Looking Back at the Last 50 Years - John Grimek (1982)

 

We are reading this courtesy of Liam Tweed. 

1982

Has weight training for developing a shapely, muscular body changed very much in the past 50 years? And, has the training  equipment designed for muscle-building improved all that much in the last half-century? 

I don't know if these questions will ever be answered to the satisfaction of everyone. Some people will say that nothing has changed in the way of training and training equipment. Others think that each "new" piece of equipment exceeds even the wildest imagination and that it represents a great step forward for all mankind seeking the ultimate gains in development. 

These same people are who are swayed by equipment also state that there are many more "men of muscle" today than there were back in the '30s. 

Well, we won't argue the issue but it should be pointed out that even back in those "dim days of bodybuilding" there were a substantial amount of outstanding, powerful men. And some of these men came up with self-designed exercising equipment, variations of which are still in use today. 

As far as the old reliable barbell is concerned, you can easily go back not 50 years but 100 or even 200 years and find barbells -- crude though they may have been -- that efficiently served the muscle-building needs of the free-thinking individuals of those eras. 

In fact, it seems as though the barbell has always been with us. Many muscle-developing inventions have come and gone over the years but the ordinary barbell has remained . . . and it is still considered by many to be "the only way" to achieve muscular development. 

So what does this all prove? 

Simply that in spite of all the new ideas relating to muscle-building equipment, barbells and dumbbells remain the most popular of all training devices. 

It is reasonable, then, to ask why more people don't use weights in order to improve the strength and appearance of their bodies. And the answer to that is again very simple. Over the years I have often mentioned that some people who had the desire to develop their bodies avoided doing so because of the stigma that was attached to lifting weights. They didn't want to be ridiculed nor did they want their family and friends to be embarrassed by their chosen activity. 

Believe me, I personally know about the stigma, although I never allowed it to affect me. I learned that most people associated muscles and strength with circus strongmen and, although everyone admired the prowess such men displayed in their exhibitions, no one wanted to look like them. They were usually built along sloppy, heavy lines and were thought to belong in the circus because they were considered "freaks."

*Before the turn of the century wrestling circuits were extremely popular throughout continental Europe and almost anyone who did any serious weight training but didn't like giving exhibitions gravitated to the sport. George Hackenschmidt, lower center.* 

Muscles, to most people in that era, were considered to be grotesque. Yet, in spite of such feeling, long before the turn of the century a number of men did succeed in developing Herculean bodies. 

For the most part, these men were from Europe, especially Vienna, which was a real "hotbed" for strongmen and circus performers. But even in such capital cities as Paris, London and Berlin as well as parts of Russia there were contingents of strongmen. 

Many of these men visited the United States and toured the country while exhibiting their prowess. Their strength displays, as has been indicated, always impressed the local populace but not too many ever wanted to emulate the strongman. The key words here are "not too many;" there were always one or two who were wiling to put up with the taunts of their fellow townsmen and, consequently, took up barbell training. 

By the turn of the century, an interested spectator, Alan Calvert, observed what he thought to be a growing interest in "strongmanism" and he formed the Milo Barbell Company. In addition, he published a small pamphlet, Strength, which was actually the first magazine to exclusively devote its contents to developing the body and its muscles. 

A professional looking individual, Calvert had hollow barbells designed in a spherical shape, with barbell plates made to fit into the hollowed globes. He felt this type of barbell would be good for training and also for use as a stage-bell by some of the professional strongmen, and he was right because his globular bell was used for juggling and supporting feats by many strength performers. 

Within a short time, Calvert's company produced a training pamphlet, The Milo Barbell Training System, which was based on a course used by Professor Siebert, a strongman and gym owner in Germany, who was getting rather fine results from the students who were using his system.

*Strongman Anton Matysek was Milo Barbell's star pupil. He posed for the Milo Training System with the company's unique barbell, the Duplex set. The large empty spheres and bar weighed under 100 pounds but looked impressive. "Loaded" it weighed 225 pounds. Here, Matysek demonstrates the misnamed "prone press."*

What makes this particularly interesting is the fact that most of the exercises in this system are still in use today. The fact that today's trainees put more concentration and effort in their training is the only reason for there being more overall success among the present-day practitioners of the system. 

Nevertheless, there were also some outstanding specimens of previous generations. One case-in-point is the immortal Sandow. Granted, Sandow may not have been one of the largest musclemen ever, but his symmetry, which closely resembled the ancient Grecian statues, was such that even today's top men have difficulty surpassing it. If anyone was a living statue, it was Sandow. 

And while he is a good example of the excellence achieved by yesteryear's musclemen, he is not the only outstanding example. The great "Russian Lion," George Hackenschmidt, displayed a strength and development that was the talk of all wrestling circles. 

Besides these two men, there were many others who possessed outstanding physical development built largely through the use of their self-designed muscle-building gadgets. 

No one can forget the mighty Otto Arco in this regard.  

*Here's a device Mr. Arco had on the market; page courtesy of Jarett Hulse*

 Arco was an amazing athlete with an outstanding development. Then there was the British serviceman, S/Sgt. Moss, whose development never failed to impress those who saw him give an exhibition. 

And if still more examples are needed, consider the amazing Maxick, Bobby Pandour, Monte Saldo and Clarence Weber *below* in addition to others. 

