how important is symmetry?

JS316 · 02-24-2006, 10:43 PM

i didnt really want to post this as it sounds so dumb.. (obviously im not a bodybuilder, just a fan)

Just asking cos after looking at Lee Priests fotos his arms make the rest of his body look smaller...

But also to some extent, Ronnie's back is said to be his main weapon, but it doesnt matter that its(slightly) bigger then his other body parts.

Im getting picky but Kevin Levrone had massive shoulders, branch has massive quads.. and in my opinion Denis James and Darrem charles have upper bodies that overpower their lower..(along with other others)

only asking cos all these guys seem to beat other so called 'symmetrical' body builders.. is the catogory that important..

U-GOD · 02-24-2006, 11:04 PM

couldnt agree with you more! but what you are talking about is proportion. symmetry is the relation of one part with respect to the other, such as the two arms being the same size etc.
but apparently it isnt very important in bodybuilding at the highest level as you pointed out. i think sheer size and clarity are looked at more closely. IMO.

JS316 · 02-25-2006, 05:42 AM

yeah i thought asking "what actually is symetry" but i thought id get laughed off ... i thought it was all your body parts looking evenly conditioned... not left = right.. maybe some1 can clear this up

jornT · 02-25-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS316

yeah i thought asking "what actually is symetry" but i thought id get laughed off ... i thought it was all your body parts looking evenly conditioned... not left = right.. maybe some1 can clear this up

Don't be afraid to ask things bro. It was pretty much like U-god said it was.
Symetry is left = right. It looks strange if one biceps is bigger then another for example.
Proportion is how big one bodypart is to another. It looks starnge if your upperbody is big ass and you have a small pair of leggs beneath it.
Condition has nothing to do with it.

I agree that it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal it once used to be, which is stupid imo. Size is nice, but only after everything else is fixed. Just try to put on as much size as possible is not the way the sport should go.

JS316 · 02-25-2006, 06:13 AM

Oh really..thanx for your comments jornT.. i will ask all my silly questions now!!

i am really surprised that it is'left =right'.. I have never noticed any bodybuilders that have a bigger side then the other (xcept ronnies lat, and that doesnt affect his placing).. could some1 point out some bodybuilders that have a bigger side .. would be much appreciated

PUMBA · 02-25-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jornT

Don't be afraid to ask things bro. It was pretty much like U-god said it was.
Symetry is left = right. It looks strange if one biceps is bigger then another for example.
Proportion is how big one bodypart is to another.

Well explained jornT and rightfully pointed out that any question is welcome. Js the truth is many BB's have different sized arms and legs it is common in everyone not to be exactly symetrical.

Bob Paris and Shawn Ray are ideal to demonstrate symetry and proportion.

It is an art form not to show your faults on stage though so it is hard to point out anyone with glareing problems.........Jay Cutler has different shaped teardrops on his quads LMAO

Simply Iron · 02-25-2006, 07:12 AM

Extreemly important at World level, good Pros can hide symmetry imperfections, a example being Bob Paris, his pecs were lob sided i reckon but he could hide it, somehow twisting his shoulders? Dunno, but he was good at it.

JS316 · 02-25-2006, 11:01 AM

thanx for the helpful comments you three... very interesting.. just been looking at pics of bob paris on the net and didnt notice any lop sidedness so ... as simply iron said.. he must know the best poses to hide it.. good responses team, much appreciated

Rocky · 02-25-2006, 01:13 PM

As has been pointed out - for years now it just seems to be a mass gma e - bigger is best. Hence the reason why , arguably 'O' winners, Shawn Ray, Flex, and others have missed out on the elusive title to mass monsters each time!
The judging criteria seems to be very set in it's ways regarding the overall package, that seems unlikely to change for some time at least! It's all about the freaks! :)

big_DuuuDE · 02-25-2006, 01:52 PM

If you want to see the effect of symmetry search the forums ( around last years 'O' )
there were some pics of Jay etc., copying his left to right and vice versa.
Totally different looking guy in each shot !
Us non judges are so easily fooled by the pro's posing.

ruel · 02-26-2006, 08:19 AM

your right rocky! nowadays the trending of bodybuilding is for mass and not in symmetry. but when i saw markus ruhl, i predicted that he can win the olympia 2005, but i was wrong. mass is a big factor now but you must have a little symmetry to win the title..

Nothin' but a peanut!! · 02-26-2006, 09:13 AM

n the IDEAL world
symmetery is JUST as important as EVERYTHING ELSE that makes up a completle body
in today tho there are preferences.
maybe its becuase not EVERY single guy can have good this or that, so judges can let certain aspect go within reason
but some judges and bbders are fucked and let it go way too far
plus some muscles are bigger because people have a predisposition to having a larger bodypart
legs for instance or calves
and with training these are accelerated
its just like why guys have a signature bodypart or pose that shows off that slightly better part eg arnolds bis rons back dex's abs
and so forth...

Rocky · 02-26-2006, 10:08 AM

Good points there Nothin.

Ruel - another consideration with regard to Ruhl not winning the 'O' (or rather Ronnie winning again) is how diffificult it is to dethrone the current champ.

DON'T START FLAMING!! I'm not saying Ron didn't deserve to win or anything. But we all look back over Dorian's career (and God knows he's my favourite) and wonder should Levrone have won that one, or Shawn.
I'm just saying that often when a champ has settled into the throne it's difficult to get him out.