Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Hulkster on January 26, 2008, 12:22:57 PM
-
he went from good to great folks:
(some moron flagged the 98 video, so you have to log in to see it):
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
he improved by a lot in 99.
totally awesome
-
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98. In comparison to 98, his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep and his front delts have improved; plus the pec anomaly (gyno) is no longer present.
Impressive split biceps. An awesome back double biceps on which muscle fights with muscle to hang onto his frame. A big, big lat spead promted Dorian "backman" yates to comment, "ronnie looks like a cartoon character". when doing back poses, ronnie would hitch up his trunks to expose ripped glutes.
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
Ronnie Coleman on Pro Bodbuilding Weekly
Ronnie what was your best Olympia ? Ronnie Coleman: I would have to say my first because my conditioning was spot-on
You may have liked his 99 appearance better than 1998 but to claim he's drier & harder in 99 is a lie and you know it ! Ronnie's best overall appearances are considered 1998 or 2001 Arnold Classic specifically because his conditioning at those two shows are as good as he ever got for him.
-
You two should REALLY get married haha lol :)
-
You two should REALLY get married haha lol :)
No he really should admit when he's wrong , everyone owns him and he just keeps on typing looking for people to agree with him , like that means Ronnie Coleman is wrong or Peter McGough is wrong , I just like pointing out how little he knows about competitive bodybuilding and the best part is I used quotes from his own hero to prove him wrong it just doesn't get any bettr than that , he wishes on a daily basis he accepted that truce because he's been paying for it dearly for a long time now lol
-
No he really should admit when he's wrong , everyone owns him and he just keeps on typing looking for people to agree with him , like that means Ronnie Coleman is wrong or Peter McGough is wrong , I just like pointing out how little he knows about competitive bodybuilding and the best part is I used quotes from his own hero to prove him wrong it just doesn't get any bettr than that , he wishes on a daily basis he accepted that truce because he's been paying for it dearly for a long time now lol
So, when he makes a post about Coleman and Yates, just ignore it :)
-
as we can see, ND didn't even WATCH the two videos..
::)
ps ND take note: even in the youtube comments on the 98 video people are saying he was better in 1999!
lol you are so fucked.
-
So, when he makes a post about Coleman and Yates, just ignore it :)
Wow sage advice , I prefer to continue burying him into the ground using his own hero . :)
-
ND still has not watched the two vids.
he won't because he is afraid.
they show as usual with all of his posts, that many of his quotes are wrong.
lol
what a coward.
-
as we can see, ND didn't even WATCH the two videos..
::)
ps ND take note: even in the youtube comments on the 98 video people are saying he was better in 1999!
lol you are so fucked.
It doesn't matter what the ignorant fans like you post on YouTube , what matters is what Ronnie Coleman says and the host of other people who were all actually live and in person say , you will NEVER trump those people who were there m, especially not when Ronnie himself says so
owned
-
ND still has not watched the two vids.
he won't because he is afraid.
they show as usual with all of his posts, that many of his quotes are wrong.
lol
what a coward.
I watched the videos in 1998 and 1999 OH SNAP nice try kid again who are you to tell Ronnie he's wrong? lol pure delusion on a bigbobs level
-
yup, ND has sure as hell not watched them. ::)
lol
'all that matters is what Ronnie Coleman says"
lol
if Ronnie Coleman said Stevie Wonder was white - you would believe him wouldn't you? ::)
like I said, no intelligent opinions - he only blindly follows those of others - even if they are as wrong as can be.
-
Ronnie stated in 99 he was better than in 98. its in muscle and fitness in the 99 contest coverage.
so Which Ronnie is right?
lol
::)
you are truly a sad sad man.
-
Wow sage advice , I prefer to continue burying him into the ground using his own hero . :)
Not sage advice, just realistic advice :) ;D
Have fun trying to OWN eachother. It is comical :)
-
you will NEVER trump those people who were there
LOL like the judge in 94 who said dorian's torn bi was "barely noticable"?
LOL
::)
you are unbelievably dumb. and sad that you think that people can quote complete bullshit that is proven to be complete bullshit and you will blindly believe it no matter what lol
::)
this thread is exposing you for what you are:
a beaten man who clings to quotes that are proven to be wrong, because its all you have..
-
yup, ND has sure as hell not watched them. ::)
lol
'all that matters is what Ronnie Coleman says"
lol
if Ronnie Coleman said Stevie Wonder was white - you would believe him wouldn't you? ::)
like I said, no intelligent opinions - he only blindly follows those of others - even if they are as wrong as can be.
