Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Danimal77 on May 13, 2009, 08:13:24 PM

Title: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 13, 2009, 08:13:24 PM
of politics, or was it because of his calf implants???

In 1992 he stepped onstage at 298 pounds (56 pounds heavier than Dorian), yet he placed 12th.

In 1993 he stepped onstage at 320 pounds and outweighed 269 pound Paul Dilett by 50 pounds and Dorian by 60 and YET, Big LOU placed 10th..

Were his placing justifiable? The fact of the matter is, even early on in the competition, he wasn't being called out for any comparisons. Something turned the judges off RIGHT AWAY in prejudging. I thought he looked SICK in 1993. Why 10th place? Even in 1992, were guys like Ron Love, Porter Cottrell and Steve Brisebois really better than Lou?
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: YoungBlood on May 13, 2009, 08:18:53 PM


He was also one of the first, if not THE first to have an insane GH Gut. Back then, the judges actually marked down things that weren't supposed to happen to the human body.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Stu on May 13, 2009, 08:20:34 PM
He was heavier mainly because he was much taller.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: michael arvilla on May 13, 2009, 08:27:26 PM
I thought he looked fucking great! (huge shredded blew me away what he accomplished at his age)
his calves however were a joke
there were no more "what if Arnold Lou etc had access to todays supplementation" how would they look/do?
 Hes like 315 lbs here at 40 yrs old!


Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 13, 2009, 08:29:31 PM
Right, but take into account, when he competed in 1974 and 1975, he weighed 264 and 268 pounds respectively. What do you account the extra 30-50 EXTRA pounds from then until the 1990's?

He was 6'4" and even at 6'4", 320 pounds in competition is HUGE. Dilett is like 6'1"-6'2" and the most he ever weighed onstage was 290 pounds? Gunter has gone up to 300 pounds on a 6'0"-6'1" frame Ronnie has gone up to 295 on a 5'10"-5'11" frame. Even Nasser has gone up to around 285 on a 5'11"-6'0" frame. Lou was still heavier than all of them and wasn't THAT much taller then the guys I mentioned..
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: michael arvilla on May 13, 2009, 08:30:40 PM
Lou should have won the Masters Olympia (over Robbie Robinson i think)
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: jesusbod on May 13, 2009, 08:32:16 PM
of politics, or was it because of his calf implants???

In 1992 he stepped onstage at 298 pounds (56 pounds heavier than Dorian), yet he placed 12th.

In 1993 he stepped onstage at 320 pounds and outweighed 269 pound Paul Dilett by 50 pounds and Dorian by 60 and YET, Big LOU placed 10th..

Were his placing justifiable? The fact of the matter is, even early on in the competition, he wasn't being called out for any comparisons. Something turned the judges off RIGHT AWAY in prejudging. I thought he looked SICK in 1993. Why 10th place? Even in 1992, were guys like Ron Love, Porter Cottrell and Steve Brisebois really better than Lou?

He placed poorly because he sucked ass and shouldn't have been on stage to begin with. He may have been big, but he looked like shit.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 13, 2009, 08:32:40 PM
I thought he looked fucking great! (huge shredded blew me away what he accomplished at his age)
his calves however were a joke
there were no more "what if Arnold Lou etc had access to todays supplementation" how would they look/do?
 Hes like 315 lbs here at 40 yrs old!




NO WAY did that 1993 physique deserve 10th place. He was robbed!!
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: CastIron on May 13, 2009, 08:33:35 PM



I'll bet you'll never see that posing stage again.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 13, 2009, 08:36:24 PM


I'll bet you'll never see that posing stage again.

Here are some facts. Dorian was weighing 295 pounds that day and Lou was 320 pounds. Two HUGE Mofo's. I think Vic Richards also posed that day at 370 pounds according to him.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: IronMagazine.com on May 13, 2009, 09:24:56 PM
bodybuilding is an illusion, I don't care if he weighed 400lbs, he did NOT look that big, he has a huge frame and bone structure.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: HTexan on May 13, 2009, 09:29:13 PM
man, his implants look like shit :-\
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: D_1000 on May 13, 2009, 09:44:12 PM
...he left his legs at home.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Sherief Shalaby on May 13, 2009, 11:40:47 PM
of politics, or was it because of his calf implants???

In 1992 he stepped onstage at 298 pounds (56 pounds heavier than Dorian), yet he placed 12th.

In 1993 he stepped onstage at 320 pounds and outweighed 269 pound Paul Dilett by 50 pounds and Dorian by 60 and YET, Big LOU placed 10th..

