Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: lax on May 28, 2009, 03:57:41 AM

Title: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 03:57:41 AM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 04:05:42 AM
since zI don't know how
someone post youtube '1973 Mr. universe'...with Lou, Mike and Ken

ANY three of these guys would have wiped the floor with your precious A...and tghis was 7 yeears PRIOR
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 04:30:50 AM
and what was that gross, greasy hair of his
was that a german thuing?

yumpin yiminy yunior!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mars on May 28, 2009, 04:39:31 AM
impossible!!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: The_Hammer on May 28, 2009, 04:50:46 AM
Mods delete this thread immediately.

It's been proven Arnold was the clear winner with Dickerson close second.

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283055;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283056;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283057;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283058;image)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Stark on May 28, 2009, 04:51:54 AM
blah blah blah blah blah - stop living in the past
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: eddiebubble on May 28, 2009, 04:55:51 AM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

Calf implants, fake muscles from a bottle (which he no longer has) a toupee, a fake plastic face yet this awful wooden actor with the silly monotone voice is stinking rich.  ???
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mars on May 28, 2009, 05:29:40 AM
Mods delete this thread immediately.


hahaha  ;D
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: The.Giant on May 28, 2009, 05:39:58 AM
If you want to argue every questionable competition result I suggest you hang yourself with a rusty chain because you are in for a long and unfulfilled life.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 05:44:01 AM
If you want to argue every questionable competition result I suggest you hang yourself with a rusty chain because you are in for a long and unfulfilled life.

already uin a wheelchair, Mahatma
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 05:44:19 AM
Mods delete this thread immediately.

It's been proven Arnold was the clear winner with Dickerson close second.

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283055;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283056;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283057;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283058;image)

Exactly! Amen to that. Nice try, Ex-lax  ;D
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mars on May 28, 2009, 05:45:04 AM
i wish i looked that bad.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 05:45:47 AM
If you want to argue every questionable competition result I suggest you hang yourself with a rusty chain because you are in for a long and unfulfilled life.

LMAO!  

What can one say...Ex-lax can't let it go.  :D
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mars on May 28, 2009, 05:49:09 AM
haha i still cant get over that gay story about mike katz beefy once told here.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 06:15:33 AM
LMAO!  

What can one say...Ex-lax can't let it go.  :D

but you are forever gay
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Method101 on May 28, 2009, 06:16:12 AM
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mars on May 28, 2009, 06:16:30 AM
forever gayyy, i want to be forever gayyyy..
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: njflex on May 28, 2009, 06:43:11 AM
AS DOWNSIZED as he was there from his best ,he is still in most shots schooling mentzer.which proves if it was 73/75 mentzer would be wiping the sweat of arnolds brow.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tombo on May 28, 2009, 06:44:13 AM


1. she's a dud root and been told so
2. she's been told shes a golddigger
3. she's never been loved
4. daddy issues LOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 07:34:09 AM
AS DOWNSIZED as he was there from his best ,he is still in most shots schooling mentzer.which proves if it was 73/75 mentzer would be wiping the sweat of arnolds brow.

you see
but you don't see
A would have had a hard time beating wheelchair bb's with those 'wheels'

You gotta admit this
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Deicide on May 28, 2009, 07:40:52 AM


Typical female scum...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: njflex on May 28, 2009, 07:43:02 AM
you see
but you don't see
A would have had a hard time beating wheelchair bb's with those 'wheels'

You gotta admit this
100 PCT NO LEGS...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 09:45:45 AM
but you are forever gay

OMG! That was so funny!  ::)

(http://www.dansteinberg.com/blog/uploaded_images/Portfolio_03-717399.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: TRIX on May 28, 2009, 10:06:54 AM
No one had legs back then. Nor the drugs they have today. Or training methods, nutrition. Nobody cared about legs,  GTFO
 
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: CastIron on May 28, 2009, 11:03:41 AM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/450914819_1aaffb6080.jpg?v=0)

(http://i34.tinypic.com/2hqt6rr.jpg)

(http://www.blisstree.com/files/312/2007/11/arnold-squats1.gif)

.....

(http://lassiestevens.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/squats1.jpg)

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_OcUCIHtXPT0/RY95EiXsJzI/AAAAAAAAANI/WQzr_HLELnA/schwarzy7.jpg)

As Arnold would say: Say hello to your mother lax.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Matt C on May 28, 2009, 11:09:41 AM
Uncle Rico syndrome.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Deicide on May 28, 2009, 11:11:31 AM
Uncle Rico syndrome.

