Mr. O approaches...

http://www.bodybuilding.com posted the following:

2007 Olympia Qualified Athletes:

MR. OLYMPIA

1. Eddie Abbew United Kingdom
2. Melvin Anthony USA
3. Gustavo Badell Puerto Rico
4. Darrem Charles Trinidad
5. Ronnie Coleman USA
6. Jay Cutler USA
7. Mark Dugdale USA
8. Toney Freeman USA
9. Kai Greene USA
10. Marcus Haley USA
11. Phil Heath USA
12. Dexter Jackson USA
13. Dennis James Germany
14. Victor Martinez Dominican Republic
15. Desmond Miller USA
16. Ronny Rockel Germany
17. Markus Ruhl Germany
18. Silvio Samuel Saviour Spain
19. Sergey Shelestov Russia
20. Vince Taylor USA
21. Branch Warren USA
22. Dennis Wolf Germany
23. Hidetada Yamagishi Japan

Vince Taylor is still at it. Incredible. I thought Dennis James had
decided against competing, though. Dennis Wolf has been on the cover
of at least two magazines recently. MD and MMI, iirc. Quincy Taylor's
not listed? And no Cormier? And Phil Heath, thought he was passing on
the Olympia as well.

No time to Google (you're heartBROKEN, I know it), but am looking
forward to seeing how Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, Mark Dugdale, Toney
Freeman, Dennis Wolf, and Hidetada Yamagishi do in the contest.

Freeman's pec tear just washes him out, imo, but he is a great guy
from the interviews I've seen and the attitude he displays. Dugdale
and Yamagishi have great physiques but are dwarfed by Coleman and
Culter. Dennis Wolf is the guy I'd want to look like. And for the
winner, I'll vote for Ronnie Coleman. I hope he comes in at 275 or 280
lbs. instead of trying to walk on stage at 300-plus. Would be great to
see him come back, look sensational, and retire with the record-
breaking ninth win. Problem is, I think Ronnie's going to be a
vampire. He'll be 60 years old and placing 17th. They'll have to drive
a stake in his heart to stop him from competing. Be interesting to see
what Jay brings to the show. Never thought he'd win in 2006. That was
a monster surprise.

--
Curt

On Aug 13, 6:06 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bodybuilding.composted the following:
>
> 2007 Olympia Qualified Athletes:
>
> MR. OLYMPIA
>
> 1. Eddie Abbew United Kingdom
> 2. Melvin Anthony USA
> 3. Gustavo Badell Puerto Rico
> 4. Darrem Charles Trinidad
> 5. Ronnie Coleman USA
> 6. Jay Cutler USA
> 7. Mark Dugdale USA
> 8. Toney Freeman USA
> 9. Kai Greene USA
> 10. Marcus Haley USA
> 11. Phil Heath USA
> 12. Dexter Jackson USA
> 13. Dennis James Germany
> 14. Victor Martinez Dominican Republic
> 15. Desmond Miller USA
> 16. Ronny Rockel Germany
> 17. Markus Ruhl Germany
> 18. Silvio Samuel Saviour Spain
> 19. Sergey Shelestov Russia
> 20. Vince Taylor USA
> 21. Branch Warren USA
> 22. Dennis Wolf Germany
> 23. Hidetada Yamagishi Japan
>
> Vince Taylor is still at it. Incredible. I thought Dennis James had
> decided against competing, though. Dennis Wolf has been on the cover
> of at least two magazines recently. MD and MMI, iirc. Quincy Taylor's
> not listed? And no Cormier? And Phil Heath, thought he was passing on
> the Olympia as well.
>
> No time to Google (you're heartBROKEN, I know it), but am looking
> forward to seeing how Ronnie Coleman, Jay Cutler, Mark Dugdale, Toney
> Freeman, Dennis Wolf, and Hidetada Yamagishi do in the contest.
>
> Freeman's pec tear just washes him out, imo, but he is a great guy
> from the interviews I've seen and the attitude he displays. Dugdale
> and Yamagishi have great physiques but are dwarfed by Coleman and
> Culter. Dennis Wolf is the guy I'd want to look like. And for the
> winner, I'll vote for Ronnie Coleman. I hope he comes in at 275 or 280
> lbs. instead of trying to walk on stage at 300-plus. Would be great to
> see him come back, look sensational, and retire with the record-
> breaking ninth win. Problem is, I think Ronnie's going to be a
> vampire. He'll be 60 years old and placing 17th. They'll have to drive
> a stake in his heart to stop him from competing. Be interesting to see
> what Jay brings to the show. Never thought he'd win in 2006. That was
> a monster surprise.
>
> --
> Curt



You know, I need to know:

How the heck do you determine "the best" bodybuilder???

They mostly look alike -- really!

So this one is bigger -- but that one's more freaky -- then again,
that other one's more symmetric....

Judging from the photos in muscle mags, they all have their strengths
and weaknesses.

Who are the judges, anyway? Do fans get to input any? What kind of
politics attend such pony shows? And is there a discount for MFW
hallway monitors?

Yeah, I was surprised to hear about Jay Cutler. In a shot where
Victor Martinez and Coleman also posed, Ronnie looked the biggest and
most vein-poppin' cut-up, hands down. But, like I said, they all look
good and have their strengths and weaknesses (another shot of Ronnie
showed really portruding abs, which, if all muscle -- like they
appeared to be -- don't look disgusting to me, but apparently they're
not fashionable at all, fat or not).

PaW wrote:

> You know, I need to know:
>
> How the heck do you determine "the best" bodybuilder???

Veeerrrrrrry carefully.

> They mostly look alike -- really!

So far as all having arms, legs, and a torso.

> So this one is bigger -- but that one's more freaky -- then again,
> that other one's more symmetric....

See? You know the answer to your own question.

> Judging from the photos in muscle mags, they all have their strengths
> and weaknesses.

Yup.

> Who are the judges, anyway?

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/radioarchive.htm

Scroll down to the "Guest: IFBB Head Judge Jim Rockell Date: 04/23/07
(Radio Show 71)" link or go straight to the d/l by clicking the
following link:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/audi...2006_int16.mp3
aka http://tinyurl.com/2nrg7b

There's one.

> Do fans get to input any?

No.

> What kind of politics attend such pony shows?

I'm sure it happens. I'd say both the 1980 and 1981 Mr. Olympia
contests. Heck, add in the 1970 and 1972 Mr. Olympia contests.

