Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: NeoSeminole on January 04, 2011, 08:32:24 PM
-
best physique of all-time 8)
-
Post The Glute Shots
-
Lucky for us we got the neon green thong with full on ass shots for this never before seen pictorial.
-
Post The Glute Shots
here you go
-
Thanks bro 8)
Lucky for us we got the neon green thong with full on ass shots for this never before seen pictorial.
x2
-
greatest back of all time and those pics just add more evidence to the already mountainous pile :o
-
UNFUCKEN REAL. THE BEST TO HAVE EVER TAKEN A STAGE.
THE BEEF.
-
UNFUCKEN REAL. THE BEST TO HAVE EVER TAKEN A STAGE.
THE BEEF.
why'd i ask for glute shots to be posted :-\
-
few more............
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/01%20ASC/2001ASC-Ronnie81a.jpg)
:o
-
here you go
Look at how the light glistens off those ebony shredded wheat gear shaped glutes grafted by gods of the greatest gyms. Many a schmoe would pay a pretty penny to pirate that pretty pooty.
-
I still think his 98 Olympia version was better.
-
Biggest gut best physique of all-time 8)
I corrected this for you.
-
Dorian 'fans' are looking for new 'in the basement/garage' pics
-
never understood why he was judged that different by the BB fans compared to his 2002 Mr O showing
imo he looked absolutely the same in both occasions (AC and Mr O 2002)
in 98 and 99 mr O he looked much better (fuller legs , smaler waist)
-
He had zero hamstrings. not a complete bodybuilder at all.
-
Look at how the light glistens off those ebony shredded wheat gear shaped glutes grafted by gods of the greatest gyms. Many a schmoe would pay a pretty penny to pirate that pretty pooty.
;D beautiful alliteration
-
never before seen thickness
-
best physique of all-time 8)
Awesome shots it's no wonder why everyone says this is the best he's ever looked ! or anyone's looked.
-
This is just insane...
-
here you go
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=361365.0;attach=396484;image)
I didn't think it was possible to have striated hamstrings. holy fukk...
-
greatest back of all time and those pics just add more evidence to the already mountainous pile that proves without a doubt 1999 pales in comparison :o
-
ronnie looks awful there
-
The whole set is pretty jaw dropping, but the first two, and the very first in particular are just insanely incredible. :o
-
ronnie looks awful there
elaborate on this.
-
His hamstring looks like a bicep in that one pic, insane
That's why they're called leg biceps ;D
-
A few more screenshots, Crazy
-
A few more screenshots, Crazy
Not as ripped as '99.
-
Not as ripped as '99.
Hes drier, but 98 was better. Tighter waist, better conditioning, fuller, etc.
-
Not as ripped as '99.
lmao says the gimmick with 42 posts , he's more ripped and denser to boot , this is prime Ronnie Coleman that makes 1999 look like he's guest posing. ;)
-
A few more screenshots, Crazy
Anybody have a estimate on when there will be a Mr. O that will have a back like that---again?
-
I liked it better when his jaw wasn't swallowing half his face due to GH abuse. :(
-
lmao says the gimmick with 42 posts , he's more ripped and denser to boot , this is prime Ronnie Coleman that makes 1999 look like he's guest posing. ;)
you forgot to mention that his gut was 5x bigger at the AC vs 98 and 99 olympia appearances..
he looked better in 99:
-
you forgot to mention that his gut was 5x bigger at the AC vs 98 and 99 olympia appearances..
he looked better in 99:
No his gut wasn't 5X bigger and if it did it changes nothing , his best showing still ain't 1999
he looked his best at this show by far , it's not even close.
-
Clearly sharper in '99. Dryness of skin has little to do with condition. That's only an excuse that Dorian fans use.
-
Clearly sharper in '99.
yup.
every comparison shows the same result:
every single one.
although, I'm not surprised some think his AC form was better.
after all, in 99 he was standing next to Flex, Chris, Kevin, Shawn and Nasser..
at the AC, he was standing next to Oleg Zhur and Darrem Charles.
now, you tell me where he is going to seem better LOL ::)
-
yup.
every comparison shows the same result:
every single one.
although, I'm not surprised some think his AC form was better.
after all, in 99 he was standing next to Flex, Chris, Kevin, Shawn and Nasser..
at the AC, he was standing next to Oleg Zhur and Darrem Charles. Chris Cormier and Dennis James and the competition has absolutely nothing to do with how he appeared in relation to previous showings.
now, you tell me where he is going to seem better LOL ::)
Funny is that NOT one single expert agrees with you , only one gimmick LMMFAO thanks for playing dumbass ;)
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
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.
