in 1994 the score cards showed that the judges orgasmed over size, not quality.
thus, it did not look close on paper.
But if you read the mag reviews from the time period, watch the videos (youtube) and look at the pics, it is clear that the judges were wrong in their assertion that size eclipses all quality.
Thus, any knowledgable fan can see that dorian was outclassed that night by Shawn.
but he was not outsized, and thats all the judges cared about.
Dorian could have shown up with two torn arms, no abs, no back etc. but as long as he was BIGGER they would have awarded him the win without question.
Most people have the common sense to use their OWN EYES and can clearly see that Dorian did not deserve the win.
Others, like ND, blindly follow the judges inccorrect assertion that water-retaining mass is better than quality muscle.
How anyone can look at pics and videos of the 1994 show and then agree with the fact that shawn was obliterated is beyond normal comprehension.
But then again, ND has never really had a clue.
Huckster, you're so wrong here, on so many levels...First of all, if you think that all Dorian had, over his competitors, at the 1994 rendition of the Olympia was pure size and no quality, then the same can certainly be said for Ronnie in 2003/4. His distended midsection, thick obliques and poor abdominal definition, by itself, would already be enough to take away from any "quality" that he had. In 2004, all of these
severe liabilities were compounded by Ronnie being retaining a thick film of water under his skin. And yet, you still think that Ronnie was a deserving winner of both these contests!
Secondly, Dorian was not retaining water in 1994. If you knew one thing about Shadow, it is that he doesen't retain water. Ever. Period. Of his flaws - to which I never had any problem admitting to -, such as having naturally thicker obliques than Ronnie and poor separations on his front quads, lacking in conditioning was
certainly not one of them. Dorian was as dry as the Atacama Desert in 1994. His only shortoming was the same as in 1996: his muscles looked flat, due to severe dehydration. That's it. But when it comes to hardness and dryness - as usual -, Dorian was simply out of this world. And remember that when it comes to conditioning, the 1993/5/6 Dorian set hat remains, even today, nine years after his retirement, the "gold standard", whih every pro tries to emulate. To quote Peter McGough:
"No bodybuilder has ever been as hard as the man who won six Sandows."
Julian Schmidt:
"Dorian Yates, the densest, thickest, most annealed bodybuilder in history..."
So while I an accept your criticisms in other areas, saying that Dorian was "retaining water" just makes you look silly. If you think Dorian should have lost in 1994 because all he had was size, then the same can be said about the grotesque, distended, un-detailed, lacking hardness and retaining water Ronnie of a decade later. Chek out.
