Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: NarcissisticDeity on May 19, 2008, 05:43:17 PM
-
Ronnie was heavier BUT not as hard or as dry as he was in 1998 , Ronnie himself confirmed this on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly when asked what year was his best Olympia and his response was " My first because my conditioning was spot-on. " which echo's the sentiments of the highly esteemed Peter McGough
These pictures are magazine scans and NOT some screencaps that people toyed with , Ronnie was much fuller but his conditioning was not as sharp as it was in 1998 or 2001 ASC his best overall showing. ;)
-
;)
-
Cue another 30 pages of you, hulkster and pumpster having the exact same argument and posting the same pictures..
-
Ronnie would knock Wheeler unconscious in real life.
-
:o
-
;)
-
:)
-
It really emphasizes how much better he was than other recent Olympians, not even close. Wheeler was the 2nd best BB of the last few decades yet you can still see a few areas where he loses to Coleman.
-
Cormier looked great
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=215855.0;attach=252864;image)
Nasser not looking so hot.
-
:o
-
:)
-
Cormier looked great
Not even close to Wheeler or Coleman. Good balance, nothing at all exceptional individually or collectively. Didn't have great aesthetics either.
-
;)
-
It really emphasizes how much better he was than other recent Olympians, not even close. Wheeler was the 2nd best BB of the last few decades yet you can still see a few areas where he loses to Coleman.
Flex was HUGE in 1999.
-
Not even close to Wheeler or Coleman. Good balance, nothing at all exceptional individually or collectively. Didn't have great aesthetics either.
Oh boy lol when learn more and more about your ignorance with each post lol didn't have great aesthetics lol you made a funny ..................anyway
-
More
-
Dillett getting owned at every turn
-
1 Ronnie Coleman USA 5 5 5 5 20
2 Flex Wheeler USA 10 10 10 10 40
3 Chris Cormier USA 15 15 15 15 60
4 Kevin Levrone USA 31 22 23 25 101
5 Shawn Ray USA 29 24 24 26 103
6 Nasser El Sonbaty Yugoslavia 22 30 30 24 106
7 Paul Dillett Canada 27 37 38 102
8 Lee Priest Australia 45 41 39 125
9 Dexter Jackson USA 41 43 49 133
10 Milos Sarcev Yugoslavia 54 59 48 161
11 Mike Matarazo USA 58 61 59 178
12 Ernie Taylor England 66 68 59 193
13 Pavol Jablonicky Czech 63 67 69 199
14 Jay Cutler USA 72 67 65 204
15 Jean Pierre Fux Switzerland 79 80 80 239
Disq-12 Markus Ruhl Germany 61 60 69 190
Withdrew Porter Cottrell USA
-
The moment of truth
-
Flex in a very douche move
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=215855.0;attach=252895;image)
Priest was marked down for wearing Ironage type trunks and not rolling them into the crack of his ass
-
Ronnie celebrating with his family
-
Peter McGough stating the obvious.
-
Bald and black.
-
Ronnie was heavier BUT not as hard or as dry as he was in 1998 , Ronnie himself confirmed this on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly when asked what year was his best Olympia and his response was " My first because my conditioning was spot-on. " which echo's the sentiments of the highly esteemed Peter McGough
These pictures are magazine scans and NOT some screencaps that people toyed with , Ronnie was much fuller but his conditioning was not as sharp as it was in 1998 or 2001 ASC his best overall showing. ;)
actually, the day AFTER the 99 olympia he confirmed that he was in better shape in 99 than in 98 at his seminar.
I was almost 15 pounds heavier than last year, with a little bit better conditioning than last year.
http://www.dennisbweis.com/Articles/Colman.html
the video clips and pics confirm this.
so fuck off. you have nothing: 15 pounds heavier and the same if not better sharpness.
deal with it:
-
Peter McGough stating the obvious.
Ronnie disagrees :P
-
ronnie's quads in 99 was just one area that he was way more cut than in 98.
-
ND should note that other reviewers that were there had a different opinion than McGough: (one that is verified by the visuals too)
Musclemag International 1999 Mr. Olympia Review By Johnny Fitness
Ronnie was gargantuan, herculean, and every adjective in between.
He was ripped, sharper than last year, and filled with a champions confidence.
and Ronnie agreed with that assessment.
hahahaha ND what do you have?
NOTHING!
-
Dillett getting owned at every turn
U need glasses.
-
Great scans, thanks.
-
Lol, I can't believe some people actually had Flex in first.
-
Looking at these pics makes me realize how bodybuilding has not progressed at all. Put any of those guys onstage today and they would clean up. '99 Jay looks better than he does now.
-
hulkster is absolutely correct in his assessment here
ND relying on the fat, out of shape peter mcgough for his opinion, mc gough who knows very little about judging BB objectively obviously
mcgough who helped yates to 3 very tainted O wins 1994, 1996 and 97 when yates got gift decisions
-
ND relying on the fat, out of shape peter mcgough for his opinion, mc gough who knows very little about judging BB objectively obviously
mcgough who helped yates to 3 very tainted O wins 1994, 1996 and 97 when yates got gift decisions
ROFL
-
ROFL
u wanna fight?
-
GREAT pics. :)
-
hulkster is absolutely correct in his assessment here
ND relying on the fat, out of shape peter mcgough for his opinion, mc gough who knows very little about judging BB objectively obviously
mcgough who helped yates to 3 very tainted O wins 1994, 1996 and 97 when yates got gift decisions
Hi Sharma ;) and stick to the topic we're talking about Coleman and NO ONE else
-
actually, the day AFTER the 99 olympia he confirmed that he was in better shape in 99 than in 98 at his seminar.
http://www.dennisbweis.com/Articles/Colman.html
the video clips and pics confirm this.
so fuck off. you have nothing: 15 pounds heavier and the same if not better sharpness.
deal with it:
meltdown ;) Sorry sport Ronnie after having time to reflect on his career when posed the question which Olympia was his best he said 1998 because his conditioning was spot-on ;) deal with it fan-boy oh and he was most certainly NOT 15 pounds heavier in 1999 LMMFAO and you have the balls to post this as proof? he was 250 pounds in 1998 and 257 pounds in 1999 NOT 265 pounds . so much for your proof ....
Peter McGough echoing his earlier statements commenting on Ronnie at the 2000 Olympia
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 .
Hulkster = owned ;)
-
Nasser looks to be in the early stages of Palumboism
-
I have to agree with ND here. Coleman's conditioning was better in '98 which of course seems natural as he was lighter. He still won easily, Flex was not even close, Cormier did look great and deserved the 2nd place IMHO but Coleman was just too much for all the other competitors. As time went by, Coleman had more and more problem keeping a good conditioning. From 2000, it fluctuated from great to mediocre (look at te difference between his 2001 ASC and his 2001 Olympia).
-
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.
Again Ronnie was bigger but he wasn't as hard or as dry ! its a proven FACT that the heavier Ronnie got the more his conditioning suffered which is exactly why 2001 is his best showing , he slimmed down to just 244 pounds and looked amazing , his dryness & hardness were the best they've been since 1998 is other best showing as far as conditioning is concerned .
Ronnie looked good fuller but to bad he couldn't replicate that same bone dry & rock hard look of 1998 if he did 1999 would surely be considered his best overall showing.
-
I have to agree with ND here. Coleman's conditioning was better in '98 which of course seems natural as he was lighter. He still won easily, Flex was not even close, Cormier did look great and deserved the 2nd place IMHO but Coleman was just too much for all the other competitors. As time went by, Coleman had more and more problem keeping a good conditioning. From 2000, it fluctuated from great to mediocre (look at te difference between his 2001 ASC and his 2001 Olympia).
Great post ! and spot-on ( like Ronnie's conditioning in 1998 ) he did easily walk all over Flex this year despite not being as hard or as dry as 1998 . and I agree with you Cormier should have beat Flex .
-
Flex and Ronnie both looked great in 99. To me those two physiques from that year are almost perfect.
-
I never thought Flex could carry that type of weight. Also he looked a bit "fake" (synthol probably). Shoulders and arms looked cartoonish (and soft) to me. Flex was never better than in '93. He would have won easily the Sandow that year if he hadn't had the misfortune to compete against Yates at his best (or close).
-
Good memories.. we need more threads like these, cool scans!!!
Again, NarcissisticDeity making a foo' ;D
-
anyone who feels that Ronnie was still better in 1998 should watch this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
its part of why Ronnie himself says he was better
then if you really want to rub it in, watch the 98 video.
then you will see why people like Ronnie, Jonny Fitness and others said he was sharper in 99.
-
Ronnie said he was better in 98. I even emailed him about it.
-
Its so tough to see the condition judging with only video,his condition of 1998 looks better.
But seeing live is so different from video.....
