Talk:Mr. Olympia

1960s
The second sentence of this section makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.206.172.13 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Small link update
The link to external page nr. 1 says Olympia 2006. This links to the official Mr Olympia page for all years so a better name would be something like: Mr. Olympia official site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.188.67 (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Steroids
Why is there no mention of allegations of steroid abuse and/or lax testing (or rather no testing) anywhere in this article. The allegations are so rampant in the mainstream press that the opinion of the general public is basically a done deal. The article should reflect this with a well sourced paragraph, including Ronnie Coleman's implication in the BALCO scandal and the recent multi-state internet pharmacy investigations by an NY grand jury. Maxanova 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * seems like there's a "neither confirm nor deny" approach. There are the natural, heavily tested organizations.  Akin to a pro bike racer having the option to participate in a tested event or untested one, and choosing the untested "anything goes" one I suppose ....--Billymac00 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The general consensus by those involved seems to be that they tried it once in the 80s, and realized they could never uphold steroid-free competitions, so they went back to "don't ask, don't tell". It's simply a matter of how the drug works; you can take it all year and build mass, and go on other supplements just before the competition. This is from all that I've watched and read, so I'm not sure I can provide you with a specific piece of proof, unless there's an interview on the subject with an organizer somewhere. However, there should be some form of evidence that testing for steroids only occurred this one year.
 * Henrik Erlandsson 17:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs)

2006
Jay Cutler won, someone insert the information.

Copyvio?
I have removed the content added by 213.78.152.146. It is clearly identical to that on http://www.bodybuildinguniverse.com/olympia.htm and http://www.ifbb.com/contestresults/mrolympia/. Neither of these sites have a copyright notice but its unlikely the content is GFDL or public domain. Until the issue is resolved i thought it best to remove the content (we can always revert it back). johnSLADE (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry wanted to share some more in depth info on topic didn't realise the copywrite dillema. Have added my own article now about the history of Mr Olympia I feel its quite in depth and neutral. Of course anyone feels it needs touching up or anything I might of missed out please edit to improve.

Thank You

cecc2005

Please help I feel I have made the introduction much more infomative but I cant seem to get the lay out of the text correct hopefully somebody can adjust.

Thank you

Qualifying
I have reverted some of the edits to the qualifying section made by 213.78.152.146. The source i used is the 2005 IFBB constitution which i take to be an authorative text on the issue. To quote:

   
 * ''The organizer of the Mr. Olympia competition must invite the following competitors:
 * ''1. The top 6 from the previous year’s Mr. Olympia;
 * ''2. The top 6 from the same year’s Arnold Classic [amended October 27, 2004];
 * ''3. The top 5 from the same year’s New York Men’s Professional [amended October 27, 2004]; and
 * 4. The top 3 from any Grand Prix or other professional bodybuilding competition held subsequent to the previous year’s Mr. Olympia.

johnSLADE (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
This is an okay article, but there's far too much biased wording "huge legs", "cut to ribbons", etc. for it to be truly encyclopediaic. It almost reads like an article from Men's Health, a style that doesn't really support our ideal of a neutral point of view. --FuriousFreddy 13:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This page DOES NOT fit format. It is much to biased and words like a magazine not an encyclopedia. Whoever wrote this isnt familier with wiki format. The Mr. O is about more then just the competitors theres a lot of backround info about the Mr. O, like the show was just sold to new owners this past year. This shouldnt just be an article about various Bodybuilders but about the show itself and how it has developed and changed. it has a new judging format and new posing format as well.-Dylan

I did my best to remove as much PoV as possible (it was a mess). --204.152.176.70 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, 12 years later it hasn't improved apparently... The article on the Star Wars Kid is more thorough and “encyclopedic” than this. Sad, really.--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

History of Mr. Olympia Link Unusable
As said, the link should be deemed unusable, actual link given redirects one to godaddy.com ad page, and we wouldn't want that, right? --24.12.234.179 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.224.120.20, 18 September 2011
ZyZZ between them is false. Everyone puts this cause hes death and cause of his fanboys

94.224.120.20 (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Stickee (talk)  04:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Munecito, 18 September 2011
Change the current Mr Olympia hoder's name to Phil Heath and also add his name to the 2010's section.

Munecito (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  10:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 169.236.86.10, 20 September 2011
Venue of 2011 Mr. Olympia is listed as New York City, when in fact it took place in Las Vegas, Nevada.

