WHERE ARE WE HEADING?

BY ROBERT KENNEDY

In the Iron Game is a question being asked by many people today. The author presents certain views and asks if you the reader agrees or disagrees. Well, how do you see it?

ONE CAN NEVER CEASE to be amazed at the miracles of weights. Barbells are used in high schools to help students normalize bodyweight. They are utilized in hospitals throughout the world as remedial aid for injured muscles, sprained limbs and, in many cases, an aid to hasten post-operative recovery. Weights are used to add phenomenal strength to Olympic and power lifters of the globe; as supplementary conditioning exercise for athletes in all sports from canoeing to curling, from fencing to football. Barbells are instrumental in beautifying the busts and legs of female beauty contestants. They are employed by the bodybuilder to build muscles and power, by the businessman to keep fit and by the fat man to get thin . . .it seems the barbell has as many uses as there are people in the world. They are like the hammer and chisel of the sculptor -- better, for they can add or take away, whereas the stone or wood carver has to use precaution when he begins work on his creation, for he cannot easily remedy any indiscretion if he accidentally "chisels too much away."

Perhaps it is this wide versatility of weights that incline many of our more fanatical bodybuilders to misuse them, and, I am sure, you will agree that many of today's bodybuilders do!

For as long as I can remember bodybuilding has always come in for some criticism from the anti-size brigade which form a fairly substantial percentage of the world's physical culturists. I remember years ago in England when only a handful of bodybuilders managed to build themselves near the equivalent of the American musclemen they so admired. Two of which come to mind are Spencer Churchill and Reub Martin. In fact these two were so advanced of their time, so to speak, that the British audiences actually winced every time they posed, unable to look at the muscle definition as it danced into darting striations under their skin. The judging panel at the contests they entered invariably cried "Too big -- Too big!" Consequently these two British contemporaries often failed to place let alone win contests. Yet, ironically both these men in today's International competition, would be considered almost "slender." Such has been the advancement of bodybuilding trends towards bigger and bigger muscles.

Not so long ago an article appeared in MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT by Earle Liederman which claimed that 25 inch arms would become commonplace. Whether this will come about no one knows for sure, but the inescapable fact is that JUST ABOUT ALL OF TODAY'S TOP BODYBUILDERS ARE TRAINING LIKE MAD TO ACTUALLY INCREASE THEIR MEASUREMENTS (many of course are using dangerous anabolics to accomplish this.).

Now, what on earth are these top men training for bigger muscles for? Sure there are one or two who are content to keep in shape without striving for those gargantuan proportions, but these comprise only a handful of the nations enthusiasts.

Just think of some of the top names in bodybuilding today in what is called their "contest best" condition. Are these monstrous muscles right?

Look again -- look at the 22 inch plus arms -- the huge chests, the thighs. Some have such heavy chest development that their pectoral muscles hang away from the rib-box by sheer weight of gravity instead of fitting slab-like across the rib cage complementing its structure. Others, possessing only average biacromial (clavicle bones of the shoulder) width, have so developed the muscles of the shoulder-girdle region that the all important bony structure is lost in the crowded maze of overdevelopment.

Make no mistake about it, bones are important. They form the basic foundation of the body and should never be entirely eliminated from view by surrounding muscles that almost "fight" one another for their rightful anatomical position. When too much muscle is built the body takes on an overall rotundity -- a chubby appearance and appears to have bad posture. He is so overbulked that his 32 inch waist measures nearer the 40 mark when "let out!" His thighs take on such enormity that they often impair walking. Yes, in many cases muscles have actually started to do what we said they could not do . . . bind!

Surely we have passed the stage of perfect bodies. Do you agree? Many of us have almost become hypnotized over the years into believing, for example, that a thigh is not completely developed unless it has a full sweeping curve from hip to knee. Or conversely, an arm is not perfectly built unless the biceps and triceps curve away from each other when flexed to form a complete circle!

I ask you, is this the perfection we originally aimed at? What are we allowing to happen? What are we doing in our beloved sport? Why are we not content to improve our bodies in the numerous other areas of betterment other than aiming at this nonsensical super massiveness? The abdominal and oblique areas could be improved in most as well as the leg biceps and thickness of the calves. The serratus, lat and lower and upper back, posture, continuity and the athletic look. Twenty-five years ago the male bodybuilder was referred to as graceful -- and he was. Now we are frightened to use the word.

