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.