Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman training biceps (Read 18885 times)

They said that Schwarzenegger as well, but they had great arms and tris are 2/3s of their size. The only problem is that their definition's just ok, and the bis are so outrageous that the rest is overshadowed. There's size there both bis and tris.

Hulkster · « **Reply #30 on:** November 10, 2007, 04:34:52 PM »

Quote from: FreedomFighter on November 10, 2007, 03:06:21 PM

yes... but keep in mind Ron tri's are not that impressive $:-\$

according to who?:

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #31 on:** November 10, 2007, 04:39:02 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 04:34:52 PM

according to who?:

Anyone who knows a damn thing about bodybuilding

Cap · « **Reply #32 on:** November 10, 2007, 04:51:28 PM »

Even Badell admitted that Jay has great triceps and Ronnie has great biceps but neither has complete arms, which is true.

Hulkster · « **Reply #33 on:** November 10, 2007, 04:52:47 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on November 10, 2007, 04:39:02 PM

Anyone who knows a damn thing about bodybuilding

if you knew a damn thing about bodybuilding you would know that comparing how Ronnie looked in 99 to how he looked with 10 pounds of water on top in 2000 is stupid.

Ronnie's arms in 99 put Levrone's to shame

:

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #34 on:** November 10, 2007, 04:56:28 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 04:52:47 PM

if you knew a damn thing about bodybuilding you would know that comparing how Ronnie looked in 99 to how he looked with 10 pounds of water on top in 2000 is stupid.

Ronnie's arms in 99 put Levrone's to shame :

Why his triceps still lagged behind Levrone year doesn't matter his triceps aren't world class his biceps are out of this world his triceps aren't old news .........except to the ignorant

Badell crushed him too

Hulkster · « **Reply #35 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:10:22 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on November 10, 2007, 04:56:28 PM

Why his triceps still lagged behind Levrone year doesn't matter his triceps aren't world class his biceps are out of this world his triceps aren't old news .........except to the ignorant

Badell crushed him too

you are a total idiot.

you think 2005 Ronnie has anything to do with peak ronnie?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #36 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:10:59 PM »

Both are the same weight whats the excuse this time?

Hulkster · « **Reply #37 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:11:40 PM »

I still find it funny that ND is so blindly stupid that he can look at the two shots I posted from 99 and say Ronnie's tris weren't world class.

LOL

2005 ronnie's tris = shit

1999 Ronnie's tris = amazing.

Hulkster · « **Reply #38 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:12:48 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on November 10, 2007, 05:10:59 PM

Both are the same weight whats the excuse this time?

Ronnie 98 is 10 pounds of lean muscle mass less than Ronnie 99 genius.

anyone can have better tris with Ronnie at less than peak form.

in 99 even his damn CALVES were ripped!

England_1 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:14:07 PM »

I'm curious, what exactly are you supposed to see in this picture?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #40 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:10:22 PM

you are a total idiot.

you think 2005 Ronnie has anything to do with peak ronnie?

" peak " Ronnie still had shit triceps compared to Levrone and a lot of other people his side triceps shot sucked no matter what year

Hulkster · « **Reply #41 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:15:15 PM »

Quote from: England_1 on November 10, 2007, 05:14:07 PM

I'm curious, what exactly are you supposed to see in this picture?

fantastic huge and ripped tris.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #42 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:17:19 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:12:48 PM

Ronnie 98 is 10 pounds of lean muscle mass less than Ronnie 99 genius.

anyone can have better tris with Ronnie at less than peak form.

in 99 even his damn CALVES were ripped!

Peak is 1998 sorry sport Ronnie HIMSELF said 1998 was his best Olympia showing specifically because his conditioning was spot-on , meaning his conditioning 1999 was NOT spot-on

Ronnie never had a great side triceps shot its old news

England_1 · « **Reply #43 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:17:47 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:15:15 PM

fantastic huge and ripped tris.

Coleman's lateral head was small due to the genetic shape. At 2005 even at 275lbs he lateral head was small and he was OWNED by baddel.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #44 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:18:58 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:15:15 PM

fantastic huge and ripped tris.

lmfao what a fan-boy lol " fantastic huge and ripped tris " how homo can you get? his whole side triceps shot sucks , stick to post most musculars , Levrone and many others easily beat Coleman in this pose

Cap · « **Reply #45 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:19:31 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:10:22 PM

you are a total idiot.

you think 2005 Ronnie has anything to do with peak ronnie?

He can't pose the triceps to save his life. The lighting in those 99 pics make his incredible biceps look all-time best and crappy triceps look good. No offense but any time you bring up a comparison with Ronnie looking like crap compared to a competitor, it always deals with him past or before his prime. I understand the argument but c'mon. He's had flaws all along but they were overlooked, like some other competitors. When Ronnie was taking 6-10th place he looked better than he did in 01, 02, 05, 06, 07.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:20:18 PM »

Quote from: England_1 on November 10, 2007, 05:17:47 PM

Coleman's lateral head was small due to the genetic shape. At 2005 even at 275lbs he lateral head was small and he was OWNED by baddel.

Thats the year he LOST the challenge round and he was so furious he was seeing red backstage lol judge by a panel of his peers and they obvious voted for the guy who has a great side triceps shot.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #47 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:20:54 PM »

Quote from: cap86 on November 10, 2007, 05:19:31 PM

He can't pose the triceps to save his life. The lighting in those 99 pics make his incredible biceps look all-time best and crappy triceps look good. No offense but any time you bring up a comparison with Ronnie looking like crap compared to a competitor, it always deals with him past or before his prime. I understand the argument but c'mon. He's had flaws all along but they were overlooked, like some other competitors. When Ronnie was taking 6-10th place he looked better than he did in 01, 02, 05, 06, 07.

Great post !

Hulkster · « **Reply #48 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:33:49 PM »

Quote

No offense but any time you bring up a comparison with Ronnie looking like crap compared to a competitor, it always deals with him past or before his prime. I understand the argument but c'mon.

good you understand the argument. and its not just ronnie that this applies to. for example,

dorian 93 looked different than he did in either 92, 94, 95, 96 or 97.

Ronnie 99 is no different.

it is not an 'argument'.

it is FACT.

People in their all time best shape often look much better in lots of ways over their 'less than peak' form.

its a fact in this sport.

it is well known. or at least should be.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #49 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:35:26 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:33:49 PM

good you understand the argument. and its not just ronnie that this applies to. for example,

dorian 93 looked different than he did in either 92, 94, 95, 96 or 97.

Ronnie 99 is no different.

it is not an 'argument'.

it is FACT.

People in their all time best shape often look much better in lots of ways over their 'less than peak' form.

its a fact in this sport.

it is well known. or at least should be.

Hey Mr Peak see above 98 where Levrone is schooling Ronnie in triceps , Ronnie called his 98 Olympia showing his best ( peak )