If not politics in 1980 then favoritism as Arnold was competing using
his legacy as ammo rather than his physique. Why Bill Pearl would bow
out of judging because of his relationship with Chris Dickerson
mystifies me. Certainly none of Arnold's buddies stepped aside.

Columbu's victory in 1981 was a gift. He had no legs and a noticeable
bit of gyno. And 1970 and 1972, Sergio was up against Arnold as an
advertising juggernaut. Joe had brought him to the U.S., put him in
all the magazines, provided him with an allowance. If not actually
fixing the contest then certainly Weider's contribution did not hurt
Arnold's quest for those Olympia wins.

> And is there a discount for MFW hallway monitors?

heh )

Doubtful.

> Yeah, I was surprised to hear about Jay Cutler. In a shot where
> Victor Martinez and Coleman also posed, Ronnie looked the biggest and
> most vein-poppin' cut-up, hands down.

Cutler can't touch Ronnie on veins. Cutler, unfortunately, has no
visible veins on his arms. But Jay's back was awesome while Ronnie was
off, especially with his left lat lagging behind so visibly. Jay beat
Ron on calves, too. Hands down. Dunno. I think they picked the right
winner.

Although apparently, Ronnie looked much better at the evening show
than during the pre-judging. I read that he lost the contest early on,
but listening to the Rockell interview, it seems that the evening show
was a factor. Rockell's the IFBB Head Judge so I'd say that's a
definitive opinion.

> But, like I said, they all look good and have their strengths
> and weaknesses (another shot of Ronnie showed really
> portruding abs,

Not sure if Rockell mentioned abs specifically, but he did say that
Ronnie shoulders were slumped and that he didn't have the confident
look that Cutler displayed. Hard to believe that Coleman wouldn't stay
tight and put on the look of a winner at such a critical moment. I
wonder if he lost a BSN bonus or other remuneration linked to an '06
win.

> which, if all muscle -- like they appeared to be -- don't look
> disgusting to me, but apparently they're not fashionable at
> all, fat or not).

Yeah. Agreed. While it's surely not fat, the protruding Buddha belly
is not a winning attribute.

Conditioning is the factor that makes the winner at the Olympia level.
While amateurs can take a title on size and a pleasing structure, at
the pro level you've gotta be ripped to the bone, vascular, grainy,
and striated.

--
Curt

On Aug 14, 1:26 am, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> See? You know the answer to your own question.

No, I've only elaborated on it: if everyone has their strengths and
weaknesses, it all balances out -- so how could anyone be "overall
best"??

> Yup.

Q.E.D.

> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/radioarchive.htm
>
> Scroll down to the "Guest: IFBB Head Judge Jim Rockell Date: 04/23/07
> (Radio Show 71)" link or go straight to the d/l by clicking the
> following link:
>
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/audi...s_podcast_3oct...
> akahttp://tinyurl.com/2nrg7b
>
> There's one.

Hmm, thanks for the ref. Why don't they have Bill Pearl, Albert
Beckles, Dave Draper, Franco Columbu, and company adjudicate?

> No.

That seems a bit silly. They should have audience polling account for
maybe five points.

> I'm sure it happens. I'd say both the 1980 and 1981 Mr. Olympia
> contests. Heck, add in the 1970 and 1972 Mr. Olympia contests.
>
> If not politics in 1980 then favoritism as Arnold was competing using
> his legacy as ammo rather than his physique. Why Bill Pearl would bow
> out of judging because of his relationship with Chris Dickerson
> mystifies me. Certainly none of Arnold's buddies stepped aside.

Bill Pearl sounds like a most honorable gentleman.

How did that pussy weider (my God, the guy's so delusional he actually
showcases his scrawny-ass physique in the ads for his biography)
intend on bodybuilding becoming an Olympic sport, given the way its
judging seems so politically and financially motivated??

> Columbu's victory in 1981 was a gift. He had no legs and a noticeable
> bit of gyno. And 1970 and 1972, Sergio was up against Arnold as an
> advertising juggernaut. Joe had brought him to the U.S., put him in
> all the magazines, provided him with an allowance. If not actually
> fixing the contest then certainly Weider's contribution did not hurt
> Arnold's quest for those Olympia wins.

It's so nauseating to read M&F these past two months, with wimp weider
constantly talking about how he made Arnold what he is today (and
Arnold playing along). Sooooo nauseating...you'd think they were
lovers or something.

> Cutler can't touch Ronnie on veins. Cutler, unfortunately, has no
> visible veins on his arms. But Jay's back was awesome while Ronnie was
> off, especially with his left lat lagging behind so visibly. Jay beat
> Ron on calves, too. Hands down. Dunno. I think they picked the right
> winner.
>
> Although apparently, Ronnie looked much better at the evening show
> than during the pre-judging. I read that he lost the contest early on,
> but listening to the Rockell interview, it seems that the evening show
> was a factor. Rockell's the IFBB Head Judge so I'd say that's a
> definitive opinion.

I think MMI pegs Coleman's loss as being due to his abs. That's in
the March issue, I believe. I saw in their December issue that they'd
confidently predicted Coleman to win again.

> Not sure if Rockell mentioned abs specifically, but he did say that
> Ronnie shoulders were slumped and that he didn't have the confident
> look that Cutler displayed. Hard to believe that Coleman wouldn't stay
> tight and put on the look of a winner at such a critical moment. I
> wonder if he lost a BSN bonus or other remuneration linked to an '06
> win.

I still don't get the "psyching out" part of it all...are these guys
such pussies that a standard "neg hit" (see the alt.seduction.fast
glossary) could so throw them off balance??

> Yeah. Agreed. While it's surely not fat, the protruding Buddha belly
> is not a winning attribute.

That's too bad. Maybe that will be the "in" look one day, big ab and
oblique muscles. Personally, I find the "drumsticks" look to leg
development funny in an almost gross way.

> Conditioning is the factor that makes the winner at the Olympia level.
> While amateurs can take a title on size and a pleasing structure, at
> the pro level you've gotta be ripped to the bone, vascular, grainy,
> and striated.

But that's just my question: I see photos of Branch Warren, Gustavo
Badell, Paul Dillet, etc., etc., and they're all big, striated,
freaky, symmetric...when you stand them next to even the most built
"pro wrestler" or pro football player, sure you see the difference,
but when next to each other, I really don't -- not much...so this
one's got a bit of an extra in the calves, while that one has more
peak in the biceps, yet this other one has veins popping where none of
the others do...it all seems to balance out....

> --
> Curt

PaW wrote:
> Curt wrote:
[...]

