Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: affeman on March 08, 2021, 08:02:54 AM
-
GOAT 8)
-
GOAT 8)
Not quite, especially when there's another guy who won more Olympias that beat him.
One of the best? Indeed, he was.
-
Not quite, especially when there's another guy who won more Olympias that beat him.
One of the best? Indeed, he was.
U mean that guy running away from competing after Doz entered the scene, knowing that not even the Mr. Olympia bonus could get him another gift next year? ???
-
U mean that guy running away from competing after Doz entered the scene, knowing that not even the Mr. Olympia bonus could get him another gift next year? ???
Haney never had a gift
He was at his all time best in his last Olympia, Dorian was at his all time worst at his
-
U mean that guy running away from competing after Doz entered the scene, knowing that not even the Mr. Olympia bonus could get him another gift next year? ???
There was nothing more for Haney to do. He competed for one reason: To break Arnold Schwarzenegger's record. And, he retired at the top of the heap, not riddled with injuries or a shadow (no pun intended) of his former self.
BTW - Haney was not undefeated, per this poster's title thread (he lost to Bannout in 1983).
Why didn't Yates compete in 1990, if he were so scary and Haney was so supposedly terrified of him?
Yates in 1992 basically looked the same as 1991, which was pretty great in its own right. Basically, he was a white Lee Haney (with a slightly wider waist) and that's why he won.
At the same size/bodyweight (as they were in 1991), Haney beats Yates due to his smaller waist and better proportions.
-
There was nothing more for Haney to do. He competed for one reason: To break Arnold Schwarzenegger's record. And, he retired at the top of the heap, not riddled with injuries or a shadow (no pun intended) of his former self.
BTW - Haney was not undefeated, per this poster's title thread (he lost to Bannout in 1983).
Why didn't Yates compete in 1990, if he were so scary and Haney was so supposedly terrified of him?
Yates in 1992 basically looked the same as 1991, which was pretty great in its own right. Basically, he was a white Lee Haney (with a slightly wider waist) and that's why he won.
At the same size/bodyweight (as they were in 1991), Haney beats Yates due to his smaller waist and better proportions.
comparison pic
-
Haney seemed like quite the class act.
"1"
-
There was nothing more for Haney to do. He competed for one reason: To break Arnold Schwarzenegger's record. And, he retired at the top of the heap, not riddled with injuries or a shadow (no pun intended) of his former self.
BTW - Haney was not undefeated, per this poster's title thread (he lost to Bannout in 1983).
Why didn't Yates compete in 1990, if he were so scary and Haney was so supposedly terrified of him?
Yates in 1992 basically looked the same as 1991, which was pretty great in its own right. Basically, he was a white Lee Haney (with a slightly wider waist) and that's why he won.
At the same size/bodyweight (as they were in 1991), Haney beats Yates due to his smaller waist and better proportions.
Yates was 239lbs in 1991 and Haney was 249lbs not the same weight. And in his first Olympia and a good 10lbs lighter he beat a career best Haney in the muscularity round.
-
Yates was 239lbs in 1991 and Haney was 249lbs not the same weight. And in his first Olympia and a good 10lbs lighter he beat a career best Haney in the muscularity round.
Haney was listed at 241 for that Olympia. That pic is from the ESPN broadcast of the 1991 Olympia, which I had on tape years ago (although, for the life, of me I can't find it).
Haney doesn't look ten pounds heavier than Yates in the pic Hypertrophy posted. Nor does he look that way here:
(https://www.ironmaglabs.com/wp-content/uploads/lee-haney-dorian-yates.jpg)
Haney's 241 to Yates' 239 (along with that pics) holds with what I said about the two of them being about the same size.
-
There was nothing more for Haney to do. He competed for one reason: To break Arnold Schwarzenegger's record. And, he retired at the top of the heap, not riddled with injuries or a shadow (no pun intended) of his former self.
BTW - Haney was not undefeated, per this poster's title thread (he lost to Bannout in 1983).
Why didn't Yates compete in 1990, if he were so scary and Haney was so supposedly terrified of him?
Yates in 1992 basically looked the same as 1991, which was pretty great in its own right. Basically, he was a white Lee Haney (with a slightly wider waist) and that's why he won.
At the same size/bodyweight (as they were in 1991), Haney beats Yates due to his smaller waist and better proportions.
Drug tested...
-
Haney was listed at 241 for that Olympia. That pic is from the ESPN broadcast of the 1991 Olympia, which I had on tape years ago (although, for the life, of me I can't find it).
Haney doesn't look ten pounds heavier than Yates in the pic Hypertrophy posted. Nor does he look that way here:
(https://www.ironmaglabs.com/wp-content/uploads/lee-haney-dorian-yates.jpg)
Haney's 241 to Yates' 239 (along with that pics) holds with what I said about the two of them being about the same size.
