Tom Platz, Ahead Of His Time?

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 01:59 AM

It seems like Platzian leg development has become the status quo with the likes of Branch Warren and Jay Cutler, among others. When Platz was competing, I never envisioned that his leg development would ever be equalled. Can leg development go any further than it has, if so how?

LittleBIG · 03-21-2006, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anabolism1000

It seems like Platzian leg development has become the status quo with the likes of Branch Warren and Jay Cutler, among others. When Platz was competing, I never envisioned that his leg development would ever be equalled. Can leg development go any further than it has, if so how?

I don't think that there is a single bodybuilder with equally good legs... Maybe some have better size, some better sharpness, but noone has combined both like Platz .... He just had this amazing shape, quality and sharpness.... It's amazing, so he's still in front of time , even our time

Check it out !!

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 03:04 AM

It's hard to argue with that picture, but leg development among competitors has improved since Tom was competing. I've always been a big Platz fan, so not much argument from me.

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 03:12 AM

Just a thought, imagine Platz's legs with the extreme vascularity of Rich Gaspari in his prime.

user23960508710783 · 03-21-2006, 11:55 AM

Sure, I think there are bodybuilders with better leg development than Platz, although you are correct to say that he was a trailblazer in the sense that he really raised the bar on leg development. Keep in mind he was competing against guys like Chris Dickerson and Frank Zane, who were both very successful, but neither of which could really be said to have outstanding leg development.

Some names of people with better legs? How about Paul DeMayo?

Hubbard · 03-21-2006, 11:58 AM

Branch has insane legs, i think he's still young too

Morbid_Mind · 03-21-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul4447

Some names of people with better legs? How about Paul DeMayo?

Good ol' Quadzilla.

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 01:01 PM

Good points all!

Maybe Platz's quads have been equalled or bettered, but I've never seen hamstrings to equal his. Maybe the combination of his quads and hams keeps him, to this day, as all-time best.

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean-Paul4447

Sure, I think there are bodybuilders with better leg development than Platz, although you are correct to say that he was a trailblazer in the sense that he really raised the bar on leg development. Keep in mind he was competing against guys like Chris Dickerson and Frank Zane, who were both very successful, but neither of which could really be said to have outstanding leg development.

Some names of people with better legs? How about Paul DeMayo?

Dickerson had some killer calves though. Perfection really.

The_One77 · 03-21-2006, 02:24 PM

does anyone have pics of Platz legs in competition?
Its more accurate to compare that way

Dolemite07 · 03-21-2006, 02:36 PM

I wouldn't call having grossy overdeveloped legs that outshone his barely average at best upper body as being "ahead of his time."

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_One77

does anyone have pics of Platz legs in competition?
Its more accurate to compare that way

Here's a few.

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 02:39 PM

Here's a young Platz.

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dolemite07

I wouldn't call having grossy overdeveloped legs that outshone his barely average at best upper body as being "ahead of his time."

I'm just talking about his legs foreshadowing the future. No argument about the symmetry/ upper body.

Dolemite07 · 03-21-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anabolism1000

I'm just talking about his legs foreshadowing the future. No argument about the symmetry/ upper body.

Gotcha.

large chris · 03-21-2006, 03:31 PM

Platz always said he felt like praying before the squat rack, and his legs were awesome.

But how can squats have failed to help him fill out the rest of his body?

Truly he must have had the worst most unbalanced physique of any big name.

Can anyone suggest and post pics on anyone they think more unbalanced?

Anabolism1000 · 03-21-2006, 03:36 PM

That's a good point dude. Maybe the squat's impact on the upper body is overrated.

tonich03 · 03-21-2006, 05:12 PM

he has some sick abs too, and I don't find his physique so unbalanced in his prime

Caesar164 · 03-21-2006, 05:20 PM

His upper body not keeping up with his legs, is purely genetic. I personally don't like how freaky leg development has gotten; I like the symetry arnold portraid with his leg development, small to today's standards. Just my opinion.

RiK · 03-21-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anabolism1000

That's a good point dude. Maybe the squat's impact on the upper body is overrated.

of course it is. This whole 'squatting will help your upper body grow' thing is really some kind of obsession on bb.com. People love to say it releases growth hormone, in reality, the influence of squatting on growth hormone is virtually negligible in respect improving gains.

Caesar164 · 03-21-2006, 08:25 PM

[QUOTE=RiK]of course it is. This whole 'squatting will help your upper body grow' thing is really some kind of obsession on bb.com. People love to say it releases growth hormone, in reality, the influence of squatting on growth hormone is virtually negligible in respect improving gains.[/QUOTE/]
I've always believed that since the thighs have the biggest muscles in the body, during a tough set of squats the entire body as a system is working on overdrive to adapt to the load you are placing on it. The glands, being a part of that system is also overloaded, therefore extreting higher hormone levels. Another thing, supporting a heavy barbell on your back brings in to play many muscles that act as stabilizers, therefore causing a higher stress on the ,then any other single exercise. How does the body adapt? by growing bigger and stronger. So in my opinion, it does supplement the whole body; as far as increasing testerone levels, that's been thoroughly researched and proven to be correct, look it up, there's scientific backing to this. You don't have to take my word for it, and you can't change my belief that the squat bis the best exercise you can do to get massive! peace.

trem0lo · 03-21-2006, 11:15 PM

Platz's legs were great. I was reading Arnold's encyclopedia the other day and I found this interesting bit about his training:

"Platz demanded more of his legs, which is why he got so much more than other people. For example, he would do as many as 35 reps for squats with 315 on the bar, another 25 reps after less than 60 seconds' rest, several sets of total-exhaustion leg extensions and leg curls, hack squats and leg presses, brutal calf work--and then go out and ride his bicycle for 20 miles to finish off his leg workout."