Were his placing justifiable? The fact of the matter is, even early on in the competition, he wasn't being called out for any comparisons. Something turned the judges off RIGHT AWAY in prejudging. I thought he looked SICK in 1993. Why 10th place? Even in 1992, were guys like Ron Love, Porter Cottrell and Steve Brisebois really better than Lou?

i am not sure if deserved better placings or not but his extra weight was mainly due to his hight.. yes he was much heavier than dorian but dorian was thicker!!..
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: grab an umbrella on May 14, 2009, 12:31:52 AM
Danimal, I have to commend you on some solid posting lately.  Anyways, even though Lou weighed in at a massive 315 pounds, he lacked the density and thickness that a 260 or so pound dorian and dillett brought to the stage that day.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: lax on May 14, 2009, 04:15:25 AM
Lou should have won the Masters Olympia (over Robbie Robinson i think)

No

I was there
Robby smoked him

after, Lou kept yelling in Lobby, I was f---ing robbed
and almost threw down with Steve Weinberger, one of the judges
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Van_Bilderass on May 14, 2009, 04:33:05 AM


I don't think Lou broke the 300 barrier on stage.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Figo on May 14, 2009, 04:37:33 AM

I don't think Lou broke the 300 barrier on stage.

My thoughts too. These numbers are all blown up.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Royalty on May 14, 2009, 04:46:26 AM
Lou did not exhibit striated glutes. period.   lol just kidding...he was great in 1993. He had awesome arms and arm vascularity.

In that youtube video posted above, toward the end of the video, Dorian and Lou are posing down to a classic early 90's club song.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Lord Humungous on May 14, 2009, 05:11:55 AM
maybe he charged a judge $20 for a autograph??
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: the Algebra Wizard on May 14, 2009, 05:35:40 AM
No

I was there
Robby smoked him

after, Lou kept yelling in Lobby, I was f---ing robbed
and almost threw down with Steve Weinberger, one of the judges

No way,  he got into it with Big Steve ????? ,
C'mon, i was there and do not remember that .
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Royalty on May 14, 2009, 05:40:19 AM


I would give Steve the edge over a carb depleted and exhausted Lou.



....But Lou fully rested and eating normal amounts ...damn ...he would rip steves head off....Lou is 6'5 and well over 300
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Ursus on May 14, 2009, 05:54:58 AM
whilst he may have weighted 300+ he never looked like it
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Royalty on May 14, 2009, 05:59:15 AM
whilst he may have weighted 300+ he never looked like it


he did when he hit that most muscular damn
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Royalty on May 14, 2009, 06:06:10 AM
Here are some facts. Dorian was weighing 295 pounds that day and Lou was 320 pounds. Two HUGE Mofo's. I think Vic Richards also posed that day at 370 pounds according to him.


I think Vic was known to chronically lie. Chronic excuse maker. Always found a reason not to compete.

Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: V Man on May 14, 2009, 06:19:27 AM
of politics, or was it because of his calf implants???

In 1992 he stepped onstage at 298 pounds (56 pounds heavier than Dorian), yet he placed 12th.

In 1993 he stepped onstage at 320 pounds and outweighed 269 pound Paul Dilett by 50 pounds and Dorian by 60 and YET, Big LOU placed 10th..

Were his placing justifiable? The fact of the matter is, even early on in the competition, he wasn't being called out for any comparisons. Something turned the judges off RIGHT AWAY in prejudging. I thought he looked SICK in 1993. Why 10th place? Even in 1992, were guys like Ron Love, Porter Cottrell and Steve Brisebois really better than Lou?

It's not a competition of who weighs the most. Lou didn't look any where near 320lbs there. I highly doubt those numbers. That would mean he was 60 lbs heavier than he was in pumping iron. Where the hell is he hiding that extra mass?
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 14, 2009, 06:27:33 AM
Yes Lou was 320 ..he was supposed to crack top 6 if he didnt have the implants.. but again he should have placed dead last for same reason, Joe knew all the way but need it Lou to compete for promotion and income reasons....  funny how the media,sport's networks mentioned Lou taking 10th place but didnt bother to say who won the show  even E news did a report on that contest....when will that happen again?
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: The ChemistV2 on May 14, 2009, 06:36:08 AM
Yes Lou was 320 ..he was supposed to crack top 6 if he didnt have the implants.. but again he should have placed dead last for same reason, Joe knew all the way but need it Lou to compete for promotion and income reasons....  funny how the media,sport's networks mentioned Lou taking 10th place but didnt bother to say who won the show  even E news did a report on that contest....when will that happen again?
Never understood why he got the calf implants..In the 70's, his calves were never great, but they weren't terrible. In fact they were better than half the guys that are in the Olympia now. Implanted calves usually look stupid.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: lax on May 14, 2009, 06:38:41 AM
No way,  he got into it with Big Steve ????? ,
C'mon, i was there and do not remember that .


that is how it was
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 14, 2009, 07:00:49 AM
I'm sure 6'3" Steve Weinberger would have DEMOLISHED Big Lou in a backstage brawl. Anyone ever see the temper on big Steve. I think it was at a New York show in 1999 or 2000, where Steve stood up and started screaming at the audience for booing the placings. He became IRATE.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 14, 2009, 07:13:06 AM
beating up a guy who has starved himself for 16 weeks isnt impressive.


