Flex Ranks the BEST Arnold Classic showings of all time ...

[bizzy]

Since this has gone off topic anyway I'm going to explain
why I think Ronnie was better at the 1999 Mr. Olympia than
the 2001 AC.
1st - I do think Ronnie was drier at the 2001 AC but I don't think
he was harder. I also don't think him being drier at the AC improved his
physique and I'll explain why. (I'll also explain some other reasons why
besides this first point.)
The object of coming in dry is to minimize subcutaneous water while
maximizing intracellular water. I think the visual evidence shows that
Ronnie's subcutaneous water levels were about the same for both contests.
 (I've seen the AC DVD 3 times with 3 different sources of lighting;
Onstage-Pumproom-Photoshoots) and he doesn't look nearly as full
(intracellular water) as he does in 99. This effect would make the muscles fuller,
pushing against the skin, therefore producing more hardness.
He was 10-12 pounds heavier in 1999 and looked every bit as ripped as 2001.
Even though Ronnie was lighter I believe his waist and gut were bigger than 1999.
I think this is from going up to the 285-295 mark. (Something he probably had not done
before the 1999 Olympia.) Once he went this high in weight there was no returning
back to the smaller waist/gut he had in earlier years.
He was in fairly sharp shape at 285 in 2000 at a guest posing and I don't think he needed to
drop 40 pounds to be at his best ever.
I know these are not the same lighting or perfect scale but I think they will help make the point.

[bizzy]

1st 2 pics are Ron guest posing in 2000 in pretty good shape at 285.

3rd pic - I havn't seen in pictures or video anything from 2001 where Ronnie's
intercostals were this sharp.

[NarcissisticDeity]

the fact that you are okay with what happened in 93 speaks volumes about your (lack of) knowledge about the way this sport works..

 

not calling out a competitor and having them win the round anyway is NOT good judging. no matter what.

its too bad you are not smart enough to see that..

Again don't ever question my knowledge of competitive bodybuilding jackass you're the fucking idiot who claimed Flex won in 1993 and again Dorian wasn't needed in the muscularity rounds for a good reason it was redundant whats was the sense?

you're just bitter because Ronnie was NEVER good enough to win in such grand fashion 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Since this has gone off topic anyway I'm going to explain
why I think Ronnie was better at the 1999 Mr. Olympia than
the 2001 AC.
1st - I do think Ronnie was drier at the 2001 AC but I don't think
he was harder. I also don't think him being drier at the AC improved his
physique and I'll explain why. (I'll also explain some other reasons why
besides this first point.)
The object of coming in dry is to minimize subcutaneous water while
maximizing intracellular water. I think the visual evidence shows that
Ronnie's subcutaneous water levels were about the same for both contests.
 (I've seen the AC DVD 3 times with 3 different sources of lighting;
Onstage-Pumproom-Photoshoots) and he doesn't look nearly as full
(intracellular water) as he does in 99. This effect would make the muscles fuller,
pushing against the skin, therefore producing more hardness.
He was 10-12 pounds heavier in 1999 and looked every bit as ripped as 2001.
Even though Ronnie was lighter I believe his waist and gut were bigger than 1999.
I think this is from going up to the 285-295 mark. (Something he probably had not done
before the 1999 Olympia.) Once he went this high in weight there was no returning
back to the smaller waist/gut he had in earlier years.
He was in fairly sharp shape at 285 in 2000 at a guest posing and I don't think he needed to
drop 40 pounds to be at his best ever.
I know these are not the same lighting or perfect scale but I think they will help make the point.

Ronnie is harder in 2001 which is exactly why he's not as full because he's carrying less intramuscular fat again the general consensus is 2001 ( or 1998 ) is Ronnie's best overall showing specifically because his conditioning is at its very best , Ironically his two best showing's condition wise are also his lightest he weighed 247 pounds in 1998 and anywhere from 244-247 pounds in 2001 , the heavier Ronnie became the more his conditioned suffered for it .

