Author Topic: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...  (Read 25718 times)

WillGrant

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21058
  • Ron is Watching
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #125 on: July 04, 2009, 10:41:22 PM »
not about the shit you conveyed that he said to Mentzer before he went on stage
that is unadulterated bs
Were you there Moose? Cos George Butler was , snapping and filming for the doco "the comeback" and he is on record relaying this line making note to how funny it was to watch hering Arnolds austrian accent and the way it deflated mentzer like a knife into a football.

Ive a copy of MMI sitting right here where butler talks about it a non weider properganda magazine btw.

Face it , Arnold dominated on stage and in the minds of his so called competition.

lax

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3768
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #126 on: July 04, 2009, 10:45:00 PM »
Were you there Moose? Cos George Butler was , snapping and filming for the doco "the comeback" and he is on record relaying this line making note to how funny it was to watch hering Arnolds austrian accent and the way it deflated mentzer like a knife into a football.

Ive a copy of MMI sitting right here where butler talks about it a non weider properganda magazine btw.

Face it , Arnold dominated on stage and in the minds of his so called competition.

MMI.

Now there is a reputable source...I hear all the IFBB pros write their own articles in there, too.

WillGrant

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21058
  • Ron is Watching
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #127 on: July 04, 2009, 10:46:39 PM »
MMI.

Now there is a reputable source...I hear all the IFBB pros write their own articles in there, too.
As reputable as you claiming not to be moosejay?  ;D

Figo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #128 on: July 05, 2009, 01:06:03 AM »
Face it , Arnold dominated on stage and in the minds of his so called competition.

that, he did!

Figo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #129 on: July 05, 2009, 01:07:29 AM »
Even if Arnold had weak legs it doesn't mean that the rest of the guys did, so how did Zane beat them?
Anyway Arnolds legs were twice as big as Zanes, and Zane just looked like crap I'm sorry to say.


Zane was far from his best in 80, injuries made him reconsider competing that year, but he went ahead.

Tarantula157

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 719
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #130 on: July 05, 2009, 03:10:30 AM »
Zane was far from his best in 80, injuries made him reconsider competing that year, but he went ahead.
...And he asked his friend Arnold whether to compete,but Arnold gave him the wrong advice :-\

ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1717
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #131 on: October 26, 2010, 11:03:52 AM »
Arnold's form sucks.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBSquat.html

, position bar high on back of shoulders


Muscles

Target

    * Quadriceps

Royal Lion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #132 on: October 26, 2010, 12:23:59 PM »
This is a great shot of Arnold from 1980.  He deserved the win.


Immortal_Technique

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2196
  • "It's all a bunch of shit, I say fuck it" - DF
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #133 on: October 26, 2010, 01:07:29 PM »
Mentzer's HIT chest was shallow. His 4' frame let him down. Good forarms yes but got dwarfed overall everywhere except quads.

funk51

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 42550
  • Getbig!
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #134 on: October 26, 2010, 01:26:22 PM »
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux
also roger walker, he bitches about his placement in a bodybuilding.com interview.
F

NordicNerd

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 921
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #135 on: October 26, 2010, 11:33:11 PM »
What it means, simply, is the show was fixed for Arnold. He would have been 8-9th place in a fair show

I'm not seing what you are seing. To me, based on the pictures, Arnold is the winner, The others look like midgets compared to him and he has some standout bodyparts like arm and chest. Legs are not impressive though.

NN

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #136 on: October 27, 2010, 03:24:01 AM »
AS DOWNSIZED as he was there from his best ,he is still in most shots schooling mentzer.which proves if it was 73/75 mentzer would be wiping the sweat of arnolds brow.

yup,,, this was the best chance anyone ever had at beatin arnold,, they stil couldnt.