I have Haney's book and he states 249lbs for that contest.
-
How does Ronnie compare to Dorian? That would be an interesting comparison
-
How does Ronnie compare to Dorian? That would be an interesting comparison
Someone should start a thread - no truces...
-
I think Haney could have beaten Dorian one more year (92) as Dorian over dieted yet again. But 93? No way. That Dorian along with the 96 German Grand Prix was and always will be untouchable.
-
I pretty certain that monk's don't take shitloads of steroids, HGH and Buddha knows what else. Is Dorian imagining himself to be cerebral now? And just what is the meaning of the nickname "Doz".
-
Yates is the GOAT. After losing to Haney he must have gained 20lbs of muscle in one year.
-
Yates is the GOAT. After losing to Haney he must have gained 20lbs of muscle in one year.
You may be confusing 1992 with 1993. As stated earlier, Yates looked basically the same in 1992 as he did in 1991, virtually a white Lee Haney.
It was in 1993 that he put on that 20 pounds of muscle. Or, as Yates put it, he simply didn't diet off 20 pounds of muscle the way he did the previous year.
I have Haney's book and he states 249lbs for that contest.
I referenced articles (from memory) that had Haney at 241. Again, looking at the pics, do you really think Haney looks 10 lbs heavier than Yates?
To me, they're the same size.
That's why Yates would have to be somewhat bigger than Haney to beat him in a hypothetical rematch. Haney has him beat on shape and proportion.
-
You may be confusing 1992 with 1993. As stated earlier, Yates looked basically the same in 1992 as he did in 1991, virtually a white Lee Haney.
It was in 1993 that he put on that 20 pounds of muscle. Or, as Yates put it, he simply didn't diet off 20 pounds of muscle the way he did the previous year.
I referenced articles (from memory) that had Haney at 241. Again, looking at the pics, do you really think Haney looks 10 lbs heavier than Yates?
To me, they're the same size.
That's why Yates would have to be somewhat bigger than Haney to beat him in a hypothetical rematch. Haney has him beat on shape and proportion.
I referenced articles (from memory) that had Haney at 241. Again, looking at the pics, do you really think Haney looks 10 lbs heavier than Yates?
In some pictures yes I think he does.
That's why Yates would have to be somewhat bigger than Haney to beat him in a hypothetical rematch. Haney has him beat on shape and proportion.
I agree Dorian 1993 would beat Haney 1991. I think Haney has him on shape & symmetry but Dorian has him on conditioning & proportion. I've said before that id Haney 91 faced Dorian 92 he would beat him again, Dorian 92 weighed 242lbs not much bigger than 91, By 1993 Dorian would just overwhelm him.
In these pics I think Lee looks a good 10lbs bigger than Yates.
-
I think Haney could have beaten Dorian one more year (92) as Dorian over dieted yet again. But 93? No way. That Dorian along with the 96 German Grand Prix was and always will be untouchable.
You're assuming Haney couldn't have shown up at 255-260. What if Haney didn't over diet? It's not as if there was a big age difference. Haney is only 3 years or so older than Yates.
-
You're assuming Haney couldn't have shown up at 255-260. What if Haney didn't over diet? It's not as if there was a big age difference. Haney is only 3 years or so older than Yates.
He probably could have carried 255 but I can't envision him being as balanced and hard/grainy as 93 Yates. I do think Lee could have beaten the 92 Dorian if he was at his best.
-
In some pictures yes I think he does.
I agree Dorian 1993 would beat Haney 1991. I think Haney has him on shape & symmetry but Dorian has him on conditioning & proportion. I've said before that id Haney 91 faced Dorian 92 he would beat him again, Dorian 92 weighed 242lbs not much bigger than 91, By 1993 Dorian would just overwhelm him.
In these pics I think Lee looks a good 10lbs bigger than Yates.
Not to me. Arms look the same size. Haney has slightly bigger pecs. Yates appears to have the edge on legs.
He probably could have carried 255 but I can't envision him being as balanced and hard/grainy as 93 Yates. I do think Lee could have beaten the 92 Dorian if he was at his best.
Haney already had the balance edge on Yates. That's why Yates would have to be larger to beat Haney. As long as they're about the same size and both in good shape, advantage goes to the Totalee Awesome one.
-
Haney retired at 31. Most black bodybuilders dont peak until their late 30s. Haney had plenty more left in the tank had he been willing to push the limits like Dorian.
-
Haney retired at 31. Most black bodybuilders dont peak until their late 30s. Haney had plenty more left in the tank had he been willing to push the limits like Dorian.