> > See? You know the answer to your own question.
>
> No, I've only elaborated on it: if everyone has their strengths and
> weaknesses, it all balances out -- so how could anyone be "overall
> best"??

But it all *doesn't* balance out. One man is typically more defined,
ripped, cut, than another. They're all big, so it's not especially
size. It's conditioning. Of course the monsters are popular just now,
but that may change. The Europa was just won by Silvio Samuel who also
won that competition's new "under 210" category.

[...]

> > http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/radioarchive.htm

[...]

> Hmm, thanks for the ref. Why don't they have Bill Pearl, Albert
> Beckles, Dave Draper, Franco Columbu, and company adjudicate?

Former Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates is an IFBB judge and apparently doing
very well in that capacity. I don't know where many of those guys are.
Draper and his wife run a great web site - http://www.davedraper.com/.

> That seems a bit silly. They should have audience polling account for
> maybe five points.

I agree on that.

> > I'm sure it happens. I'd say both the 1980 and 1981 Mr. Olympia
> > contests. Heck, add in the 1970 and 1972 Mr. Olympia contests.
>
> > If not politics in 1980 then favoritism as Arnold was competing using
> > his legacy as ammo rather than his physique. Why Bill Pearl would bow
> > out of judging because of his relationship with Chris Dickerson
> > mystifies me. Certainly none of Arnold's buddies stepped aside.
>
> Bill Pearl sounds like a most honorable gentleman.

True.

> How did that pussy weider (my God, the guy's so delusional he actually
> showcases his scrawny-ass physique in the ads for his biography)
> intend on bodybuilding becoming an Olympic sport, given the way its
> judging seems so politically and financially motivated??

Well, Weider's "scrawny-ass physique" harbored a diabolically
intelligent business mind which built an empire that has made
possible, for better or worse, bodybuilding as we know it. The
Olympics were scratched more because of the obvious drug angle than
any judging issue. Look at figure skating. Subjective. Sure, an
athlete either completes a triple Axel or not, but overall there's a
ton of subjectivity in the sport just as with bodybuilding. With that
in mind, I'm certain the OlympiCs could find room for the OlympiA. Not
going to happen any time soon, however.

> > Columbu's victory in 1981 was a gift. He had no legs and a noticeable
> > bit of gyno. And 1970 and 1972, Sergio was up against Arnold as an
> > advertising juggernaut. Joe had brought him to the U.S., put him in
> > all the magazines, provided him with an allowance. If not actually
> > fixing the contest then certainly Weider's contribution did not hurt
> > Arnold's quest for those Olympia wins.
>
> It's so nauseating to read M&F these past two months, with wimp weider
> constantly talking about how he made Arnold what he is today (and
> Arnold playing along). Sooooo nauseating...you'd think they were
> lovers or something.

More father figure than anything. Weider did bring Arnold to the U.S.
He also provided him with a car. A beat up VW, iirc. And an allowance
of some kind. Weider also created the frigging Olympia which
eventually was canonized in a very real way by the film Pumping Iron
with Arnold as its showcase. So, yeah, "wimpy weider" did a lot for
Arnold both directly and indirectly, imo.

[...]

> I think MMI pegs Coleman's loss as being due to his abs. That's in
> the March issue, I believe. I saw in their December issue that they'd
> confidently predicted Coleman to win again.

I missed both of those comments. Interesting. I'd disagree with the
former, though. He lost due to that frigging lat. Fugged up. I'd love
to see Coleman recover and win this year, however it seems as if he's
not too concerned. I heard on PBW ( http://bodybuildingradio.com/ ),
iirc, that Big Ron is relaxed and believes all the pressure is on
Coleman. Seems as if he's looking forward to competing regardless of
the outcome.

[...]

> I still don't get the "psyching out" part of it all...are these guys
> such pussies that a standard "neg hit" (see the alt.seduction.fast
> glossary) could so throw them off balance??

Some people are. I can't speak for any Olympia competitor past or
present, but certainly there are some people who take things to
heart.

[...]

> > Conditioning is the factor that makes the winner at the Olympia level.
> > While amateurs can take a title on size and a pleasing structure, at
> > the pro level you've gotta be ripped to the bone, vascular, grainy,
> > and striated.
>
> But that's just my question: I see photos of Branch Warren, Gustavo
> Badell, Paul Dillet, etc., etc., and they're all big, striated,
> freaky, symmetric...when you stand them next to even the most built
> "pro wrestler" or pro football player, sure you see the difference,
> but when next to each other, I really don't -- not much...so this
> one's got a bit of an extra in the calves, while that one has more
> peak in the biceps, yet this other one has veins popping where none of
> the others do...it all seems to balance out....

That's why you're NOT a bodybuilding judge. heh )

PaW: "Hey, you all look the same to me."
Head Judge: "Uh, let me speak with you for a moment, please."

Posing is a factor as well. Dillett is a monster standing there, but
he can't pose for sh!t. Does that mean some pipsqueak with a dance
choreographer would beat him? Of course not, but given two competitors
who, as you describe, "it all seems to balance out," well, the
physique display or posing routine would tip the balance in the better
poser's favor, imo.

Bodybuilding is what it is. You don't have to understand it or even
care for it. But if you consider the history of the sport then maybe
you can appreciate Weider's (and other scrawny or fat old guys)
contribution. Likewise, if you have ever watched a YouTube of Melvin
Anthony (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S5yYn__6DdA ), Kai Greene (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bSN4XurGRWA ), Ed Corney (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GL5X55-50Go ), Charles Glass (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVmrUlzhE ), Vince Taylor (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fx0t7llpoek ), and Chris Dickerson (
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hbhri2bxfwE ), then you'll appreciate that
display is a factor.

The ladies have it down, too, of course. Some of my all time favorites
include Claudia Montemaggi ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=6cH9gjqOuus ),
Denise Rutkowski ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5X8M8W6oGg ),
Sharon Bruneau ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktJB7UWro ), Jitka
Harazimova ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emim4d2nl88 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHQ3xs9-bC8 ), and Gabriella Szikszay
( http://youtube.com/watch?v=0qdJdrZKVuk ).

If that's an overwhelming number of links then at least check out the
Vince Taylor and the first Jitka Harazimova.

--
Curt

"Curt" <> > It's so nauseating to read M&F these past two months, with wimp
weider
> > constantly talking about how he made Arnold what he is today (and
> > Arnold playing along). Sooooo nauseating...you'd think they were
> > lovers or something.
>
They probably were gay. Weider has been into bodybuilding since he was a
teenager in 1936. Sounds pretty gay. Then he has supported hundreds of young
bodybuilders over the years. Not all were "stars." Sounds like he was a
hound-dogger for men.

