Taureau
Administrator
Take out your ipod® ear buds next time you are at the barbershop and you will hear old-timers reliving the past, turning the most mundane activities into epic tales that rival the achievements of Beowulf. Time glosses over a lot of life’s nasty details in a temporal version of ‘beer goggles,’ allowing society’s more senior members to declare that sports heroes were better athletes, Mom’s cooking was the best and politicians were honest. Yet, an objective measure of ‘Then versus Now’ often disproves these passionately-held beliefs. Consider the iconic backfield of the 1924 Notre Dame Football team, nicknamed ‘The Four Horsemen.’ The players, quarterback Harry Stuhldreher, left halfback Jim Crowley, right halfback Don Miller and fullback Elmer Layden, led the ‘Fighting Irish’ to a national championship with a perfect 10-0 record, under coaching legend Knute Rockne. Though they were giants in college football history, each being named to the National Football Foundation Hall of Fame, none of the players exceeded 162 pounds in weight. One can only imagine how few plays these icons would last in a game against today’s top college defenses, or if they would even earn a roster spot on a Division I team.
Bodybuilding has existed long enough to develop its own ‘senior society.’ As the most vocal fans of competitive bodybuilding are young adults and adolescents, it is not surprising that debates of the greatest physiques often exclude past competitors. In fact, it’s difficult to find pictures of many of the one-time greats; prior to the ’90s, photo archives were not digital records available on the web. They were celluloid rolls of film or slides in protective sleeves contained in three-ring binders.
The earliest days of bodybuilding consisted of traveling performers who would put on displays of strength. It was not until the ’60s that a bodybuilding industry developed, resembling what it is today. Bodybuilding was a true niche activity, emerging out of the psychedelic ’60s, establishing its beachhead on the beaches of the Los Angeles communities. Young men, whose first taste of iron usually came through exposure to powerlifting, were immigrating to Venice, California to train at Joe Gold’s gym where it was rumored that the best bodies in the world were being developed. Within this nebula shone a star who defined the era and remains to this day a singular example in bodybuilding— Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Arnold’s meteoric rise in the areas of bodybuilding, acting and now politics has been well documented. Even today, some of his photos are still regarded as representing the apex of muscular development. Some argue that there are or have been physiques equal to or even greater than Arnold’s, but his impact on bodybuilding continues to be unrivaled.
In comparison to today’s champions, does Arnold’s bodybuilding physique continue to reign supreme or would it pale, much like The Four Horsemen of college football? This is an argument that will never be resolved, since bodybuilding is subjectively judged. However, it is clear in comparing bodybuilders of Arnold’s era to current competitors that the bodies have changed.
Compare Arnold and his contemporaries to recent Olympians. At first glance, both groups are muscular and lean; yet, closer scrutiny reveals vast differences. The Arnold-era physique generally followed classical lines of symmetry, with an emphasis on upper body development. The general public was awed by these figurative and literal giants, as they embodied the desired aesthetics of the male physique at that time. Contrast those images with the more exaggerated development of today’s champions. The extreme builds that stretch the imagination as much as they stretched the skin of the elite competitors earlier this decade represent maximal development rather than the optimal aesthetic. The impressive but overwhelming accretion of mass parading across stages in recent years has been displayed to smaller and smaller crowds; the physique of modern champions no longer resonates with the public as the male ideal— witness the example of the gentlemen immortalized in the film “Pumping Iron.” The question could be posed, “Is it better for top bodybuilders to appeal to hardcore fans, or should the opinion of the public dictate the direction of the culture?” This goes outside the scope of this article and its companion on fat loss.
What accounts for the noticeable difference between the champions of the Arnold-era and current times? The ‘800-pound gorilla’ answer is drugs, and this will be addressed; however it belittles the sport to say that the only difference between then and now is a few jabs of a needle. Several top bodybuilding professionals contributed to this article, from this generation and from the Arnold-era. The consensus when asked about drug use during competition was “It’s not just the drugs, you have to consider…” Each of the respondents had a different emphasis, but universally, they all finished that sentence with an attempt to clarify that drugs were not the focus of their efforts— they were and are just a tool.
Unquestionably, bodybuilding in the ’60s and ’70s was a far cry from what it has become in the 21st century. The conditions were primitive, equipment was often made of scavenged parts, supplements were very basic and there was no money to be made as a bodybuilder. In conversations with several pros of that era, including men portrayed in “Pumping Iron,” it was clear that the culture and society of bodybuilding was not the sport it is today. Outside the Mecca of Venice, CA and a few other metropolitan areas, there was not much opportunity to participate in or even be exposed to bodybuilding.
