Author Topic: Was the O always this controversial?  (Read 6006 times)

Dr Kincaid

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 867
  • Ice machine broken
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2013, 05:11:21 AM »
Nope, I think this year is most controversial since 2007 Vic & 2001 Jay.


Teutonic Knight

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10358
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2013, 05:20:56 AM »
-Contest sucks since Ludwig Shusterich over ruling judges in 1966  :P
-1975 Serge Nubret saga in South Africa
-1980 No need to repeat story

vascsurgeon

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 245
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2013, 05:40:26 AM »
 Lee Haney was the last epitome of a "bodybuilder". Dorian came looking like a jacked fridge and a horrid midsection. Ronnie followed with 8 years of preggo gorilla. Cutler kept the tradition going, Dex was the odd winner but far from "aesthetic" and Phil is the most decent out of the current crop with a natural torso of a teenage girl.

  In 1992 they started rewarding mass with cuts regardless and kept that trend based also on inside interests.

  It is also to be noted that less and less structurally talented bodybuilders came up through the ranks while all of them learned to megadose with gh and slin. Laziness, chasin "big weights", stupidity, big muscles at all costs. Gayer, tinier and tinier sparkly thongs, overtly pushing a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter...

  Naive teens and young adults buy supplements and less than 1% are on forums. Out of that 1 % maybe 10% come to getbig where truth is spoken mostly. Even here on getbig, 50% are idiots who refuse to egnowledge the 4 ton pink elephant and another 25% have their own agenda to push (businesses, chasing sponsorpships, true love of cock, etc).

  So all in all, very few individuals really understand how things work. Good luck trying to convince "the masses". I gave an interview on a local TV station here where I explained how this whole shame came about, how this whole industry of lies works, the fagginess behind the scenes and basically all I know and understand about bodybuilding. Within a week, 2 major importers/distributors of supplements called and the recording was removed from everywhere. And this is something almost NOBODY watched.

  You are fighting windmills here. Getbig remains one of the very few places where individuals come to share knowledge and learn.

  So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

  You want my oppinion on this year's contest? The ALL looked like absolute shit. Shit shit shit.

  Meltdown over  ;D


Perfect post, the BB's are getting worse each year, although, there are a handful of 212 guys that look good. Likely because  the judges do not reward symmetry and shape at all, o well, maybe one day we will learn who the judgesare and how they scored the contests and why. Doubtful thats going to happen.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2013, 05:40:59 AM »
Has the "O" steadily been increasing tickets sales, yet decreasing production costs?

Year by year, the stage looks more and more like a high school production event.

yates fan

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2013, 07:39:05 AM »
there have been a lot of controversial olympias,1980,jay beating victor,ronnie beating jay in 01,also the 81 Olympia,with franco winning and Arnold running the show. but this year was the biggest letdown,i believed it was gonna be the best o. ever,but it never mareialized,out of all the top competitors only wolf came in his best shape ever and that is if you considered him one of the top guys,phil even looked better last year,i cant believe with all the hype this show had,he didn't pull out all stops and come in better than ever,jay didn't like he trained to win,looked like he just trained hard enuff to be back on stage,and with kai it was hard to tell cause he was holding so much water at prejudging.and ramy didn't look as good as he did in newyork and he was gonna need to be better than that to crack top three here.this should of been epic!and it was mediocre at best.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2013, 07:45:27 AM »
I think Kai and Wolf are the most hungry. Kai won't stop till he has an Olympia win.

dyslexic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7676
  • baddoggy
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2013, 07:45:34 AM »
The criteria for winning a bodybuilding contest has changed so much over the years. There was a time when charisma, personality, smile and general overall appearance was just as important as aesthetics.

The judges even looked at your teeth.

Today it seems you can be a total moron without any sense of intelligence or diplomacy and still win "just because"

Obviously someone isn't going to win just because he's a great guy, but it was at one time part of the total package.

CalvinH

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22233
  • Spastic Tarted Cvunt
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2013, 07:56:28 AM »
Shmoes be shmoein...

Mitch

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4049
  • Team Succulent Ham of Peace
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2013, 08:18:02 AM »
Sev, what are your thoughts on Beyeke and McMillan?

Man of Steel

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19404
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2013, 08:19:41 AM »
There was no controversy.   Folks just didn't get their bb of choice in the placing they preferred and when that happens they cry controversy....that's it.  Wolf was better than Kai at the prejudge and Kai was better than Wolf in the finals.  Wolf didn't get robbed.  He looked great and so did Kai.  

I thought Roelly looked better than Wolf and Kai, but I ain't cryin......it's just a male panty pagaent.

stavios

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 783
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2013, 08:58:18 AM »
i think everyone agree that phil won but like you said, as soon as he is put in a line-up he isn't dominant AT ALL

small and narrow

Wolf won a few poses over him imo, notably the front lat spread and the abs and tighs.
May I also say the front double biceps because as weird as it can be, Phil looks average in it despite his incredible arms

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2013, 09:12:44 AM »
Sev, what are your thoughts on Beyeke and McMillan?
Beyeke is the only current pro with genetics for bb and a frame to match .. to bad he is allergic to dieting. Him ripped to the bone should win the O easily. Cedric looks allright but beacause of his shape and frame he needs a shitload of muscle to look good. He does not have the "illusion" and rarely came ripped. Shawn Rhoden can look decent if ripped. There is no talent in the pro league today, as sad as it sounds.