"AL" <alfredogar...@yahoo> wrote:
> "Curt" <> > It's so nauseating to read M&F these past two months, with wimp
> weider> > constantly talking about how he made Arnold what he is today (and
> > > Arnold playing along). Sooooo nauseating...you'd think they were
> > > lovers or something.

Getcher attribution right. I didn't write that.

> They probably were gay.

DON'T BOTHER, ROBERT, I GOT THIS!

AL, you homophobic bigot!

There. Done. Someone tell 'bert, please. No sense doubling up.

> Weider has been into bodybuilding since he was a teenager in
> 1936. Sounds pretty gay.

To you.

I've been interested in bodybuilding since the June 1978 issue of
Muscle Builder/Power hit the newsstand. Arnold, Zane, Franco on the
cover. BOOM!

But I've been in love with the opposite sex since 1st grade. The
cutest little classmate you ever did see. I asked her to marry me at
age 6. She said yes, but we had to part ways after a disagreement over
whose parents we'd live with.

Now I pine for Kim Basinger. Yes, she will be mine!

Being into bodybuilding has little if anything to do with sexual
preference, imo. No one had me fill out a survey. Check if you like
women. Newp. It just is.

> Then he has supported hundreds of young bodybuilders
> over the years. Not all were "stars." Sounds like he was a
> hound-dogger for men.

Betty's pretty hot. Or was. In 1966. She's a cover? I don't care. Let
Joe be gay. How does it alter your life?

--
Curt

On Aug 15, 3:16 am, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Getcher attribution right. I didn't write that.

Hehehe...score one for my way of editing!

> DON'T BOTHER, ROBERT, I GOT THIS!
>
> AL, you homophobic bigot!

LMAO!!!! This newsgroup is like a regular episode of the Simpsons,
all right...!

> To you.
>
> I've been interested in bodybuilding since the June 1978 issue of
> Muscle Builder/Power hit the newsstand. Arnold, Zane, Franco on the
> cover. BOOM!

Yo, wasn't that when gay lib first came out??? Along with Star Wars
and looting in NYC....

> But I've been in love with the opposite sex since 1st grade. The
> cutest little classmate you ever did see. I asked her to marry me at
> age 6. She said yes, but we had to part ways after a disagreement over
> whose parents we'd live with.

I never understood people who break up over relocation.

> Now I pine for Kim Basinger. Yes, she will be mine!

Cool, that will mean you meet her daughter....

> Being into bodybuilding has little if anything to do with sexual
> preference, imo. No one had me fill out a survey. Check if you like
> women. Newp. It just is.

I didn't think so. But those photos in MMI look real gay. I can only
imagine that the magazine is modeling their readership's ideals: and
what kind of readership imagines themselves in pink striped shorts
with earrings??

> Betty's pretty hot. Or was. In 1966. She's a cover? I don't care. Let
> Joe be gay. How does it alter your life?

It just explains a lot, like why he hasn't traded up for a younger
model. But yeah, that old photo of Betty on Arnold's arm, with her
breasts in his face -- wow!!

> --
> Curt

On Aug 14, 4:35 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> But it all *doesn't* balance out. One man is typically more defined,
> ripped, cut, than another. They're all big, so it's not especially
> size. It's conditioning. Of course the monsters are popular just now,
> but that may change. The Europa was just won by Silvio Samuel who also
> won that competition's new "under 210" category.

I'm just going by magazine photos...unless they've been Photoshopped,
a lot of these guys have the same conditioning.

> <SNIP>
>
>
> Well, Weider's "scrawny-ass physique" harbored a diabolically
> intelligent business mind which built an empire that has made
> possible, for better or worse, bodybuilding as we know it.

Oh really? I thought it was Arnold Schwarznegger -- to hear the
"Pumping Iron" DVD tell it...heck, you read Arthur Jones and Ellington
Darden and you'd think it was Nautilus equipment that did it!

I distrust hagiographies -- especially those about some dude in his
own magazine!! Like I said, the man's such a loon that he actually
features his own scrawny-ass younger self in the ad...even back then I
don't think anyone would have mistaken the wannabe for anything more
than the boy with the towel and oil bottle.

Frankly, I suspect that the "fitness boom" would have happened anyway,
with or without Arnold and the Weiders...they were just lucky, that's
all.

> The
> Olympics were scratched more because of the obvious drug angle than
> any judging issue. Look at figure skating. Subjective. Sure, an
> athlete either completes a triple Axel or not, but overall there's a
> ton of subjectivity in the sport just as with bodybuilding. With that
> in mind, I'm certain the OlympiCs could find room for the OlympiA. Not
> going to happen any time soon, however.

Thing with bodybuilding is, there's nothing "technical"...it's 99%
subjective...with figure skating, some moves are more technical than
others, some skate faster -- with bodybuilding, they're just
posing...so you're trying to judge "conditioning" of one set of biceps
over another...and how do you determine that? One's bigger, the
other's got more peak, the other's more freaky, still another has the
most unusual shape...what makes one better than another?

Frankly, fans should get some input, since it's a dog and pony show is
what it is. Actually, horse and pony shows are a lot more "technical"
and "objective" by comparison! If you think about it: there are
actual events, actual tasks to accomplish, beyond just striking a
pose.

> More father figure than anything.

I wonder about that, too.

> Weider did bring Arnold to the U.S.
> He also provided him with a car. A beat up VW, iirc. And an allowance
> of some kind.

Aha -- I knew that ol' Horatio Algers story about Arnold arriving with
only $35 and a suitcase was bullshit! Aha!!

> Weider also created the frigging Olympia which
> eventually was canonized in a very real way by the film Pumping Iron
> with Arnold as its showcase. So, yeah, "wimpy weider" did a lot for
> Arnold both directly and indirectly, imo.

Sounds really suspicious to me...like some banana republic dictator
thanking the C.I.A. for liberating his country from Marxists, you
know? Hmmm....

> I missed both of those comments. Interesting.

Well, it's in the March and December issues, respectively, in those
"gossip columns" of the magazine.

> I'd disagree with the
> former, though. He lost due to that frigging lat. Fugged up.

I dunno...like I said, in that photo where he and Cutler and Victor
Martinez all posed (the one in which Ronnie is doing a most-muscular),
his lats look great (from that obscured angle, admittedly), and he's
big and freaky, and you see Jay looking over, even while he's posing,
laughing about it, and it seems like Jay's impressed while also
amused, even as he's also posing...that's a great photo: a new
bodybuilding contest should have a trophy of three guys like that on
it....