.....But lets see how tough Steve is when its off season time and he's getting muscled around by a guy taller and considerably heavier and stronger.

Lou weighs MAX 250 pounds today and has lost a considerable amount of height since then (go to www.celebheights.com). Anyways, I don't see Lou, even at 325 pounds and fully hydrated and rested whipping Steve's ass. Steve is one tough New Yorker with an attitude. Lou is big, awkward and clumsy looking and DEAF. I also don't think Lou was that strong in the gym. Watch Pumping Iron and you'll see it was all genetics (much like Paul Dillett).
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: YoungBlood on May 14, 2009, 01:51:53 PM
Yes Lou was 320 ..he was supposed to crack top 6 if he didnt have the implants..


What the hell does that mean? ???
He was supposed to be top six, the placing were arranged ahead of time...and they said "No, Lou, don't get the implants or we won't put you in the top six!!!"

But dumb old Lou went ahead and had the implants inserted anyway.....

:-\
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Pet shop boys on May 14, 2009, 05:06:17 PM
That would mean he was 60 lbs heavier than he was in pumping iron. Where the hell is he hiding that extra mass?

Here


1975 vs.1993................





Woooossshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh   !!!
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Bix on May 14, 2009, 05:14:50 PM
Lou should have won the Masters Olympia (over Robbie Robinson i think)


What have you been smoking tonight?
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: CARTEL on May 14, 2009, 05:24:26 PM
What have you been smoking tonight?

Lou's peepee.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 14, 2009, 05:47:52 PM

What the hell does that mean? ???
He was supposed to be top six, the placing were arranged ahead of time...and they said "No, Lou, don't get the implants or we won't put you in the top six!!!"

But dumb old Lou went ahead and had the implants inserted anyway.....

:-\

Im talking after the contest took place lizard...He was good enough to be 6th or 7th............ They knew he had implants way before the show but they decided to "acomodate" him for being the biggest impact in BB since Arnold retired in 80...........If it was another bb with implants would have been dead last.


Here.........
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: michael arvilla on May 14, 2009, 05:54:20 PM
What have you been smoking tonight?

Robby looked great don't get me wrong (but Lou just "outmuscled him" imo)
plus for nostalgia's sake id have like to see Lou win ........(that's just me tho lol)
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 14, 2009, 06:28:06 PM
Lou in action how can he look under 300 ??
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 14, 2009, 06:29:51 PM
It was the greatets line up ever !!!!!
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Mr Nobody on May 14, 2009, 06:34:36 PM
He is 6 inches taller than Dorian so he would have to weigh much more to look as impressive. He has an ass attitude as well could have had a bearing on the finish.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 14, 2009, 08:07:03 PM
It was the greatets line up ever !!!!!

These last 2 pictures say it all. Look who he was being compared to in the comparison shots? NOBODIES!
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 14, 2009, 08:07:53 PM
Lou in action how can he look under 300 ??

HOLY SHIT was he HUGE!!!! Question: If he weighed 320 pounds the day of the competition, what was he weighing 3 months out????  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: disco_stu on May 15, 2009, 12:46:43 AM
his calves, when flexed, look exactly like flex's calves when flexed..yet flex insisted that that was proof that he didnt have implants.

fact is that flex went from never having any calves, and not even showing a sign of being able to build them, to having great calves in no time..theres no doubt lou's calf implants looked overdone, and that flex had implants...absolutely no doubt at all.


Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: calfzilla on May 15, 2009, 12:49:13 AM
Well, Lou was a natural competing against an all juiced up line up.    ::)
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 15, 2009, 05:10:47 AM
These last 2 pictures say it all. Look who he was being compared to in the comparison shots? NOBODIES!

He was next to Yates in one of the pic....  Yates won the show  ;)
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: keanu on May 15, 2009, 07:47:46 AM
 Lou gained lots of weight but not proportionately. His arms and forearms were way too small. His biceps were non existant. His hamstrings weren't up to par. His shoulders weren't there. He was training very ight in the 90's compared to heavy in the 70's. 
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Luv_2build on May 15, 2009, 08:37:34 AM
of politics, or was it because of his calf implants???

