Nasser's incredible back ( no seriously )

[NarcissisticDeity]

All I can says is WOW to bad he couldn't get his back like this when he weighed 285 pounds , his back is the best I've ever seen it

[Bast000]

All I can says is WOW to bad he couldn't get his back like this when he weighed 285 pounds , his back is the best I've ever seen it

That's because he did not gain quality weight after that, he just got smoother.  Synthol and water weight.

[kiwiol]

All I can says is WOW to bad he couldn't get his back like this when he weighed 285 pounds , his back is the best I've ever seen it

Looks great in that shot. I could be wrong, but I think that his back development was hampered due to how wide his clavicles were - you can't have a full ROM on a lot of back exercises when you have that 'problem'. Of course, his genetics didn't come in handy at the higher bodyweight either, as far as his back is concerned.

[bigbobs]

That's because he did not gain quality weight after that, he just got smoother.  Synthol and water weight.

Yup, you can see 30 lbs of synthol and water in these shots! 

[NarcissisticDeity]

1994 V 1997 you can see the drastic change in overall quality I mean his small waist is gone his glutes are super huge I always said he looked his best at 250 pounds

[bigbobs]

1994 V 1997 you can see the drastic change in overall quality I mean his small waist is gone his glutes are super huge I always said he looked his best at 250 pounds

But then why would he get lower placings in 94 than in 97?  Point I'm trying to make is that judging standards can be very biased.

[aussiepro]

nasser looked like complete shit in 97... he looked a lot better when he was younger, he actually looked good in 94 or so.... but after that when he couldn't win a MR O title and started using huge amounts of oil, he fucked his body up beyond belief... oh yeah and he beats his wife

[NarcissisticDeity]

But then why would he get lower placings in 94 than in 97?  Point I'm trying to make is that judging standards can be very biased.

Biased I don't think so , it's all contingent on the competition , Nasser did well even at 250 pounds but purely from an all-around standpoint I think he looked his best at 250 pounds , the same with Coleman

[kiwiol]

But then why would he get lower placings in 94 than in 97?  Point I'm trying to make is that judging standards can be very biased.

After Dorian's wins in 93 and 94, a lot of the pros started playing the mass game big time. So you suddenly had a whole crop of 5'7 - 5'9" guys weighing 240 - 245 lbs onstage (K Lo, Flex, M Francois, Aaron Baker etc). So guys like Nasser who had a much bigger frame had no choice but to go up in size to look just as filled out.

That's why Nasser won the 95 NOC IMO - he was way too massive and muscular for the likes of the much lighter Vince Taylor and others. I think Nasser's weight went up by about 20 - 30 lbs between '94 and '95. I remember his talking about all the chicken breasts he was eating - good shit

[Camel Jockey]

Look at Huge Nasser owning Levrone and Yates.

[bigbobs]

Biased I don't think so , it's all contingent on the competition , Nasser did well even at 250 pounds but purely from an all-around standpoint I think he looked his best at 250 pounds , the same with Coleman

So you think the competition in 94 was so much more fierce than in 97 that you could still get a 2nd place in 97 with a worse physique than 7th in 94?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Look at Huge Nasser owning Levrone and Yates.

he's not owning Yates , you have to understand that all rounds are physique rounds and when you take this into consideration Nasser is losing that pose , he does have some advantages but overall when all things are considered all rounds are physique rounds

[Camel Jockey]

he's not owning Yates , you have to understand that all rounds are physique rounds and when you take this into consideration Nasser is losing that pose , he does have some advantages but overall when all things are considered all rounds are physique rounds

Where is Yates' left bicep?   

[NarcissisticDeity]

So you think the competition in 94 was so much more fierce than in 97 that you could still get a 2nd place in 97 with a worse physique than 7th in 94?

It all depends on the particular contest and who he faced and his level of conditioned etc , to many variables

[bigbobs]

It all depends on the particular contest and who he faced and his level of conditioned etc , to many variables

Yeah, but you know all these variables already. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Where is Yates' left bicep?   