No this is again where you're out right lying and I'll explain why , because I said long before I posted any quotes after watching the two contest and looking at the pictures I came to the conclusion on my own that Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 , now you say " Who the fuck is he , what does he know " o.k. this is where you get your ass pounded I back up my claim with not one but two quotes saying the same thing as I did lol coincidence? I think not and to add insult to injury I posted the quote from your hero himself saying this as well lol again more damage and I avalanched your with quotes saying that Ronnie 2001 was his absolute best specifically because his conditioning was much better than 1999 !
the difference between you and I , I know what I'm talking about , I verified my claims with actually eyewitness accounts from well respected writers but Ronnie Coleman himself , it doesn't get better than this . your response everyone is wrong , McGough is wrong , Perine is wrong , and even Ronnie Coleman himself is wrong , you're the most ignorant person I ever met because you're to stupid to comprehend you're wrong and soundly proven wrong by me and your hero lol
-
Ronnie stated in 99 he was better than in 98. its in muscle and fitness in the 99 contest coverage.
so Which Ronnie is right?
lol
::)
you are truly a sad sad man.
Is that the same issue he said Dorian would have kept kicking his ass? and I don't believe you because you lied and made up quotes before and even if true it doesn't mean he was harder or drier in fact he could mean it for other reasons , such as straight firsts for dominating Flex , so just because he MAY have said it doesn't mean he was better conditioned ;) and you ask which Ronnie is right? the one who reflected on his whole career and said specifically his first Olympia because his conditioning was spot-on lol
owned
-
Not sage advice, just realistic advice :) ;D
Have fun trying to OWN eachother. It is comical :)
He wishes he could own me , his own Hero owns him
-
and you ask which Ronnie is right? the one who reflected on his whole career and said specifically his first Olympia because his conditioning was spot-on lol
and this is the point you don't seem to understand:
just because he SAYS it was spot on does NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM make it TRUE.
because you can see from the two videos he was in better condition in 99:
ronnie 98 NEVER had cuts like this in his quads for example:
care to comment LOL OWNED
::)
-
and this is the point you don't seem to understand:
just because he SAYS it was spot on does NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM make it TRUE.
because you can see from the two videos he was in better condition in 99:
ronnie 98 NEVER had cuts like this in his quads for example:
care to comment LOL OWNED
::)
LMFAO this is your response? Ronnie is wrong? are you actually typing this? lol Ronnie is wrong , Peter McGough is wrong , Shawn Perine is wrong and Hulkster sitting at home looking at his photoshopped pics his buddy made is right?
meltdown
-
LMFAO this is your response? Ronnie is wrong? are you actually typing this? lol Ronnie is wrong , Peter McGough is wrong , Shawn Perine is wrong and Hulkster sitting at home looking at his photoshopped pics his buddy made is right?
meltdown
can you believe this moron?
::)
he doesn't even watch the videos, and acts as if Ronnie must be right on everything LOL
::)
watch the video coward
-
ND: why do you follow a sport based on visuals without using the visuals as an aid to physique evaluations?
because clearly you don't.
::)
-
can you believe this moron?
::)
he doesn't even watch the videos, and acts as if Ronnie must be right on everything LOL
::)
watch the video coward
What part of I watched both videos back then did you miss? and I think Ronnie would know more than you if he was better conditioned and it coincides with other people who were there unlike you , internet-fan-boy lol
-
LOL when faced with cold hard evidence that Ronnie was more cut in 99 than in 98, ND claims the screenshots are "photoshopped"
are you actually typing this? LOL
::)
-
ND: why do you follow a sport based on visuals without using the visuals as an aid to physique evaluations?
because clearly you don't.
::)
Hulkster where you there? NO do pictures & video replace being there? NO are you ignorant on what great conditioning is and isn't? YES
you're an internet-fan-boy
-
What part of I watched both videos back then did you miss? and I think Ronnie would know more than you if he was better conditioned and it coincides with other people who were there unlike you , internet-fan-boy lol
yeah back then.
you are afraid to watch them NOW.
and for damn good reason.
they prove your peter quote to be complely and 100% totally WRONG.
COWARD.
::)
the fact that ND refuses to see the evidence pretty much says its all right there: he is wrong, his quotes are wrong, and he knows it.
its stuff like this that caused him to run away from the truce thread. thats how badly he got owned.
-
Agreed,in 98 he was the sharpest in his whole career.
-
LOL when faced with cold hard evidence that Ronnie was more cut in 99 than in 98, ND claims the screenshots are "photoshopped"
are you actually typing this? LOL
::)
Hulkster your buddy admitted to photoshopping pic didn't he? and you used them knowing they were photoshopped didn't you? shall I crack out the posts? ;)
you have NO evidence Ronnie was ' more cut ' you have YOUR opinion which contradicts HIS opinion as well as everyone else , you're an internet-fan-boy you know nothing and your hero OWNS YOU ;)
-
yeah back then.
you are afraid to watch them NOW.
and for damn good reason.
they prove your peter quote to be complely and 100% totally WRONG.
