Modern Bodybuilding, Natural Bodybuilding, or Classic Physique Building: Which Would You Choose?

(Top Photo: Natural Bodybuilder Dave Goodin; Middle Photo: Roid-based Bodybuilder Kai Greene; Bottom Photo: CPB Champ Steve Reeves)

Here is a letter from a CPB Subscriber who describes a recent conversation he had with his friends. How many of you have had similar encounters and experiences? If so, let us know!

"Hello...I had a conversation with a couple of friends that I felt you may find interesting.

A bodybuilding buddy of mine brought over a bunch of photos from the Arnold Classic to my house yesterday. He loves modern day bodybuilding and loves to defend it whenever I bring up issues like gh gut, no proportions, etc... Anyways, my girlfriend had some friends over so I showed them pictures of Kai Greene, a random natural BB'er, and Steve Reeves. I asked them which physique they found the most attractive (not necessarily from a sexual perspective!). They all went with Reeves. They all agreed that Kai looked absolutely disgusting (and for gags, I played his posing routine. We had a great laugh!). They also said that the natural guy looked way too shredded - "it looks awkward." They kinda melted at the Reeves photo saying that he had the perfect combination of mass and definition. This started a bit of a debate between my friend and I.

My friend refuses to believe that the classic physique will ever make its way back to mainstream bodybuilding. The idea does not seem far fetched at all to me. In fact, I think the more "freak show" modern bodybuilding becomes, the more essential a return to proportions and aesthetics will become. It's like how female bodybuilding got so out of hand that they developed the figure division to bring back proportions and an overall feminine physique. I think the same will happen in men's bb'ing. They will have to develop a "fitness" division to try and attract new followers. I can only hope that they use the Classic Ideals as their judging criteria!

Just a thought I would share." - Mark, from Canada

Well.....What do you think? Have you had encounters/conversations like this with your friends? If so, then share your experience with us! I somehow think that this kind of reaction (to modern bodybuilding and even natural bodybuilding) is not uncommon and when faced with the clear choice of Reeves versus a roid-based modern bodybuilder, regular people will choose a classic physique like Reeves every time! And if this is the case, then who really reflects the MAINSTREAM OF THE PUBLIC, a Reeves or a Green, Cutler, or Coleman? Perhaps we (CPB'ers) should not concede the term "mainstream bodybuilding" to the roid-users!

- CPB

P.S. For a free 1 year subscription to Classic Physique Builder Zine (CPBzine) - a pdf "zine" (do-it-yourself magazine) patterned after the muscle mags of the pre-roid Golden Age of Bodybuilding (the 1940s and 50s) - just email your name, the name of your city (not your actual address), state/province, and country to cpbzine@gmail.com. That's it! Any info you send us is strictly confidential. We don't share info/data with anyone. So you won't get on any unwanted lists or receive any unwanted, automated email or spam (even from us!).

Classic Physique Building vs. Natural Bodybuilding

(Top Photo: Modern Natural Bodybuilding Competition; Bottom Photo: Reg Park and Steve Reeves in a relaxed posed during a Golden Age Competition)

If you have been following our CPB Blog, you might have asked yourself "What is the difference between "classic physique building" and "natural bodybuilding?" "Are they the same thing?" Our answer is "unfortunately - no."

To better understand our answer, it might be helpful if we list what we like and what we don't like about "natural bodybuilding" as we find it today. Before we do, however, we must say that natural bodybuilding is the one bright spot on the fringes of mainstream bodybuilding. So we are sympathetic, in general, to their movement. But natural bodybuilding is not, in general, the same as the "classic physique building" of the Golden Age (1940s and 50s).

What we like about natural bodybuilding (NB):

1. NB promotes drug-free weight training and lifestyle.

2. NB preserves and provides contest opportunities for those interested in drug-free competition.

3. NB can act as a kind of "half-way house" to rehabilitate former drug & hormone-using mainstream bodybuilders who want to give up the "juice" but still compete in bodybuilding competitions.

What we don't like about natural bodybuilding:

1. NB over-emphasizes the use of supplements and their mags feature the same drug & hormone enhanced physiques in the same supplement ads that appear in the mainstream bodybuilding mags.

2. NB does not have the "classic physique ideal" in terms of body symmetry and definition.

3. NB competitions try to mimick the mainstream bodybuilding competitions and so there is an abundance of "classics" and "internationals" and "championships" instead of the Golden Age "Mr. City", "Mr. State", "Mr. Regional", "Mr. America" - type system. So it is hard for the general public to follow NB competitions and to have a sense of the hierarchy of "who is best."

4. NB mags ("Natural Bodybuilding & Fitness" and "Fitness & Physique") are too "contest-oriented" (thus they have limited ability to attract a wider audience).

5. NB history seems to begin with Chet Yorton. In the NB mags, there seems to be no acknowledgement or "connection" with the Golden Age. The Golden Age seems as little valued in the NB mags as it is in the mainstream mags.

6. NB tries to exist within the mainstream bodybuilding world and so you might find an NB article or column here or there in some of the mainstream mags, or you might find an NB forum here or there among the mainstream bodybuilding websites. But the reality is that NB'ers are "marginalized" within the mainstream BB world. They are referred to as "natties" (a diminutive) and are tolerated, but not really valued in that mainstream BB world.

So while we (at CPB) are sympathetic to the NB movement, we have to say that natural bodybuilding and classic physique building are not the same thing. Among the things discussed above, perhaps the clearest difference is in the ideal that each holds with respect to "physique." From our perspective, the NB ideal seems to be a smaller version of the mainstream bodybuilding ideal. So among NB'ers we often see (from our perspective) over-developed traps, quads & adductors, the same air-brushed tans, and the same "ripped, cadaver"-overly defined look which doesn't give the skin that "healthy glow" look of the Golden Age champs.

Despite everything, our hearts go out to the NB'ers. They, at least, have the courage to forsake the drugs and hormones. We wish, however, that instead of trying to exist within the fringes of the mainstream world, they would divorce themselves from that world, adopt the classic physique ideal, and help us rebuild a new Golden Age of Classic Physique Building.

-CPB