Tell us about your plans for the lesser races?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: CastIron on May 28, 2009, 11:14:35 AM
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Royal Lion on May 28, 2009, 11:20:41 AM
I think the problem with Arnold's 1980 showing was that he wasn't at his best.  People think he should have lost because they compare him to his best showings, not necessarily the other competitors in that particular show.  Even at say 80% Arnold was clearly the best at the 1980 Mr. O.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: CastIron on May 28, 2009, 11:24:38 AM
I think the problem with Arnold's 1980 showing was that he wasn't at his best.  People think he should have lost because they compare him to his best showings, not necessarily the other competitors in that particular show.  Even at say 80% Arnold was clearly the best at the 1980 Mr. O.

......bullshit.



(http://i36.tinypic.com/2qncfhe.jpg)



Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Method101 on May 28, 2009, 11:27:15 AM
Typical female scum...
she did porn  ;D ;D

http://hosted.ghettogaggers.com/galleries/tour3/mgp/template1/fiona/index.html?nats=MTA4NTkwOjI6MjQ
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: rccs on May 28, 2009, 11:31:33 AM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

You don't know what you are talking about!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Man of Steel on May 28, 2009, 11:33:54 AM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

This just in....Japan has attacked Pearl Harbor!!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: CastIron on May 28, 2009, 11:36:00 AM
Arnold needed the 1980 olympia to boost his name for hollywood, rather than being the 1975 Mr Olympia has been turned actor, he wanted a fresh title.

The reigning Mr Olympia or previous champion from 5 years ago.

Sounds better in auditions no doubt.

I say he called in a favour with Mr Weider seeing Arnold made modern bodybuilding what it is.

End of Thread
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 11:37:44 AM
You don't know what you are talking about!

Don't mind lax. He never does.  ;D
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Deicide on May 28, 2009, 11:43:25 AM
she did porn  ;D ;D

http://hosted.ghettogaggers.com/galleries/tour3/mgp/template1/fiona/index.html?nats=MTA4NTkwOjI6MjQ

That's not her...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Method101 on May 28, 2009, 12:41:28 PM
That's not her...
it is 100% confirmed to be her
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Griffith on May 28, 2009, 01:03:59 PM
Arnold at 60% of his best was still good enough to win.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 28, 2009, 01:14:24 PM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/450914819_1aaffb6080.jpg?v=0)

(http://i34.tinypic.com/2hqt6rr.jpg)

(http://www.blisstree.com/files/312/2007/11/arnold-squats1.gif)

.....

(http://lassiestevens.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/squats1.jpg)

(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_OcUCIHtXPT0/RY95EiXsJzI/AAAAAAAAANI/WQzr_HLELnA/schwarzy7.jpg)

As Arnold would say: Say hello to your mother lax.


Arnold's form sucks.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Griffith on May 28, 2009, 01:21:21 PM
He had great conditioning for the 1980 Mr O
look how lean his face is!!!  :o
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mr. Magoo on May 28, 2009, 01:23:06 PM
didn't arnold do cocaine backstage that year?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Griffith on May 28, 2009, 01:41:50 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 28, 2009, 01:51:53 PM
Don't mind lax. He never does.  ;D

Its too bad you will never know who I really am

fruity
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: TRIX on May 28, 2009, 01:57:24 PM
everyone looks small in photos taken from a distance


arnold was a beast, imagine how much he would weigh with a huge gut and huge legs?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Griffith on May 28, 2009, 02:12:06 PM
I think for the 1980 Mr O he knew he wouldn't be able to bring his usual size so focused more on conditioning.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: camelisator on May 28, 2009, 02:16:21 PM
blah blah blah blah blah - stop living in the past

Agreed for once.

Stark, how come your started posting from your "BigCypriate" account again?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 03:25:42 PM
Arnold's form sucks.

Legs like a tree trunk can't be wrong.  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 03:27:42 PM
Its too bad you will never know who I really am

fruity

Like I care, knucklehead.  ::)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on May 28, 2009, 03:29:32 PM
He had great conditioning for the 1980 Mr O
look how lean his face is!!!  :o

The second pic you posted is NOT from the '80 Olympia, but the '74 Olympia.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Mr Nobody on May 28, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
He won by kissing Joe Weiders ass! ;D Arnolds greatest asset.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Figo on May 29, 2009, 12:28:47 AM
The second pic you posted is NOT from the '80 Olympia, but the '74 Olympia.

yep. In 80 his mm was not nearly as impressive as that.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 29, 2009, 12:43:01 AM
Like I care, knucklehead.  ::)

ovious that you care about little
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Griffith on May 29, 2009, 01:03:41 AM
The second pic you posted is NOT from the '80 Olympia, but the '74 Olympia.
You're right, my mistake then.
Post edited.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kawaks on May 29, 2009, 01:38:22 AM
1. she's a dud root and been told so
2. she's been told shes a golddigger
3. she's never been loved
4. daddy issues LOLOLOLOL

Should this be reported as a hate crime?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tombo on May 29, 2009, 04:38:12 AM
Should this be reported as a hate crime?

what i said or what she said?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 29, 2009, 04:45:48 AM
If Arnold was so "bad" in 80,

Show me a pic of who was too "good" not to win then,
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: hipolito mejia on May 29, 2009, 05:10:43 AM
Arnold needed the 1980 olympia to boost his name for hollywood, rather than being the 1975 Mr Olympia has been turned actor, he wanted a fresh title.