Agreed. That was one of my points earlier. It's not as if Haney was like Dickerson, who squeaked out an Olympia win at the twilight of his career.
-
You're assuming Haney couldn't have shown up at 255-260. What if Haney didn't over diet? It's not as if there was a big age difference. Haney is only 3 years or so older than Yates.
You're assuming Haney overdieted, He didn't. In 1991 Haney said it was the only contest he entered where he peaked the day of the contest. He was 249lbs. Haney has competed at 257lbs at the 1989 Mr Olympia these are is his comments on the contest from his book Lee Haney's Ultimate Bodybuilding page 17.
" I was not my best for this contest. Instead of hitting the stage at 247-250 pounds, I was up to 257-my heaviest weight for an Olympia! The symmetry was on target , thank heaven,but I lacked the sharp definition, the awesome cuts, "
Haney has competed as high as Dorian's 1993 weight and admittedly his conditioning suffered for it. Lee couldn't touch Dorian 1993 no one could. It can't be understated Dorian in his first Mr Olympia ever and only his third pro contest ever , beat a career best Lee Haney in the muscularity round despite being a good 10lbs lighter! Dorian by 1993 would have easily beaten Haney 1991.
-
Do we think Haney was the last Mr O to not use insulin? i.e before they all started doing it?
-
You're assuming Haney overdieted, He didn't. In 1991 Haney said it was the only contest he entered where he peaked the day of the contest. He was 249lbs. Haney has competed at 257lbs at the 1989 Mr Olympia these are is his comments on the contest from his book Lee Haney's Ultimate Bodybuilding page 17.
" I was not my best for this contest. Instead of hitting the stage at 247-250 pounds, I was up to 257-my heaviest weight for an Olympia! The symmetry was on target , thank heaven,but I lacked the sharp definition, the awesome cuts, "
Haney has competed as high as Dorian's 1993 weight and admittedly his conditioning suffered for it. Lee couldn't touch Dorian 1993 no one could. It can't be understated Dorian in his first Mr Olympia ever and only his third pro contest ever , beat a career best Lee Haney in the muscularity round despite being a good 10lbs lighter! Dorian by 1993 would have easily beaten Haney 1991.
I heard Haney's comments in his presser after 1991, where he claimed he finally learned how to peak. But, who's to say that Haney couldn't have replicated that peak, condition-wise, with the extra size?
You make the same assumption that Haney could have been no better and bigger than he was in 1991. On what is that based?
Again, I don't see a so-called ten-pound difference between Yates and Haney. They looked approximately the same size. That is why I maintained that Yates could only beat Haney if he were substantially bigger than the Awesome One.
-
IMO, Yates could have beat Lee in a 1992 rematch.
Dorian won the muscularity round in '91. Lee would know this going into '92. As he said, he lost too many cuts in an earlier victory at 257ish. He had to understand that coming in much heavier would probably mean he'd lose the muscularity round again. No bueno.
Dorian, meanwhile, prepped for the Helsinki show knowing Lee was out; as such, he'd be the biggest top guy onstage, so his focus was on overdieting to be more ripped than his closest, much smaller competitors (Ray, Labrada, Taylor, Benaziza...not sure if Levrone was on his radar yet, but it didn't matter: Kevin was flatter than a steamrolled pancake in Finland).
IF Dorian knew Haney was still in the mix, I think he would have been smart enough to know he needed to be bigger to win -- and so, not go to such extreme depletion. He might not have been as crazy big as he was in 1993, but to face Haney, he'd be more than cut enough, and big enough, at ~250 to probably take it.
People keep saying, "Ah, who is to say Haney couldn't have gotten bigger still?" and such. That's an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Maybe he could have, but his track record doesn't support that. Was he light years bigger and better in 1991 than in '87 or '88? No. Advanced bodybuilders don't typically transform *for the better* after they've truly hit their stride. Dorian didn't after '93 or '95. Nasser didn't after '95 or '96. Ronnie exploded in 2003, but so did his gut and waistline. And poor Phil...LOL. The only part of him that really grew during his "reign" was his stomach.
-
Do we think Haney was the last Mr O to not use insulin? i.e before they all started doing it?
Yes.
I think we can also include no GH use as well. Unless we really think cadaver GH was readily available for bodybuilding use in the 80’s.
Lee retired and the game changed drastically.
-
word is it was Shirley who decided it was Lees time to step down, I think she reailsed just how much he put into the 91 Olympia and she wanted him around to help bring up the kids
-
IMO, Yates could have beat Lee in a 1992 rematch.
