Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Iceman1981 on August 31, 2011, 04:24:04 PM
-
It starts from 3:35
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
It starts from 3:35
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Lee Labrada's last show , Francios won over Flex
-
Francois looked amazing at that show. Also, Munzer really knows how to hit the front latspread. I put him up there with the best in that pose.
-
Francois looked amazing at that show. Also, Munzer really knows how to hit the front latspread. I put him up there with the best in that pose.
:o
-
Francois's Routine
Wheeler's Rountine
-
:o
The barometer for Flex- soft in the lower back, glutes and hams---Mike is harder in those areas.
-
The barometer for Flex- soft in the lower back, glutes and hams---Mike is harder in those areas.
Which is why Flex lost this shot :-\ Haney said he had Flex winning said Mike looked to ' lumpy '
-
If Flex had brought better conditioning he would of won, but he was off.
-
Lee Labrada's last show , Francios won over Flex
-
If Flex had brought better conditioning he would of won, but he was off.
I doubt that. Mike had great conditioning and too much size for Flex to beat. He won that contest easy, esp. with the back poses where he was twice as wide as Flex.
He would've gone all the way to the top if it wasn't for his Colitis. He was younger and bigger/better than most of the other pros during his time.
-
I doubt that. Mike had great conditioning and too much size for Flex to beat. He won that contest easy, esp. with the back poses where he was twice as wide as Flex.
He would've gone all the way to the top if it wasn't for his Colitis. He was younger and bigger/better than most of the other pros during his time.
Had Flex been more conditioned, say like in 93, he'd have won easily...tighter in the glutes, lower back, and hams...that was all he needed...also look at his abs as well, when Flex is on, his abs look different...
-
Had Flex been more conditioned, say like in 93, he'd have won easily...tighter in the glutes, lower back, and hams...that was all he needed...also look at his abs as well, when Flex is on, his abs look different...
Arguable, Parker. A Flex in shape is very hard to beat, NDAI, but Mike had no major weaknesses, some freaky body parts and was twice as wide. His waist wasn't small, but he had a better taper than most guys because of his width.
If Mike had showed up in that shape for the Olympia that year, he would've probably placed 2nd or 3rd. Flex can't hang with him in the front and back lat spread.
-
Arguable, Parker. A Flex in shape is very hard to beat, NDAI, but Mike had no major weaknesses, some freaky body parts and was twice as wide. His waist wasn't small, but he had a better taper than most guys because of his width.
If Mike had showed up in that shape for the Olympia that year, he would've probably placed 2nd or 3rd. Flex can't hang with him in the front and back lat spread.
Quite true, and the thing was, Mike didn't start coming into his own, after the 95 win, but then, Look where he placed at the 97 AC, and where Flex placed as well.
The problem with Mike was that he was Blocky---thick, but blocky...
I do think that had he not gotten sick, he just might have been Mr. O after Ronnie's reign, if not giving Ronnie a real good run for his money.
-
I doubt that. Mike had great conditioning and too much size for Flex to beat. He won that contest easy, esp. with the back poses where he was twice as wide as Flex.
He would've gone all the way to the top if it wasn't for his Colitis. He was younger and bigger/better than most of the other pros during his time.
you are wrong kiwi,.. mike was 240 pounds and flex was (according to the contest tape) 235 pounds so the difference was not big at all.. but sure the condition difference between the 2 was clear,.. mike presented his best ever shape while flex, although looked ok, was faraway from his best..
and mike was not younger than most of the top pros in his time,.. he was nearly the same age as flex, ray, levrone, nasser, paul..
-
Mike Francois was a tank..
-
the lighting was not very good..
-
comparison between labrada in 1992 (one of his best shapes) and in 1995 when he placed 5th at the AC after guys like clairmont and munzer.. i dont see a big difference if any.. it was just a turning point in bb and size has become more important than good proportion and athletic lines..