Venice, CA was a magnet that drew the top talent in the world to its doors to learn from or at least be near the budding legends. As bodybuilding was such a niche activity, and its concept was foreign to most people, pioneering bodybuilders developed a tight community, supporting each other in their pursuit of physical development as well as against the verbal attacks of those who viewed bodybuilding as narcissistic, freakish or gay. [Attitudes toward homosexuality were vastly different in the ’60s and ’70s as compared to today.] Bodybuilders forged deep friendships and rivalries that continue to this day. The group barbecued together, traveled across the world together and drove each other to excel. Acceptance into this circle was earned through hard work, results and positive support. Much like a fraternity, these men recognized each other as trusted companions.
Of course, the question often arises, “What were the Arnold-era champions using?” It is fair to say that drug use was perhaps as prevalent in that group as it is today, as these men were driven and competitive, just as bodybuilders are today. Over the decades, several have admitted to anabolic steroid use in magazine interviews, but understand that the social and legal environment was more open at that time. Of course, there was no standard drug schedule then, no more so than there is now. However, in talking with several of the icons, a general pattern emerges. Training was consistent year-round, with the intensity being relaxed only slightly off-season to focus more on strength and mass; bodyweight did not fluctuate nearly as much, remaining within 5-10 percent of competition weight. Bodybuilding was a demanding lifestyle; few of these men had careers or dependents. Few had a significant amount of money to spend on clothes, housing or drugs. Also, the amount and types of anabolics available at that time were much more limited than today. Considering the limited resources (money, anabolic steroids), promoters rewarding aesthetics over mass, and the more conservative use of drugs by those bodybuilders, amazing physiques were developed, using a surprisingly small amount of anabolic steroids.
In general, cycles only lasted 8-12 weeks; most bodybuilders of that era only cycled twice a year. There was no insulin, GH, IGF-1, etc. The training, especially pre-contest, was intense and catabolic; thus, the drugs of preference were those that maintained mass and drive. The gyms were owned and managed by guys like Joe Gold, who was actually in the gym and part of the scene, not an investor. There was no place for rage or disorderly conduct. All of these factors influenced the cycles to being more androgenic and lower-dosed than the pre-contest cycles of today, explaining why the bodybuilders of that era were all much fuller-appearing and not as lean. Diuretics weren’t typically used and there were no local inflammatory drugs like synthrol or prostaglandins, so the size and shape was directly reflective of the underlying muscles and the overall conditioning (body fat, subcutaneous water). Most people don’t realize that 10 years later, The Underground Steroid Handbook still only listed 29 drugs used by bodybuilders.
One champion of that era was quite frank in stating, “Look, we weren’t saints. That’s just what was there at the time.” He went on to state that, like other competitors, nobody wanted to give up an advantage to anyone else. In reminiscing, he related his opinion that the Arnold to Haney years represented the peak of bodybuilding.
Bodybuilding has existed long enough to develop its own ‘senior society.’ As the most vocal fans of competitive bodybuilding are young adults and adolescents, it is not surprising that debates of the greatest physiques often exclude past competitors. In fact, it’s difficult to find pictures of many of the one-time greats; prior to the ’90s, photo archives were not digital records available on the web. They were celluloid rolls of film or slides in protective sleeves contained in three-ring binders.
The earliest days of bodybuilding consisted of traveling performers who would put on displays of strength. It was not until the ’60s that a bodybuilding industry developed, resembling what it is today. Bodybuilding was a true niche activity, emerging out of the psychedelic ’60s, establishing its beachhead on the beaches of the Los Angeles communities. Young men, whose first taste of iron usually came through exposure to powerlifting, were immigrating to Venice, California to train at Joe Gold’s gym where it was rumored that the best bodies in the world were being developed. Within this nebula shone a star who defined the era and remains to this day a singular example in bodybuilding— Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Arnold’s meteoric rise in the areas of bodybuilding, acting and now politics has been well documented. Even today, some of his photos are still regarded as representing the apex of muscular development. Some argue that there are or have been physiques equal to or even greater than Arnold’s, but his impact on bodybuilding continues to be unrivaled.
In comparison to today’s champions, does Arnold’s bodybuilding physique continue to reign supreme or would it pale, much like The Four Horsemen of college football? This is an argument that will never be resolved, since bodybuilding is subjectively judged. However, it is clear in comparing bodybuilders of Arnold’s era to current competitors that the bodies have changed.