None of these men were overly muscled but they oozed power and symmetry. If these and many others succeeded in developing their physiques so long ago, it is reasonable to assume that many others might have done as well had they taken the time and made an effort to do so.

But here again we come back to that old "bugaboo" of the general public considering those who trained with weights to be freaks. And it wasn't until Bob Hoffman introduced a magazine devoted exclusively to strength and muscle-building that things began to change on this continent. 

The publication, of course,  was . . . 

 and the first issue was dated December 1932. 

*upper left, cover of this issue, which the article is taken from:*

This at first little magazine pointed the dignified way to improved health and better developed bodies through weight training with barbells and it showed that such training was for everyone and not just for a select few. 

In addition to the magazine, Bob also sought every other avenue to promote better health and better bodies through the use of weights. To that end, York Barbell gave many exhibitions of training and lifting around the country and all demonstrations were followed by discussions of how weights could be used to advantage by everyone. The people who attended these "seminars" came away with a newfound acceptance of weight training . . . and, of course, it has snowballed ever since. 

The magazine, however, isn't the only thing that has come a long way in the past 50 years. There are more gyms and health clubs around today than anyone ever thought possible.

But the question still remains: "Is today's training and equipment superior to what was around 50 years ago?" As we said, this will never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. But one thing is certain . . . today's enthusiast has a large variety of equipment to choose from, even though it might not be the largest collection ever assembled.   

A book published in 1885 listed the equipment that was available in the Harvard University gym. While we don't have room to reprint the entire list, we would like to give you an idea of the plethora of apparatuses that were available.

The gym contained all kinds of leg extensor and contracting machines, as well as other machines for leg development. There were lifting and rowing machines, pulleys of all sorts, and many pairs of dumbbells, both wooden and iron, ranging in weight from five pounds to 125 pounds. 

Something called a foot machine was available as were machines to work the supinators and pronators of the forearms, and those which worked the wrists, ankles and abdominals. 

In addition, there were countless benches, several types of harnesses for heavier lifting and strength feats, and countless other devices as well as the rings, horses and parallel bars that are normally that are normally found in such gyms. Now, what modern-day gyms offer more? Few if any, and remember that this equipment was available more than 100 years ago. 

In going over this list of equipment, I reminded of a recent discussion with a youngster concerning incline benches and curling. He favored the preacher's bench for curling and he said that old-timers never had such a bench. I pointed out that while he was technically correct, there was also such a thing as "where there's a will, there's a way" and I proceeded to relate the following. 

In place of an incline bench, I used a footstool, about 12 inches high, under my back as I sat on the floor. This provided me with the angle desired for my exercise. 

For curling similar to a preacher's bench, I placed my arm on a table, pushing the table into my armpit and then proceeded to do my curls. On another occasion I fashioned a board about 30 inches long on a chair. The lower end of the board was anchored at the edge of the seat and the other end rested against the back of the chair. The lower end of the board was anchored at the edge of the seat and the other end rested against the back of a chair. This gave me an even sharper angle for doing "preacher bench" curls. However, since I found these curls to be stressful in the elbow area, I only included them on occasion. 

THE POINT I AM TRYING TO GET ACROSS, though, was that any weight training enthusiast, if he was really devoted to actuating gains, could readily come up with ways of doing particular exercises. 

Back in the "old days" another piece of equipment that we take for granted today was not available but the trainees of the time did not lack for imagination in devising a way to perform a "bench press."

One simply laid on the floor and pulled the weight overhead onto his chest and pressed from this supine position. Joe Nordquest made close to 400 pounds back in the early '20s. 

*http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/2018/01/joe-nordquest-and-his-worlds-record.html*

Article above courtesy of the late Reuben Weaver. In a time of clawing, self-serving shortsightedness, Reuben was a beacon of brotherhood and iron game community, and it still shapes my attitude to this day. His generosity and willingness to put back into the game he loved in return for what joy it had given him was never less than stellar. When he provided me with answers to questions back then that were likely repetitive to him, he remained patient. When he provided me with actual pages taken from magazines, he turned down even the cost of shipping. There are still many wondrous people in this thing, and several of them have helped ENORMOUSLY with what you are reading here. Please try to remember that moving forward in your own lifting affairs, and in the shaping of the way you look at this grand old hobby, this thing we love, this thing of ours. 

Sig Klein developed a powerful physique from such training, and, at 80, he's still going strong. 

Another rugged individual was Milo Steinborn. Milo has always favored "simple weights." For more than 70 years he has been using weights although he includes a lot more stationary bike riding for conditioning purposes today. But he still uses weights, and for a man edging into his 90s, that's saying a great deal. 

No one would deny that great strides have been made over the past 50 years. On the other hand, don't sell some of those old-timers short. 

They didn't develop muscles "for show" because that type of thing wasn't popular in their day. Rather, they worked to improve their health and their athletic ability. And many of them had a lot of ability. They were either strongmen performing various feats of strength, or they were into wrestling. 

Only the great Sandow "posed his way to fame," although he did popularize the bent-press movement. As far as the movement of the Iron Game in the next half-century, most of us won't be around to report it . . . but you can bet that the sport will flourish . . . and we hope that those of you who are here to see it will do likewise. 

Enjoy Your Lifting!