End of Thread


Not really, he was trainning for the movie Conan but the shooting was (moved) postponed to 1981,

When Arnold learned the news he was like "all this trainning for nothing?"

The rest is history.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on May 29, 2009, 05:39:26 AM
Not really, he was trainning for the movie Conan but the shooting was (moved) postponed to 1981,

When Arnold learned the news he was like "all this trainning for nothing?"

The rest is history.

wrong, asian
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: njflex on May 29, 2009, 06:46:30 AM
no matter what yr or decade arnold is weiders poster boy ,he gets a few covers every yr with same pictures,he gets cover to promote his movies,ARNOLD WAS KING THEN AND STILL IS.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: eddiebubble on May 29, 2009, 09:30:35 AM
......bullshit.



(http://i36.tinypic.com/2qncfhe.jpg)




Obvious face lift. Check the stretched back smooth face with the high brow against the ancient neck and hand. He's as fake as Fuck and always has been.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 02, 2009, 03:03:36 AM
Mods delete this thread immediately.

It's been proven Arnold was the clear winner with Dickerson close second.

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283055;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283056;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283057;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31152.0;attach=283058;image)
More...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 02, 2009, 03:14:28 AM
Comparisons...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 02, 2009, 03:22:09 AM
More comparisons...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 02, 2009, 03:41:11 AM
Too bad... >:(
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 02, 2009, 03:44:23 AM
...And the winner is...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 03:47:31 AM
this thread is proving that Lax is Moosejay even more.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: DK II on July 02, 2009, 04:07:15 AM
this thread is proving that Lax is Moosejay a little homo even more.

fixed
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 04:11:15 AM
this thread is proving that Lax is Moosejay even more.

don't know him

but you still waste time lifting weights
with a regressing physique
in need of hiding your melon with a fright helmet

when zI see you I will slap some sense into you
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 04:36:21 AM
don't know him

but you still waste time lifting weights
with a regressing physique
in need of hiding your melon with a fright helmet

when zI see you I will slap some sense into you
Can you swear to your nation(United State OF America) that You are not Mike Dusa?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 04:38:46 AM
don't know him

but you still waste time lifting weights
with a regressing physique
in need of hiding your melon with a fright helmet

when zI see you I will slap some sense into you
Yet, I am double size than you lil Mike.
Hope this help. ;)

Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
Yet, I am double size than you lil Mike.
Hope this help. ;)



the time for celebrating yourself
is almost at an end
kyomew
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 04:53:33 AM
the time for celebrating yourself
is almost at an end
kyomew
OK I ask you again.
Can you swear to your nation(United State OF America) that You are not Mike Dusa?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 04:59:23 AM
OK I ask you again.
Can you swear to your nation(United State OF America) that You are not Mike Dusa?

if it suits you
I can and I do
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: DK II on July 02, 2009, 05:00:14 AM
lax is a little homo.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 05:01:46 AM
if it suits you
I can and I do
Are you stupid? Why I am something to do with your truth?

So what is the REAL truth enough to swear to your beloved nation called UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 05:05:14 AM
Are you stupid? Why I am something to do with your truth?

So what is the REAL truth enough to swear to your beloved nation called UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I would not say I am stupid.

I am not a mensa member, either.

I told you the REAL truth. I am LAX and only lax.

Now, please lay down your Phillipino Stick-fighting weapons, skippy
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: DK II on July 02, 2009, 05:08:04 AM
I would not say I am stupid.

I am not a mensa member, either.

I told you the REAL truth. I am LAX and only lax.

Now, please lay down your Phillipino Stick-fighting weapons, skippy

the guy that knows that he is stupid knows more than the guy who doesn't.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 05:08:51 AM
I would not say I am stupid.

I am not a mensa member, either.

I told you the REAL truth. I am LAX and only lax.

Now, please lay down your Phillipino Stick-fighting weapons, skippy
STILL Bypassing.

JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION with YES or NO simply.

Can you swear to your nation(United State OF America) that You are not Mike Dusa?

Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 05:12:10 AM
STILL Bypassing.

JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION with YES or NO simply.

Can you swear to your nation(United State OF America) that You are not Mike Dusa?



Yes.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 05:13:28 AM
Yes.
OK, I will build a THREAD!!!!!!!!!!! that you LIED to your nation!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 05:14:43 AM
OK, I will build a THREAD!!!!!!!!!!! that you LIED to your nation!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!

