Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: cephissus on September 30, 2013, 02:13:22 AM

Title: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: cephissus on September 30, 2013, 02:13:22 AM
I don't necessarily mean controversial as in widespread claims of an "uncrowned O", a la Vic 2007, Nasser 1996 (?), etc.  But going by what I read on getbig, it seems while most acknowledge Phil should win, most also aren't very impressed with him, and don't consider him a dominant Mr. O.

On the other hand, most getbiggers today seem to acknowledge Ronnie, Dorian, Haney, and Arnold to be legitimate, dominant Mr. Os.  They're all held in relatively high regard.

So here's my question: in ten, twenty years, will Phil (or Jay, for that matter) be talked about the same way?  Will the cries of "narrow fraud" and "line stepping tiny tit" fade away?  Were Dorian and Ronnie more sharply criticized (or Haney and Arnold, for those old enough to remember) in their heydays, before they were considered legends?  If so, at what point do they naysayers get drowned out?  How, when, and why does history show them in an ever more flattering light?

Or are Phil and Jay never going to be able to shirk the hate?

Another thing to consider: are we just all old and jaded?  Do the kids on bbing.com think Phil is hot shit?  I honestly don't know, since this is the only bbing board I've visited in years.  Maybe Phil already stands alongside Ronnie and Dorian in the eyes of young bodybuilders across the globe?
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: MORTALCOIL on September 30, 2013, 02:24:28 AM
It will probably cool down. He clearly won against Jay two years ago. No discussion about that. Phil last year was way more controversial than this year if you ask me. All multiple 'Os have had a few controversial Sandows (I hope you're joking about Nasser '96; 97 was questionable but 96, Yates although big gutted wiped the floor with everyone): Haney 89/90, Arnold 70/72 against Sergio, Dorian 97 (some will say 94 but they better get their eyes checked). Ronnie was probably the most dominant but from 2000 and on, the field was way weaker than what Dorian faced (over-the-hill/no legs Levrone placing 2nd twice being a clear symptom). Does anyone remember the 2002 or 2004/2005 'Os? Jay was a pretty convincing winner in 2009. If someone will be talked as over-rated 20 years from now, I'll bet on Jay, not Phil.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Mr Nobody on September 30, 2013, 02:25:11 AM
Wolf got ripped off.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Kwon_2 on September 30, 2013, 02:39:20 AM
The Majority usually agrees that the Mr O was the right one to win (Arnold, Dorian, Ronnie etc), but not these days.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: G_Thang on September 30, 2013, 02:49:38 AM
Wolf got ripped off.

Wolf couldn't even beat Kai in the Finals.  

Controversy- Not during Phil's reign because Kai can't put a complete show together. Phil killed him in the finals last year, and this year Kai look like crap in pre-judging.  You cant dethrone a mr o with 1/2 a show.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 30, 2013, 02:50:43 AM
  Lee Haney was the last epitome of a "bodybuilder". Dorian came looking like a jacked fridge and a horrid midsection. Ronnie followed with 8 years of preggo gorilla. Cutler kept the tradition going, Dex was the odd winner but far from "aesthetic" and Phil is the most decent out of the current crop with a natural torso of a teenage girl.

  In 1992 they started rewarding mass with cuts regardless and kept that trend based also on inside interests.

  It is also to be noted that less and less structurally talented bodybuilders came up through the ranks while all of them learned to megadose with gh and slin. Laziness, chasin "big weights", stupidity, big muscles at all costs. Gayer, tinier and tinier sparkly thongs, overtly pushing a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter...

  Naive teens and young adults buy supplements and less than 1% are on forums. Out of that 1 % maybe 10% come to getbig where truth is spoken mostly. Even here on getbig, 50% are idiots who refuse to egnowledge the 4 ton pink elephant and another 25% have their own agenda to push (businesses, chasing sponsorpships, true love of cock, etc).

  So all in all, very few individuals really understand how things work. Good luck trying to convince "the masses". I gave an interview on a local TV station here where I explained how this whole shame came about, how this whole industry of lies works, the fagginess behind the scenes and basically all I know and understand about bodybuilding. Within a week, 2 major importers/distributors of supplements called and the recording was removed from everywhere. And this is something almost NOBODY watched.

  You are fighting windmills here. Getbig remains one of the very few places where individuals come to share knowledge and learn.

  So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

  You want my oppinion on this year's contest? The ALL looked like absolute shit. Shit shit shit.

  Meltdown over  ;D
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: RUDE BUOY on September 30, 2013, 02:51:50 AM
he will never recover
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Mr Nobody on September 30, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
Wolf couldn't even beat Kai in the Finals.  