-
You guys will never agree on this subject. 'Cause it's just a matter of taste. To me, Ronnie looked better in '98 as the balance between mass, proportions and conditioning was more pleasing to the eye IMHO. He looked great also in '99. After that, he could be impressive in every way possible but aesthetically which for me is important. If you're a mass fanatic then you could argue that 2003 Ronnie was even better than '98 or '99. And then comparing him to Yates is just too difficult and leads to too many speculations, what-ifs...But one thing is for sure: Yates is the man who changed the rules for the mass/conditioning combo and that's the end of the story.
-
Great photos 8)
Nas and Flex.... bicep o' oil.
Ernie Tayler - so obvious that it hurts.
Shawn and Chris look best.
Ronnie - wow.
-
Dexter got hosed. He beats Nasser, Dillet, and Priest hands down in every pic I've ever seen from those shows.
-
Bald and black.
epic jealousy by "m8". ::)
-
Cormier was 2nd place that day...
-
ps the last pic is probably one of the most AESTHETIC standing relax anywhere 'pumpster'....
-
ps the last pic is probably one of the most AESTHETIC standing relax anywhere 'pumpster'....
Can't touch Nubret, Reeves and others. Expand your awareness.
Here's aesthetic, along with other attributes he didn't have.
-
Can't touch Nubret, Reeves and others. Expand your awareness.
Nubret and reeves, yes .....from the front, (esp Nubret) but you turn them around its like the bermuda triangle....they dissapear. But i respect your opinon my freind.
-
Lacks aesthetics.
-
Nubret and reeves, yes .....from the front, (esp Nubret) but you turn them around its like the bermuda triangle....they dissapear. But i respect your opinon my freind.
When the argument has to shift to who looks better from the back my work's done, esp. given that most of these shots are from the front.
I'd say he looked damn good from that angle as well.
-
When the argument has to shift to who looks better from the back my work's done, esp. given that most of these shots are from the front.
I'd say he looked damn good from that angle as well.
His glutes werent shredded though ::) ... no i agree serge can hold his own
-
Can't touch Nubret, Reeves and others. Expand your awareness.
Here's aesthetic, along with other attributes he didn't have.
thats a good pic of flex
-
Lacks aesthetics.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
pumpster = troll ;)
-
You guys will never agree on this subject. 'Cause it's just a matter of taste. To me, Ronnie looked better in '98 as the balance between mass, proportions and conditioning was more pleasing to the eye IMHO. He looked great also in '99. After that, he could be impressive in every way possible but aesthetically which for me is important. If you're a mass fanatic then you could argue that 2003 Ronnie was even better than '98 or '99. And then comparing him to Yates is just too difficult and leads to too many speculations, what-ifs...But one thing is for sure: Yates is the man who changed the rules for the mass/conditioning combo and that's the end of the story.
I'm not comparing Ronnie to Yates this is about 1999 and how he was still the clear cut winner but his conditioning was off from 1998 Ronnie admitted this he maintained his best Olympia showing was 1998 specifically because his conditioning was spot-on
these guys can't stick to the topic they need to divert any chance they can I have no problem with your post its actually accurate
-
Ronnie said he was better in 98. I even emailed him about it.
Great post ! as usual it echos his sentiment on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly about 1998 being his best Olympia , he was very dry & hard in 1998 the only other time he matched that was 2001 Arnold Classic and NOT 1999 but he was the clear winner in 99 though his conditioning was off Flex was off too but then again Flex never matched his earlier showings either
99 started a trend for Ronnie where the more mass he added the more his conditioning suffered but it was still good enough to win .
-
Great post ! as usual it echos his sentiment on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly about 1998 being his best Olympia , he was very dry & hard in 1998 the only other time he matched that was 2001 Arnold Classic and NOT 1999 but he was the clear winner in 99 though his conditioning was off Flex was off too but then again Flex never matched his earlier showings either
99 started a trend for Ronnie where the more mass he added the more his conditioning suffered but it was still good enough to win .
great post
-
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
pumpster = troll ;)
This from one of the most vindictive trolls on the BB boards, not just getbig. Constant finger-pointing at others, personal attacks, too many attempted thread hijacks to count. ;D
He stays on topic here only because it's his own thread lol
-
This from one of the most vindictive trolls on the BB boards, not just getbig. Constant finger-pointing at others, personal attacks, too many attempted thread hijacks to count. ;D
He stays on topic here only because it's his own thread lol
I'll fight u on neutral ground. I'm not going to harlem :-X
-
This from one of the most vindictive trolls on the BB boards, not just getbig. Constant finger-pointing at others, personal attacks, too many attempted thread hijacks to count. ;D
He stays on topic here only because it's his own thread lol
Thats called projection and a feeble attempt at deflection , troll stick to the topic ;)
-
Lacks aesthetics.
Dorian at the 97 O =
(http://www.barsupplies.com/images/wood-beer-barrel.jpg)
-
Dorian at the 97 O =
Please stick to the topic . thank you
-
Please stick to the topic . thank you
Oh sorry, that was too soon!
I'll come back when this thread reaches around page 8 or so....should be a Ronnie vs Dorian thread by then ;D
-
it wasnt even close between flex and coleman in 99... coleman blows him away everywhere except abs...
arm legs chest delts...back no contest
-
it wasnt even close between flex and coleman in 99... coleman blows him away everywhere except abs...
arm legs chest delts...back no contest
Right Flex thought he was going to get revenge for 1998 and trains balls to the wall and didn't hold anything back and he lost clearly the move of his turning his back was low class and a slap in the face to Ronnie.
-
Ronnie said he was better in 98. I even emailed him about it.
its funny how you morons pick and chose which quote to believe..
Ronnie has stated publicly that he was in better shape in 99
he has also stated publicly that he was in better shape in 98.
Peter McGough from Flex says he was better in 98.
Jonny Fitness from Musclemag says he was better in 99.
but you guys only pick the one that suits your own stupid agenda..
::)
you idiots will never get it will you?
you have to look to the visuals to see which is the real answer.
:-\
and the answer is clear:
98 vs 99
note the vast superiority in quad cuts in 99 not to mention the superior arm definition.
he was sharp as hell in 99
NOT softer than in 98
-
its funny how you morons pick and chose which quote to believe..
Ronnie has stated publicly that he was in better shape in 99
he has also stated publicly that he was in better shape in 98.
Peter McGough from Flex says he was better in 98.
Jonny Fitness from Musclemag says he was better in 99.
but you guys only pick the one that suits your own stupid agenda..
::)
you idiots will never get it will you?
you have to look to the visuals to see which is the real answer.
:-\
and the answer is clear:
98 vs 99
note the vast superiority in quad cuts in 99.
he was sharp as hell in 99
see meltdown ;) and great job proving your point by posting a YouTube screencap VS a DVD screencap lol no wonder why you think Ronnie was in better condition in 99 lol and who is Johnny Fitness? NO ONE compared to Peter McGough and lets not forget Ronnie has recently said 98 Olympia was his best because his conditioning was spot-on this renders anything he may have said before MOOT
-
Vast superiority in quad cuts this statement besides being flat-out wrong is a gross overstatement and very ignorant , his quads bigger in 99 ? sure more cut? NO just as cut sure more so NO and I love how all you do is claim they're more cut with the explanation or detailed analysis and to boot you came to this conclusion using the mots pathetic strawman comparison of a shit YouTube screencap compared to a DVD one lol pathetic
Hulkster = fail ;)
quads same as 98 but bigger
-
Vast superiority in quad cuts this statement besides being flat-out wrong is a gross overstatement and very ignorant , his quads bigger in 99 ? sure more cut? NO just as cut sure more so NO and I love how all you do is claim they're more cut with the explanation or detailed analysis and to boot you came to this conclusion using the mots pathetic strawman comparison of a shit YouTube screencap compared to a DVD one lol pathetic
Hulkster = fail ;)
quads same as 98 but bigger
show me a shot of his quads that look anything like this in 98
otherwise, shut the fuck up.
even Lonnie Teper specifically mentioned his new found quad cuts in his ironman review of the contest.
-
I love how all you do is claim they're more cut with the explanation or detailed analysis
you can plainly see they are more cut moron.
you don't need a 'detailed analysis" ::)
jesus christ you are stupid. ::)
-
pathetic strawman comparison of a shit YouTube screencap compared to a DVD one lol pathetic
shit man you will come up with any possible excuse won't you?
::) :-\
-
show me a shot of his quads that look anything like this in 98
otherwise, shut the fuck up.
even Lonnie Teper specifically mentioned his new found quad cuts in his ironman review of the contest.
lol reduced to profanity? lol how unbecoming
Peter McGough
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.
his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep
NO where does it say ' his quads are vastly more cut than 98 ' because they weren't bigger sure , more cut ::) NO
Hulkster = ignorant ;)
-
lol reduced to profanity? lol how unbecoming
Peter McGough
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.
his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep
NO where does it say ' his quads are vastly more cut than 98 ' because they weren't bigger sure , more cut ::) NO
Hulkster = ignorant ;)
I said Lonnie Teper, not Peter McGough you illiterate moron. ::)
-
shit man you will come up with any possible excuse won't you?
