Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: hipolito mejia on January 20, 2007, 04:30:03 PM

Title: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: hipolito mejia on January 20, 2007, 04:30:03 PM
Since front double bicep is the # 1 pose in bodybuilding-

who in your opinion looks better at their prime Arnod or Ronnie (in that particular pose)???


remember Just front double bicep..... PLEASE


Thank you.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 04:33:30 PM
You're living in the past. Arnold could barely qualify for the O today. Not a slam on him. That's just the march of progress.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:34:14 PM
ronnie:

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Royalty on January 20, 2007, 04:35:01 PM
If Ronnie was transplanted from our era into the seventies (using just 70's deca, primo, and dianobol), I would say that Arnold would win the pose. Along with, at least, the side chest.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 04:35:14 PM
if Arnold posed how you're supposed to in the front double biceps (standing straight up, no twisting, facing the judges) then Ronnie destroys Arnold.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/ArnoldvsRonnie1.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 04:36:21 PM
If Ronnie was transplanted from our era into the seventies (using just 70's deca, primo, and dianobol), I would say that Arnold would win the pose. Along with, at least, the side chest.

The better comparison is drop Ronnie down to a pound-for-pound weight and see how well he compares to Arnold , lets drop Ronnie down to about 225 pounds and see how impressive he is compared to Arnold
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:37:15 PM
wow. you can really see how balanced ronnie's bis and tris are in comparison to arnold.

looks like arnold is missing some of his lower arm..
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:39:53 PM
The better comparison is drop Ronnie down to a pound-for-pound weight and see how well he compares to Arnold , lets drop Ronnie down to about 225 pounds and see how impressive he is compared to Arnold

why don't we drop arnold's height down by 4 inches to equal Ronnie's while we are at it? ::)

thats a whole lot less mass relative to height.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Royalty on January 20, 2007, 04:44:41 PM
why don't we drop arnold's height down by 4 inches to equal Ronnie's while we are at it? ::)

thats a whole lot less mass relative to height.

Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, Insulin, and Clen, and you would be shocked at how much of a difference it would make.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 04:46:37 PM
Arnold 75 VS Ronnie 98 lol
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 04:50:18 PM
Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, Insulin, and Clen, and you would be shocked at how much of a difference it would make.

Unless the question is who had better genetics - and it isn't - what's yer point?

The poster asked who wins the pose. Look at the composite photo. It's not close even if you're squinting.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:50:51 PM
Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, and Clen, and you would be shocked how much of a difference it would make.

true.

Arnold was more aesthetic than Ronnie, but Ronnie's arms were a whole lot better..

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery6/mg126.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:53:39 PM
Arnold 75 VS Ronnie 98 lol

don't even start your ironage crap here.

(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/comp986.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m70.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 04:55:07 PM
don't even start your ironage crap here.



Yawn
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:55:52 PM
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m79.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 04:56:47 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 04:58:24 PM
In fact, this question is so uninteresting that I feel the need to immediately reframe it...

Who scored the hotter chick?

(http://www.superiorpics.com/pictures3/Shriver_sd543837.jpg)

(http://www.bodybuilders.com/gates6.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: TheAnimal on January 20, 2007, 05:00:03 PM
true.

Arnold was more aesthetic than Ronnie, but Ronnie's arms were a whole lot better..

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery6/mg126.jpg)
What makes you say that Arnold is more aesthetic... by those pictures Ronnie looks far more sensational... perhaps in that very shot right there is the greatest X frame we have ever seen in that shot Ronnie arms are so large that his waist appears tapered due to the appearance of clear obliques not seen in many Coleman shots... once again quad seperation is evident with the X frame highlighted by the intimidating size and definition of the hamstrings. Aesthetics is right there in ya face only thing that stops you guys from admitting his aesthetic presence is the huge amount of muscle but ill tell you that its all in the right places. Only flaw, is calves... and that it! Amazing shot Hulkster i'm so damn impressed by the clean lines I don't see how Arnold is more aesthetic but that is something that is subjective as by definition aesthetics is a reference to beauty.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:01:54 PM
What makes you say that Arnold is more aesthetic... by those pictures Ronnie looks far more sensational... perhaps in that very shot right there is the greatest X frame we have ever seen in that shot Ronnie arms are so large that his waist appears tapered due to the appearance of clear obliques not seen in many Coleman shots... once again quad seperation is evident with the X frame highlighted by the intimidating size and definition of the hamstrings. Aesthetics is right there in ya face only thing that stops you guys from admitting his aesthetic presence is the huge amount of muscle but ill tell you that its all in the right places. Only flaw, is calves... and that it! Amazing shot Hulkster i'm so damn impressed by the clean lines I don't see how Arnold is more aesthetic but that is something that is subjective as by definition aesthetics is a reference to beauty.

LMFAO at Ronnie being aesthetic , hell Arnold wasn't even aesthetic but he certainly more so than Ronnie
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 05:02:50 PM
Arnold was sorta aesthetic from the rib-cage up - but not full figure.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: TheAnimal on January 20, 2007, 05:03:26 PM
LMFAO at Ronnie being aesthetic , hell Arnold wasn't even aesthetic but he certainly more so than Ronnie
How is this not aesthetic?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=136747;image)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 05:05:44 PM
How is this not aesthetic?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=136747;image)


That ugly lump between the traps ruins it for me.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:06:12 PM
How is this not aesthetic?



because he's a collection of parts that lack harmony and balance & proportions , calves , abdominals and delts are all aesthetic muscles Ronnie is lacking in two of areas couple that with the fore mentioned and its easy to see why thats NOT aesthetic , Flex Wheeler yes , Ronnie Coleman give me a break
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Buttsuck on January 20, 2007, 05:08:43 PM
if Arnold posed how you're supposed to in the front double biceps (standing straight up, no twisting, facing the judges) then Ronnie destroys Arnold.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/ArnoldvsRonnie1.jpg)
You mean if Ronnie posed how you are supposed to in the front double bi Arnold would destroy him.... but then again i don't think ronnie is capable of twisting his fat waist.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: TheAnimal on January 20, 2007, 05:10:08 PM
because he's a collection of parts that lack harmony and balance & proportions , calves , abdominals and delts are all aesthetic muscles Ronnie is lacking in two of areas couple that with the fore mentioned and its easy to see why thats NOT aesthetic , Flex Wheeler yes , Ronnie Coleman give me a break
I see your point - the lack of calves ruins all proportions along with the gyno but there are extreme aesthetic qualities but upon review the flow is not evident particulary due to a missing bodypart.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: hipolito mejia on January 20, 2007, 05:10:21 PM
Arnold 75 VS Ronnie 98 lol

Just front double bicep please-
I know is hard to leave the "IF" "this uses more drugs" and "this was shorter" if this was 30 years ago" etc,etc,

Just tell me who do u think looks better in this particular pose



Just front double bicep please-

Thanks
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 05:13:10 PM
Yawn

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=136754;image)

little girl, get out of here with that nonsense. Can't you tell Arnold has been photoshoped?
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 05:13:22 PM
Something else to keep in mind about that composite photo: Arnold is 6' 2" and Ronnie is only 5' 11". So I think Arnold should be taller there. Which would make his inferior mass and thickness all the more obvious.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:14:46 PM
little girl, get out of here with that photoshoped nonsense. Can't you tell Arnold has been shoped?

LMFAO I was waiting for the countdown to the excuses and thanks for meeting the deadline , Arnold is the King of Bodybuilding 

NOT photoshopped  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Sir Bigness on January 20, 2007, 05:21:04 PM
Don't get me wrong...I like Ronnie but Arnold WAS ahead of his time. Probably experimented a little more then his counterparts to get ahead. Will we ever know?...NO! Nowadays, drugs seem to be the BIG TIME... unless you're living under a rock somewere you don't know this! Both have taken it to its extreme in there own way! It's getting pretty extreme and maybe overboard though nowadays! Not attainable...therefor not Mainstream! Opinion welcome?

The Future
Sir Bigness
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 05:34:11 PM
LMFAO I was waiting for the countdown to the excuses and thanks for meeting the deadline , Arnold is the King of Bodybuilding 

NOT photoshopped

consider yourself owned. ;)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Bodybuilders/ArnoldPhotoshop2.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Bodybuilders/ArnoldPhotoshop2edited.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Pollux on January 20, 2007, 05:37:00 PM
Arnold looking obviously MORE pleasing to the eye than the grotesque Ronnie.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: dogbowl on January 20, 2007, 05:38:15 PM
if Arnold posed how you're supposed to in the front double biceps (standing straight up, no twisting, facing the judges) then Ronnie destroys Arnold.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/ArnoldvsRonnie1.jpg)

Arnold for me.