Controversy- Not during Phil's reign because Kai can't put a complete show together. Phil killed him in the finals last year, and this year Kai look like crap in pre-judging.  You cant dethrone a mr o with 1/2 a show.
Well G Wolf crushes Phil in about every shot. Phil will get the win if close because he is current Mr O and he did. Phil seems scared every year.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: cephissus on September 30, 2013, 02:54:44 AM
 So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment.

haha

great post sev!
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: G_Thang on September 30, 2013, 03:06:27 AM
Well G Wolf crushes Phil in about every shot. Phil will get the win if close because he is current Mr O and he did. Phil seems scared every year.

I'd be scared too if I was trying to fill out my luxury car collection.  A pay cut would be a bitch.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Mr Nobody on September 30, 2013, 03:08:22 AM
I'd be scared too if I was trying to fill out my luxury car collection.  A pay cut would be a bitch.
;D
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Raymondo on September 30, 2013, 03:08:30 AM
 Lee Haney was the last epitome of a "bodybuilder". Dorian came looking like a jacked fridge and a horrid midsection. Ronnie followed with 8 years of preggo gorilla. Cutler kept the tradition going, Dex was the odd winner but far from "aesthetic" and Phil is the most decent out of the current crop with a natural torso of a teenage girl.

  In 1992 they started rewarding mass with cuts regardless and kept that trend based also on inside interests.

  It is also to be noted that less and less structurally talented bodybuilders came up through the ranks while all of them learned to megadose with gh and slin. Laziness, chasin "big weights", stupidity, big muscles at all costs. More gay, tinier and tinier sparkly thongs, overtly puching a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter.

  Naive teens and young adults buy supplements and less than 1% are on forums. Out of that 1 % maybe 10% come to getbig where truth is spoken mostly. Even here on getbig, 50% are idiots who refuse to egnowledge the 4 ton pink elephant and another 25% have their own agenda to push (businesses, chasing sponsorpships, true love of cock, etc).

  So all in all, very few individuals really understand how things work. Good luck trying to convince "the masses". I gave an interview on a local TV station here where I explained how this whole shame came about, how this whole industry of lies works, the fagginess behind the scenes and basically all I know and understand about bodybuilding. Within a week, 2 major importers/distributors of supplements called and the recording was removed from everywhere. And this is something almost NOBODY watched.

  You are fighting windmills here. Getbig remains one of the very few places where individuals come to share knowledge and learn.

  So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

  You want my oppinion on this year's contest? The ALL looked like absolute shit. Shit shit shit.

  Meltdown over  ;D

This!
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: The Grim Lifter on September 30, 2013, 03:10:38 AM
Yes, in 2005 everyone on here was ripping into Ronnie saying he didn't deserve it and wasn't good enough, now the general consensus is he was the best ever and dominated. This was in 2005 where he was clearly a winner!

With Heath, he is very good, i do not get the hate, has a lot of conditioned bodyparts, complete, yes a bit narrow who cares no-one is perfect, you could argue Dorian had no cuts in his quads and had a torn bicep etc. He has a good structure, not as good as Dorian or Nasser but still very good.

However Wolf was far better than Kai was this year, complete, awesome condition, probably just a bit tall so doesn't look as filled out but should he still beat Kai? Fucking easy, and while i would have him over Heath, i can see why Heath wins, looks more complete being smaller. But to put Kai over Dennis and then Jay in 6th shows the bullshit that goes on.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: G_Thang on September 30, 2013, 03:13:58 AM
Yes, in 2005 everyone on here was ripping into Ronnie saying he didn't deserve it and wasn't good enough, now the general consensus is he was the best ever and dominated. This was in 2005 where he was clearly a winner!

With Heath, he is very good, i do not get the hate, has a lot of conditioned bodyparts, complete, yes a bit narrow who cares no-one is perfect, you could argue Dorian had no cuts in his quads and had a torn bicep etc. He has a good structure, not as good as Dorian or Nasser but still very good.

However Wolf was far better than Kai was this year, complete, awesome condition, probably just a bit tall so doesn't look as filled out but should he still beat Kai? Fucking easy, and while i would have him over Heath, i can see why Heath wins, looks more complete being smaller. But to put Kai over Dennis and then Jay in 6th shows the bullshit that goes on.

You missed this post.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=494992.msg7057027#msg7057027 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=494992.msg7057027#msg7057027)
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: MORTALCOIL on September 30, 2013, 03:17:34 AM
overtly puching a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter.