::) :-\
thats an excuse? LMMFAO the shit you post is pathetic and you know it because thats exactly why you posted it , you were notorious for this in other threads it shows your ignorance and fear and your level of desperation
quads exactly the same as 98 just bigger
Hulkster = loser
-
still waiting on that 98 quad shot ND ::).
something tells me I will be waiting FOREVER
::)
-
excellent
more thigh stories please
-
I said Lonnie Teper, not Peter McGough you illiterate moron. ::)
I know what you said moron and you have most certainly LIED and made up quotes before ( see Shawn Ray ;) ) I don't trust anything you type because you're not above lying to ' prove ' your point , you're also not above knowingly using photoshopped pics and heavily slanted ' comparisons '
Hulkster = pathetic ;)
-
still waiting on that 98 quad shot ND ::).
something tells me I will be waiting FOREVER
::)
Hulkster = liar
I post side-by-side comparisons from 98/99 same exactly ammount of ' cuts ' as you call them
Hulkster = owned ;)
-
Ha ha...it is hilarious to see Hulkster and the other guy going at it ad infinitum. These guys have battled each other for something like 40,000 posts over years. There is a new program by Tito Ortiz where they allow people who are antagonists and hate each other to fight inside a ring to settle their differences once and for all. Maybe it's time for that? ;D
-
Hulkster = loser
The name calling she's long been known for when losing badly's infantile, to quote gh15's apt appraisal. Just another deflection to go with lameass excuses about photoshop, lighting, angles, etc.
-
Ha ha...it is hilarious to see Hulkster and the other guy going at it ad infinitum. These guys have battled each other for something like 40,000 posts over years. There is a new program by Tito Ortiz where they allow people who are antagonists and hate each other to fight inside a ring to settle their differences once and for all. Maybe it's time for that? ;D
Hulkster = KTFO
-
The name calling you're known to resort to when losing badly's infantile, to quote gh15's apt appraisal.
stick to the topic please
pumpster = troll ;)
-
stick to the topic please
pumpster = troll ;)
ND vindictive name-calling letch hahahaha point made.
ND only sticks to the topic on her own threads, otherwise the threads are hijacked.
-
more shots of quad cuts never seen in 1998:
-
Ronnie looked great at the 99 Olympia to bad he couldn't maintain that same rock hard and bone dry look of 1998 , he did return to that optimum conditioning in 2001 when he dropped weight he looks so much better when his conditioning is spot-on
-
Ronnie looked great at the 99 Olympia to bad he couldn't maintain that same rock hard and bone dry look of 1998 , he did return to that optimum conditioning in 2001 when he dropped weight he looks so much better when his conditioning is spot-on
He looks great seen here in top condition dominating the keg, as others have pointed out lol
-
Ronnie 98 blows 99 out of the water in terms of that bone dry & rock hard look
-
Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia is vastly overrated. Ronnie's strengh is his incredible muscle definition, striations and vascularity, all of which he had more at the 98 Olympia and at the 1996 Canada Pro Cup. Ronnie becomes just another big guy when he plays the size game, losing that which settles him apart from other bodybuilders. Also, Ronnie has a genetic tendency towards addominal distension, which becomes worse as he becomes heavier, so he always better at a lighter weight.
-
Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia is vastly overrated. Ronnie's strengh is his incredible muscle definition, striations and vascularity, all of which he had more at the 98 Olympia and at the 1996 Canada Pro Cup. Ronnie becomes just another big guy when he plays the size game, losing that which settles him apart from other bodybuilders. Also, Ronnie has a genetic tendency towards addominal distension, which becomes worse as he becomes heavier, so he always better at a lighter weight.
Great post ! which is why everyone in the know when speaking of Ronnie's best showings 1999 Mr Olympia doesn't come up , its 98 or 2001 and to some 2003 but at least the ones who claim 2003 don't have the balls to type he's just as hard or dry as 98
-
the kind of detail and separation Doz and coy can only dream of
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=215855.0;attach=253213;image)
-
the kind of detail and separation Doz and coy can only dream of
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=215855.0;attach=253213;image)
yes and ND take note:
its NOT from the 98 olympia, and for good reason!
-
Ronnie 98 blows 99 out of the water in terms of that bone dry & rock hard look
are you dumb or just stupid? ::)
honestly ND why are you arguing yet another argument where visual reality (and eyewitness testimony from people like ronnie himself) prove you wrong?
tell us:
98 O vs 99 O
I thought he was supposed to be much better in 98 ??? LOL ::)
-
ND wants us to ignore how Ronnie looked in 99.
you'll never see Ronnie this ripped in 98:
-
ND wants us all to believe that he was softer in 99 from the back.
problem is, he wasn't - just like the man himself said - he was the same if not a little bit sharper.
nice try ND.
it isn't working.
Ronnie has spoken.
-
hey ND I thought Ronnie was supposed to be bone dry in 98!
gee - we can see here he was just as bone dry in 99!
you are so fucked
-
ND is being passed around like a prison bitch again..
-
notice the sharp striations in Ronnie's back in 99 in the rear lat spread.
note how they are gone from 98..
but no, he was only rock hard and bone dry in 98..not 99 LOL ::)
::)
this is so easy its like taking candy from a coward..er.. baby..
-
10 post super meltdown lol
keep ice skating up-hill Hulkster those of us in the know will keep laughing lol
oh and BTW striations aren't a great indication of overall conditioning one can have them and still be holding a film of water and still have intramuscular fat lol my knowledge crushes you lol no wonder why you think Ronnie is better conditioned he has striations LMMFAO
-
honestly ND, you are really being stupid.
once again, 99 owning 98:
why is it so hard for you to admit when you are wrong?
-
striations aren't a great indication of overall conditioning
gee, how fucking convienient of you to say that considering the fact that the visuals and eyewitness testimony are kicking your ass all over the place..
::)
sure they aren't.
you just keep telling yourself that.. ::)
Ronnie was more striated in 99 than in 98 because he was, like the man himself said:
"a little bit sharper"
:P
-
so, CowardlyDeity, are you going to responding to these ownings or ignore all the points and visuals like you always do?
::)
-
.
-
Ronnie 99 owns all three of them.
his back double bi was as good in 99 as it ever was in his entire career.
including 98.
despite CowardlyDeity's pussy whining to the contrary..
-
gee, how fucking convienient of you to say that considering the fact that the visuals and eyewitness testimony are kicking your ass all over the place..
::)
sure they aren't.
you just keep telling yourself that.. ::)
Ronnie was more striated in 99 than in 98 because he was, like the man himself said:
"a little bit sharper"
:P
Hulkster let me explain something to you , Dorian had a striated x-mass tree at 300 pounds you think for a moment his overall conditioning was great? NO striations aren't always and accurate indication of overall conditioning . this is a fact Ronnie had striated glutes in 2000 yet he was holding a ton of water you don't know competitive bodybuilding sorry.
" Ronnie what was your best Olympia? I would say my first because my conditioning was spot-on " 2007 at the recap of his career
you have nothing for me and posting pictures and saying " see " doesn't prove anything you don't even know what you're looking for. ;)
-
so, CowardlyDeity, are you going to responding to these ownings or ignore all the points and visuals like you always do?
::)
I love how you've been reduced to petty name calling and profanity it's a sign of your frustration level lol
I'm in your head lol
-
no, its a sign of the fact that you know you are wrong, have been proven wrong (including using quotes from eyeswitnesses including Ronnie himself) and you know it.
nothing more.
you don't respond because you can't.
plain and simple.
-
Hulkster let me explain something to you , Dorian had a striated x-mass tree at 300 pounds you think for a moment his overall conditioning was great? NO striations aren't always and accurate indication of overall conditioning . this is a fact Ronnie had striated glutes in 2000 yet he was holding a ton of water you don't know competitive bodybuilding sorry.
" Ronnie what was your best Olympia? I would say my first because my conditioning was spot-on " 2007 at the recap of his career
you have nothing for me and posting pictures and saying " see " doesn't prove anything you don't even know what you're looking for. ;)
but once again, your simpleton uneducated mind misses the crucial difference as always:
*in those instances, no one is arguing that the 300 pound dorian was in better shape than a 250 pound dorian or that Ronnie 2000 was in better shape than other times in his career*
in this case, you are.
please try and use that McBrain of yours to understand that distinction.
Ronnie 99 was more striated because he was sharper. not softer as you are trying to claim (and doing one shitty job of arguing that I might add)
period.
-
(http://www.muscletime.com/gallery/d/14572-4/1997-mr-olympia-62.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=d5542f985824531bbd08e7667cdabc82)
(http://www.muscletime.com/gallery/d/14976-3/1997-mr-olympia-110.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=d5542f985824531bbd08e7667cdabc82)
(http://www.muscletime.com/gallery/d/14948-4/1997-mr-olympia-103.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=d5542f985824531bbd08e7667cdabc82)
(http://www.muscletime.com/gallery/d/14944-4/1997-mr-olympia-102.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=d5542f985824531bbd08e7667cdabc82)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=215855.0;attach=253213;image)
-
but once again, your simpleton uneducated mind misses the crucial difference as always:
*in those instances, no one is arguing that the 300 pound dorian was in better shape than a 250 pound dorian or that Ronnie 2000 was in better shape than other times in his career*
in this case, you are.
please try and use that McBrain of yours to understand that distinction.
