The 1981 Mr Olympia article

[Natural_O]

Check out my article about the 1981 Mr. Olympia here -
http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/joh...ia-part-2.html

[MaKaiser]

That was a good read thanks John

Platz looked incredible at the 81 Olympia !
Should have won IMO

[Natural_O]

That was a good read thanks John

Platz looked incredible at the 81 Olympia !
Should have won IMO

I agree! Tom was right on the money that night.

[Ajthemeso]

That was a good read thanks John

Platz looked incredible at the 81 Olympia !
Should have won IMO

platz and demayo may have the gloat (greatest legs of all time lol). oh yeah and who could forget about coleman lol.

[62Wolf]

I thought it was between Padilla and Platz and although I thought it should've gone to Danny, I'd have no no problem how they had finished as long as it would've been 1st and 2nd. The 80 Olympia, this one, and then when Dickerson announced his retirement BEFORE the contest he won, basically turned me off from it all for a few years. Then when I came back around, the mass-monsters had taken over. Good article though.

[Iceman1981]

Great article John. The 1981 Mr. Olympia leaves no doubt in my mind that it was fixed.

[Natural_O]

Great article John. The 1981 Mr. Olympia leaves no doubt in my mind that it was fixed.

Thanks, glad you liked it. I learned a few things when I analyzed the score sheets. It's amazing how off so many of the judges were in their scoring. Only 2 judges out of 7 had Franco in first but it was his consistently high scores in the prejudging that allowed him to win. Only Jacques Blommeart from Belgium marked Franco down in the prejudging for his weak legs. On top of that, Padilla scored low points across the board. Almost every judge had him in 5th or 6th or even lower. Amazing!

[Natural_O]

Great leg comparison pics!

[mrusa85]

Seems more like a flawed judging system that caused the decision more than an actual fix. It wasn't all the judges giving Franco first. It seems the unusual combination of scoring that ended up giving Franco the win. Very good analysis!

Sort of reminds me of the explanation of Branch getting higher placings from a couple judges at the 2010 Arnold finals and that affected Phil Heath's score and Kai ended up winning despite being behind after the judging.

[anonymous]

Great article John! Must have taken a long time to gather all the information.

I have to say I do have some gripe with some of what you said though!

-You keep saying Padilla was sliced to the bone etc yet he looks soft compared to Franco in the pics you showed. (obviously not in the legs because of Franco's terrible injury). Franco destroyed Padilla in upper body imo for both size and conditioning, striations everywhere! Tom Platz is another story however.. I believe he looked better than both and had him winning the show.

-You said about Franco doing the pose where he goes 360 degrees with his arms above his head that it was "a poor imitation of Zane". I have the 81' Olympia video and I think he pulled it off superbly. Also he did a front lat spread full circle too which was cool!

-You said "an out of shape Arnold winning the 1980 Mr.Olympia". He was not out of shape! Let's remember something.. Arnold was not competing against Arnold of the early 70's.. he was against the men next to him on the stage and he looked bigger and better than all of them. He made Mike Mentzer who was 2nd best on stage imo look like a pip squeak.

-You said how could a man with no legs win Mr.Olympia. Frank Zane won the Olympia 3 times with no arms, no legs, no chest, no back, no nothing. Where are the complaints about that?

[Unbiasedfan]

-You said how could a man with no legs win Mr.Olympia. Frank Zane won the Olympia 3 times with no arms, no legs, no chest, no back, no nothing. Where are the complaints about that?

He lacked size overall but he excelled in proportion, symmetry and condition. 3 out of 4.

Im speaking generally as i have no knowledge of the olympias that he won.

[BOUNTYHUNTERMK2]

A great read, thanks for posting John.

[NVious]

Great article John! Must have taken a long time to gather all the information.

I have to say I do have some gripe with some of what you said though!

-You keep saying Padilla was sliced to the bone etc yet he looks soft compared to Franco in the pics you showed. (obviously not in the legs because of Franco's terrible injury). Franco destroyed Padilla in upper body imo for both size and conditioning, striations everywhere! Tom Platz is another story however.. I believe he looked better than both and had him winning the show.

-You said about Franco doing the pose where he goes 360 degrees with his arms above his head that it was "a poor imitation of Zane". I have the 81' Olympia video and I think he pulled it off superbly. Also he did a front lat spread full circle too which was cool!

