Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Hayfield

Mr. America and Mr. Olympia : A Statisical Ranking

Recommended Posts

Harry Hayfield

Caveat: As I have not yet reached the requirements to be able to post in the Data Den, I have (with Joe's expression permission) been told to post this series of posts in this section of the forum. If, however, any member believes that this is wrong, then please do raise your concerns with Joe and I will abide by whatever decision he makes.

One of the things that I am very good at is data analysis, most usually when trying to wonder what on earth is happening to our politics in the UK post Brexit (to which the answer is "I am just as stumped as everyone else!"), however this does mean that I have had plenty of practice with it and based on data I have on my computer relating to the Mr. America contest from 1939 until 1981, Mr. Olympia since the start, a BMI ready reckoner and a proportionality table (sadly I cannot remember the primary source) I asked Joe if I could make a series of posts listing each winner and comparing them to create a ranking of who was the best in terms of aestheticness (which members will be more than happy to comment on when the list is complete).

I shall be starting with the Mr. America contest first and making posts (whenever I am able) in chronological order (this means that the first posts will be purely about Mr. America from 1939 - 1964, Mr. America and Mr. Olympia (in that order) from 1965 to 1981, and then Mr. Olympia from 1982 onwards.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray Nobile

great work harry, looking forward to reading your stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield

Bert Goorich (Mr. America 1939)

Bert Goodrich was the first man to be crowned Mr. America in 1939 standing 5ft 10½ inches tall and weighing 195lbs. Using the Body Mass Index calculation (weight / height squared), his BMI comes out as 27.64 (which is ranked as "overweight" on a six banded scale ranging from underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese, very obese and morbidly obese). To calculate proportionality, you take the weight and divide it by the height (the square root of the BMI calculation) which comes out as 2.77lbs per inch of height.

This information can then be used to assess what Bert would look like proportionally and then compare that with his actual physical stats. The information posted is based from a table published a very long time ago (but sadly I cannot remember where it was done originally) and based on the mathematical principle of the trend line (otherwise known as a "line of best fit"). Using this calculation we can determine the following:

His biceps measured at 21 inches are nearly six inches bigger than proportional (40% bigger), his chest (not measured but based on a mathematical average) 39 inches is two and half inches smaller (6% smaller), his waist of 31 inches is exactly proportional, his quads of 29 inches are under seven inches bigger (29% bigger) and his calves of 19½ inches are around four inches bigger (31% bigger). Using these differentials, on average Bert was 18.89% bigger than his proportional assessment.

Bert Goodrich 1939.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark

Harry,

Other sources say Goodrich was 6' and 210-215 lbs.  Measurements are tricky. You may remember when Willoughby had a series about measurements. He,and Sargeant,would actually measure the competitors sometimes. It is thought Sargeant's papers are somewhere on campus at Harvard.

Are you saying that Goodrich has 21:" arms? That must be a typo. If not, do you know the source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John McCarthy

Joe the photo on the left does not look like Bert and his arm appears 15".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield
20 minutes ago, Joe Roark said:

Harry,

Other sources say Goodrich was 6' and 210-215 lbs.  Measurements are tricky. You may remember when Willoughby had a series about measurements. He,and Sargeant,would actually measure the competitors sometimes. It is thought Sargeant's papers are somewhere on campus at Harvard.

Are you saying that Goodrich has 21:" arms? That must be a typo. If not, do you know the source?

That is the figure I have in my tables. Sadly I cannot remember the source but I do know that I entered the data correctly as I checked it twice (just as I do with all data)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield
6 minutes ago, John McCarthy said:

Joe the photo on the left does not look like Bert and his arm appears 15".

