Author Topic: Arnold's 1980 Win Was Legit! (Read 9055 times)

Swedish Viking · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2010, 06:20:22 AM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 02:13:02 AM

His chest and arms dwarfed everyone else. I could see an argument for Dickerson, based on symmetry, but that would be a stretch. Mentzer, had great triceps, and decent legs, but the weakest chest in the entire lineup.

..so he had the two smallest major body parts were biggest in the lineup. Legs and back>arms and chest.

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:02:13 PM »

Not even close...

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:07:23 PM »

Topskin69 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:13:31 PM »

It looks like Arnold is winning every pose except the front standing relaxed. Which I give to Mentzer by a slight margin.

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:28:02 PM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 02:13:02 AM

His chest and arms dwarfed everyone else. I could see an argument for Dickerson, based on symmetry...

Chris didn't have good symmetry,notice how uneven his pecs and arms were...

Topskin69 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:30:39 PM »

Quote from: Tarantula157 on January 30, 2010, 04:28:02 PM

Chris didn't have good symmetry,notice how uneven his pecs and arms were...

I could see an argument, but I pointed out that it would be a silly one. Dickerson is probably tied with Jackson as worst "O" in history.

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:34:11 PM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 04:13:31 PM

It looks like Arnold is winning every pose except the front standing relaxed. Which I give to Mentzer by a slight margin.

I hope it was a joke...

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:38:35 PM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 04:30:39 PM

I could see an argument, but I pointed out that it would be a silly one. Dickerson is probably tied with Jackson as worst "O" in history.

They were winners by luck.

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:51:36 PM »

Quote from: Swedish Viking on January 30, 2010, 02:09:55 AM

Arnold wasn't as proportional as Zane, Dickerson, or Mentzer.

Of those 3,only Zane had better proportions than Arnold.Arnold lacked thighs,but Dickerson lacked arms and Mentzer pecs and width.So,they didn't have better proportions than him.

Topskin69 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:55:48 PM »

Quote from: Tarantula157 on January 30, 2010, 04:51:36 PM

Of those 3,only Zane had better proportions than Arnold.Arnold lacked thighs,but Dickerson lacked arms and Mentzer pecs and width.So,they didn't have better proportions than him.

I agree. Arnold deserved the win. I don't think it was quite a blowout victory, but a deserved one, nonetheless.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #35 on:** January 30, 2010, 04:56:05 PM »

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:08:39 PM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 04:55:48 PM

I agree. Arnold deserved the win. I don't think it was quite a blowout victory, but a deserved one, nonetheless.

IMO the only reason this contest was named "The most controversial Olympia"is because of the circumstances surrounding the event(Arnold's last minute entry,the conflict at the athlete's meeting etc.)I don't see the result as controversial at all.There were another more controversial results,I don't know why people still talk about this contest as being controversial.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:12:23 PM »

Quote from: Tarantula157 on January 30, 2010, 05:08:39 PM

IMO the only reason this contest was named "The most controversial Olympia"is because of the circumstances surrounding the event(Arnold's last minute entry,the conflict at the athlete's meeting etc.)I don't see the result as controversial at all.There were another more controversial results,I don't know why people still talk about this contest as being controversial.

The reason why it's so controversial is because Arnold didn't look like he did in 1975 and people can argue all they want that he shouldn't have won that's okay but Mentzer sure as fuck didn't win ! I think many consider 1981 the most controversial

I think Arnold was good enough to win and better than Mike

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:22:10 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 30, 2010, 05:12:23 PM

The reason why it's so controversial is because Arnold didn't look like he did in 1975 and people can argue all they want that he shouldn't have won that's okay but Mentzer sure as fuck didn't win ! I think many consider 1981 the most controversial

I think Arnold was good enough to win and better than Mike

I agree,and it's not important how Arnold looked compared to his former self,but to the competitors standing next to him.Haney,Dorian and Ronnie also won titles being not at their best.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:24:16 PM »

Quote from: Tarantula157 on January 30, 2010, 05:22:10 PM

I agree,and it's not important how Arnold looked compared to his former self,but to the competitors standing next to him.Haney,Dorian and Ronnie also won titles being not at their best.

