Bringing Back Old School Bodybuilding

[health4life24]

Ok first off let me start by saying this isn't supposed to be a thread where we all get into an argument, it's more of a discussion. I want to see what some other people think. Let's have fun with it.

If you look at guys like Arnold back in that era they were big but still resembled a human body. Some of the guys today just defeat what bodybuilding is supposed to be about. Isn't bodybuilding about creating a great body, or as Arnold described it as who has the most beautiful body? Guys nowadays have stomachs sticking out past their nose and some of em look like a fictional character out of a comic book yeah?

But also we have to look at modern day bodybuilding training principles vs old school. People nowadays are so afraid to put in more effort than they think they can give because they are told they will overtrain, which is BS. Bodybuilders from the Golden era trained for multiple hrs a day and there was no worry about overtraining, etc. And IMO Arnold's physique surpasses most of the physiques of many you see in the Olympia because he was big but had a flat stomach and small waist.

[jacobcmurphy]

I personally liked the physiques of the golden era much more

But as far as over training, gear was legal back then, which speeds up recovery time significantly and allowed them to train for hours on end

It's pretty much damn near impossible to over train in general though lol

Have not over trained in my five years of training

[health4life24]

The whole overtraining thing has been blown out of proportion. What people fail to realize is that what may be considered "too much" for one person is another person's bread and butter. There is no set standard for how long you should workout for and how many sets, etc., but fitness "professionals" try to create these standards and that is where I feel many people are being held back. So much so that people are afraid to do things on their rest days because they may lose their gains. I mean really? I know because I used to be in that trap falling for a lot of the BS that is preached in the fitness industry.

[RoroCwalker]

Aestheticism has an evolutionary basis, regardless of certain cultural tweaks, there is a genetic basis for admiring certain proportions of the human body.

Following that premise, there is reason to believe that the chest's proportion, in regards to the shoulders and waist, is a major factor.







Then look at a figure of He-Man.


The front seems to be the most deciding factor for the Modern vs Old-School contrast.
I'd argue that modern bodybuilders have a much better look from the back.

1. Traps got too overwhelming
2. Shoulders got too big (airplane delts)
3. Quads got too big for the calves
4. Inner thighs got too whelming

It's a matter of proportions.

It wouldn't be an issue if every body part grew proportionally, but what seems to have happened is that some ratios have fallen off because of some body parts being left behind (chest/calves/waist) and not growing at the same rate, completely changing the standard.

[BartPimpson]

[deathmetal1992]

Yes, the golden age guys look much more pleasing to the average person and don't look like walking chemical experiments. Back in the day, you never really saw a bodybuilder with bad proportions, nowadays you see some guys with a 40 inch waist and 18 inch arms. That's not to say the quality of the gene pool has been lowered, it's just there are so many more bodybuilders now than there were back then so of course it's going to be easier to find some guys who just overcompensate lack of genetics with excessive supps. I still believe bodybuilding hit its peak in the late 80s and started its slow decline in the mid 90s. Even the same guys from the early 90s didn't look nearly as good by the late 90s, aesthetics-wise.

Let's just compare the talent from the time period I listed compared to today. How many guys do you see at the top level that still have those beautiful lines? Sure you have Shawn Rhoden, Dexter, Cedric and a few others but they are the minority, not the norm. Although from a bodybuilding perspective Kai and Phil would smoke any of the 90s guys with the exception of Ronnie, who is an anomaly, almost every 90s guy was more appealing then them by far. You had frontrunners at the Olympia like: Kevin, Flex, Shawn, Chris and Lee Labrada. Even guys who weren't anywhere near the top were aesthetic, back in the day proportions were first, mass was important but it wasn't everything. Somewhere along the way (1993-1994), judges became far more concerned with mass and conditioning then lines and proportions. That made room for guys like Dorian, Nasser and JP Fux who weren't blessed with the greatest shape and proportions, but outmassed the rest of the field, resulting in them placing much higher than they would've a decade earlier. But yeah this is just a matter of opinion and taste, we all know bodybuilding is never going to go back to the way it was. Best thing we can do is just do damage control, try to penalize pros with guts sticking out further than their chest, not place such a high importance on conditioning etc.