Ronnie looks better from the chest up.  It's a shame that his abs are so distracting and that his legs look like turnips.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:42:02 PM
consider yourself owned. ;)



Jojo a little to late  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 05:47:04 PM
Jojo a little to late

ha ha ha ha, wtf does that have to do with the pic you posted? It's an entirely different shot. I put the pic you posted next to the original to compare. It's obvious Arnold's been photoshoped.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Bodybuilders/ArnoldPhotoshop2.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Bodybuilders/ArnoldPhotoshop2edited.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:50:45 PM
ha ha ha ha, wtf does that have to do with the pic you posted? It's an entirely different shot. I put the pic you posted next to the original to compare. It's obvious Arnold's been photoshoped.



It has nothing to do with it I never claimed it wasn't photoshopped , I recall someone made this comparison I did a quick Google search and posted it and to be honest with you I didn't even look at it and notice it was photoshopped , I could care less that it is , that other shot isn't  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Theoak* on January 20, 2007, 05:52:20 PM
Ronnie's nipples are looking East to West but that good ole boy could sure suck dick. He was the Weider bag boy for 10 years and by god did Joe , Betty and Ben enjoy him. Unfortunately he became impotent last year hence his loss......
 

????
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 05:53:52 PM
LMFAO I was waiting for the countdown to the excuses and thanks for meeting the deadline , Arnold is the King of Bodybuilding

It has nothing to do with it I never claimed it wasn't photoshopped , I recall someone made this comparison I did a quick Google search and posted it and to be honest with you I didn't even look at it and notice it was photoshopped , I could care less that it is , that other shot isn't

singing a different tune now are we after I caught you using a photoshoped pic of Arnold? ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:56:22 PM
singing a different tune now are we after I caught you using a photoshoped pic of Arnold? ;)

It would be something if I photoshopped than pic and tried to pass it off as real but like many times before kid you haven't been able to catch me  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 06:00:01 PM
It would be something if I photoshopped than pic and tried to pass it off as real but like many times before kid you haven't been able to catch me

I caught you passing off a photoshoped pic of Arnold as real, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. Your attitude went from "get out of here with your false accusations of photoshop" to "well, I honestly did not know it was photoshoped otherwise I wouldn't have posted it." ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 06:00:55 PM
I caught you passing off a photoshoped pic of Arnold as real, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. You went from "get out of here with your false accusations of photoshop" to "well, I honestly did not know it was photoshoped otherwise I wouldn't have posted it." ;)

How desperate are you? lol this is what you're working with? yawn Neo keep trying  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 06:02:05 PM
How desperate are you? lol this is what you're working with? yawn Neo keep trying

yawn, I don't have to try. I already caught you. ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 06:05:07 PM
yawn, I don't have to try. I already caught you. ;)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery  ;) catch me in what? I never denied it wasn't photoshoped and I didn't do it , so what exactly do you have? lol Oh thats right nothing.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 06:05:40 PM
ND is such an idiot
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Luinitari on January 20, 2007, 06:08:04 PM
Yawn

arnold has obviously been morphed in this picture.. in every area too, bis, tris, chest, quad, ham, and ESP in the lats.. sorry try again  :-[

edit: whoops didnt notice all the posts above that point this out.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
ND is such an idiot

This is coming from the guy who said Dorian is the most overrated bodybuilder of all time? lol talk about irony
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 06:15:23 PM
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m47.jpg)(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/coleman/rc230.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 06:16:13 PM
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m47.jpg)(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/coleman/rc230.jpg)

WOW Ronnie has the same size calves as Arnold lol
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 06:19:10 PM
WOW Ronnie has the same size calves as Arnold lol

considering that he was 4 inches shorter but still almost 20 pounds heavier at his 99 best, I would not be surprised.

think about it:

4 inches smaller in height but still more massive by almost 20 pounds.

thats an insane mass difference we are talking about here:

(http://ifbbtv.com/video3/ronnie_arnold.jpg)

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 06:21:03 PM
considering that he was 4 inches shorter but still almost 20 pounds heavier at his 99 best, I would not be surprised.

think about it:

4 inches smaller in height but still more massive by almost 20 pounds.

thats an insane mass difference we are talking about here:





Thats Ronnie 2004 and try and convince yourself Ronnie's calves are the same size as Arnolds because you're not convincing me  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 06:22:26 PM
Thats Ronnie 2004 and try and convince yourself Ronnie's calves are the same size as Arnolds because you're not convincing me  ;)

no one ever said you were smart.

you have demonstrated this time and time again...

by the way, hows the climb going?:

(http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v11n01/images/frameworkgraphic.gif)
LOL
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 06:23:01 PM
Thats Ronnie 2004 and try and convince yourself Ronnie's calves are the same size as Arnolds because you're not convincing me  ;)

LOL so, was Ronnie 2004 a different height than Ronnie 99? ::)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 06:23:31 PM
no one ever said you were smart.

you have demonstrated this time and time again...

by the way, hows the climb going?:

LOL

LMFAO

Dorian is the most overrated bodybuilder of all time

Don't ever question anyones intelligence  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Sir Bigness on January 20, 2007, 07:32:43 PM
Lifetime achievement=Arnold. Bodybuilding achievement (thusfar) = Ronnie
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: GroinkTropin on January 20, 2007, 08:58:35 PM
Someone shop that pic of arnie and give us an idea of what he'd look like on todays shit, ship it.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 20, 2007, 09:12:46 PM
ah, most of Ronnie's greater weight was obviously in his thighs and back. Those parts weren't considered as important as they are now, so Arnold never developed them to their full potential, and he didn't use nearly as much drugs I suspect.

They both have ideal structures for bodybuilding - average/tall height, medium build/skeleton, and full muscle bellies.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ali23 on January 20, 2007, 09:17:11 PM
LMFAO I was waiting for the countdown to the excuses and thanks for meeting the deadline , Arnold is the King of Bodybuilding 

NOT photoshopped  ;)

the picture is photoshopped friend... it is.. arnolds quads were not that big.. same goes for the arms..
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pobrecito on January 20, 2007, 09:26:03 PM
Ronnie looks like shit in the front double bi...period.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: evolutnbatista on January 20, 2007, 09:31:24 PM
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m47.jpg)(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/coleman/rc230.jpg)

yeah except ronnies aren't implants!
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: evolutnbatista on January 20, 2007, 09:34:11 PM
Someone shop that pic of arnie and give us an idea of what he'd look like on todays shit, ship it.

why don't you photoshop a pic of ronnie on the shit arnold was on.... the shit back then was PURE!!!! now a days its not as potent
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 20, 2007, 09:34:42 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 09:35:42 PM
Give Arnold Ronnie's drugs and Photoshop him and he's still getting owned on quads. Just deal with it.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 10:13:47 PM
true.

Ronnie's quads destroy Arnolds in every way, shape and form.

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 20, 2007, 10:44:20 PM
YEah duh.

Arnold didn't focus on quads. Nobody really did until Platz came around.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 20, 2007, 10:47:42 PM
Arnold didn't focus on quads. Nobody really did until Platz came around.

By this reasoning, you could say the reason Kamali sucks is because he "hasn't focused" on not sucking.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 20, 2007, 11:22:59 PM
That's a poor comparison. Arnold has to be taken in the context of his contemporaries. Practicly nobody had huge quads or legs in his prime. Or a back for that matter. Arnold said in pumping iron he would always work out so that everything was balanced. There was still somewhat of a statuesque look they were trying to achieve even in the 70s. Big legs were considered ugly and clumsy looking.

Today it's just about big! big! big! Proportion isn't as important.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: the shadow on January 21, 2007, 12:07:31 AM
arnold forever..discussing this is just pure retard.like tom platz said this on 1980 comeback video..

'we don't consider arnold as a bodybuilder,we consider him bodybuilding.arnold is bodybuilding'
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: MRMD2003 on January 21, 2007, 05:45:46 AM
ronnie in his 98 condition !!!! his 98 physique is probably the best ever with the exception of wheeler 98 arnold. even jay cutler stated that flex's physique was one of the best ever.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ether on January 21, 2007, 06:10:38 AM
Ronnie can't touch the king!

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m97.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ether on January 21, 2007, 06:19:16 AM
true.

Ronnie's quads destroy Arnolds in every way, shape and form.



(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery2/xmg116.jpg)
No GH, No Slin.... Just superior Genetics and Work Ethic, making that overfed ape look inferior in every way.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ether on January 21, 2007, 06:20:48 AM
Post a Ronnie side chest that can even come close to this.

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/ga43.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: GoneAway on January 21, 2007, 08:06:18 AM
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery2/xmg116.jpg)
No GH, No Slin.... Just superior Genetics and Work Ethic, making that overfed ape look inferior in every way.

Sick quads!

I think Ronnie's been more muscular and ripped/conditioned than Arnold, but it's amazing how close they come, when they're 25 years apart.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 08:07:14 AM
Arnold's calves are much better than Ronnie's.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: kyomu on January 21, 2007, 08:14:13 AM
Post a Ronnie side chest that can even come close to this.

