What I am trying to do with OSB is to demonstrate why and how the 1980 Olympia is considered controversial.
OSB, so I ask you. Do you understand that the 1980 Olympia was judge by the points system and not by ranking the competitors first thru last? That would be a yes or no answer.
I am helping you to look at the contest as a critical thinker and not by what your eyes are telling you. In this case they are not the same. Now, study the judging sheet. Even to the posedown. Did you notice that Dickerson came in second because he had more points than Zane? 292 to 291. Dickerson received two first place votes in the posedown and those two points moved his 290 point total to 292, passing Zane by one point. This is a convoluted mess. They didn’t rank the top six point getting competitors first through sixth, which I believe all agree is what should have been done. They just all picked who each judge thought was the best.
If I were king, because the first five judges all gave Arnold 20 points on symmetry, I would have sent them all to the cheap seats. IMO, they proved that they don’t know how to score symmetry. I would have needed five replacement judges. But I am not king, so it’s a mute point. But it is some evidence that the judging was controversial.
The IFBB should have replaced the point system to placement when the NPC of the AAU did. Failure to do so, IMO, is controversial.
Very similar comparisons in 1980 to 1992. Arnolds and Lous strong spot was chest, and likewise Mike and Dorians weakness was chest. But overall, Dorian and Mike had better conditioning (imo), and where more muscular looking.
Mikes legs are better, especially in the hamstrings, and id say mikes arms are more complete because hes forearms where in proportion to hes upper arm.
Please continue/explain/further your reasoning on this, RT! How would you place the competitors if you were king? This is a very interesting thought experiment.
The only sure way to place the competitors is to be there and sit at the judges table. I wasn’t there. I have judged enough contests to know how significant seeing exactly what the judges see is the best situation. But to continue:
Photos tell a limited story.
Backstage tells another story
Anywhere other than very near the judges table tells a slightly different story from what the judges saw
Photos alone? We see no transitions or movement. On a highly defined competitor the judges can see some remarkable movement of detailed muscle fibers. You just cannot unsee that. Most all of you have seen (or taken) a photo of a scene and know that the pic never does the scene justice.
Many friends of competitors are judging the competitors backstage and can see the flaws of the other competitors. They then might feel their friend was judged unfairly. The competitor has quite a bit of control over what the judges see to judge. The judges don’t see the competitors relaxed, not really… at all.
There are some competitors that have the conditioning and thin enough skin that muscle detail is remarkable. Much of that detail is lost in the lens of the camera, or as you observe from a greater distance. The judges are seeing extremely defined competitors along side others with not quite the same level of detail. (Personal opinion: vascularity is not nearly as important as striations. And hardness is not as important as definition.)
Bottom line: I cannot fairly judge the 1980 Olympia.
If you would like an extended use of the score sheet to place the competitors first through sixth, I can do that
What i find interesting is Dr. Darden and Vic Tanny had a conversation about the 1949 Mr. America and how John Grimek won that contest and was’nt the best built guy there…Steve Reeves was the best built
John Grimek would have won wearing street clothes because of who he was, more popular than Steve Reeves
Sound familiar
Its ashame that corruption in bodybuilding was prevalent thru-out the years
I took the 1980 Olympia scoresheet and dropped the scores of the first 5 judges and calculated how judges 6 and 7 would have ranked the competitors in the three rounds.
There are many assumptions made in doing this. The two biggest are:
the first five judges were not fit to judge
judges 6 and 7 were totally impartial
Please consider that any number of the first five judges, all of whom were very familiar with judging bodybuilding contests with the points system, might have been adjusting their scores to adjust for the inadequacy of the points system. They might not have wanted the rigidity of the points system to place the competitors different than it would if the judges just placed them first through last.
And it is possible that the either of the last two judges could have been partial against Arnold, or had total faith in the points system, as in “let the chips fall as they will. I am just following the guidelines.”
But if we total just the points that the last two judges gave the competitors, it would yield the following results:
Agreed in those few pics, Arnold looks superior to Mentzer. Mentzer with the better, more proportionate legs although the emphasis wasn’t there back then like today. Mike looks a bit harder and more muscular. But Arnold’s upper body, even if he was only at 80% of his best prior condition ('70s) was hard to beat, overall. Arnold’s back looks so much better. Mike looks like his lats are shorter and lacks refinement/development by comparison. With Arnold, not just sheer size, height, and muscle length, but a very pleasing aesthetic look that overcomes some other weaknesses. Mentzer looks great, but a bit too blocky.
I think Lou went overboard with Gh as his gut was really bloated. None the less, he looked remarkably impressive from a sheer size perspective. It was exciting seeing him make a comeback and I enjoyed 92 and 93…wish he could have pulled off a victory.
That’s always been the problem with people looking at 1980. They’re basing it on today’s standards and forget back then how legs were probably the least important body part. Rewind the clock just 10 years and you’ll see Sergio that won purely based on size but lacked the details and separation we would say are necessary for a Mr. O today.
Arnold’s back double bicep is undefeated and his overall posing routine is just ridiculously good. Even past his prime here. He definitely looks worse than he used to, but he still has the appearance of wearing shoulder pads which is just a better look imo than anyone else pictured here. Zane and Boyer looked good in 80 as well, but Arnold is Arnold. Iconic physique. I think Mentzer looks worse than he did in 79 honestly.
Did any competitors receive a perfect “60” from the judges? And who?
Judge 1: Arnold and Zane
Judge 2: Arnold
Judge 3: Tinerino (and he finished 8th. What was Judge 3 smoking?)
Judge 4: no one received a perfect 60
Judge 5: no one received a perfect 60
Judge 6: Dickerson
Judge 7: Dickerson
You can see that these are doctored pics to make Mentzer look smaller. The giveaway is the number tag on the posing trunks. There would be no reason for Mentzer’s number tag on his posing trunks to be smaller than Arnold’s but as you can see it is much smaller in the 4th pic.
I think these are originals. I’ve seen these pictures tons of times. Mike wasn’t a very big guy, in the 5’7”-5’8” range and Arnold was 6’1”-6’2”. There weren’t very many tall competitors Back then, and I think that helped Arnold stick out. Especially with no Lou there to provide an upper-end balance.
Edit: Arnold is also closer to the camera in a few of these, which makes him look even larger due to the perspective.
Many here are commenting as if the contest was between Arnold and Mentzer. Just know that the judges rated Mentzer tied for 4th Place. And if you study the scores, it is a distant 4th Place.
Please don’t accuse me of having a favorite. My comments only pertain to the score card. The entire panel could have been biased against Mentzer. I don’t know.