COWARD.
::)
the fact that ND refuses to see the evidence pretty much says its all right there: he is wrong, his quotes are wrong, and he knows it.
its stuff like this that caused him to run away from the truce thread. thats how badly he got owned.
Forget me , you're claiming Ronnie Coleman is wrong , Peter MCGough is wrong , Shawn Perine is wrong and a host of others , and you never stepped foot at either contest LMMFAO you're just an internet-fan-boy who thinks he knows what is going on , you must have gotten in the University because you're handicapped and you must have been in special classes lol
-
I'm going to avalanche you with quotes all referencing Ronnie's best showing and why because of his much better conditioning and you'll notice NONE of these are the 1999 Mr Olympia
While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.
On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.
Shawn Perine Ironage Dec 11, 2004
As much as I love Haney and my IA champs, I think Ronnie circa '98 or at the 2001 Arnold is pretty much untouchable. Except by Dorian Yates 6 weeks out from the '93 O as photographed by our own KMH. Both men, on those specific occasions carried so much dry muscle mass in good proportion and with good lines that it's almost unfair to compare them to others.
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98. In comparison to 98, his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep and his front delts have improved; plus the pec anomaly (gyno) is no longer present.
Impressive split biceps. An awesome back double biceps on which muscle fights with muscle to hang onto his frame. A big, big lat spead promted Dorian "backman" yates to comment, "ronnie looks like a cartoon character". when doing back poses, ronnie would hitch up his trunks to expose ripped glutes.
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
Ronnie What was your best Olympia? Ronnie Coleman : My first because my conditioning was spot-on
Ronnie Coleman | 1999
In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.
consider your internet-fan-boy ass owned
-
how conveniently ND forgets that McGough stated quite clearly in the now famous article that Ronnie was not only in better conition than in 98, he had more size and fullness too.
he called him a 'walking anatomy chart' in 99.
LOL ND owned.
plays the quotes game and gets caught.
and the videos own you.
watch them for once LOL
::)
-
how conveniently ND forgets that McGough stated quite clearly in the now famous article that Ronnie was not only in better conition than in 98, he had more size and fullness too.
he called him a 'walking anatomy chart' in 99.
LOL ND owned.
plays the quotes game and gets caught.
and the videos own you.
watch them for once LOL
::)
Yeah I thought so when avalanched with overwhelming first hand accounts what do you do? LIE no where does he say Ronnie was hard or drier in 1999 thats a lie thats all you have left
I did watch the videos in 1998 and in 1999 and thats how I came to the conclusion Ronnie was sharper condition wise in 1998 and I backed up my claim after the fact what have you done? lied lol
-
hard to say really, 1998 Ronnie doing the side tricep pose was unbelievable. Dont think 1999 ronnie could match that
-
Yeah I thought so when avalanched with overwhelming first hand accounts what do you do? LIE no where does he say Ronnie was hard or drier in 1999 thats a lie thats all you have left
I did watch the videos in 1998 and in 1999 and thats how I came to the conclusion Ronnie was sharper condition wise in 1998 and I backed up my claim after the fact what have you done? lied lol
backed up your claim how? by posting quotes that are contradicted by other quotes LOL
::)
you can't back up any of those claims using visual evidence - which is what really counts in this sport.
talk is cheap.
there is a damn good REASON WHY you can't use visuals to back up the claim - they show that the claims are WRONG.
PERIOD.
you are fucked.
-
backed up your claim how? by posting quotes that are contradicted by other quotes LOL
::)
you can't back up any of those claims using visual evidence - which is what really counts in this sport.
talk is cheap.
there is a damn good REASON WHY you can't use visuals to back up the claim - they show that the claims are WRONG.
PERIOD.
you are fucked.
No you're fucked Ronnie Coleman , Peter McGough and Shawn Perine all all sayings best showing was 2001 or 1998 and they all say Ronnie was better conditioned on these two occasions , again you and bozzy are the only two claiming this nonsense , again look at all the quotes where is 1999? yeah I thought so lol
-
again look at all the quotes where is 1999? yeah I thought so lol
um, its right here moron:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614
and here:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=6e4acc9776eeb92b8c1b6498ad8bd0c5&t=4268
oh, and its here too:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/better-99-03-ronnie-93-95-yates-9710.html?t=9710
just me and Bizzy?
lol you are so stupid it is scary.
oh, and don't you find it ironic that even in the fucking comments on youtube about the 98 clip people are commenting how 99 was better?
oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..
too scared because you are afraid that it will show you what exactly what everyone is saying who compares them - that 99 Ronnie was clearly better. and in better condition..