Good post, Sev' but I fail to see the straight part of the bi-agenda in modern BBing.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 30, 2013, 03:21:30 AM
Good post, Sev' but I fail to see the straight part of the bi-agenda in modern BBing.
I refuse to engnowledge the oh so obvious   :'(

Some of us really love bodybuilding and contrary to BayGayM not everyone has a hidden desire for cock.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: bigmc on September 30, 2013, 03:25:04 AM
So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

 ;D

best summary ever
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: The Grim Lifter on September 30, 2013, 03:25:15 AM
You missed this post.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=494992.msg7057027#msg7057027 (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=494992.msg7057027#msg7057027)

Post is fucking Shit. The guy gets robbed.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: MORTALCOIL on September 30, 2013, 03:25:29 AM
I refuse to engnowledge the oh so obvious   :'(

Some of us really love bodybuilding and contrary to BayGayM not everyone has a hidden desire for cock.

Labrada, Paris, Benfatto, DeMey, etc.....none of these guys would get even a pro-card these days. They lack the "I can't wipe my ass on my own" look, they don't have the oh-so-hard to get glazed donut conditioning, they look like they could really appeal to women (hot ones actually and not the occasional fat girl with insecurity problems amongst ten gays). This is the sad state of affairs.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 30, 2013, 03:33:43 AM
Labrada, Paris, Benfatto, DeMey, etc.....none of these guys would get even a pro-card these days. They lack the "I can't wipe my ass on my own" look, they don't have the oh-so-hard to get glazed donut conditioning, they look like they could really appeal to women (hot ones actually and not the occasional fat girl with insecurity problems amongst ten gays). This is the sad state of affairs.
True .. all of them lack the posing skills of phil heath and flex lewins who make those angry faces and wind up for 30 seconds inhaling only to hit a half ass pregnant shot where muscles barely move. Their abs were also etched too deep and waist was too fit so the could not duplicate the Quato look the old fagg judges love to reward. Weinerberger had a huge fetish for the original fridge and they all followed suit. (The guy fell in love with a muscular man with a pussy so what do you expect??)

Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 30, 2013, 03:43:07 AM
Phil, Kai and Jay: a world watches you and teens try to emulate yourselves. Please try to look halfway decent. Your midesctions are horrendous and you all look like glazed sweaty doughnuts.

(http://www.pwnfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/phil-heath-before-2013-olympia.jpg)

Please take a look at this and ask yourselves why are you trying to be Michael Jordan while you cannot jump..

(http://tnation.t-nation.com/forum_images/auto/r/786x0/3/0//3009c-serge_nubret.jpg)
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: MORTALCOIL on September 30, 2013, 03:51:27 AM
Everybody was so confident this was going to be the most competitive 'O in ages, probably since 99, and result has been one of the ugliest display of physiques since Tod Browning's "Freaks".
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 30, 2013, 03:57:09 AM
They need to learn to smile as well. Look like a work of art pleasing to the eye not a freak show.

Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: rocket on September 30, 2013, 03:59:21 AM
Having been around here for quite a while, I can assure you, almost every olympia for the last 10 years has been controversial - we all know Ronnie as the master - well, when it was the present on this board, there was barely a year that went by when there wasn't a large contingent saying he shouldn't have won and that he was what was wrong with bodybuilding.

Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Papper on September 30, 2013, 04:15:27 AM
Jay winning was more controversial. Even Ronnie.

If the judges would have liked Kai, Kai would have had two O's now, 2012 first and then 2013 would have followed since they looked the same.

But Kai is suck a fucking weirdo.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Dr Kincaid on September 30, 2013, 05:11:21 AM
Nope, I think this year is most controversial since 2007 Vic & 2001 Jay.

Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Teutonic Knight on September 30, 2013, 05:20:56 AM
-Contest sucks since Ludwig Shusterich over ruling judges in 1966  :P
-1975 Serge Nubret saga in South Africa
-1980 No need to repeat story
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: vascsurgeon on September 30, 2013, 05:40:26 AM
 Lee Haney was the last epitome of a "bodybuilder". Dorian came looking like a jacked fridge and a horrid midsection. Ronnie followed with 8 years of preggo gorilla. Cutler kept the tradition going, Dex was the odd winner but far from "aesthetic" and Phil is the most decent out of the current crop with a natural torso of a teenage girl.

  In 1992 they started rewarding mass with cuts regardless and kept that trend based also on inside interests.

  It is also to be noted that less and less structurally talented bodybuilders came up through the ranks while all of them learned to megadose with gh and slin. Laziness, chasin "big weights", stupidity, big muscles at all costs. Gayer, tinier and tinier sparkly thongs, overtly pushing a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter...