The only current bodybuilder that looks like one is amateur champ Mahmut Irmak. Too bad he is a tiny tit.



Cableguy

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1722
  • Cableguy no longer...
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2013, 09:46:44 AM »
 Lee Haney was the last epitome of a "bodybuilder". Dorian came looking like a jacked fridge and a horrid midsection. Ronnie followed with 8 years of preggo gorilla. Cutler kept the tradition going, Dex was the odd winner but far from "aesthetic" and Phil is the most decent out of the current crop with a natural torso of a teenage girl.

  In 1992 they started rewarding mass with cuts regardless and kept that trend based also on inside interests.

  It is also to be noted that less and less structurally talented bodybuilders came up through the ranks while all of them learned to megadose with gh and slin. Laziness, chasin "big weights", stupidity, big muscles at all costs. Gayer, tinier and tinier sparkly thongs, overtly pushing a bisexual agenda not that the past crop was any straighter...

  Naive teens and young adults buy supplements and less than 1% are on forums. Out of that 1 % maybe 10% come to getbig where truth is spoken mostly. Even here on getbig, 50% are idiots who refuse to egnowledge the 4 ton pink elephant and another 25% have their own agenda to push (businesses, chasing sponsorpships, true love of cock, etc).

  So all in all, very few individuals really understand how things work. Good luck trying to convince "the masses". I gave an interview on a local TV station here where I explained how this whole shame came about, how this whole industry of lies works, the fagginess behind the scenes and basically all I know and understand about bodybuilding. Within a week, 2 major importers/distributors of supplements called and the recording was removed from everywhere. And this is something almost NOBODY watched.

  You are fighting windmills here. Getbig remains one of the very few places where individuals come to share knowledge and learn.

  So this is how you end up with a douche liar faggo.t like that ass licker from bb.com handing out awards to plastic bottles full of nothing while people from 5 continents watch in bewilderment. Or another liar commentator who claims a phd in being natural while he would be a handicapped gym rat without the hormones he takes. People really believe him because he lies with such naturalness.

  You want my oppinion on this year's contest? The ALL looked like absolute shit. Shit shit shit.

  Meltdown over  ;D



Well said Sev...

Man of Steel

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19404
  • Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2013, 09:53:16 AM »
....it's just musclemen in panties.....musclemen in panties.

Raymondo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7481
  • I spoke at the United Nations
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2013, 09:42:35 AM »
Beyeke is the only current pro with genetics for bb and a frame to match .. to bad he is allergic to dieting. Him ripped to the bone should win the O easily. Cedric looks allright but beacause of his shape and frame he needs a shitload of muscle to look good. He does not have the "illusion" and rarely came ripped. Shawn Rhoden can look decent if ripped. There is no talent in the pro league today, as sad as it sounds.

The only current bodybuilder that looks like one is amateur champ Mahmut Irmak. Too bad he is a tiny tit.




Insane.

Cleanest Natural

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28661
  • Diet first, all else second
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2013, 11:06:03 AM »
illusion


funk51

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 42787
  • Getbig!
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2013, 11:12:17 AM »
I don't necessarily mean controversial as in widespread claims of an "uncrowned O", a la Vic 2007, Nasser 1996 (?), etc.  But going by what I read on getbig, it seems while most acknowledge Phil should win, most also aren't very impressed with him, and don't consider him a dominant Mr. O.

On the other hand, most getbiggers today seem to acknowledge Ronnie, Dorian, Haney, and Arnold to be legitimate, dominant Mr. Os.  They're all held in relatively high regard.

So here's my question: in ten, twenty years, will Phil (or Jay, for that matter) be talked about the same way?  Will the cries of "narrow fraud" and "line stepping tiny tit" fade away?  Were Dorian and Ronnie more sharply criticized (or Haney and Arnold, for those old enough to remember) in their heydays, before they were considered legends?  If so, at what point do they naysayers get drowned out?  How, when, and why does history show them in an ever more flattering light?

Or are Phil and Jay never going to be able to shirk the hate?

Another thing to consider: are we just all old and jaded?  Do the kids on bbing.com think Phil is hot shit?  I honestly don't know, since this is the only bbing board I've visited in years.  Maybe Phil already stands alongside Ronnie and Dorian in the eyes of young bodybuilders across the globe?
first contest was controversial two guys in contest tied. when told this weider told judges give it to the white guy. course  white guy didn't get his 1k back in 1965 contest because  didn't generate enuff rvenue to pay him. guess larry should have read the fine print. big difference from heath's 250 k purse. all larry got was the mazola crown.
F

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32194
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: Was the O always this controversial?
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2013, 11:15:42 AM »
first contest was controversial two guys in contest tied. when told this weider told judges give it to the white guy. course  white guy didn't get his 1k back in 1965 contest because  didn't generate enuff rvenue to pay him. guess larry should have read the fine print. big difference from heath's 250 k purse. all larry got was the mazola crown.
and 'honor'as the first mr o..