169.236.86.10 (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks-- Jac 16888 Talk 08:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Munecito on 18 September 2011 is not being adhered to
The same person keeps editing "Phil Heath" to read "Phillip Heath". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xray88 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Xray88. The key issue with Munecito's edit request was that Heath had not been listed as the winner of the 2011. I assumed that the reason he said Phil was for the sake of brevity - the article at the time was officially Phillip Heath so I had no reason to presume that his common name was anything else. Per WP:NAMES the article's title (and so what references to Heath should be in this article) should be his common name, and judging from information I found on Heath, he is indeed referred to as Phil. I therefore have no reason to change it back to Phillip on the basis of this new information :). Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  16:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jay did not win in 2004, that year belongs to ronnie. this needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.223.50 (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Individual first-place award money
There's been some confusion about the amount of money awarded to the individual winner of the Mr. Olympia contest in 2013. The prize money for all winners in the division is $675,000, but the prize money for the first-place finisher is $250,000, according to muscleandfitness.com. DoorsAjar (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - Lede fix/update
The lede needs a small fix.

Right now it has " During the 1990s and early 2000s (decade), a Masters Olympia was also crowned"

but it has been resumed in 2012 (winner was Dexter Jackson) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_Olympia

109.65.170.74 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Copy edited to give exact years, but frankly, both articles need some decent sources. --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request-Jay Cutler Consecutive Wins Box
In the "Consecutive Wins" box, Jay Cutler is given as having won four in a row, placing him in 6th place for most consecutive wins. However, he did not win 4 in a row. He won 4 total. 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010. He lost the 2008 to Dexter Jackson. So in reality he has twice won two in a row (2006/2007, and 2009/2010). I am terrible at the boxes like that though so I can't do it. Also, now that I think about it. Dexter Jackson shouldn't even be in that box at all, as he has only won one, so therefore can't have "Consecutive" wins. Vyselink (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

NVM. I did it. Vyselink (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I corrected that box today : Arnold Schwarzenegger only had 6 consecutive wins.--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Relevancy of the religious demographics section?
My only reason for commenting is that the very first result hi-light from a non logged-in Google Search picks one particular sub-section of the Demographics section, namely the list of Christian winners.

I consider another part of this article a better summary of the article for search engines.

Further, I propose that the Demographics section should have much more relevant statistics in order to be relevant at all. Where is race and sexual orientation? Hilarious. :) Henrik Erlandsson 17:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the relevance of the whole section is highly dubious in an article about a sports competition, especially as it currently is, mentioning religion and sexual practices as the only two defining attributes of those great athletes (and not, for instance, their scholar achievments, their professional or artistic endeavours...). And it gives the impression that being “openly gay” (reminds me of what George Carlin used to say about that strange expression) is akin to practicing a religion, which is hilarious in and of itself ! (Nowadays, though, you gotta wonder if there ain't truth in it...) I think I'll remove it altogether ; if someone really wants it back it should be much more substantiated in order to have a legitimate place in this article — which is surprisingly short by the way, for such an important competition.--Abolibibelot (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mr. Olympia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122053346/http://www.ifbb.com/contestresults/mrolympia/ to http://www.ifbb.com/contestresults/mrolympia/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Table reorg around 1974-1979 dual-weight-class competitions
It strikes me that the current table layout wastes a lot of space and unnecessarily crowds the contents by devoting three columns to the competition winners, separately listing the Overall, Heavyweight, and Lightweight winners for each year, even though: Therefore, I'm proposing the following layout (representative section of the full table, showing only the affected years plus a few above and below) as a solution to this:
 * Out of 55 Olympia competitions held to date, there were only six years that involved weight class divisions.
 * Even in those six years, in every case there were only two winners, not three — one winner's name is always duplicated between the Overall column and their class.
 * The last time competition was divided into weight classes was over 40 years ago, now, and there's no expectation that the practice will return. So, every year that passes adds another new entry to the table that's once again forced to waste additional space, because despite being in the vast majority all of the non-split competition years are forced to keep making allowances for a short-lived, long-ago deviation from the otherwise-consistent Olympia norms.

In short, these changes would:
 * 1) Eliminate the redundant double-listing for the overall winner in the weight-class period
 * 2) Allow the competitor and venue names to be laid out wider, rather than wrapping onto multiple lines
 * 3) Explicitly (and manually, sigh) left-justify all of the competitor and venue column entries, and right-justify the prize amount, in accordance with readability norms for such data
 * 4) Indicate which competitor during the dual-division years won the overall both implicitly (the overall winner is always named first in the cell, then the other division's winner second) and explicitly (their weight class along with "Overall" is noted in parentheses after their name).
 * 5) Stop wasting obscene amounts of table area on uninteresting non-information like "Heavyweight category not held." and "Lightweight category not held."