> I'd love
> to see Coleman recover and win this year, however it seems as if he's
> not too concerned. I heard on PBW (http://bodybuildingradio.com/),
> iirc, that Big Ron is relaxed and believes all the pressure is on
> Coleman. Seems as if he's looking forward to competing regardless of
> the outcome.

You mean "all the pressure's on Cutler," right?

Of course it is...Ronnie winning a come-back victory wouldn't be as
impressive as Jay holding onto his title....

> Some people are. I can't speak for any Olympia competitor past or
> present, but certainly there are some people who take things to
> heart.

Yeah, but jeez, you'd think that they'd think that of course anything
that's said is meant to "psych" them out...weirdos!

> That's why you're NOT a bodybuilding judge. heh )
>
> PaW: "Hey, you all look the same to me."
> Head Judge: "Uh, let me speak with you for a moment, please."

Well, that's why I'd allow for fan input -- quite significant, too, if
I had my way.

I'm surprised no one has yet dreamed up a contest like that, based
largely, if not mostly or even solely, on audience polling! Wouldn't
that be cool, now!

> Posing is a factor as well. Dillett is a monster standing there, but
> he can't pose for sh!t.
>
> Does that mean some pipsqueak with a dance
> choreographer would beat him? Of course not, but given two competitors
> who, as you describe, "it all seems to balance out," well, the
> physique display or posing routine would tip the balance in the better
> poser's favor, imo.

That reminds me: what makes for a "most entertaining" pose??? The
Arnold Classic/Sports Festival has a category for Most Entertaining
Posing...what the heck does that mean??? The guy does a homosexual
striptease for the gaylords in attendance???

> Bodybuilding is what it is. You don't have to understand it or even
> care for it. But if you consider the history of the sport then maybe
> you can appreciate Weider's (and other scrawny or fat old guys)
> contribution. Likewise, if you have ever watched a YouTube of Melvin
> Anthony (http://youtube.com/watch?v=S5yYn__6DdA), Kai Greene (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bSN4XurGRWA), Ed Corney (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GL5X55-50Go), Charles Glass (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RVmrUlzhE), Vince Taylor (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fx0t7llpoek), and Chris Dickerson (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hbhri2bxfwE), then you'll appreciate that
> display is a factor.

Wow, you're a regular Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding in jeans and
sneakers, aren't you! Thanks for the links....

> The ladies have it down, too, of course. Some of my all time favorites
> include Claudia Montemaggi (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6cH9gjqOuus),
> Denise Rutkowski (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5X8M8W6oGg),
> Sharon Bruneau (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVktJB7UWro), Jitka
> Harazimova (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emim4...v=KHQ3xs9-bC8), and Gabriella Szikszay
> (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0qdJdrZKVuk).

Yeah, those ladies...some of them are actually still attractive,
despite their manly-looking physiques...I wish we had such females in
my gym, instead of the usual princesses who barely break a sweat
walking on the treadmill.

> If that's an overwhelming number of links then at least check out the
> Vince Taylor and the first Jitka Harazimova.

'Kay; thanks.

> --
> Curt

PaW wrote:

-=snipped a bunch throughout=-

> LMAO!!!! This newsgroup is like a regular episode of the Simpsons,
> all right...!

Have you seen the movie yet? SEE IT.

re June 1978

> Yo, wasn't that when gay lib first came out??? Along with Star Wars
> and looting in NYC....

I remember Star Wars, but nothing about looting. And although I
watched the DVD of And the Band Played On ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106273/
), I really don't know the history of "gay lib." That movie is
exceptional, btw.

> I never understood people who break up over relocation.

We were six years old.

And other than that, location can be a factor due to employment. Some
don't enjoy two-hour (hitting no traffic) and four-hour (rush hour)
commutes. Others don't want to leave their location because of family
ties. You want to leave your loved ones behind to be with your
soulmate? New town, no friends, no security? I like to think of myself
as a romantic, but I'm a realist, too. Have you seen the divorce
statistics? No, thank you. Single and happy. But, yeah, Kim could
change all that, of course. ;o)

re Kim Basinger being MINE, MINE, MINE!

> Cool, that will mean you meet her daughter....

Yeesh. You're the second person who's said something like that. Or
have you said it twice? How old could her kid be? Regardless, I'll be
45 and while I wouldn't mind the attention of a 25-year-old Tiffany, I
hope I won't be a Seinfeld or Stallone, at 50, courting a teenager.
No.

Wait, her daughter's not 25, is she? No!

> <snip> those photos in MMI look real gay.

What does gay look like? I'm not much for stereotypes. People are
people. Some dress differently and have more feminine or theatrical(?)
voices. So what? And "gay" doesn't always manifest itself in the form
of (insert your own favorite stereotype here). Rock Hudson much? Yeah,
there was a man you could just tell was attracted to other men.
Glaringly obvious. /sarcasm

> I can only imagine that the magazine is modeling their readership's
> ideals: and what kind of readership imagines themselves in pink
> striped shorts with earrings??

Okay. Maybe MMI has lots of homosexual subscribers. Doesn't change me.
And the bozo pants or striped lycra was of the time. Lots of images
appearing in books and magazines today were taken by physique
photographers of days gone by.

re Weider

> <snip> why he hasn't traded up for a younger model.

a) He's a good man who found a good woman?
b) He's a bad man who found a bad woman?
c) He's a good man who found a bad woman?
d) He's mad cheating!
e) She's got a fantastic lawyer.
f) other

> But yeah, that old photo of Betty on Arnold's arm,
> with her breasts in his face -- wow!!

There ya go.

See? You've read bodybuilding magazines and you *still* like breasts.

--
Curt

PaW wrote:
> Curt wrote:
>
> > But it all *doesn't* balance out. <snip>
>
> I'm just going by magazine photos...<snip>

Don't.

> > Well, Weider's "scrawny-ass physique" harbored a diabolically
> > intelligent business mind which built an empire that has made
> > possible, for better or worse, bodybuilding as we know it.
>
> Oh really? I thought it was Arnold Schwarznegger -- to hear the
> "Pumping Iron" DVD tell it...heck, you read Arthur Jones and Ellington
> Darden and you'd think it was Nautilus equipment that did it!

Lots of people built bodybuilding. Joe Gold, Sig Klein, Jack LaLanne,
Eugene Sandow, Steve Reeves, Oscar Heidenstam, Bob Hoffman, Doris
Barrilleaux, Dan Lurie, and certainly Joe Weider and his brother Ben.
Undoubtedly there are others.

