Note: I was going through some '30s and '40s S&H mags while taking rests between sets earlier, and came across some new-to-me photos of J.C.G. to go with this article of his.
At the 1941 Mr. America contest.
San Quentin, Tony Terlazzo pressing, J. Carroll G. keeping warm and waiting his turn.
Ah, what the hell, let's make this here a quick 'n' wee photo binge.
Bent press, Harold Ansorge.
Louis Abele, 295, 305.
Elwood Holbrook.
Joe Thaler, winner of Best Back at the 1940 Mr. America.
Can't find photos of his back development yet.
The questions that seem to arise among body builders and the public in general are invariably always concerning the title of this article, i.e., muscular definition and smoothness of muscle.
Almost without exception the body culturist wants to obtain a lot of muscular definition and wants to know what exercises are best to produce fine delineation of the muscular fibers. Contrary to this, the nescient public thinks that too much muscular separation makes the individual appear grotesque, and without exception prefers to accept the smooth development of any immature boy as ideal, declaring that he possesses the long smooth muscles that have more endurance and latent power.
This term, "long smooth muscles" has been misunderstood countless times, for when one has some idea of the anatomical construction they fully realize that nothing can make the muscle shorter or longer. Each muscle has a point of origination, and also a termination, and there isn't any form of training that can alter this anatomical construction, regardless of the development one may possess.
Muscles appear long in underdeveloped persons, and smooth because the muscle lacks definite development, or perhaps the texture of skin is too course to allow sufficient muscular fibers to show. But this is certain, that any athlete who has any kind of development will without a doubt show some muscular separation, unless he has an excessively thick skin. Then such an individual cannot hope to get any kind of definition; regardless of development for no matter what exercises he may do, nothing can change the texture of the skin.
Note: for sure . . . look at a thick-skinned individual who's a needle-based "fun drug" addict . . . he can lose so much weight there's little but a skeleton remaining, yet his skin will still be thick.
The average texture of skin allows sufficient separation of muscle to show through the skin and pacify any body builder who tries to get separation of muscles, and still when the muscles are properly relaxed, a smoothness covers the entire body. It is only under exertion that the muscles come into action and the cords stand out sharply.
But if you have a naturally thick skin, separation of muscle will be hard to obtain; no matter what amount of exercise you will do to induce definition, your muscular fibers will never show up as that of any thin-skinned individual. Texture of skin is a natural characteristic and nothing can be done about it.
If you have a layer of adipose tissue beneath the skin which does not allow any definition to show (as swimmers often have) this can be worn away by exercise and diet and bring about a greater and deeper separation of superficial muscles. Weight training and lifting are exceptional for this and they will give you as much definition as you desire, providing of course that your skin is of average thickness.
The muscular fibers of a thick-skinned individual will not show up beneath it no matter how large the muscles may be developed. On the other hand, those who have a very thin skin can show more separation even when they have a thin layer of fat covering their muscles than when the thick-skinned chap is considered finely drawn. And when they are trained to the point of being "finely drawn" they are little short of a human anatomical chart.
This is the kind of separation the average public fails to appreciate as well as some body culturists, and instead of finding it instructive and pleasing, they find it repulsive, hideous and distractful to see its rootlike veins and writhing muscular cords.
Not so long ago we had a chap come here for a visit who is a unique hand balancer and formerly performed on the stage with another partner. This fellow possesses most extraordinary muscular definition, particularly around the chest, shoulders, arms and legs. The cords in his deltoids could be counted as he flexed his arms, and the veins seem to branch out like the giant roots of a tree. Every time he moved or flexed his muscles, the cords and veins would twist and swell like something trying hard to force its way through the skin. Nearly every cord or strip of muscle could be counted as he went through the skin. Nearly every cord of strip of muscle could be counted as he went through his routine of balancing. Everyone remarked concerning such fantastic muscular separation, which in itself was something weird. Then to my surprise one of the visitors who was watching this fellow go through his routine turned to me and remarked, "Such development and separation upsets my stomach. It's too alive to be natural."