Ronnie 99 was more striated because he was sharper. not softer as you are trying to claim (and doing one shitty job of arguing that I might add)
period.
Hulkster you don't get it , striations are NOT a great indicator of overall conditioning because..............one can be striated and still be holding a film of water , one can be striated and still have intramuscular fat
you're stuck in the mode of typing the same shit in this vicious circle and you think the more you post it , it becomes true lol
The general consensus of the people in the know is Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 compared to 1999 , much like 2001 which is considered his best showing ever and NOT 1999 for a reason and that reason is? he's harder & drier lol if 1999 as you claim he was just as sharp ( which you're not even claiming you're going a step beyond stating in fact he's better conditioned LMMFAO ) that would be considered Ronnie's all-times best and its NOT
facts you can't change em ;)
-
Stick to the topic troll ;)
-
CAREER HIGHLIGHT: Winning my first Mr. Olympia in 1998. Everyone was talking about Flex Wheeler and Kevin Levrone, but I got it done.
Flex magazine 2003 lol
so much for 1999
-
CAREER HIGHLIGHT: Winning my first Mr. Olympia in 1998. Everyone was talking about Flex Wheeler and Kevin Levrone, but I got it done.
Flex magazine 2003 lol
so much for 1999
lol what the fuck? ::)
so much for 99?
funny how when Peter Fucking McGough brushes off 98 in his article you ignore it, but somehow think that because Ronnie considers his out of nowhere first Mr. O his career highlight (as would any of us) that it is a reflection on his relative physique in 98 being better compared to 99? ::)
jesus christ man I hope you get out of McDonald's.
or not.
-
ND cannot admit when he is wrong because he is a narcissist
that is the nature of Narcissists
they have a false sense of superiority
ND being totally owned by hulkster
ND - give it up, your lack of knowledge about BB is laughable
-
ND cannot admit when he is wrong because he is a narcissist
that is the nature of Narcissists
they have a false sense of superiority
ND being totally owned by hulkster
ND - give it up, your lack of knowledge about BB is laughable
CORRECT ON ALL COUNTS.
Haney and YAtes, the best of the tier-ber olympians, getting killed by coleman.
-
lol what the fuck? ::)
so much for 99?
funny how when Peter Fucking McGough brushes off 98 in his article you ignore it, but somehow think that because Ronnie considers his out of nowhere first Mr. O his career highlight (as would any of us) that it is a reflection on his relative physique in 98 being better compared to 99? ::)
jesus christ man I hope you get out of McDonald's.
or not.
Ronnie could've picked 99 as his career highlight , guess what he didn't! no one thinks 99 is his best showing NO ONE with the exception of a few fan-boys and McGough tells you exactly what Ronnie's best showing is in his article and I'll give you a hint , it ain't fuckin 1999 lol ;)
Hulkster M.O. make ignorant gerneralazations , followed by ad hominen attacks begging for anyone to agree with him , couple that with weak arguments from ad populum and you have a very frustrated fan-boy .
-
ND cannot admit when he is wrong because he is a narcissist
that is the nature of Narcissists
they have a false sense of superiority
ND being totally owned by hulkster
ND - give it up, your lack of knowledge about BB is laughable
pumpster agreeing with his gimmick account lol I love how pathetic the fan-boys have come. see ad hominem ;)
-
pumpster agreeing with his gimmick account lol I love how pathetic the fan-boys have come. see ad hominem ;)
Meanwhile Colemans owns haney and yates.
-
Meanwhile Colemans owns haney and yates.
meanwhile trolls can't stick to the topic , for a reason ;)
pumpster troll
-
So true ! 1998 Ronnie's conditioning was clearly superior
-
Meanwhile Colemans owns haney and yates.
Yeah, sure! But I'd rather look like Haney at the end of his career than like Ronnie at the end of his. And Yates nowadays looks pretty good. Coleman is just another obese person to add to the statistics.
-
So true ! 1998 Ronnie's conditioning was clearly superior
yeah, you have shown so much evidence to show this.. ::)
idiot.
-
Ronnie could've picked 99 as his career highlight , guess what he didn't! no one thinks 99 is his best showing NO ONE with the exception of a few fan-boys and McGough tells you exactly what Ronnie's best showing is in his article and I'll give you a hint , it ain't fuckin 1999 lol ;)
Hulkster M.O. make ignorant gerneralazations , followed by ad hominen attacks begging for anyone to agree with him , couple that with weak arguments from ad populum and you have a very frustrated fan-boy .
lol I love how you call eyewitness testimony (including from Ronnie himself) backed by tons of corroborating visual evidence "weak arguments" ::)
you are sad.
-
ND cannot admit when he is wrong because he is a narcissist
that is the nature of Narcissists
they have a false sense of superiority
ND being totally owned by hulkster
ND - give it up, your lack of knowledge about BB is laughable
Great post! :P
-
Unfortunately for us that were not there we rely on video, pictures,
and other people's opinion who were there.
I'm not saying Ronnie was in better condition in 1999 but I do think
it's the best overall package he ever brought to stage which I'll explain later.
A couple of people who were at both 1998-99 Olympias.
Natural Mr. Olympia - John Hansen
When Ronnie won his first Mr. Olympia contest in 1998, it was one of the most exciting victories in the sport's history. His biceps, back and chest are absolutely incredible and nearly everyone agrees that he owns the Rear Double Biceps pose in this sport. Many people in the sport have also talked about the fact that Ronnie Coleman may be the best Mr. Olympia ever!
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.
Musclemag International 1999 Mr. Olympia Review By Johnny Fitness
Ronnie was gargantuan, herculean, and every adjective in between.
He was ripped, sharper than last year, and filled with a champions confidence.
Even Peter McGough states 1999 as the next year after 1993 that the sport advanced.
I think the conditions were very close between both years but the big difference was
the extra quality muscle Ronnie carried in 1999. I think the differences in condition are
miniscule at best.
(All of this is not to say I think Ronnie was OVERALL less defined in 99.)
My reasons for 1999 being his best are very similar to why most would chose
a less defined Arnold in 1974 over a more defined 1975 version.
Same thing for a pre-contest 1993 Yates against the 257 he brought to stage.
1999 for me is the 1st and only time that Ronnie truly filled out his frame without
losing asthetics or definition; plus his gyno was very slight in 99 compared to 98.
I do believe you are a real individual NI but unfortunately around here you never know
when someone will use a gimmick account to influence others on their opinion.
Peace! Biz!
-
Bald and black.
If had you not mentioned that ...I would have never noticed ...Good job.
-
ND cannot admit when he is wrong because he is a narcissist
that is the nature of Narcissists
they have a false sense of superiority
ND being totally owned by hulkster
ND - give it up, your lack of knowledge about BB is laughable
BINGO. False sense of superiority most definitely, it's hilarious. Nature of narcissists, check. Laughable "knowledge" of BB, check.
Keeping true to ND's spirit of hijacking other's threads lol
-
you know i wasn't going to respond to you because you're just so wrong on many points but i know for a fact ronnie was harder and dryer in 98 because i was actually there in ny and i was there in lv in 99 , i was three rows out at both contests and ronnie was in better condition in 98 , and pictures mean nothing compared to being there live and in person
and the general conensus was ronnie was the winner hands down and flex shouldn't have beat chris , but its funny to watch you speak with some type of authority on the topic when you never even seen ronnie in real life
i went to every olympia from 93 to 03 and the best ronnie ever look in a o was 98
Great post ! Hulkster getting his ass kicked by yet another eyewitness lol
Hulkster = owned
-
yeah, you have shown so much evidence to show this.. ::)
idiot.
I have pictures , video , and eye witness testimony from everyone including the man in question . again Hulkster there is a reason 2001 is considered his best showing and its NOT because he was bigger than 1999 ;)
no one but internet-fan boys think 1999 Olympia is his best
-
no one but internet-fan boys think 1999 Olympia is his best
U seem to be on more BB sites than most, making you internet fan-nerd #1 lol
-
U seem to be on more BB sites than most, making you internet fan-nerd #1 lol
stick to the topic troll ;)
-
BINGO. False sense of superiority most definitely, it's hilarious. Nature of narcissists, check. Laughable "knowledge" of BB, check.
Keeping true to ND's spirit of hijacking other's threads lol
pumpy responding to his own gimmick lol see pathetic
-
pumpy responding to his own gimmick lol see pathetic
Epic deflection.