And the thing is Arnold didn't look bad , he just did look as great as the early to mid seventies. His conditioning wasn't off he was just a scaled down version of himself and still one of the biggest guys on-stage and the best

Topskin69 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:29:42 PM »

Yes... 81 was the biggest joke of all, probably followed by Jay's supposed win in 07. Dorian's win in 97 is also suspect, but not nearly as bad as the two aforementioned examples.

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:30:48 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 30, 2010, 05:24:16 PM

And the thing is Arnold didn't look bad , he just did look as great as the early to mid seventies. His conditioning wasn't off he was just a scaled down version of himself and still one of the biggest guys on-stage and the best

Absolutely!

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:37:20 PM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 05:29:42 PM

Yes... 81 was the biggest joke of all, probably followed by Jay's supposed win in 07. Dorian's win in 97 is also suspect, but not nearly as bad as the two aforementioned examples.

I think Danny Padilla should have won in 81 and it's not a secret that Martinez deserved it in 07.IMO Shawn Ray looked the best in 97.

Topskin69 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:40:24 PM »

Quote from: Tarantula157 on January 30, 2010, 05:37:20 PM

I think Danny Padilla should have won in 81 and it's not a secret that Martinez deserved it in 07.IMO Shawn Ray looked the best in 97.

Hmm.. Padilla is a fair pick, though I would have went with Platz. I disagree about 07 martinez though... his calves had some of the most outright absurd site injections ever...I mean they were REALLY bad...he should have been flat disqualified for that crap.

I had Wolf winning 07.

Tarantula157 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2010, 05:53:23 PM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 05:40:24 PM

Hmm.. Padilla is a fair pick, though I would have went with Platz. I disagree about 07 martinez though... his calves had some of the most outright absurd site injections ever...I mean they were REALLY bad...he should have been flat disqualified for that crap.

I had Wolf winning 07.

Wolf in 07 is a good choice...
Platz's legs always overpowered his upperbody and by the standards back then it was even more out of proportion.Danny had better symmetry and balance IMO.

Topskin69 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 30, 2010, 06:20:56 PM »

Quote from: Tarantula157 on January 30, 2010, 05:53:23 PM

Wolf in 07 is a good choice...
Platz's legs always overpowered his upperbody and by the standards back then it was even more out of proportion.Danny had better symmetry and balance IMO.

I agree with this... though I think that 81 was the year that Platz really brought his upper body up, and his overall package was very impressive, (no homo). His back is often not talked about and it should be...he had a very impressive dear double bi.

Swedish Viking · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2010, 09:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Topskin69 on January 30, 2010, 05:29:42 PM

Yes... 81 was the biggest joke of all, probably followed by Jay's supposed win in 07. Dorian's win in 97 is also suspect, but not nearly as bad as the two aforementioned examples.

Though I don't agree with Arnold's win in '80, I do agree that '81 was an even bigger catastrophe. That was like a downright lie. Two men of equal height and conditioning. One with legs, one without. Padilla was big time robbed.

regmac · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2010, 11:17:51 AM »

Quote from: Swedish Viking on January 30, 2010, 02:09:55 AM

Buddy, Arnold wasn't close to bigger than everyone else that night. He was as light as he had been since what....'69? Mentzer was shorter, about a mile thicker, with cross striations on his triceps and legs 2x the size of Arnold's. Arnold wasn't as proportional as Zane, Dickerson, or Mentzer. He wasn't as big as half the lineup, and he was probably only on par with their conditioning. All this combined with the fact that he was Arnold and the judging panel was made up not only of his friends, but former roommates, and role models=biased judging.

You sound like that loser Al Gore. Some people just can't take a beating.

The ChemistV2 · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2010, 11:25:53 AM »

Regardless of whether Arnold was good enough to win or not, what is truly remarkable is that there were people who had seen him 4 months or so before the show and he looked like nothing and hadn't trained or juiced seriously in 5 years. And to blow up in a few weeks like he did after 5 years is pretty good. Levrone is one of the few other guys that could pull that off.

regmac · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2010, 04:57:34 PM »

As boring as the Anti Leonard klan who claim Hagler won.