Dorian won the muscularity round in '91. Lee would know this going into '92. As he said, he lost too many cuts in an earlier victory at 257ish. He had to understand that coming in much heavier would probably mean he'd lose the muscularity round again. No bueno.
Dorian, meanwhile, prepped for the Helsinki show knowing Lee was out; as such, he'd be the biggest top guy onstage, so his focus was on overdieting to be more ripped than his closest, much smaller competitors (Ray, Labrada, Taylor, Benaziza...not sure if Levrone was on his radar yet, but it didn't matter: Kevin was flatter than a steamrolled pancake in Finland).
IF Dorian knew Haney was still in the mix, I think he would have been smart enough to know he needed to be bigger to win -- and so, not go to such extreme depletion. He might not have been as crazy big as he was in 1993, but to face Haney, he'd be more than cut enough, and big enough, at ~250 to probably take it.
People keep saying, "Ah, who is to say Haney couldn't have gotten bigger still?" and such. That's an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Maybe he could have, but his track record doesn't support that. Was he light years bigger and better in 1991 than in '87 or '88? No. Advanced bodybuilders don't typically transform *for the better* after they've truly hit their stride. Dorian didn't after '93 or '95. Nasser didn't after '95 or '96. Ronnie exploded in 2003, but so did his gut and waistline. And poor Phil...LOL. The only part of him that really grew during his "reign" was his stomach.
This whole idea that Yates had this mystical ability to transform his body, yet Haney couldn't do the same with his (with just a 3 years separating them in age), makes very little sense.
As I've said earlier, only with a substantial size advantage could Yates beat Haney, which is why some have to fix Haney at his 1991 size and conditioning.
It made perfect sense for Yates to focus on his conditioning, given how similar he was to Haney at that point. Nearly everyone he faced in 1992 he beat in 1991. With Haney gone, all Yates had to do is show up in shape and the Sandow was his for the taking.
-
I heard Haney's comments in his presser after 1991, where he claimed he finally learned how to peak. But, who's to say that Haney couldn't have replicated that peak, condition-wise, with the extra size?
You make the same assumption that Haney could have been no better and bigger than he was in 1991. On what is that based?
Again, I don't see a so-called ten-pound difference between Yates and Haney. They looked approximately the same size. That is why I maintained that Yates could only beat Haney if he were substantially bigger than the Awesome One.
I heard Haney's comments in his presser after 1991, where he claimed he finally learned how to peak. But, who's to say that Haney couldn't have replicated that peak, condition-wise, with the extra size?
You make the same assumption that Haney could have been no better and bigger than he was in 1991. On what is that based?
Perhaps he could we'll never know but we do know the higher bodyweight he competed at his said himself his conditioning suffered for it. And I think we can use his previous 8 Olympia appearances as a gauge if he could've been bigger & better if he could why wouldn't he?
Again, I don't see a so-called ten-pound difference between Yates and Haney. They looked approximately the same size. That is why I maintained that Yates could only beat Haney if he were substantially bigger than the Awesome One.
In the video it's more noticeable , to me at least. There's a noticeable difference and I would even say at the exact same weight ( 250lbs ) Dorian would beat Haney , His entire lower body his better and his conditioning is second to none.
-
I think we can also include no GH use as well. Unless we really think cadaver GH was readily available for bodybuilding use in the 80’s.
x2 . I think only the top bodybuilders would have had access to it. I've seen articles from the 1980's reporting children beating treated for dwarfism with cadaver growth hormone injections, facing shortages of the drug ,due to black market growth hormone use by athletes.
ATHLETES WARNED ON HORMONE
By Richard D. Lyons
June 14, 1984
New York Times
Many physicians concerned with the abuse of amphetamines and steroids in sports are warning that a newer type of drug that can also have broad and dangerous effects is gaining popularity among American athletes.
The drug is growth hormone, a substance that is essential for normal development in humans and animals when naturally secreted by the pituitary gland. But when artificially concentrated and taken in large doses to build muscle, it can lead to a wide variety of ailments, including diabetes, liver enlargement and bizarre warping and excessive growth of bones and joints.
''Taking growth hormone when it's not medically necessary is serious business, because you're fiddling with a very delicate chemical feedback mechanism, which may have very serious side effects,'' said Dr. Joseph Fetto, assistant professor of sports medicine at New York University.
It is not now possible to determine by medical tests whether a person is taking the hormone.
One proponent of the use of growth hormone by athletes, Dr. Robert P. Kerr of San Gabriel, Calif., insists that it does have a place in a training regimen, especially for weight lifters, field-event athletes and, to a lesser extent, football players.
''I'm only one of several hundred doctors who have been prescribing growth hormone for selected athletes,'' he said.
