Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: rufjunk on January 28, 2006, 11:16:13 AM

Title: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on January 28, 2006, 11:16:13 AM
Thoughts.. opinions..?

I'll go first..

This is the look thats ruined with modern bodybuilding. When you start putting on size just for the sake of size, it literally ruins everything. It looks like Ronnie pumped himself full of oil and shredded out, he looks like a shredded version of the Michilin tire man.

Look how smooth he is in the bottom picture, granted its in black and white, compare his stomach and his muscle shape. All of that went to shit when he went for more size and I'm afraid this is what will ruin bodybuilders such as Dexter, Richard Jones, Gustavo (he's already starting), Mark Dugdale. The bottom Ronnie would win each olympia without question, the top will leave everything up to controversy.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: Disgusted on January 28, 2006, 11:29:01 AM
Well brainiac, in the first pic Ronnie is expanding his rib cage and in the second he is flexing his abs. Two different poses. Plus his shorts make his obliques look smaller. Soooooo, if your going to make a comparison then do it right.  ::)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: Bluto on January 28, 2006, 11:30:51 AM
Another bash ronnie thread, how exciting!
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: tommywishbone on January 28, 2006, 11:32:25 AM
Where was that top/color pic taken?
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: sculpture on January 28, 2006, 11:55:31 AM
I read the same opinion over at ironage using teh exact same two photos. Coincidence? This smacks of the ironage consensus
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: body88 on January 28, 2006, 12:21:12 PM
I read the same opinion over at ironage using the exact same two photos. Coincidence? This smacks of the ironage consensus


It is true, anyone who thinks Ronnie has improved his body since those black and whites is obv a cock rider or blind. Coleman looks crazy in those black and whites


Hell even hulk admits this openly :o
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: Slick Vic on January 28, 2006, 12:23:37 PM
Hulkster, you listening?
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: jazon7x on January 28, 2006, 12:46:55 PM
Thoughts.. opinions..?

I'll go first..

This is the look thats ruined with modern bodybuilding. When you start putting on size just for the sake of size, it literally ruins everything. It looks like Ronnie pumped himself full of oil and shredded out, he looks like a shredded version of the Michilin tire man.

Look how smooth he is in the bottom picture, granted its in black and white, compare his stomach and his muscle shape. All of that went to shit when he went for more size and I'm afraid this is what will ruin bodybuilders such as Dexter, Richard Jones, Gustavo (he's already starting), Mark Dugdale. The bottom Ronnie would win each olympia without question, the top will leave everything up to controversy.

the black and whites are from 2000.....the other from 04
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: 8 INCH not biceps on January 28, 2006, 01:26:23 PM
Thoughts.. opinions..?

I'll go first..

This is the look thats ruined with modern bodybuilding. When you start putting on size just for the sake of size, it literally ruins everything. It looks like Ronnie pumped himself full of oil and shredded out, he looks like a shredded version of the Michilin tire man.

Look how smooth he is in the bottom picture, granted its in black and white, compare his stomach and his muscle shape. All of that went to shit when he went for more size and I'm afraid this is what will ruin bodybuilders such as Dexter, Richard Jones, Gustavo (he's already starting),
Mark Dugdale. The bottom Ronnie would win each olympia without question, the top will leave everything up to controversy.






At least Ronnie was great and he still his but you have always being dogshit and guess what? you are still dogshit!
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: rufjunk on January 28, 2006, 01:38:16 PM
The dogshit mark was an exaggeration of course.. I'm just attempting to stir up controversy.... anyone think the previous look is better?

yes/no/maybe

beats flames..
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on January 28, 2006, 02:12:21 PM
Also I apologize, the two pictures are obviously different and don't do Ronnie justice..

It's the best I could find...

But does anyone else feel the same way I do.. you can notice he's sorta bulging out his stomach in the first one.. flexing his abs in the second.. Even with him flexing his abs it still looks a lot better than his current form. I know there is someone out there that believes Insulin and GH use does alter muscle size and shape and causes distended stomachs, all for the sake of size.


Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Jr. Yates on January 28, 2006, 03:46:43 PM
2nd pic looks good.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: GMCtrk on January 28, 2006, 10:50:27 PM
That second picture is from 97....
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: controldenied33 on January 28, 2006, 11:31:19 PM
That 2nd picture is amazing.  Slight gyno behind the left nipple but an otherwise amazing physique.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: DIVISION on January 29, 2006, 12:17:46 AM
I know there is someone out there that believes Insulin and GH use does alter muscle size and shape and causes distended stomachs, all for the sake of size.

It's a strong belief, the only thing we don't have confirming this is a clinical study, but you could make a strong correlation between GH/Insulin/IGF-1 use with distended stomachs in pro bodybuilders.

Things were never this out of control before the introduction of these drugs.

I'm not one to say Ronnie shouldn't have used them, it's his life, and I don't care about bodybuilding or its future.  I just think it's a very high price to pay for a trophy, fleeting fame and a Hummer......




DIV
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 29, 2006, 03:26:29 AM
Thoughts.. opinions..?

I'll go first..

This is the look thats ruined with modern bodybuilding. When you start putting on size just for the sake of size, it literally ruins everything. It looks like Ronnie pumped himself full of oil and shredded out, he looks like a shredded version of the Michilin tire man.

Look how smooth he is in the bottom picture, granted its in black and white, compare his stomach and his muscle shape. All of that went to shit when he went for more size and I'm afraid this is what will ruin bodybuilders such as Dexter, Richard Jones, Gustavo (he's already starting), Mark Dugdale. The bottom Ronnie would win each olympia without question, the top will leave everything up to controversy.

  I have said it before and I'll say it again:Ronnie looks like shit, when he gets over 260 lbs. His best form ever was at the 99 O, when he was just as dry and with as much detail as in 98, only 10 lbs heavier. Ronnie looks his best at 250 lbs.

  At the 2004, Ronnie was grotesque. At 296 lbs, he looked like a black Sigourney Weaver, pregnant with an Alien Queen. Furthermore, his skin showed the resilience of a dam; it seemed like he had drank the Mississippi River. Ugly. Gross. Repugnant. At the 2003 O and weighting 287 lbs, he was shredded and dry, but his shoulder-traps complex clearly overpowered his chest and his waist, the shoulders. His thighs and back were humongous, but with far less detail than in 98 or 99. Also, his thighs overpowered his calves.

  While both Roonie and Dorian look bad over 260 lbs, I think that Dorian looked better at that weight. At the 97 O, when Dorian was 270+ lbs, he also had a big waist, but at least he maintained his trademark density and dryness. Also, at that weight, he showed more detail than Ronnie, on his back and thighs. That's my opinion.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Bluto on January 29, 2006, 04:12:01 AM
Quote
Also, his thighs overpowered his calves.

really. i cant imagine that happening!
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: DIVISION on January 29, 2006, 05:43:39 AM
At the 97 O, when Dorian was 270+ lbs, he also had a big waist, but at least he maintained his trademark density and dryness.

When did Dorian NOT maintain density and dryness?

That's the real question.

It's the one thing that made him stand out above everyone else.