That picture came from a forum published in the Portuguese language that quoted several Instagram posts by Eric Helms which identifies Bert as the person on the right of the picture. The person on the left is Roland Essmaker and is included for the following reason "While this wasn’t the AAU sanctioned true first Mr America contest, Bert is regarded as the first Mr America in spirit. However in fact, the first AAU sanctioned and billed Mr America contest was put on less than a month later and was won by Roland Essmaker" and as he is deemed to be the winner as well, he shall be next in my postings.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark
5 minutes ago, Harry Hayfield said:

That is the figure I have in my tables. Sadly I cannot remember the source but I do know that I entered the data correctly as I checked it twice (just as I do with all data)

The only claimed arms to hover around 20" were John McWilliams (who actually offered cash if you could measure them at less than (as I recall) 19.5, and Leroy Colbert, who I doubt had 20", and Willoughy doubted it also.

If I can find my issue of Your Physique that lists Goodrich's measurements I will post them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark

Your Physique October 1946:

Goodrich meas.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield

Can I thank @Joe Roark immensely for that data. I have amended my table (and hope that if other data I have is incorrect members will point me in the direction of the correct data), therefore Bert's amended record is: Biceps 6.47% bigger, Chest 9.86% bigger, Waist 8.06% bigger, Quads 6.70% bigger and Calves 5.37% bigger for an average of +7.29%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark
34 minutes ago, Harry Hayfield said:

Can I thank @Joe Roark immensely for that data. I have amended my table (and hope that if other data I have is incorrect members will point me in the direction of the correct data), therefore Bert's amended record is: Biceps 6.47% bigger, Chest 9.86% bigger, Waist 8.06% bigger, Quads 6.70% bigger and Calves 5.37% bigger for an average of +7.29%

My pleasure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dale Credico

I am enjoying this use of data collection you're working on, Harry. Measurements, even factual and accurate measurements used to determine aesthetic qualities of the male physique are very tricky, as we can't truly factor in shape and symmetry in the equation/algorythm, owing to the lack of the human perceptual element regarding beauty in these calculated methods. A man, for example Reeves, with equal arm-neck-calf accurate measurements. Another man with identical measurements but lacking in aesthetic shape of those bodyparts would appear much less striking. Shape of bodyparts and the correlated symettry are extremely important in true bodybuilding. You know, the kind that happened before that strange mental breakdown and seeming blindness that overtook the sport.

My point, however insignificant, is that the perception of aesthetics in physique development can't be based too strongly on numbers.
The beauty of it, and it can be so amazing and reaffirming of humanity in certain instances, is that it goes beyond the calculation of itself.

Hey, don't get me wrong and please don't take offence. This work you're doing is exciting for me to be able to see here.
Yikes. I wonder if I'm alone here in sometimes thinking I gotta get a life 😊

I'm likin' this thread!

Edited by Dale Credico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield
5 hours ago, Dale Credico said:

I am enjoying this use of data collection you're working on, Harry. Measurements, even factual and accurate measurements used to determine aesthetic qualities of the male physique are very tricky, as we can't truly factor in shape and symmetry in the equation/algorythm, owing to the lack of the human perceptual element regarding beauty in these calculated methods. A man, for example Reeves, with equal arm-neck-calf accurate measurements. Another man with identical measurements but lacking in aesthetic shape of those bodyparts would appear much less striking. Shape of bodyparts and the correlated symettry are extremely important in true bodybuilding. You know, the kind that happened before that strange mental breakdown and seeming blindness that overtook the sport.

My point, however insignificant, is that the perception of aesthetics in physique development can't be based too strongly on numbers.
The beauty of it, and it can be so amazing and reaffirming of humanity in certain instances, is that it goes beyond the calculation of itself.

Hey, don't get me wrong and please don't take offence. This work you're doing is exciting for me to be able to see here.
Yikes. I wonder if I'm alone here in sometimes thinking I gotta get a life 😊

I'm likin' this thread!

