Captain Glanton said:Arnold is just as iconic a figure for bodybuilders as Bruce Lee is for fighters. But, the sad fact is that no bodybuilder today trains the way Arnold did, and I kind of expect that fighters don't follow Bruce Lee word for word anymore, either. Progress has been made.
I just used those two as extreme (and well known to practically everyone) examples of two different disciplines -- training for strength and bodybuilding. As you said, they're both iconic and symbolise two very different schools on thought on "fitness", hence why I used them.
All I'll say is that my example of the athletes with the best conditioning are MMA fighters. They do enormous amounts of conditioning work without extra resistance--ab work, pushups, pullups--but they are also doing things like squatting heavy. Squatting 2.5 times your bodyweight is a standard for being 'strong' for elite MMA fighters, I think, and that's not something that you're going to get without squatting in a real gym. No one here thinks that weights are the only thing that get you 'fit'; but, many of us would say that getting extremely lean but unable to deadlift, say, twice your bodyweight doesn't mean 'fit' either. Similarly, while those 400lb powerlifters are extremely strong, I wouldn't exactly call them 'fit'. Weights are one part of the picture, but they are an important one. It's up to each person to decide if he or she wants to have it all or just have one side of it.
I think the debate about whether bodyweight is enough should be left to people with degrees and a great deal more knowledge than us. I think we'd both agree that the best exercise plan takes the best exercises for your goals and uses them without predjudice.
Now, this tangent started because someone said that you have to join a gym to get results, which is certainly something I take issue with. Anyone can get brilliant results training at home by putting the time in.