Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The Abdominal Snoman on October 22, 2011, 04:55:28 PM
-
Would Gary Strydom have won the Mr. Olympia if he had Bob Chicks back?
Discuss
-
If the WBF never existed; In 1991 the Olympia results wouldve been...
1) Haney
2) Yates
3) Strydom
Strydom had epic Quads, Pecs, Calves, Delts
Yates had epic Lats, Calves... Good quads too
Haney had epic Traps, Lats, Pecs
All three were hard, cut and had decent waists w/ nice taper (Ironically none of those 3 had world class arms)
-
If the WBF never existed; In 1991 the Olympia results wouldve been...
1) Haney
2) Yates
3) Strydom
Strydom had epic Quads, Pecs, Calves, Delts
Yates had epic Lats, Calves... Good quads too
Haney had epic Traps, Lats, Pecs
All three were hard, cut and had decent waists w/ nice taper (Ironically none of those 3 had world class arms)
Got to see Garys arns now and remember none of these guys had oil in their arms..Now days the arms are freaky but full oil.
-
If the WBF never existed; In 1991 the Olympia results wouldve been...
1) Haney
2) Yates
3) Strydom
Strydom had epic Quads, Pecs, Calves, Delts
Yates had epic Lats, Calves... Good quads too
Haney had epic Traps, Lats, Pecs
All three were hard, cut and had decent waists w/ nice taper (Ironically none of those 3 had world class arms)
None of them had access to world class oil either.
Wasn't Strydom one of the first to use synthetic GH?
-
If the WBF never existed; In 1991 the Olympia results wouldve been...
1) Haney
2) Yates
3) Strydom
Strydom had epic Quads, Pecs, Calves, Delts
Yates had epic Lats, Calves... Good quads too
Haney had epic Traps, Lats, Pecs
All three were hard, cut and had decent waists w/ nice taper (Ironically none of those 3 had world class arms)
Strydom over Vince Taylor? Taylor did beat Yates in one round.
-
Strydom over Vince Taylor? Taylor did beat Yates in one round.
What contest?
-
What contest?
1991 Mr O
-
1991 Mr O
Which round? I know Yates beat Haney in the muscularity round
-
Which round? I know Yates beat Haney in the muscularity round
wtf does a "muscularity" round mean exactly? arent muscles judged in all rounds??
and lol at gary strysjdnrom having good pecs
-
wtf does a "muscularity" round mean exactly?
Cock size
-
Cock size
;D
I thought it was how hard you could tighten your sphincter muscles around a schmoe weeeeeder judges cock :D
-
Would Gary Strydom have won the Mr. Olympia if he had Bob Chicks back?
Discuss
Would Bob Chick have finished top six in the Olympia if he had Gary Strydom front?
WOOOSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
Got to see Garys arns now and remember none of these guys had oil in their arms..Now days the arms are freaky but full oil.
You are forgetting Esiclene...it was big back then.
Also, you can't say that today's arms are full of oil---Phil, I sincerely doubt it, Roelly as well.
-
wtf does a "muscularity" round mean exactly? arent muscles judged in all rounds??
and lol at gary strysjdnrom having good pecs
They are technically , the names are misleading because in the ' muscularity ' round , muscularity isn't the only thing being judged , in fact everything is being judged , muscularity , size , shape , conditioning , posing , symmetry etc , the same holds true in the ' symmetry ' round
The muscularity round is typically the mandatory poses , front & back double biceps , front & rear lat spreads , ab-thigh , side chest & triceps , etc where is the symmetry round is the standing relaxed from the front & back and the 1/4 turns
The posing rounds were free posing which you still had to incorporate all of the mandatory poses and then the pose down which you did whatever the hell you wanted .
However what most people can NOT grasp for the life of them is All rounds are physique rounds and EVERYTHING is judged at once , so in a front double biceps shot , the judges are looking for who has the advantage in muscular bulk AND muscle density AND muscle dryness AND muscle balance AND muscle proportion AND correct posing AND presentation , everything is assessed at once , and one doesn't take priority over the other
If a guy has great symmetry ( Bob Paris ) but lacks muscular size , and density & dryness he shouldn't ( and wont ) win the ' symmetry ' round , same with a guy who has a lot of mass ( Art Atwood ) but lacks in shape and conditioning , he shouldn't ( and wont ) win the muscularity round
It's the person who satisfies ALL of this criteria the best ( usually ) wins the whole contest/.
-
Which round? I know Yates beat Haney in the muscularity round
Pretty sure it was posing
-
The real question is, would Gary Styrdom won the olympia if he had bob chicks back and Nassers front and Tom Platz left leg and ronnies head???