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
Peter McGough 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.
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show.
stick 1999 up your ass , it's not his best for a very good reason. as usual you have nothing to work with just enhanced screencaps and lame excuses.
-
In the process of pwning Hulkster you pwned yourself in the vs. Dorain battle....
-
In the process of pwning Hulkster you pwned yourself in the vs. Dorain battle....
not quite , they tried this long ago and failed too , I don't fear subjective opinions on a very subjective topic, I can posts quotes saying Dorian beats Ronnie doesn't mean it's true , hell Ronnie himself said Dorian would beat him multiple times that doesn't make it true either
but in the end Hulkster fails because he keep pushing his dumb opinion that as usual contradicts reality & the experts.
-
not quite , they tried this long ago and failed too , I don't fear subjective opinions on a very subjective topic, I can posts quotes saying Dorian beats Ronnie doesn't mean it's true , hell Ronnie himself said Dorian would beat him multiple times that doesn't make it true either
but in the end Hulkster fails because he keep pushing his dumb opinion that as usual contradicts reality & the experts.
In the past you've used quotes from writers and industry folk to defend your argument. This is why I found it funny.
-
A few more screenshots, Crazy
Ok, I am gona get called a Dorian guy for this, but these pictures are not impressive at all. Ronnie looks watery and with little details in these pictures ???. He is a great champion and easily top 3 ever, but these pictures don't do him justice. Compare these to pics of him from the 98' Olympia. Ronnie looked like a Heracles statue in 1998. Much better than what is shown here.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
he looked a lot better in 99 too, but ND has to follow the herd of blind dumb sheep and go along with it... ::)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=361365.0;attach=396787;image)
he looked a lot better in 99 too, but ND has to follow the herd of blind dumb sheep and go along with it... ::)
ahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just owned yourself into oblivion, seeing as how you got your ass busted for using that worked screencap in the past, since it doesnt match up to ANY other media from 99.
Are you really that fucking stupid?
-
that screen isn't worked at all. its one of the original forcedreps ones from a VHS source I believe. and he owned all the guy asses years ago with his hilarious ownage of all the idiots who cried fake just because their one armed hero couldn't come close! it was beautiful!
the 99 vids destroy the AC ones:
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
are people stupid enough to still insist he was better at the AC? LMAO!
::)
-
LOL people are still going to claim he was better at the AC.
the stupidity of the human race never ceases to amaze me! LOL
-
I think he looked inhuman all three of those years. I don't disagree with anyone who has their preference. I doubt in today's day and age we'll see a combination of size, conditioning, and wow factor any time soon. Ronnie was the man.
-
I would agree.
but the take home message here, is that no matter which form is your preference, all three were far and above what dorian ever brought to the stage. ever.
dorian could only handle the ronnie that got beat by guys like porter cottrell and charles clairmonte LOL
dorian was lucky that fate didn't cause ronnie to come into his own a few years earlier.
-
careful hulkster, you don't want this thread to explode do you? Don't forget who have already posted. :D
-
true. dumb nuthuggers like Flowerboy and Cockwave love to argue against the obvious. 8)
-
he looked a lot better in 99 too, but ND has to follow the herd of blind dumb sheep and go along with it...
Hulkster, Ronnie won only four of the mandatories against Flex in 99'. He won with straight-firsts scores because the mandatories back then were judged in a single category under pre-judging, and Ronnie won more mandatories than lost. He also won the posedown but the judges were divided when in came to his individual routine over Flex. Ronnie's gut was clearly distended during his posing and that hurt him compared to Flex. But I agree with you that the 2001 ASC was not his best show.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
dorian was lucky that fate didn't cause ronnie to come into his own a few years earlier.
No troll, Ronnie was lucky that he didn't come into his own a few years earlier, otherwise he would've been another 'could've but couldn't have'.