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/ga43.jpg)
I want to know how arnold would have shrinked when he went down same level of bodyfat as ronnies bodyfat.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Royalty on January 21, 2007, 08:15:18 AM


think about it:

4 inches smaller in height but still more massive by almost 20 pounds.

thats an insane mass difference we are talking about here:

(http://ifbbtv.com/video3/ronnie_arnold.jpg)




Compare Arnold at 28 with Ronnie at 28. That would be a much closer representation of realilty.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 08:15:59 AM
ronnie's side chest was not too shabby,
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: kyomu on January 21, 2007, 08:24:16 AM
ronnie's side chest was not too shabby,
If you want bring the best Sidechest of ronnie,bring it from his first Russian GP.That shocked me a lot.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: EL Mariachi on January 21, 2007, 08:26:52 AM
ND you really are a pathetic piece of shit
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 08:29:44 AM
ND you really are a pathetic piece of shit

Great Post!
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 08:48:24 AM
ND you really are a pathetic piece of shit

You sound like my ex-wife  ;) and she's a stupid bitch too , how ironic
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 08:56:12 AM
she was probably a well informed Ronnie fan who knew dorian could not even come close 8)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 09:00:44 AM
she was probably a well informed Ronnie fan who knew dorian could not even come close 8)

Come close to what? getting beat by two " blocky white guys " ? lol
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 09:09:25 AM
we all know dorian was a beaten man in 94 and 97.

swallowing mass amounts of weider spunk goes a long way :-X
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 21, 2007, 09:11:03 AM
"Swallowing mass amounts of weider spunk goes a long way. Yeah, buddy!" - 8-time Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 09:12:17 AM
yes, he was an 8 time Mr. Olympia. Thats way better than being a lowly 6 time Mr. Olympia 8)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 09:12:53 AM
we all know dorian was a beaten man in 94 and 97.

swallowing mass amounts of weider spunk goes a long way :-X

Wow rewriting history huh? lol 94 Yates destroyed everyone and 1997 straight firsts  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 09:15:57 AM
yes, he was an 8 time Mr. Olympia. Thats way better than being a lowly 6 time Mr. Olympia 8)

lowly? typical Coleman fan equates quantity with quality , Ronnie beat guys that never stood a chance against Dorian and Dorian faced them when they were in their primes , 1998 an oil-filled Flex who was NO WHERE near his 1993 , almost beat Ronnie in one of the closest Mr Olympia ever by just 3 points , and since Yates retied the quality of field dropped off the face of the map lol two more Mr Olympia titles over who? Dexter & Cutler lol give me a break
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 09:17:28 AM
lowly? typical Coleman fan equates quantity with quality , Ronnie beat guys that never stood a chance against Dorian and Dorian faced them when they were in their primes , 1998 an oil-filled Flex who was NO WHERE near his 1993 , almost beat Ronnie in one of the closest Mr Olympia ever by just 3 points , and since Yates retied the quality of field dropped off the face of the map lol two more Mr Olympia titles over who? Dexter & Cutler lol give me a break

but you overlook the fact that dorian should not have won in 94 and by your own admission 97.

so your entire argument is wrong.

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 09:22:08 AM
but you overlook the fact that dorian should not have won in 94 and by your own admission 97.

so your entire argument is wrong.



No its NOT I personally feel Dorian shouldn't have won in 97 the judges thought otherwise and 1994 was NO contest everyone knows that except you , Shawn Ray said he got the place he deserved and you're working with what? nothing.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 09:26:00 AM
exactly. If you personally felt dorian should have lost then you can't go on and on about how he dominated.

you can't have it both ways, genius.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 09:28:12 AM
exactly. If you personally felt dorian should have lost then you can't go on and on about how he dominated.

you can't have it both ways, genius.

Straight firsts means he dominated genius  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 09:55:46 AM
Straight firsts means he dominated genius  ;)

but its obvious that he should not have. Even you can see this.

so you can't have it both ways.

either you agree with the judges 100% or you think that at least some of the time, their judging was flawed.

you fall into this second catagory.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 10:00:07 AM
but its obvious that he should not have. Even you can see this.

so you can't have it both ways.

either you agree with the judges 100% or you think that at least some of the time, their judging was flawed.

you fall into this second catagory.


Oh shut up kid , you weren't there and neither was I and I understand why the judges picked him over Nasser , Nasser could match or beat Yates from the front but couldn't from the sides and back thats why Yates won , and spare me the look at your own eyes nonsense pictures don't tell the whole story , the judges were live and in person and they picked Yates , I don't think Nasser beat Dorian I just think personally Yates should have won this one . but I'm objective enough to know I may be wrong , something you can't admit.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 02:31:23 PM
Quote
I don't think Nasser beat Dorian

yes you do.

you have said it many times in the past.

you cant turn around and change your story just because you got caught in a fallacy. ::)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 02:36:56 PM
yes you do.

you have said it many times in the past.

you cant turn around and change your story just because you got caught in a fallacy. ::)

What are you high? I never said Nasser beat Yates ever , I've said Nasser could match or even beat Yates from the front but NOT from the back & sides , I dare you to find me where I ever said Nasser out right beat Dorian in a contest it can't be done  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 02:40:27 PM
What are you high? I never said Nasser beat Yates ever , I've said Nasser could match or even beat Yates from the front but NOT from the back & sides , I dare you to find me where I ever said Nasser out right beat Dorian in a contest it can't be done  ;)

you have many times referring to the 1997 Mr. O.

I will find them and quote you.

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 02:49:08 PM
you have many times referring to the 1997 Mr. O.

I will find them and quote you.



I've said that Dorian shouldn't have won the 1997 Mr Olympia I NEVER said Nasser beat him or deserved to beat him , I personally don't think Dorian should have won with a torn tricep/bicep/quad and distended gut to that extenet but Yates was still clearly better than Nasser
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 21, 2007, 02:53:24 PM
Well, that's the end of this thread...  ::)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: leonp1981 on January 21, 2007, 02:58:17 PM
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/ArnoldvsRonnie1.jpg)
[/quote]

If you take away the conditioning, cos Ronnie's used a lot more chemicals to get it, this is what I see:-

Pecs - Arnold - Thicker
Bi's - Arnold - More mass, just (Tough one, Ronnie's got separation but maybe Arnold would have with the better conditioning)
Tri's - Ronnie - Easy, far more mass
Lat's - Draw - Ronnie's got the size, but Arnold's have a nicer shape and sweep to them.
Abs - Arnold - No distension
Quads - Ronnie - Far more mass and good separation
Calves - Arnold - Better shape and size

Arnold wins 4:2    ;D

At the end of the day though, it all depends who's looking.  I like a more classical shape, whereas others just want eye-popping size.  Each to their own.   ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 03:12:12 PM
I caught you passing off a photoshoped pic of Arnold as real, and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. Your attitude went from "get out of here with your false accusations of photoshop" to "well, I honestly did not know it was photoshoped otherwise I wouldn't have posted it." ;)

  Like I caught you back-peddling at the truce thread, and then owned your ass brutally? ::) You are truly a worthless little shit, Sperm. >:(

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 21, 2007, 03:26:03 PM
Like I caught you back-peddling at the truce thread, and then owned your ass brutally? You are truly a worthless little shit, Sperm.

yawn, all talk and no show. Where did I back-peddle? Show me where you owned me. All you do is post strawman after strawman, then attack them and say you owned me. I stopped responding to you after a while b/c your posts became so retarded that anyone could see you were talking out of your ass.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 03:35:38 PM
yawn, all talk and no show. Where did I back-peddle? Show me where you owned me. All you do is post strawman after strawman, then attack them and say you owned me. I stopped responding to you after a while b/c your posts became so retarded that anyone could see you were talking out of your ass.

  You back-peddled and I owned you when you said that you were talkig about the 2001 ASC Ronnie having muscles that looked bigger than Dorian's, when in reality you were talking about lean body mass. The evidence? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought up how Dorian's supposedly larger gut and heaier bone structure added to his bodyweight. ;) This is also true for the speculation about the 1999 Ronnie's vs Dorian's back mass ad width. Me owning you is so commonplace that I am appalled that you have the audacity to keep your high-horse attitude when you have been bitch-slapped by me en absurdum. And by the way, it's not a "strawman"  just because I don't quote your exact words; that's your strawman! I don't need to quote the exact words because it doesen't chage the meaning regardless. Sperm, you are a moron. :-\

SUCKMYMUSCLE

 
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 03:39:30 PM
  I stopped responding to you after a while b/c your posts became so retarded that anyone could see you were talking out of your ass.

  Keep telling that to yourself. Even Pobrecito, who by the way doesen't like me very much, pointed out that I owned you when it comes to your moronic claims about the the difference in mass between Dorian and the 2001 ASC Ronnie. You stopped responding because you got owned and you know it. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 21, 2007, 03:42:43 PM
  Keep telling that to yourself. Even Pobrecito, who by the way doesen't like me very much, pointed out that I owned you when it comes to your moronic claims about the the difference in mass between Dorian and the 2001 ASC Ronnie. You stopped responding because you got owned and you know it. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Neo said Ronnie 2001 had the same size as 1999 and equal conditioning in 1998 lol 244 pounds now equals 257?
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 03:46:56 PM
Neo said Ronnie 2001 had the same size as 1999 and equal conditioning in 1998 lol 244 pounds now equals 257?