DIV
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: gibberj2 on January 29, 2006, 06:06:53 AM
Levrone won in 92. and dorian's chest was always kinda small for the rest of him. i thought i had seen shawn look better and flex look better in some olympias. maybe he should have 4 sandows.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on January 29, 2006, 02:36:23 PM
THIS BLOATED LOOK STARTED WITH YATES.
NO ONE Ron included, looks as good heavier than their ideal weight.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Jr. Yates on January 29, 2006, 03:39:32 PM
true
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: bigdumbbell on January 29, 2006, 03:47:39 PM
i hate all his pictures
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: phyxsius on January 29, 2006, 04:02:54 PM
Ronnie is old. Am young, am hungry, I wanted to win and am 100% natural.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Lion666 on January 29, 2006, 05:23:22 PM
2nd pic looks good.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: 8 INCH not biceps on January 29, 2006, 05:29:59 PM
  I have said it before and I'll say it again:Ronnie looks like shit, when he gets over 260 lbs. His best form ever was at the 99 O, when he was just as dry and with as much detail as in 98, only 10 lbs heavier. Ronnie looks his best at 250 lbs.
  At the 2004, Ronnie was grotesque. At 296 lbs, he looked like a black Sigourney Weaver, pregnant with an Alien Queen. Furthermore, his skin showed the resilience of a dam; it seemed like he had drank the Mississippi River. Ugly. Gross. Repugnant. At the 2003 O and weighting 287 lbs, he was shredded and dry, but his shoulder-traps complex clearly overpowered his chest and his waist, the shoulders. His thighs and back were humongous, but with far less detail than in 98 or 99. Also, his thighs overpowered his calves.
  While both Roonie and Dorian look bad over 260 lbs, I think that Dorian looked better at that weight. At the 97 O, when Dorian was 270+ lbs, he also had a big waist, but at least he maintained his trademark density and dryness. Also, at that weight, he showed more detail than Ronnie, on his back and thighs. That's my opinion.
SUCKMYMUSCLE

Your opinion sucks because in 97 dorian gut looked horrible and his waist was wide, no one will argue that ronnie's gut was getting out of control but he turned around and got it under control.
 I still cannot understand how you guys expect a bodybuilder to be 296 lbs on stage at 5ft 11  with a small waist and a flat stomach that is a little unrealistic.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on January 29, 2006, 07:57:47 PM
I find it incredibly funny (and terribly sad) that someone can criticize Ronnie in 2004 (which I do myself, he looked not that great) but then at the same time sing the praises of Dorian in 1997.  1997???!!!  Ugh.

Why do you think there are pics out there of Dorian getting owned from "lesser" bodbuilders from the front?

The answer is that Dorian fell apart in his later years.

1993 okay. but 1997 (and post tear to boot)??

ugh.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 29, 2006, 10:36:11 PM
Your opinion sucks because in 97 dorian gut looked horrible and his waist was wide, no one will argue that ronnie's gut was getting out of control but he turned around and got it under control. I still cannot understand how you guys expect a bodybuilder to be 296 lbs on stage at 5ft 11  with a small waist and a flat stomach that is a little unrealistic.
 Hey, dumbass, you just agreed with everything I wrote and you don't even realize it. I never said that Dorian looked good, at the 97 O. In fact, he was some 20 lbs above what is ideal for him.  My sole point was that Dorian still looked decent at that weight, due to his incredible hardness and dryness. Ronnie looks disproportional and bloated when he gets over 260 lbs. Furthermore, Dorian's shoulder-to-waist ratio, while bad, was always better than Ronnie's. The bottom line, is that Ronnie, loses more of his quality, when he goes over 260 lbs. Once again, Ronnie is at his pinnacle at around 250 lbs(density, dryness, striations, proportion, detail and separation).
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: nicorulez on January 30, 2006, 04:26:56 PM
Ronnie in 2003 craps over any version of Yates.  Better separation, better proportions. Yates couldn't ever touch him.  Only BB with the mass with class that Coleman had in 2003 was Haney and he was thirty pounds lighter.  Dorian has a wide waist, average chest, sucky (thats for you Suckymuscle) arms, and an insane gack.  Put it all together and he looked like shit that year.  In 1993, his best year, he was amazing.  Don't even try to compare him in 1997 to Ronnie in 2003.  Now I agree he looked bloated and soft in 2004.  Still, he stomped the shit out of Jay and the rest.  Only guy with a potential chance to beat him in the future is Vic with 20 pounds.  Oh yeah, if Dorian circa 1993 came back then it would be some fun also.  However, I totally disagree about Dorian over 270....awful.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on January 30, 2006, 05:04:46 PM
Ron in his "worst" Olympia condition still stomps on Yates.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on January 30, 2006, 09:42:39 PM
never get enough pictures

Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 30, 2006, 10:44:10 PM
Ronnie in 2003 craps over any version of Yates.  Better separation, better proportions. Yates couldn't ever touch him.  Only BB with the mass with class that Coleman had in 2003 was Haney and he was thirty pounds lighter.  Dorian has a wide waist, average chest, sucky (thats for you Suckymuscle) arms, and an insane gack.  Put it all together and he looked like shit that year.  In 1993, his best year, he was amazing.  Don't even try to compare him in 1997 to Ronnie in 2003.  Now I agree he looked bloated and soft in 2004.  Still, he stomped the shit out of Jay and the rest.  Only guy with a potential chance to beat him in the future is Vic with 20 pounds.  Oh yeah, if Dorian circa 1993 came back then it would be some fun also.  However, I totally disagree about Dorian over 270....awful.

  Ok. Now, your opinion matters because...? At least Hulkster knows what he's talking about. I completely lost respect for you, after reading your posts; an amazing feat, considering that you have so few of them.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

P.S:Don't call me suckymuscle...you know my muscle does it's best to please you, but your rectum is just too damn loose for any muscle. Not even if I stuck my quadracips, up there, I'd be able to please you. So, how do you expect my fallus femoris to?;D

Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 08, 2006, 01:52:34 PM
Thought I'd bump this over finding some interesting picture comparisons.
This is why people complain about pro's dipping into various chemicals for the sake of size. Check the face and the stomach.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 08, 2006, 04:39:34 PM
Good point...
The only point I can make is he would've been a better bodybuilder had he not used chemicals that altered his stomach and face. Maybe that means not as much mass, but I would prefer a more aesthetic and truly art-form like Ronnie as opposed to a Mass Monster with a distended stomach.
I guess thats the price you pay, but its unfortunate. I still think someone with with an elongated stomach that distends and a facial structure thats noticably larger from GH use should not be hoisted as the pinnacle of bodybuilding, that just sends the wrong message.
The stomach is the center peice of the body, for him to compromise that to have larger quads and a more thick body should be marked down, which in turn would just negate the extra mass.
He still looks great I guess it's just unfortunate he had to ruin one body part to make the rest bigger. Bigger is not better... it seems some judges ignore this.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 08, 2006, 07:10:19 PM
its not just chemicals - wasn't there a 10 year age difference between those pics? People may showing aging more in the face than anywhere else.  Its aging AND chemicals.

Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to dogshit
Post by: Rome on February 09, 2006, 04:22:45 AM
Another bash ronnie thread, how exciting!
They're always SO enlightening and original aren't they?  ::)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 09, 2006, 06:00:20 AM
Aging, chemicals plus the fact than anyone looks less good above their ideal weight.
Bottom line he looked damn good last October and was still clearly the best.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: sgt. d on February 09, 2006, 08:59:34 AM
  Ok. Now, your opinion matters because...? At least Hulkster knows what he's talking about. I completely lost respect for you, after reading your posts; an amazing feat, considering that you have so few of them.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
P.S:Don't call me suckymuscle...you know my muscle does it's best to please you, but your rectum is just too damn loose for any muscle. Not even if I stuck my quadracips, up there, I'd be able to please you. So, how do you expect my fallus femoris to?;D

ok mr. 280 monster with no pics to show  ::)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 10, 2006, 07:45:00 AM
I say we make a petition for the Olympia judges to change their criteria. Guys coming up like Ronnie won't have to drastically alter their bone structure and health just to compete at the top level.

Richard Jones is choosing not to GH it up, why not Gustavo?
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 16, 2006, 01:31:29 PM
old pics
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 16, 2006, 01:35:53 PM
I know it's small but when's the last time you saw this pose?