-
I still think, his best was '98 at the 'O. But the 2001 AC comes right after because that's the only time when with added mass, his overall balance/proportion combo and conditioning came close to '98. Midsection was really starting to get out of control but it was also in '99. '99 was in between and in between is never best.
-
Although impressive, I'm afraid the calves and abs are still horrible and his overall conditioning is not that good. IMO his legs look a bit smooth in certain shots and his back sometimes looks soft. Not as impressive as some of the nut-huggers like to think. Sorry.
-
he looked a lot better in 99 too, but ND has to follow the herd of blind dumb sheep and go along with it... ::)
If I followed the herd of blind dumb sheep I would be saying Ronnie would beat Dorian ;) the last thing I do is follow the herd.
What else are you gonna say? you thing by sticking to your stupidity wont make it stupid , don't fret it's still a stupid position you took which proves you know nothing about competitive bodybuilding it leads you to a lot of wacky ' opinions ' which I wont embarrass you by typing yet again :-\
-
In the past you've used quotes from writers and industry folk to defend your argument. This is why I found it funny.
yes on non-subjective topics I have but who is the best from this era or another? that's very subjective.
-
A ronnie thread... And nd is here .. I'm so surprised
-
A ronnie thread... And nd is here .. I'm so surprised
And look who is right behind me typing MY name ;) I'm so surprised , you're the guy who likes to act like he's above this subject yet posts in the Truce thread so don't be a hypocrite
And shall I post links to the threads about Ronnie I wasn't in? seeing you're so concerned , and did I post anything negative? NO wrong yet again , I said in fact he looked great and it's no wonder why it's considered his best and what many feel the best anyone's looked , so instead of some half-ass attempt at sarcasm do a little fact checking before you type. ;)
I will post where I want and when I want , I don't need your permission I do my thing you do yours , which is stressing over where people are posting and being a hypocrite. ;D
-
99 vs 01
looks the same just a little fuller in 99
-
99 vs 01
looks the same just a little fuller in 99
tad fuller i.e not as hard as nails and arid as the Sahara
in some poses Ronnie looks like he weighs the same in 01 despite being a full 10-12 lbs lighter , 01 is his pinnacle his conditioning is spot-on much like 98 yet he appears heavier than 98 but he's roughly the same weight.
-
Jesus fucking Christ!
Are you that bored Hulkster? First you argue with ND about who is better; Ronnie or Dorian. Now that that thread has all but been put to bed and deleted, you are arguing the only thing you can-and not that well at that- Ronnie versus Ronnie.
I really hope you have a good day job because your debating skills suck as much cock as Vince Goodrum in the Castro district of San Francisco.
-
Jesus fucking Christ!
Are you that bored Hulkster? First you argue with ND about who is better; Ronnie or Dorian. Now that that thread has all but been put to bed and deleted, you are arguing the only thing you can-and not that well at that- Ronnie versus Ronnie.
I really hope you have a good day job because your debating skills suck as much cock as Vince Goodrum in the Castro district of San Francisco.
;D
-
And look who is right behind me typing MY name ;) I'm so surprised , you're the guy who likes to act like he's above this subject yet posts in the Truce thread so don't be a hypocrite
And shall I post links to the threads about Ronnie I wasn't in? seeing you're so concerned , and did I post anything negative? NO wrong yet again , I said in fact he looked great and it's no wonder why it's considered his best and what many feel the best anyone's looked , so instead of some half-ass attempt at sarcasm do a little fact checking before you type. ;)
I will post where I want and when I want , I don't need your permission I do my thing you do yours , which is stressing over where people are posting and being a hypocrite. ;D
LOL whenever I read your posts, I always picture a woman defending herself, trying her hardest not to burst into tears.
-
LOL whenever I read your posts, I always picture a woman defending herself, trying her hardest not to burst into tears.
:'( :'(
men in thongs = serious buzinezz
-
men in thongs = serious buzinezz
you got that right, brutha! Just look how many topics there are about bodybuilding on this site
-
8)
-
8)
Soft soft soft. Don't get too excited Semen boy.
