They were both inspired by the Greek statues of the museums in Europe to build their bodies to their fullest potential. Max Sick was born a runt, a small, weak child. His training seemed to be more personal than Sandow's style. Sandow seemed to have more confidence and he was more of a legend, whereas Max Sick was not as much caught up in the fame and money. I find it very odd how many times Max Sick tries to dispel past rumors of things he may have said. It's very fishy sounding as if he was more so trying to change history to fit his current mindset. Who knows, but I wouldn't waste any valuable text in my biography trying to deny things. Max Sick never seemed to be in the right place at the right time during his life. Also, I'm sure his lack of English helped isolate him from culture and the world. I think Max knew that he didn't get to reach out to the world as much as he may have wanted. It seemed like in his later years he had regret.
Sandow on the other hand, seemed very interested in educating the people of his times, and even women at that. His writing style is very gentlemen-like, showing his charisma and confidence. There are things I found I disliked about him though. In his writing, he is often promoting his own weight-training accessories and apparatuses. I suppose you could say in defense that back then there wasn't as much training devices or gyms, and so perhaps his inventions were useful, but looking at them, they are so gimmick-like and just cheesy.
His exercises that I ran across in his writing were largely 1-handed lifts. The bent press was very heavily favored, which involved picking up a barbell off the ground and raising it above your head with 1-hand. An interesting biceps move is that he would pick up a heavy dumbbell off the ground and bring it into a biceps curl, like a heavy snatch.
I'm curious to try these 1-armed lifts. There are two 1-armed exercises I'm familiar with and they paint opinion on the matter of heavy 1-armed lifts. 1-Armed push-ups require a large surge of strength and they wear you out. I can do about 8 reps on 1-arm, but I find it to be more of a strength move than something to build muscle. The other I have in mind is 1-arm pull-ups. Again, you won't be able to do enough to work the muscle. Also you're really jeopardizing the shoulder of the single limb that you use as well as the wrist and elbow. Max Sick was injured in his last performance on stage, by attempting to make a heavy 1-armed lift. His shoulder was injured. In theory, it sounds like a marvelous idea to work each arm so hard individually, but it's playing with fire. On one hand, if you trained each arm individually with heavy weight, you may think that when you do use both arms, you could lift far more weight than if you only trained 2-arm exercises, but I'm not sure that's the case.
It is said that in bodybuilding, function should follow form. As Sandow said, breathe with your nasal passage and not your mouth as the mouth is only to be used for chewing and swallowing. We as humans are shaped with symmetry. We have two arms, eyes, ears, legs, feet, hands, lungs, etc. It makes sense to use both arms when lifting something heavy. As well as using both legs when squatting with weight on your back.
Looking back, 1-handed strength feats are more impressive than two-hand. It surely enables higher grip strength in each hand. Sandow mentions the importance of researching human anatomy and all of the muscles. He mentions that in sports, the athletes use certain muscles favorably, and that the athlete who trains the entirety of the body will benefit the most as their strength reserves will be greater. Although Sandow even claims that he has studied human anatomy more than any man, I'm not sure I take his word for it. I was disappointed that in all of his writings, he doesn't seem to every speak of muscles. He doesn't refer to them by name, nor he does explain how they work or any sort of detailed information.
It's funny how Sandow says that the information he had access to, like the anatomical books, weren't available to past generations. And Sandow is from 109 years ago by year of 2011, and it's not as if every citizen has Sandow's physique. Sandow knew people to be lazy. There are athletes who bring their body to its prime and then they stop the sport and they become fat from lack of exercise and good nutrition. Throughout history, physical education seems to be something cherished and then ignored, and it can flip between those two, but often falls in the ignored category.
I'd like to look at this question of why people don't exercise modern day. Ignorance seems to be a word in itself that can cover every reason. Your average citizen these days has knowledge of many things, but the knowledge is often from media outlets, who are able to spin things any way they please. People grasp knowledge from TV shows, movies, and music. You hear a statement about a subject, and you've never heard this statement, and you are grateful you've learned something, and you retain it, but who's to say that knowledge is correct? People are often guilty of not citing sources and not investigating for their own benefit. Again, people are lazy. They want to partake in the least amount of input and be rewarded with the greatest amount of output. People often say, "I don't have time," or, "Why do I need the strength and muscles of a bodybuilder?" As far as time goes, you spend on time on the things you want to spend time on. And as for needing strength, as Sandow put it, a well-embodied man implies a well-embodied mind. It is easy for the mind to become cloudy, and it is easy for the body to become poisoned. I cannot imagine a scenario where a human would not want to be a better version of himself.