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #137 on: October 27, 2010, 03:26:25 AM »
I'd have Duval, Katz, Corney, and even Waller ahead of him...Tony Emmott, too...just by virtue that they at least TRAINED legs

Pollux

you see
but you don't see
A would have had a hard time beating wheelchair bb's with those 'wheels'

You gotta admit this


yeah gotta admit too same way arnold made it look like everyone else didnt even train upper body
arnold didnt have a lot of size on his legs but he destroye everyone everywhere else.  stnding near anyone it was evident he won

Lion666

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1080
  • You gotta bring it to get it!
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #138 on: October 27, 2010, 03:33:06 AM »
well
'aNtony'

look at arnold zane bdb pose

Zane=legs
Arnold=NO LEGS

no Olympia with no legs

understand?

yeah but its a bdb pise,, if we go by comments before about arnolds legs as small, he has bigger legs than zane buy zanes are more cut, however arnolds in bdb not really flex quad
so even  just bc arnlds legs werent greast he had some points that they were there traind with ome size but he destroyed uveryone on upperbosy. if legs were the difference maker all the time platz woulda won o's...
it does add,, repeat add to jay's dominance.
in a close call thats helps but if an upper body is superior wirh slightly weaker lower bod compared to the competitors upr body win 

wild willie

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5642
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #139 on: October 27, 2010, 07:18:05 AM »
Guys......


Here is the bottom line.....

Arnold trained 6-8 weeks for this show......was he at his best......NO.....but was he good enough to beat these other gents.....YES.....the only guy that comes close is Chris Dickerson.....Arnold 1st place and Chris 2nd place......Arnold's bis were unreal in 80......as was his chest......along with those insane calves.....Dickerson's calves were mind blowing.....Arnold also had a nice routine......and he was in pretty darn good condition......He was good enough to win in 80......my .02!

Darren Avey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8127
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #140 on: October 27, 2010, 07:26:02 AM »
Arnie was the clear winner in 80, if you disagree you know nothing about body building.

hench

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8458
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #141 on: October 27, 2010, 07:29:44 AM »
yep add to that Arnold was very cut and vascular.
Even Dickersons calves amazing were tiny next to Arnolds which were actually smaller than usual. So just goes to show how good Arnold still was
Guys......


Here is the bottom line.....

Arnold trained 6-8 weeks for this show......was he at his best......NO.....but was he good enough to beat these other gents.....YES.....the only guy that comes close is Chris Dickerson.....Arnold 1st place and Chris 2nd place......Arnold's bis were unreal in 80......as was his chest......along with those insane calves.....Dickerson's calves were mind blowing.....Arnold also had a nice routine......and he was in pretty darn good condition......He was good enough to win in 80......my .02!

JP_RC

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #142 on: October 27, 2010, 07:39:49 AM »
Arnie was the clear winner in 80, if you disagree you know nothing about body building.

QFT

monstercalves

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2325
  • Jesse James Dean Martin Lawrence Fishburne
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #143 on: October 27, 2010, 07:47:16 AM »
actually the weirdos are the people that hate pro bodybuilding yet continue to post here

what do you have to say about them "freud" ::)

E


well said earl...... i dont understands these guys......theres a lot of them aswell ..... weird  ???


maybe we should start posting on a tennis forum ....we might enjoy it  ::)

Wiggs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41320
  • An Ethnic Israelite
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #144 on: October 27, 2010, 07:52:11 AM »
This is a great shot of Arnold from 1980.  He deserved the win.



No it's not he looks like he has a the aids...
7

#1 Klaus fan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9203
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #145 on: October 27, 2010, 08:08:39 AM »
No it's not he looks like he has a the aids...

Oh so conditioning is nowadays "AIDS"...

Wiggs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41320
  • An Ethnic Israelite
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #146 on: October 27, 2010, 08:09:37 AM »
Oh so conditioning is nowadays "AIDS"...

look how small he looks compared to good arnold shots...doesn't look right.
7

wild willie

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5642
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #147 on: October 27, 2010, 08:10:14 AM »
Remember one thing guys........





Arnold is numero uno!!!

Bill Loguidice

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #148 on: October 27, 2010, 12:34:16 PM »
In some shots, Arnold looks well off his prime, but in others he looks pretty good. Where I think Arnold wins it is in the comparisons. He's just much larger than the other guys and very conditioned, and coming off three years of Zane wins, I think that might have also worked in his favor along with the whole "it's Arnold" factor. In short, I think it's a fair argument to say that, though controversial, he probably should have won a close decision. The other rankings seem off, but again, that may have been due to quirks of the scoring system.

Where we probably had the greatest travesty in the Olympia was Columbu in '81, followed by Dorian's last win, followed by a few Coleman victories. Guys with obviously damaged bodyparts should not win it all.

Bazooka

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Arnold was so bad in 80 that...
« Reply #149 on: October 28, 2010, 10:42:44 PM »
Dickerson was awesome in 1980 he should have taken that O.