First time I've seen this.
He's in great condition for a guestposing gig.
IMO he's in better condition here than an onstage Jay Cutler 2007 Olympia
Was MUCH better a FULL year later.
First time I've seen this.
He's in great condition for a guestposing gig.
IMO he's in better condition here than an onstage Jay Cutler 2007 Olympia
agreed. his arms and quads look like toothpicks in that vid.
his legs gained a lot of size by 1993..
Hey Hulkster in yet another Yates thread ;)
kind of like NF (thats NarcisissticFlowerboy) lol in every Ronnie thread..
Good, but he ain't no Ronnie Coleman.
Nope just the guy who beat him for years on end ;)
charles clairmonte beat Ronnie many times too.
does that mean he would beat a 1999 olympia or 2001 AC ronnie too?
::)
What does Clairmonete have to do with it? Ronnie returned the favor to Charles he never could with Yates ;)
Charles isn't Dorian
mid 90's Ronnie wasnt Mr. Olympia Ronnie either,
so whats your point?
Man, Ronnie really did not add quality in 99. He was more ripped and detailed in 97. Waist was much smaller with no gut too. But 98 was his all time best, both in terms of condition and proportions.
Man, Ronnie really did not add quality in 99. He was more ripped and detailed in 97
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
jesus christ you two idiots are setting a record for stupidity..
::)
there is a reason why ronnie went from 9th place in 97 to winning 98 and 99.
and its not because dorian retired.
its because he added size and quality to his physique:
Ronnie improved from 97 to 98 and then regressed in 99. Simple as that
I was almost 15 pounds heavier than last year, with a little bit better conditioning than last year
At last, year’s Olympia, Ronnie Coleman was in the shape of his life, and Flex Wheeler was no where near his best. Still, the difference in the scorecard was only a matter of a few points. For this year’s show, Ronnie had made some improvements, and was around 10 percent better than last year.
no, even Ronnie himself said he was better in 99 than in 98:
also you and ND will hate this independent review of the 99 olympia, by someone WHO WAS THERE, who also says ronnie was better in 99 than in 98:
not only that, the pics/vids show he was better.
face it, your fucked.
everywhere you look, people are saying and showing that ronnie improved from 98 to 99, not regressed as you say.
my ass it did: ::)
note the enormous quad/chest/arm improvement, while keeping the waist size the same.
its amazing how full of shit you are.
do you even bother to LOOK at pics of the two contests before you type this shit? ::)
because its obvious, you DONT: :-\
Pics are nothing without a video.
In 1998 Ronnie was big but still looked the same size as Nasser but in 1999 it was all over. He dominated in size and conditioning overall. I thought at Pre-judging he was very close to the 1998 condition but did lose it by the finals.
If he looked better in 1997 than 1999 he would have won in 1997.
Quads are fuller absolutely , chest/arms are NOT improved ar all and his waist is most certainly not the same . delts are fuller too albeit softer with less detail , midsection is night & day just look at the two hands clasped most musculars his midsection is tight , flat and sharp NOT in 1999 , again did Ronnie improve in 1999? sure in some areas did he digress? look at the pics you're damn right he did
ND has a great shot of 97 and a few bad shots of 99 and he thinks that Ronnie looked better in 97 where he placed 9th than he did in 99 where he dominated with perfect scores LOL
::)
you guys are total morons.
99 blew 97 away:
take note Flowerboy and England:
just when you think you two cant be any more stupid, you come up with a gem like this: ::)
how about the 99 olympia video, a video so good that the nuthuggers have been claiming it is faked since day one:
http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027
::)
honestly, this 97>99 argument is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen, ND and England are reaching new lows of stupidity..
::)
chest/arms are NOT improved ar all
You posted the video from the guy who worked the screencaps for you ;) you know the one Kevin Horton busted you using many times over ;)
yes, the vid is doctored.. ::)
keep clinging flowerboy.
no one believes you.
wrong. watch the vids flowerboy.
oh, and his quads are 1000x more cut in 99 too.
not just fullness.
watch the videos again flowerboy.
his back is much better/thicker in 99
watch the videos again flowerboy lol
because your lying.
thats why. ::)
my olympia vid looks almost identical to the prejudging vid posted.
and guess what? 1998 crushes 1999 in terms of conditioning by far
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.
Ronnie came in showing the same condition as last year, with an added 8 pounds of beef on his frame.
not according to Ronnie Coleman (in his victory seminar)
not according to Peter McGough
in this article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
not according to reviews of the contest from people that were there:
not according to all the pics and videos.
what do you have? nothing.
flowerboy lol
ha ha ha meltdown
Ronnie said on multiple occasions now 98 is his best Olympia deal with it ;) and guess what? he was there , McGough was there Perine was there ;)
so, you are sweeping all that under the carpet as always.. ::)
you never learn.
go and tend to your flowers lol
hey Flowerboy,
if 98 was better than 99 as you say, where is 98 in McGough's article?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
and he specifically states that Ronnie had more size, condition and fullness than the year before..
fucking owned.
go prune the tulips :P