Dr. Kerr, a general practitioner who has many athletes as patients, added that, because of the potential for side effects, ''we don't give out such drugs promiscuously.''
But a dozen experts in sports medicine who were interviewed by The New York Times condemned the taking of growth hormone for body building, a situation they agreed was accelerating in popularity among American athletes despite the scarcity of the drug and its high cost.
A similar warning was issued last fall by experts attending a meeting on growth hormone that was held in Baltimore under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health.
Abuse of the drug is a relatively recent phenomenon, because only in the past few years have supplies of human growth hormone, obtained from cadavers, become available, and even then in very limited quantities. These supplies have been used almost exclusively for the treatment of dwarfism among children whose pituitary glands fail to secrete normal amounts of the hormone.
The experts said, however, that demand was being spurred by word-of- mouth accounts of enormous weight gains through the use of growth hormone. The fact that it can build body tissue is not in dispute. But there is a medical issue, in that the tissue growth may be extreme, and a philosophical one, in that there are those who decry such an artificial approach to enhancing performance.
The specialists said there was no doubt that the drug's use had reached the point where underground sources of supply had emerged, so that growth hormone was being extracted from cattle and monkeys. The hormone derived from cattle, they said, is useless in humans because growth hormone will work only in the same kind of animal from which it is extracted. Yet, the specialists added, the sale of bovine growth hormone continues, because those athletes using it are unaware that it has no effect in humans.
2 Foreign Manufacturers
These experts stated that some athletes, particularly weight lifters and those specializing in such events as the javelin throw and the shot-put, had been spending during the month before a major competition as much as $500 a week for injections of growth hormone obtained from Sweden and Italy, where it is produced by drug manufacturers.
The specialists emphasized that indiscriminate use of growth hormone could lead to serious physical consequences and warned that, since the hormone had recently been artificially produced by genetically modified bacteria, its cost would inevitably drop, which in turn could lead to an enormous potential for abuse.
''Growth hormone has become the new 'in' drug among athletes seeking to put on muscle mass,'' said Dr. Terry Todd, a professor of physical education at the University of Texas.
Dr. Todd, himself a former weight lifter, said the word had spread rapidly among athletes in the past year that growth hormone helps add body tissue. The substance ''is being sold all across the country under black- market conditions,'' he added.
Dr. Alan Rogol, a former marathoner who is a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia, said: ''The use of growth hormone came into sports very suddenly, so fast that word of its potential dangers has yet to catch up with the glowing reports of its value to athletes.
''I do everything I can to discourage the use of growth hormone,'' Dr. Rogol said, ''yet it is apparent that athletes are not listening and that there is an underground source of supply.''
His opinions were echoed by Dr. Melvin Grumbach of the University of California School of Medicine-San Francisco. ''The use of growth hormone is speading,'' Dr. Grumbach said, ''yet most of the athletes taking growth hormone haven't the vaguest idea of the problems that its abuse can lead to.'' No Means of Detection
The experts agreed that control of the drug in sports was impossible until a means of detecting excessive amounts could be developed.
Dr. Anthony Daly, the director of medical services for the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, said no efforts would be made to detect excess amounts of growth hormone among the contestants in the Games that are to be held this summer. Indeed, he said, growth hormone is not on the list of banned substances drawn up by the International Olympic Committee.
''Research is going on in England and Germany to develop a test,'' he said, ''but there is no test available now, so no one will be tested.''
Dr. Daly said that he knew of some athletes taking the drug but that, because price was serving to hold down its availability, he was unsure whether its abuse was currently a medical problem. ''But when the price falls, as it will,'' he added, ''you can be sure, based on our experiences with other drugs, that a lot more athletes are going to try it.'' Dr. Kerr, the proponent of the drug's use for certain athletes, said he saw nothing wrong with this. Indeed, he said, he has prescribed growth hormone for periods of up to six weeks and without any evidence of side effects. His concern is less the possible side effects, he said, than its availability on the black market.
''When growth hormone becomes more readily obtainable,'' Dr. Kerr said, ''there are going to be increased safety problems, such as overdosing, which is not happening now because of the short supply.''
Evidence of Adulteration
According the Dr. Kerr, the main problem with the misuse of growth hormone now is adulteration.
''Some of the material sold as growth hormone is nothing more than colored water, while some extracts have been made from monkey glands and cattle,'' Dr. Kerr warned, adding that he had heard of a few cases of acromegalia among weight lifters who had used monkey extract.
Acromegalia, or gigantism, is one of many serious side effects that may be caused by excessive amounts of growth hormone, which is one of 10 hormones produced by the pituitary gland, an organ about the size of a pea that lies beneath the brain at the base of the skull.
