I understand what ND was trying to say, but I don't think "lucky" is the best word.
Since Flex was the 'Heir Apparent', if he had shown up in his Arnold Classic 1993 form, the judgeswould have given him the title.
Ronnie earned it, kicked every ass onstage that day, but in a sense he was "lucke" that Flex was 'off' enough that the judges couldn't 'give' him the title.
Geez, I hope I used enough of "these" to keep from getting flamed!
problem is, that is not what the biased idiot is saying.
you are saying that Ronnie is lucky that Flex was off because if he was ON the judges would have awarded him the title even if the out of nowhere Ronnie was better. In otherwords, had flex been ON, politics would have given him the title no matter what.
that is NOT what ND is saying.
ND is saying that Ronnie was lucky based on how he compared to flex on that day, which is stupid because we can all see that Ronnie is owing flex from every angle. Flex was softer everwhere except for the quads, and had massive oil in his arms and delts. his back was thin and narrow compared to Ronnie's among a million other things.
Ronnie was NOT "lucky" to have beaten flex as he appeared onstage that day. He crushed him and won the title deservedly so.
that is totally different than ND saying he was lucky to win because they were so close.
they were not that close and we can all see it.
the ONLY people saying otherwise are ND and the haters ( eg. Probecito aka England) from the truce thread