I never take offence to anything, and that's part of the reason why I am doing this. I agree with you completely that bodybuilders today do slightly push the boundary of that definition. For instance take the current Mr. Olympia Brandon Curry, if you run his numbers through you get a BMI of 38.85 (which is ranked as very obese), that's 41% higher than Bert with a weight to height ratio of 3.75 (135% higher). It will take a while to do the actual proportional calculations, but at a rough guess that would put Curry at an average of +53% (the higher the + percentage more towards mass a person is, the higher the - percentage the more towards leaness a person is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liam Tweed
On 10/5/2019 at 10:18 AM, Harry Hayfield said:

Caveat: As I have not yet reached the requirements to be able to post in the Data Den, I have (with Joe's expression permission) been told to post this series of posts in this section of the forum. If, however, any member believes that this is wrong, then please do raise your concerns with Joe and I will abide by whatever decision he makes.

One of the things that I am very good at is data analysis, most usually when trying to wonder what on earth is happening to our politics in the UK post Brexit (to which the answer is "I am just as stumped as everyone else!"), however this does mean that I have had plenty of practice with it and based on data I have on my computer relating to the Mr. America contest from 1939 until 1981, Mr. Olympia since the start, a BMI ready reckoner and a proportionality table (sadly I cannot remember the primary source) I asked Joe if I could make a series of posts listing each winner and comparing them to create a ranking of who was the best in terms of aestheticness (which members will be more than happy to comment on when the list is complete).

I shall be starting with the Mr. America contest first and making posts (whenever I am able) in chronological order (this means that the first posts will be purely about Mr. America from 1939 - 1964, Mr. America and Mr. Olympia (in that order) from 1965 to 1981, and then Mr. Olympia from 1982 onwards.

Hi Harry

this is a very interesting exercise and i will be watching this tread closely

im sure you are aware that somewhere around 1955 the height v lean body mass ratios will trigger a PED involvement debate ?

i once listened to a podcast where the BMI (lean) ratio was argued as a good indicator of PED use

ie there is a maximum weight / height any man can obtain in lean condition WITHOUT steroids

I cant recall what the ratio was

in my own experience at 5' 7' it seems impossible to weigh more than about 72 kgs if i want to be in 'competition condition "without PEDs of course .

i compare myself to Clarence Bass , same height and structure as me and sure enough he was in his best shape at about 74 kgs

my point is that i totally believe there are specific ranges of maximum lean natural condition and except for the genetic outliers ( we are talking a rare person here) , anybody who is outside those ranges is likely not natural.

the assumption here of course that the end result condition is very lean , which one can determine from the contest photos

i look forward to your future posts

Liam

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield
14 minutes ago, Liam Tweed said:

Hi Harry

this is a very interesting exercise and i will be watching this tread closely

im sure you are aware that somewhere around 1955 the height v lean body mass ratios will trigger a PED involvement debate ?

i once listened to a podcast where the BMI (lean) ratio was argued as a good indicator of PED use

ie there is a maximum weight / height any man can obtain in lean condition WITHOUT steroids

I cant recall what the ratio was

in my own experience at 5' 7' it seems impossible to weigh more than about 72 kgs if i want to be in 'competition condition "without PEDs of course .

i compare myself to Clarence Bass , same height and structure as me and sure enough he was in his best shape at about 74 kgs

my point is that i totally believe there are specific ranges of maximum lean natural condition and except for the genetic outliers ( we are talking a rare person here) , anybody who is outside those ranges is likely not natural.

the assumption here of course that the end result condition is very lean , which one can determine from the contest photos

i look forward to your future posts

Liam

 

 

 

I am absolutely aware of that Liam, and like you I have often wondered if a date can be identified using the weight / height ratio. Using the example you give that would put the figure at 2.43lbs per inch of height (so Bert's 2.77lbs per inch of height, by that suggestion, would instantly start raising eyebrows).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liam Tweed
7 minutes ago, Harry Hayfield said:

I am absolutely aware of that Liam, and like you I have often wondered if a date can be identified using the weight / height ratio. Using the example you give that would put the figure at 2.43lbs per inch of height (so Bert's 2.77lbs per inch of height, by that suggestion, would instantly start raising eyebrows).

i think its safe to assume  Bert was  genetically superior to both Clarence and myself

age must also be a factor probably by decade if not very 5 years after 25

Liam

Edited by Liam Tweed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark

The weight/height ratio involves a floating factor: length of the torso relative to the legs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Fett

Casey Butt has done an extensive analysis of lean height/bodyweight possibilities for naturals.