::)
what a coward.
:-\
-
hard to say really, 1998 Ronnie doing the side tricep pose was unbelievable. Dont think 1999 ronnie could match that
oh yes he could:
8)
ND is afraid to compare the 99 version compared to the 98 version for a reason:
he will see that 99 Ronnie was better and he refuses to accept that.
Peter McGough has.
so should ND.
-
um, its right here moron:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614
and here:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=6e4acc9776eeb92b8c1b6498ad8bd0c5&t=4268
oh, and its here too:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/better-99-03-ronnie-93-95-yates-9710.html?t=9710
just me and Bizzy?
lol you are so stupid it is scary.
oh, and don't you find it ironic that even in the fucking comments on youtube about the 98 clip people are commenting how 99 was better?
oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..
too scared because you are afraid that it will show you what exactly what everyone is saying who compares them - that 99 Ronnie was clearly better. and in better condition..
::)
what a coward.
:-\
um, its right here moron:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614
I can't believe how fucking stupid you are . listen you idiot when I said where is 1999 it was in reference to it being his all-time best showing ever and what does Hulkster the total moron do? posts a link to a article where he proves my fucking point LMFAO who taught you how to argue? let me explain something to you moron you're not supposed to prove my point for me you tool lol
Ronnie Coleman | 1999
In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.
let me post that again I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. lmmfao you're beyond stupid thanks moron ;)
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=6e4acc9776eeb92b8c1b6498ad8bd0c5&t=4268
oh, and its here too:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/better-99-03-ronnie-93-95-yates-9710.html?t=9710
This is supposed to do what? some how prove that 1999 is better than 2001? lol Ronnie himself said he was better in 1998 do any of these people think they render Ronnie wrong? we already know you think so , again you can't find one credible quote that says Ronnie 1999 is his best showing you cannot do it for a reason other than you and a few select people who are basing your opinions on personal preference and thats okay put please spare us in thinking these people count more than the professional writers and Ronnie Coleman himself
just me and Bizzy?
lol you are so stupid it is scary.
oh, and don't you find it ironic that even in the fucking comments on youtube about the 98 clip people are commenting how 99 was better?
oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..
Yes you and a select few biased ignorant fans , wow YouTube and MuscleMecca this is your sources? lmfao this is where you're TRYING to match quotes with me? Forget Peter McGough , Shawn Perine , and many more established professional bodybuilding writers and Ronnie Coleman himself , " Bizzy " and " Hulkster " and " Iceman " from the comfort of their living rooms decided Ronnie was better in 1999 than in 2001 and 1998 despite never once stepping foot at a professional contest NEVERMIND attending the three in question , this is your proof? lol
oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..
too scared because you are afraid that it will show you what exactly what everyone is saying who compares them - that 99 Ronnie was clearly better. and in better condition..
::)
what a coward.
Again its a matter of credibility its a matter of experience and its a matter of attendance , its not a matter of a group ( a very small number too ) of internet-fan-boys who THINK Ronnie was better in 1999 vs 1998 the fact you're contradicting what many established and credible sources say despite only look at pictures shows how pathetic you are to cling to notion you're some how right and everyone including Ronnie is wrong , again its pathetic you;re soundly proven wrong by me and everyone else its getting sad now , no joking around .
-
oh yes he could:
8)
ND is afraid to compare the 99 version compared to the 98 version for a reason:
he will see that 99 Ronnie was better and he refuses to accept that.
Peter McGough has.
so should ND.
Boy this thread backfired huh? they two people who did respond both said he was better in 1998 lol
and Hulkster Ronnie Coleman said on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly in the recap of his Olympia run which Olympia was your best and his response was 1998 and why? because his conditioning was spot on , do you think you know more than Ronnie Coleman? yeah I thought so ;)
-
I am reminded of Usmokepole's excellent post from the truce thread:
eye witness testimony is often a lowly form of evidence, pictures however are factual while testimony is often skewed by context, emotions, etc... you truely are a moron if you think eye witness testimony trumps visual evidence, i assume you have never taken a law course in your life or have read any books concerning the matter to type something so erroneous.
it fits here quite well too
-
I am reminded of Usmokepole's excellent post from the truce thread:
it fits here quite well too
I swear to you it just can't be coincidence that most Coleman fans are retarded , again you think you know more than Ronnie? ;)
-
I swear to you it just can't be coincidence that most Coleman fans are retarded , again you think you know more than Ronnie? ;)
it doesn't matter WHAT he says.
if it is clear that what he claims was his best shape wasn't, it wasn't.
period.
its really quite simple.
do you mean to tell me that you believe every competitor when he says "I am in the best shape of my life!"
if I had a dime for every time that was said, I would be retired.
you seem to think that a competitors word is always right, even in the face of clear visual evidence showing otherwise.
you are wrong. its OFTEN not the case.
you should know that by now.