  Naive teens and young adults buy supplements and less than 1% are on forums. Out of that 1 % maybe 10% come to getbig where truth is spoken mostly. Even here on getbig, 50% are idiots who refuse to egnowledge the 4 ton pink elephant and another 25% have their own agenda to push (businesses, chasing sponsorpships, true love of cock, etc).

  So all in all, very few individuals really understand how things work. Good luck trying to convince "the masses". I gave an interview on a local TV station here where I explained how this whole shame came about, how this whole industry of lies works, the fagginess behind the scenes and basically all I know and understand about bodybuilding. Within a week, 2 major importers/distributors of supplements called and the recording was removed from everywhere. And this is something almost NOBODY watched.

  You are fighting windmills here. Getbig remains one of the very few places where individuals come to share knowledge and learn.

  So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

  You want my oppinion on this year's contest? The ALL looked like absolute shit. Shit shit shit.

  Meltdown over  ;D


Perfect post, the BB's are getting worse each year, although, there are a handful of 212 guys that look good. Likely because  the judges do not reward symmetry and shape at all, o well, maybe one day we will learn who the judgesare and how they scored the contests and why. Doubtful thats going to happen.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: youandme on September 30, 2013, 05:40:59 AM
Has the "O" steadily been increasing tickets sales, yet decreasing production costs?

Year by year, the stage looks more and more like a high school production event.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: yates fan on September 30, 2013, 07:39:05 AM
there have been a lot of controversial olympias,1980,jay beating victor,ronnie beating jay in 01,also the 81 Olympia,with franco winning and Arnold running the show. but this year was the biggest letdown,i believed it was gonna be the best o. ever,but it never mareialized,out of all the top competitors only wolf came in his best shape ever and that is if you considered him one of the top guys,phil even looked better last year,i cant believe with all the hype this show had,he didn't pull out all stops and come in better than ever,jay didn't like he trained to win,looked like he just trained hard enuff to be back on stage,and with kai it was hard to tell cause he was holding so much water at prejudging.and ramy didn't look as good as he did in newyork and he was gonna need to be better than that to crack top three here.this should of been epic!and it was mediocre at best.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: youandme on September 30, 2013, 07:45:27 AM
I think Kai and Wolf are the most hungry. Kai won't stop till he has an Olympia win.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: dyslexic on September 30, 2013, 07:45:34 AM
The criteria for winning a bodybuilding contest has changed so much over the years. There was a time when charisma, personality, smile and general overall appearance was just as important as aesthetics.

The judges even looked at your teeth.

Today it seems you can be a total moron without any sense of intelligence or diplomacy and still win "just because"

Obviously someone isn't going to win just because he's a great guy, but it was at one time part of the total package.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: CalvinH on September 30, 2013, 07:56:28 AM
Shmoes be shmoein...
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Mitch on September 30, 2013, 08:18:02 AM
Sev, what are your thoughts on Beyeke and McMillan?
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Man of Steel on September 30, 2013, 08:19:41 AM
There was no controversy.   Folks just didn't get their bb of choice in the placing they preferred and when that happens they cry controversy....that's it.  Wolf was better than Kai at the prejudge and Kai was better than Wolf in the finals.  Wolf didn't get robbed.  He looked great and so did Kai.  

I thought Roelly looked better than Wolf and Kai, but I ain't cryin......it's just a male panty pagaent.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: stavios on September 30, 2013, 08:58:18 AM
i think everyone agree that phil won but like you said, as soon as he is put in a line-up he isn't dominant AT ALL

small and narrow

Wolf won a few poses over him imo, notably the front lat spread and the abs and tighs.
May I also say the front double biceps because as weird as it can be, Phil looks average in it despite his incredible arms
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on September 30, 2013, 09:12:44 AM
Sev, what are your thoughts on Beyeke and McMillan?
Beyeke is the only current pro with genetics for bb and a frame to match .. to bad he is allergic to dieting. Him ripped to the bone should win the O easily. Cedric looks allright but beacause of his shape and frame he needs a shitload of muscle to look good. He does not have the "illusion" and rarely came ripped. Shawn Rhoden can look decent if ripped. There is no talent in the pro league today, as sad as it sounds.

The only current bodybuilder that looks like one is amateur champ Mahmut Irmak. Too bad he is a tiny tit.

(http://www.ambal.ru/32108276701.jpg)(http://www.serwer1391356.home.pl/upload/images/mahmut_irmakcontemporary_frank_zane_2013-05-01_13-41-45_middle.jpg)(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/66928_506460119404065_480267420_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cableguy on September 30, 2013, 09:46:44 AM
 Lee Haney was the last epitome of a "bodybuilder". Dorian came looking like a jacked fridge and a horrid midsection. Ronnie followed with 8 years of preggo gorilla. Cutler kept the tradition going, Dex was the odd winner but far from "aesthetic" and Phil is the most decent out of the current crop with a natural torso of a teenage girl.

