To compare a 2007 pic to a 2008 pic is stupid. Why not compare Phil's 2007 pic to Dennis's 2007 pic. You saw Phil's improvements from last year wait until you see Dennis's(not that I know, but I can only imagine). You are also talking about two different shows. Dennis probably wanted to come in a little bigger to compete with the mass monsters, because that is what the Olympia looks towards. Then you have a pic of Phil in a show which the judges look more towards being in the best condition which can sacrafice size in the process.
Wait until the Olympia and you will see that Dennis is a much bigger bodybuilder with the same lines.
Lets also remember (if I remember correctly) that Dennis went from dead last at the 2006 O to being considered a contender for the title at the 2007 O. I know that we are comparing the pictures given but I think we are going to see, yet again, a very improved Wolf. Both these athletes are young and will bring a lot of excitement to the IFBB.
Woah, Wolf winning ?
The bandwagon is lacking power guys, I`d be worried if I were you. But really, comparing pictures is getting old fast. The only way to compare two athletes is to see them in a stage, side by side. This 2007 pics of Wolf vs the new ones of Phil do not make justice to either one of them.
Many aspects of bodybuilding are scientific and there are objective qualities to look at from a judging standpoint. To say there's no underlying reasoning behind professional criticism of physiques is silly because, despite there being some inconsistencies, there are reasons why guys like Ken Jones aren't on the Olympia stage. The difference between my "opinions" and yours are that I can actually back up what I say through well-scripted analyses instead of just spewing hyperbole all over the place.Originally Posted by d.capodiferro
This doesn't make any sense to me. You've associated yourself with a specific, factional mentality and have given no reason (again) as to why you choose to make the arguments you do. If you haven't been in the gym for long the types of physiques you like and why you like them will change drastically over the next few years as you go through your own physical transformation.Originally Posted by d.capodiferro
You're speaking in terms of overall mass instead of mass in relation to potential size, something I've repeated several times and yet no one wants to acknowledge. One can only do so much with their skeletal structure and yes, Wolf's skeleton is larger than Phil Heath's, thus he is wider. That being said, the muscle bellies of Phil's when talking about the aforementioned body parts are proportionally larger, fuller, and have better separation to them than Wolf. If you want a drawn up analyses on shape I can do that as well.Originally Posted by d.capodiferro
You're right to an extent that using heavier weight for more reps with the same form will roughly produce more mass and it's very possible that Wolf is stronger. However, a lot of what you said is speculation (again) and you need to think of training and ability to add mass as having more to do having long bones and being strong. Does Wolf have the potential, based solely on his skeletal system, to carry more mass than Phil? Yes, because it's bigger. This is not to say that he will be capable of adding said mass uniformly to his structure though, or that he will have an easy time filling in his weak areas (if he actually can). With bigger guys comes more potential but genetic shortcomings are also much more obvious and it can take much longer to improve upon specific flaws. Wolf may very well add a ton of more muscle onto his physique in the upcoming years (he's still very young) but it will be quite hard to maintain the balance he currently possesses for a big man and, sadly, as soon as you start losing that in this sport you're all but finished.Originally Posted by d.capodiferro
I have much experience in both. Admins and Mods aren't necessarily skinny internet nerds.Originally Posted by d.capodiferro