I knew the separation this chap possessed was by far extraordinary and only one in thousands has such unusual definition, and I turned to the visitor and asked him why it upset him so. He replied that it made him sick to see the veins tie up into knots and the fibers of the muscles squirm and bunch as if trying to release themselves from the protective covering of the skin. True, the muscular bands id squirm and twist like caged snakes trying to force their way out, but such separation of muscle is seen once in a million. The above-mentioned chap did not only have paper-thin skin, but with it a very fine development. His muscle stood separated as if he were actually skinned -- in fact I don't think if he were skinned he would have any more separation than what he already had, such an anatomical chart was he.
As a general rule the colored race is thinner-skinned by nature than the white, and that is why one often sees some negro who appears to have such a fine development when actually he has very little at all. The ebony color of the skin shines under lights or sun throwing off pleasing highlights and accentuating the muscles, just as a suntanned, perspired body definitely has more pleasing highlights than when it is paled.
Kenneth Pendleton, early 1940s.
It must be remembered that the female has a much thinner skin on the average than the male, but rarely does the female possess any pronounced muscular definition. This is due to the fact that they have a generous layer of fat covering the whole body, giving them a smooth roundness and voluptuous curves. Ancient statues did not possess extraordinary degrees of separation that revealed any muscular fibers of muscles or extreme vascularity. Instead, the sculptors strived to create smooth round figures with only the superficial muscles showing briefly. Even Michelangelo's accentuated statues didn't show any marked muscularity, but allowed smooth flowing lines to personify, although most superficial muscles were evident. His paintings and drawings were done on the same scale, even though at times they appeared contorted. Rodin sometimes made grotesque figures and placed emphasis on different parts of anatomy, but rarely worked out any meticulous muscular detail. His figures were ruggedly powerful and yet possessed an amazing smoothness. But one can well imagine that if these figures were under pressure or straining against some force, their smoothness would change into a volcanic muscular action. Perhaps this is why the public is more fascinated by smooth muscles than by muscularity, because most statues have smoothness, and seldom are they in action, but generally in some resting pose.
There is hardly a man that cannot appear smooth of body when he has entirely relaxed his muscles, regardless of texture of skin.
It is only under tension that muscular definition varies in athletes. There is hardly a doubt that a man who possesses smoothness of muscles when relaxed does suggest "strength," latent and reserve power. (This of course does not apply to the fat individual, but to muscular athletes.) This type of development always shows remarkable definition when under tension and mighty muscular bands begin to force their way through the skin. (Muscles, ligaments, tendons and fibers strain to hold their own and stand out sharply). Such a man has great enduring power, more strength and definitely a more shapely form, conforming more to the views of the general public than the extremely defined human anatomical person.
Often at prize fights, wrestling matches or any place where contestants may appear scantily attired, one may hear remarks of someone's smooth, shapely figure. But to the student of body culture, smoothness always suggests "fattiness" and everyone he knows who is fat is without a smooth specimen . . . but not shapely enough for him to pattern himself after.
Stanko, Abele and Hoffman all possess somewhat of a smoothness with little or no muscular separation, yet they cannot be classified as "fat," because beneath that smoothness there lies good, hard, solid muscular tissue, capable of withstanding enormous pressure. Their strength in lifting is enough evidence that they have plenty of reserve power, endurance and proportioned speed that fat men utterly lack. Perhaps of the three, Bob Hoffman has the thickest skin, and even if he worked himself down to a featherweight, he would still lack muscular definition, and regardless of his bodyweight, he has always and will continue to appear smooth, a smoothness that is generally desired -- a muscular smoothness.
Bob Hoffman, Milo Steinborn.
If the smoothness accompanies full roundness and shapely developed muscles, one doesn't need a second glance to know whether the man is powerfully put together and not fatty. Every body culturist strives to get separation and if his skin is thicker than average, or if a layer of fat covers his muscles, he despairs of every getting that "muscular" look. He then fires bombardment of questions to anyone who may be able to tell him how muscular definition can be obtained. The answer to such questions is relatively easy, and if fat is the object that keeps the muscles from showing through the skin, constant training and higher repetitions in exercises will break down the fatty deposits and greater definition will result. Such constant training while using higher number of repetitions will in time reveal superficial muscles.
