MALE
"GRECIAN IDEAL" PROPORTIONS
I
have received many letters from bodybuilders and fans asking
why Sandow and his contemporaries were so celebrated, since
they lacked the massive muscularity of today's "bulked-up
physiques". Perhaps a more important reason than simply
not having access to modern bodybuilding equipment, techniques
and supplements (not to mention drugs) was the Victorian
bodybuilders obsession to have the "ideal" proportions found
on newly excavated Greek and Roman Statues of that time.
Although classical art had been admired for centuries, there
was a renewed interest in the "classical style" at the turn
of the century (a similar fashion and trend occurred after
the French revolution around the time of Napoleon, circa
1800). The following excerpts from the book "Muscle Building"
by Earle Liederman (published in 1924) explains this "ideal"
perfectly....
"My
ideal is not the man with the huge, abnormal muscles of
a Hercules; nor is it the lithe, slender form of an Apollo;
nor the somewhat better-muscled Mercury. I like to see big,
firm muscles combined with speed and flexibility. The question
goes deeper than this. When holding up an ideal for scores
of thousands to copy after, we set the following requisites...
A man should look good from every
angle. He should have curves, rather than great, disfiguring
ridges of muscle. He should have a development which is possible
for attainment by almost any average boy or young man, who
will apply himself to development and cultivate strength,
speed and perfect health...
Even
though the student should not obtain these relative proportions,
still there is no reason why he cannot possess a beautiful
physique by approaching the following: which is my idea
of how a man should be proportionately built:
Average
height: 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 9 inches - neck 17" -
biceps 16" - calf 15" - chest (normal) 44" - waist 32" -
thigh 23.5"
...the
common conception of the Grecian proportions stipulates the
neck, upper arm flexed and the calf to be of the same size...(this
ideal varied slightly in Liedermans view. He thought a slight
taper made the body more "...pleasing to look upon...")
This
"Grecian Ideal" runs 24 pages in Liederman's book, such was
the influence of "classical proportion" in those days . There
were definite formulas set up that an individual would work
hard to attain. Those that did, like Sandow, were highly praised.
It is this model that muscle champions aspired to at that
time. Unlike today, the proper proportion for a man's waist
would have been more muscled. At that time, a man must show
a tight and well-defined midsection, but the obliques and
lower back must have also been well-exercised and solidly
built. A waist that appeared too slim, made a man "appear
weak" according to Liederman. But, men like Sandow were also
incredibly strong and appeared rock-hard even when not flexed.
When they did pose, could flex their muscles with incredible
control, isolating individual muscles at will. Something very
few bodybuilders are willing, or able to do even today. When
one puts the ideas of those times in perspective, we see Sandow
as a different breed of bodybuilder altogether, and can appreciate
how impressive he must have been to others.
|
|
THE
"GRECIAN IDEAL" CALCULATOR
Find
your own "ideal measurements"
The
awesome statue shown above is
in Italy, and shows the proportions the
Victorians saw as "ideal" for the male.
The formula was not a new one,
but goes back over 2300 years
to the days of Classical Greece
and Ancient Rome.
In the centuries since then, many
sculptors used the formula when
creating great works of art.
|
|
