Author Topic: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?  (Read 15668 times)

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83782
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2011, 07:31:14 AM »
I think you may be the only other person I know who thinks that Levrone didn't improve after 1992. In anycase, I thought Levrone was too out of balance that year to place ahead of either Labrada or Ray.

I thought that Ray deserved second in 1993, ahead of Wheeler and Labrada. Labrada that year seemed to have hit his maximum size for his frame. He seemed smaller than he did in previous years.

I think Flex admitted that Shawn was sharper than him at the Olympia and Flex felt lucky to beat him , Flex was a victim of the spring shows but still looked fantastic at the Olympia considering he did the Ironman and Arnold

erics

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2011, 02:11:10 PM »

I disagree wholeheartedly , I think this trumps 1992 by FAR and easily among the best he's ever looked. 


I stand corrected. He does look pretty good there, but then, that was a one-off after 1992, right?

I just don't see Levrone as being in the same league as Labrada or even Ray. Yes, I understand those two have their weaknesses, and Levrone was a big guy, but Labrada and Ray, in my eyes, never lost the quality of their phsyiques as time went on. Levrone, like so many, seemed to blow up for the Olympia and it all looked hit and miss.

I wouldn't call him or Wheeler (after 1993) physique competitors in the same way I would call Labrada or Ray.

But then, that's just how I see it.

erics

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2011, 02:22:22 PM »
I think Flex admitted that Shawn was sharper than him at the Olympia and Flex felt lucky to beat him , Flex was a victim of the spring shows but still looked fantastic at the Olympia considering he did the Ironman and Arnold

In my eyes, Shawn was definitely number two but the point I wanted to raise was that Labrada had hit his maximum size and he seemed to look smaller for it. He was intelligent enough to not ruin his physique by trying to continue to put on more size.

That, at least in bodybuilding, ought to be something to respect.

jaejonna

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14944
  • Head Asian of Getbig
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2011, 02:24:06 PM »
He weighed 168 pounds...
L

erics

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2011, 02:28:09 PM »
He weighed 168 pounds...

Which proves how much bigger you look when you are balanced and proportioned.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83782
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2011, 02:48:30 PM »
He weighed 168 pounds...

Where did you get that number? because at the only officially weighed Mr Olympia ( 1988 ) Labrada competed at 176lbs , and that was lighter than his later showings which were around 190lbs

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32184
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2011, 03:55:17 PM »
Where did you get that number? because at the only officially weighed Mr Olympia ( 1988 ) Labrada competed at 176lbs , and that was lighter than his later showings which were around 190lbs
correct...was considerably thicker and dense looking in 90's.must have been the metrx.

unrageable

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 443
Re: Lee Labrada - Why wasn't Lee one of the best?
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2011, 11:36:26 PM »
Lee Haney shits on Lee Labrada.  this guy is a nobody  :D