> I distrust hagiographies

Gesundheit.

> especially those about some dude in his own magazine!! Like I said,
> the man's such a loon that he actually features his own scrawny-ass
> younger self in the ad...even back then I don't think anyone would
> have mistaken the wannabe for anything more than the boy with the
> towel and oil bottle.

Okay, so Joe never had much of a build. Let it go. Get your own
mimeograph machine. Create your own publishing empire.

> Frankly, I suspect that the "fitness boom" would have happened anyway,
> with or without Arnold and the Weiders...they were just lucky, that's
> all.

I'd argue against that, but there's really no way to tell, is there?
While you're building your publishing empire maybe you can try your
hand at time machines, too.

re the Olympics

> Thing with bodybuilding is, there's nothing "technical"...it's 99%
> subjective...with figure skating, some moves are more technical than
> others, some skate faster -- with bodybuilding, they're just
> posing...so you're trying to judge "conditioning" of one set of biceps
> over another...and how do you determine that? One's bigger, the
> other's got more peak, the other's more freaky, still another has the
> most unusual shape...what makes one better than another?

Opinion, of course. Arnold said, something like, that he'd always look
at competitors and then ask himself, "Who would I most want to look
like?" It's a simple process, really. Subjective? Of course. And, yes,
I'd almost agree with you on the nothing technical notion. The tech
has always come in the gym, the diet, the preparation. Display is what
you see and what the judges evaluate. What they see and how the
competitors present themselves.

> Frankly, fans should get some input, since it's a dog and pony show is
> what it is. Actually, horse and pony shows are a lot more "technical"
> and "objective" by comparison! If you think about it: there are
> actual events, actual tasks to accomplish, beyond just striking a
> pose.

Madonna, is that you?

> > More father figure than anything.
>
> I wonder about that, too.

Why?

> > Weider did bring Arnold to the U.S. He also provided him with
> > a car. A beat up VW, iirc. And an allowance of some kind.
>
> Aha -- I knew that ol' Horatio Algers story about Arnold arriving with
> only $35 and a suitcase was bullshit! Aha!!

Well, he didn't walk from Europe. But a gym bag and twenty bucks is
what I heard. And so Weider's contribution is all the more important,
imo. Arnold had that bid of a start courtesy of Joe's support. Joe
benefited, obviously. I'd guess that Arnold sold his fair share of
supplements and equipment for Weider.

> > Weider also created the frigging Olympia which eventually was
> > canonized in a very real way by the film Pumping Iron with Arnold
> > as its showcase. So, yeah, "wimpy weider" did a lot for Arnold
> > both directly and indirectly, imo.
>
> Sounds really suspicious to me...like some banana republic dictator
> thanking the C.I.A. for liberating his country from Marxists,

What?

> you know?

Not especially.

> Hmmm....
>
> > I missed both of those comments. Interesting.
>
> Well, it's in the March and December issues, respectively, in those
> "gossip columns" of the magazine.

Have to dig 'em out.

> > I'd disagree with the former, though. He lost due to that frigging
> > lat. Fugged up.
>
> I dunno...like I said, in that photo where he and Cutler and Victor
> Martinez all posed (the one in which Ronnie is doing a most-muscular),
> his lats look great (from that obscured angle, admittedly), and he's
> big and freaky, and you see Jay looking over, even while he's posing,
> laughing about it, and it seems like Jay's impressed while also
> amused, even as he's also posing...that's a great photo: a new
> bodybuilding contest should have a trophy of three guys like that on
> it....

Camaraderie.

> > love to see Coleman recover and win this year, however it seems he's
> > not too concerned. I heard on PBW (http://bodybuildingradio.com/),
> > iirc, that Big Ron is relaxed and believes all the pressure is on
> > Coleman. Seems as if he's looking forward to competing regardless of
> > the outcome.
>
> You mean "all the pressure's on Cutler," right?

Right. Duh. I meant Cutler.

> Of course it is...Ronnie winning a come-back victory wouldn't be as
> impressive as Jay holding onto his title....

Well, it'd be NINE Mr. Olympia titles. The most wins. Probably never
to be equaled if Big Ron can do it.

> > Some people are. I can't speak for any Olympia competitor past or
> > present, but certainly there are some people who take things to
> > heart.
>
> Yeah, but jeez, you'd think that they'd think that of course anything
> that's said is meant to "psych" them out...weirdos!

I'm not a psychologist. AND I don't care.

> > That's why you're NOT a bodybuilding judge. heh )
>
> > PaW: "Hey, you all look the same to me."
> > Head Judge: "Uh, let me speak with you for a moment, please."
>
> Well, that's why I'd allow for fan input -- quite significant, too, if
> I had my way.

They tried that challenge round thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if
they'd give fan input a go. The Europa tried something new, so
promoters obviously have some say in proceedings. I'm not sure how
much control the IFBB has over judging procedures are things like
that. Is it an iron hand? Or is there leeway? Again, I don't
especially care because when I've gone to shows or watched the DVDs
it's to see the people I like and the placings don't really matter
that much. Sure you want your favorite to win, but it's not the be all
and end all, imo. Who won the 1992 Ms. Olympia? I don't know. I do
know, however, how to spell Claudia Montemaggi and can picture some if
not all of the impressive moves she had her cat-like physique
accomplish during her routine at that contest. The winner? Who cares.
Claudia was the bomb!

The fans don't need to push a button or pull a lever. They're too busy
screaming their throat raw, cheering for their favorites. Ymmv. It
obviously does. That's cool. To each his or her own. It is indeed
subjective and that's to its benefit in a way. If judging was based on
hip to waist ratio, height, BMI, etc., where's the mystery? Where's
the thrill of seeing who is picked number one? The hell with tech.
It's bodybuilding.

> I'm surprised no one has yet dreamed up a contest like that, based
> largely, if not mostly or even solely, on audience polling! Wouldn't
> that be cool, now!

Maybe there is. Lots of amateur and pro competitions going on in a
slew of different organizations.

> > Posing is a factor as well. Dillett is a monster standing there, but
> > he can't pose for sh!t.
>
> > Does that mean some pipsqueak with a dance
> > choreographer would beat him? Of course not, but given two competitors
> > who, as you describe, "it all seems to balance out," well, the
> > physique display or posing routine would tip the balance in the better
> > poser's favor, imo.
>
> That reminds me: what makes for a "most entertaining" pose???