[BartPimpson]

Is this argument - that pros from the 70s looked much better than pros from today - really historically sound?

I suspect that when people talk about "golden age physiques" they're referring to a group of 4-5 genetically exceptional pros (Arnold, et al), and ignoring all the ugly, gross, and plain mediocre bodybuilders from that period.

For example, when I look at Ken Waller, I don't see flowing aesthetic perfection. I see a guy with a lagging chest, lagging arms, and generally odd proportions. All he has over modern pros is a tight waist, due to not having HGH or insulin or whatever you want to blame.



I feel the same way about Boyer Coe, Roger Walker, Dennis Tinerino, and huge numbers of 2nd and 3rd rate bodybuilders from Arnold's time. If they were 20-30 pounds heavier and had a wider waist, they'd look exactly the same as modern pros. Other than better drugs, nothing has changed.

[JigPig]

To me the 90's were the golden age. Perfect balance for almost all aspects and so many gifted bodybuilders like Ronnie, Flex, Kevin, Cormier, Dorian, Priest, Nasser, Ray etc etc

There were so many talented individuals during that era which made it so competitive as compared to the current and previous era

[RobberBaron13]

The priorities back then were different. In the 1970's the most important aspects were great arms, v-taper/small waist, great chest and the most important poses were front ones. Now the emphasis is on the back, legs and back poses.
The proportions have changed the most however.If we look closely some of the top guys back then had chest, arms and calves just/nearly as big as the current crop.But the thighs (quads/hams) have gotten alot bigger, backs and delts too but to a lesser extent.The huge back was made mandatory by Lee Haney back in the 1980's, the delts in the early 1990s by the likes of Dillett, Levrone, Flex...
Back then some body parts were deliberately showcased, now all areas are maxed out and very few bb have truly stand-out body parts.
The proportions will never go back, simply because one cannot dominate the O with just chest and arms like back in the day, the waists arent getting ( alot) smaller either.The legs will certainly not get smaller.And don't even get me started about the conditioning...chances we're gonna have someone win the O waterlogged and at 8 % BF are non existant.

[health4life24]

Seems like the focus too is on who is the biggest rather on who has the most well-developed body. At least from an outsider's perspective, that is to say someone who isn't affiliated with bodybuilding competition / judging in any way, most people when they think of bodybuilding think of guys with really big muscles posing on a stage. You don't really hear many people talking about creating a beautiful body or a well proportioned physique, but more so how big can I get, or who is the biggest, etc.

Nothing wrong with getting big, but you want to be big in a good way right? Being 250 pounds with a flat stomach and well chiseled body is one thing, but being 250 pounds and looking like you got a balloon in your gut changes everything. Are we judging on physique or size?

[DanielEver]

Aestheticism has an evolutionary basis, regardless of certain cultural tweaks, there is a genetic basis for admiring certain proportions of the human body.

so what's evolutionary about that?

for example, Greeks had another take on proportions (with waist being way thicker and chest smaller), what makes that more authentic than the oher?

[chrisdsgb2013]

I'm just glad they added this division, I'm just a fan of all aspects of the iron sport

[Gymathy]

Is this argument - that pros from the 70s looked much better than pros from today - really historically sound?

I suspect that when people talk about "golden age physiques" they're referring to a group of 4-5 genetically exceptional pros (Arnold, et al), and ignoring all the ugly, gross, and plain mediocre bodybuilders from that period.

For example, when I look at Ken Waller, I don't see flowing aesthetic perfection. I see a guy with a lagging chest, lagging arms, and generally odd proportions. All he has over modern pros is a tight waist, due to not having HGH or insulin or whatever you want to blame.

I feel the same way about Boyer Coe, Roger Walker, Dennis Tinerino, and huge numbers of 2nd and 3rd rate bodybuilders from Arnold's time. If they were 20-30 pounds heavier and had a wider waist, they'd look exactly the same as modern pros. Other than better drugs, nothing has changed.

That is a pretty poor picture of Ken and seems to be from later in his career as he got older. In these pictures he looks much better, although I will agree that I think his chest could have been a bit bigger, but it was good enough to win him the Mr. Universe.

