Ronnie Coleman 1999 photoshoot - simply amazing

[Hulkster]

All this talk from nut-huggers about arm development really means shit because Coleman lost

really? I wasn't aware that a 1999 or even 1998 Ronnie ever competed against dorian..

I must have missed that contest.

 

[TRIX]

Dorian knew he was going to be defeated. Thats why he retired

[m8]

beautiful glute striations (NO HOMO)

[Hulkster]

hey, some say that it was ripped glutes and hams that tipped the scales to ronnie's favor at the 98 olympia over flex, even though anyone can see he was much harder all around than flex was that year..

[Royal Lion]

Ronnie absolutely killed Flex from the back.....Flex's rdb was impressive, but his RLS was awful, and he was soft in the glutes/hams.

[ToxicAvenger]

ya noobs out here that grew up in the yr 2000 bbing era dont know the friggin meaning behind Volume and Mass

Ronnie has tonnes of volume...paul dillett had tonnes of volume
Dorian ws massive...and light yrs ahead of ronnie

the end

[NeoSeminole]

ya noobs out here that grew up in the yr 2000 bbing era dont know the friggin meaning behind Volume and Mass

then enlighten us all about the difference between volume and mass

[ToxicAvenger]

then enlighten us all about the difference between volume and mass

go take a physics class....

i dont have patience for retard

[Shockwave]

Ronnie absolutely killed Flex from the back.....Flex's rdb was impressive, but his RLS was awful, and he was soft in the glutes/hams.

Agreed

[Shockwave]

ya noobs out here that grew up in the yr 2000 bbing era dont know the friggin meaning behind Volume and Mass

Ronnie has tonnes of volume...paul dillett had tonnes of volume
Dorian ws massive...and light yrs ahead of ronnie

the end

Also agreed.

[NeoSeminole]

go take a physics class....

i dont have patience for retard

I figured you were talking out of your ass. Making stupid comments + using insults = shit for brains

[Royal Lion]

I agree to the extent that Ronnie is has more of a volume, pumped look whereas Dorian had a granier, denser look.  However, I wouldn't say Dorian was light years ahead of Ronnie.  I think Dorian's size/conditioning combo would likely prevail over a 98/99 Ronnie, but it would be close.

[suckmymuscle]

then enlighten us all about the difference between volume and mass

  It's the content of the volume. You can have more volume with less mass if te content of the volume has a higher pecentage of fat and water. This is simple deductive logic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

you nuthuggers are always trying to come up with bullshit excuses why dorian is better, in this case, by once again claiming that ronnie 99 shots are altered..and thus they are not really better because they are 'faked'

its pathetic. honestly.

  But the picture has been altered. This is obvious. That is, Ronnie didn't appear to people's eyes onstage as he appears in this picture.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

It's the content of the volume. You can have more volume with less mass if te content of the volume has a higher pecentage of fat and water. This is simple deductive logic.

what's up suckmymuscle? It's been a while since our exchanges in the Truce thread. The problem with Toxic's post is that he doesn't explain what criteria he's using (not that it matters). If he's referring to density, Ronnie at the 01 ASC was more conditioned than Dorian. If he's referring to size, Ronnie at the 03 Mr. Olympia was bigger. Even if you subtract non-lean mass, Ronnie still carried more muscle. So his comment about volume and mass is stupid. Anyway, hope everything is well with you and Happy New Year.

[Royal Lion]

The photoshoot vid looks legit, but there have been Ronnie pics posted that are obviously sharpened.

[Hulkster]

  But the picture has been altered. This is obvious. That is, Ronnie didn't appear to people's eyes onstage as he appears in this picture.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

no, it has not been altered, and yes Ronnie appeared that way onstage.

this hocus pocus bullshit you are trying to get people to believe is tiresome...and totally wrong.

[Royal Lion]

what's up suckmymuscle? It's been a while since our exchanges in the Truce thread. The problem with Toxic's post is that he doesn't explain what criteria he's using (not that it matters). If he's referring to density, Ronnie at the 01 ASC was more conditioned than Dorian. If he's referring to size, Ronnie at the 03 Mr. Olympia was bigger. Even if you subtract non-lean mass, Ronnie still carried more muscle. So his comment about volume and mass is stupid. Anyway, hope everything is well with you and Happy New Year.

I would agree that 2003 Ronnie had more mass than Dorian, or any other bodybuilder to step on stage for that matter. However, Ronnie's conditioning was off in order to carry all that size - although he dominated that year.  In 2001, Coleman's conditioning was arguably equal to Dorian's; however, the difference I see is that Dorian carried more size than Ronnie had in 2001 while at least obtaining the same level of conditioning.  I have argued all along that Dorian would give Ronnie trouble because of his ability to keep his conditioning while competing at a higher weight than Ronnie.  I think a 265lb yates would outsize a 250lb Coleman and would have as good or better conditioning.  Just my 2 cents...

[NeoSeminole]

no, it has not been altered, and yes Ronnie appeared that way onstage.

this hocus pocus bullshit you are trying to get people to believe is tiresome...and totally wrong.

I hate to disagree with you, but the source of that video frame has been altered although I doubt it was done intentionally. Kinda funny that educating myself on how to calibrate my new LCD TV helped me learn different ways to manipulate images to produce an intended effect.

[Hulkster]

The photoshoot vid looks legit, but there have been a good number of Ronnie pics posted that are obviously sharpened.

true, there are a few ronnie shots floating around the web that have been sharpened.

but the 99 video or shots are not among them.

such pics never get posted on this board by me either.

and, for the record, there are so many morphed dorian shots on the web that the real ones are impossible to find anymore..eg. it took 3 seconds to find two of probably hundreds:

[suckmymuscle]

no, it has not been altered, and yes Ronnie appeared that way onstage.

this hocus pocus bullshit you are trying to get people to believe is tiresome...and totally wrong.

  He didn't appear that way onstage, Hulkster, because I've seen pictures of him where he's far more underwhelming. We must assume that the less formidable versions of him are how he really looked, since I've never heard of photographers making their pictures look worse on purpose. Hope this helps.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Royal Lion]

true, there are a few ronnie shots floating around the web that have been sharpened.

but the 99 video or shots are not among them.

such pics never get posted on this board by me either.

and, for the record, there are so many morphed dorian shots on the web that the real ones are impossible to find anymore..eg. it took 3 seconds to find two of probably hundreds:

"Two of probably hundreds"  That's a bit of an exaggeration, wouldn't you say?  The two you posted are the only two I have ever seen of Dorian, and none of the Dorian fans post them repeatedly as you do your infamous 99 Ronnie pics.

[Royal Lion]

I hate to disagree with you, but the source of that video frame has been altered although I doubt it was done intentionally. Kinda funny that educating myself on how to calibrate my new LCD TV helped me learn different ways to manipulate images to produce an intended effect.

Hulkster will never believe this, even when it's obvious to the rest of us...

[Hulkster]

I hate to disagree with you, but the source of that video frame has been altered although I doubt it was done intentionally. Kinda funny that educating myself on how to calibrate my new LCD TV helped me learn different ways to manipulate images to produce an intended effect.

what effect does the alteration have? does it make ronnie look more detailed? shapely? vascular? etc.?

are we talking simply a ratio aspect here or what? every screenshot I have ever seen of that mm looks the same. other than slight colour differences depending on who took it..

eg: one is from ForcedReps, the other from Iceman.

two different people taking two shots independent of one another and the physique looks the same.

so the guy argument fails miserably.

[Royal Lion]

Here's an example of Hulkser's antics taken from this very thread.....