-
Epic deflection.
epic sticking to the topic lol
-
Suppose that you had a Ferrari and decided to upgrade it's engine even more, but at the cost of tonning down it's design. Well, in this case the Ferrari would be just another fast car and would lose that which makes it superior to other fast cars. There are tons of fast cars, like Lamborghinis, Buggatis, etc, but what sets the Ferrari apart is it's design.
This is analogous to what happens to Ronnie when he comes in heavier and with more muscle. He becomes just another big guy, and loses that which sets hims apart from the other guys, his incredible muscle drefinition, striations and vascularity. Saying that Ronnie was better in 1999 than 1998 is just absurd. Hulkster, I love Ronnie too, but don't try to claim that he can have the cake(muscle size) and eat it too(muscle quality) by claiming that he was better in 1999 than 1998 because it is just stupid.
-
Suppose that you had a Ferrari and decided to upgrade it's engine even more, but at the cost of tonning down it's design. Well, in this case the Ferrari would be just another fast car and would lose that which makes it superior to other fast cars. There are tons of fast cars, like Lamborghinis, Buggatis, etc, but what sets the Ferrari apart is it's design.
This is analogous to what happens to Ronnie when he comes in heavier and with more muscle. He becomes just another big guy, and loses that which sets hims apart from the other guys, his incredible muscle drefinition, striations and vascularity. Saying that Ronnie was better in 1999 than 1998 is just absurd. Hulkster, I love Ronnie too, but don't try to claim that he can have the cake(muscle size) and eat it too(muscle quality) by claiming that he was better in 1999 than 1998 because it is just stupid.
The funny part is he doesn't claim that he's almost the same no like all of his ignorant posts he's a step beyond lol he's not comparable in terms of condition he's in fact harder & drier than 98 lol which is just plain absurd , there is more than a noticeable difference between the two years the man himself admits this
if 99 Ronnie was better conditioned or even bare minimum equally dry & hard in 98 this would be his best showing ever and its NOT , now one considers this to be his best showing for a good reason and that reason is...................... ........his muscle density and dryness are NOT on par with 1998 or 2001
-
Unfortunately for us that were not there we rely on video, pictures,
and other people's opinion who were there.
I'm not saying Ronnie was in better condition in 1999 but I do think
it's the best overall package he ever brought to stage which I'll explain later.
A couple of people who were at both 1998-99 Olympias.
Natural Mr. Olympia - John Hansen
When Ronnie won his first Mr. Olympia contest in 1998, it was one of the most exciting victories in the sport's history. His biceps, back and chest are absolutely incredible and nearly everyone agrees that he owns the Rear Double Biceps pose in this sport. Many people in the sport have also talked about the fact that Ronnie Coleman may be the best Mr. Olympia ever!
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.
Musclemag International 1999 Mr. Olympia Review By Johnny Fitness
Ronnie was gargantuan, herculean, and every adjective in between.
He was ripped, sharper than last year, and filled with a champions confidence.
Even Peter McGough states 1999 as the next year after 1993 that the sport advanced.
I think the conditions were very close between both years but the big difference was
the extra quality muscle Ronnie carried in 1999. I think the differences in condition are
miniscule at best.
(All of this is not to say I think Ronnie was OVERALL less defined in 99.)
My reasons for 1999 being his best are very similar to why most would chose
a less defined Arnold in 1974 over a more defined 1975 version.
Same thing for a pre-contest 1993 Yates against the 257 he brought to stage.
1999 for me is the 1st and only time that Ronnie truly filled out his frame without
losing asthetics or definition; plus his gyno was very slight in 99 compared to 98.
I do believe you are a real individual NI but unfortunately around here you never know
when someone will use a gimmick account to influence others on their opinion.
Peace! Biz!
ND take note of the bold face eye witness testimony.
and don't forget to include Ronnie's statements shortly after the winning olympia.
a few of you are saying its 'absurd' to say that Ronnie was in better shape in 99 than in 98?
well, if its so absurd, tell me why Ronnie himself and others have said this, and we have pics and videos (lots of them) to CORROBORATE IT.
answer please.
what is truly absurd is you dismissing an argument that has both eyewitness testiomy and tons of visual proof for an argument that has no proof and only a few contrary eyewitness testimony.
you just don't get it.
-
This is analogous to what happens to Ronnie when he comes in heavier and with more muscle. He becomes just another big guy, and loses that which sets hims apart from the other guys, his incredible muscle drefinition, striations and vascularity. Saying that Ronnie was better in 1999 than 1998 is just absurd
yeah, look how absurd it is.. ::)
jesus you are turning into ND..
:-\
there is a good reason why Ronnie said he was 'a little bit sharper' in 1999:
and this is it blind people:
-
honestly, you guys are being stupid:
99 owning 98..
oh wait, its 'absurd' saying he was sharper in 99..
please.. ::)
we are not dumb and not blind
sorry.
how you guys can look at the endless comparisons between the two contests, read the eyewitness testimony saying Ronnie was sharper in 99, and then laugh it off as 'absurd' is truly amazing.. ::)
then again, you are the same people arguing that dorian was better than Ronnie, so I guess nothing should surprise us.. :-\
-
Ronnie was razor sharp in 99, in fact like the man himself said, he was 'a little bit sharper" than in 98..
:P
ND, just because you don't like what Ronnie said does not mean it wasn't true.
sorry.
he said it, we all can show it, you have to deal with it.
-
if 99 Ronnie was better conditioned or even bare minimum equally dry & hard in 98 this would be his best showing ever and its NOT , now one considers this to be his best showing for a good reason and that reason is..
wrong. many people actually do consider 99 Ronnie to be his best overall showing.
you just ignore it all like everything else that shows how much of an idiot you are:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=4c3811862e202846a2d45b96bd66e231&t=4268
read and learn kid.
-
wrong. many people actually do consider 99 Ronnie to be his best overall showing.
you just ignore it all like everything else that shows how much of an idiot you are:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=4c3811862e202846a2d45b96bd66e231&t=4268
read and learn kid.
There are more people than people think that believe 1999 was his best.
Comments from youtube about Ronnie @ the 1999 Olympia.
The + signs indicate the number of people taking the time to agree with the comment.
boy...ronnie looked perfect during this time.. +7
No one will ever achieve such a physique!This is natural phenomenon! +7
99olympia was Ronnie's best shape in his career. +7
this was the best performance by the best bodybuilder ever... if he could have kept this form he could easily have beaten jay cutler the last 2 years +7
Best shape ever from RON +6
IMO, this is simplest the greatest physique ever presented onstage. his conditioning is unreal. +4
best physique ever presented. enough said +2
Coleman at is Best!! +13
Out of all the Olympias Ronnie won he was in his best condition. He still held the mass as well on top of it +2
RONNIES BEST +3
The BEST Olympia performance to date!
I never seen that kind of mass with such insanely deep cuts in my life. I thought he looked good in 2003....boy was I wrong. Wow....I'm almost speechless but yea...no one will ever look this good again. The combination of dense hard rock full ripped muscle on every inch of his body is just insane. +4
1999 was one of his best years. Ok he was 10-30lbs lighter, but sharp as a knife. +12
1999 truly was his best knife, so sharp and shredded that he indeed was beyond unbeatable that year, and no bloated gut. he just went overboard with mass in his later days. +3
wow. just wow. absolutely unreal. i used to think 2003 was his best year, but here, man, he is the greatest ever. +1
This was ronnies best year .. look at the great seperations and size .. just amazing + 1
Some comments from the site Hulkster was reffering to. This was several months ago so I'm
sure there are more now but here are a few.
1. In my mind ,thats Ronnies best ever shape. 1999
2. i agree.. that was a great physique alright...
3. the 99 RC is the best physique to ever step onstage
4. 99= Ronnies best ever
5. Thank you! I thought i was the only one who liked the 99' Coleman over the 03' one.
6. I agree with you FLEX 99 he looked the best IMO.
7. That physique is untouchable
8. 99 better than 03, untoucable
9. Ronnie's best ever
10. theres not a soul on this planet that could beat his shape in 99
11. nothings gonna beat his physique from the 1999 O.
12. 99-the best ever ronnie
13. 99 Ronnie Coleman... thge greatest EVER!!! COLEMAN 1999>ANYBODY!!!
-
ND take note of the bold face eye witness testimony.
and don't forget to include Ronnie's statements shortly after the winning olympia.
a few of you are saying its 'absurd' to say that Ronnie was in better shape in 99 than in 98?
well, if its so absurd, tell me why Ronnie himself and others have said this, and we have pics and videos (lots of them) to CORROBORATE IT.
answer please.
what is truly absurd is you dismissing an argument that has both eyewitness testiomy and tons of visual proof for an argument that has no proof and only a few contrary eyewitness testimony.
you just don't get it.