  So isn't this dumbass saying that the 1999 Ronnie carried 13 lbs more of water and fat than he did in 1998? Sperm you are so dumb that you've just unwillingly owned Hulkster! ;D

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 21, 2007, 04:05:07 PM
You back-peddled and I owned you when you said that you were talkig about the 2001 ASC Ronnie having muscles that looked bigger than Dorian's, when in reality you were talking about lean body mass. The evidence? Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought up how Dorian's supposedly larger gut and heaier bone structure added to his bodyweight. This is also true for the speculation about the 1999 Ronnie's vs Dorian's back mass ad width. Me owning you is so commonplace that I am appalled that you have the audacity to keep your high-horse attitude when you have been bitch-slapped by me en absurdum. And by the way, it's not a "strawman"  just because I don't quote your exact words; that's your strawman! I don't need to quote the exact words because it doesen't chage the meaning regardless. Sperm, you are a moron.

ha ha ha ha, I'm still waiting for you to post my quote where I said that. I don't remember exactly what I said. So it's impossible for me to comment on something you 'think' I said. For all I know, I could have said that 01 ASC Ronnie had nearly equal lean mass (I was comparing him to 93 Dorian). Ronnie weighed only 10-13 lbs less depending on which source you read. Considering that his thighs were noticeably smaller in 01, it's probable that most of the loss in lean mass came from his quads while the rest of him maintained the same size as 99. You have to remember this is 2 yrs AFTER the 99 Mr. Olympia. Ronnie has stated that he adds roughly 5 lbs of muscle every year. Are you honestly trying to tell me (and this is how I know you are talking out of your ass) that Ronnie didn't add a single lb of muscle in that time? Do you really believe that he actually shrunk from 99 to 01? ::)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 21, 2007, 04:09:44 PM
Keep telling that to yourself. Even Pobrecito, who by the way doesen't like me very much, pointed out that I owned you when it comes to your moronic claims about the the difference in mass between Dorian and the 2001 ASC Ronnie. You stopped responding because you got owned and you know it.

"keep telling that to yourself?" Oh please, get out of here with that shit. You say that like I really have to convince myself that you spew misinformation from your mouth. You hold the unique distinction of being the only person in the truce thread to get owned by both sides of the debate. Several people have commented that your posts, although lengthy, are full of crap that is easily refuted upon second glance.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Palpatine Q on January 21, 2007, 04:17:53 PM
I want to know how arnold would have shrinked when he went down same level of bodyfat as ronnies bodyfat.

If arnold was on the same shit ronnie's on, he'd actually be bigger and leaner, with his superior stucture to boot.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 21, 2007, 04:51:32 PM
Quote
You hold the unique distinction of being the only person in the truce thread to get owned by both sides of the debate. Several people have commented that your posts, although lengthy, are full of crap that is easily refuted upon second glance.

this is true...
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 07:00:01 PM
ha ha ha ha, I'm still waiting for you to post my quote where I said that. I don't remember exactly what I said. So it's impossible for me to comment on something you 'think' I said. For all I know, I could have said that 01 ASC Ronnie had nearly equal lean mass (I was comparing him to 93 Dorian). Ronnie weighed only 10-13 lbs less depending on which source you read. Considering that his thighs were noticeably smaller in 01, it's probable that most of the loss in lean mass came from his quads while the rest of him maintained the same size as 99. You have to remember this is 2 yrs AFTER the 99 Mr. Olympia. Ronnie has stated that he adds roughly 5 lbs of muscle every year. Are you honestly trying to tell me (and this is how I know you are talking out of your ass) that Ronnie didn't add a single lb of muscle in that time? Do you really believe that he actually shrunk from 99 to 01? ::)

  The fact that he added muscular bodyweight is improbable, since he was lighter at the 2001 ASC than at the 1999 Olympia. Unless he had tons of bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia, it is impossible for him to have gained muscular bodyweight from 1999 to 2001 and yet lost bodyweight. Where did the loss of bodyfat come from then, you Cuban son of a c.u.n.t.

  We have been already over this. Just because a muscle looks bigger, it doesen't mean that it actually is. If you got the tape measurer and compared the 2001 ASC Ronnie's measurements to that of either the 1993 or 95 Dorian, you would see that Dorian's measurements were mostly bigger than Ronnie's. Coleman's muscles look bigger than they are because:

 1. His muscle bellies are rounder - This gives an impression of added fullness. Especially true when compared to Dorian's flat muscles.

 2. His joints are smaller - Contrast creates an illusion of size where there's any. Wheeler managed to look bigger than guys who outweighted him by 30 bs and as big as those who outweighted him by 50 lbs because his joints were tiny. Coleman's joints might not be as small as Wheeler's, but they're certainly smaller than Dorian's.

  Furthermore, even if Ronnie's measurements were mostly bigger than Dorian's, this still wouldn't mean that Ronnie carried more lean muscle mass. Why? Water. Ronnie's muscles are fuller, which mean that they carry more water inside them, and he isn't as dry as Dorian, which means that he carries more water underneath his skin. So Dorian could carry more mass even if his measurements were smaller. ;)

  The only way I would take your argument seriously is if Dorian's midsection and skeletal frame truly weighted more than Dorian's. Unfortunately for you, even the 2001 ASC Ronnie had a gut distension that was, at the very least, as bad as that of the 1995 Dorian - but probably worse. As for the skeletal frame, there you go picking at straws to try to walk yourself out of your embarassing proposition. The difference is very small, and odds are that Ronnie's frame weights more anyways.

  So, in conclusion, you got owned epically by yours truly, but I won't mention it again. Why? Because you know it. ;) I embarassed you showing the nonsensical nature of your retarded logic, and took you to school. As for the truce thread, like I said, all my posts are there for everyone to read and judge who owed whom. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

P.S: You are the queen of strawmans, so don't point any fingers, mmmk? ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 07:01:04 PM
"keep telling that to yourself?" Oh please, get out of here with that shit. You say that like I really have to convince myself that you spew misinformation from your mouth. You hold the unique distinction of being the only person in the truce thread to get owned by both sides of the debate. Several people have commented that your posts, although lengthy, are full of crap that is easily refuted upon second glance.

   :'(

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 21, 2007, 08:02:07 PM
The fact that he added muscular bodyweight is improbable, since he was lighter at the 2001 ASC than at the 1999 Olympia. Unless he had tons of bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia, it is impossible for him to have gained muscular bodyweight from 1999 to 2001 and yet lost bodyweight. Where did the loss of bodyfat come from then, you Cuban son of a c.u.n.t.

how pathetic!!! You know you've already won when your opponent resorts to personal attacks. ::)

Quote
We have been already over this. Just because a muscle looks bigger, it doesen't mean that it actually is. If you got the tape measurer and compared the 2001 ASC Ronnie's measurements to that of either the 1993 or 95 Dorian, you would see that Dorian's measurements were mostly bigger than Ronnie's. Coleman's muscles look bigger than they are because:

all talk and no show. That seems to be the theme with your posts. I've asked the Dorian nuthuggers repeatedly where Dorian was bigger than Ronnie besides the calves and midsection. So far nobody has been able to answer me. I contend that 01 ASC Ronnie had bigger arms, delts, pecs, and glutes. Please note that I'm comparing him to 93 Dorian. Their backs and thighs were tied in size, and Ronnie's conditioning may even have exceeded Dorian's (I feel that 01 ASC matched Dorian's best ever conditioning in 95).

Quote
The only way I would take your argument seriously is if Dorian's midsection and skeletal frame truly weighted more than Dorian's. Unfortunately for you, even the 2001 ASC Ronnie had a gut distension that was, at the very least, as bad as that of the 1995 Dorian - but probably worse. As for the skeletal frame, there you go picking at straws to try to walk yourself out of your embarassing proposition. The difference is very small, and odds are that Ronnie's frame weights more anyways.