As explained by Dr. Fetto of the New York University School of Medicine, ''The side effects of growth hormone are so serious that I would never prescribe it for an athlete.
''It's known in medicine,'' he said, ''that a small number of individuals secrete too much growth hormone, which in adulthood can lead to bizarre growth of the jaw, feet and bones, as well as diabetes and severe problems with the endocrine glands. There are no beneficial effects from its use with athletes except for putting on weight.'
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/14/sports/athletes-warned-on-hormone.html (https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/14/sports/athletes-warned-on-hormone.html)
-
This whole idea that Yates had this mystical ability to transform his body, yet Haney couldn't do the same with his (with just a 3 years separating them in age), makes very little sense.
As I've said earlier, only with a substantial size advantage could Yates beat Haney, which is why some have to fix Haney at his 1991 size and conditioning.
It made perfect sense for Yates to focus on his conditioning, given how similar he was to Haney at that point. Nearly everyone he faced in 1992 he beat in 1991. With Haney gone, all Yates had to do is show up in shape and the Sandow was his for the taking.
This whole idea that Yates had this mystical ability to transform his body, yet Haney couldn't do the same with his (with just a 3 years separating them in age), makes very little sense.
It makes sense because we've seen Dorian do it and not Haney. Haney won his first Olympia in 1984 weighing 240lbs and his last he weighed 249lbs. Dorian won his first Olympia at 242lbs in 1997 and his last he was 266lbs admittedly not his best. We know Haney competed at 257lbs and his conditioning suffered for it.
As I've said earlier, only with a substantial size advantage could Yates beat Haney, which is why some have to fix Haney at his 1991 size and conditioning.
Dorian beat a career best Haney in the muscularity round despite being 10lbs lighter , mind you this was his first Mr Olympia ever and only his third pro show. Another 10lbs at the same weight as Haney in 1991 I think he would beat Haney. The only real advantage Haney had was experience and his symmetry , Dorian had better conditioning he was better balanced and more complete.
-
IMO, Yates could have beat Lee in a 1992 rematch.
Dorian won the muscularity round in '91. Lee would know this going into '92. As he said, he lost too many cuts in an earlier victory at 257ish. He had to understand that coming in much heavier would probably mean he'd lose the muscularity round again. No bueno.
Dorian, meanwhile, prepped for the Helsinki show knowing Lee was out; as such, he'd be the biggest top guy onstage, so his focus was on overdieting to be more ripped than his closest, much smaller competitors (Ray, Labrada, Taylor, Benaziza...not sure if Levrone was on his radar yet, but it didn't matter: Kevin was flatter than a steamrolled pancake in Finland).
IF Dorian knew Haney was still in the mix, I think he would have been smart enough to know he needed to be bigger to win -- and so, not go to such extreme depletion. He might not have been as crazy big as he was in 1993, but to face Haney, he'd be more than cut enough, and big enough, at ~250 to probably take it.
People keep saying, "Ah, who is to say Haney couldn't have gotten bigger still?" and such. That's an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Maybe he could have, but his track record doesn't support that. Was he light years bigger and better in 1991 than in '87 or '88? No. Advanced bodybuilders don't typically transform *for the better* after they've truly hit their stride. Dorian didn't after '93 or '95. Nasser didn't after '95 or '96. Ronnie exploded in 2003, but so did his gut and waistline. And poor Phil...LOL. The only part of him that really grew during his "reign" was his stomach.
this is flat as a pancake ???
E
-
this is flat as a pancake ???
E
Kevin hangin some serious dong in the side shots!
-
Humatrope was around and being used late 80s, prior to that it was cadaver look at Ed Kawak to see the side effects,wasn't widespread, but Haney and Dorian were both using HGH. The dosages were far lower than today and there was no insulin, I think it was insulin that blew Yates out in 93, but by 94 after using it off season it had blown his guts out as well. Still by far the best guy we have ever seen, especially 93. Haney a good olympia winner too in his own right.
-
Yes.
I think we can also include no GH use as well. Unless we really think cadaver GH was readily available for bodybuilding use in the 80’s.
Lee retired and the game changed drastically.
It was probably counterfeit, but someone showed me some Russian stuff back around '90/91. He was my bulk supplier back then, but I didn't know what I was looking at LOL. Everyone just wanted deca and d-bol. They thought I was fancy pants buying Parabolan (smh)
Small town business (sigh)
-
this is flat as a pancake ???
E
For him? Definitely nowhere near as full as he had been the year prior, and if you look at ~1:17 there, his back is sorely lacking in thickness.
However, he still looked great, and I did overstate my case, mate. "Pancake" was much too harsh.
-
So apparently I was wrong about GH being available during Haney's era.