Well

I don't know where you are going
but
wherever it is
you are certainly on your way

takahashi
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: kyomu on July 02, 2009, 05:20:04 AM
Well

I don't know where you are going
but
wherever it is
you are certainly on your way

takahashi
hahahahahahaha!!!
Fake Patriot!! You have betrayed your nation!!!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 05:21:46 AM
hahahahahahaha!!!
Fake Patriot!! You have betrayed your nation!!!

I am glad I am helping you laugh. Laughing is healthy.

Maybe use some of your anger to fuel your lame-ass, Paco inspired so called workouts to start at least looking like you have some INTENSITY in your pathetic, heartless-pantomines that you call exercise
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: hipolito mejia on July 02, 2009, 06:09:03 AM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

Did Mentzer say that?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 06:24:07 AM
Did Mentzer say that?

any of the top three from the 73 Universe would smoke the 1980 Arnold
just google from Utube
cool song with it
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Method101 on July 02, 2009, 03:14:29 PM
 :D
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Danimal77 on July 02, 2009, 04:22:34 PM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

You really hate non-Americans, don't you Moosejay?  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 02, 2009, 05:04:17 PM
You really hate non-Americans, don't you Moosejay?  ;)

don't know what he thinks

I am ok with most folks in general
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: TechnoViking on July 02, 2009, 07:04:29 PM
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 03, 2009, 04:51:14 AM
any of the top three from the 73 Universe would smoke the 1980 Arnold
just google from Utube
cool song with it
Ken Waller finished dead last(16-th) at the 1980 Mr.Olympia and he was again 16-th in 81.Mike Katz didn't compete in 80,but he was 15-th in 81.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: WillGrant on July 03, 2009, 04:53:25 AM
lax-ative!!!! stop spewing forth shit
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 03, 2009, 05:07:39 AM
Ken Waller finished dead last(16-th) at the 1980 Mr.Olympia and he was again 16-th in 81.Mike Katz didn't compete in 80,but he was 15-th in 81.

16th-Waller
15th-Jorma Raty
14th-Mike Katz
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 03, 2009, 05:08:15 AM
lax-ative!!!! stop spewing forth shit

wg
I feel I have lots of goodness to add here!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 03, 2009, 05:40:13 AM
16th-Waller
15th-Jorma Raty
14th-Mike Katz
Well,according to musclememory it's:
14th-Steve Davis
15th-Katz
16th-Waller
17th-Jorma Raty
...It doesn't make any difference actually...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 03, 2009, 07:14:15 AM
Well,according to musclememory it's:
14th-Steve Davis
15th-Katz
16th-Waller
17th-Jorma Raty
...It doesn't make any difference actually...

yes
you are right on both counts
the order
and it does not make any difference
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: challenge on July 03, 2009, 08:12:02 AM
Arnold whipping the stage with the rest of the competitors like usual.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Figo on July 03, 2009, 08:32:22 AM
Obvious face lift. Check the stretched back smooth face with the high brow against the ancient neck and hand. He's as fake as Fuck and always has been.

And its worked to his advantage big time.

He's always known what he's doing, and I'm sure he has very few regrets.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: knny187 on July 03, 2009, 10:42:24 AM
Roger Walker was the guy who got screwed at the 80 O
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 03, 2009, 03:48:00 PM
Roger Walker was the guy who got screwed at the 80 O

absolutely correct
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: uberman09 on July 03, 2009, 04:00:24 PM
are you guys really arguing about how some guys in speedos looked like at a bodybuilding contest that took place in 1980 ?  ::)

fuck sake some weirdos on here.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 03, 2009, 04:01:32 PM
please go away
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Earl1972 on July 03, 2009, 04:16:49 PM
are you guys really arguing about how some guys in speedos looked like at a bodybuilding contest that took place in 1980 ?  ::)

fuck sake some weirdos on here.

actually the weirdos are the people that hate pro bodybuilding yet continue to post here

what do you have to say about them "freud" ::)

E
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on July 03, 2009, 04:35:27 PM
actually the weirdos are the people that hate pro bodybuilding yet continue to post here

what do you have to say about them "freud" ::)

E

Levrone sucks.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Earl1972 on July 03, 2009, 05:31:48 PM
Levrone sucks.

you suck

E
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on July 03, 2009, 05:36:26 PM
you suck

E

Not as bad as Levrone.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Earl1972 on July 03, 2009, 05:38:03 PM
Not as bad as Levrone.

much worse

E
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on July 03, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
much worse

E

Take it back!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Danimal77 on July 03, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
are you guys really arguing about how some guys in speedos looked like at a bodybuilding contest that took place in 1980 ?  ::)

fuck sake some weirdos on here.