Ronnie Coleman himself has said his best Olympia was his first specifically because his conditioning was ' spot-on ' again if what you were saying is true 1999 would be hailed at as his all-time best by the people in the know and its not for a reason , while you make like it better it doesn't mean its better than 2001

[Hulkster]

yes, because we can really see how much harder ronnie was in 2001 AC than he was in 1999 with the great comparisons Bizzy made..

 

ND, do you even use your eyesight when posting on getbig?

 

[Hulkster]

the point is that ronnie was virtually identical in terms of conditioning in comparing 99 to the 2001 AC but 10 pounds heavier (with less of a bulging gut when relaxed - check the videos).

for you to laugh off the statement that Ronnie was better in 99 than the 2001 AC given these facts is just plain stupid.

[NarcissisticDeity]

the point is that ronnie was virtually identical in terms of conditioning in comparing 99 to the 2001 AC but 10 pounds heavier (with less of a bulging gut when relaxed - check the videos).

for you to laugh off the statement that Ronnie was better in 99 than the 2001 AC given these facts is just plain stupid.

Again NO ONE of any credibility in the sport says Ronnie 1999 was his best showing just fans who like what they like , his conditioning is NOT virtually identical thats simply not true because if it was there would be alsolutely NO reason why 99 would be his best showing and it not

don't type the word ' facts ' because you have none , not one single statement saying Ronnie was in better condition than 2001 or even at bare minimum at least equal because he's not , stop you're not allowed to use the word ' facts ' because you haven't provided any as usual .

[TrueGrit]

Stop turning everything into Coleman Vs Yates. It is repetitive to see the exact same posts and pictures over and over again..keep it in the truce thread.

If you want to argue about comparisons then do so using Coleman and Wheeler. That is what is relevant to the thread.

[Hulkster]

Stop turning everything into Coleman Vs Yates. It is repetitive to see the exact same posts and pictures over and over again..keep it in the truce thread.

If you want to argue about comparisons then do so using Coleman and Wheeler. That is what is relevant to the thread.

we did. Flex lost badly.

and ND could not handle it..

 

[Hulkster]

Again NO ONE of any credibility in the sport says Ronnie 1999 was his best showing just fans who like what they like , his conditioning is NOT virtually identical thats simply not true because if it was there would be alsolutely NO reason why 99 would be his best showing and it not

don't type the word ' facts ' because you have none , not one single statement saying Ronnie was in better condition than 2001 or even at bare minimum at least equal because he's not , stop you're not allowed to use the word ' facts ' because you haven't provided any as usual .

IF what you say is true, it should be quite clear that Ronnie was in better shape in 2001 than in 1999.

but look at the videos and pics:

his condition was virtually identical.

if you are too blind and stupid to see that, well, then there is no hope for you.

you CANNOT show using anything visual that ronnie was in noticably worse shape in 99 than in 2001.

until you can, shut the fuck up.

because your words mean nothing without visual support.

sorry.

look at the comparisons bizzy has done again.

[Hulkster]

this is for ND:

compare and see for youself. virtually identical condition.

only with way less of a bulging gut in 99.

deal with it moron:

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport

don't dimiss it until you see for yourself.

[NarcissisticDeity]

IF what you say is true, it should be quite clear that Ronnie was in better shape in 2001 than in 1999.

but look at the videos and pics:

his condition was virtually identical.

if you are too blind and stupid to see that, well, then there is no hope for you.

you CANNOT show using anything visual that ronnie was in noticably worse shape in 99 than in 2001.

until you can, shut the fuck up.

because your words mean nothing without visual support.

sorry.

look at the comparisons bizzy has done again.

meltdown continues

again if 1999 he was as hard & dry as you claim that would be his best overall showing and its NOT for a reason and that reason is? 

[Sharma]

Nastysissy diety owned yet again by hulkster and squadfather.