It doesn't matter if Ronnie did say it after the fact he could've been caught up in the moment etc what matters is he said in 2007 that his best Olympia was 1998 because his conditioning was spot-on , again NO ONE ( not fans I'm talking established professionals ) thinks 1999 is his best showing , no one . 2001 is his best showing because he's harder & drier
I love how you glossed right over this post
you know i wasn't going to respond to you because you're just so wrong on many points but i know for a fact ronnie was harder and dryer in 98 because i was actually there in ny and i was there in lv in 99 , i was three rows out at both contests and ronnie was in better condition in 98 , and pictures mean nothing compared to being there live and in person
another eyewitness crushing your fan-boy dreams and his statements echo Ronnie's , McGoughs , Perines , etc so you may have pics & videos but you weren't there and did you see the part where he typed ' pictures mean nothing compared to being there live and in person ' lol you're fucking owned yet again by someone who was actually there
Hulkster = internet-fan-boy
-
There are more people than people think that believe 1999 was his best.
Comments from youtube about Ronnie @ the 1999 Olympia.
The + signs indicate the number of people taking the time to agree with the comment.
boy...ronnie looked perfect during this time.. +7
No one will ever achieve such a physique!This is natural phenomenon! +7
99olympia was Ronnie's best shape in his career. +7
this was the best performance by the best bodybuilder ever... if he could have kept this form he could easily have beaten jay cutler the last 2 years +7
Best shape ever from RON +6
IMO, this is simplest the greatest physique ever presented onstage. his conditioning is unreal. +4
best physique ever presented. enough said +2
Coleman at is Best!! +13
Out of all the Olympias Ronnie won he was in his best condition. He still held the mass as well on top of it +2
RONNIES BEST +3
The BEST Olympia performance to date!
I never seen that kind of mass with such insanely deep cuts in my life. I thought he looked good in 2003....boy was I wrong. Wow....I'm almost speechless but yea...no one will ever look this good again. The combination of dense hard rock full ripped muscle on every inch of his body is just insane. +4
1999 was one of his best years. Ok he was 10-30lbs lighter, but sharp as a knife. +12
1999 truly was his best knife, so sharp and shredded that he indeed was beyond unbeatable that year, and no bloated gut. he just went overboard with mass in his later days. +3
wow. just wow. absolutely unreal. i used to think 2003 was his best year, but here, man, he is the greatest ever. +1
This was ronnies best year .. look at the great seperations and size .. just amazing + 1
Some comments from the site Hulkster was reffering to. This was several months ago so I'm
sure there are more now but here are a few.
1. In my mind ,thats Ronnies best ever shape. 1999
2. i agree.. that was a great physique alright...
3. the 99 RC is the best physique to ever step onstage
4. 99= Ronnies best ever
5. Thank you! I thought i was the only one who liked the 99' Coleman over the 03' one.
6. I agree with you FLEX 99 he looked the best IMO.
7. That physique is untouchable
8. 99 better than 03, untoucable
9. Ronnie's best ever
10. theres not a soul on this planet that could beat his shape in 99
11. nothings gonna beat his physique from the 1999 O.
12. 99-the best ever ronnie
13. 99 Ronnie Coleman... thge greatest EVER!!! COLEMAN 1999>ANYBODY!!!
I'll bet like you & Hulkster NONE of these people were actually there their opinions like your own are limited by inaccurate means , ignorance to what great conditioning is & isn't , for them to make an opinion that carried any weight they'd have to be there in 98 & 99 and even then thats limited to knowledge , distance from the stage etc
the people who count are the professionals and NOT one of the say Ronnie's best showing was 1999 for a very good reason , if supposedly his conditioning was almost the same every professional would consider 1999 his best showing because he was 257 pounds 13 pounds heavier than 2001 and just as hard & dry and guess what he's NOT just as hard & just as dry this coming from professionals , eyewitnesses and the man HIMSELF sorry kids
2001 kicks 1999's ass for a very good reason ;)
-
Coleman's pathetic collapsing on stage showed such a lack of dignity and composure.
-
hey ND, Ronnie Coleman WAS THERE and said he was a 'little bit sharper'
you can't win ND. eyewitness testimony and overwhelming visuals own your silly argument.
ps love how you still pick and choose which Ronnie Coleman quotes to believe LOL
you are really pathetic.. ::)
-
I'll bet like you & Hulkster NONE of these people were actually there their opinions like your own are limited by inaccurate means , ignorance to what great conditioning is & isn't , for them to make an opinion that carried any weight they'd have to be there in 98 & 99 and even then thats limited to knowledge , distance from the stage etc
the people who count are the professionals and NOT one of the say Ronnie's best showing was 1999 for a very good reason , if supposedly his conditioning was almost the same every professional would consider 1999 his best showing because he was 257 pounds 13 pounds heavier than 2001 and just as hard & dry and guess what he's NOT just as hard & just as dry this coming from professionals , eyewitnesses and the man HIMSELF sorry kids
2001 kicks 1999's ass for a very good reason ;)
LOL why are you all of a sudden comparing 2001 AC to 99 Olympia? ::)
god damn you can see why you are uneducated.. :-\
we are addressing one debate and you are clouding it up with a completely different one..
::)
ps McGough feels that Ronnie's 99 olympia win 'advanced the sport'
not 98. and for good reason.
never forget that.
leave 2001 out of this.
we are not comparing 2001 AC to 99.
we comparing 98 to 99 McD.
-
McD is getting owned.
-
Epic triple post melt! Only joking!
-
Coleman's pathetic collapsing on stage showed such a lack of dignity and composure.
This didn't look too good either genius lol
-
LOL why are you all of a sudden comparing 2001 AC to 99 Olympia? ::)
god damn you can see why you are uneducated.. :-\
we are addressing one debate and you are clouding it up with a completely different one..
::)
ps McGough feels that Ronnie's 99 olympia win 'advanced the sport'
not 98. and for good reason.
never forget that.
leave 2001 out of this.
we are not comparing 2001 AC to 99.
we comparing 98 to 99 McD.
We're talking about Ronnie's best showing and why and it isn't 1999 for a reason , because his conditioning was much better in 1998 and 2001 and if you were right ( entertaining your stupidity ) 1999 would be Ronnie's best showing because................. ...he would be 14 pounds heavier than 2001 with equal conditioning but dummy here is the point , Ronnie's conditioning was NOT comparable in 1999 to , 1998 or 2001 HENCE its not his best showing
Proven Fact
The general consensus of expert bodybuilding opinion is...................... ...2001 or 1998 is Ronnie's best showings .....................bec ause..............he lacked NOTHING his size & conditioning were perfect
Hulkster = dummy ;)
-
did u miss the part where i said i was in new york in 98 and las vegas in 99? and nd said ronnie said 98 was his best o because he was better conditioned and again he was , i was there and it was clear he was drier and denser in 98 and you are only goin by pics which mean nothin cuase a group of us from my gym went and we all took pics and was surprised to see after we developed them that they didnt look like real life so goin by pics mean nothin
so unless you were there in row 3 like me in 98 n 99 your opinion means nothin kid and just to let you know im a huge ronnie fan i seen him from the beginin and always knew he would do damage if he got his act together , so keep tyin to act like you know what your talkin bout because nd is pretty much on the money
nd were you there in 98 n 99?
Great post !
Oh he didn't miss it lol he just can't respond to it he's completely owned he can't counter your points he wasn't there lol he sits at home on his computer think he knows what he's talking about. its great to see someone who was actually there shutting this idiot down on all of his ignorant ' points ' and I wasn't there at either contest and neither was dummy Hulkster
Hulkster = owned in grand fashion by someone who was there for both contests lol
-
did u miss the part where i said i was in new york in 98 and las vegas in 99? and nd said ronnie said 98 was his best o because he was better conditioned and again he was , i was there and it was clear he was drier and denser in 98 and you are only goin by pics which mean nothin cuase a group of us from my gym went and we all took pics and was surprised to see after we developed them that they didnt look like real life so goin by pics mean nothin
so unless you were there in row 3 like me in 98 n 99 your opinion means nothin kid and just to let you know im a huge ronnie fan i seen him from the beginin and always knew he would do damage if he got his act together , so keep tyin to act like you know what your talkin bout because nd is pretty much on the money
nd were you there in 98 n 99?
Ronnie Coleman was there:
"I was almost 15 pounds bigger and a little bit sharper"
LOL
-
ND, do you claim to know more than Ronnie Coleman? ::)
because that is what you are saying LOL
I love turning your own stupid arguments against you.
its so much fun
-
It doesn't matter if Ronnie did say it after the fact he could've been caught up in the moment etc
or, he could have been spot on..
::)
the excuses continue.. ::)
-
Ronnie Coleman was there:
"I was almost 15 pounds bigger and a little bit sharper"
LOL
whoa meltdown lol I love when you get your ass kicked by someone who was actually there you go on this multiple post meltdown lol its so predictable
Natural Ironman's comments are right in line with other eyewitnesses , like Ronnie who in late 2007 has gone on record as saying 1998 Olympia was his best because his conditioning was spot-on
and these other comments lol
Hulkster's M.O. when confronted with facts from eyewitnesses , deny , deny , deny ......meltdown ....deny , deny , deny lol
I'm lovin it ;)
-
ND, I think you missed the part about Ronnie being there, other magazine reviewers being there (the professionals, remember? ::)) all saying Ronnie was sharper AND all the visuals.
you missed all that too..
