Iron Man March 1975
I don't have the subsequent issue, but I would guess this article got a lot of feedback from loyal Iron Man readers.
Frequently a familiar term or expression will refer to an
object or condition that admits of more than one definition. For example, among
conventional followers of sports the term “all-around athlete” is generally
taken to mean a performer – particularly one of championship class – in the
decathlon. Yet the decathlon, as conducted under A.A.U. ruling is only an
arbitrary set of track and field events
chosen to determine the most capable all-around performer in those particular
events. Obviously, as I have pointed out in my book The Super Athletes (pp.
532, 541-547), there are a great many athletes who could be considered
“all-around,” yet who have never competed in a conventional decathlon meet. And
of these athletes, many have been more on the side of strength than of speed
and specialized skill.
In the ancient Greek pentathlon, the events were: (1)
jumping (for distance, using weights in the hands); (2) running (usually a
sprint of about 200 yards, or the length of the stadium); (3) throwing the
discus (an underhand toss, without body turns); (4) throwing the javelin (using
a spirally-wrapped thong to give the missile a twirling motion and greater
distance); and (5) wrestling (in what later came to be known as Greco-Roman
style). The consequence of using these generally more strength-requiring events
was that the typical Greek pentathlete acquired a physique substantially
heavier than that of today’s typical decathlon performer. The latter, at a
height of about 70 inches, would weight only about 163 pounds, whereas the
Greek pentathlete, if of the same height, would weigh at least 20 pounds more.
Yet some truly great “all-around” athletes – Jim Thorpe and the senior Douglas
Fairbanks, for example – have been of no heavier body build than a typical
modern decathlon performer. To show how greatly the average or typical height
and weight ranges among the performers in various forms of physical activity,
the above table (No. 1) is presented. The statistics have been drawn or
computed from the sources listed in the last column.
In this table the ideal “all-around” athlete, at an assumed
height of 70 inches, weighs 174 pounds and is assigned a body build of 100.0.
Accordingly, the formula for rating body build becomes: the square root of
(bodyweight at 70 inches divided by 174) x 100.
This formula indicates the average girth in relation to
height. For example, if a build of 100.0 (at a height of 70 inches) indicates a
chest girth of 41.8 inches, a build of 90.0 would indicate a chest girth of .90
x 41.8, or 37.6 inches, and so on. The maximum body build (muscular) is here
assumed as 126.5; and the corresponding minimum (or most slender) build is
100.0 126.5, or 79.0. At the height of 70 inches, this would mean a minimum
bodyweight of .790² x 174 or 109 pounds. Thus, the possible range in bodyweight
at a given height among healthy athletes is seen to range plus or minus 60
percent, or from four to six times the range prescribed by conventional “what
you should weigh” tables.
As Table 1 shows, there is a different physique, or body build, for each and every athletic or gymnastic event. That is, the typical body build in a given event is dictated by the particular combination of strength and speed required in that event. Forms of effort in which the chief requirement is either speed or endurance, and in which the need for muscular strength is minimal, are best performed by persons of slender, rangy physique. In contrast, events or feats requiring a great expenditure of force in a heavy, momentary effort accordingly require a powerful, heavy-built physique. Between these extremes are the performers in events which require a more balanced combination of speed and strength. And somewhere near the middle of the range of athletic requirements are performers who possess the maximum of physical versatility – the most favorable combination of strength, speed, endurance, agility, and so on. Of course, there are exceptions here as elsewhere, and occasionally there may appear a very capable heavy-built sprinter or a slender-built weightlifter.
Edit: Interesting to see how the build of sprinters,
specifically, have changed since this was published. Bigger weightlifters are
obviously stronger, but double bodyweight snatches and triple bodyweight clean
and jerks aren’t happening for the supers.
Nevertheless, as a rule, body build varies in ratio to the physical or athletic requirement.
In Table 2 are given the typical girth measurements that
prevail among athletes of various bodyweights at the assumed height of 70
inches. The lightest bodyweight listed (140 pounds) is naturally accompanied by
the smallest girths, while the heaviest (280 pounds) represents essentially the
maximum of muscular development in relation to height. I say “essentially”
because in rare instances an even larger muscular girth may occur in some part
or parts of the body. For example, a few years ago, at Northwestern University,
there was a football player who stood only 64 ½ inches in height and weighed
only 158 pounds, yet had calves of 18 inches! This was about 2 ½ inches larger
than would be expected from his weight
per inch of height. And nowadays some of the devotees of excessive arm size
have attained comparably disproportionate measurements. Moreover, some
bodybuilders who actually possess 19-inch arms, as if not satisfied with such
enormous girths, insist on claiming them to be anywhere from 20 to 21 ½ inches.