I wish I could post pics :/

[RoroCwalker]

so what's evolutionary about that?

for example, Greeks had another take on proportions (with waist being way thicker and chest smaller), what makes that more authentic than the oher?

That's a cultural tweak, considering they probably didn't have people as big as today.

There's still the common point of musculature, flat stomach, shoulder-width wider than hips, good calves-to-quads ratio, torso length, etc.

What I meant is that there's an evolutionary basis for what is found attractive, for males and females.

[Gymathy]

That's a cultural tweak, considering they probably didn't have people as big as today.

There's still the common point of musculature, flat stomach, shoulder-width wider than hips, good calves-to-quads ratio, torso length, etc.

What I meant is that there's an evolutionary basis for what is found attractive, for males and females.

Agreed. Flat stomachs are always more attractive than round and protruding ones.

[DanielEver]

What I meant is that there's an evolutionary basis for what is found attractive, for males and females.

perhaps there is, but why do you think it that being fascinated by wide shoulders is something more rooted in evolution than being fascinated by relatively fat individuals (considering millions years of evolution took place during constant famines and stuff)?

[JoePietaro]

I'm 48 so I have always preferred the 1970s physiques over the contemporary ones. But I also think that the mass monsters are cool, as well, but not in competition. The shows aren't the end-all of bodybuilding and to see a guy like Markus Ruhl or Rich Piana in person is pretty damn impressive. So there is room for both, albeit in different venues.

[Gymathy]

I'm 48 so I have always preferred the 1970s physiques over the contemporary ones. But I also think that the mass monsters are cool, as well, but not in competition. The shows aren't the end-all of bodybuilding and to see a guy like Markus Ruhl or Rich Piana in person is pretty damn impressive. So there is room for both, albeit in different venues.

Thats why I'm excited for Classic Physique. That way we can keep the mass monsters which I do admire, and simultaneously showcase more classical physiques.

[RoroCwalker]

perhaps there is, but why do you think it that being fascinated by wide shoulders is something more rooted in evolution than being fascinated by relatively fat individuals (considering millions years of evolution took place during constant famines and stuff)?

It indicates strength and physical fitness, two valuable tools for survival and an indication of good genes.

Attractiveness to being fat is more specific to a context poverty, where being fat is essentially an indication of wealth, not physical fitness (and good genes, in that regards), which is basically what gives rise to hypergamy, which is way more recent. In no way does it imply that the person is physically attractive.

If someone has both, he has both of best worlds, in that sense.

[JoePietaro]

Thats why I'm excited for Classic Physique. That way we can keep the mass monsters which I do admire, and simultaneously showcase more classical physiques.

The way that I am seeing this, you're not going to get what you're expecting with classic physique. They'll be a few 'crossovers' from bodybuilding to MCP like Stan M., but for the most part, it's going to be for MPD guys who use more juice and hit legs twice a week instead of once.

And the underwear with the 'NPC' or 'IFBB Pro' band at the top is going to look ridiculous (the posing trunks that the competitors have too buy from the NPC website).

[Canuck77]

To me the 90's were the golden age. Perfect balance for almost all aspects and so many gifted bodybuilders like Ronnie, Flex, Kevin, Cormier, Dorian, Priest, Nasser, Ray etc etc

There were so many talented individuals during that era which made it so competitive as compared to the current and previous era

I agree. The 90's had the lines, symmetry, balance and waists of the 70's and 80's with the perfect amount of added density and size. They maintained the aesthetics. Levrone, Flex, Ray were all especially epic IMHO.

[bhurlburt]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I was just reading arnold's new encyclopedia of the modern bodybuilder. In it he had the section of bodybuilding hall of famers. The look of him, franco, Frank zane, etc. They looked a lot better. Not to cut down on someone like ronnie, because the dedication it would take to get to that level is just astonishing. Yet, in terms of someone you wouldn't mind looking like, arnold's Era definitely was better. What I came up with is people like ronnie look like genetically mutated freaks, where someone like arnold actually looked like a real person.