Check those links I posted. THOSE are examples of what I'd describe as
"most entertaining." Vince is the king. Kai Greene and Melvin Anthony?
That's entertaining. Claudia Montemaggi? She was sex appeal in five
square inches of fabric. Entertaining? Oh, yes. Those moves, athletic,
gymnastic, sexual. Fantastic.

Subjective again. Deal.

> Arnold Classic/Sports Festival has a category for Most Entertaining
> Posing...

I was unaware of that as well.

> what the heck does that mean???

Ask the judges. I have my opinion. It's well choreographed. The poser
does not lose their balance. It's artistic, engaging, athletic. Did
you check out the Charles Glass vid? Give me a break. What's his name
at Flex, McGough? He said in Dugdale's Driven DVD that Joe likes the
artsy aspect of bodybuilding whereas McGough prefers a Reg Park
physique, someone who can do something with their muscles rather than
just look "pretty." He probably was or is a Grimek fan - a tremendous
poser, with back flips like Glass, splits, and an Olympic lifter as
well. Muscles that can do something.

What does it mean? You decide. It's individual.

> The guy does a homosexual striptease for the gaylords in attendance???

Would that be entertaining for you? Rhetorical. I think you're missing
the point.

> > Bodybuilding is what it is. You don't have to understand it or even
> > care for it. But if you consider the history of the sport then maybe
> > you can appreciate Weider's (and other scrawny or fat old guys)
> > contribution. Likewise, if you have ever watched a YouTube

-=snip the links=-

> Wow, you're a regular Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding in jeans and
> sneakers, aren't you! Thanks for the links....

It's all online. Some of it sticks in my gray matter, but mostly it's
just knowing where to look.

> > The ladies have it down, too, of course. Some of my all time favorites
> > include Claudia Montemaggi (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6cH9gjqOuus),
-=snip some more but NOT Claudia )=-

> Yeah, those ladies...some of them are actually still attractive,
> despite their manly-looking physiques...I wish we had such females in
> my gym, instead of the usual princesses who barely break a sweat
> walking on the treadmill.

Claudia wasn't "manly-looking" at all, imo.

> > If that's an overwhelming number of links then at least check out the
> > Vince Taylor and the first Jitka Harazimova.
>
> 'Kay; thanks.

Cool. Hate Weider all you want. I don't get it, but you can't stop
hate. Or annoyance, misunderstanding, opinion, however you'd like to
describe it.

Best regards, yadayada.

--
Curt

On Aug 15, 1:53 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> And other than that, location can be a factor due to employment. Some
> don't enjoy two-hour (hitting no traffic) and four-hour (rush hour)
> commutes. Others don't want to leave their location because of family
> ties. You want to leave your loved ones behind to be with your
> soulmate? New town, no friends, no security? I like to think of myself
> as a romantic, but I'm a realist, too. Have you seen the divorce
> statistics? No, thank you. Single and happy. But, yeah, Kim could
> change all that, of course. ;o)

Bah -- reads like so many excuses for not going to the gym.

> Yeesh. You're the second person who's said something like that. Or
> have you said it twice? How old could her kid be? Regardless, I'll be
> 45 and while I wouldn't mind the attention of a 25-year-old Tiffany, I
> hope I won't be a Seinfeld or Stallone, at 50, courting a teenager.
> No.

Teenager schmeenager -- if she's menstruating, that's Nature own sign
of approval!

> Wait, her daughter's not 25, is she? No!

The thing is, you need to get 'em before they get corrupted...that's
the problem...by 25, they're pretty much as pretentious as
Presidential candidates talking about family values....

> What does gay look like? I'm not much for stereotypes. People are
> people. Some dress differently and have more feminine or theatrical(?)
> voices. So what? And "gay" doesn't always manifest itself in the form
> of (insert your own favorite stereotype here). Rock Hudson much? Yeah,
> there was a man you could just tell was attracted to other men.
> Glaringly obvious. /sarcasm

The guy was an actor. You know -- they aren't exactly like their
characters in real life.

There's definitely a weird gay feeling to MMI all right. I think
they're the only muscle mag that actually has gay sex ads in the
back! I don't think I've ever seen those in another other title.

> Okay. Maybe MMI has lots of homosexual subscribers. Doesn't change me.
> And the bozo pants or striped lycra was of the time. Lots of images
> appearing in books and magazines today were taken by physique
> photographers of days gone by.

No, I was talking about more current issues.

> a) He's a good man who found a good woman?
> b) He's a bad man who found a bad woman?
> c) He's a good man who found a bad woman?
> d) He's mad cheating!
> e) She's got a fantastic lawyer.
> f) other

That's "f" for "faggot!"

> There ya go.
>
> See? You've read bodybuilding magazines and you *still* like breasts.

It ain't about me -- it's about them. You'd think that the JMW Family
News Quarterly has enough of that shit already; why mess up the
mainstream muscle mags?

> --
> Curt

On Aug 15, 2:47 pm, Curt <curtja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Don't.

Don't? What, you think I open up a muscle mag for the 90 pages of
supplement ads??

> Lots of people built bodybuilding. Joe Gold, Sig Klein, Jack LaLanne,
> Eugene Sandow, Steve Reeves, Oscar Heidenstam, Bob Hoffman, Doris
> Barrilleaux, Dan Lurie, and certainly Joe Weider and his brother Ben.
> Undoubtedly there are others.

Damn you're a google genius!

> Gesundheit.

Macht und Recht!

> Okay, so Joe never had much of a build. Let it go. Get your own
> mimeograph machine. Create your own publishing empire.

Like I said, I don't peruse muscle mags anymore -- and certainly not
M&F, with wimpy weider praising himself while pasting puny past
physiques of his.

> I'd argue against that, but there's really no way to tell, is there?
> While you're building your publishing empire maybe you can try your
> hand at time machines, too.

It's perfectly logical that the fitness boom would have happened,
regardless of the personalities involved...physical culture is not
unique to '80s America, after all.

> Opinion, of course. Arnold said, something like, that he'd always look
> at competitors and then ask himself, "Who would I most want to look
> like?" It's a simple process, really. Subjective? Of course. And, yes,
> I'd almost agree with you on the nothing technical notion. The tech
> has always come in the gym, the diet, the preparation. Display is what
> you see and what the judges evaluate. What they see and how the
> competitors present themselves.

I guess that's the thing I'd concede: photos, no matter how good, are
nothing compared to "presence"....

> Madonna, is that you?

That's "milord" to you!

> Why?