-
it doesn't matter WHAT he says.
if it is clear that what he claims was his best shape wasn't, it wasn't.
period.
its really quite simple.
do you mean to tell me that you believe every competitor when he says "I am in the best shape of my life!"
if I had a dime for every time that was said, I would be retired.
you seem to think that a competitors word is always right, even in the face of clear visual evidence showing otherwise.
you are wrong. its OFTEN not the case.
you should know that by now.
if it is clear that what he claims was his best shape wasn't, it wasn't.
period.
its really quite simple.
This quote among most other shows exactly why your retarded , besides telling the man in question he's wrong you offer up NO proof just your word based on pictures ! no there is NO ' period ' in fact just the opposite Ronnie's statement coincides with others in terms of his conditioning compared to 1999
again now you're not just contradicting Ronnie , its Ronnie , McGough , Shawn Perine and the best part if you were NEVER even there lmmfao again pure stupidity on your part
Ronnie's statement is consistent with other credible sources , his two best showings conditioning wise & overall were 1998 & 2001 you can't counter this you never could and fear to death admitting you're wrong because ONCE again that mean I'm right and you're wrong and I know you hate to admit that because in fact I'm always proven you wrong but hey it doesn't change the fact you have nothing as usual .
-
ronnie 98 NEVER had cuts like this in his quads for example:
care to comment LOL OWNED
::)
Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!).
The important thing here is, Hulkster, lighting can work all kinds of wonders. Look how cut Flex was at the 1999 English Grand Prix. He didn't look half that ripped at the Olympia, and you know he peaked for the latter.
I think Ronnie was drier and more ripped in 1998. His added size accentuated his separation somewhat better in '99, though, so it's a toss-up as to which is his best shape. Personally, I like him a little better in '98, but that's in small part because I saw that show with my daddy and brother. I didn't get to go in '99 :(
-
Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!).
The important thing here is, Hulkster, lighting can work all kinds of wonders. Look how cut Flex was at the 1999 English Grand Prix. He didn't look half that ripped at the Olympia, and you know he peaked for the latter.
I think Ronnie was drier and more ripped in 1998. His added size accentuated his separation somewhat better in '99, though, so it's a toss-up as to which is his best shape. Personally, I like him a little better in '98, but that's in small part because I saw that show with my daddy and brother. I didn't get to go in '99 :(
its not the lighting.
there are specific areas that ronnie was way more cut in 99 than in 98, eg. Ironman's Lonnie Teper specifically commented on the cuts exhibited in Ronnie's quads sin 99 that were absent in 98.
its very clear in the pics too: 99 vs 98
the thing is, apart from these few areas where he was MORE cut in 99 than in 98 (eg. delts, quads, glutes, hams) he was about the same in terms of cuts in other areas.
-
its not the lighting.
there are specific areas that ronnie was way more cut in 99 than in 98, eg. Ironman's Lonnie Teper specifically commented on the cuts exhibited in Ronnie's quads sin 99 that were absent in 98.
its very clear in the pics too: 99 vs 98
the thing is, apart from these few areas where he was MORE cut in 99 than in 98 (eg. delts, quads, glutes, hams) he was about the same in terms of cuts in other areas.
No, it's not the lighting considering it was almost pitch black in 99 and very bright in 98 ::) Oh, and Ronnie was wrong when he said he was in better condition in 98 too...even though he said he thought he was going to die backstage. Quote from Ronnie on the 99O: "It's not worth risking $100,000" (referring to the hit or miss chance of achieving the condition he did in 98)
-
Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!).
don't get me wrong - they were cut in 98.
but in 99 they were off the charts in terms of cuts: :o
-
Why do you keep posting this picture Hulkster? LOL.
Coleman with a soft, watery, undefined midsection that is sticking out farther than his chest. Then there is the flat out ugly lateral head of the triceps, non-existent calves, and watery side thigh. Oh yeah, don't forget the bucktooth smile.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=197262.0;attach=229734;image)
-
its not the lighting.
there are specific areas that ronnie was way more cut in 99 than in 98, eg. Ironman's Lonnie Teper specifically commented on the cuts exhibited in Ronnie's quads sin 99 that were absent in 98.
its very clear in the pics too: 99 vs 98
the thing is, apart from these few areas where he was MORE cut in 99 than in 98 (eg. delts, quads, glutes, hams) he was about the same in terms of cuts in other areas.