In 1992 he stepped onstage at 298 pounds (56 pounds heavier than Dorian), yet he placed 12th.

In 1993 he stepped onstage at 320 pounds and outweighed 269 pound Paul Dilett by 50 pounds and Dorian by 60 and YET, Big LOU placed 10th..

Were his placing justifiable? The fact of the matter is, even early on in the competition, he wasn't being called out for any comparisons. Something turned the judges off RIGHT AWAY in prejudging. I thought he looked SICK in 1993. Why 10th place? Even in 1992, were guys like Ron Love, Porter Cottrell and Steve Brisebois really better than Lou?

It doesn't matter how much he weighed.  Look at Greg Covacs.  He always weighed more than everyone and he sucked.  In Lou's case i think it is probably because he tried to charge each of the judges $20 to judge him on stage
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 15, 2009, 01:39:58 PM
Here


1975 vs.1993................





Woooossshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh   !!!

Joe is standing way too close in the first picture.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on May 15, 2009, 01:44:56 PM
stick 93 up your bottom  ;) Lou back in the day was sporting this look
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 15, 2009, 04:48:32 PM
Lou looked best in 1982, while filming Hercules. He stated that he was in Mr. Olympia condition at that point and based on the pics from Muscle and Fitness from that time (1982-1983), where he weighed between 262-271 and was HUGE and CUT to shreds, I would tend to agree.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on May 15, 2009, 05:11:44 PM
Lou looked best in 1982, while filming Hercules. He stated that he was in Mr. Olympia condition at that point and based on the pics from Muscle and Fitness from that time (1982-1983), where he weighed between 262-271 and was HUGE and CUT to shreds, I would tend to agree.
;)
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on May 15, 2009, 05:12:50 PM
 :o
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: CastIron on May 15, 2009, 05:18:18 PM
(http://i33.tinypic.com/el757q.jpg)

(Caption)


Guy: Your my hero because of all you did. It inspired me to do something with my life after the heavy drug use. I loved how you and Arnold.............(Interrupted by Lou)

Lou: Yeah yeah are you going to buy a picture or what.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: CARTEL on May 15, 2009, 05:20:50 PM
(http://i33.tinypic.com/el757q.jpg)

(Caption)


Guy: Your my hero because of all you did. It inspired me to do something with my life after the heavy drug use. I loved how you and Arnold.............(Interrupted by Lou)

Lou: Yeah yeah aw you goin' to baw a picha o' wha'

fixed
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 15, 2009, 08:39:07 PM
:o

Great pic ND. IF I recall correctly, Lou was featured in the September-November 1982 issue (can't recall which one), as well as early 1983 (January-March). Looked light years better than he did from 1973-1975 imo and MUCH better than he did in the late 70.

If anyone wants to see just how large he got in the early 1990's, watch the movie Cage II. He must have been an easy 330 pounds!!

Anyways, here are some cool pics of Lou from 1973, 1982 and later...
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 15, 2009, 08:46:20 PM
Some more GREAT pics of Lou:
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 15, 2009, 08:53:49 PM
More
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 15, 2009, 08:57:00 PM
If only Jay Cutler looked anything like a bodybuilder the way Lou did, with garden hose thick veins in his biceps and visible triceps, with shredded pecs and sick traps.  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 16, 2009, 09:32:17 AM
Lou Ferrigno is the muscle...  mind blowing physique
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 16, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
HUGE !!
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 16, 2009, 09:35:24 AM
If only Jay Cutler looked anything like a bodybuilder the way Lou did, with garden hose thick veins in his biceps and visible triceps, with shredded pecs and sick traps.  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

Comparing a fridge look alike with one of bb greats??



Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Danimal77 on May 16, 2009, 02:58:09 PM
HUGE !!

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o That HAS to be the largest I have EVER seen him. Looks to be about 345-350 pounds right there.
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Mr Nobody on May 16, 2009, 04:41:38 PM
Yes but an asshole charges kids $20 for autographs..come on
Title: Re: Did Lou place for poorly in the 90's BECAUSE.....
Post by: Hulkster on May 16, 2009, 04:55:11 PM

I don't think Lou broke the 300 barrier on stage.

he may have because of his stature - he was 6'4 or 6'5 I believe..

eg. proportionally Ronnie 2003 for example, was much larger and was 287. but he was 5 or 6 inches shorter..

so i have a feeling Louie probably was over 300 pounds onstage..