Getting back to that body weight issue, i.e., that bodyweight doesn't tell the whole story. Lee Haney was 5'11" and 250 lbs in contest shape. Arnold 6'1" and 235 lbs. Using the 6-7lbs per inch of height that would have put Haney at a conservative 260 lbs. at Arnold's height. But when I compare the two. Arnold just looks bigger. His muscles more full and bigger. Even if you think Haney looks bigger does he look 25 pounds bigger than Arnold if they were the same height?
This is a well trodden debate but you make some points that are valid however the biggest difference when comparing Arnold @ his Best (arguably 1973-74) and Haney 1991 wasn’t so much the fact that on paper Haney was heavier bye 10-15lbs
The difference imo was Haney had that crazy conditioning of a new era @ a heavier body weight than Arnold, he had that incredible V Taper that as you know is the illusion that set him apart like Oliva before him except this Guy (Haney) had that conditioning, all round physique and confidence too go with it.
Arnold as great as he was NEVER faced ANYONE of the 1960s-1970s who was 5ft 11 250 odd lbs with a small waist etc with superior conditioning who could match him body part for body part (minus the arms) but what he lacked there he’d take it back bye having the superior waist taper etc.
I doubt Haney would of had a issue beating Arnold’s best compared too his 1991 condition but this is a age old debate that will never end...comparing eras accurately (not all the adjustments in modern technology with all these stupid air brushing, filters, photo shopping etc) I’ve seen with Arnold’s photos I’ve seen over the last 32 years or so
Arnold was the best of his era no doubt about it but beat a prime Lee Haney imo no way in hell, time (USUALLY) doesn’t go backwards when comparing the best of the best of respective eras from Arnold too Haney...Haney too Yates...from Yates too Coleman...then from Coleman too Heath imo each brought something a little different than what came before.