At the moment most physique contests give the top prize to the fellow who has the greatest size, as long as he's cut up with definition. On this reasoning the contestant with 22 inch arms will beat a fellow with 21 inch arms who in turn will beat a guy with 20 inch arms. Yes, it is often as simple as that! It certainly helps to simplify the judging.

The powers that be, the judging panels etc., think they take PROPORTION into consideration. But judging from the results of most big contests, few adjudicators have any idea of what proportions constitute ideal manhood. I can see what has happened . . . We have allowed the weights to call the tune! Let me explain: During the last few decades we have been learning a lot from barbells. We learned through experience that some bodyparts tended to develop quicker than others. More often than not the pecs and thighs gained massiveness easily. On the other hand, the hardest parts to develop in most individuals are the forearms and calves. So what did we get? Huge pecs, massive thighs, small forearms and calves. And gradually we came to accept them as virtually ideal. It was quite common, for example, to have men winning big contests with 26 inch thighs and 15 inch calves. Actually thighs of that size should have calves around 18 inches, and a 15 inch calf should never have to support a thigh of more than 23 inches in size But what happens? Even today we have 25 inch thighs with 15 inch calves When in fact they should be around 17 (Thighs should definitely be less than 1½ times the calves, never more.) However the exact proportion doesn't lie in any Ideal numerical formula. The eye must be educated to recognize ideal proportions. Ultimately, the eye must judge. Today, the powers that be have more idea of proportion, but there is still a long way to go. Now, as well as taking the proportion of one muscle group to another into consideration (eg. thigh size in relation to calf size previously mentioned) we must also consider the proportion of one part of a single muscle within itself. For example, the development of the lower thigh as opposed to excessive size in the upper region (known as turnip thighs) Similarly, the lower triceps and the lower biceps should be developed to stop the upper arm looking too bulky near the shoulder.

But we are now coming to a different kind of proportion -- and it's a problem that few seem to realize as yet. The proportion of the muscle to the skeleton itself!

It doesn't seem to register with us muscleheads, yet it is obvious that many thighs are too big and hinder the act of walking, so much so that they wobble! Additionally, relaxed, overdeveloped pecs, hang like elongated breasts. Many of us are "too close to the forest to see the trees," so to speak. We should take a backward step to reexamine our ideals. If it were possible to keep away from bodybuilding, for a year or two, and then to suddenly be confronted with some pictures of the biggest names, we would be shocked! For it would be very obvious that these "stars" of our sport possess an overabundance of muscle which so overcrowds their skeletons as to seem preposterous Also, bear in mind that the pictures you see of these huge men are the best that are taken. They show them with their waists sucked in, their arms above their head with legs apart, etc. Lower the arms, close the legs and let out those waists, and what do you have? A mess!

Now, I'm well aware that ever since modern bodybuilding began, our critics have shouted "Too big! Too big!" They said it about Grimek and Reeves; about Park and Delinger, but in all fairness, let's admit that big as these men were, they looked right! None of them had the slightest bit of awkwardness. Grimek could perform many varied gymnastic stunts in his exhibitions. Reeves exuded athletic beauty which was recognizable even to the layman. Park was a sprinter and good jumper and even played football during his bodybuilding career. Delinger was nimble and athletic, especially in gymnastics and balancing.

But our new crop of "up-and-coming drug-takers" are an entirely different kettle of fish. They possess muscle -- period. It looks as phony as the artificial suntan. It has a blubbery consistency which is opposite to ruggedness. Glance at the puffy, tell-tale jowls of these men. Look at the area between the eyelid and the eyebrow. See that watery swelling -- that's indicative of the internal organs, like the kidneys and liver, being overworked, which often comes from the taking of these "tissue building drugs."

Many top bodybuilders have been seriously ill from internal complaints. Here is a quote from Chet Yorton, West Coast bodybuilder who beat Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1966 NABBA Universe contest, who said, "A lot of bodybuilders on the West Coast have taken the pill and all of them have had some trouble in one way or another; from nosebleeds and dizziness to prostate trouble and tumors. I have heard that a lot of bodybuilders in Northern California who have taken these drugs are having prostate trouble. I have just found out that two bodybuilders in the Los Angeles area, one of them a Junior Mr. Los Angeles and the other a Most Muscular Man winner, have each contracted a tumor in each pectoral. One has had his cut out, the other is going to in the near future."