Could he have continued to add size after his last competition? I think so, Haney was in a maintenance phase of his career. I dont think he was pushing the boundaries of his physique's limits (he may have already reached it though).
Could he have beaten Dorain? Yes. He already did. The question is would the judges continued to award Haney with wins if he came in with more size? This is the real question. I think the answer is no. Lee may have gotten another win but it was Dorian's time, Lee dominated for a decade and it was time for a changing of the guard.
-
this is flat as a pancake ???
E
Pre-nose job Kevin days. So much smaller in size here at age 28 compared to his early to mid 30's.
-
So apparently I was wrong about GH being available during Haney's era.
<adjusts poster rankings>
-
Maybe I didn't explain my reasoning so well. Let's try again.
Dorian thinks Haney is competing in Helsinki. He knows three things (all of which he later said himself, btw).
He won the muscularity round in 1991.
He overdieted and lost muscle in the process. He could very likely have stopped or slowed his depletion phase and, thus, retained more size onstage.
Lee was a bit bigger and shaplier than him. That's why Lee won.
Simple logic here: with a minor change in Yates' prep, he can be just as cut as '91 but be as big of bigger than the '91 Lee. Lee would still have an advantage in aesthetics, but all things being equal**** (remember that; it'll be important later), Dorian has a better shot at winning this time.
Meanwhile, back in Atlanta, Lee considers the reality of his situation.
He lost the muscularity round last year. To win again, he faces a few possibilities:
1. Keep his prep the same. Try to improve on everything, obviously, but hope last year's physique will still win. Dorian still had some ground to make up, after all.
2. Sacrifice some muscle, which plays to one of Dorian's strengths, at the risk of losing to the Brit in conditioning AND size;
3. Add an appreciable amount of new lean mass and try to come in at least as defined as 1991.
#1 is perhaps his best bet. Haney should know he won't beat Dorian on conditioning, and losing size to even the 238-pound Doz from last year could negate all but Lee's own greatest qualities. So, out goes option 2.
Unfortunately, Dorian is still growing and improving by the contest. Yes, they ARE similar in age, but Haney has been world-class since before Dorian even _started training_. To assume Yates won't be better in '92 is folly.
That brings us to #3.
With all due respect to you, MCWAY (you've got to be one of the best chaps here for intelligent discussion), I think I addressed the difference between Yates and Haney vis a vis their respective abilities to "magically" transform themselves. Lee was indeed young when he retired, but he had also more or less presented the same Olympia physique for many years -- and the time he actually did try to compete in the high 250s, he was, by his own admission, too heavy.
Put another way: while he was his *best* in '91, that wasn't his *biggest*. He had many opportunities to shock everybody and come in bigger, but as noted, the one time he tried, his look suffered for it.
As I also said, Dorian had fewer years of training under his belt. By the time he won a national title, Lee had won multiple Olympias. It's only natural (haha!) Yates was going to continue to get bigger and bigger.
Finally, as ND said, the proof is in the pudding. Yates demonstrated the ability to take a huge leap forward in quality size within a year. Lee...not so much or, at least, at that level of development (shredded at 240+). He was a good bit smaller and far less complete when he leapfrogged the field from 1983 to his first couple of Olympia victories. Going from 230 to 240 is not comparable to Dorian's jump between '92-'93.
Tl;Dr version: Had Lee precisely replicated his '91 form in '92 AND Dorian competed looking just as he did, Lee probably retained an edge and could have won again. But I honestly believe if Yates knew Lee was competing again, Dorian had more options in his prep, would have adjusted accordingly, and if not defeated Lee, would have lost in the closest Olympia decision ever.
-
<adjusts poster rankings>
;D
-
So apparently I was wrong about GH being available during Haney's era.
Could he have continued to add size after his last competition? I think so, Haney was in a maintenance phase of his career. I dont think he was pushing the boundaries of his physique's limits (he may have already reached it though).
Could he have beaten Dorain? Yes. He already did. The question is would the judges continued to award Haney with wins if he came in with more size? This is the real question. I think the answer is no. Lee may have gotten another win but it was Dorian's time, Lee dominated for a decade and it was time for a changing of the guard.
I agree Haney was a great Olympia winner better than Ronnie IMO, his prep was fairly moderate, super nice family guy who approached the sport with a degree of risk which was always going to hold back your potential in this circus but in saying that he could have done what Dorian did it still would not have made a difference especially in 93. Yates was on another level.
-
Maybe I didn't explain my reasoning so well. Let's try again.
Dorian thinks Haney is competing in Helsinki. He knows three things (all of which he later said himself, btw).
He won the muscularity round in 1991.
He overdieted and lost muscle in the process. He could very likely have stopped or slowed his depletion phase and, thus, retained more size onstage.