-
They are technically , the names are misleading because in the ' muscularity ' round , muscularity isn't the only thing being judged , in fact everything is being judged , muscularity , size , shape , conditioning , posing , symmetry etc , the same holds true in the ' symmetry ' round
The muscularity round is typically the mandatory poses , front & back double biceps , front & rear lat spreads , ab-thigh , side chest & triceps , etc where is the symmetry round is the standing relaxed from the front & back and the 1/4 turns
The posing rounds were free posing which you still had to incorporate all of the mandatory poses and then the pose down which you did whatever the hell you wanted .
However what most people can NOT grasp for the life of them is All rounds are physique rounds and EVERYTHING is judged at once , so in a front double biceps shot , the judges are looking for who has the advantage in muscular bulk AND muscle density AND muscle dryness AND muscle balance AND muscle proportion AND correct posing AND presentation , everything is assessed at once , and one doesn't take priority over the other
If a guy has great symmetry ( Bob Paris ) but lacks muscular size , and density & dryness he shouldn't ( and wont ) win the ' symmetry ' round , same with a guy who has a lot of mass ( Art Atwood ) but lacks in shape and conditioning , he shouldn't ( and wont ) win the muscularity round
It's the person who satisfies ALL of this criteria the best ( usually ) wins the whole contest/.
Do you agree with the judges in giving to Dorian the muscularity round over Haney? And if so how can you objectively reason it? Haney was better in every way (bigger, better structure, great poser, condition was the same or very close, if not better) ???
-
also, if in all rounds everything is judged then whats the point in making a symmetry round, muscularity round etc. if its all really the same? in symmetry round the most symmetric guy should win period otherwise whats the point??
imagine in a powerlifting contest, on the bench pressing "round" giving the first place to a guy that didnt benched the most weight but lifted the heaviest weights "overall", in other exercises like squat and deadlifts. Thats pretty retarded.
-
Do you agree with the judges in giving to Dorian the muscularity round over Haney? And if so how can you objectively reason it? Haney was better in every way (bigger, better structure, great poser, condition was the same or very close, if not better) ???
I do , because Dorian had a clear edge in conditioning , Haney had the advantage in upper body and Yates lower body , I believe it was Lenda Murray who was doing commentary and she said ' Yates was like Haney with legs '
Haney deserved that win no doubts about , he looked fantastic and went out literally in the best shape of his life , the same can't be said for Dorian or Ronnie
-
I do , because Dorian had a clear edge in conditioning , Haney had the advantage in upper body and Yates lower body , I believe it was Lenda Murray who was doing commentary and she said ' Yates was like Haney with legs '
Haney deserved that win no doubts about , he looked fantastic and went out literally in the best shape of his life , the same can't be said for Dorian or Ronnie
so why Haney won the olympia then?
and have you ever disagreed with a judges decision?
-
lol at haney losing the "muscularity round" to yates, just lol at iffb judging "criteria". Haney was perfect and on top of that he made dorian look small the entire show, thats how apart they were that day.
(http://raw-iron.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=955.0;attach=5374;image)
-
Got to see Garys arns now and remember none of these guys had oil in their arms..Now days the arms are freaky but full oil.
shut up, idiot.
-
Would Gary Strydom have won the Mr. Olympia if he had Bob Chicks back?
Discuss
he won the WBF drug free 2x at least!!!!!
-
also, if in all rounds everything is judged then whats the point in making a symmetry round, muscularity round etc. if its all really the same? in symmetry round the most symmetric guy should win period otherwise whats the point??
imagine in a powerlifting contest, on the bench pressing "round" giving the first place to a guy that didnt benched the most weight but lifted the heaviest weights "overall", in other exercises like squat and deadlifts. Thats pretty retarded.
The names of the rounds were from the golden era of bodybuilding and really don't have much of a meaning today , I guess they just keep them for nostalgia
And symmetry has multiple meanings in the context of competitive bodybuilding , most think it's left/right exactness but it's more than that especially considering nothing in nature is truly symmetrical , it can get confusing. Symmetry in today's context means a small waist & hips , small joints , etc which is why Flex Wheeler was known as the " Sultan of Symmetry ' but it also structure , muscle balance & proportion , torso length , clavicle width , arm length in relation to the torso , leg length in relation to the torso , how well the calves match the quads , if the calves are high , same with forearms in relation to the biceps/triceps
Ronnie is pretty symmetrical ( small waist & hips , small joints etc ) but he doesn't have a great balance & proportion ( high calves , short torso , long legs , glutes you can see from the front :-X )
But in terms of natural structure Ronnie doesn't touch Chris Cormier , Chris has naturally wide clavicles , great structure , outstanding balance & proportion , and small joints , waist and hips too , I always said Chris is the black Bob Paris
-
so why Haney won the olympia then?
and have you ever disagreed with a judges decision?
