Author Topic: NPC Nationals: Stan McQuay gets his procard (Read 12254 times)

Fuller muscle bellies don't automatically mean victory. We have to BE THERE to really judge
McQuay & Charles. Stan's physique "Flows" much better. Stan is excellent at presentation, while the 2nd place guy's posing was mediocre. Stan could have used a little more color, pro-tan.

The judges most likely made the right call, they were there. There are too many "Conspiracy theorists" on Get Big. NPC & IFBB are NOT rigged or fixed at all..It is silly talk & sour grapes to go on & on about athletes getting screwed all the time. It was a close race for LHW. Charles Dixon had some flaws. Stan McQuay had the least flaws. His body was closest to perfect & he PRESENTED THAT to the judges perfectly.

Parker · « **Reply #33 on:** November 13, 2006, 04:55:47 AM »

Quote from: jammer on November 13, 2006, 04:09:05 AM

Stan McQuay had the least flaws. His body was closest to perfect & he PRESENTED THAT to the judges perfectly.

Ahhhh, NOOOOO. Dude looked light as hell. Dixon, was cut to ribbons, bigger arms, legs, striations, better back. I guess trampstamps on guys work wonders. It makes others see things thing that aren't really there.

columbusdude82 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 13, 2006, 05:05:36 AM »

Stan McQuay is tiny... he looks like a starving african child compared to most other guys on stage... there's a pro card gone to waste!

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #35 on:** November 13, 2006, 05:48:48 AM »

LOL 5' 3" LOL

jammer · « **Reply #36 on:** November 13, 2006, 07:07:34 AM »

Quote from: Parker on November 13, 2006, 04:55:47 AM

Ahhhh, NOOOOO. Dude looked light as hell. Dixon, was cut to ribbons, bigger arms, legs, striations, better back. I guess trampstamps on guys work wonders. It makes others see things thing that aren't really there.

What did Cory Everson used to say ?
"Don't Grow it if you can't show it"

Charles has tons of muscle but cant pose. Reminds me of an early Coleman.
Ronnie couldnt pose well in his early years.
Stan's the man.

tflexxin · « **Reply #37 on:** November 13, 2006, 07:28:01 AM »

Fellas, relax. I'm sick on stan mcquay, just like all of you. The guy got a major gift! BUT SO DID WE. We are now RID OF HAVING TO WATCH STAN MCQUAY COMPETE AT THE AMATUER LEVEL!!!!! His ass will be clowned at any pro level show, he can't compete, so look at it as a blessing. Charles will get his dues, at the USA's.

Chick · « **Reply #38 on:** November 13, 2006, 08:05:34 AM »

For anyone who was actually there, it was as close as it gets between these two...

This was truly a "apples and oranges" type of comparison...reminded me of 1987 Nationals and trying to pick a winner between Shawn Ray and Phil Hill, two very different physiques.

There was a choice to be made...Stan was given the nod with a better flow, better presentation of physique, better symmetry and proportion, it was certainly no "gift"...

On another given day, with a different panel, perhaps they go with the thicker muscle, etc.

Dixon is a damn good bodybuilder, and will have his day with a little polish.

The post by "Jammer" in this thread sums it up quite well...

will938 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 13, 2006, 08:09:55 AM »

Quote from: Vince G, CSN MFT on November 11, 2006, 08:58:08 PM

No he doesn't. Not by a longshot.

You're having a laugh, you can't even afford trunks that fit

legbreaker · « **Reply #40 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:20:58 AM »

Quote from: Chick on November 13, 2006, 08:05:34 AM

For anyone who was actually there, it was as close as it gets between these two...

This was truly a "apples and oranges" type of comparison...reminded me of 1987 Nationals and trying to pick a winner between Shawn Ray and Phil Hill, two very different physiques.

There was a choice to be made...Stan was given the nod with a better flow, better presentation of physique, better symmetry and proportion, it was certainly no "gift"...

On another given day, with a different panel, perhaps they go with the thicker muscle, etc.

Dixon is a damn good bodybuilder, and will have his day with a little polish.

The post by "Jammer" in this thread sums it up quite well...