There are some down sides to my proposed layout, I admit: So, my feeling is that these issues are solvable (if necessary) and relatively minor (regardless). Especially since the revised layout (IMHO) makes far better use of the available space. Nevertheless I still welcome any input, criticism, (constructive) dissent, or suggestions for further enhancement. In particular, I'd very much appreciate anyone pointing out further problems they see with the new design, ones I've overlooked when considering it. (if I haven't brought it up already, assume I'm missing it.) If consensus is that this would indeed be an improvement, I'll go ahead and drop this in (along with reformatting the rest of the table in kind). -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aligning lots of individual cells is a pain. That being said, it's a fairly minor one. It's only a lot of work the first time, when you have to update all of the rows. (Work I'm prepared and offering to take care of.) After that's done, it's pretty inconsequential considering the table will only need to be expanded by a maximum of 1 row / 5 cells per year.
 * The double-height of the dual-class rows messes with the perception of the table's vertical progression as a timeline, since years are no longer all the same height. The effect is most pronounced in the way it obscures the timespan of Schwarzenegger's 1974/1975 wins and Zane's 1977/1978 wins, since even though both boxes span two years, they end up being formatted the same height as the other (double-height) one-year spans that occurred during the dual-weight-class period. I don't know how much that bothers anyone else, but it annoys me a bit. If all-y'all are fine with it then cool, it's probably not worth expending any effort on. If I'm not the only one irritated by that, one idea I had for addressing it was to just explicitly make those spans four rows tall (two rows for each year), which would even out their height:time ratio so it matches the rest of the dual-class-year rows. Those rows will still all be twice the height of the rest of the rows for other years (assuming a wide enough page to avoid any line-wrapping), but as long as they're all even I don't think that's really an issue. The increased information density for those years makes it understandable that they'd require a bit more space to present it all. Yes, the height-per-year ratio changes at both the start and end of the weight-class timeframe. but if aside from those two adjustment events it's consistent everywhere I think most people will be able to follow it.


 * An additional negative I noticed to the redesign: Combining the weight-class wins with the overall results slightly obscures certain things, for instance the unbroken six-year span of Schwarzenegger's initial reign is less obvious when it's broken up into a four-year block followed by an additional two years where Columbu won the other class but failed to take the Overall. Similarly, Frank Zane's three-year reign becomes a bit less obvious in the revised layout, because it's split between two years where Robby Robinson won the Heavyweight but lost to him in the Overall, followed by a third year where Mike Mentzer was the Heavyweight he defeated.
 * I acknowledge that aspect of the proposed changes, but unfortunately I don't have any clever solutions to offer. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been probably this article's most frequent non-IP editor this year, any thoughts either way on this? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I like your overall idea to get rid of the waste of space of the "not held" boxes. It's something I've been thinking about doing but I'm quite frankly not technically savvy enough to competently do that, so I'm glad you're willing to take up the time to do it. My only real problem is the way it looks in the example above, should someone not read it properly, is that in 1975 Columbu won, and in 1978 Robinson won. As annoying as it might be, I think you'll have to simply put Arnold/Columbu and Zane/Robinson twice in a row, rather than in the way you have it now (i.e. the 1974 box says Arnold then Columbu, as will the 1975 box). It would also help with the "wins in a row get lost" problem, because Arnold's name would be there for each year even tho it would be mixed with Columbu. Vyselink (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That's actually a really good point, thanks — I think it's part of what was annoying me about the different height of those spans, but I hadn't quite picked up on exactly why it bothered me as much as it did. But you've put your finger on exactly what's wrong there, and I see it now for sure. I don't think just doubling the height of those rows would be enough to completely fix the problem, either.

See what you think of this:

It doubles the row height for all of those years, to force the time spans to be clearer, it removes the borders separating the spans of time between Arnold's, Zane's, and Robinson's repeat wins, and it goes back to placing the two competitors for a given year side-by-side instead of above and below each other, which eliminates that confusing problem where it seems like one of them won one year, and the other the year after. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this, the happier I am with it. I'm thinking it's pretty much there. But I'm still curious to hear your thoughts on it.
 * The only other thing I've considered changing, to make things a little more blatantly obvious, would be to bold the names of the overall winner in the dual-class years, to give them a bit more prominence vs. the winner of the other class. The only reason I'm hesitating about doing that, is because then I think it'd probably mean all the other winners' names in the other years would have to be bolded as well, and that's a lot of bold text. So, I'm still not quite sure about that one. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks good the way you have it now, no need to bold. The overall winner is to the left, with the other class that year a subbox to the right. It looks good to me. Vyselink (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! I'll leave it alone, then, otherwise I'll be tweaking it forever. I should have the full table updated in the article within the next few hours. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These changes are now live, with all table rows updated to the new format. Thanks for all your input ! My first attempt was so much worse than the way this turned out, and that's all thanks to you. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Frank Zane.jpg

Fixing url-status in citations
I just went through all of the citations on the page, and removed any that contained a live parameter without valid archive-url and archive-date parameters.

The url-status parameter is only intended for use with the archive parameters. Its sole function is to control whether the original link or the archive link is presented as the primary one, when citations are supplied with both links. It is not intended to be used (and cannot possibly be used) as a general statement regarding the current status of a citation link, which may have changed since the time the citation was placed.

Therefore, as it says in the introductory text of the tracking category for such uses, "While not an error, CS1 and CS2 templates that have url-status but not archive-url should be repaired." I have done so, by changing live to an empty url-status in any citations with an empty corresponding archive-url. FeRDNYC (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)