-You said "an out of shape Arnold winning the 1980 Mr.Olympia". He was not out of shape! Let's remember something.. Arnold was not competing against Arnold of the early 70's.. he was against the men next to him on the stage and he looked bigger and better than all of them. He made Mike Mentzer who was 2nd best on stage imo look like a pip squeak.

-You said how could a man with no legs win Mr.Olympia. Frank Zane won the Olympia 3 times with no arms, no legs, no chest, no back, no nothing. Where are the complaints about that?

Padilla owned Franco with ease. Franco had no seperation in his lower body, he had brutal gyno and the only upper body parts that he was clearly winning would be the chest/back, apart from that he was out of condition.

Platz or Padilla should've won and I will post post pictures when I get home showing you what I'm talking about. Depending on what you prefer, shredded to the bone physique or a lean mass monster such as Platz.

Edit: got time now













[



Think there might be more, will look when I get home.

[flangmasterj]

You said how could a man with no legs win Mr.Olympia. Frank Zane won the Olympia 3 times with no arms, no legs, no chest, no back, no nothing. Where are the complaints about that?

Zane was well proportioned. Franco's upper body was disproportionate in relation to his legs.

You're not looking at the physique as a whole.

[jamesyboi]

That was a good read thanks John

Platz looked incredible at the 81 Olympia !
Should have won IMO

I agree, The Golden Eagle got jibbed.

[FAN0FdaSport]

the scoring system was dumb

[purdey]

I dont think Platz should have won at all, he was crazy out of proportion. Padilla looked the best IMO

[Natural_O]

Great article John! Must have taken a long time to gather all the information.

I have to say I do have some gripe with some of what you said though!

-You keep saying Padilla was sliced to the bone etc yet he looks soft compared to Franco in the pics you showed. (obviously not in the legs because of Franco's terrible injury). Franco destroyed Padilla in upper body imo for both size and conditioning, striations everywhere! Tom Platz is another story however.. I believe he looked better than both and had him winning the show.

-You said about Franco doing the pose where he goes 360 degrees with his arms above his head that it was "a poor imitation of Zane". I have the 81' Olympia video and I think he pulled it off superbly. Also he did a front lat spread full circle too which was cool!

-You said "an out of shape Arnold winning the 1980 Mr.Olympia". He was not out of shape! Let's remember something.. Arnold was not competing against Arnold of the early 70's.. he was against the men next to him on the stage and he looked bigger and better than all of them. He made Mike Mentzer who was 2nd best on stage imo look like a pip squeak.

-You said how could a man with no legs win Mr.Olympia. Frank Zane won the Olympia 3 times with no arms, no legs, no chest, no back, no nothing. Where are the complaints about that?

Danny has the type of body that looks sort of soft when he's relaxed, similar to Arnold. Franco is more dense. If you read the article, I mention how Franco was flexing his upper body during the relaxed round and that's why he looks harder than Danny. He definitely didn't "destroy" Danny in the upper body. Danny had much better arms, Franco was harder but Danny was ripped. There's a difference.

I totally disagree with you about Franco's posing routine. He tried to pose to an operetta and the audience didn't really respond to it. Franco doesn't have the type of body where he can do aesthetic type poses and look good like Zane. He should have stuck to most muscular and crunching poses. The lat spread turn was pretty good though.

By "out of shape" I meant he wasn't at his previous best like in the '70's. EVERYONE I talked to who was actually at the show had Arnold around 5th place. Not pictures or video but at the show.

I also disagree with you about Zane. I was at every one of Zane's wins (1977-79) and he deserved everyone of them. He was so much better in person than in pictures. He wasn't small either. Bodybuilders back then were not the behemoths that compete today. The Under 200 pound class always had more competitors than the over 200 pound class.

Thanks for reading the article though!

[mrusa85]

I also disagree with you about Zane. I was at every one of Zane's wins (1977-79) and he deserved everyone of them. He was so much better in person than in pictures. He wasn't small either. Bodybuilders back then were not the behemoths that compete today. The Under 200 pound class always had more competitors than the over 200 pound class.

Thanks for reading the article though!

Oh man! You actually saw Zane win his Olympias? That is way tooo cool! Zane was Mr. Olympia when I started training as a teenager. I would have loved to have seen him compete.