::)
honestly, what do you have?
one quote contradicted by many others.
big fucking deal.
you have no visuals to corroborate any of it.
but you are too stupid to realize this..
:-\
-
I think Ronnie knows more than the Natural Ironman..
and you.
and his opinion is verified by the visuals..
yours isn't.
never forget that.
-
ND, I think you missed the part about Ronnie being there, other magazine reviewers being there (the professionals, remember? ::)) all saying Ronnie was sharper AND all the visuals.
you missed all that too..
::)
honestly, what do you have?
one quote contradicted by many others.
big fucking deal.
you have no visuals to corroborate any of it.
but you are too stupid to realize this..
:-\
Again Ronnie was there and in 2007 when asked which was his best Olympia he said..............1998.. ........................ ...because.............. .............his conditioning was spot-on which means................... ......his conditioning 1999 was NOT spot-on.....................owned ;)
-
Hulkster's M.O. when confronted with facts from eyewitnesses
Ronnie was an eyewitness and he said he was sharper in 99.
nothing you can say will change this, yet you go on and one about other quotes like this one doesn't matter LOL
you are truly an act of sheer stupidity.
-
Ronnie was an eyewitness and he said he was sharper in 99.
nothing you can say will change this, yet you go on and one about other quotes like this one doesn't matter LOL
you are truly an act of sheer stupidity.
Again no he didn't in fact he said in 2007 his conditioning was better in 1998 and thats why he picked it as his best Olympia showing
NO ONE agree with you , eyewitnesses , professionals , Ronnie you have nothing as usual .
-
NO ONE agree with you , eyewitnesses , professionals , Ronnie you have nothing as usual .
well, Ronnie is quoted as agreeing with me.
so you are fucked.
oh, and all the visuals agree too.
so you are even more fucked.
all ND has is a contradicted quote LOL
must be hard.
-
well, Ronnie is quoted as agreeing with me.
so you are fucked.
oh, and all the visuals agree too.
so you are even more fucked.
all ND has is a contradicted quote LOL
must be hard.
No he doesn't you're a liar showing me a quote post 2007 where Ronnie says he was better conditioned in 1999 please do ;)
Hulkster= frustrated
-
No he doesn't you're a liar showing me a quote post 2007 where Ronnie says he was better conditioned in 1999 please do ;)
Hulkster= frustrated
LOL what the fuck does 'post 2007' have to do with it?
::)
you know how owned you are given that we could pull the same bullshit with all the quotes you have been shoving down our throats for the last two years?
::)
here is a little lesson for you: ronnie's opinion the day after is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than his foggy recollection 10 years later..
only a moron would think other wise.
sharper = sharper.
period.
-
ps I am a liar? can't accept what Ronnie said? ::)
here is the fucking article McD:
http://www.dennisbweis.com/Articles/Colman.html
read it and die. lol
-
LOL what the fuck does 'post 2007' have to do with it?
::)
you know how owned you are given that you pull this shit with all the quotes you have been shoving down our throats for the last two years?
::)
here is a little lesson for you: ronnie's opinion the day after is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than his foggy recollection 10 years later..
only a moron would think other wise.
sharper = sharper.
period.
Sorry wrong , thanks for playing the man choose which was his best Olympia and why and it was 1998
and I don't any quote you claim anyway you have LIED before about quotes , remember the Shawn Ray quote you made up and I exposed you on? I don't trust anything you type because you are known to lie and use photoshopped pics you're not above such nonsense
Again if as you claim Ronnie was just as hard & dry in 1999 as he was in 1998/2001 it would be considered his best showing ever and its NOT for that reason
Hulkster = fail
-
ps I am a liar? can't accept what Ronnie said? ::)
here is the fucking article McD:
http://www.dennisbweis.com/Articles/Colman.html
read it and die. lol
2007 PBW Ronnie admits his best Olympia is 1998 and why? he's better conditioned thats a fact jack. ;)
-
Peter McGough
-
2007 PBW Ronnie admits his best Olympia is 1998 and why? he's better conditioned thats a fact jack. ;)
if its a fact, then you should have no trouble finding 98 shots to blow these away:
show us how Ronnie 99 is softer and not as well conditioned..
LOL
::)
-
Peter McGough
has been proven wrong many times before and is only one opinion. which Ronnie himself disagrees with.
hope this helps.
-
if its a fact, then you should have no trouble finding 98 shots to blow these away:
show us how Ronnie 99 is softer and not as well conditioned..
LOL
::)
See natural Ironman's quote who says pics are useless lol sucker he was there for both contests were you? yeah I thought so ;)
-
has been proven wrong many times before and is only one opinion. which Ronnie himself disagrees with.
hope this helps.
proven wrong by who? you LMMFAO I wont even dignify this with a response , Ronnie Coleman disagree with you and verifies McGough's claims as well as others
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.
no 99 Olympia for a good reason ;)
-
something tells me that if the visuals all worked in McD's favor he would be campaigning about the usefullness of pics LOL
::)
honestly ND, you won't accept the visuals because they prove you wrong.
just admit it.
::)
-
LOL I love how ND when faced with the brutal onslaught of visual reality he comes up with this gem:
"pics are useless (because they show what a dumbass I am)"
LOL
-
See natural Ironman's quote who says pics are useless lol sucker he was there for both contests were you? yeah I thought so ;)
in other words, you can't produce anything visual to back up your argument.
lol
yeah, real strong argument in a visual sport..
::)
what an idiot.
-
something tells me that if the visuals all worked in McD's favor he would be campaigning about the usefullness of pics LOL
::)
honestly ND, you won't accept the visuals because they prove you wrong.
just admit it.
::)
your interpretation on visuals leave a lot to be desired , especially considering after viewing the visuals you came to the conclusion Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia has better detailed calves than Dorian Yates , what do you know? just based on that statement alone nothing what so ever
Natural Ironman who was there said pictures don't replace being there again what do you know? nothing I posted pictures and you deny , deny , deny lol its all you have . eyewitnesses are all wrong Hulkster sitting at home on his computer proved them all wrong LMMFAO
visual ' proof ' Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 verified by Ronnie himself , Peter McGough , Shawn Perine and fans alike ;)
Hulkster as usual you have nothing for me except excuses and attacks
-
in other words, you can't produce anything visual to back up your argument.
lol
yeah, real strong argument in a visual sport..
::)
what an idiot.
yeah a visual sport that can ONLY be accurately & honestly judged when you're live & in person lol
see visual proof , see 99 go down in flames , see the facts , see Hulkster deny . lol
-
ND, you still don't seem to understand:
Ronnie himself said he was sharper in 99.
no amount of your whining and pussy bitching will EVER change this statement.
and he knows a fuck of a lot more than you or natural ironman lol
-
yeah a visual sport that can ONLY be accurately & honestly judged when you're live & in person lol
ronnie was there.
McD owned.
-
Visual proof , countdown to the excuses........3........ ..2.........1........... ...
-
and here is a comparison of McD's 'visual" proof compared to what ronnie 99 actually looked like when flexing:
care to explain, McD?
LOL
::)
-
ND, you still don't seem to understand:
Ronnie himself said he was sharper in 99.
no amount of your whining and pussy bitching will EVER change this statement.
and he knows a fuck of a lot more than you or natural ironman lol
WRONG ! stop lying its pathetic and old
" Ronnie what was your best Olympia?
Ronnie: My first because my conditioning was spot-on "
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
not his 99 Olympia form lol
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.
1998 or 2001 NO 1999 Olympia I wonder why ;)
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
NO 1999 Olympia
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.
ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR ROCK HARD IN 98
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 .
oh snap .....Hulkster = owned ;)
-
and here is a comparison of McD's 'visual" proof compared to what ronnie 99 actually looked like when flexing:
care to explain, McD?
LOL
::)
Well we all knew the excuses were coming lol he's not flexing lol see above post
-
How can you accurately judge Ronnie's condition when you have different picture variations of the same contest?
Some pictures he looks soft and some hard, pictures are useless when trying to find out if he was sharper in 98 than 99 because its not alot to tell apart. Unless you have 2 pictures of Ronnie doing the same pose with the same picture quality then its going to be very hard to tell whose conditioning is superiour.
-
See this statement alone is real damaging for many reasons
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 .
oh snap
because its honest , consistent and its from a very well respected and knowledgeable source with eons of experience who is objective .
we can discount Ronnie's statement about himself ( positive or negative ) for a few reasons , one being objectivity especially when its about themselves ( key word , very key ) a lot of the times you here a guy say " I'm in the best shape of my life " and he's not however McGough statement is consistent with his first comments and many more comments after the fact
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.
and a two years latter his opinion is consistent and accurate
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 .
oh snap
which coincides with other firsthand eyewitness accounts such as Natural Ironman among others and at the reflection of his career Ronnie himself when not burdened with pride or being caught up in the moment admits the obvious his conditioning in 1998 was better than 1999 its old news to everyone with the exception of you and Bizzy
1999 is not Ronnie's best showing because he's not as hard or dry as he was in 1998 or 2001 its that simple no amount of denial changes these facts.
