I genuinely do not get the reverence for Zane. Of course he looked great, he was a pro bodybuilder at a time when all pro bodybuilders looked great. The standards at the time were such that size, proportion, definition were all at their ideal masculine peak.
What I mean by that is, in ancient Rome or ancient Greece, artists sculpted statues of what a heroic male should look like, though few men walked around looking like those statues, the artists imagined what a God or mythical hero should ideally look like and if you compared it to modern man the closest you would get is a pro bodybuilder of the 70's/early 80's.
With that said, imo Zane is overrated. Yes, he had a few really good years, 1968, 1978 and 1979 in particular. I think his biggest asset was how he presented his physique and the way he posed, his other major strength was during his Olympia run when he figured out how to get much more shredded than his competition. Beyond that it's hard for me to see how he was objectively better than many of his peers- take Coe or Beckles or Dickerson or Viator or Padilla for example. And say who had the best chest? Arms? Back? Legs? Abs? I dont see Zane winning any of those categories, but somehow it's sacrilege to suggest any of those guys were better than Zane.
TL/DR- no, Zane is not as great/perfect as we're told but still a great physique nonetheless.