't that great?

Its so funny to listen to all you tear apart Reeves physique......as im looking at the avi's for all the commenters here......do any of you for a moment thing you look better than Reeves does???? LOLOL

jamiesays
10-12-2013, 11:54 AM
dunno why this thread was bumped, and i'm probably gonna get negged for this, but i much prefer steve reeeves physique to even frank zanes in terms of aesthetics. especially for the time, steve reeves looked absolutely incredible. modern day equivalent in my mind would be milos sarvec

pyrolee
10-12-2013, 01:14 PM
http://www.iron-age-classic-bodybuilding.com/images/Steve_Reeves_double_biceps.JPG

And this was back in the 40s/50s? Dude was a god.

littlemike23
10-12-2013, 01:30 PM
He was good for his time but no i'm not a fan

hairlineofpeace
10-12-2013, 02:48 PM
He was the hero of today's heroes:

http://www.stevereevesbiography.com/Hercules_pulling_chains_pillars___LOW_MG_edited-1.jpg

http://www.yuchtar.com/Steve/04_herc2.jpg

pretty big arms:

http://blog.mrfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/steve-reeves-2.jpg

BigDaddyCoolPR
10-12-2013, 03:12 PM
uOrUZeqODUQ

josher92
10-12-2013, 03:44 PM
I know he's one of the original pioneers of the sport, and I respect him for that, but his physique just looks like it was really lacking. He had no traps whatsoever, and he had pretty poor arm development. I see that they were listed at 17.5'', but they really did not look like it at all. Is there anybody else on here that thinks that his build wasn't that great?


MAN, everyone on here saying that he didn't have 18.5 arms is not looking at the right pictures. He wasn't small either, he had such a crazy huge back that it made his arms look small in comparison. He even says that he purposely didn't train traps in order so have a more classic looking physique instead of bulky and idiotic. He was all about achieving the perfect physique (steroid free btw), not just obtaining mass. Just google Steve Reeves in images and scroll down and you will see.

Tb0282
10-12-2013, 05:10 PM
http://www.evolutionofbodybuilding.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/steve-reeves.jpg

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/54353/1929600-steve_reeves___photo_bw.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zpxNBySGFn8/Th0MxZFVKbI/AAAAAAAADjA/PoXMPL630Bk/s400/reeves.jpg

http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/reeves/sr187.jpg

ballenmo
10-12-2013, 06:36 PM
I'm trying to fugure out how you can compare a BBer from 40 years ago to one from today. Throw up some pics of Reeves against his contemporaries and then you have something to discuss.

Exactly. You cant compare. Reg Park was huge by that days standards (Arnolds idol) but not that big looking at all by todays standards. I guess if youre saying you dont like the "shape" of his physique then ok, but if size cmon we are talking about 60 freakin years ago. Have you seen pics of the gyms back then? :)

One thing you notice about those old old guys is that many if not most lived long, or still living, long lives. 90's etc. and in decent shape for 90. Hate that todays crop is littered with dead bodybuilders at 40 45 but todays physique comes at a different price and the goal is very different at that level.

mrsnruB1111
10-13-2013, 07:01 AM
Hating on Steve Reeves is like hating on the Model T

lee4
10-13-2013, 10:52 AM
reeves arms are easily ~18s. sure his glutes aren't striated, but they're hardly fatceps. remember, reeves was taller than wolf today (6ft)
original pic wouldn't load, see comparison of reeves standing next to guy on beach...anyhow
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bn5W6VDeqfo/TfO__Mk_loI/AAAAAAAABaA/wzaIE1iogJw/s1600/Steve+Reeves14.jpeg

had serious shoulder to waist ratio...

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=421350.0;attach=46 4882;image


honestly, i think he gets the a lot of hate for simply being incredibly built for his day while STILL being better looking than everyone else.

http://www.artline.ro/files/gItems/image/5/steve-reeves.jpg



honestly, a reeves frame with TODAY's enhancements would/could be INSANE. imagine jay's shoulders on a buchanan like waist.