Who are you and why should we care about what you have to say newbie.  ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pecs on July 03, 2009, 10:58:51 PM
are you guys really arguing about how some guys in speedos looked like at a bodybuilding contest that took place in 1980 ?  ::)

fuck sake some weirdos on here.

you are posting in a bodybuilding forum, so are you a weirdo??
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Antony77 on July 04, 2009, 05:20:05 AM
Roger Walker was the guy who got screwed at the 80 O

Roger should have beat Mentzer and Zane who were both given gifts that night (particuarly Zane). But Roger shouldn't have been any higher than second or third really cause Arnold just dwarfed him.
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/022.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/037.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/058.jpg)

Seriously though how the hell did Zane get third?
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/032.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Figo on July 04, 2009, 06:57:53 AM
Theres always the story that Arnold did not prepare for the O properly and only trained 4-6 weeks.

He'd been training for Conan for a year, decided to do the O the year before (79) already, when he interviewed Zane (and Zane told him the only win more satisfying than his 3rd Mr O win, was beating Arnold in 68!).

He started prepping for the 80 O then, and telling people he was training for Conan and doing the Olympia judging. Rocked up in Australia last moment, obviously the Weiders said no problem, compete.

He knew Conan would only start filming end of 80/early 81 in Spain. He even got George Butler to come out to Australia to do photography and video way ahead of time.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Matterhorn on July 04, 2009, 07:30:40 AM

I kind of like this Arnold guy.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Luv2Hurt on July 04, 2009, 07:46:38 AM
actually the weirdos are the people that hate pro bodybuilding yet continue to post here

what do you have to say about them "freud" ::)

E

LOL!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 07:53:24 AM
Roger should have beat Mentzer and Zane who were both given gifts that night (particuarly Zane). But Roger shouldn't have been any higher than second or third really cause Arnold just dwarfed him.
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/022.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/037.jpg)
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/058.jpg)

Seriously though how the hell did Zane get third?
(http://www.builtreport.com/1980olympia/032.jpg)


well
'aNtony'

look at arnold zane bdb pose

Zane=legs
Arnold=NO LEGS

no Olympia with no legs

understand?
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: challenge on July 04, 2009, 08:19:06 AM
well
'aNtony'

look at arnold zane bdb pose

Zane=legs
Arnold=NO LEGS

no Olympia with no legs

understand?

Where's the logic in that? Zane's legs are visible.. Arnold's are hidden behind Roy Callendar's back. Look at the fdb.. arnold's legs > zane's legs
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Method101 on July 04, 2009, 08:21:44 AM
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 10:05:10 AM
Where's the logic in that? Zane's legs are visible.. Arnold's are hidden behind Roy Callendar's back. Look at the fdb.. arnold's legs > zane's legs

herewith
I 'Challenge' you to look
at the pic I was referring to
NOT the one you are looking at
they are displaying TO THE JUDGES their BDP pose
so you and I are looking at their front sides
you can clearly see both Z & A's legs

Zane=great legs
A=legs devoid of definition, nearly completely

It remains to be said that Mr. Olympia does not = 1/2 of a body

case closed
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Matterhorn on July 04, 2009, 01:38:01 PM
well
'aNtony'

look at arnold zane bdb pose

Zane=legs
Arnold=NO LEGS

no Olympia with no legs

understand?

bullshit.

no need to tense your quads in a rear lat spread. arnold knows how to pose correctly and economically. surely flexing his hamstrings and calves in this pic: that's what the judges can see...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Antony77 on July 04, 2009, 02:19:04 PM
well
'aNtony'

look at arnold zane bdb pose

Zane=legs
Arnold=NO LEGS

no Olympia with no legs

understand?

Even if Arnold had weak legs it doesn't mean that the rest of the guys did, so how did Zane beat them?
Anyway Arnolds legs were twice as big as Zanes, and Zane just looked like crap I'm sorry to say.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery12/227.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 07:33:01 PM
bullshit.

no need to tense your quads in a rear lat spread. arnold knows how to pose correctly and economically. surely flexing his hamstrings and calves in this pic: that's what the judges can see...


dear dumbass:

anyone who knows anything about good bb (meaning, hardly any of you here)...knows that when posing and flexing, you start with calves, then thighs, then rest of upper body. EVERYTHING is flexed at all times during prejudging.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 07:34:12 PM
Even if Arnold had weak legs it doesn't mean that the rest of the guys did, so how did Zane beat them?
Anyway Arnolds legs were twice as big as Zanes, and Zane just looked like crap I'm sorry to say.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery12/227.jpg)
What it means, simply, is the show was fixed for Arnold. He would have been 8-9th place in a fair show
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: WillGrant on July 04, 2009, 09:08:14 PM
I like how Arnold destroyed mentzers mind sending him into retirment and spiraling into a life of insanity..At one stage Mentzer ran into a bank naked rambling that Arnold had hired hitmen to kill him hahaha not only did Arnold own everyone onstage he owned there minds also  ;D

The now famous pics of Mike trying to get heavy handed with Arnold and stand over him complaining how he shouldnt be allowed to compete really dont show how Arnold fuked with Mikes head forcing him to lose any chance he (mentzer) had of placing that night..