-
How can you accurately judge Ronnie's condition when you have different picture variations of the same contest?
Some pictures he looks soft and some hard, pictures are useless when trying to find out if he was sharper in 98 than 99 because its not alot to tell apart. Unless you have 2 pictures of Ronnie doing the same pose with the same picture quality then its going to be very hard to tell whose conditioning is superiour.
thank you , I was waiting for someone to point out this fact ! which proves you CANNOT ascertain a person's conditioning via pictures or video which is why neither will ever replace actually being there and which is why we have to rely on people who were actually there live & in person and the general consensus is Ronnie was hard & drier in 1998 & in 2001
someone who gets it.
-
yeah, real strong argument in a visual sport..
Visual evidence doesen't mean anything if you don't know what you're looking for in the first place. It's like looking at an abstractionist piece of art and considering it nothing but a mess, because you are judging it by the standard of traditionla art, where a painting is supposed to represent something from the real World, like a tree, a person, a landscape, etc.
Likewise, you look at Dorian's physique and consider it inferior because you are applying your standard for what a great physique is supposed to be like, and not the standard that judges actually use. All of the qalities you value in a physique are not what the judges value. You look at Dorian and you see that he is unaesthetic and has a thick waist, and believe that he is inferior to Ronnie's who has a small waist and rounder muscles. But the judges look at Dorian and see that, although unaesthetic, he has perfect symmetry both from a muscle as well as structural point of view, great amount of lean mass and outstanding hardness, and that is more important to the judges than round muscles. A bodybuilder with round muscles, like Ronnie, but inferior symmetry is considered by the judges to be inferior to a bodybuilder with squarer muscles but superior symmetry like Dorian.
-
video is much better than still pics:
and Ronnie 98 can't touch this:
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
something that ND and co conveniently forget.. ::)
Ronnie Coleman and Musclemag's Johnny Fitness (who pretty much reviewed every major contest of the 90's for musclemag)
BOTH stated he was sharper than 98. and the videos confirm it as well as the still pics.
no amount of excuses will ever change this.
none.
-
Visual evidence doesen't mean anything if you don't know what you're looking for in the first place.
this might be McD's problem.
the board has long known he has no fucking clue what he is talking about..
-
I was waiting for someone to point out this fact ! which proves you CANNOT ascertain a person's conditioning via pictures or video which is why neither will ever replace actually being there
Ronnie Coleman and Johnny Fitness were both there and both stated he was sharper in 99.
so, what do you have to say now?
LOL
::)
-
video is much better than still pics:
and Ronnie 98 can't touch this:
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
something that ND and co conveniently forget.. ::)
Ronnie Coleman and Musclemag's Johnny Fitness (who pretty much reviewed every major contest of the 90's for musclemag)
BOTH stated he was sharper than 98. and the videos confirm it as well as the still pics.
no amount of excuses will ever change this.
none.
That video is poor quality , obviously way to dark another quality gem by bizzy lol anyway pictures & video pale in comparison to firsthand eyewitness accounts and McGough crushes Johnny Fitness and musclemag
again you're dealing with nothing as usual .
-
Ronnie Coleman and Johnny Fitness were both there and both stated he was sharper in 99.
so, what do you have to say now?
LOL
::)
Ronnie Coleman , Peter McGough and a host of others have all claimed Ronnie was better in 1998
you still haven't answered why 1999 isn't considered his best showing is what you and Johnny Fitness claim is true that his conditioning was better lol
1999 would be Ronnie's best showing ever is that was the case and NO ONE in the know is claiming this.
-
you seem to forget that McGough specificaly singled out 1999 not 1998 in his article about Mr. O's that advanced the sport.
for good reason: 99 shape was better than 98 shape.
as far as what was better 2001 AC or 99:
hard to say.
because people always forget that Ronnie was at least 10 pounds bigger in 99 than he was at the AC but with the virtually the same hardness:
that makes for a crazy combo:
-
Ronnie Coleman , Peter McGough and a host of others have all claimed Ronnie was better in 1998
sigh. you are picking and choosing again.
for every quote claiming he was better in 98, there is one claiming he was better in 99.
and Ronnie himself is on both sides.
when are you going to learn that quotes have very limited use in this sport? ::)
-
sigh. you are picking and choosing again.
for every quote claiming he was better in 98, there is one claiming he was better in 99.
and Ronnie himself is on both sides.
when are you going to learn that quotes have very limited use in this sport? ::)
And you're not picking and choosing? lol get serious kid
Again why is 1999 Mr Olympia NOT considered his best showing ever if what you and Johnny Fitness claim is true? ;) answer the question , we're all waiting.
-
it IS considered his best by many:
did you not read the huge thread I posted? ::)
secondly, you have not answered the question WHY McGough picked 99 and not 98.
answer please.
-
And you're not picking and choosing? lol get serious kid
of course I am picking and choosing.
I am throwing your stupid tactics right back at your sorry McAss. :P
-
Again why is 1999 Mr Olympia NOT considered his best showing ever if what you and Johnny Fitness claim is true?
what you are trying to say is not necessarily true.
just because Ronnie 99 was better than Ronnie 98 does NOT mean that 2001 AC could not be better than BOTH of these apparences.
you are really showing your stupidity ND by making this leap in logic.
stick to what you know: serving fries and burgers..
-
it IS considered his best by many:
did you not read the huge thread I posted? ::)
secondly, you have not answered the question WHY McGough picked 99 and not 98.
answer please.
Hulkster no a bunch of fans don't count I'm talking about established writers and industry professionals not a bunch of internet-fan-boys
and McGough picked 2001 and NOT 1999 ;) and why did he? we know lol
2001 Ronnie's best showing because................. ........
-
Hulkster blinded by shitty quality, bad/dark lighting pictures, as usual.
-
Ronnie was a little more streamlined at the AC compared to the 99 olympia.
many prefer that look.
many do not (eg. musclemecca thread) :P
-
what you are trying to say is not necessarily true.
just because Ronnie 99 was better than Ronnie 98 does NOT mean that 2001 AC could not be better than BOTH of these apparences.
you are really showing your stupidity ND by making this leap in logic.
stick to what you know: serving fries and burgers..
Hmm 2001 is Ronnie's best showing its better than 1998 and 1999 its actually more comparable to 1998 because he was roughly the same weight and had about the same in terms of density & dryness in this department 1999 falls by the wayside
-
Ronnie was a little more streamlined at the AC compared to the 99 olympia.
many prefer that look.
many do not (eg. musclemecca thread) :P
streamlined = harder & drier and yes many do prefer that , especially the judges . ;)
-
Hmm 2001 is Ronnie's best showing its better than 1998 and 1999 its actually more comparable to 1998 because he was roughly the same weight and had about the same in terms of density & dryness in this department 1999 falls by the wayside
wayside my ass:
ronnie's gut was also WAY worse at the AC than at either the 98 or 99 olympia.
tell us ND, why didn't your hero McGough pick up on this? ::)
-
wayside my ass:
ronnie's gut was also WAY worse at the AC than at either the 98 or 99 olympia.
tell us ND, why didn't your hero McGough pick up on this? ::)
You're so melodramatic his gut was WAY worse lol stop it lol just stop it
Hulkster McGough has constantly picked 2001 as Ronnies best showing NOT 1999 , So have a host of others for a reason and that reason is? ;)
-
Hulkster blinded by shitty quality, bad/dark lighting pictures, as usual.
hi pubes
-
hi pubes
hi sharma
-
hi pubes
hahahaha faggy being bombarded from all angles. Team Yates is stronger than ever!
-
You're so melodramatic his gut was WAY worse lol stop it lol just stop it
Hulkster McGough has constantly picked 2001 as Ronnies best showing NOT 1999 , So have a host of others for a reason and that reason is? ;)
melodramatic?
no way.
those 99 gut shots are a lot better than the 2001 gut shots.
-
melodramatic?
no way.
those 99 gut shots are a lot better than the 2001 gut shots.
No they're not they're just as bad and you know it but as usual you make a overstatement you're proven wrong and now have to stick to it out of fear of looking stupid , but don't worry you already look stupid .
-
No they're not they're just as bad and you know it but as usual you make a overstatement you're proven wrong and now have to stick to it out of fear of looking stupid , but don't worry you already look stupid .
no, it was much worse at the AC.
do I have to post the videos of both to own your McAss?
because I will.
your denial is astounding.
-
no, it was much worse at the AC.
do I have to post the videos of both to own your McAss?
because I will.
your denial is astounding.
kid give it up you have nothing as usual , all you're left with is personal attacks thats all you have, everything else has been destroyed.