-
Soft soft soft. Don't get too excited Sir NeoSeminole.
soft? I can pull screen caps of Dorian at his most ripped looking "soft." It's simply due to the limitations of a DVD/VHS uploaded to a hosting website like YouTube which compresses the video even further. Also bear in mind that Ronnie isn't flexing in either picture
-
see what eye did there? Now I could be an ignorant prick like you and say Dorian looks "soft" but I'm better than that
-
I picture 50 yrs from now, ND and Hulkster's grandkids (if they find time to have kids) will be on here, battling it out...and Fatpanda will still be arguing whether Hulk is stronger than Thor...
-
Jesus fucking Christ!
Are you that bored Hulkster? First you argue with ND about who is better; Ronnie or Dorian. Now that that thread has all but been put to bed and deleted, you are arguing the only thing you can-and not that well at that- Ronnie versus Ronnie.
I really hope you have a good day job because your debating skills suck as much cock as Vince Goodrum in the Castro district of San Francisco.
hahaha.
-
Fucking hell, I don't like to brag being British and all but here is Dorian Yates in 94 (regarded his worst year by many) and he is pwning the shit out of Mr Semens ebony hero. Just look at that rock hard muscle density still unmatched to this day.
-
It was explained by nd that its when a muscle is devoid of any fat or water and all that is left is pure muscle and the bigger/thicker the muscle the more dense it'll look when in this condition I think. Saying Dorian had great density in 94 is wrong imo simply because his conditioning wasn't very good....at least not as good as in 93 or 95.
Overall he looked pretty bad in 94 with the torn bicep, funky quads, bloated gut, etc.
-
It was explained by nd that its when a muscle is devoid of any fat or water and all that is left is pure muscle and the bigger/thicker the muscle the more dense it'll look when in this condition I think. Saying Dorian had great density in 94 is wrong imo simply because his conditioning wasn't very good....at least not as good as in 93 or 95.
Overall he looked pretty bad in 94 with the torn bicep, funky quads, bloated gut, etc.
Added Rockell: Dorian had a SLIGHT injury but as far as I'm concerned , it had NO bearing whatsoever. He was just so dense it made no overall difference. Paul's major deficiencies were in his back : not enough muscularity for his large frame. also basic stamina throughout was in question ; during call-outs , he was breathing heavy and bending over.
Kevin has it all but was a little soft in prejudging , which hurt him. He wasn't quite as sharp as Shawn , but it was very close between second and third. It came down to the posedown ( Which Shawn won by a single point ).
IFBB judge Jim Rockell on Dorian 1994
Density - Muscle hardness, which is also related to muscu-lar definition. A bodybuilder can be well-defined and still have excess fat within each major muscle complex. But when he has muscle density, even this intramuscular fat has been eliminated. A combination of muscle mass and muscle density is highly prized among all competitive bodybuilders.
-
Excuse me but how the hell do you see that "intramuscular fat has been eliminated"? I call bullshit on this.
Visually that's how , Dillett perfect example of lots of volume but not much density , Dorian the epitome of density & size.
-
Dorian always looked like shit, Ronnie looked slightly less like shit.
Bodybuilding terms Ronnie had more size, far better shape, far better structure. Ronnie wins.
-
Brutal no explanation!
I call total bullshit on "density". It is just being ripped and dry as fuck. You cannot see intramuscular fat.
I did explain , you don't like the answer , in fact I gave you a detailed explanation and gave you a perfect analogy between Dillett & Yates
yes it's a elaborate scam to deceive people into thinking Dorian had any advantages over his competition ::)
-
Best ever. The only physique close would be the one that Dorian presented at the 93 German Grand Prix.
-
Dorian had more bone density and hardness, you could see this clearly in X rays.
-
It sure sounds like it. Take some unknown thing like "density" and claim you can actually see the intramuscular fat levels ::)
Brutal making up shit to gain an extra advantage
It can be seen externally when the muscle is totally devoid of fat & water ( duh ) Ronnie at his best 2001 was dry as fuck and dense as stone especially compared to say 2000 when he was much heavier ( i.e carrying more intramuscular fat ) get it? it doesn't just apply to him it applies to everyone .
Ronnie was 245-247lbs in 01 and 264 in 00 , so this tells us he was carrying not more muscle in 00 but more sq fat and he was holding more water , the ideal situation is to carry the most amount of muscle while being the leanest & driest , which is extremely difficult to do , especially on a consistent basis , which is exactly the reason a vast majority of people feel 1998/2001 was Ronnie's best showings ever and it's no coincidence he was at his lightest or densest yet didn't appear so , see how it works?