OUCH

Anabolism1000 · 03-22-2006, 03:18 AM

My upper body is a little behind my legs, and I've done tons of squats over the years. I suppose it is genetic (as mentioned), but you would think that a squatter would have no problems developing the upper body, and yet you have people who barely work their legs at all and have massive upper bodies. After squatting, all I've noticed is that my neck and traps look a little pumped up. I always believed from my own experience that the deadlift is a more effective total body developer than the squat.

S.C. · 03-22-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RiK

of course it is. This whole 'squatting will help your upper body grow' thing is really some kind of obsession on bb.com. People love to say it releases growth hormone, in reality, the influence of squatting on growth hormone is virtually negligible in respect improving gains.

Forget whether its neglible or not, this needs to be understood:

HGH WILL NOT MAKE YOUR MUSCLES GROW. People keep claiming it increases muscle cells but from everybody I know that have been on it for years non-stop they have seen nothing in direct mass gains.

HGH = Fat loss, joint help. HGH + IGF-1 is another story entirely.

Vadim Beliaev · 03-22-2006, 01:14 PM

I wonder how Platz' legs would compare to the top pros' nowadays, for example Ronnie and Priest. Perhaps anyone with photoshop skills could post an edited pic for a direct comparison?

S.C. · 03-22-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vadim Beliaev

I wonder how Platz' legs would compare to the top pros' nowadays, for example Ronnie and Priest. Perhaps anyone with photoshop skills could post an edited pic for a direct comparison?

I would really appreciate that actually. Quadzilla, Platz, and Ronnie would probably be a great comparison. Maybe add branch to that lol.

Reps for a good one.

help · 03-22-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anabolism1000

My upper body is a little behind my legs, and I've done tons of squats over the years. I suppose it is genetic (as mentioned), but you would think that a squatter would have no problems developing the upper body, and yet you have people who barely work their legs at all and have massive upper bodies. After squatting, all I've noticed is that my neck and traps look a little pumped up. I always believed from my own experience that the deadlift is a more effective total body developer than the squat.

WERD! If you don't do legs you could do upper body more often. Also HEAVY leg workouts are exhausting, IMO (though I fell a sense of uptoia, whatever, after a really hard, all out workout). Leaving more time/energy to work upper body. I don't get how people can not do legs..... At my gym if you wan't to do legs you go whenever, the leg macihines are never being used.

Anyway, I do a lot of squats and my upper body is def. behind too.

RiK · 03-22-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesar164

I've always believed that since the thighs have the biggest muscles in the body, during a tough set of squats the entire body as a system is working on overdrive to adapt to the load you are placing on it. The glands, being a part of that system is also overloaded, therefore extreting higher hormone levels. Another thing, supporting a heavy barbell on your back brings in to play many muscles that act as stabilizers, therefore causing a higher stress on the ,then any other single exercise. How does the body adapt? by growing bigger and stronger. So in my opinion, it does supplement the whole body; as far as increasing testerone levels, that's been thoroughly researched and proven to be correct, look it up, there's scientific backing to this. You don't have to take my word for it, and you can't change my belief that the squat bis the best exercise you can do to get massive! peace.

Believe me bro, squats are the last exercise i would ever drop. We all know for sure what they directly work, legs - there is no better!

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.

Forget whether its neglible or not, this needs to be understood:

HGH WILL NOT MAKE YOUR MUSCLES GROW. People keep claiming it increases muscle cells but from everybody I know that have been on it for years non-stop they have seen nothing in direct mass gains.

HGH = Fat loss, joint help. HGH + IGF-1 is another story entirely.

Nice.

Anabolism1000 · 03-22-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by help

WERD! If you don't do legs you could do upper body more often. Also HEAVY leg workouts are exhausting, IMO (though I fell a sense of uptoia, whatever, after a really hard, all out workout). Leaving more time/energy to work upper body. I don't get how people can not do legs..... At my gym if you wan't to do legs you go whenever, the leg macihines are never being used.

Anyway, I do a lot of squats and my upper body is def. behind too.

We're definitely in the minority. I can't think of one other person in my gym whose legs are ahead of the upper body.

Good point about leg work being exhausting and detracting from upper body training. Maybe Tom Platz represented this phenomena to the extreme.

Morbid_Mind · 03-22-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.

Forget whether its neglible or not, this needs to be understood:

HGH WILL NOT MAKE YOUR MUSCLES GROW. People keep claiming it increases muscle cells but from everybody I know that have been on it for years non-stop they have seen nothing in direct mass gains.

HGH = Fat loss, joint help. HGH + IGF-1 is another story entirely.

The theory isn't talking about exogenous hGH use, it's talking about natural, endogenous GH release. IGF-1 is naturally released by the liver due to GH stimulation.