Again its not the lighting ::) stop speaking like you know and you were there and McGough mentions his quads were bigger in 99 with better sweep not better cuts , Ronnie shows just as great separation of all four muscles of the quadriceps in 1998 as he does in 1999 , seriously and the bottom like is he was harder & drier in 1998 its old news to everyone except you .
-
Why do you keep posting this picture Hulkster? LOL.
Coleman with a soft, watery, undefined midsection that is sticking out farther than his chest. Then there is the flat out ugly lateral head of the triceps, non-existent calves, and watery side thigh. Oh yeah, don't forget the bucktooth smile.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=197262.0;attach=229734;image)
He actually thinks thats a dominating shot lol it shows how little he knows , 98 kills 99 in the conditioning department
-
He actually thinks thats a dominating shot lol it shows how little he knows , 98 kills 99 in the conditioning department
no it doesn't.
watch the two videos dumbass..
::)
-
99 owns 98:
-
Proof that Ronnie's quads were equal in terms of ' cuts ' in 98 V 99 if not better
-
no it doesn't.
watch the two videos dumbass..
::)
yeah he does and I just posted visual evidence which according to you is everything and ontop of that the visual evidence I posted is backed up with eyewitness accounts ;) try it some time lol opppsss forgot you can't ;)
-
99 owns 98:
In terms of fullness and size sure in terms of that bone dry rock hard conditioning NO ;) no one agrees with you which I know you hate because you seek comfort in numbers
-
Proof that Ronnie's quads were equal in terms of ' cuts ' in 98 V 99 if not better
notice that his arms were less cut in 98 though.
LOL ND is fucked.
-
notice that his arms were less cut in 98 though.
LOL ND is fucked.
Wrong. The seperation appears deeper because of more fullness... he wasnt nearly as dried out as in 98.
Sorry.
And btw... you keep posting screencaps. Those screencaps have been shit from day one.
-
notice that his arms were less cut in 98 though.
LOL ND is fucked.
Hulkster do you actually believe this? or are you just being contrary? again you posted selected shots that you attempt to push off as proof that means nothing and his arms are less cut ::) just look at the two back double biceps shots I posted 98 his arms show better separation from 98 so stop typing nonsense , seriously .
-
In terms of fullness and size sure in terms of that bone dry rock hard conditioning NO ;) no one agrees with you which I know you hate because you seek comfort in numbers
sigh.
wrong. completely and totally fucking wrong.
there have been lots of accounts of 99 being in better shape than 98 posted in the truce thread eg.
http://www.naturalolympia.com/html/OlympiaReview.htm:
Last year, Ronnie was about ten pounds heavier and he was just as ripped as when he won the contest the first time in 1998
you just refuse to admit that they exist or brush them off as being 'not credible' as if your eye witness accounts are moreso...
::)
ND exposed
-
Wrong. The seperation appears deeper because of more fullness... he wasnt nearly as dried out as in 98.
Sorry.
And btw... you keep posting screencaps. Those screencaps have been shit from day one.
Great post ! lol he thinks those screencaps are Gold lol and everyone is afraid of them lol I been posting 99 Olympia magazine scans since day one , he's the only idiot bragging about 99 being the best any bodybuilding in the history of the sport has looked lol that speaks volumes of his delusion and ignorance .
-
Those screencaps have been shit from day one
well, they were so overwhelmingly dominant over dorian's 93 screencaps that they were proclaimed to be 'fake'
LOL
::)
shit is not the right word.
damaging to dorian is more like it.
ps the video is there in the first post for everyone to see.
its very clear and very apparent how good Ronnie was in 1999.
-
The seperation appears deeper because of more fullness
LOL did you pull that one out of your ass?
seperation does NOT "appear deeper because of fullness" ::)
it appears deeper BECAUSE IT IS DEEPER dumbass
where do you nuthuggers come up with this shit?
::)
-
sigh.
wrong. completely and totally fucking wrong.
there have been lots of accounts of 99 being in better shape than 98 posted in the truce thread eg.
http://www.naturalolympia.com/html/OlympiaReview.htm:
you just refuse to admit that they exist or brush them off as being 'not credible' as if your eye witness accounts are moreso...
::)
ND exposed
Lots of accounts ? where? you posted one where are the rest? and where does it say he was HARDER & DRIER than 1998 ? it doesn't and in fact this contradicts you claim that he was BETTER conditioned in 99 when in fact it says he was just as ripped NOT more so and he could theoretically be just as ripped but pay attention you ignorant fuck , NOT as hard its called density learn it
so just like your other thread you owned yourself thanks idiot for making my job easier ;)
-
does this seperation appear deeper because of fullness?