Lee was a bit bigger and shaplier than him. That's why Lee won.
Simple logic here: with a minor change in Yates' prep, he can be just as cut as '91 but be as big of bigger than the '91 Lee. Lee would still have an advantage in aesthetics, but all things being equal**** (remember that; it'll be important later), Dorian has a better shot at winning this time.
Meanwhile, back in Atlanta, Lee considers the reality of his situation.
He lost the muscularity round last year. To win again, he faces a few possibilities:
1. Keep his prep the same. Try to improve on everything, obviously, but hope last year's physique will still win. Dorian still had some ground to make up, after all.
2. Sacrifice some muscle, which plays to one of Dorian's strengths, at the risk of losing to the Brit in conditioning AND size;
3. Add an appreciable amount of new lean mass and try to come in at least as defined as 1991.
#1 is perhaps his best bet. Haney should know he won't beat Dorian on conditioning, and losing size to even the 238-pound Doz from last year could negate all but Lee's own greatest qualities. So, out goes option 2.
Unfortunately, Dorian is still growing and improving by the contest. Yes, they ARE similar in age, but Haney has been world-class since before Dorian even _started training_. To assume Yates won't be better in '92 is folly.
That brings us to #3.
With all due respect to you, MCWAY (you've got to be one of the best chaps here for intelligent discussion), I think I addressed the difference between Yates and Haney vis a vis their respective abilities to "magically" transform themselves. Lee was indeed young when he retired, but he had also more or less presented the same Olympia physique for many years -- and the time he actually did try to compete in the high 250s, he was, by his own admission, too heavy.
Put another way: while he was his *best* in '91, that wasn't his *biggest*. He had many opportunities to shock everybody and come in bigger, but as noted, the one time he tried, his look suffered for it.
As I also said, Dorian had fewer years of training under his belt. By the time he won a national title, Lee had won multiple Olympias. It's only natural (haha!) Yates was going to continue to get bigger and bigger.
Finally, as ND said, the proof is in the pudding. Yates demonstrated the ability to take a huge leap forward in quality size within a year. Lee...not so much or, at least, at that level of development (shredded at 240+). He was a good bit smaller and far less complete when he leapfrogged the field from 1983 to his first couple of Olympia victories. Going from 230 to 240 is not comparable to Dorian's jump between '92-'93.
Tl;Dr version: Had Lee precisely replicated his '91 form in '92 AND Dorian competed looking just as he did, Lee probably retained an edge and could have won again. But I honestly believe if Yates knew Lee was competing again, Dorian had more options in his prep, would have adjusted accordingly, and if not defeated Lee, would have lost in the closest Olympia decision ever.
Thanks for the compliment. But, the issue I have here is this notion that somehow Dorian has some secret method to transform himself that Haney doesn't. The only rationale I see for such a notion is age; but, as I've mention there's only a 3-year gap between the two.
If, as Haney claimed, he finally learned how to peak in 1991, that's a SCARY NOTION in my eyes. It would mean that he could conceivably beef back up to 257 or so....WITH the conditioning he had in 1991. I simply don't buy this idea that Haney maxed out his size and conditioning potential at his last Olympia. If he were 5-10 years older than Yates, that'd be one thing. But just three years? I don't think so.
I give you Dexter Jackson as an example. Many competitors and experts (including Yates, ironically) thought Jackson was done in 2011 when he barely cracked the top 6 a the Olympia. Then in 2012, he returned with a vengeance, winning shows left and right, including the Masters Olympia. And, in 2015, he came oh-so-close to bagging another Sandow. The consensus was that Jackson looked even better than he did when he won the O in 2008 at age 38....seven years older than the age when Haney retired.
Then there's the matter that Haney has no real motivation to compete anymore. He's made plenty of money; he broke Schwarzenegger's record; he has a new baby (his daughter Olympia); and he's already defeated Yates. Beating him again doesn't really add to his legacy.
I think we both agree that Haney has Yates beat on aesthetics; so the Shadow would have to be bigger (and assumably harder) to beat the Awesome One. Where we differ is Haney's theoretical ability to morph in to 255-260 of mass with supreme conditioning.
Maybe it's these old peepers of mine (all four of them). But, I just don't see a 10-pound weight advantage for Haney (either in the pics or the videos).
-
For him? Definitely nowhere near as full as he had been the year prior, and if you look at ~1:17 there, his back is sorely lacking in thickness.
However, he still looked great, and I did overstate my case, mate. "Pancake" was much too harsh.
he was an amateur the year prior
this was the smallest he was in his pro career, but also the most ripped, he said he wasn't willing to suffer like this again in his career
E