Author Topic: Amazing 2001 ASC Ronnie! (Read 6612 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #25 on:** February 25, 2008, 04:57:53 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 25, 2008, 04:50:06 PM

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:

Hulkster · « **Reply #26 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:00:23 PM »

Quote

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:

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #27 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:01:29 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 25, 2008, 04:55:31 PM

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.

Quote

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.

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #28 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:13:22 PM »

theres never been anyone even close to ronnie. period.

Hulkster · « **Reply #29 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:15:04 PM »

Quote

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.

Hulkster · « **Reply #30 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:17:16 PM »

Quote from: JOHN MATRIX on February 25, 2008, 05:13:22 PM

theres never been anyone even close to ronnie. period.

not at his best, no.

when at his peak, no one comes close.

England_1 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:19:23 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 25, 2008, 05:15:04 PM

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.

pumpster · « **Reply #32 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:32:42 PM »

Quote from: England_1 on February 25, 2008, 05:19:23 PM

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

pumpster · « **Reply #33 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 25, 2008, 04:57:53 PM

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.

tweeter · « **Reply #34 on:** February 25, 2008, 05:50:23 PM »

He doesn't look that good to me....Adonis is better.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #35 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:29:13 PM »

Quote from: CigaretteMan on February 25, 2008, 05:01:29 PM

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.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:35:54 PM »

some close-up shots

Hulkster · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:42:32 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on February 25, 2008, 07:29:13 PM

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.

I too am waiting for some insight - because its not very clear:

Hulkster · « **Reply #38 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:45:11 PM »

Quote

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..

Camel Jockey · « **Reply #39 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:47:41 PM »

Those muscle bellies are just out of control..

For the love of god. He doesn't look human..

OneMoreRep · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2008, 07:51:21 PM »

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"

Hulkster · « **Reply #41 on:** February 25, 2008, 08:24:50 PM »

Quote from: OneMoreRep on February 25, 2008, 07:51:21 PM

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.

Hulkster · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2008, 08:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Camel Jockey on February 25, 2008, 07:47:41 PM

Those muscle bellies are just out of control..

For the love of god. He doesn't look human..

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:

donrhummy · « **Reply #43 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:23:59 PM »

Quote from: 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:

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.

England_1 · « **Reply #44 on:** February 25, 2008, 09:27:44 PM »

Ronnie's best was 98. Much smaller gut and he was drier, also bigger too.

donrhummy · « **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2008, 08:57:53 AM »

Quote from: England_1 on February 25, 2008, 09:27:44 PM

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.

Man of Steel · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2008, 09:02:52 AM »

This just in: Washington crosses the Delaware.

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2008, 11:20:11 AM »

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.

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2008, 11:22:02 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 25, 2008, 05:34:37 PM

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.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #49 on:** February 26, 2008, 01:05:37 PM »

Quote from: CigaretteMan on February 26, 2008, 11:20:11 AM

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.