-
You are basically saying here it is another word for low bf and no water, two already well known criteria, merged into a words like "density" and "intramuscular fat" to make it sound like there is some double advantage?
Haha. Yeah pretty much.
-
You are basically saying here it is another word for low bf and no water, two already well known criteria, merged into a words like "density" and "intramuscular fat" to make it sound like there is some double advantage?
No there is no such thing is density ::) none what so ever , it's a made up word
-
There is low bodyfat, and dry. "Density" in a muscle = sounds like bullshit.
Well sounds like you just exposed the world of bodybuilding for pulling the wool over everyone eyes , congrats ::)
-
Meltdown.
Xerxes Meltdown.
-
Meltdown.
Says the guy who just got a comprehensive explanation and still can't grasp the concept ;) even started another thread ;D
-
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x263/timeamajorova/jeans.jpg)
-
:D
Epic brutal meltdown.
-
Epic brutal meltdown.
Epic self-Meltdown.
-
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x263/timeamajorova/colemanredball.jpg)
-
Basically the Yates fans have been saying this to Coleman nut-huggers for the past 18 years approx:
-
You are basically saying here it is another word for low bf and no water, two already well known criteria, merged into a words like "density" and "intramuscular fat" to make it sound like there is some double advantage?
you are thinking too logically. Most of these terms like "density" and "dryness" are synonyms that bodybuilding journalists use so they don't keep repeating themselves in their contest reviews. Either you're conditioned or you're not
-
sonny's look pretty much sums it up.
at least 10 lbs bigger than ronnie in 01.
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy209.jpg)
remember, yates defeated the best bbers of all time in their prime: nasser, shawn, flex, kevin, paul, etc.
ronnie faced the same guys as they were on their way out.
AND lost rounds and contests to gustavo baddell and gunter schlierkamp.
-
at least 10 lbs bigger than ronnie in 01.
on paper? Yes. In person? No. 10 lbs on Dorian's frame is not the same as 10 lbs on Ronnie's frame. If you really want to play the numbers game, then 03 Ronnie at 287 lbs would dwarf a 30 lbs lighter Dorian ;)
remember, yates defeated the best bbers of all time in their prime: nasser, shawn, flex, kevin, paul, etc.
so did Ronnie. Ronnie beat a prime Kevin, Flex, Jay, Chris Cormier, Dexter Jackson, etc
Ronnie not only won the Mr. Olympia more times but he also beat more future Mr. Olympias than Dorian
-
Ronnie looking 10 lbs lighter, lol
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy209.jpg)
-
Ronnie looking 10 lbs lighter, lol
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy209.jpg)
Yates was great, but looks like a sack of shit next to Ron
/thread
-
LOL whenever I read your posts, I always picture a woman defending herself, trying her hardest not to burst into tears.
ha ha exactly they reek of desperation....
he is completly obsessed with coleman
he has all the quotes saved on his computer he just copies and pastes them whenever a ronnie thread pops up
for a guy who doesnt rate or likes colemans phsyique suprisingly enough probably 80%of his posts are on ronnie threads
:-\
to contribute to the thread...
imo 2001 arnld ronnie is overated
99, 98, 2000 etc i prefer
-
the greatest
-
so did Ronnie. Ronnie beat a prime Kevin, Flex, Jay, Chris Cormier, Dexter Jackson, etc
flex and kevin were at their best facing dorian - not ronnie.
you mean a legless levrone and a too heavy, synthol filled flex wheeler?
cormier? please - wasnt even top 6 against the guys yates faced.
dont even try to compare jay and dex to anyone from the 90's not even close.
-
on paper? Yes. In person? No. 10 lbs on Dorian's frame is not the same as 10 lbs on Ronnie's frame. If you really want to play the numbers game, then 03 Ronnie at 287 lbs would dwarf a 30 lbs lighter Dorian ;)
try again. ronnie was no where near the shape/condition of his prior years, let alone yates.
he would have looked offseason at 287 standing next to yates.
-
Ronnie looking 10 lbs lighter, lol
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy209.jpg)
thanks for posting a picture of ronnie standing right in front of the camera to appear larger.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy4.jpg)
anyways, i still think ronnie in 98-99 was best.
98 he was in better condition than 99, but had the gyno.
