PDA

View Full Version : Arnold didn't have a true 6-pack?



jww13
06-08-2006, 01:00 AM
I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Arnold that shows a true 6-pack. Arnold's upper 4 protrude much more than the lower section. Is it common for people's lower sections to never really show, despite their body fat level?

Just curious...

http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/a2b.jpg
http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m43.jpg
http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m5.jpg

greathuskie
06-08-2006, 01:06 AM
if you dont have the muscle structure for a 6 pack, how are you supposed to grow one?

its all genetics

BG5150
06-08-2006, 01:09 AM
Funny, no one talks about 8-packs. That's what the abs are made of...

jww13
06-08-2006, 01:16 AM
if you dont have the muscle structure for a 6 pack, how are you supposed to grow one?

its all genetics
Right, which is why I asked if it was common. I'm not bashing him.

getfit
06-08-2006, 02:35 AM
arnold looks fine, his physique was awesome

Turnip
06-08-2006, 04:46 AM
I think I would have to dock him marks for not working his lower 2 abs

Ah im jk of course.

Sidior
06-08-2006, 05:53 AM
get to the choppa!!

Anyways, I would give up seeing 2 abs for his physique

Margin Of Error
06-08-2006, 11:18 AM
Is it just me or were traps really a weak point for him?

Keith
06-08-2006, 11:27 AM
Is it just me or were traps really a weak point for him?

Really?

Keith
06-08-2006, 11:30 AM
I don't recall ever seeing a picture of Arnold that shows a true 6-pack. Arnold's upper 4 protrude much more than the lower section. Is it common for people's lower sections to never really show, despite their body fat level?


I wouldn't say this is common, but it does happen. Like others stated, its genetic.
I still think he should have trained his lower abs more often though :p

RickTheDestroyer
06-08-2006, 11:35 AM
Really?

Hahahaha
yeah I was just thinking... no, that's just you man...

http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m20.jpg

greathuskie
06-08-2006, 11:37 AM
i agree, his traps were a severe weak point in his body

compare him to most other professional bodybuilders and you will see what i mean, when you duck your shoulders over like he is in teh last 2 pictures, it makes your traps look huge, but when you are just standing there like he is in top 3 pics, it shows what your traps really look like

Keith
06-08-2006, 11:52 AM
i agree, his traps were a severe weak point in his body

compare him to most other professional bodybuilders and you will see what i mean, when you duck your shoulders over like he is in teh last 2 pictures, it makes your traps look huge, but when you are just standing there like he is in top 3 pics, it shows what your traps really look like

No, poses that bring out your traps will show what your traps "really" look like.
Thats what posing is all about. Judges dont judge you primarily on a bodybuilder relaxed.

And your comparing him to most other pro bodybuilders? If your talking about todays pro's, you could also say his legs are a "severe" weak point in comparison to other pro bodybuilders. This has been talked about before, its not fair to compare him to todays pro's.

greathuskie
06-08-2006, 11:54 AM
if i was comparing him to todays pros, i would ask if he was all natural :P

Keith
06-08-2006, 11:57 AM
if i was comparing him to todays pros, i would ask if he was all natural :P

All natural? :zipit:

greathuskie
06-08-2006, 12:01 PM
his steroid loaded body then is comparable to todays ALL NATURAL lifters, no roids

Keith
06-08-2006, 12:08 PM
his steroid loaded body then is comparable to todays ALL NATURAL lifters, no roids

You said compare him to other pro bodybuilders. Not todays all natural lifters... I dont know why you would compare him to either one.
Compare his traps proportion to the rest of his body, thats what the debate was about, not about how other lifters traps are bigger than his.

Progress
06-08-2006, 12:12 PM
Goes to show you can look incredible without the "necessary" six pack.

Keith
06-08-2006, 12:18 PM
Goes to show you can look incredible without the "necessary" six pack.

Indeed, good point.
I think alot of his success was because of his posing, one of the best out there.

greathuskie
06-08-2006, 12:42 PM
oooooook blow things out of proportion guy.

Keith
06-08-2006, 12:51 PM
oooooook blow things out of proportion guy.

Huh? :scratch:

I was stating what you said didn't make sense because you changed your point.
Drop it then, this is going no where.

Beast
06-08-2006, 12:57 PM
The exact number and locations of the linea transversae that create the segmented appearance of the rectus abdominis are entirely determined by genetics.

Mercuryblade
06-08-2006, 01:39 PM
Yep, my top 4 are way bigger, I'd have a full 8 pac at really low body fat. But my top 4 are way bigger. Genetics is wierd.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
06-08-2006, 07:08 PM
if i was comparing him to todays pros, i would ask if he was all natural :PI think a better comparison than Ronnie to Arnie would be Ronnie to a pregnant woman...

DokterVet
06-08-2006, 07:36 PM
I think the fact that most of us never noticed this before the OP pointed it out proves that a lot of people worry way too much about abs.