Compare Arnold and his contemporaries to recent Olympians. At first glance, both groups are muscular and lean; yet, closer scrutiny reveals vast differences. The Arnold-era physique generally followed classical lines of symmetry, with an emphasis on upper body development. The general public was awed by these figurative and literal giants, as they embodied the desired aesthetics of the male physique at that time. Contrast those images with the more exaggerated development of today’s champions. The extreme builds that stretch the imagination as much as they stretched the skin of the elite competitors earlier this decade represent maximal development rather than the optimal aesthetic. The impressive but overwhelming accretion of mass parading across stages in recent years has been displayed to smaller and smaller crowds; the physique of modern champions no longer resonates with the public as the male ideal— witness the example of the gentlemen immortalized in the film “Pumping Iron.” The question could be posed, “Is it better for top bodybuilders to appeal to hardcore fans, or should the opinion of the public dictate the direction of the culture?” This goes outside the scope of this article and its companion on fat loss.
What accounts for the noticeable difference between the champions of the Arnold-era and current times? The ‘800-pound gorilla’ answer is drugs, and this will be addressed; however it belittles the sport to say that the only difference between then and now is a few jabs of a needle. Several top bodybuilding professionals contributed to this article, from this generation and from the Arnold-era. The consensus when asked about drug use during competition was “It’s not just the drugs, you have to consider…” Each of the respondents had a different emphasis, but universally, they all finished that sentence with an attempt to clarify that drugs were not the focus of their efforts— they were and are just a tool.
Unquestionably, bodybuilding in the ’60s and ’70s was a far cry from what it has become in the 21st century. The conditions were primitive, equipment was often made of scavenged parts, supplements were very basic and there was no money to be made as a bodybuilder. In conversations with several pros of that era, including men portrayed in “Pumping Iron,” it was clear that the culture and society of bodybuilding was not the sport it is today. Outside the Mecca of Venice, CA and a few other metropolitan areas, there was not much opportunity to participate in or even be exposed to bodybuilding.
Venice, CA was a magnet that drew the top talent in the world to its doors to learn from or at least be near the budding legends. As bodybuilding was such a niche activity, and its concept was foreign to most people, pioneering bodybuilders developed a tight community, supporting each other in their pursuit of physical development as well as against the verbal attacks of those who viewed bodybuilding as narcissistic, freakish or gay. [Attitudes toward homosexuality were vastly different in the ’60s and ’70s as compared to today.] Bodybuilders forged deep friendships and rivalries that continue to this day. The group barbecued together, traveled across the world together and drove each other to excel. Acceptance into this circle was earned through hard work, results and positive support. Much like a fraternity, these men recognized each other as trusted companions.
Of course, the question often arises, “What were the Arnold-era champions using?” It is fair to say that drug use was perhaps as prevalent in that group as it is today, as these men were driven and competitive, just as bodybuilders are today. Over the decades, several have admitted to anabolic steroid use in magazine interviews, but understand that the social and legal environment was more open at that time. Of course, there was no standard drug schedule then, no more so than there is now. However, in talking with several of the icons, a general pattern emerges. Training was consistent year-round, with the intensity being relaxed only slightly off-season to focus more on strength and mass; bodyweight did not fluctuate nearly as much, remaining within 5-10 percent of competition weight. Bodybuilding was a demanding lifestyle; few of these men had careers or dependents. Few had a significant amount of money to spend on clothes, housing or drugs. Also, the amount and types of anabolics available at that time were much more limited than today. Considering the limited resources (money, anabolic steroids), promoters rewarding aesthetics over mass, and the more conservative use of drugs by those bodybuilders, amazing physiques were developed, using a surprisingly small amount of anabolic steroids.
In general, cycles only lasted 8-12 weeks; most bodybuilders of that era only cycled twice a year. There was no insulin, GH, IGF-1, etc. The training, especially pre-contest, was intense and catabolic; thus, the drugs of preference were those that maintained mass and drive. The gyms were owned and managed by guys like Joe Gold, who was actually in the gym and part of the scene, not an investor. There was no place for rage or disorderly conduct. All of these factors influenced the cycles to being more androgenic and lower-dosed than the pre-contest cycles of today, explaining why the bodybuilders of that era were all much fuller-appearing and not as lean. Diuretics weren’t typically used and there were no local inflammatory drugs like synthrol or prostaglandins, so the size and shape was directly reflective of the underlying muscles and the overall conditioning (body fat, subcutaneous water). Most people don’t realize that 10 years later, The Underground Steroid Handbook still only listed 29 drugs used by bodybuilders.
One champion of that era was quite frank in stating, “Look, we weren’t saints. That’s just what was there at the time.” He went on to state that, like other competitors, nobody wanted to give up an advantage to anyone else. In reminiscing, he related his opinion that the Arnold to Haney years represented the peak of bodybuilding.