Both had distended stomachs. However, Dorian also had a wider waist that increased the total volume of his midsection. You must realize the abdomen is not some hollow cavity filled with gas. There are organs and muscles inside, which add weight. Dorian also carried more skeletal mass. He has a larger rib cage, wider hips and thicker joints. Now factor in Ronnie's downsized quads. It's easy to see where most of the 10-13 lbs difference came from.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 21, 2007, 10:37:46 PM
how pathetic!!! You know you've already won when your opponent resorts to personal attacks. ::)

  Like you calling others "dipshit"? ;)  Now seriously, let me get this straight. You're saying that Ronnie gained 5 lbs of mass from 1999 on. So, he was carrying 10 lbs more of mass at the 2001 ASC, and yet his bodyweight was 13 lbs lower. This means that he lost 26 lbs of body mass other than muscle for your hypothesis to be true. Where did this come from? Ronnie was already very lean and depleted in 1999, so his incredible drop of body mass could not possibly be explained by a decrease in either fat or water - only a few pounds could be explained by that. Furthermore, since the weight of the internal organs and bones is stable, the decrease in bodyweight could not have come from anywhere else. You just got owned. Your theory is bullshit. If anything, Ronnie's body mass should have increased, due to the organ weight gain caused from all that GH. ;D ;)

Quote
all talk and no show. That seems to be the theme with your posts. I've asked the Dorian nuthuggers repeatedly where Dorian was bigger than Ronnie besides the calves and midsection. So far nobody has been able to answer me. I contend that 01 ASC Ronnie had bigger arms, delts, pecs, and glutes. Please note that I'm comparing him to 93 Dorian. Their backs and thighs were tied in size, and Ronnie's conditioning may even have exceeded Dorian's (I feel that 01 ASC matched Dorian's best ever conditioning in 95).

  I have already explained where Dorian was bigger: in all the same bodyparts you've just mentioned, except glutes. One more time, just because it looks like Ronnie is bigger on those bodyparts, it doesen't mean he is. The tape measuere is the only arbitrer here. By the way, you were talking about lean body mass, not visual size. Muscle weights more than water, and Ronnie has more water both outside and inside his muscles. You're just dumb if you think that looking at a muscle is an accurate way to measure it's size, let alone the amount of lean body mass contained there. I cannot take seriously your hypothesis that Dorian had greater weight only on calves and midsection. This is especially true considering that Ronnie had the bigger midsection, and that calves represent only about 5% of the body's muscle mass. Skeletal frame is a stretch.

Quote
Both had distended stomachs. However, Dorian also had a wider waist that increased the total volume of his midsection. You must realize the abdomen is not some hollow cavity filled with gas. There are organs and muscles inside, which add weight. Dorian also carried more skeletal mass. He has a larger rib cage, wider hips and thicker joints. Now factor in Ronnie's downsized quads. It's easy to see where most of the 10-13 lbs difference came from.

  But Ronnie's stomach was far more distended. Which means that his iternal organs were bigger. And Dorian's frame might be bigger, but his bones are likely lighter, so that's picking at straws. Black Men have an average of 50% more Calcium density than White Men, so I bet Ronnie's frame added more weight to the scales than Dorian's. This means more of Dorian's lean bodyweight was muscle tissue. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 21, 2007, 11:09:57 PM
Like you calling others "dipshit"? ;)

spare me your winks, you fagg*t. There's a big difference between calling someone a "dipshit" and a "Cuban son of a c.u.n.t." Apparently, you are too stupid to realize this.

Quote
Now seriously, let me get this straight. You're saying that Ronnie gained 5 lbs of mass from 1999 on. So, he was carrying 10 lbs more of mass at the 2001 ASC, and yet his bodyweight was 13 lbs lower. This means that he lost 26 lbs of body mass other than muscle for your hypothesis to be true. Where did this come from? Ronnie was already very lean and depleted in 1999, so his incredible drop of body mass could not possibly be explained by a decrease in either fat or water - only a few pounds could be explained by that. Furthermore, since the weight of the internal organs and bones is stable, the decrease in bodyweight could not have come from anywhere else.

I never claimed that Ronnie gained 10 lbs of lean mass from 99 to 01. I was merely pointing out that it's very unlikely that he carried less muscle than in 99. I already explained to you where the difference in weight probably came from.

Quote
I have already explained where Dorian was bigger: in all the same bodyparts you've just mentioned, except glutes. One more time, just because it looks like Ronnie is bigger on those bodyparts, it doesen't mean he is. The tape measuere is the only arbitrer here. By the way, you were talking about lean body mass, not visual size. Muscle weights more than water, and Ronnie has more water both outside and inside his muscles. You're just dumb if you think that looking at a muscle is an accurate way to measure it's size, let alone the amount of lean body mass contained there. I cannot take seriously your hypothesis that Dorian had greater weight only on calves and midsection. This is especially true considering that Ronnie had the bigger midsection, and that calves represent only about 5% of the body's muscle mass. Skeletal frame is a stretch.

Do you honestly believe that 93 Dorian had bigger arms and legs than 01 ASC Ronnie, or that his delts and pecs were larger? ???

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates1-1.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman14-1.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates41.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman20.jpg)

Quote
But Ronnie's stomach was far more distended. Which means that his iternal organs were bigger. And Dorian's frame might be bigger, but his bones are likely lighter, so that's picking at straws. Black Men have an average of 50% more Calcium density than White Men, so I bet Ronnie's frame added more weight to the scales than Dorian's. This means more of Dorian's lean bodyweight was muscle tissue.

wrong, Dorian's stomach was just as distended as Ronnie's.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates-FatCow5.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates-FatCow3.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates-FatCow4.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates-FatCow6.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: the shadow on January 22, 2007, 12:01:29 AM
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/ArnoldvsRonnie1.jpg)


If you take away the conditioning, cos Ronnie's used a lot more chemicals to get it, this is what I see:-

Pecs - Arnold - Thicker
Bi's - Arnold - More mass, just (Tough one, Ronnie's got separation but maybe Arnold would have with the better conditioning)
Tri's - Ronnie - Easy, far more mass
Lat's - Draw - Ronnie's got the size, but Arnold's have a nicer shape and sweep to them.
Abs - Arnold - No distension
Quads - Ronnie - Far more mass and good separation
Calves - Arnold - Better shape and size

Arnold wins 4:2    ;D

At the end of the day though, it all depends who's looking.  I like a more classical shape, whereas others just want eye-popping size.  Each to their own.   ;)
arnold had both eye-popping size and amazing shape.it would be awesome to have a body like arnies.his body was more than perfect
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: leonp1981 on January 22, 2007, 09:10:12 AM
arnold had both eye-popping size and amazing shape.it would be awesome to have a body like arnies.his body was more than perfect

Agreed
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ATHEIST on January 22, 2007, 12:59:52 PM
Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, Insulin, and Clen, and you would be shocked at how much of a difference it would make.
 
 people always leave that part out.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 22, 2007, 06:50:58 PM
spare me your winks, you fagg*t. There's a big difference between calling someone a "dipshit" and a "Cuban son of a c.u.n.t." Apparently, you are too stupid to realize this.

  I'll call you whatever I want to, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. This is evident by the fact that you reported one of my posts to the mods some time ago, trying to get me banned or in time out, and it didn't work. I called you that because all Cuban Women are whores. When I went to Havana three years ago, there was a statistic that something like 70% of them sell themselves to gringos. I certainly screwed many of them. ;) So it is reasonable to assume that your mother is a prostitute, or has worked in prostitution at some given time - statistically likely.

Quote
I never claimed that Ronnie gained 10 lbs of lean mass from 99 to 01. I was merely pointing out that it's very unlikely that he carried less muscle than in 99. I already explained to you where the difference in weight probably came from.

  Bullshit. You did, in fact, say that Ronnie put on 5 lbs of muscle mass per year. Then logically, he would have carried 10 lbs of muscle more in 2001 than 1999. Since he was actually 13 lbs lighter in 2001, it means that he must have lost 23 lbs elsewhere - for your idiotic theory to be correct. Since Ronnie was already at 3% bodyfat in 1999, and since the weight of bones and organs is stable, where were these 23 lbs lost from? ::) He was dryer in 2001, grated, but no oe carries 23 lbs of subcutaneous water. Your argument is just retarded and I exposed you for the intellectual train wreck that you truly are. ;D

Quote
Do you honestly believe that 93 Dorian had bigger arms and legs than 01 ASC Ronnie,

  I think he did. But I could be wrong. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Posting pics is irrelevant since you claimed that Ronnie carried more lean mass, and not that his muscles looked bigger. The fact that Ronnie's bodyparts look bigger to you has no relevance in establishing measurements, let alone the amount of muscle mass contained in such bodyparts. If Ronnie's arms were 22" in 1999 and he was 13 lbs lighter in 2001, it is reasonable to expect that Ronnie's arms were around 21" in 2001. The same as Dorian. And even if Dorian's arms were smaller in measurement, it still doesen't tell aythig about who carries the most lean muscle tissue. I would have no problem with your argument if you had just said that Ronnie's muscles looked bigger to you; the problem is that you tried to establish causality between this visual assesment and actual amount of muscle tissue. Correlation does not equate causality. There are many confounding variable here, but logic tells me that Dorian carried the most muscle mass.

Quote
or that his delts and pecs were larger? ???

  Who cares? The real question is: Does Dorian's delts and pecs add more weight to his physique than Ronnie's pecs and delts add to his? I think they did. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE




Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: delta9mda on January 22, 2007, 07:27:31 PM
In fact, this question is so uninteresting that I feel the need to immediately reframe it...