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=312184.0
-
Charles Claremont and Aaron Baker...2 greats that are had phenomal physiques
-
Poor andy, he should not have been a bodybuilder, only really looks good in front lat spread because he squeezes his waste together with his hands and finally has a v taper, but mike francois, wwow, he and maratazzo I think are the two best white bodybuilders ever.
-
Poor andy, he should not have been a bodybuilder, only really looks good in front lat spread because he squeezes his waste together with his hands and finally has a v taper, but mike francois, wwow, he and maratazzo I think are the two best white bodybuilders ever.
lol you must be kidding!!..
-
Yes, I don't like dorian, nice back thats it, I don't like arnold, arms chest okay what happened to your legs, he was more of a gym rat who was trying to get famous than a bodybuilder imo, zane had the legs of a midget otherwise very nice, matarazzo and francois... those two in my mind are the only ones who can hold a candle to the blacks. Maybe bob paris... maybe reeves
-
Yes, I don't like dorian, nice back thats it, I don't like arnold, arms chest okay what happened to your legs, he was more of a gym rat who was trying to get famous than a bodybuilder imo, zane had the legs of a midget otherwise very nice, matarazzo and francois... those two in my mind are the only ones who can hold a candle to the blacks. Maybe bob paris... maybe reeves
Mike and Andy , Mike :-X
-
andy looks good hear, nice striations in the shoulders, nice width on lats but thats it, mike wins, Im not some bodybuilding expert or authority, just stating my opinion
-
It starts from 3:35
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Wow man thanks for that!
-
you are wrong kiwi,.. mike was 240 pounds and flex was (according to the contest tape) 235 pounds so the difference was not big at all.. but sure the condition difference between the 2 was clear,.. mike presented his best ever shape while flex, although looked ok, was faraway from his best..
and mike was not younger than most of the top pros in his time,.. he was nearly the same age as flex, ray, levrone, nasser, paul..
Mike's legs and back were a lot bigger than Flex. He was around 245 lb in that contest and Flex was at least 20 lb lighter.
As for the age comment, Mike won the AC on his 30th birthday, which is fairly young. And he was fast improving. Who knows what he could've done in another 4-5 years. This is all just speculation, of course.
-
Matarazzo was overrated .
-
Mike's legs and back were a lot bigger than Flex. He was around 245 lb in that contest and Flex was at least 20 lb lighter.
As for the age comment, Mike won the AC on his 30th birthday, which is fairly young. And he was fast improving. Who knows what he could've done in another 4-5 years. This is all just speculation, of course.
well it's not just the weight difference it's the density difference , the scale make have said 240-235 but Mike was hard as nails and dry fuck , Flex was soft when Flex got really dry and hard he was under 220lbs
-
Who is this guy ?
(http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4497/tagaa02nw0.jpg)
-
Who is this guy ?
(http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/4497/tagaa02nw0.jpg)
Never mind his name is Agathoklis Agathoklous , can you believe this guy took last place at 1997 Arnold.
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/94/a1hm5.jpg)
(http://www.darkwoods.com/bodybuilder/male/bb/gallery/fullsize/agatho02.jpg)
-
Yes, I don't like dorian, nice back thats it, I don't like arnold, arms chest okay what happened to your legs, he was more of a gym rat who was trying to get famous than a bodybuilder imo, zane had the legs of a midget otherwise very nice, matarazzo and francois... those two in my mind are the only ones who can hold a candle to the blacks. Maybe bob paris... maybe reeves
francois was very good but he didnt reach the level he could.. his best was this contest (AC 95).. but matarazzo had plenty of weaknesses to be considered the best or among the best.. his upper body was very long for his lower body,.. his upper legs were overpowered by his great calves.. very long abs and high lats.. everything on him was average except his biceps and calves.. so i am astonished you see arnold just arms and chest while matarzoo the best ever.. sure it's a matter of taste my friend..