One is shorter than the other , the same can be said for where is Nasser's forearms? forearms are just as important in the front double biceps shot as the biceps , you have to understand all rounds are physique rounds too , again Nasser has some advantages but overall he's not winning that shot .

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yeah, but you know all these variables already. 

Not for every competition in every year !

[bigbobs]

Not for every competition in every year !

Just discussing 94 vs. 97 here.  You said he was better in 94 than in 97.  He placed much lower in 94 than in 97.  So unless there was a HUGE decline in the competition from 94 to 97 (which there was not) - your statement implies that judging was not fair.

[Camel Jockey]

One is shorter than the other , the same can be said for where is Nasser's forearms? forearms are just as important in the front double biceps shot as the biceps , you have to understand all rounds are physique rounds too , again Nasser has some advantages but overall he's not winning that shot .

 


I understand the fact that Nasser looked loads better and was more complete except for his back development.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Just discussing 94 vs. 97 here.  You said he was better in 94 than in 97.  He placed much lower in 94 than in 97.  So unless there was a HUGE decline in the competition from 94 to 97 (which there was not) - your statement implies that judging was not fair.

Well in 94 I believe he was under 250 pounds at the Olympia and thats a whole other level of competition , and size is part of the judging criteria so while he did look much better overall lighter he needed to add some size to run with the big dogs but this size came at a cost

[aussiepro]

nasser looked better in 94, if he kept at it and tried to add small amounts of muscle each year (5-7 pounds). then maybe he could have won a MR O title... but instead he tried adding too much muscle too fast with using the aid of toooooooo much oil. that in the end fucked him up... his physique in 97 was bigger than 94 but not better...

[NarcissisticDeity]

I understand the fact that Nasser looked loads better and was more complete except for his back development.

No you believe that it doesn't make it a fact ! again forearms are just as important as biceps in the front double biceps shot among other factors just because you're willing to overlook this doesn't mean the judges would you harp on Yates shorter bicep while ignoring the forearms and the fact that part of symmetry ( balance & proportion ) is torso length , Nasser has a long torso and short legs this is being judged as well , now couple that with density & dryness , all of these are assessed in the pose not just what you think wins a shot .

[D_1000]

Just discussing 94 vs. 97 here.  You said he was better in 94 than in 97.  He placed much lower in 94 than in 97.  So unless there was a HUGE decline in the competition from 94 to 97 (which there was not) - your statement implies that judging was not fair.

Overall preferences change. As long as on a given year the competitors are judged similarly, then it is fair. There was a big change in judging towards emphasis on more mass as the decade rolled on.

[bigbobs]

No you believe that it doesn't make it a fact ! again forearms are just as important as biceps in the front double biceps shot among other factors just because you're willing to overlook this doesn't mean the judges would you harp on Yates shorter bicep while ignoring the forearms and the fact that part of symmetry ( balance & proportion ) is torso length , Nasser has a long torso and short legs this is being judged as well , now couple that with density & dryness , all of these are assessed in the pose not just what you think wins a shot .

For argument's sake, let's say forearms were just as important as biceps in that front double biceps shot (hypothetically).  Nasser still beats Dorian in that shot in every other bodypart - triceps, chest, abs, quads, etc.

[NarcissisticDeity]

For argument's sake, let's say forearms were just as important as biceps in that front double biceps shot (hypothetically).  Nasser still beats Dorian in that shot in every other bodypart - triceps, chest, abs, quads, etc.

Again you're like Hulkster trying to add up the parts to made the best sum it doesn't work that way and there is no hypothetically read the IFBB judging criteria it states the forearms are just as important , just like torso length , leg length , and I disagree about the parts how you made the leap he has better triceps is beyond me comparable sure the same with the chest again its very comparable abs Nasser's are more visible in this shot it doesn't mean their better , quads Nasser's are bigger but look a lot softer now couple that with all the other factors and Yates is clearly winning this shot