[62Wolf]

Danny has the type of body that looks sort of soft when he's relaxed, similar to Arnold. Franco is more dense. If you read the article, I mention how Franco was flexing his upper body during the relaxed round and that's why he looks harder than Danny. He definitely didn't "destroy" Danny in the upper body. Danny had much better arms, Franco was harder but Danny was ripped. There's a difference.

I totally disagree with you about Franco's posing routine. He tried to pose to an operetta and the audience didn't really respond to it. Franco doesn't have the type of body where he can do aesthetic type poses and look good like Zane. He should have stuck to most muscular and crunching poses. The lat spread turn was pretty good though.

By "out of shape" I meant he wasn't at his previous best like in the '70's. EVERYONE I talked to who was actually at the show had Arnold around 5th place. Not pictures or video but at the show.

I also disagree with you about Zane. I was at every one of Zane's wins (1977-79) and he deserved everyone of them. He was so much better in person than in pictures. He wasn't small either. Bodybuilders back then were not the behemoths that compete today. The Under 200 pound class always had more competitors than the over 200 pound class.

Thanks for reading the article though!

Exactly right about being/seeing it in person vs video or pictures. Sometimes when you see it live, there's no question in your mind, then when everyone starts argueing about placings and slaps up photos, it's almost like a diffferent contest than what you saw live. BTW, Franco's gyno WAS pretty bad.......

[purdey]

By "out of shape" I meant he wasn't at his previous best like in the '70's. EVERYONE I talked to who was actually at the show had Arnold around 5th place. Not pictures or video but at the show.

I don't mean to go off topic but why would you base your opinion on what other people have told you when we have video footage and photos of which we can form our own opinion? I know a lot of the competitors and other people of credibility (e.g. Bill Pearl, Although i doubt his credibility) say that Arnold didn't deserve the win, but when i look at the photos and the videos, and i see Arnold as the clear winner, i ask myself "now why would all these people say that Arnold didn't deserve the win? could all the video footage and photos be that far from reality?"

What is your opinion based on the video footage and photos, disregarding other peoples opinions?

[mrusa85]

I don't mean to go off topic but why would you base your opinion on what other people have told you when we have video footage and photos of which we can form our own opinion? I know a lot of the competitors and other people of credibility (e.g. Bill Pearl, Although i doubt his credibility) say that Arnold didn't deserve the win, but when i look at the photos and the videos, and i see Arnold as the clear winner, i ask myself "now why would all these people say that Arnold didn't deserve the win? could all the video footage and photos be that far from reality?"

What is your opinion based on the video footage and photos, disregarding other peoples opinions?

Have you ever been to a live pro show and then looked at photos afterwards? You'll have your answer.

[aussieryan]

Have you ever been to a live pro show and then looked at photos afterwards? You'll have your answer.

Not directed to me I know but I would like to add my 2 cents. I've been to small natural shows. Competed in one myself. The photos didn't accurately represent all the minute details of each physique, but what they do accurately represent is the differences/comparison between each physique. The winner when seen in photos, looks like they should have been winner (as they did at the show).

I don't know how much difference them being IFBB Pro's would make, but honestly, it's not like the camera makes one person look heaps better than they were and then make another look worse than they were. If it makes one physique look worse, then it would make all of the physiques look worse (and vice versa).

[purdey]

Have you ever been to a live pro show and then looked at photos afterwards? You'll have your answer.

Nope, never. Do the competitors really look that different in real life to the point where the photos and video footage is almost useless for making an assessment?

[Unbiasedfan]

Nope, never. Do the competitors really look that different in real life to the point where the photos and video footage is almost useless for making an assessment?

That would make the whole forum useless lol. Video will normally show the truth in a way that we can make conclusions. Pictures can be trickier.

[Natural_O]

I don't mean to go off topic but why would you base your opinion on what other people have told you when we have video footage and photos of which we can form our own opinion? I know a lot of the competitors and other people of credibility (e.g. Bill Pearl, Although i doubt his credibility) say that Arnold didn't deserve the win, but when i look at the photos and the videos, and i see Arnold as the clear winner, i ask myself "now why would all these people say that Arnold didn't deserve the win? could all the video footage and photos be that far from reality?"

