I though this picture would be interesting to some of our readers. Below is Clancy Ross one of the pre-steriod bodybuilders from the forties and fifties. I actually like Ross' build and DON'T consider it to be a knotty look.
He and Charles Atlas had very similar frames and muscle size. Both were in the 5-9/5-10 range and weighed 180-190 pounds. Ross was slightly shorter and slightly heavier than Atlas. Ross had a 17.5 inch arm, while Atlas had a 17 inch arm. Ross' thighs were three inches bigger, but the waist and chest were the same: 32 and 47 inches.
What was the difference? From a bodybuilding point of view, Ross had a more complete and massive build. But, athletically, Atlas could do things Ross couldn't such as handbalancing and running. Ross lifted weights and Atlas did Dynamic Tension. Ross was very busted up towards the end of his life, which is pretty much a given when you train as heavy as he did over the decades, whereas Atlas had healthy joints and was still running and doing athletic things towards the end.
There is no conclusion here other than you are what you do. Ross, who was known as the "King of the Bodybuilders" held the flag for the Weider organization for many years. He was a heavy lifter and and a heavy trainer. His forte was bodybuilding with heavy weights to build a muscular body, pure and simple. He even beat Steve Reeves in the Mr. USA contest.
Atlas represented a different time and a different kind of physical development. You developed the body to do things athletic with it. He also had the strength to pull a freight car. With his course you developed character and determination.
Which approach is superior? It depends on what you want and what you are willing to risk in the long term. Me personally, I've grown to appreciate the Atlas/John Peterson way of doing things.
Greg Newton