Here's a quote on the subject from none other than your editor, J.C.G. "We all know that many people harbor cancer cells and other diseases that lie dormant within the body, waiting for something to trigger them into action These hormone pills, that strength athletes and bodybuilders are taking, are unable to differentiate whether they stimulate malignant or nonmalignant cells, but their purpose is to stimulate growth, any growth. And woe be the person who has latent cancer cells and takes the drug. These malignant cells will run rampant like wildfire under this stimulus. Give this some thought and then ask yourself whether the risk is worth an added inch on your arms or chest I'll bet you'll agree it isn't!"

What steps can be taken to stop this seeking of size at all costs? Do you want to stop it? Do you feel it's right? Will the first man with 25 inch arms be better in your mind than the fellow with a mere 20"? Where the heck are we taking our sport?

I personally feel that if we want to maintain respect from the public, we must act. We must set new ideals -- yes, a bodybuilding revolution. New standards based on size, true proportions, definition gracefulness, posture, posing, etc.

I'm not suggesting that we revert to the French ideal of slim bodies that show little more than a sharp set of abdominals, but rather the type of physique that Reeves, Grimek, Gironda, Randall, Wynter, McArdle have acquired.

Build in accordance with your type. If you have a slim frame, then don't attempt to build over and beyond the ideal muscle size for that frame. Vince Gironda is an ideal example of building muscle that complements his structure. His frame is not big, and accordingly he has built muscle that suits his skeleton. On the other hand, Reg Park has a big frame and built a physique suited to his type. Though at one time he did overdevelop his pectorals and thighs until they tended to become noticeably too large. However, he soon realized the error and cut down on bench pressing and mammoth squats. He now has a spectacularly proportioned big physique.

Today we have men with small frames building so much muscle that they almost appear like awesome monsters. Even the individuals with large skeletal structure are overdoing it. Of course matters are "helped" by anabolic steroids. It is doubtful whether such grotesque proportions could be developed with the same facility without the use of these dangerous drugs. But such is the bodybuilder's determination, to acquire size at any cost that an alternative would probably be found. I am already familiar with one well-known bodybuilder who, although he doesn't take drugs because he is in fear of jeopardizing his health permanently, does have an alarm clock by his bed which wakes him up twice during the night at which time he downs a pre-prepared protein concoction! The idea being to keep a constant supply of protein in the body for tissue repair! Yes sir, we have some real fanatics in this sport of ours! Getting back to Liederman's prediction "25 inch Arms will be common." Do you as a practicing bodybuilder welcome the idea? Write and let me know in care of this magazine.

The way I see it, we must not accept every new sensation who has an extra inch on his arms, as a bodybuilding great, Or as a new star, etc. We must be more sensitive. Sure it will make physique judging harder. But then, what's the alternative? To continue giving the top awards to the heaviest muscled men is not the answer as you may know.

During this discourse I have deliberately kept away from the subject of the usefulness of the bodybuilder's muscles, simply because I recognize bodybuilding as a sport and feel that the competitive bodybuilder should have to justify himself in any other area of endeavor. The idea is as preposterous as insisting on a champion boxer being able to run a fast 3,000 meter race simply because he includes running in his training. A physique contest is so named to find the best physique. If part of the contest includes the obtaining of athletic points, then let that contest be called "a combined physique and athletic competition."

No, I don't feel that the bodybuilder HAS to necessarily, justify his build by being able to do Olympic lifting, gymnastics or what have you. But on the other hand, I have to admit it is definitely an asset to any man, bodybuilder or not, to be able to swim, run, jump, balance, wrestle, perform basic gymnastics, the Olympic lifts, judo, etc. Surely, versatility makes anyone a better man.

What I do object to is the complete immobility of some of these modern giants. Their awkwardness in performing the basic everyday movements, like walking and running. Some would find difficulty in throwing a stone. Do we want to get so big that we can't comb our hair?

I feel very strongly about this subject as do most of the sincere bodybuilders of the world, so please don't hesitate to write me. I am interested in all opinions whether you agree with my views or not. Let me know which way you want our sport to go? Up . . . in people's estimation, or down -- the drain!

PHOTO CAPTIONS

- The mighty Paul Anderson was always a big drawing card at all gatherings, and Paul is, perhaps, one of the most massive of all men for his stature. Paul, of course, always had a heavy bone structure . . . he simply grew into it!

- This pose of Larry Scott, a favorite of many bodybuilders, borders on the overly massive type. At present Larry is not this bulky. Recent reports indicate that he is 30 to 40 pounds lighter than this picture shows.