The quips were exchanged back and forth at that athletes meeting but Arnold left the killer blow till just as Mike was walking on stage when he said.

Quote
Mike why are you even complaining , you have no chance of  winning - your big beer belly will be rolling around on stage

And with that Mentzers ego deflated and looked like a lost child on stage not knowing where to turn hahaha priceless.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 10:10:22 PM
I like how Arnold destroyed mentzers mind sending him into retirment and spiraling into a life of insanity..At one stage Mentzer ran into a bank naked rambling that Arnold had hired hitmen to kill him hahaha not only did Arnold own everyone onstage he owned there minds also  ;D

The now famous pics of Mike trying to get heavy handed with Arnold and stand over him complaining how he shouldnt be allowed to compete really dont show how Arnold fuked with Mikes head forcing him to lose any chance he (mentzer) had of placing that night..

The quips were exchanged back and forth at that athletes meeting but Arnold left the killer blow till just as Mike was walking on stage when he said.

And with that Mentzers ego deflated and looked like a lost child on stage not knowing where to turn hahaha priceless.

you have more fables than mother goose
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: WillGrant on July 04, 2009, 10:15:47 PM
you have more fables than mother goose
The bank story has been confirmed on here by his friends and george butler relayed the story many times in print about Arnold dismantling Mentzer mentaly back stage..So moose the goose the fables in this case are true storys.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 10:26:15 PM
The bank story has been confirmed on here by his friends and george butler relayed the story many times in print about Arnold dismantling Mentzer mentaly back stage..So moose the goose the fables in this case are true storys.

not about the shit you conveyed that he said to Mentzer before he went on stage
that is unadulterated bs
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: WillGrant on July 04, 2009, 10:41:22 PM
not about the shit you conveyed that he said to Mentzer before he went on stage
that is unadulterated bs
Were you there Moose? Cos George Butler was , snapping and filming for the doco "the comeback" and he is on record relaying this line making note to how funny it was to watch hering Arnolds austrian accent and the way it deflated mentzer like a knife into a football.

Ive a copy of MMI sitting right here where butler talks about it a non weider properganda magazine btw.

Face it , Arnold dominated on stage and in the minds of his so called competition.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: lax on July 04, 2009, 10:45:00 PM
Were you there Moose? Cos George Butler was , snapping and filming for the doco "the comeback" and he is on record relaying this line making note to how funny it was to watch hering Arnolds austrian accent and the way it deflated mentzer like a knife into a football.

Ive a copy of MMI sitting right here where butler talks about it a non weider properganda magazine btw.

Face it , Arnold dominated on stage and in the minds of his so called competition.

MMI.

Now there is a reputable source...I hear all the IFBB pros write their own articles in there, too.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: WillGrant on July 04, 2009, 10:46:39 PM
MMI.

Now there is a reputable source...I hear all the IFBB pros write their own articles in there, too.
As reputable as you claiming not to be moosejay?  ;D
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Figo on July 05, 2009, 01:06:03 AM
Face it , Arnold dominated on stage and in the minds of his so called competition.

that, he did!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Figo on July 05, 2009, 01:07:29 AM
Even if Arnold had weak legs it doesn't mean that the rest of the guys did, so how did Zane beat them?
Anyway Arnolds legs were twice as big as Zanes, and Zane just looked like crap I'm sorry to say.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery12/227.jpg)

Zane was far from his best in 80, injuries made him reconsider competing that year, but he went ahead.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Tarantula157 on July 05, 2009, 03:10:30 AM
Zane was far from his best in 80, injuries made him reconsider competing that year, but he went ahead.
...And he asked his friend Arnold whether to compete,but Arnold gave him the wrong advice :-\
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: ARNIE1947 on October 26, 2010, 11:03:52 AM
Arnold's form sucks.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBSquat.html

, position bar high on back of shoulders


Muscles

Target

    * Quadriceps
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Royal Lion on October 26, 2010, 12:23:59 PM
This is a great shot of Arnold from 1980.  He deserved the win.

Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Immortal_Technique on October 26, 2010, 01:07:29 PM
Mentzer's HIT chest was shallow. His 4' frame let him down. Good forarms yes but got dwarfed overall everywhere except quads.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: funk51 on October 26, 2010, 01:26:22 PM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux
also roger walker, he bitches about his placement in a bodybuilding.com interview.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: NordicNerd on October 26, 2010, 11:33:11 PM
What it means, simply, is the show was fixed for Arnold. He would have been 8-9th place in a fair show

I'm not seing what you are seing. To me, based on the pictures, Arnold is the winner, The others look like midgets compared to him and he has some standout bodyparts like arm and chest. Legs are not impressive though.

NN
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 27, 2010, 03:24:01 AM
AS DOWNSIZED as he was there from his best ,he is still in most shots schooling mentzer.which proves if it was 73/75 mentzer would be wiping the sweat of arnolds brow.

yup,,, this was the best chance anyone ever had at beatin arnold,, they stil couldnt.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 27, 2010, 03:26:25 AM
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

you see
but you don't see
A would have had a hard time beating wheelchair bb's with those 'wheels'

You gotta admit this


yeah gotta admit too same way arnold made it look like everyone else didnt even train upper body
arnold didnt have a lot of size on his legs but he destroye everyone everywhere else.  stnding near anyone it was evident he won
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 27, 2010, 03:33:06 AM
well
'aNtony'

look at arnold zane bdb pose

Zane=legs
Arnold=NO LEGS

no Olympia with no legs

understand?

yeah but its a bdb pise,, if we go by comments before about arnolds legs as small, he has bigger legs than zane buy zanes are more cut, however arnolds in bdb not really flex quad
so even  just bc arnlds legs werent greast he had some points that they were there traind with ome size but he destroyed uveryone on upperbosy. if legs were the difference maker all the time platz woulda won o's...
it does add,, repeat add to jay's dominance.
in a close call thats helps but if an upper body is superior wirh slightly weaker lower bod compared to the competitors upr body win 
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: wild willie on October 27, 2010, 07:18:05 AM
Guys......


Here is the bottom line.....

Arnold trained 6-8 weeks for this show......was he at his best......NO.....but was he good enough to beat these other gents.....YES.....the only guy that comes close is Chris Dickerson.....Arnold 1st place and Chris 2nd place......Arnold's bis were unreal in 80......as was his chest......along with those insane calves.....Dickerson's calves were mind blowing.....Arnold also had a nice routine......and he was in pretty darn good condition......He was good enough to win in 80......my .02!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Darren Avey on October 27, 2010, 07:26:02 AM
Arnie was the clear winner in 80, if you disagree you know nothing about body building.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: hench on October 27, 2010, 07:29:44 AM
yep add to that Arnold was very cut and vascular.
Even Dickersons calves amazing were tiny next to Arnolds which were actually smaller than usual. So just goes to show how good Arnold still was
Guys......


Here is the bottom line.....

Arnold trained 6-8 weeks for this show......was he at his best......NO.....but was he good enough to beat these other gents.....YES.....the only guy that comes close is Chris Dickerson.....Arnold 1st place and Chris 2nd place......Arnold's bis were unreal in 80......as was his chest......along with those insane calves.....Dickerson's calves were mind blowing.....Arnold also had a nice routine......and he was in pretty darn good condition......He was good enough to win in 80......my .02!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: JP_RC on October 27, 2010, 07:39:49 AM
Arnie was the clear winner in 80, if you disagree you know nothing about body building.

QFT
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: monstercalves on October 27, 2010, 07:47:16 AM
actually the weirdos are the people that hate pro bodybuilding yet continue to post here

what do you have to say about them "freud" ::)

E


well said earl...... i dont understands these guys......theres a lot of them aswell ..... weird  ???


maybe we should start posting on a tennis forum ....we might enjoy it  ::)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Wiggs on October 27, 2010, 07:52:11 AM
This is a great shot of Arnold from 1980.  He deserved the win.



No it's not he looks like he has a the aids...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: #1 Klaus fan on October 27, 2010, 08:08:39 AM
No it's not he looks like he has a the aids...

Oh so conditioning is nowadays "AIDS"...
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Wiggs on October 27, 2010, 08:09:37 AM
Oh so conditioning is nowadays "AIDS"...

look how small he looks compared to good arnold shots...doesn't look right.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: wild willie on October 27, 2010, 08:10:14 AM
Remember one thing guys........





Arnold is numero uno!!!
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Bill Loguidice on October 27, 2010, 12:34:16 PM
In some shots, Arnold looks well off his prime, but in others he looks pretty good. Where I think Arnold wins it is in the comparisons. He's just much larger than the other guys and very conditioned, and coming off three years of Zane wins, I think that might have also worked in his favor along with the whole "it's Arnold" factor. In short, I think it's a fair argument to say that, though controversial, he probably should have won a close decision. The other rankings seem off, but again, that may have been due to quirks of the scoring system.