Who scored the hotter chick?

(http://www.superiorpics.com/pictures3/Shriver_sd543837.jpg)

(http://www.bodybuilders.com/gates6.jpg)
damn you went there!!!!!
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 22, 2007, 08:28:55 PM
I'll call you whatever I want to, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. This is evident by the fact that you reported one of my posts to the mods some time ago, trying to get me banned or in time out, and it didn't work. I called you that because all Cuban Women are whores. When I went to Havana three years ago, there was a statistic that something like 70% of them sell themselves to gringos. I certainly screwed many of them. So it is reasonable to assume that your mother is a prostitute, or has worked in prostitution at some given time - statistically likely.

ha ha ha ha, you'll call me whatever you want to? Go ahead if you want to sound like a fool. I'm not stopping you. Furthermore, my mom is not Cuban. My dad is. So there goes the rest of your comment.

Quote
Bullshit. You did, in fact, say that Ronnie put on 5 lbs of muscle mass per year. Then logically, he would have carried 10 lbs of muscle more in 2001 than 1999. Since he was actually 13 lbs lighter in 2001, it means that he must have lost 23 lbs elsewhere - for your idiotic theory to be correct. Since Ronnie was already at 3% bodyfat in 1999, and since the weight of bones and organs is stable, where were these 23 lbs lost from? He was dryer in 2001, grated, but no oe carries 23 lbs of subcutaneous water. Your argument is just retarded and I exposed you for the intellectual train wreck that you truly are.

bullshit what? I said that Ronnie stated he adds roughly 5 lbs of muscle every year. Nowhere did I say that he did in fact gain that much muscle from 99 to 01. Again, your post contains nothing but lies and misinformation. Why am I not surprised? ::)

Quote
I think he did. But I could be wrong. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Posting pics is irrelevant since you claimed that Ronnie carried more lean mass, and not that his muscles looked bigger. The fact that Ronnie's bodyparts look bigger to you has no relevance i establishing measurements, let alone amout of muscle mass contaied i such bodyparts. If Ronnie's arms were 22" in 1999 and he was 13 lbs lighter in 2001, it is reasonable to expect that Ronnie's arms were around 21" in 2001. The same as Dorian. And even if Dorian's arms were smaller in measurement, it still doese't tell aythig about who carries the most lean muscle tissue. I would have no problem with your argument if you had just said that Ronnie's muscles looked bigger to you; the problem is that you tried to establish causality between this visual assesment and actual amount of muscle tissue. Correlation does not equate causality. There are many confounding variable here, but logic tells me that Dorian carried the most muscle mass.

Ronnie's conditioning at the 01 ASC tied Dorian's best ever conditioning. This means he carried just as much, if not less, fat and water than 93 Dorian. Ronnie's quads were also downsized from previous years. His chest may have been slightly less full too. Less fat and less water plus smaller quads = most of the 10-13 lbs difference from 99. The rest of him was visibly the same size as before. His muscles may have been smaller due to less intracellular water, but the difference is so minuscule that you cannot tell.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pobrecito on January 22, 2007, 08:39:50 PM


Ronnie's conditioning at the 01 ASC tied Dorian's best ever conditioning.

pfftttt hahahaha....put the pipe down kid ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 22, 2007, 09:53:25 PM
ha ha ha ha, you'll call me whatever you want to? Go ahead if you want to sound like a fool. I'm not stopping you. Furthermore, my mom is not Cuban. My dad is. So there goes the rest of your comment.

  Who ended up like a fool was you, after you reported me - on the five years I've been posting here, I've never reported anyone else's post - to the mods, and they didn't give me even a slap in the wrist. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... ;D

Quote
bullshit what? I said that Ronnie stated he adds roughly 5 lbs of muscle every year. Nowhere did I say that he did in fact gain that much muscle from 99 to 01. Again, your post contains nothing but lies and misinformation. Why am I not surprised? ::)

  Then why did you bring this up, retard? You were obviously trying to imply that Ronnie gained that amount of muscle, to susbstantiate your claims that Ronnie had bigger delts, chest, etc. Boring.

Quote
Ronnie's conditioning at the 01 ASC tied Dorian's best ever conditioning. This means he carried just as much, if not less, fat and water than 93 Dorian.

  This is impossible. Both were around 3% bodyfat, and while Ronnie might have been as dry as Dorian in terms of extracellular water - I'm being very generous-, he certainly had more of it insdide his muscles because they were always fuller. Regardless, I think Dorian was drier. But let's pretend they were equal in this regard. First, it is not relevant where the lean body mass is located, since we're evaluating total lean body mass. If Ronnie had bigger delts and chest and yet smaller quads, this does nothing to explain the 13 lbs difference: again, the fact remains that Dorian weights 13 lbs more with similar fat and water levels. 13 lbs of bones is impossible, and Ronnie's frame is very likely heavier. The gut distension is worse on Ronnie, so that can't be it. Now, let's pretend that Dorian did carry 13 more of gut and bones than Ronnie - not true, but let's assume. This still does nothing to prove that Ronnie had more lean mass, as they would be equal.

  The only way to see who carried the most mass would be by doing a MRI and X-ray evaluation of their entire bodies, to see how much bone, nerve, organ and muscular skeletal tissue weight they had at their respective forms. Everything else is purely speculation, although the odds are strongly in my favor that I'm correct. Your assertion that Ronnie gained muscular tissue and yet lost 13 lbs of bodyweight from 1999 to 2001 is the most retarded thing I've ever read at this board. Where did that weight come from? Even if you had said that he merely maintained his muscle mass would be retarded, since it is extremely unlikely that Ronnie in his superb 1999 Olympia form had even half that much of fat and water to lose. He was drier at the 2001 ASC, but we're talking about a couple pounds here. Even if he lost water both intramuscularly as well as extramuscularly, it still would add up to 5 lbs or so, not 13 lbs. At the most.

Quote
Ronnie's quads were also downsized from previous years. His chest may have been slightly less full too. Less fat and less water plus smaller quads = most of the 10-13 lbs difference from 99.

  Less fat is impossible. Less water is a few pounds at the most. And pointing out that his quads were smaller only means that he had less mass overral - if you assume that his other measurements remained stactic. He would have to have lost more than 13 lbs of quad mass to have gained mass elsewhere and yet still decrease 13 lbs in bodyweight. If he gained 10 lbs of mass elsewhere making his chest, delts, etc, bigger than Dorian's - and 10 lbs would be the minimum for his chest, delts and triceps to become visibly bigger than Dorian's, then he must have lost 23 lbs of body mass elsewhere for his bodyweight to decrease 13 lbs. Bodyfat, again, is impossible, because the 1999 Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat. Water is a couple pounds, but let's be generous and say that the 2001 ASC Ronnie had 5 lbs of water less than the 1999 Ronnie - a lot of water loss!. Well, this still leaves 18 lbs for yout to explain exclusively through quad size loss. That adds up to 9 lbs of mass loss at each quad. Sorry, sport, but there's no fucking way in hell that Ronnie lost 18 lbs of quad mass from 1999 to the 2001 ASC. I don't think that the 2001 ASC Ronnie's quads were even a single inch smaller than Ronnie's at the 1999 Olympia. So you have just been schooled again, by Professor Suckmymuscle. That's bodybuilding and arithmatic 101 for you. Cheers. ;)

Quote
The rest of him was visibly the same size as before. His muscles may have been smaller due to less intracellular water, but the difference is so minuscule that you cannot tell.

  This only tells me that he lost overral lean mass anyway, since he lost quad size, and yet his measurments elsewhere remained the same. And the 1999 Coleman did not have a bigger chest or delts than Dorian. Only biceps - which explains why his arms were 1 inch bigger.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 22, 2007, 09:54:26 PM
pfftttt hahahaha....put the pipe down kid

you sound like such a retard. Do you blindly follow everything you hear? I didn't realize just how conditioned Ronnie was at the 01 ASC until I saw the pics. This easily matches Dorian's best ever.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman33.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman38.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman41.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NeoSeminole on January 23, 2007, 12:25:25 AM
Then why did you bring this up, retard? You were obviously trying to imply that Ronnie gained that amount of muscle, to susbstantiate your claims that Ronnie had bigger delts, chest, etc. Boring.

I already told you why, dipshit. Pay attention instead of flapping your gums. Maybe next time I won't have to repeat myself. I was merely pointing out that it's very unlikely 01 ASC Ronnie carried less muscle than in 99, like you suggest. I never claimed that he did in fact gain 10 lbs of lean mass. For all I know, he might have only put on 1-2 lbs. I highly doubt that he actually shrunk.