But if your skin happens to be of the coarse nature, nothing can be done about it and no amount of training or repetitions will change the skin texture. Yet in spite of the fact that some fellows lack muscular separation, their muscles are unusually hard and sometimes harder than those with a thinner skin. My advice to such a fellow is this: Why worry? Muscularity isn't everything, and if the fellow is well developed, he has some separation but only as a mass (the huge superficial muscles that always show), and he has roundness with smoothness that is the outcry from the public as the ideal development. So why cry about a few superficial muscles that don't show? You know they're there and they do their share of work when called upon. In some ways such a person is better equipped naturally than most of us . . . a natural protection against winter winds.
It may be interesting to note that no matter how thick-skinned some people are that the skin around the throat, under the arm near the armpit, the under-part of the forearm and the inside part of the thighs near the crotch is always the thinnest on each individual. But strangely enough that's not the place where the greatest muscular separation is to be had or desired, but mainly it is around the chest, back, arms and legs.
Eugen Sandow had thinner skin than most of us and he had unusual definition in his strength poses. But he also had a pleasing smoothness and roundness when he completely relaxed his muscles, which was muscularly graceful and pleasing to look at.
I have often been taken as an example of thin skin, but frankly I am a shade under the thick skin individual. The skin on my back, chest, legs and arms is rather thick. I wouldn't venture to say I'm thick skinned, but definitely I am not of thin-skinned type. I have pinched some thin skins and then touched my own; mine felt like elephant hide in comparison. Yet I believe I have sufficient separation to be desired by anyone, which comes into greater relief when under tension, strain, voluntary pressure or exertion.
The fellows with the thin skins have the jump on us as far as muscular separation is concerned, but we have other qualities to make up for that -- a tougher skin. Tougher skin is less susceptible to bruises, infections, burns and cold winds.
So it appears that the two questions in debate: Definition versus Smoothness still remains unanswered. But it's impossible to please everyone, body culturists still want greater muscularity and exercises to bring about muscular definition, while the public will still insist on smoothness for its ideal and perfect development.
Enjoy Your Lifting!
Ah, what the hell, let's make this here a quick 'n' wee mini book binge.
July 1st 2025. Judging from what I've read so far, we now have an Eastwood bio written by
a person who can actually write. Nice!
June 16 2025. 148 pages.
Good book to have around . . . 4th Edition, 470 pages:
Feb. 4 2025. 192 pages. Organized by location, short intro story with each recipe.
A journey through Islamic cuisine inspired by Ramadhan and Eid.
Yummy!
June 25 2025. Author listed as "Fitness Research Publishing" or some garbage. Other titles in the pile include "Train Like Jay Cutlets" . . . "Train Like Mike Menstrual" . . . "The Rich Piano Silicone 'n' Oil Story" and on and on.
Possibly A.I. If not, these writers have my sympathies, and besides, I've had more than my effing fill of the Arnold lot, Gold's Gym Venice and all the rest of it. From what I bothered to read of this one, it's more of the same crap. But hey, it is "Best New Training Book" after all. Get stuffed, get lost, get fucked. Yawn. There's a large number of these "books" from this bunch and they're all the "Best New Training Book" . . . how about that!
Go A.I.!
Quite the cover . . . An A.I. Don Frye?
Here's your monthly 5x5 book regurgitation for June 2025.
June 2025. What could possibly go wrong . . .
June 2025. A rarity! This is an honest book written by a actual human being with hands-on lifting experience, a personality and a soul . . . a perspective of "philosophy distilled from training." Should be a good read with takeaways applicable to daily life as well as training, regardless of your belief system.
2025, and 2014.
On your left below, Soldier: Why do we conceptualize our experience primarily in terms of stories? This monograph is a groundbreaking exploration of how narrative structures mirror the architecture of human thought. The book presents a compelling case that stories represent a reflection of cognitive processes, arguing that humans inherently interpret the world and their experiences through a narrative schema ingrained in out consciousness. Rooted in cognitive semiotics, it analyzes in detail the structural similarities between narrative and cognition.
Eyes right, gentlemen:
With the eye of contemporary cultural studies and the voice of a lifelong Turtles (not Flo and Eddie) fan, Rosenbaum argues that the Turtles' continuing success isn't mere nostalgia, but rather the result of characters, and a franchise, that mutated in a way that allowed them to survive and thrive in a post-modern world.
No comments:
Post a Comment