This is a humorous comparison..

Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: candidate2025 on February 16, 2006, 01:56:31 PM
I say we make a petition for the Olympia judges to change their criteria. Guys coming up like Ronnie won't have to drastically alter their bone structure and health just to compete at the top level.
Richard Jones is choosing not to GH it up, why not Gustavo?

absolutley not....ronnie this year was the best he has ever loked.   probably the best anyone has ever loked...except maybe markhus ruhl in 2002.

and he(ronnnie) is healthy.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 16, 2006, 02:50:50 PM
absolutley not....ronnie this year was the best he has ever loked.   probably the best anyone has ever loked...except maybe markhus ruhl in 2002.
and he(ronnnie) is healthy.
correction: it was the best he has ever looked in several years.
It was not the best anyone has ever looked.
Although ronnie version 2005 is far better than version 2004, it was not better than 98,99 or AC 2001.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: gibberj2 on February 16, 2006, 09:36:41 PM
98 gyno
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: candidate2025 on February 16, 2006, 09:39:49 PM
correction: it was the best he has ever looked in several years.
It was not the best anyone has ever looked.
Although ronnie version 2005 is far better than version 2004, it was not better than 98,99 or AC 2001.
i have to disagree....ive never seen apicture or video of anyone (including ronnie) look better than ronnie did at this years olympia.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 16, 2006, 11:16:18 PM
i have to disagree....ive never seen apicture or video of anyone (including ronnie) look better than ronnie did at this years olympia.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman08.jpg)
there. now you have ;)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: delta9mda on February 17, 2006, 04:53:20 AM
Also I apologize, the two pictures are obviously different and don't do Ronnie justice..
It's the best I could find...
But does anyone else feel the same way I do.. you can notice he's sorta bulging out his stomach in the first one.. flexing his abs in the second.. Even with him flexing his abs it still looks a lot better than his current form. I know there is someone out there that believes Insulin and GH use does alter muscle size and shape and causes distended stomachs, all for the sake of size.


you can not alter a muscles shape. get off ronnies dick hes one of the best ever, though we all know how many times he never came close to yates- hulkster?  ;D
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 17, 2006, 05:46:27 AM
Ron looked good in '05, the best he's looked in a few years but anyone who thinks that's his best hasn't done the homework.

No comparison with when he was lighter, athletic and basically an anatomy chart. He looked damn good in '05 though, still clearly ahead of everyone else when you see the video.

Forget Yates in this, it's tired. Yates was never in the same league and wouldn't have won in any other era than the one he was fortunate to have been in. Let it go; he was solid and the subject's boring.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: delta9mda on February 17, 2006, 11:10:55 AM
Ron looked good in '05, the best he's looked in a few years but anyone who thinks that's his best hasn't done the homework.
No comparison with when he was lighter, athletic and basically an anatomy chart. He looked damn good in '05 though, still clearly ahead of everyone else when you see the video.
Forget Yates in this, it's tired. Yates was never in the same league and wouldn't have won in any other era than the one he was fortunate to have been in. Let it go; he was solid and the subject's boring.

you mean the era with the most competition? yates beat the best at their best. do the math.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 17, 2006, 12:20:33 PM
you mean the era with the most competition? yates beat the best at their best. do the math.

  Bravo! :D Finally a non-retard on this board! Dorian raped Ronnie, more times, than Kobe Bryant raped that dumb bitch!

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 17, 2006, 03:47:44 PM
you mean the era with the most competition? yates beat the best at their best. do the math.
but that has no relevance on Yates beating anyone in Ronnie's era.
physiques progress (at least until we hit the gut age).
oh wait...who started that??
Oh yeah, Dorian! 8)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 17, 2006, 03:50:03 PM
ps- don't even start this Yates was better than Coleman crap.
It has been done so many times and Yates lost everytime.
He had better abs, calves and...ummm..uh.....thats it.
no wonder yates always lost in those debates.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 17, 2006, 07:01:44 PM
ps- don't even start this Yates was better than Coleman crap.
It has been done so many times and Yates lost everytime.
He had better abs, calves and...ummm..uh.....thats it.
no wonder yates always lost in those debates.