It all sounds too cheesey to be true...these two are businessmen,
aren't they? It's like Hitler and Stalin shaking hands...I don't
believe it.

> Well, he didn't walk from Europe. But a gym bag and twenty bucks is
> what I heard.

LMFAO -- now it's $20?! Retroactive deflation!

> And so Weider's contribution is all the more important,
> imo. Arnold had that bid of a start courtesy of Joe's support. Joe
> benefited, obviously. I'd guess that Arnold sold his fair share of
> supplements and equipment for Weider.

And that's another thing: weider's supplements have got what one
presumes to be weider himself for a mascot, some bull-necked
mustachioed dude which in no way was ever wimpy weider! The dude's a
loon!!

> What?

Sounds ike some banana republic dictator thanking the C.I.A. for
liberating his country from Marxists.

> Not especially.

MASS -- Mutual Ass Scratching Syndrome.

> <SNIP>
>
> Well, it'd be NINE Mr. Olympia titles. The most wins. Probably never
> to be equaled if Big Ron can do it.

I'm not sure who to root for, then. They all look alike to me!

> I'm not a psychologist. AND I don't care.

Well, presumably that's all the "sport" there is to the
"competition." Otherwise, it's just a beauty pageant, in which case
they should also investigate typing skills, trolling skills, and
protein shake recipes.

> They tried that challenge round thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if
> they'd give fan input a go. The Europa tried something new, so
> promoters obviously have some say in proceedings. I'm not sure how
> much control the IFBB has over judging procedures are things like
> that. Is it an iron hand? Or is there leeway? Again, I don't
> especially care because when I've gone to shows or watched the DVDs
> it's to see the people I like and the placings don't really matter
> that much. Sure you want your favorite to win, but it's not the be all
> and end all, imo. Who won the 1992 Ms. Olympia? I don't know. I do
> know, however, how to spell Claudia Montemaggi and can picture some if
> not all of the impressive moves she had her cat-like physique
> accomplish during her routine at that contest. The winner? Who cares.
> Claudia was the bomb!
>
> The fans don't need to push a button or pull a lever. They're too busy
> screaming their throat raw, cheering for their favorites. Ymmv. It
> obviously does. That's cool. To each his or her own. It is indeed
> subjective and that's to its benefit in a way. If judging was based on
> hip to waist ratio, height, BMI, etc., where's the mystery? Where's
> the thrill of seeing who is picked number one? The hell with tech.
> It's bodybuilding.

Well, like I said, they could start factoring in protein shake recipes
and MFW trolling skills....

> Maybe there is. Lots of amateur and pro competitions going on in a
> slew of different organizations.

Speaking of which: what's up with that PDI thing? Seems moribund.
What's the big deal about IFFB, anwyay?? Or is there not enough of a
market (number of fans) to support two administrative/promotional
bodies?

> Check those links I posted. THOSE are examples of what I'd describe as
> "most entertaining." Vince is the king. Kai Greene and Melvin Anthony?
> That's entertaining. Claudia Montemaggi? She was sex appeal in five
> square inches of fabric. Entertaining? Oh, yes. Those moves, athletic,
> gymnastic, sexual. Fantastic.
>
> Subjective again. Deal.

Ah, okay...I thought they did, I dunno, slapstick routines or
something....

> I was unaware of that as well.

One of them ads for a supplement uses the current winner in that
category and ballyhoos the achievement.

> Ask the judges. I have my opinion. It's well choreographed. The poser
> does not lose their balance. It's artistic, engaging, athletic. Did
> you check out the Charles Glass vid? Give me a break. What's his name
> at Flex, McGough? He said in Dugdale's Driven DVD that Joe likes the
> artsy aspect of bodybuilding whereas McGough prefers a Reg Park
> physique, someone who can do something with their muscles rather than
> just look "pretty." He probably was or is a Grimek fan - a tremendous
> poser, with back flips like Glass, splits, and an Olympic lifter as
> well. Muscles that can do something.
>
> What does it mean? You decide. It's individual.

Hmmm. I see.

> Would that be entertaining for you? Rhetorical. I think you're missing
> the point.

Well, I guess I'd have to be there. Can't tell much from this
distance.

> It's all online. Some of it sticks in my gray matter, but mostly it's
> just knowing where to look.

> <SNIP>
>
> Claudia wasn't "manly-looking" at all, imo.

In that photo you linked she is!

> Cool. Hate Weider all you want. I don't get it, but you can't stop
> hate. Or annoyance, misunderstanding, opinion, however you'd like to
> describe it.

I had no opinions on the guy until reading the last two issues of
M&F. It was disgusting. Arnold actually came across a more humble
soul in comparison! That's really saying a lot.

Someone like Arnold, who looks like a typical high school jock asshole
sort, at least he's got the goods. This weider character is like...a
Danny DeVito caricature or something...some miserly little dude in the
background...you know what, that's it, it reminds me of...jmw and
company! Just really full of himself. My God, I thought the guy had
died or something, the way they praised him; it read like an eulogy!

Even if he did lend Arnold a used VW.

> Best regards, yadayada.

Ditto.

> --
> Curt

"AL" <alfredogar...@yahoo> wrote:
> "Curt" <> > It's so nauseating to read M&F these past two months, with wimp
> weider> > constantly talking about how he made Arnold what he is today (and
> > > Arnold playing along). Sooooo nauseating...you'd think they were
> > > lovers or something.

Getcher attribution right. I didn't write that.

> They probably were gay.

DON'T BOTHER, ROBERT, I GOT THIS!

AL, you homophobic bigot!

There. Done. Someone tell 'bert, please. No sense doubling up.

> Weider has been into bodybuilding since he was a teenager in
> 1936. Sounds pretty gay.

To you.

I've been interested in bodybuilding since the June 1978 issue of
Muscle Builder/Power hit the newsstand. Arnold, Zane, Franco on the
cover. BOOM!

But I've been in love with the opposite sex since 1st grade. The
cutest little classmate you ever did see. I asked her to marry me at
age 6. She said yes, but we had to part ways after a disagreement over
whose parents we'd live with.

Now I pine for Kim Basinger. Yes, she will be mine!

Being into bodybuilding has little if anything to do with sexual
preference, imo. No one had me fill out a survey. Check if you like
women. Newp. It just is.

> Then he has supported hundreds of young bodybuilders
> over the years. Not all were "stars." Sounds like he was a
> hound-dogger for men.

Betty's pretty hot. Or was. In 1966. She's a cover? I don't care. Let
Joe be gay. How does it alter your life?

--
Curt