Haney won because he was bigger , had better ' symmetry ' and had a clear advantage in posing & presentation and deserved to win
disagree with a decision? that depends what you mean? I think Jay outclassed Ronnie in 2001 and for all intents & purposes beat him ( because back then the entire show was decided in the symmetry & muscularity rounds and the posing rounds were for the audience , I don't recall a guy winning the first two rounds and losing a contest before ) but Ronnie tightened up for the night show and beat Jay , I think Jay should have won but I have no problem with Ronnie winning , they judges obviously saw something that swayed them and I don't think for a moment contests are fixed or winners are hand picked.
-
Haney won because he was bigger , had better ' symmetry ' and had a clear advantage in posing & presentation and deserved to win
so he was bigger and had better symmetry and still lost the muscularity round. ifbb judging is very subjective, no two ways about it
-
so he was bigger and had better symmetry and still lost the muscularity round. ifbb judging is very subjective, no two ways about it
Better symmetry? again that's tricky , he did have a smaller waist and hips and smaller joints , but his lower body lagged behind his upper , his calves were high and weren't very proportionate to his quads , remember all things have to be considered , Dorian kills Haney in density & dryness , Haney's legs are small and soft , his calves show little detail and his hams are lacking
You're just looking at what appeals to you it's natural but not how it works.
-
Better symmetry?
yes, read your own quote
Haney won because he was bigger , had better ' symmetry ' and had a clear advantage in posing & presentation and deserved to win
its just retared that a guy having a package good enough to win the mr o actually lost muscularity round to some other gain despite clearely outmassing him.
-
wtf does a "muscularity" round mean exactly? arent muscles judged in all rounds??
and lol at gary strysjdnrom having good pecs
(http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/4/3/43c27-Gary_Strydom_24.jpg)
I think his pecs were very good back in 1991
-
(http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/4/3/43c27-Gary_Strydom_24.jpg)
I think his pecs were very good back in 1991
looks freakin awesome there,,,
-
Better symmetry? again that's tricky , he did have a smaller waist and hips and smaller joints , but his lower body lagged behind his upper , his calves were high and weren't very proportionate to his quads , remember all things have to be considered , Dorian kills Haney in density & dryness , Haney's legs are small and soft , his calves show little detail and his hams are lacking
You're just looking at what appeals to you it's natural but not how it works.
ND, I mostly agree with your opinions and assessments of bodybuilders, but I have to say that Haney having high calves is somewhat an established myth – and wrongly so. His calves developed quite a bit during his career. In 1991 his calves were quite good. His insertions were not high - but rather good for developing calves. In 1991 his calves were not that far behind Yates. Of course, Yates calves were better, became greater along the way - and ended up being perhaps the best ever. Check out some of the pics
The same can be said of Haney’s quads. They also developed quite a bit during, and in 1991 they were really good from the front and side. If you look at a side comparison of Haney and Yates, you will see that Haney’s quads look a bit bigger. From the front – in 1991 especially – they were really sharp, and his insertions and shape were great. The same can not be said about his hams. They were definitely lakcing.
We have to remember that Haney grew up – as a bodybuildier – in a time (late 70s/early 80s) were big quads were not an issue. Of course Platz came a long, but his quads were at that time seen as a disadvantage and throwing of his symmetry and proportions.
My point is that Haney really had the insertions and potential to develop great quads. Not many present great improvements in their quads at their last contest….. Had Haney’s career been 5 or 10 years later, his quads would’ve/could’ve been really great.
Re
-
More Haney greatness.
-
Haneys greatness really stood out when he was put next to other bodybuilders. His structure, shape and proportinos were phenomenal. Standing relaxed next to Haney must have been horrible for his competitors - even for Yates in 1991.
-
One more lineup
-
Gary Strydom was one of hte few of that era that - in some bodyparts and poses - could stand next to Haney. But of course in other poses and bodyparts, Haneys dominance and completeness was hard to match
-
More Haney-Strydom
-
Haney and Yates had very similar physiques. If only Haney had stuck around for '92 and '93, that would have been the greatest 1,2 in Olympia history.
-
You are forgetting Esiclene...it was big back then.
Also, you can't say that today's arms are full of oil---Phil, I sincerely doubt it, Roelly as well.
you have to be joking?? ???
-
Would Bob Chick have posted on getbig if he had Gary Strydoms back?
Discuss