Harold Johnson - Frightenly Muscular

[spittle8]

Originally Posted by PetethePrince

That's total BS. Genetics play a big part, yes. But you can get big and strong and look good. No you might not look like Mr. Olympia or Frank Zane but you sure as hell will look lean, ripped, and muscular if you train and diet right. Genetics is important and can only take as far as your capabilities but it doesn't discriminate towards people from looking fit, that's just ridiculous. You get these lazy cop-outs from usually fat and lazy people who are unwilling to train and improve their body. This is the loser's mentality/attitude. I'm not trying to knock on you as I don't know you but when I hear shit like this its from the unfit, lazy, fat mofo and not the guy who's working out twice a day with a calorie & protein intake twice as yours while eating less fat than the average person. I have known scrawny ass kids that have gotten hugely built.

And of course steroids will help you. The only thing open to question is how far it can push beyond your potentially. It definitely helps you build muscle faster. This can't even be debated.

[mcvey]

Five pages about a guys physique?
Anyone think Nureyev had great thighs?
Nice buns too!

[JimmyShimmy]

Ok then, you smartie pants - explain Bruce Lee...

The guy was never gifted for sports or particularly muscular. With dedicated training he achieved a level of conditioning and athleticism that was nothing short of unreal.

I know of the train of thought that everything's 'inborn', but I am not sold. You have to cultivate ones goods, and in Bruce's case he just simply cultivated more than you thought possible.

Now hit me!

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by JimmyShimmy

Ok then, you smartie pants - explain Bruce Lee...

The guy was never gifted for sports or particularly muscular. With dedicated training he achieved a level of conditioning and athleticism that was nothing short of unreal.

I know of the train of thought that everything's 'inborn', but I am not sold. You have to cultivate ones goods, and in Bruce's case he just simply cultivated more than you thought possible.

Now hit me!

Bruce had unbelievable muscular genetics, all one has to do is look at him to come to that conclusion. The point being made here seems to be flying completely over you guys's heads. We're not saying that with proper training you can't maximise your potential. We're saying you can only go as far as your genetics will allow.

Some people are born with almost perfect bone structure and muscle symmetry, others aren't. Most (in fact the vast majority of) people are born with far less than symmetrical and proportional bone and muscle structure, and thus, even with a similar or even more straining physical routine, would not be able to look the same way as the person with the better natural genetic makeup. As has been said, your genetics and body structure are built in, so even if you're capable of shedding fat, gaining muscle, etc you'll always have the same general structure.

If you take two people, one with a balanced and symmetrical genetic makeup, and the other without, and both people are able to maximise their potential, the one with the better genetics will ultimately look far better. That is the essence of this debate. If you guys can't except that, you're lost and/or very mistaken.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Can you read? Fist of Fury agreed with me twice

Obviously you'll never quote me because you don't have the interlect or knowledge to challenge any statement I've made in this thread

Yeah, too many people lacking in interlect these days.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Yeah, too many people lacking in interlect these days.

being able to spell doesnt mean u have a brain, or know anything, plus you're a fatty

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

being able to spell doesnt mean u have a brain, or know anything, plus you're a fatty

Your attempts to coax another male into posting shirtless pics won't work this time, peon. Get back to grammar school.

[JimmyShimmy]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Bruce had unbelievable muscular genetics, all one has to do is look at him to come to that conclusion.

Seen him before he started training? He looks totally soft in comparison. He got his physique through a religious training regime.

I will concede that genetics can help a response, but 70% of it was hard work.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by JimmyShimmy

Seen him before he started training? He looks totally soft in comparison. He got his physique through a religious training regime.

I will concede that genetics can help a response, but 70% of it was hard work.

True. But you're misunderstanding. Bruce's natural genetic makeup was outstanding, as proven by the perfect balance and symmetry his body achieved. Most of the best bodybuilders don't even have that kind of balance and symmetry to their physique, they're simply much more massive. His genetic makeup was perfect in order to achieve that kind of fitness.