Quote
This is impossible. Both were around 3% bodyfat, and while Ronnie might have been as dry as Dorian in terms of extracellular water - I'm being very generous-, he certainly had more of it insdide his muscles because they were always fuller. Regardless, I think Dorian was drier. But let's pretend they were equal in this regard. First, it is not relevant where the lean body mass is located, since we're evaluating total lean body mass. If Ronnie had bigger delts and chest and yet smaller quads, this does nothing to explain the 13 lbs difference: again, the fact remains that Dorian weights 13 lbs more with similar fat and water levels. 13 lbs of bones is impossible, and Ronnie's frame is very likely heavier. The gut distension is worse on Ronnie, so that can't be it. Now, let's pretend that Dorian did carry 13 more of gut and bones than Ronnie - not true, but let's assume. This still does nothing to prove that Ronnie had more lean mass, as they would be equal.

If I did indeed say that 01 ASC Ronnie had more lean mass than 93 Dorian (according to you), then I gracefully take back what I said. Allow me to explain. Upon closer scrutiny, I realized that Dorian may have had equal or even slightly more muscle than Ronnie. I personally feel that Ronnie had better conditioning than 93 Dorian. Even if it means he was carrying only 3-4 lbs less fat and water combined, it adds up. His waist was significantly smaller. I would guess Dorian's midsection weighed 4-6 lbs more. Ronnie also has a smaller bone structure. Dorian has a larger rib cage, wider hips, and thicker joints. However, the difference here wouldn't be much due to racial bone densities. Let's just say that Dorian's entire skeletal mass weighed only 1 lb more. If we assume the lowest values for each part (I'm being generous here) and add them up, then we've already accounted for 8 lbs. At the most, they would add up to 11 lbs. The difference in muscularity between Ronnie and Dorian wouldn't have been that great. In fact, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell any difference at all.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie40.jpg)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Tonkin on January 23, 2007, 01:50:37 PM
Who would want to look like ronnie?Who would want to look like arnold? ARNOLD FOR SURE!!!
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 23, 2007, 06:26:24 PM
I already told you why, dipshit. Pay attention instead of flapping your gums. Maybe next time I won't have to repeat myself. I was merely pointing out that it's very unlikely 01 ASC Ronnie carried less muscle than in 99, like you suggest. I never claimed that he did in fact gain 10 lbs of lean mass. For all I know, he might have only put on 1-2 lbs. I highly doubt that he actually shrunk.

  This is impossible. If he gained 2 lbs of muscle, then you have 15 lbs of weight difference to explain exclusively through water loss. Since Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat in 1999, and since you can't go any lower than that, and also since the weight of bones and internal organs don't vary, then all there is to explain the 15 lbs that made him weight 13 lbs less in 2001 is water. I highly doubt that Ronnie had 15 lbs of water in his entire body to lose at the 1999 Olympia, let alone under his skin. ::)

Quote
If I did indeed say that 01 ASC Ronnie had more lean mass than 93 Dorian (according to you), then I gracefully take back what I said. Allow me to explain. Upon closer scrutiny, I realized that Dorian may have had equal or even slightly more muscle than Ronnie. I personally feel that Ronnie had better conditioning than 93 Dorian. Even if it means he was carrying only 3-4 lbs less fat and water combined, it adds up. His waist was significantly smaller. I would guess Dorian's midsection weighed 4-6 lbs more. Ronnie also has a smaller bone structure. Dorian has a larger rib cage, wider hips, and thicker joints. However, the difference here wouldn't be much due to racial bone densities. Let's just say that Dorian's entire skeletal mass weighed only 1 lb more. If we assume the lowest values for each part (I'm being generous here) and add them up, then we've already accounted for 8 lbs. At the most, they would add up to 11 lbs. The difference in muscularity between Ronnie and Dorian wouldn't have been that great. In fact, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell any difference at all.

  Your speculation is nonsensical. Dorian did not have 3 or 4 lbs more of fat and water than Coleman at the 1993 Olympia; he arguably had 3 or 4 lbs of water less. Bodyfat is a non-issue, because they were both at 3% bodyfat. However, 3% of 257 lbs is a little more than 3% of 244 lbs. Regardless, I still think that Dorian had 1 or 2 lbs less of water/fat(fat + water) than Ronnie. Even if we assume that Dorian's frame weighted 1 lbs more than Ronnie's(unlikely, but let's assume), then you'd still have 13 lbs to explain. Where did it come from? Dorian's midsection did not weight 6 lbs more than Ronnie's, but let's assume. In this case, Dorian would still have 7 lbs more of bodyweight than Ronnie which is not accounted for.

  So what is it? If Ronnie weighted less than Dorian in 2001 because, according to you, his quads were smaller and he had less fat and water than in 1999, and his other measurements were similar, then you're agreeing with me that Ronnie in 2001 had less overral mass than he had in 1999. Conversely, if he added mass to his delts, chest and triceps and yet his bodyweight still went down by 13 lbs, then you'd have more than 13 lbs weight to explain via water loss. If the amount of mass added to his delts, pecs and tris was greater, in sum, than the amount of mass that he lost in his quads, then you'd have more than 13 lbs(13 + X lbs of muscle mass) of weight to justify exclusively via water loss. It is a defeating proposition. Give up. You got owned ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: suckmymuscle on January 24, 2007, 08:51:07 PM
  I'm patiently waiting for Sperm's idiotic rebuttal to my reply, which I will rip to shreds. :)

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 05:10:56 AM
The better comparison is drop Ronnie down to a pound-for-pound weight and see how well he compares to Arnold , lets drop Ronnie down to about 225 pounds and see how impressive he is compared to Arnold

Once again an arbitrary departure from reality from this clown. They do *not* have to be the same weight to be compared, this is very much arbitrary reasoning & part of the dimentia. Endless "what ifs" that are beside the point. Following this bizarre logic, guys could only compete against one another in today's shows if they were the same weight. ::) ::) ::) ::) Next he'll be speculating on what Padilla would've done if he'd been 6'1". ::) The best comparison is simply both of them in good shape.

In that pose Arnold looks a lot better-one of his best poses and not not one of Ron's strongest IMO. Biggest advantages are aesthetics & small pre-GH waist. Coleman wins in terms of pure muscularity, obviously.

Now if you want to see real ownage, compare Schwarzenegger's double-bi to Yates'. haahahahahahahahahahah
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Whiskey on January 25, 2007, 06:53:34 AM
Ouch!

Yates is getting severly owned by the oak right there.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 10:33:53 AM
Once again an arbitrary departure from reality from this clown. They do *not* have to be the same weight to be compared, this is very much arbitrary reasoning & part of the dimentia. Endless "what ifs" that are beside the point. Following this bizarre logic, guys could only compete against one another in today's shows if they were the same weight. ::) ::) ::) ::) Next he'll be speculating on what Padilla would've done if he'd been 6'1". ::) The best comparison is simply both of them in good shape.

In that pose Arnold looks a lot better-one of his best poses and not not one of Ron's strongest IMO. Biggest advantages are aesthetics & small pre-GH waist. Coleman wins in terms of pure muscularity, obviously.

Now if you want to see real ownage, compare Schwarzenegger's double-bi to Yates'. haahahahahahahahahahah

Yawn tried old rant from pumpster the master moron , wow you posted a pic of Yates 1994 with a torn bicep and claim how much better Arnold looks  ::) you need a better pic of Yates , thats right you're scared to post a proper Yates pic for a reason  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 10:59:20 AM
Yawn tried old rant from pumpster the master moron , wow you posted a pic of Yates 1994 with a torn bicep and claim how much better Arnold looks  ::) you need a better pic of Yates , thats right you're scared to post a proper Yates pic for a reason  ;)

This clown walks into yet another door with the now-predictable/desperate Yates black & whites in which Yates has little refinement or definition. Forget Yates' aesthetics, as usual. Utterly owned by Schwarzenegger whose classic BB look reinforces Yates' bricklayer bloated artificial grotesque appearance accompanied by a weightlifter's tapers.  :-X

Yes, Yates is more muscular in an ape-like, artificial way. Who cares other than a delusional groupie like ND?
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: kyomu on January 25, 2007, 11:21:07 AM
Who would want to look like ronnie?Who would want to look like arnold? ARNOLD FOR SURE!!!
if i have to choose it from these two,2003 version of ronnie.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Buffgeek on January 25, 2007, 11:34:15 AM
Arms/Chest Comparable, but his waist was ridiculous!

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Andre Nickatina on January 25, 2007, 11:36:47 AM
Yawn
Monster photoshop on arnold
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Buffgeek on January 25, 2007, 11:42:09 AM
don't even start your ironage crap here.

(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/comp986.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/gallery/musclegallery1/m70.jpg)

Here is a better shot.

I dont think we have ever seen a better shoing that 98/99 Coleman, but I would much rather look like Arnold.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 25, 2007, 02:03:51 PM
you sound like such a retard. Do you blindly follow everything you hear? I didn't realize just how conditioned Ronnie was at the 01 ASC until I saw the pics. This easily matches Dorian's best ever.

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman33.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman38.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/2001ASC-RonnieColeman41.jpg)

wrong.

it easily surpasses it.

thanks to much greater visible detail.

dorian had the dryness, but not accompanying vascularity, shape and striations to match it.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 25, 2007, 02:05:13 PM
Here is a better shot.