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

Once steroids enter the picture all bets are off.

 

Edited by Bob Fett
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stephen j duyka

? don't know if this will show measurements for early mr a's

Measurements of the first 15 Mr Americas 1.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield
31 minutes ago, stephen j duyka said:

? don't know if this will show measurements for early mr a's

Measurements of the first 15 Mr Americas 1.html 5.8 kB · 1 download

Those are the figures! Where did you find them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dale Credico

http://www.musclememory.com/articles/MrAsizes.html

This list came up during an earlier conversation about reported waist sizes.

Edited by Dale Credico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Hayfield

I apologise for the delay, but my grandmother was admitted to hospital on Saturday (at her own request) suffering from a pain in her stomach. I am pleased to say that she is much better, but is still in hospital whilst local government care agencies sort out a new care package.

John Grimek (1940, 1941)

The second man, and first to hold onto the title, to be crowned Mr. America was a man who would become famous in bodybuilding circles. As he won the contest twice, I shall be using the 1940 data only. John stood 5ft 8½ inches tall (two inches shorter than Bert) and yet weighed exactly the same, therefore as a result his BMI measurement is higher (29.28) but still in the same class and his height to weight ratio of 2.85lbs per inch is also higher. Based on this information, his proportional stature should have been: 45 chest, 33.75 waist, 24.25 quads and 16.25 biceps and calves.

His actual measurements were: Chest 47½ inches (+6%), Waist 32 inches (-5%), Quads 25 inches (+3%), Biceps 17 inches (+5%) and Calves 17 inches (+5%) giving an average of +2.54% (bigger) than proportional. Therefore John takes the lead as he is more proportional than Bert.

As John also won the 1941 title, the next person on the list is the 1942 winner Frank Leight.

John Grimek (1940).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peter yates

Thanks Harry and hope all works out OK with your grandmother.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Roark
On 10/10/2019 at 5:20 AM, Harry Hayfield said:

I apologise for the delay, but my grandmother was admitted to hospital on Saturday (at her own request) suffering from a pain in her stomach. I am pleased to say that she is much better, but is still in hospital whilst local government care agencies sort out a new care package.

John Grimek (1940, 1941)

The second man, and first to hold onto the title, to be crowned Mr. America was a man who would become famous in bodybuilding circles. As he won the contest twice, I shall be using the 1940 data only. John stood 5ft 8½ inches tall (two inches shorter than Bert) and yet weighed exactly the same, therefore as a result his BMI measurement is higher (29.28) but still in the same class and his height to weight ratio of 2.85lbs per inch is also higher. Based on this information, his proportional stature should have been: 45 chest, 33.75 waist, 24.25 quads and 16.25 biceps and calves.

His actual measurements were: Chest 47½ inches (+6%), Waist 32 inches (-5%), Quads 25 inches (+3%), Biceps 17 inches (+5%) and Calves 17 inches (+5%) giving an average of +2.54% (bigger) than proportional. Therefore John takes the lead as he is more proportional than Bert.

As John also won the 1941 title, the next person on the list is the 1942 winner Frank Leight.

John Grimek (1940).png

Harry, if you do not object, I will insert other info in case you do not have the mags. For example:

   STRENGTH & HEALTH:      John Grimek             by Joe Roark    page 6
        Mar 1941 p 17 @ squat 500 lbs, deadlift over 600, press 285,
                      continental and press 330, one arm snatch 170,
                      C&J 340, bent press 260, arm 18.25, waist 29,
                      thigh 29, calf 18
                      one arm C&J 210, 2 hands snatch 265

---------------------------

When it comes to measurements, it is difficult to be certain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.