Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Boost on February 25, 2008, 08:13:02 AM
-
ridiculous conditioning, Every body part is freaky, triceps and Calves look Huge as well!
Never seen this before:
-
His biggest shortcoming was lack of dryness IMO, so i can't say his conditioning's perfect. He was more shredded in the late 90s, but great musculature here including pretty good calves. He always had great tri size despite the fact they're overlooked due to the freaky bis.
Too bad he comes across as somewhat stupid; with a little more intelligence the posing could've been better and the presentation more effective.
-
:o :o :o
"whatcha ya'll want next??" lol ;D
Ronnie's one of a kind! ;)
-
says the vieo is no longer available
-
says the vieo is no longer available
it's playing for me
-
yeah its playing now
damn he looks out of breath
-
Did he ingest 3 pizzas after his win, his stomach is pronounced.Still absolutly mind blowing
-
This same posing session was shown in another thread about the '01 Olympia. Which is which?
I remember Ronnie wore lime green trunks in a couple rounds of the Arnold that year, but I'm not sure if Ronnie was like Shawn Ray- who wore different trunks for the PJ and the night show, so when photos came out he knew when they were taken and whether he tightened up or spilled over or not.
-
This same posing session was shown in another thread about the '01 Olympia. Which is which?
I remember Ronnie wore lime green trunks in a couple rounds of the Arnold that year, but I'm not sure if Ronnie was like Shawn Ray- who wore different trunks for the PJ and the night show, so when photos came out he knew when they were taken and whether he tightened up or spilled over or not.
Thats from the 2001 Arnold Classic he did wear those bright line green trunks at the Olympia as well but thats the Arnold you can see the trophies .
he looked great but that gut is massive even though he's just 244 pounds , he's competed in 1996 at 250 pounds with no gut what so ever its odd how he could be lighter and have a much bigger gut.
-
he looked incredible there - even with the monster gut.
that most muscular is out of this world, and NO ONE has had a better rear lat spread than that IMO.
that width with that tiny waist - and the christmas tree- make that rear lat spread the best ever IMO.
even his much attacked triceps look totally crazy.
I still think that based on the visuals, his 99 O. form is better - more size, gut not bulging out so much, and equal hardness - but that form is crazy none the less.
-
His biggest shortcoming was lack of dryness
I agree with you. Ronnie's strengh was his incedible ability to show definition between his muscles, but he always had a thin layer of water under his skin, even at his best. I personally think he was drier at the 1998 Olympia. Ronnie at his best could never match the dryness of guys like Branch Warren, Shawn Ray, Yates, Benaziza, Labrada etc.
-
Ronnie at his best could never match the dryness of guys like Branch Warren, Shawn Ray, Yates, Benaziza, Labrada etc.
::)
-
Have you seen these two guys up close? I have. I was there at the 2000 Olympia and at the 1996 Olympia, and even though Ronnie was out of this World, his conditioning was vastly inferior to Yates. Sorry. Now, that year was not Coleman's best in terms of conditioning, but even then the difference is so ginormous that I doubt Coleman would be as dry as Yates even at the 1998/9 Olympias as well as at the 2001 ASC. I am a huge Ronnie fan, but even I can see that his conditioning was inferior to Yates. It was far inferior when he was at his heaviest weights and still slightly inferior at his best. Dude, why is it that you feel such a strong need to put Coleman above Yates even at areas where Dorian is clearly superior to Ronnie ??? That is called bias, my friend, the narrow vision of someone who is blinded by emotion and can't see things rationally.
-
his conditioning was inferior to Yates. It was far inferior when he was at his heaviest weights and still slightly inferior at his best.
I think the difference is that Yates was very dry, like only a few other BBs such as Robinson. At his leanest, Coleman was incredibly shredded, moreso than Yates. Not the same as dry.
-
Have you seen these two guys up close? I have. I was there at the 2000 Olympia and at the 1996 Olympia, and even though Ronnie was out of this World, his conditioning was vastly inferior to Yates. Sorry. Now, that year was not Coleman's best in terms of conditioning, but even then the difference is so ginormous that I doubt Coleman would be as dry as Yates even at the 1998/9 Olympias as well as at the 2001 ASC. I am a huge Ronnie fan, but even I can see that his conditioning was inferior to Yates. It was far inferior when he was at his heaviest weights and still slightly inferior at his best. Dude, why is it that you feel such a strong need to put Coleman above Yates even at areas where Dorian is clearly superior to Ronnie ??? That is called bias, my friend, the narrow vision of someone who is blinded by emotion and can't see things rationally.
With Dorian Yates, it's always a matter of, "You have to have been there to see, there's something about Dorian you just can't tell from pictures. If you didn't sit at the show a few hundred feet away from them 5-10 years ago you can't judge from still close-up pictures of the event, " etc. ::)
-
Personally i think Ronnie looked his best when competing at 265-290 lbs, not 245-250ish.
-
Did he ingest 3 pizzas after his win, his stomach is pronounced.Still absolutly mind blowing
He likes his Gatorade after a contest Monk.