Where we probably had the greatest travesty in the Olympia was Columbu in '81, followed by Dorian's last win, followed by a few Coleman victories. Guys with obviously damaged bodyparts should not win it all.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Bazooka on October 28, 2010, 10:42:44 PM
Dickerson was awesome in 1980 he should have taken that O.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 28, 2010, 11:33:51 PM
I think for the 1980 Mr O he knew he wouldn't be able to bring his usual size so focused more on conditioning.


exactly and he was still bigger than evryone, its bcause he didnt bring that usual freak size but again he was still clearly bigger (uprbody wise) so he focused more on condition to make up for....

those side relaxed pics,,, lol clearly arnolds wins shape size etc... it doesnt even look like metzer train chest from side,,, no taper or lines epec compared to arnld even the other cmptitor beats him from side relax n front too...
arnold won
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 28, 2010, 11:36:59 PM
Theres always the story that Arnold did not prepare for the O properly and only trained 4-6 weeks.

He'd been training for Conan for a year, decided to do the O the year before (79) already, when he interviewed Zane (and Zane told him the only win more satisfying than his 3rd Mr O win, was beating Arnold in 68!).

He started prepping for the 80 O then, and telling people he was training for Conan and doing the Olympia judging. Rocked up in Australia last moment, obviously the Weiders said no problem, compete.

He knew Conan would only start filming end of 80/early 81 in Spain. He even got George Butler to come out to Australia to do photography and video way ahead of time.

 8)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 28, 2010, 11:41:03 PM
I like how Arnold destroyed mentzers mind sending him into retirment and spiraling into a life of insanity..At one stage Mentzer ran into a bank naked rambling that Arnold had hired hitmen to kill him hahaha not only did Arnold own everyone onstage he owned there minds also  ;D

The now famous pics of Mike trying to get heavy handed with Arnold and stand over him complaining how he shouldnt be allowed to compete really dont show how Arnold fuked with Mikes head forcing him to lose any chance he (mentzer) had of placing that night..

The quips were exchanged back and forth at that athletes meeting but Arnold left the killer blow till just as Mike was walking on stage when he said.

And with that Mentzers ego deflated and looked like a lost child on stage not knowing where to turn hahaha priceless.

yeah the funny part is arnold didnt even have to screw with mike,, mike wasnt even on the same lvl as arnold,,, some stories go that mike was pushin hit and all the "new ways" etc and crappn all over volume and kinda arnold indirectly as old n flawed etc.

yeah well hit may have got mike to the dance (stage) in the first place but didnt get close to beatn arnold... iff the top of memory and the pics in this thread dont think there wasnt one pose arnold didnt destroy him


Mentzer's HIT chest was shallow. His 4' frame let him down. Good forarms yes but got dwarfed overall everywhere except quads.

yup
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: RocketSwitch625 on October 29, 2010, 01:45:27 AM
I apologise to all the Arnold fans who believe he was numero uno every time he competed but this video proves that the Arnold/Mentzer comparisons posted earlier in this thread are fake.

Mentzer owning Arnold in 80:


Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: hench on October 29, 2010, 03:31:16 AM
most of the black and white shots on the first page are mocked up. The screen caps later are real.
I see Mentzer looking excellent on his own then disappearing next to arnold, narrow as hell, no thickness in the chest etc etc
I apologise to all the Arnold fans who believe he was numero uno every time he competed but this video proves that the Arnold/Mentzer comparisons posted earlier in this thread are fake.

Mentzer owning Arnold in 80:



Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Lion666 on October 29, 2010, 04:01:33 AM
zane and dennis tinnero way ahead of metnzer on chest dept, actuall,,, overall look better tahn mm
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Pollux on October 29, 2010, 06:19:30 AM
Dickerson was awesome in 1980 he should have taken that O.

He's the ONLY guy I felt that could've beaten Arnold, and I would've been fine with it.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Shockwave on October 29, 2010, 11:25:31 AM
Menzter looked like Mr O by himself, as soon as you stand him next to arnold he just disappeared. That vid kinda sucks to really see the comparisons, but its plain to me, that Mentzer simply didnt have it. Arnold made him just vanish in his shadow. All of Mentzers strong points look weak next to Arnold.
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Rami on October 29, 2010, 11:33:55 AM
Arnold was so bad in 80 that he was only twice as good as the second place finisher
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: JP_RC on October 30, 2010, 12:57:30 PM
I apologise to all the Arnold fans who believe he was numero uno every time he competed but this video proves that the Arnold/Mentzer comparisons posted earlier in this thread are fake.

Mentzer owning Arnold in 80:




Mentzer came in 5th place.  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
Post by: Disgusted on October 30, 2010, 05:09:41 PM
I always thought that Arnold deserved the win and now I'm convinced.