  Dude, throughout his career, Dorian IGNORED Ronnie. Coleman was INSIGNIFICANT.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: 240 is Back on February 17, 2006, 08:38:07 PM

and he(ronnnie) is healthy.

Well, that's speaking in a relative sense.  Just because he's not on dialysis (yet) doesn't mean he's right on pace to live to a ripe old age of 70. 
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 17, 2006, 08:41:12 PM
Yates had a better side tricep pose - no doubt.
Better ab thighs - no doubt.
Better front lat spread - no doubt

These can't be disputed.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 17, 2006, 08:53:03 PM
  Dude, throughout his career, Dorian IGNORED Ronnie. Coleman was INSIGNIFICANT.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
of course he was. he was 12 at the time ;)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 17, 2006, 08:54:34 PM
Yates had a better side tricep pose - no doubt.
Better ab thighs - no doubt.
Better front lat spread - no doubt
These can't be disputed.
but Ronnie takes the other 5! and taper. and vascularity. and striations. and.. 8)
oh.. lets not go there again.
yates has been beaten enough! :)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 17, 2006, 09:27:20 PM
of course he was. he was 12 at the time ;)

  Not really, dumbass. Dorian is only one year older than Ronnie. ::)

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 17, 2006, 09:38:04 PM
Yates' usually won over Lavrone, Dillet & Flex thanks to politics rife within a very commerical Weider realm.

Enough of the comparisons already, Yates was a bigger Franco Columbo with the same overpowering, unbalanced powerlifter's torso and wide hips.  :P

The comparisons always conclude that Yates will always be Ron's dog and knows it himself. End of story.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 17, 2006, 10:33:52 PM
Yates' usually won over Lavrone, Dillet & Flex thanks to politics rife within a very commerical Weider realm.
Enough of the comparisons already, Yates was a bigger Franco Columbo with the same overpowering, unbalanced powerlifter's torso and wide hips.  :P
The comparisons always conclude that Yates will always be Ron's dog and knows it himself. End of story.

  Yeah, 'cause the dog is the male of the species. Dorian, the dog; Ronnie, the bitch. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 18, 2006, 11:08:21 AM
The only good old pics I can find are in black and white. I wonder if any pro's would comment on the type of chemicals guys have to turn to in order to compete at this level.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 18, 2006, 07:02:59 PM
ND posted these excellent comparison pics before.

(http://x10.putfile.com/12/34800155099.jpg)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 18, 2006, 07:03:37 PM
(http://x4.putfile.com/2/4821001784.jpg)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 18, 2006, 07:04:21 PM
(http://x4.putfile.com/2/4820592238.jpg)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 18, 2006, 07:34:31 PM
Not more comparison shotz..BTW find one of Dorian that looks like this..
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 18, 2006, 07:52:32 PM
All bodybuilders look good by themselves. But I agree - Ronnie has a better most muscular because of his vascularity and biceps. But that's it.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 18, 2006, 10:29:39 PM
(http://x4.putfile.com/2/4820592238.jpg)

  Greater density, dryness and...fullness! :o In this picture, Dorian rapes Ronnie even when it comes to fullness, the only thing he is usually better than The Shadow. Ronnie sucks Yates dick big time. :-[ :-\ ;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 18, 2006, 11:03:47 PM
Obviously Ron's not in top shape in that shot. Next.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 19, 2006, 07:42:16 AM
sergio and ronnie
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: kaylos on February 19, 2006, 10:24:55 AM
ND posted these excellent comparison pics before.