What is your opinion based on the video footage and photos, disregarding other peoples opinions?

Yeah, I felt the same way. When I saw all the videos and pictures of the 1980 Olympia, I thought it was fair that Arnold won. He may not have been at his best but I still felt he was the best from the pictures. However, when I talk to those who were there, I always get a different opinion. I asked Samir Bannout, who was in the contest, and he told me "Arnold should not have even been in the top five. Arnold is my idol and I love him but he was small AND smooth at that contest". I asked Bill Pearl where he would have had him and he immediately said "Fifth!". I did see one video shot by Norm Komich and it does look like Arnold's legs were pretty thin. I went to a Boyer Coe seminar about a month after the Mr. Olympia contest and Boyer said "The last time I saw legs that skinny, they were hanging out of a bird's nest".

[DavisForman]

By "out of shape" I meant he wasn't at his previous best like in the '70's. EVERYONE I talked to who was actually at the show had Arnold around 5th place. Not pictures or video but at the show.

That's entirely understandable. He pissed off virtually everyone in the industry before stepping on stage. It shouldn't come as a surprise that no one wanted him to win.

Nearly every opinion that was made at that show, either in favour or against Arnold, was biased. The way I see it, pictures and videos are a much better indicator of who won because the majority of people who use these pictures and videos are people who have no affiliation with anyone at that contest.

And looking back at the photos and videos, Arnold dominated that lineup.

And even if there was no bias in these people's opinion, why exactly are pictures an inadequate tool to compare?

It seems to me that whenever fans disagree with those in the industry, the go to excuse is that "The pictures don't tell the true story."

So what was the true story of 1980 then? In person, Mentzer actually had a chest and his gut wasn't a problem? So the flash of the camera simply evaporated his chest and caused the illusion that his stomach was sticking out? I find it odd that these flashes did nothing to diminish the champ.

[DavisForman]

I went to a Boyer Coe seminar about a month after the Mr. Olympia contest and Boyer said "The last time I saw legs that skinny, they were hanging out of a bird's nest".

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The opinion of Boyer Coe regarding the 1980 Mr. Olympia means nothing and shouldn't even be considered. It reeks of bias. He was almost as bitter about 1980 as Mentzer was.

[Natural_O]

Exactly right about being/seeing it in person vs video or pictures. Sometimes when you see it live, there's no question in your mind, then when everyone starts argueing about placings and slaps up photos, it's almost like a diffferent contest than what you saw live. BTW, Franco's gyno WAS pretty bad.......

Regarding the 1981 Mr. Olympia, I was there for both the prejudging and evening shows (sitting way up front) and I thought Platz was the overwhelming winner. He was very big and cut and he just had the charisma, the personality, all of it. Danny looks perfect in the pictures and he does have a genetically perfect physique but, in person, he seemed a little small or flat and he didn't stick out like Platz or Callendar did. I could totally have seen Callendar winning too. He had weak calves but, other than that, he was thick, big and ripped! He was also very aggressive onstage and had a great personality. I would have had Platz in first by a mile, Callendar in 2nd, Padilla in 3rd, Dickerson in 4th and Franco in 5th. People who only see the pictures think Danny should have won but I doubt if the majority of the audience at the show would have had him first.

It's the same thing with Zane. Zane was pretty tall for the Under 200 Pound class (5'9") and with his wide shoulders and small waist, he had great proportions. There was just something about his physique that made Zane look better than anyone else. I was always wondering each year if he could beat the mass monsters but he always pulled it off. Robby looked really good in '78 and he could have won but Zane was very ripped and shredded that year, much more than anyone else onstage. Zane also had a lot of charisma and stage presence when he was up onstage and that counts for a lot. That's something that doesn't come across in pictures.

[Natural_O]

Oh man! You actually saw Zane win his Olympias? That is way tooo cool! Zane was Mr. Olympia when I started training as a teenager. I would have loved to have seen him compete.

Yes, I feel very fortunate to have seen Zane win all 3 of his Olympias (1977-79). There were some great memories of those contests. I also saw the 1981 Olympia, the 1986, 1990, 1996 and 1999, 2000, 2001, etc, up to the current ones. I saw the first Arnold Classic in 1989 also. I've got some good articles about those shows on RX Muscle -
http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/john-hansen.html