Let's take an example between two body-builders, just so we're on the same page. Compare Dexter Jackson and Ronnie Coleman. Both are massive and have phenomenal definition, but very different genetic makeups. Compare their abs. Jackson has a perfectly proportioned and symmetrical six pack, while Coleman has more or less an oddly-shaped 4 pack. That doesn't mean Coleman didn't train his abs as hard, that he carries more fat (both have virtually none), or anything of that nature. It simply means Jackson had the better abdominal genetics. Same thing with Arnold, who never had the best abdominals even during his peak days.

Again, not saying that everyone can't improve their physique, we're just saying that everyone has a far different genetic makeup and the end results will almost always turn out different for different people.

[spittle8]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Yeah, too many people lacking in interlect these days.

[fists of fury]

Garfield and Pea - thanks for the compliments.

Oh and Russell - sorry about hijacking this thread. Never intended it to be that way.

[JimmyShimmy]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

True. But you're misunderstanding. Bruce's natural genetic makeup was outstanding, as proven by the perfect balance and symmetry his body achieved. Most of the best bodybuilders don't even have that kind of balance and symmetry to their physique, they're simply much more massive. His genetic makeup was perfect in order to achieve that kind of fitness.

Let's take an example between two body-builders, just so we're on the same page. Compare Dexter Jackson and Ronnie Coleman. Both are massive and have phenomenal definition, but very different genetic makeups. Compare their abs. Jackson has a perfectly proportioned and symmetrical six pack, while Coleman has more or less an oddly-shaped 4 pack. That doesn't mean Coleman didn't train his abs as hard, that he carries more fat (both have virtually none), or anything of that nature. It simply means Jackson had the better abdominal genetics. Same thing with Arnold, who never had the best abdominals even during his peak days.

Again, not saying that everyone can't improve their physique, we're just saying that everyone has a far different genetic makeup and the end results will almost always turn out different for different people.

I see what you're saying.

Part of my argument was how Bruce apparently was not a very active or athletically gifted person but he managed to attain exceptional capabilities.

But, of course that wavers off the point of looks.

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I have heard the example 'Marciano could never look like Johnson because he trained as hard and didn't', which is bollox, he could have had a lower bodyfat percentage and could have fuller, denser muscles if he isolated muscle groups in intense bodyduilding training. He didnt need to ofcourse and it wouldnt necessarily harbour him any improvements

BTW Andreas Munzer got so ripped partly due to his extreme use of diuretics amongst other things, not sure if it was diuretics or insulin that did him in

Few trained harder than Marciano though. He could have trained down to the low 170's and looked more ripped I agree, but he would have been weaker and half dead through lack of energy.

Yeah, Munzer used diuretics sure, but they all did. Paul Dillett cramped up so badly on stage once, they had to carry him off. That was the result of going crazy with diuretics.
He still never looked nearly as ripped and striated as Munzer, although he was bigger.
At that level, I doubt anyone is doing something the others are not.

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Five pages about a guys physique?
Anyone think Nureyev had great thighs?
Nice buns too!

Indulge us.

[fists of fury]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Dorian did put on mass quickly, he may have had good gentics but he may have been juicing from the start. There are allot of crazy rumours about Dorian's drug use and he may well have been a boundary pusher with the drugs.

I remember in a Flex video he stated he was very skinny when he started out. If you see his first comp he looks around 140-150 I think

I think you're being really hard on Dorian. Why would he be juicing from the start? He hadn't even entered his first competition yet, and wouldn't for some time.
He was growing like a weed anyway, the use of steroids at that stage of his development would have been unnecessary.
At the start of his career, he had strong reservations about going the whole hog. He could not have known at that point how successful he'd become.
We're speculating now though...so let's leave it at that.

As for Flex, well being 140-150 certainly doesn't mean he was athletically gifted and had massive potential for muscular growth. Virtually to a man, all pros were pretty good at other sports before the lifting bug bit.
They all had a natural aptitude to be athletic.