-
With Dorian Yates, it's always a matter of, "You have to have been there to see, there's something about Dorian you just can't tell from pictures. If you didn't sit at the show a few hundred feet away from them 5-10 years ago you can't judge from still close-up pictures of the event, " etc. ::)
yeah, the excuses and hocus pocus assertions continue to mount.. :-\
-
I think the difference is that Yates was very dry, like only a few other BBs such as Robinson. At his leanest, Coleman was incredibly shredded, moreso than Yates. Not the same as dry.
but you have to be super dry in order to be super shredded 8)
-
but you have to be super dry in order to be super shredded 8)
This is not entirely true. Ronnie in the off-season still had better definition than lots of bodybuilders in contest shape, even though he was carrying significant bodyfat. Andreas Munzer showed striations in the off-season, while many bodybuilders lack stiations even in contest shape. The degree of muscular definition you show is partially genetic. A bodybuilder can be more shredded than another while having more intramauscular water.
-
This is not entirely true.
yes it is.
the fact is that you cannot look like this by holding water over your muscles:
ronnie looks like this because he is super dry:
-
yes it is.
the fact is that you cannot look like this by holding water over your muscles:
ronnie looks like this because he is super dry:
Dude, Ronnie was more shredded than Dorian ever was at the 2000 Olympia, and yet everyone could see that he was holding water. His skin looked puffy and watery, and yet he was far more shredded than Dorian at the 1996 Olympia. Going by your logic, then Ronnie had less subcutaneous water at the 2000 Olympia than Yates. Do you really believe this? That Ronnie in his 2000 Olympia incarnation was drier than Dorian? And how do you explain that Munzer had striations in the off-season while many bodybuilders lack them even in contest shape? Admit it, dude: muscular definition is aprtially genetic, which is why Ronnie was more defined than Yates even when he was holding more water and fat. :)
-
-
but you have to be super dry in order to be super shredded 8)
Not quite the same; dryness isn't just about cuts but what's happening in between the cuts. They almost but don't quite converge near the extremes.
This is dry. Coleman got close in the late 90s. Extreme size & dryness don't quite mix together. But Coleman beat Yates on most other criteria. No BB has the best of every attribute.
-
Dude, Ronnie was more shredded than Dorian ever was at the 2000 Olympia, and yet everyone could see that he was holding water. His skin looked puffy and watery, and yet he was far more shredded than Dorian at the 1996 Olympia. Going by your logic, then Ronnie had less subcutaneous water at the 2000 Olympia than Yates. Do you really believe this? That Ronnie in his 2000 Olympia incarnation was drier than Dorian? And how do you explain that Munzer had striations in the off-season while many bodybuilders lack them even in contest shape? Admit it, dude: muscular definition is aprtially genetic, which is why Ronnie was more defined than Yates even when he was holding more water and fat. :)
you are comparing apples to oranges.
we are speaking of Ronnie at his career best (either 2001 AC or 98/99 Olympia depending on your preference).
not his 2000 Olympia form:
compare them: ronnie was FAR more dry at his peak than in 2000.
the claim was made that Ronnie was NEVER as dry as Yates, momo, shawn, etc etc.
I easily disproved this by posting a simple pic.
its really that simple.
-
Not quite the same. Both are indicative of conditioning.
This is dry. Coleman got close but never had that in the late 90s. But he beat Yates on most other criteria. No BB has the best of every attribute.
um. yes he did: ???
-
No BB has the best of every attribute.
true.
no one is arguing that Ronnie was the driest of all time.
but its quite easy to show that he was at least AS DRY (at his best) as many of his fellow pros like yates ray levrone etc.
this is dryness:
-
you are comparing apples to oranges.
we are speaking of Ronnie at his career best (either 2001 AC or 98/99 Olympia depending on your preference).
not his 2000 Olympia form:
compare them: ronnie was FAR more dry at his peak than in 2000.
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Ronnie had better definition than Dorian at the 2000 Olympia, when he was clearly holding water, so that proves my point right there.
the claim was made that Ronnie was NEVER as dry as Yates, momo, shawn, etc etc.
I easily disproved this by posting a simple pic.
its really that simple.
He never was. He was very dry at his best, but not as much as Benaziza, Yates, Warren, etc. He was more defined, but not drier.
-
theres never been anyone even close to ronnie. period.
-
Ronnie had better definition than Dorian at the 2000 Olympia, when he was clearly holding water
in a few small areas maybe, but I would say that dorian 92/3 had better definition than Ronnie 2000.
like I said, there is a BIG difference between Ronnie 2000 and Ronnie 2001 AC or 98/99 Olympia.
so argument does not make sense becuase of this:
eg. 98 O. vs 2000 O.
big difference.
Ronnie 98 was likely drier than dorian.
ronnie 2000 was not.
-
theres never been anyone even close to ronnie. period.
not at his best, no.
when at his peak, no one comes close.
-
Ronnie 98 was likely drier than dorian.
You just become more and more delusional over time don't you? ::) There's members of your own crappy crew telling you that Coleman didn't have great dryness, yet you insist he did (even more so than Yates ) hahahah. Fucking poopstain.