Totally absurd : They are not at the same distance  ::)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 19, 2006, 11:39:56 AM
Quote
Totally absurd : They are not at the same distance

Post anything, then compare.  ;D
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: GMCtrk on February 19, 2006, 12:29:53 PM
dorian is f*cking ronnie up in those pictures :o
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 19, 2006, 12:32:43 PM
Quote
dorian is f*cking ronnie up in those pictures

If that's the case, obviously they're weak pics.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 19, 2006, 06:28:46 PM
dorian is f*cking ronnie up in those pictures :o

Yes he is. Some people forgot just how amazing the Dorian was.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 19, 2006, 07:22:21 PM
Yes he is. Some people forgot just how amazing the Dorian was.
  "The Yates". ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 19, 2006, 07:31:47 PM
All bodybuilders look good by themselves. But I agree - Ronnie has a better most muscular because of his vascularity and biceps. But that's it.
you forgot quads and chest ;)
seriously, Dorian's quads when viewed from the front were a HUGE weakness. You could never clearly see the seperation between all the muscle groups.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Yates15.jpg)
(http://www.mostmuscular.com/newmuscle.cx/olympia/coleman1.jpg)
note the difference: dorian's quad's were just another reason that could be add to a LONG list of reasons why Dorian was "The Supreme Ruler of All Overratedness"
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 19, 2006, 08:34:19 PM
Yeah that's Dorian in peak form right there.  ::)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: GMCtrk on February 19, 2006, 09:07:20 PM
ok, so you post a picture of dorian from 1990...

here's some massive quad separation for you....from an olympia winner nonetheless. By, my estimation, ronnie is also the only olympia winner to admit he lost....

(http://w1.470.telia.com/~u47020892/galleri/olympia2/ronniecoleman_5388.jpg)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: 240 is Back on February 19, 2006, 09:08:59 PM
ok, so you post a picture of dorian from 1990...
here's some massive quad separation for you....from an olympia winner nonetheless. By, my estimation, ronnie is also the only olympia winner to admit he lost....

Where is the quote?  Is this about 2001?  Because he sure denied losing to Gunter at the 2002 SOS.  :-\
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: GMCtrk on February 19, 2006, 09:11:56 PM
(http://x12.putfile.com/11/32212505061.jpg)


who knows, maybe he was just giving the peace sign ::)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 19, 2006, 09:13:13 PM
Quote
Ronnie has a better most muscular because of his vascularity and biceps. But that's it.
Except for Ron's size, defo, shape and sweep advantages in bis, tris, chest, lats, delts and thighs, Yates is right there.. ::)

Quote
Some people forgot just how amazing the Dorian was.
Easy to forget mediocrity. He's right there with the great Franco Columbu in my book.  ::)

Quote
By, my estimation, ronnie is also the only olympia winner to admit he lost....
Wrong; Arnold said same re: '72. What you're missing from that shot is that on video it's clear that it's not as close as pics might suggest. Same thing in '05, when the pics made it look closer than it was.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 19, 2006, 09:45:53 PM
Yeah that's Dorian in peak form right there.  ::)
okay, then show me a pic of Dorian that has great seperation in his quads when viewed from the front ( a trait that most of the other top pros have)
go ahead.
you won't find one.
How can you say the guy was not overrated??
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 19, 2006, 09:57:06 PM
You guys are smoking crack. I posted several pics ND put together showing DOZ destroying Ronnie Coleman in mandatory poses. Both men were about the same height. Most of Ronnie's weight is in his overdeveloped quads and stomach. Ronnie has a horrible chest and midsection. He couldn't touch Dorian in abs and thighs - another mandatory pose.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46222.0;attach=49739;image)
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Oliver Klaushof on February 19, 2006, 09:59:18 PM
Show me a pic of Ronnie with a midsection like that, or a pic with Ronnie that has developed calves, or a pic of Ronnie without gyno.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: pumpster on February 19, 2006, 11:00:09 PM
Let's compare Yate's yard-wide hips with Ron's too.. :o
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 19, 2006, 11:30:56 PM
Quote
Ronnie has a horrible chest and midsection.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman08.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43892.0;id=45830;image)
really? ::)
I am still waiting for that quad pic..
Face it - if Dorian was so good you wouldn't be able to make a long list of problems - and problems that most amateurs can take him on (like arms, taper, and quad cuts).
the guy was as overrated as you could possibly get.
that has been shown time and time again..
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974026807.jpg)
look how amazing he was!!! ::) ::) ::) (and note that if this pic had show his weak quads, it would have been head to toe one of the worst most musculars EVER SEEN! And this from a 6 time Mr. Olympia?
give me a break.

