Agree they have great genetics, but I am not sure that's why they look different than Arnold or Zane. Im willing to say it is the drugs used today.

__________________

I would say drugs, HGH and synthol or other similar oils...

__________________
--
Start building your Iron Muscles Today.
PM for 10%OFF

I hear that a lot about these monsters, and I can agree to an extent. But can you get huge, very huge, without ruining the aesthetics?

It wasn't that long ago that these competitors looked great. Not just like freaks. I think there are some even freakier looking monsters out there than these guys.

I just think it's gotten a little too much. If you can't put on size without ruining aesthetics, then what's the point.

If the entire thing was to be judged on size, then wouldnt we have an entirely different set of winners?

I don't think the biggest guy always wins, and using the judging criteria, the entire point seems to be about much more than getting big. Or at least supposed to be, I'm not positive they follow it. Politics plays a role.

Sometimes a 250lbs guy in great condition who looks aesthetic, yet he isn't a threat to win, but the guy who wins Mr Olympia might be 245lbs, decent look, but is way off in some poses. So shouldn't there be hundreds of factors like completeness, muscle shape, muscle control, and detail etc.

Kai Greene's issue is said to be conditioning. He has an awesome back and leg saturation, and his mass routinely sets him above most competitors—and his proportion and symmetry are unbelievable. But he comes in second, because of Phil's size of his arms and back, greater symmetry. I'm not exactly sure really, because I'd argue a few people looked more impressive than Phil last year.

If any of then had 3/4 the size, but walked up looking cut and guts not looking like they do now, I'd vote for them any day.

I guess I just don't think the extra size is as impressive as a great looking physique.

__________________