-
There's members of your own crappy crew telling you that Coleman didn't have great dryness, yet you insist he did (even more so than Yates ) hahahah. Fucking poopstain.
Dude i said that more than a year ago wake up lol
-
um. yes he did: ???
Dryness and cuts aren't the same; can be very cut and still lack hardness. It just wasn't a natural attribute for him, and he only got close to real dryness in the late 90s, never after that not even close.
Even in the late 90s depending on the shot it's still obvious that he's just slightly off of completely dry, for example on lat spread. He's more cut than Yates in that shot yet still lacks some degree of hardness and dryness.That's why their backs are comparable, each has something the other doesn't.
Dryness has been adversely affected in most BBs by today's drugs. Guys in the 70s and 80s were drier even though they had less cuts and size.
-
He doesn't look that good to me....Adonis is better.
-
He never was. He was very dry at his best, but not as much as Benaziza, Yates, Warren, etc. He was more defined, but not drier.
sorry, but I have to disagree. What do the guys you mentioned have that 01 ASC Ronnie doesn't? Maybe you can explain to me b/c I don't see how anyone can be dryer. ???
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-Ronnie90.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman41.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman56.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-Ronnie119.jpg)
-
some close-up shots
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman33CloseUp.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman34b.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman32.jpg)
-
sorry, but I have to disagree. What do the guys you mentioned have that 01 ASC Ronnie doesn't? Maybe you can explain to me b/c I don't see how anyone can be dryer. ???
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-Ronnie90.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman41.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-RonnieColeman56.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-Ronnie119.jpg)
I too am waiting for some insight - because its not very clear: ???
-
He's more cut than Yates in that shot yet still lacks some degree of hardness and dryness.
I disagree - Ronnie shows his striated christmas tree while dorian shows rolls of loose skin.... :-\
not to mention the drastic difference in hams and glutes...
its NOT obvious that he is less dry. quite the opposite in fact..
-
Those muscle bellies are just out of control..
For the love of god. He doesn't look human.. :o
-
He looked perfect in that video. I don't think anyone will ever match his overall size and proportions.
The best bodybuilder in the world..
"1"
-
He looked perfect in that video. I don't think anyone will ever match his overall size and proportions.
The best bodybuilder in the world..
"1"
agreed.
-
Those muscle bellies are just out of control..
For the love of god. He doesn't look human.. :o
agreed once again..
I am still waiting for some clarification on this whole 'branch was harder than ronnie' claim...
cause it is not making sense:
-
ridiculous conditioning, Every body part is freaky, triceps and Calves look Huge as well!
Never seen this before:
THAT is supposed to be Ronnie at his best ever?! Not impressed. He still has that horrible gut. And it's not from breathing, and it's not just one shot. That is not bodybuilding.
-
Ronnie's best was 98. Much smaller gut and he was drier, also bigger too.
-
Ronnie's best was 98. Much smaller gut and he was drier, also bigger too.
Sure, much smaller gut, but still a gut. A bodybuilder should not have a gut. I'd much rather look like Jeff King than Ronnie.
-
This just in: Washington crosses the Delaware.
-
Hulkster, what criteria are you using to claim Ronnie at his best was as dry/drier than Yates? If it is his superior definition, then I'm sorry, but that doesen't fly. Again, I was at the 2000 Olympia and he was more shredded than Yates even though it was obvious that he was holding a film of water.
-
Dryness and cuts aren't the same; can be very cut and still lack hardness
For once since I joined this board, we agree. Exactly.
-
Hulkster, what criteria are you using to claim Ronnie at his best was as dry/drier than Yates? If it is his superior definition, then I'm sorry, but that doesen't fly. Again, I was at the 2000 Olympia and he was more shredded than Yates even though it was obvious that he was holding a film of water.
at least Hulkster provided a reason for why he feels Ronnie was as dry/dyer than Dorian. The Dorian nuthuggers have yet to explain what criteria they use when discussing Dorian's superior dryness. Regarding 00 Ronnie, his back and quads were smooth as hell. So I disagree about him looking more shredded than Dorian.
-
ridiculous conditioning, Every body part is freaky, triceps and Calves look Huge as well!
Never seen this before:
This is absolutely indredible. All bodyparts are in proportion and he has everything to his muscles: size, definition, striations, the right amount of vascularity. I can see only 3 flaws in his physqie from this video:
- He is holding a very slight film of water.
- His abdomen is slightly distended, especially when seen in profile.
- His short triceps head attaches low in the tendom, and that takes away from it's aesthetics.
Other than that, his physique is as close to perfect as any physique has been. It's very rare to see a physique with this mass that also has such symmetry, taper and great(not outstanding) conditioning.
-
I must admit that I was a touch dissapointed when I saw the posing routine at the evening finals. The camera angle isn't the best, but the distended gut is apparent in almost every shot. I've heard on many an occasion that Ronnie's 2001 ASC outing was his best ever. I disagree. The video where he is posing for the camera again shows of his distended stomach horrendously. These guys would not want me to ever become a judge;when I see those stomachs, they are not going to win. End of story. Even badell must feel like a slim-jim now.
-
Bump for Hulkster getting owned yet again lol not even his boy pumpster agrees with him lol