I dont think we have ever seen a better shoing that 98/99 Coleman, but I would much rather look like Arnold.

agreed.

98/99 Ronnie was probably the best overall ever.

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Iceman1981 on January 25, 2007, 02:48:57 PM
consider yourself owned. ;)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Bodybuilders/ArnoldPhotoshop2.jpg)

(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Bodybuilders/ArnoldPhotoshop2edited.jpg)

LOL ;D
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Iceman1981 on January 25, 2007, 03:00:50 PM
If you want bring the best Sidechest of ronnie,bring it from his first Russian GP.That shocked me a lot.

Here is a side Chest of Ronnie from the 2003, 2004 Russian Grand Prix:
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 03:02:16 PM
Here is a side Chest of Ronnie from the 2004 Russian Grand Prix:

Garbage , water-logged and bloated not to mention unbalanced
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 03:03:17 PM
 ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Iceman1981 on January 25, 2007, 03:03:54 PM
but you overlook the fact that dorian should not have won in 94 and by your own admission 97.

so your entire argument is wrong.



ND the idiot says that in his opinion yates should of lost the 97 Olympia but then brags that yates got straight firsts scores? lol, what a moron. Make up your mind.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Iceman1981 on January 25, 2007, 03:07:10 PM

Oh shut up kid , you weren't there and neither was I and I understand why the judges picked him over Nasser , Nasser could match or beat Yates from the front but couldn't from the sides and back thats why Yates won , and spare me the look at your own eyes nonsense pictures don't tell the whole story , the judges were live and in person and they picked Yates , I don't think Nasser beat Dorian I just think personally Yates should have won this one . but I'm objective enough to know I may be wrong , something you can't admit.

You have stated over and over that yates should have lost in 97 then you post this bull. lol. What a 2 face.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 03:07:31 PM
ND the idiot says that in his opinion yates should of lost the 97 Olympia but then brags that yates got straight firsts scores? lol, what a moron. Make up your mind.

Mr personal opinion is that Dorian shouldn't have won in 1997 , but I'm basing these on pics and short video clips , and the refference to the straight firsts was some of the delusional think Nasser was close to beating Yates and the judges contradict that nonsense it wasn't even close at his worse this is a fact , 1997 straight firsts and like 1994 it was no contest
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Iceman1981 on January 25, 2007, 03:21:52 PM
Garbage , water-logged and bloated not to mention unbalanced

You can say the same for yates weak side chest. Getting owned bad by Naseer.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 03:27:02 PM
You can say the same for yates weak side chest. Getting owned bad by Naseer.

Empty statement , especially considering Yates received straight firsts in 1995 and 1997 and no one owns Yates in the side chest , no one
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 25, 2007, 04:40:55 PM
LOL

this side chest blows aways dorian's
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Shockwave on January 25, 2007, 04:44:44 PM
LOL

this side chest blows aways dorian's

Thats a good one!
Except...
I can't see Ronnie's chest because his oversized arms and delts are in the way.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 04:59:49 PM
LOL

this side chest blows aways dorian's

It does does it? from what prospective? density? I don't think so , balance? no not quite , conditioning? sorry again , lets hear from eight time former Mr Olympia on the topic at hand , Ronnie how do you feel about Dorian's Yates side chest shot?

DESCRIBE DORIAN YATES: A close friend. Dorian is very intelligent, a great Mr. Olympia. He had the best side-chest pose and the thickest freakiest back I have ever seen.

Thank you Ronnie I couldn't have said it better myself  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: leonp1981 on January 25, 2007, 05:09:59 PM
In that Russian Grand Prix pic, why does Fedorov's golden tan stop just before his hairline?  ;D
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 05:37:02 PM
Yates trumps Schwawzenegger on abs, no doubt about it. ::)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 05:39:29 PM
Yates trumps Schwawzenegger on abs, no doubt about it.

Yawn never seen that pic before , you're as tired as doing 410 pound power-rod benchs on the Bow-Flex  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 05:40:31 PM
Yawn never seen that pic before , you're as tired as doing 410 pound power-rod benchs on the Bow-Flex  ;)

The dweeb's obsessed with Bowflex, anything to change the subject away from further Yates ownage.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 05:43:51 PM
What's with this dweeb's obsession with Bowflex? I thought he asked his parents for one for xmas. ???

You're the loser who is using it , giving advice on bodybuilding lmfao talk about irony , how does one build a body with a Bow Flex? care to answer that? its about as effective in size-building as isometrics is , You got owned so badly on the truce thread you ran away with your tail between your legs , remember boy wipe your feet before you step into my house  ;)


lol Bow Flex
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 25, 2007, 05:50:29 PM
hahahaha Dumpster has lost all credibility. I mean, how can you take a bowfelx user seriously?
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 05:52:38 PM
hahahaha Dumpster has lost all credibility. I mean, how can you take a bowfelx user seriously?

He has the balls to give bodybuilding advice lol
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 05:53:56 PM
You're the loser who is using it , giving advice on bodybuilding lmfao talk about irony , how does one build a body with a Bow Flex? care to answer that? its about as effective in size-building as isometrics is , You got owned so badly on the truce thread you ran away with your tail between your legs , remember boy wipe your feet before you step into my house  ;)


lol Bow Flex

He's as clueless about how i train as he is about BB in general. A glutton for punishment. hahaahahahahahah
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 05:55:25 PM
As embarassing for Yates as it is humiliating for ND.  ;D
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 05:58:32 PM
How embarassing for Yates. :D

It couldn't be any more embarassing than this  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: ribonucleic on January 25, 2007, 06:00:11 PM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=137959;image)

I think we tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib with that.  :-\
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 25, 2007, 06:00:43 PM
hahaha brutal low rent apartment.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pobrecito on January 25, 2007, 06:01:29 PM
hahahahahahah pumpster owned yet again hahahahahaha

Pumpster = faggola hahahahaha
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 06:01:35 PM
Embarassing how little pubes actually has to say about Yates' ownage. Bwahahahaahahahahahahaha hahahahah
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 06:02:12 PM
hahaha brutal low rent apartment.
lol
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 06:02:48 PM
hahahahahahah pumpster owned yet again hahahahahaha

Pumpster = faggola hahahahaha

He made the mistake of coming out of hole and got bitch-slapped for it lol
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: pumpster on January 25, 2007, 06:11:09 PM
Recent pic of ND's apartment. ROFLMAO This is where pubes was seduced after ordering from Dominos. bwahahahahahahahahaah
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: NarcissisticDeity on January 25, 2007, 06:15:04 PM
Recent pic of ND's apartment. ROFLMAO

I don't know whats worse you laughing at this or the pics of your REAL appartment  ??? and your place isn't far off from the pic you posted talk about irony and getting your ass owned , come back when you carry a little more weight kid , that wont be for a long time since you can't gain any using a Bow Flex  ;)
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 25, 2007, 06:18:43 PM
Arnold is just raping the post tear dorian.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Dingleberry on January 25, 2007, 10:22:02 PM
This is by far the best pic of Arnold out there, a true beast born from a hardcore environment.

Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: bigkubby on January 25, 2007, 11:20:06 PM
i think ronnie and arnie are both a buch of bowflex fanny pack wearing pussies.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Whiskey on January 26, 2007, 03:48:20 AM
ND do you honestly believe that yates has a better front double biceps than schwarzenegger?
If so you there is something seriusly wrong with bodybuilding
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Bear on January 26, 2007, 04:39:39 AM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=137965;image)

Lol, I love this one.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 26, 2007, 02:16:21 PM
someone needs to photoshop a hard hat on to dorian in the pic 8)

it is the classic construction worker look...
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 26, 2007, 02:18:40 PM
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc80.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=137965;image)
ronnie's arms are so much better it looks like dorian doesn't even train!
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Shockwave on January 26, 2007, 02:32:57 PM
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc80.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121458.0;attach=137965;image)
ronnie's arms are so much better it looks like dorian doesn't even train!

You are the master of over exaggeration in a vain attempt to make a point.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Hulkster on January 26, 2007, 03:02:10 PM
You are the master of over exaggeration in a vain attempt to make a point.


I would not say that their arm comparison is an exaggeration.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Iceman1981 on January 26, 2007, 04:10:33 PM
I couldn't find a pic of Coleman curling less weight. Oh well, this has to do.
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: Dipadidu on January 26, 2007, 04:40:36 PM
I couldn't find a pic of Coleman curling less weight. Oh well, this has to do.

"the tanktop hiding huge waistline" contest is open!
Title: Re: Arnold vs.Ronnie
Post by: realkarateblackbelt on January 26, 2007, 09:48:38 PM
hahaha yes brutal hyperbole.

Huckster and Dumpster have been thoroughly humiliated in this thread. Like pathetic puppies scurrying away, tail tucked between legs, and a puddle of piss at foot.