LOL
::)
you guys are something else :-\
-
well, they were so overwhelmingly dominant over dorian's 93 screencaps that they were proclaimed to be 'fake'
LOL
::)
shit is not the right word.
damaging to dorian is more like it.
ps the video is there in the first post for everyone to see.
its very clear and very apparent how good Ronnie was in 1999.
No we didn't claim they were fake we PROVED they were photoshopped ;)
-
LOL did you pull that one out of your ass?
seperation does NOT "appear deeper because of fullness" ::)
it appears deeper BECAUSE IT IS DEEPER dumbass
where do you nuthuggers come up with this shit?
::)
his quads are fuller sure , it helps with the cuts appearing deeper but thats moot is he overall harder & drier ? thats the question and we all know the answer ;)
-
ND is still too scared to watch the videos LOL
::)
-
ND is still too scared to watch the videos LOL
::)
what the video bizzy made with the photoshopped pics? I seen the real video both of them and I agree 1998 Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 ;)
-
ND, if you think these cuts were "photoshopped in" then you are even more sad than previously thought.
::)
you show the guy real concrete evidence and what does he do?
say they are fake because they show he is an idiot.
LOL
::)
-
ND, if you think these cuts were "photoshopped in" then you are even more sad than previously thought.
::)
you show the guy real concrete evidence and what does he do?
say they are fake because they show he is an idiot.
LOL
::)
Please show where I said these cuts are photoshopped ? please do ;) and NO i said they were photoshopped and I proved my point by posting a quote from the guy who said so any more questions? :)
-
;) I don't fear 99 Olympia
-
Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!).
The important thing here is, Hulkster, lighting can work all kinds of wonders. Look how cut Flex was at the 1999 English Grand Prix. He didn't look half that ripped at the Olympia, and you know he peaked for the latter.
I think Ronnie was drier and more ripped in 1998. His added size accentuated his separation somewhat better in '99, though, so it's a toss-up as to which is his best shape. Personally, I like him a little better in '98, but that's in small part because I saw that show with my daddy and brother. I didn't get to go in '99 :(
Great post and an example of differing lighting has a differing effect on the exact same shot
-
Great post and an example of differing lighting has a differing effect on the exact same shot
but that is not just the lighting retard, you are comparing a straight on shot to a shot from the bottom right hand angle..
and that is ONE SHOT.
it doesn't apply for the whole fucking contest LOL.
you will come up with ANY EXCUSE won't you?
anything to avoid admiting you are WRONG.
::)
-
but that is not just the lighting retard, you are comparing a straight on shot to a shot from the bottom right hand angle..
and that is ONE SHOT.
it doesn't apply for the whole fucking contest LOL.
you will come up with ANY EXCUSE won't you?
anything to avoid admiting you are WRONG.
::)
its not just the lighting its the lighting and the angle? lol I'll leave that one to stand on its own two feet and I'm not wrong , all the credible sources confirm what I have said even your hero lol you can't find me one single quote saying Ronnie was better conditioned in 98 than 98 , I can find you many saying the contrary
see you're so stupid you commit to insanely stupid comments like Ronnie 1999 is not only equal in terms of conditioning as he was in 1998 in fact your stupid ass takes it a step further he's now even better conditioned than 1998 lol this is just laughable you can't prove anything you've typed on the topic for a reason , and thats the difference between you and I , I can .
-
but that is not just the lighting retard, you are comparing a straight on shot to a shot from the bottom right hand angle..
and that is ONE SHOT.
it doesn't apply for the whole fucking contest LOL.
you will come up with ANY EXCUSE won't you?
anything to avoid admiting you are WRONG.
::)
No wonder everyone thinks you're such a toolbag.
Epic delusion.
-
Hulkster is utterly clueless :(
-
why do you think Dorian is better than Ronnie, Pobrecito......errr i mean "England 1"?
-
why do you think Dorian is better than Ronnie, Pobrecito......errr i mean "England 1"?