[RobberBaron13]

They looked alot better because you're comparing them to the modern mass monsters.But for the average american in 1973 they were every but as monstruous, even worse because bodybuilding was far less popular then.There were so few professional bodybuilders then, that when people saw them on the street they must have been freaked out.Not the case now, one can go on any beach and see 200+ lb lean guys.

According to this chart the average US male has increased in weight by roughly 30 lb.
The average modern bodybuilder is also about 30 lb heavier than the 1970 one....
Trust me hardly anyone back in 1970 wanted to look like Arnold, Oliva or Ferrigno...now if you're talking Frank Zane that may be true, but Zane was at least 50 lb-70 lighter than those 3 guys above.
There is nothing " human" about chests pushing the 60 inch mark or arms above 20 inch mark, NOTHING.
The things that make modern guys look inhuman are excessive size and conditioning.
Even if the size did go backwards to some extent, the conditioning will not.And alot more people( non lifting population) are grossed out by all the striations, feathering and vascularity of modern pros, even more than by the actual size.

[bhurlburt]

They looked alot better because you're comparing them to the modern mass monsters.But for the average american in 1973 they were every but as monstruous, even worse because bodybuilding was far less popular then.There were so few professional bodybuilders then, that when people saw them on the street they must have been freaked out.Not the case now, one can go on any beach and see 200+ lb lean guys.

According to this chart the average US male has increased in weight by roughly 30 lb.
The average modern bodybuilder is also about 30 lb heavier than the 1970 one....
Trust me hardly anyone back in 1970 wanted to look like Arnold, Oliva or Ferrigno...now if you're talking Frank Zane that may be true, but Zane was at least 50 lb-70 lighter than those 3 guys above.
There is nothing " human" about chests pushing the 60 inch mark or arms above 20 inch mark, NOTHING.
The things that make modern guys look inhuman are excessive size and conditioning.
Even if the size did go backwards to some extent, the conditioning will not.And alot more people( non lifting population) are grossed out by all the striations, feathering and vascularity of modern pros, even more than by the actual size.

That honestly never occurred to me that people back then looked at them the way someone would look at a guy like ronnie in his prime. That is a pretty interesting thought.

Regardless, that was back then. I'm talking about right now. Even non-lifters won't get grossed out by a picture of arnold or franco. Although they were pretty damn big, they at least look like they would have an achievable human look whereas the mass monsters look like something taken out of a comic book. Not saying I wouldn't mind having 24" arms that you could see every vein and every little strand of muscle tissue. Ha. The general public would get freaked out about it though.

[JigPig]

That honestly never occurred to me that people back then looked at them the way someone would look at a guy like ronnie in his prime. That is a pretty interesting thought.

Regardless, that was back then. I'm talking about right now. Even non-lifters won't get grossed out by a picture of arnold or franco. Although they were pretty damn big, they at least look like they would have an achievable human look whereas the mass monsters look like something taken out of a comic book. Not saying I wouldn't mind having 24" arms that you could see every vein and every little strand of muscle tissue. Ha. The general public would get freaked out about it though.

I think you would be surprised to find out that even today, people would still find Arnie pretty big, just not as "grotesque" as the current pro's.

He'll even I still find a 70's Arnold huge even by today's standards

[wolfpilp]

Aestheticism has an evolutionary basis, regardless of certain cultural tweaks, there is a genetic basis for admiring certain proportions of the human body.

Following that premise, there is reason to believe that the chest's proportion, in regards to the shoulders and waist, is a major factor.







Then look at a figure of He-Man.


The front seems to be the most deciding factor for the Modern vs Old-School contrast.
I'd argue that modern bodybuilders have a much better look from the back.

1. Traps got too overwhelming
2. Shoulders got too big (airplane delts)
3. Quads got too big for the calves
4. Inner thighs got too whelming

It's a matter of proportions.

It wouldn't be an issue if every body part grew proportionally, but what seems to have happened is that some ratios have fallen off because of some body parts being left behind (chest/calves/waist) and not growing at the same rate, completely changing the standard.

exactly what i believe!

edit: "you must spread some reputation before gicing it to RoroCwalker again"