-
andy looks good hear, nice striations in the shoulders, nice width on lats but thats it, mike wins, Im not some bodybuilding expert or authority, just stating my opinion
mike's back looks good here because of his great condition but beside others with great backs it was totally dominated.. i remember at the NOC 98 he looked like a kid from the rear beside ronnie and levrone when he came 3rd (which was one of his best shapes/results) ever.. good bb but not great and very far away from being the greatest ever!!..
-
Mike's legs and back were a lot bigger than Flex. He was around 245 lb in that contest and Flex was at least 20 lb lighter.
As for the age comment, Mike won the AC on his 30th birthday, which is fairly young. And he was fast improving. Who knows what he could've done in another 4-5 years. This is all just speculation, of course.
seems that you didnt see the above videos!!.. or you dont believe them!!.. according to them mike was 240 pounds and flex was 235 pounds ::)
as for mike's age sure he was still young but i was saying he was not younger than most of the top pros as you had said!!.. he was older than nasser, levrone, wheeler, dillett, cormier just to mention some :-X
-
well it's not just the weight difference it's the density difference , the scale make have said 240-235 but Mike was hard as nails and dry fuck , Flex was soft when Flex got really dry and hard he was under 220lbs
yes sure and if your revert to my comment i said it was only 5 pounds difference in weight but flex was an inch taller and mike's condition was clearly better!!..
-
yes sure and if your revert to my comment i said it was only 5 pounds difference in weight but flex was an inch taller and mike's condition was clearly better!!..
The problem is, Flex was never 235 at that AC....he looked around 226...Flex came in around 224 at the 97 Arnold in better, but still off his 93 Arnold conditioning...
-
The problem is, Flex was never 235 at that AC....he looked around 226...Flex came in around 224 at the 97 Arnold in better, but still off his 93 Arnold conditioning...
but the tape of the show mentions his weight as 235 pounds!!.. sure they were scaling them,.. i dont think they were just going to flex asking him "what is your weight today champ??".. :-X
-
but the tape of the show mentions his weight as 235 pounds!!.. sure they were scaling them,.. i dont think they were just going to flex asking him "what is your weight today champ??".. :-X
When Flex won the Arnold in 93, the tape show 235 pounds...Flex was 216 when he won...He was possibly 235 at the 93 Ironman, as he looked fuller...Whoever got that weight, probalby asked Flex and he gave that weight, to my knowledge he was never weighed at 235...Flex didn't start going into the 230s until 96-97.
-
I doubt that. Mike had great conditioning and too much size for Flex to beat. He won that contest easy, esp. with the back poses where he was twice as wide as Flex.
He would've gone all the way to the top if it wasn't for his Colitis. He was younger and bigger/better than most of the other pros during his time.
i agree mike was a great bber. he would have went far. IMO better than flex
-
i agree mike was a great bber. he would have went far. IMO better than flex
He would have been the next Dorian-sque bber, but Mike in Shape vs Flex in shape---it was all Flex, check AC 97....
-
He would have been the next Dorian-sque bber, but Mike in Shape vs Flex in shape---it was all Flex, check AC 97....
i agree that flex at his very best would beat mike at his very best but i think flex already reached his best limits while mike didn't..
at AC 97 both were in good sahpes but not their best..
and yes mike was expected/preared to be the next mr. olympia and this is why they made him win the NOC 94 over nasser who was clearly better.. check this:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=241081.0
-
i agree that flex at his very best would beat mike at his very best but i think flex already reached his best limits while mike didn't..
at AC 97 both were in good sahpes but not their best..
and yes mike was expected/preared to be the next mr. olympia and this is why they made him win the NOC 94 over nasser who was clearly better.. check this:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=241081.0
Problem is, as ND stated, Nasser was two diff bodybuilders from the front two the back...He had a hard time beating John Sherman at the same contest...John was 5'4 192, and could match quads with both Mike and Nasser.
By 95, Mike had a way better back than Nasser could dream to ever have, and this was due to Mike's hybrid PL/bber type workouts... heavy deadlifts, squats, and leg presses made Mike into a thick ass monster...by 97, Mike a was badass..