- This topic has 111 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by Bane Dorrance.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 20, 2012 at 7:36 am #110084chris10000Participant
She carried a bit of fat…..
if someone has 200 lbs offseason, but compete with 160….thats 40 lbs of fat….its simple mathematics and its not a little bit
September 20, 2012 at 7:37 am #110085chris10000ParticipantWhat about Chivesky? Was she a HW?
kim was the most muscular ever
September 20, 2012 at 7:52 am #110086khuddleParticipant[quote=”BlackKusanagi” post=109123]What about Chivesky? Was she a HW?
kim was the most muscular ever[/quote]
She was the Queen of the Heavyweights. I saw her live at the 99 Olympia, only a couple of
rows back. When she walked out on stage, you could hear the floorboards creak noisily beneath
her massive bulk. Ah the good ole days!September 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm #110092ant1937ParticipantI don’t recall Colette or Gina ever competing at 200. The weight at which girls compete is not healthy. Is dehydration and no carbs at all healthy or athletic? Not to me. Anyhow…those 2 were never at the top of the Olympia if that is the standard. The sport is all but dead on that front now.
Kim was huge. Lots more roids in her era than in the Everson era. More and more potent juice was used. Kim was the last one to make any type of money in the sport from the sport itself. No prize money left now.
September 20, 2012 at 10:43 pm #110105AntiParticipantWhat I really want for this list are mainly competitors who have proven themselves on the stage at main events as well as those who took their passion for the sport to newer heights like Lenda Murray, Tina Lockwood, Bev Francis, Renee toney, etc. I hope that was specific enough.
September 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm #110107AntiParticipant[quote=”antidoublestandard” post=109103]You know what I am not going to sugarcoat anything here maybe I should hold this top list off for quite a while and learn a bit more than I know right now. I’m trying to manange my time here and with school. I didn’t just comebu here to burden anyone but to learn actually since I am a rookie. I can’t believe I admitted that just now. But anyhow I’m sorry if I came off as a dick just recently.
Actually, quite the contrary; you’ve come off as reasonable, willing to learn, curious. Someone else has been unfairly arrogant and, apparently, arbitrarily decided that harassing you was good sport. I certainly don’t know why- if there’s genuine bad blood between you or if he’s picking a fight just because he had a bad day at work (or several days, since he’s been letting it go for days) or what, but it really is unconscionable.
Bodybuilding is a sport about aesthetics; what you find attractive may or may not be what someone else finds attractive- this is one of the problems that has plagued the judging of the sport since it began. Claiming someone else is wrong or that their standards are unacceptable because they don’t align with yours is rude and uncalled for.
Saying that someone has a “fat fetish” because he enjoys the look of an off-season bodybuilder like Sharon Marvel or Gina Davis is not only rude, but flat-out wrong; there are people who have fat fetishes, and the women they prefer do NOT look like these women. Calling an off-season competitor fat is silly and a denial of the processes that some women go through in order to build their physiques. Additionally, there are ways to object to the uses of the words ‘ripped’ and ‘shredded’ that do not involve belittling someone who has (in your opinion) misused them. Antidoublestandard, you did not engage in below-the-belt mudslinging; it’s a shame that one of the other forum writers (one that I normally respect) did.
Now, to get back on topic- you never really stated clearly what guidelines you wanted to use to define heavyweight, and I think that may be causing some confusion; the actual definition of heavyweight has changed from year to year as competitors actually got larger and from nation to nation as standards of size and femininity (which have always influenced the sport) vary regionally.
I personally like a number of different physiques: Denise Rutkowski, Nikki Fuller, and Maria Segura all strike me as great examples of what the sport can aspire to.[/quote]
I’m not going to let that little mishap get to me. I don’t know what his deal his, however so far I only know about the poses, events, origins of the sport, and a couple of the more prominent competitors so far. So many new faces keep coming up and few that might have still competed and still do a few years before I even heard of them or not bothered to look up on yet. But there is still more for me to learn. Anyway my guidelines for this list I am mainly looking for heavyweight competitors who have proven themselves on the stage at main events as well as those who took their passion for the sport to newer heights like Lenda Murray, Tina Lockwood, Bev Francis, Renee toney, etc. I hope that was specific enough, lord knows there is a helluva of lot of them I could put here. By the way I am only picking 13 this way I don’t end up coming here posting another typically cliche’ and boring top 10 list which might be rather insulting to you.Thanks for the suggestions though.
September 20, 2012 at 11:06 pm #110108Nick FurryParticipant58 KG equals: 127.8 Pounds
July 30, 2013 at 5:53 am #115357maximoParticipantWith this BMI, Christine´s body was equal to the mass of 2 standard persons! a sporting prodigy!
July 30, 2013 at 10:06 am #115361phenomsParticipantWhile this topic is not something I’ve ever wondered and am not particularly interested in, it has sparked my thoughts bubbling in the direction of what measurements , factoring, and calculations would be involved to achieve the most accurate and definitive results.
I am assuming the objective is to find the highest ratio of pure muscle to non-muscle mass.
While height might otherwise be a factor, if the calculation is a ratio of pure muscle to non-muscle mass, that should negate the need to account for height.
Then it would be a matter of getting an accurate body fat percentage, hydration level (water weight), a thorough cataloging of bone densities (which can differ bone to bone due to many factors), a full body x-ray to measure length and diameter of bones, a full body MRI to catalog all soft tissues and measure densities (organs, vascular and nervous systems, bone marrow, abnormal growths, scar tissue, etc).
Then lots of math. :blink:
My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.comMy Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.orgAlso
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htmJuly 30, 2013 at 11:53 am #115362phenomsParticipantOh, and particularly for bodybuilders, BMI is woefully inaccurate. (Hence BF%)
BMI is intended for some mythical “average” person’s build, like we’re all cookie cutter people.
Short, tall, and/or muscular are all factors that can skew the results which make BMI unreliable, inaccurate, and misleading.
My Deviant Art Page (old stuff):
phenoms.deviantart.comMy Booru Gallery (new stuff):
phenoms.booru.orgAlso
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenoms/index00.htm
www.thevalkyrie.com/picthumb/p/phenom_fett/index00.htm -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.