Do a search, I've got about 5000 posts on the matter :)
-
Hulkster is utterly clueless :(
he is , Ronnie says he was better conditioned in 1998 compared to 1999 , Shawn Perine goes on recoard saying Ronnie 1998 and 2001 are his best showings , Peter McGough says specifically Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 and goes onto say many times over Ronnie was his best in 2001 , Jim Schmaltz says Ronnie's best showing was 2001 and everyone of these guys are wrong lmmfao the best part is he was NEVER at any of these said contests , in fact he's never been to a pro contest in his life ! the closest he ever came was touching Nimrod king's calf at a seminar lol
he posts this thread and NO ONE agrees with him lol he's getting owned left & right it all started with the 1995 Mr Olympia screencaps and then moved onto the 1993 pre-Olympia video of Yates at 269 pounds and what sent him over the edge is his own HERO says not once but twice he couldn't touch Dorian , all he can do now is beg for people to agree with him and Hulkster here is another gem for you seeing you like Polls ;)
worse Mr Olympia Ronnie Coleman 11.11% and Dorian Yates 1.48% lmmfao I guess polls can't be wrong as you like to claim and FYI I never voted on this one either
http://www.musclemayhem.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25103
-
No wonder everyone thinks you're such a toolbag.
Epic delusion.
Great post , because its true.
-
he is , Ronnie says he was better conditioned in 1998 compared to 1999 , Shawn Perine goes on recoard saying Ronnie 1998 and 2001 are his best showings , Peter McGough says specifically Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 and goes onto say many times over Ronnie was his best in 2001 , Jim Schmaltz says Ronnie's best showing was 2001 and everyone of these guys are wrong lmmfao the best part is he was NEVER at any of these said contests , in fact he's never been to a pro contest in his life ! the closest he ever came was touching Nimrod king's calf at a seminar lol
he posts this thread and NO ONE agrees with him lol he's getting owned left & right it all started with the 1995 Mr Olympia screencaps and then moved onto the 1993 pre-Olympia video of Yates at 269 pounds and what sent him over the edge is his own HERO says not once but twice he couldn't touch Dorian , all he can do now is beg for people to agree with him and Hulkster here is another gem for you seeing you like Polls ;)
worse Mr Olympia Ronnie Coleman 11.11% and Dorian Yates 1.48% lmmfao I guess polls can't be wrong as you like to claim and FYI I never voted on this one either
http://www.musclemayhem.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25103
Coleman's legacy is nothing more than his pathetic last few showings and defeating subpar competition.
-
Coleman's legacy is nothing more than his pathetic last few showings and defeating subpar competition.
Right , who did he face? past his prime Flex? and Jay and Dexter lol give me a break I love how these idiots type Ronnie is the most dominant Mr Olympia ever lol they just rehash MD's PR
-
Right , who did he face? past his prime Flex? and Jay and Dexter lol give me a break I love how these idiots type Ronnie is the most dominant Mr Olympia ever lol they just rehash MD's PR
I really think you and your cronies should all hang it up and retire from these boards.
I struggle to think of anyone less popular.
-
I really think you and your cronies should all hang it up and retire from these boards.
I struggle to think of anyone less popular.
Wow is this the part I go to a shrink for Lexapro? the truth is often very unpopular but its 10 times worse when its from your own hero
Special Ed : Ronnie of Dorian competed in 1998 would you have smoked him?
Ronnie Coleman : NO I think he would have kept on winning as long as he competed I don't think he would have lost.
Taken out of FLEX nov 1999, page 90. interview by jim schmaltz with ronnie before the 99 Olympia.
Jim: What would have happened last year if Dorian Yates (recently retired winner of 6 straight Mr. Olympias) had competed?
Ronnie: Dorian would have won again.
Jim: You think so?
Ronnie: I know so. Dorian has a big physique - hard- and he's been the man to beat, and its hard to knock the champion off the block. He's a big guy and has a lot going for him. He overcame so many adversities, like his torn biceps, I couldnt see too much else stopping him.
They hate the messenger when it reality its the message they really hate ;)
-
I really think you and your cronies should all hang it up and retire from these boards.
I struggle to think of anyone less popular.
Great Post!
-
Coleman's legacy is nothing more than his pathetic last few showings and defeating subpar competition.
with Ronnie, it was his LAST FEW showings..
while Dorian was like that for MOST of his reign LOL (he only won 2 before the downfall in 94):
::)
-
with Ronnie, it was his LAST FEW showings..
while Dorian was like that for MOST of his reign LOL (he only won 2 before the downfall in 94):
::)
Dorian was untouchable at even his worse , Ronnie folded with less than stella conditioning even at his best he was touchable it really does speak volumes on how great Dorian was .
-
Great Post!
Hulkster speak on the the poll results lol
-
Dorian was untouchable at even his worse , Ronnie folded with less than stella conditioning even at his best he was touchable it really does speak volumes on how great Dorian was .
::)
-
::)
What does that prove? how desperate you are I agree . :) I can triple the amount of shitty shots of Ronnie what does it prove? nothing
your hero conceded to a Dorian with a torn bicep/tricep/quad it speaks volumes on how great Yates was at among his worse never mind at his best ! and speaking of ' worse '
speak on the poll Hulkster lol