The contestants in “Mr. Universe” contests, for example, exaggerate their arm
measurements on the average by 1 ¼
inches and their chests (normal) by about 2 ¼ inches. On the other hand, by
retracting their anterior abdominal walls, they measure their waists about 1 ½
inches too small. Evidently the idea is to show the greatest possible
difference between the girth of the chest and girth of the waist, even if this
has to be accomplished by trick contortions and faulty measuring. In a real
strong man the difference between these two girths is rarely more than 12
inches, even in athletes with 50-inch chests.
In the lower four rows of Table 2 are shown, first, the
typical measurements (at a height of 70 inches) of an all-around athlete of
symmetrical development and physique; next, of the typical ancient Greek
athlete, as averaged from the measurements of twenty well-known statues; thirdly,
of a typical “Mr. Universe;” and lastly, the measurements of the Greek
conception of Heracles (Roman: Hercules), as averaged from six noteworthy
statues of this ancient symbol of strength. From these measurements it will be
seen that Hercules was not an athlete of extreme muscular size, but rather one
who combined maximum strength (by reason of muscle quality) with great
endurance, activity, and agility. Only by such a combination of physical assets
could Hercules have accomplished his twelve famous Labors, along with the
numerous other mighty exploits that made him the greatest hero of Greek
mythology (or legend?).
Present-day seekers of physical distinction should pause to
consider the value of muscular quality as compared with quantity. If, for
example, a finely-developed strong man with 17-inch arms can curl 200 pounds,
one with 19-inch arms should curl 246 pounds, and with 20-inch arms 270 pounds.
And if those who possess such measurements cannot equal these curls – which are
by no means maximum possibilities, they might ask themselves what advantage
their oversized arms confer, unless it is just so much extra bulk to look at
and display.
It should be realized that the size and strength a muscular
part may normally attain is governed by geometric as well as physiological
laws. The surface area of the body varies not as the body weight, but
approximately as the cube root of the weight squared; and the same degree of
variation applies to the cross-sectional area of a muscular part, such as the
arm. Accordingly, muscular strength varies approximately as relative muscle
cross-section, which is expressed by the weight per inch of height. However,
the extent to which the muscle is stimulated (into contracting) remains more or
less constant as the cross-section of the muscle is increased through exercise,
so that strength at an increased bodyweight (the height remaining constant) does
not quite keep up in ratio to bodyweight per inch of height.
In short, while strength can be increased through simply
enlarging the muscles and increasing the body weight, there is a law of
diminishing returns, so that a weightlifter, in order to lift what would be
expected at a bodyweight of, say, 250 pounds, might have actually to weight 300
pounds or more. This, of course, results in a decreasing ratio of strength-to-weight
so that the performer becomes stronger only at the expense of becoming less
active and agile. There is only one alternative to this prospect, and that is
by increasing one’s strength without
becoming appreciably heavier. It can be done.
It is the writer’s earnest hope that conventional
“bodybuilding” may return to the stage where accomplishment rather than gross
size is the sought-after goal, and where an athlete who can perform, say, ten
one-arm chins or 80 parallel bar dips, or spring 100 yards in less than 10
seconds, or throw a baseball over 400 feet, will be recognized and emulated
more than another who can only assume grotesque postures to show how big his
muscles are.
Editors Note – This is an unusual article that some
readers may disagree with. Everyone has his own ideas of what a great athlete
is and how he should be chosen. We did not carry a photo with this article
because we couldn’t come up with one we thought would be acceptable by readers.
You tell us who you think is the greatest athlete. You may recall some time
back that a big meet was held in Florida with champions in various sports
participating. Each excelled in his own individual sport but his showing in some
other sports was rather miserable. An all round athlete seldom receives much
acclaim because he does not excel at any one sport, and yet we probably must
recognize that such excellence is most desirable.
I'm a month or so late on posting this, but this is pretty incredible. Cicely Kyle dislocated her finger on her clean and jerk, popped it back in while in a front rack, then stuck the jerk (to win her weight class.) Life's hard; be harder.