  In 1992 they started rewarding mass with cuts regardless and kept that trend based also on inside interests.

  It is also to be noted that less and less structurally talented bodybuilders came up through the ranks while all of them learned to megadose with gh and slin. Laziness, chasin "big weights", stupidity, big muscles at all costs. Gayer, tinier and tinier sparkly thongs, overtly pushing a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter...

  Naive teens and young adults buy supplements and less than 1% are on forums. Out of that 1 % maybe 10% come to getbig where truth is spoken mostly. Even here on getbig, 50% are idiots who refuse to egnowledge the 4 ton pink elephant and another 25% have their own agenda to push (businesses, chasing sponsorpships, true love of cock, etc).

  So all in all, very few individuals really understand how things work. Good luck trying to convince "the masses". I gave an interview on a local TV station here where I explained how this whole shame came about, how this whole industry of lies works, the fagginess behind the scenes and basically all I know and understand about bodybuilding. Within a week, 2 major importers/distributors of supplements called and the recording was removed from everywhere. And this is something almost NOBODY watched.

  You are fighting windmills here. Getbig remains one of the very few places where individuals come to share knowledge and learn.

  So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

  You want my oppinion on this year's contest? The ALL looked like absolute shit. Shit shit shit.

  Meltdown over  ;D



Well said Sev...
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Man of Steel on September 30, 2013, 09:53:16 AM
....it's just musclemen in panties.....musclemen in panties.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Raymondo on October 02, 2013, 09:42:35 AM
Beyeke is the only current pro with genetics for bb and a frame to match .. to bad he is allergic to dieting. Him ripped to the bone should win the O easily. Cedric looks allright but beacause of his shape and frame he needs a shitload of muscle to look good. He does not have the "illusion" and rarely came ripped. Shawn Rhoden can look decent if ripped. There is no talent in the pro league today, as sad as it sounds.

The only current bodybuilder that looks like one is amateur champ Mahmut Irmak. Too bad he is a tiny tit.

(http://www.ambal.ru/32108276701.jpg)(http://www.serwer1391356.home.pl/upload/images/mahmut_irmakcontemporary_frank_zane_2013-05-01_13-41-45_middle.jpg)(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/p480x480/66928_506460119404065_480267420_n.jpg)


Insane.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: Cleanest Natural on October 02, 2013, 11:06:03 AM
illusion

(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/f1/55/44/f155442e48290f42a819670bfed40b8a.jpg)
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: funk51 on October 02, 2013, 11:12:17 AM
I don't necessarily mean controversial as in widespread claims of an "uncrowned O", a la Vic 2007, Nasser 1996 (?), etc.  But going by what I read on getbig, it seems while most acknowledge Phil should win, most also aren't very impressed with him, and don't consider him a dominant Mr. O.

On the other hand, most getbiggers today seem to acknowledge Ronnie, Dorian, Haney, and Arnold to be legitimate, dominant Mr. Os.  They're all held in relatively high regard.

So here's my question: in ten, twenty years, will Phil (or Jay, for that matter) be talked about the same way?  Will the cries of "narrow fraud" and "line stepping tiny tit" fade away?  Were Dorian and Ronnie more sharply criticized (or Haney and Arnold, for those old enough to remember) in their heydays, before they were considered legends?  If so, at what point do they naysayers get drowned out?  How, when, and why does history show them in an ever more flattering light?

Or are Phil and Jay never going to be able to shirk the hate?

Another thing to consider: are we just all old and jaded?  Do the kids on bbing.com think Phil is hot shit?  I honestly don't know, since this is the only bbing board I've visited in years.  Maybe Phil already stands alongside Ronnie and Dorian in the eyes of young bodybuilders across the globe?
first contest was controversial two guys in contest tied. when told this weider told judges give it to the white guy. course  white guy didn't get his 1k back in 1965 contest because  didn't generate enuff rvenue to pay him. guess larry should have read the fine print. big difference from heath's 250 k purse. all larry got was the mazola crown.
Title: Re: Was the O always this controversial?
Post by: njflex on October 02, 2013, 11:15:42 AM
first contest was controversial two guys in contest tied. when told this weider told judges give it to the white guy. course  white guy didn't get his 1k back in 1965 contest because  didn't generate enuff rvenue to pay him. guess larry should have read the fine print. big difference from heath's 250 k purse. all larry got was the mazola crown.
and 'honor'as the first mr o..