No Coleman nor Culter have done it. Yates looked terrible with that weight gain. He wasn't as lean, cut or as vascular. Obviously there is a platue but the one guy basically said you are either born to look like Harold Johnson. The truth is most people can get that look. Jay Cutler is another thing. Cutler and Coleman are just a protegy of more gut and size infested group of bodybuilders that are more roid infested. Also nutrition/supplementation and knowledge is even more than it was in the early 90's than what it is now. Who says that you can continiously put on 15 lbs of muscle each year? Any old body? Okay, now you're really stretching from the main thesis/point of the original guys argument. He said young people are being fooled into think they can look like Harold Johnson... they're just born like that. Genetics play a part but hard work can get you to look that good. Not everyone can be Jay Cutler or Ronnie Coleman of course, but those guys couldn't be that without the hard work and tons of riods. Right, genetics is important. People have headstarts, some people gain far quicker. Doesn't mean hard work won't pay off. The people who got discouraged don't get that. The people who are usually huge get it with much more persistance/dedication (Not all of them). People in terms of nutrition and getting to understand their bodies is also other factors that people negligent or don't understand. You sound like this is an instant want from people. That's the problem. I said hard work of years. Nobody struggles to gain size in years. Wow... I'm done with this conversation if you actually believe that. I am living proof that this is total bs. Well. That deals with genetics too. Diet, or how hard and how much training the person does. If they go hard with cardio while really cutting carbs and calories the way bodybuilders do for competetions they can get that look. Most people can look like guys on the front of magazine with years and years of hard work. And this is without steroids. The guy you agree with thinks that guys are born a certain way and nobody can look like them with hardwork or steriods. It's foolish and lazy attitude occupied by usually lazy, undedicated people who justify and give excuses for their lack of work. You notice it's usually people who don't look good who say these things. Obviously genetics play a part, but seriously. To be truthful to you. I know scrawny kids that did juice to help them. But they got far without it. And I know scrawny kids that got big without juicing. This isn't a "myth" you view is just a tad narrow-minded. Either way, do you realize that John guy said that steroids or anything won't do anything. It's "all genetics." Unless I read that wrong, this was the whole argument. Anybody with years of hard work and steroids could probably achieve a profession as a bodybuilder type model. Genetics won't disable this. Genetics just allow for things to come easier for people or for others to be naturally strong/big. Sometimes genetics give you great capacity, but it's more likely you just reach farther since you have solid genes. And I know these gene freaks but I couldn't keep up with in terms of gains. But I could hold my own with them even when they worked half as hard as me.
Lemme try 'n clarify, PtP: With weights, juice and diet a guy should pack on pounds, muscle, 'n get much much much stronger. In some cases, get enormous. But his basic shape, separation 'n muscle bellies will never change. If he had narrow shoulders -- the frame -- when he started, they'll always be narrow, albeit massive. In short, unless you have the GENETICS, no amount of exercise, weight lifting, juicing 'n diet will get you to look like Marvin Hagler or Harold Johnson.
Exactly. This topic had deviated to a fair degree, but let's get back to the crux of the argument, which is what you outlined above. It's the genetics that ultimately determine how you look and your growth potential.
I exagerated the amount someone will stack on but for the record Dorian came into the gym first weighing 12stone (168lb) and ofcourse not ripped, he was basically average. Flex Wheeler FYI who arguably has the best bodybuilding physiqe ever was a 100lb weakling In the first few year of training, gaining 20lbs a year is possible without steroids, then maybe it drops to 5-10lb as your body has already filled out. Still over 10years of that you can still add 70lbs of muscle to a 140lb frame. Its actually pretty normal to gain muscle from the teenage years into manhood anyway, so when you add training/nutrition to it you gain, simple. Especially if you add supplements
Again NO, with the right dedication anyone can have a 6pack, huge full muscles with plenty of definition. And you dont need steroids to do it
Powerpuncher, you seem to be arguing about a seperate topic altogether. Of course anyone (or nearly anyone) can get a six-pack, be ripped and have decent muscle mass. I don't see anyone disputing that. For some it's harder to obtain, but sure if everything is done right and massive effort is applied, it's possible. What John and I are saying is that you cannot alter your basic shape and structure. That's genetically encoded. In the above example, a narrow shoulder width can only be enhanced by added muscle to the shoulder region, but structurally you will always have comparatively narrow shoulders. (Next to someone who has done the same routine as you, and had wider shoulders to start with.) You can't alter where your muscles attach to your tendons, any more than you can change your height. It is what it is and no training can change that. That's why some guys can have really peaked biceps and some guys have comparativey long, less peaked biceps. Maybe certain exercises can help some (although I'm dubious of that claim) but a Dorian Yates could not have a biceps peak like Ronnie Coleman because it's simply not possible. That is genetically determined. And yes, some guys just can get more ripped looking than others. Andreas Munzer being a good example. (RIP) He just had that incredibly ripped, striated look that nobody could quite attain, not even the best of them, no matter how hard they tried.
I agree with all of that, pretty much. :good The only thing I want to add though is that Yates looked like he had spent years in the gym after really only spending only a few months there. I'm sure you've seen pictures of him after only nine months training - very impressive. He was not a huge guy before, but he was no weakling either. PS-Flex a weakling? Since when?
That's because Holyfield had the natural genetics to look like that once his mass potential had been unearthed. Most people don't. You're saying anyone can get big/ripped and look like Harold Johnson, Garfield's saying pretty much anyone can get in shape, but if their genetics don't allow it, they won't look similar to perfectly proportioned muscular specimens like Johnson. That is not debatable. If you think otherwise, you're simply mistaken.
Great post fists of fury. PowerPuncher will probably continue to argue against it though, even when he's been slaughtered like a lamb in this debate.
Just looking at Harold you're already speculating the man did steroids? Are you serious? Ridiculous. We've got guys as well built if not better in the gym who don't lift. If you get your body-fat percentage low enough ANYONE will look ripped. ****, if my BF% was low enough I'd look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club. It's all a matter of how fat you are... sub-cutaneous fat covers your muscles. It is for this reason that someone like myself with good abdominal strength can lack a six-pack whereas some skinny little ***** with inferior conditioning can look all ripped in the gut. Yes, ANYONE can get like Harold Johnson if they train hard enough. He isn't a specimen by any means... he's not even particularly muscular. The ONLY thing I see in him that is exceptional is his low BF%. Genetics only give you a ceiling, they don't force you not to maximize your potential, and no, a Harold Johnson build is not unattainable for many of us. There's a big difference between looking ripped and powerful and actually being powerful, fast and strong. Bodybuilders are much weaker than power lifters, yet power lifters look like ****. Same with Olympic lifters, many of those guys look downright small at the mid levels of competition, yet they're impossibly strong.
While I won't disagree ofcourse muscle insertions and body structure can'tbe altered. That doesn't change the fact that physiques similar in terms of muscularity 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
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
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
This is what I've been saying all true Spittle, except I would say Johnson is a specimen, he looks good on film too (ie actually fighting, not posing )