[NarcissisticDeity]

this is for ND:

compare and see for youself. virtually identical condition.

only with way less of a bulging gut in 99.

deal with it moron:

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport

don't dimiss it until you see for yourself.

spare me the ' don't dismiss it until you see for yourself ' wrap I've seen all the 99/01 pics posted and the videos and not the photoshopped pics Bizzy ' adjusted ' I'm talking about from non-biased sources and they all conform what the real experts say , you know the ones who based their opinion on visual evidence , you know from actually being at all the said contests in question , oh wait you wouldn't know because you never been to ANY pro contest let alone the 1999 Mr Olympia or the 2001 Arnold Classic

virtually identical LMFAO 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Nastysissy diety owned yet again by hulkster and squadfather.

The only owning was Nasser at the Arnold , no wait he wasn't at the Arnold 

[Hulkster]

Nastysissy diety owned yet again by hulkster and squadfather.

as always

[Hulkster]

notice: ND refuses to comment on what we all can see in the two videos...

 

he always avoids reality..

[NarcissisticDeity]

notice: ND refuses to comment on what we all can see in the two videos...

 

he always avoids reality..

NO you avoid reality , you're commenting on contest you weren't even at lol telling the people who were there they are wrong , go away now your rants bore me and everyone else

you're the idiot who after watching the videos and looking at the pictures came to the conclusion Dorian lost the 1993 Mr Olympia , as usual your ' opinion ' doesn't coincide with reality  so much for your interpretation of the ' visual evidence ' lol

[Hulkster]

stop avoding reality and tell us what you see in the two videos.

can you not see they were in very close if not identical condition?

stop avoiding me and reality like you always do.

[NarcissisticDeity]

as always

You can't produce one single quote from ANYONE of credibility that he was better conditioning in 1999 ( like you claim ) and I'm owned lol keep dreaming kid 

Flex Magazine August 2003

Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row

if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.

Shawn Perine Ironage Dec 11, 2004

As much as I love Haney and my IA champs, I think Ronnie circa '98 or at the 2001 Arnold is pretty much untouchable. Except by Dorian Yates 6 weeks out from the '93 O as photographed by our own KMH. Both men, on those specific occasions carried so much dry muscle mass in good proportion and with good lines that it's almost unfair to compare them to others.

While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.

review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page  90:

257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98

Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001

RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .


Ronnie What was your best Olympia? Ronnie Coleman: I would say my first because my conditioning was spot-on !

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

stop avoding reality and tell us what you see in the two videos.

can you not see they were in very close if not identical condition?

stop avoiding me and reality like you always do.

Hulkster seriously stop pretending I'm avoiding you or your dumb opinions , every single thing you ever posted I responded to I don't fear you or your stupidity and I'll address this ( again ) I see Ronnie in 2001 totally dry and extremely hard his skin shrink wrapped around dense hard muscle , I see Ronnie in 1999 much fuller albeit ( you idiot pay attention ) softer i.e. NOT as dense as 1998/2001 I see what all the experts see that 2001 was clearly Ronnie's best specifically for this reason .

again as usual your opinion contradicts the experts , you know like Dorian lost in 1993 , you see what you want to see thats obvious especially when your conclusions contradict history and reality.

[bodybuilder1234]

meltdown continues

again if 1999 he was as hard & dry as you claim that would be his best overall showing and its NOT for a reason and that reason is? 

Hulkster pretty much owned here, the 2001 version is far superior in conditioning in comparison to 1999.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Hulkster pretty much owned here, the 2001 version is far superior in conditioning in comparison to 1999.

Thank you ! someone who gets it.

[Hulkster]

Hulkster pretty much owned here, the 2001 version is far superior in conditioning in comparison to 1999.

hi ND.

[Hulkster]

Hulkster pretty much owned here, the 2001 version is far superior in conditioning in comparison to 1999.

prove it.

you can't using the videos.

thats for damn sure.