Overrated to the max.

Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 19, 2006, 11:36:45 PM
Quote
Show me a pic of Ronnie with a midsection like that
(http://www.mostmuscular.com/newmuscle.cx/olympia/coleman7.jpg)
overall this pose takes Dorian's- Ronnie's quads KILL dorian's, and his abs (while not quite as good) are not that bad.
If we go even farther back, Yates gets crushed in the ab and thigh:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman12.jpg)
Facts are Facts: if we compare Dorian at his best to Ronnie in say 2001 or 2002 then sure Dorian takes him.
but at most time in his career, Ronnie is far and above Dorian:
(http://www.bigroncoleman.com/media/1999_03LG.jpg)
can you imagine if Dorian "waist as wide as a yard" Yates stood next to this onstage? Total domination.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 20, 2006, 01:38:39 AM
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman08.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43892.0;id=45830;image)
really? ::)
I am still waiting for that quad pic..
Face it - if Dorian was so good you wouldn't be able to make a long list of problems - and problems that most amateurs can take him on (like arms, taper, and quad cuts).
the guy was as overrated as you could possibly get.
that has been shown time and time again..
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974026807.jpg)
look how amazing he was!!! ::) ::) ::) (and note that if this pic had show his weak quads, it would have been head to toe one of the worst most musculars EVER SEEN! And this from a 6 time Mr. Olympia?
give me a break.
Overrated to the max.

  So, you post a pic of Dorian from the 91 O, then compare it to Coleman at the 99 O, when he was at his best shape ever ::). Nice going, oh incisive one! :-X :-\

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: suckmymuscle on February 20, 2006, 01:42:34 AM
You guys are smoking crack. I posted several pics ND put together showing DOZ destroying Ronnie Coleman in mandatory poses. Both men were about the same height. Most of Ronnie's weight is in his overdeveloped quads and stomach. Ronnie has a horrible chest and midsection. He couldn't touch Dorian in abs and thighs - another mandatory pose.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46222.0;attach=49739;image)

  Don't forget that, at a bodyweight above 260 lbs, Ronnie completely loses his structural symmetry:his shoulders-traps girdle overpowers his chest, while his waist completely overpowers his shoulders. Look at picks from both the 2003 and 2004 Os, and see how awful his tapper was. :o :-\

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: sculpture on February 20, 2006, 02:32:09 AM
Jeez when will this stop.
Your champ yates lookin FANTASTIC!!

[img]
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: Hulkster on February 20, 2006, 07:02:39 AM
hahahahahahahahaha - my god Yates was overrated.
good post sculpture.
and, suckmymuscle, that shot was from the 92 O, where Yates came in a little flat - but guess what?
He didn't look any better in 1993- his arms, chest and quads still sucked.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great
Post by: rufjunk on February 20, 2006, 07:50:45 AM
The point of the thread was to describe how Ronnie's physique changed following the 2000 olympia.
His stomach distended and his abs and facial structure enlarged. You can see that when comparing the pics from page two.
It's unfair to compare Dorian to Ronnie relative to muscle groups when you post pictures of Ronnie from 2000. The current Ronnie has a wretchid abdomen from GH use but he's massive.