Yeah right!!!! Give it a break. Stan has NO LEGS...yes you read that right, NO LEGS and his hams are soft...nationals winner...I can find state level guys with better legs...EASY...he is paper thin from the side and if you were actually there(I know you were because you were basically in the same row as me at pre judg ight heavy class) than you saw he was paper thin. his arms are un naturally shaped and not at all dense (no striations in tri), torso is good, back has separation but not enough muscle, shoulders un naturally round and legs look like a state level guy at best. It really is too bad that Stan is getting all these HONEST critiques because he is a good bodybuilder, but NOT the true winner of that class....and it was plainly and easily obvious to anyone there......Bob, yu are a good bodybuilder, even though you over did the synthol, so try to keep any credibility you have by recanting this ridiculous statement. In this case, the pix actually make Stan appear better than he is...believe me that's the truth.

Chick · « **Reply #41 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:33:00 AM »

see...you had a decent rebuttal going until you made the "synthol" comment, now I know you have no clue what you're talking about.

Anyone who would look at my physique and think I ever used synthol, or anything remotely like it...doesn't know Bodybuilding.

BTW...I could come up with just as many critiques for Dixon.

njflex · « **Reply #42 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:41:22 AM »

mcquay is good ,but look at past lightheavies,johnnie jackson,dugdale,were dense and conditioned,he would have had a tough time with those guy's,but he was jugded and that is the outcome,he is deserving no doubt ,but that class had 5 good guy's .

legbreaker · « **Reply #43 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:41:45 AM »

I know you can come up with just as many crtiques for Dixon. he aint perfect, but was easily better than Stan and I do not think that you truely feel he was either. You've been around too long and accomplished too much to be that poor of a judge. I will go so far as to say that NOT ONE IFBB TOP TEN PRO that was at the show and is not a friend of Stans will say that he should have won that class.

legbreaker · « **Reply #44 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:44:32 AM »

Quote from: njflex on November 13, 2006, 10:41:22 AM

mcquay is good ,but look at past lightheavies,johnnie jackson,dugdale,were dense and conditioned,he would have had a tough time with those guy's,but he was jugded and that is the outcome,he is deserving no doubt ,but that class had 5 good guy's .

And to me that is the unfortunate thing about the outcome. If Stan had come in second many, including myself, would mention how terrific he looked and the improvements he's made, but in this case I can't.

Chick · « **Reply #45 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:46:31 AM »

As I said...It came down to a preference. Both had their strong points and weak points. Stan had command of his poses and displayed his physique better. Stan looked polished, Dixon looked more like an amateur in his posing and his ability to show his physique...

njflex · « **Reply #46 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:48:07 AM »

and that's the flip side ,u would have said he did great to finish second,then have to wait a whole year to see if he could pull a first,we all know in bbing a year either make's or break's ya,could have improved or passed by dixon or another guy,this was a let's get it done year or else.

Chick · « **Reply #47 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:48:43 AM »

Quote from: legbreaker on November 13, 2006, 10:44:32 AM

And to me that is the unfortunate thing about the outcome. If Stan had come in second many, including myself, would mention how terrific he looked and the improvements he's made, but in this case I can't.

Pleeeease..If Stan had come in second, everyone would be bitchin about how HE got screwed and how the more symmetrical physique should win over a guy with more muscle, etc, etc.....

legbreaker · « **Reply #48 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:52:33 AM »

That's very accurate, his posing is way off. I for one wish that it meant as much as it did when I first competed in the 80's and when you competed, but it doesn't as is evident by Ronnie colemans Mr. O success, regardless of his poor posing. Powerful posing and presentation is a lost art and as you saw saturday night, has not made a comeback....but your saying it should count in Stan's case? I disagree.

Chick · « **Reply #49 on:** November 13, 2006, 10:58:07 AM »

You're talking about aa posing routine..which accounts for 0 at the amateur level..I'm talking about DISPLAYING the physique, and the ability to have command of the mandatories...Stan did both better.

Dixon had more muscle, but looked ackward in presenting it....which DOES have an impact on how the physique comes across to the judges.

The INability to display the better physique takes the advantage out of having more muscular physique, and levels the playing field for the other guy with less muscle...it also brings out the weaknesses/ flaws.

I think If Dixon had beter control of his physique, he beats Stan.