-
you are thinking too logically. Most of these terms like "density" and "dryness" are synonyms that bodybuilding journalists use so they don't keep repeating themselves in their contest reviews. Either you're conditioned or you're not
Says the guy who thought balance & proportion were the same thing. ;)
density and dryness are NOT the same thing , need correcting let me know.
-
ha ha exactly they reek of desperation....
he is completly obsessed with coleman
he has all the quotes saved on his computer he just copies and pastes them whenever a ronnie thread pops up
for a guy who doesnt rate or likes colemans phsyique suprisingly enough probably 80%of his posts are on ronnie threads
:-\
to contribute to the thread...
imo 2001 arnld ronnie is overated
99, 98, 2000 etc i prefer
You still don't get it huh? I said nothing negative about Coleman , I know you're not that sophisticated but get with the program. I did say he looked amazing in fact try and pay attention for once to what was actually typed.
-
You can not see intramuscular fat deposits. Hope this helps.
says the guy who thinks fat in inside the skin ;D what was that about being ' analytical ' ? ;)
-
Of course I know its not INSIDE the skin, way to nitpick on typos, brutal strawman argument. You can not see intramuscular fat deposits and what you say is dense is just dry + shredded. You can not see inside the muscle. LOGICAL FALLACY DETECTED
That wasn't a strawman or a typo that was your ignorance. the strawman is you keep insisting you can't see inside the muscle when it's been explained to you numerous times that you can externally see who is carrying more intramuscular fat and who is not.
You're the one who is nitpicking on the word intramuscular when in fact you can ascertain who is more dense visually from the outside , and density is a synonym of hardness NOT dryness or ' ripped '
this is proof positive that he was carrying more intramuscular fat and holding more water , i.e not as hard ( muscle density ) you can't argue to the contrary
-
This is not positive proof of it whatsoever, he has more bodyfat in one than the other. You are unable to differentiate between fat and intramuscular fat, therefore the term is useless and complete horseshit. If this is all you have to show me then lets agree to disagree as is it quite clear you haven't shown anything conclusive.
HAHAHAHAHAH muscle hardness is complete horsehsit because you can't look past your own ignorance and want to hyperfocus on the word ' intra ' gotcha
and FYI even Ronnie in 2004 is carrying much less body fat than the normal human but he's not NOT as dense as he was in 2001
-
It was you who said it density = elimination of intramuscular fat, and guess what, intramuscular means inside the muscle. You can not see it, hope this helps.
Go on.
keep hyperfocusing on the word , it changes nothing , I can see who is harder in this comparison if you can't get some new glasses , density/hardness doesn't exist because you can't grasp the concept
-
You are making shit up bro, the difference in hardness/density you see is due too lower bf and less water and you have now proved repeatedly that you can not differentiate between IM and them (probably because you can not possibly see intramuscular fat ::) ::))
So I'm making up the word hardness/density? really? I made it up? ;D
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.
another example of a bodybuilder being DENSE one contest and not quite replicating it in another .
you can deny it exists all you want it changes nothing
-
99 vs 01
looks the same just a little fuller in 99
yup. and with a noticably smaller gut/obliques too:
something that ND and co love to deny, for what reason, who knows... ::)
-
yup. and with a noticably smaller gut/obliques too:
something that ND and co love to deny, for what reason, who knows... ::)
yup which is why everyone says Ronnie 1999 is his best showing , he's 10lbs heavier with the same conditioning , oh wait NO ONE says it's his best that's right. ;)
you still can't prove 99 is his best and never could ever wonder why? ;) psssssttttttttt I'll let you in on a little secret , because it's not.
-
Density is not a separate criteria, it is just a total rubbish term. That qoute says bone dry or rock hard, doesn't even mention "density" WTF are you making shit up now? Deal with it and stop mentioning it.
hard = dense , density is muscle hardness , it's very simple. some people are just comfortable in their ignorance.
and let me help you here too , bone dry = not holding any water. ;)
-
Btw what the hell is "hardness" ::) ::) ::), do you feel their muscles to see which one is harder ::) ::) ::)? Another RUBBISH term, its about fat and water nothing else stop posting 1000 synonyms to make it look like there are more criterias.
you can SEE hardness , allow me to help you again ;)
p.s. he's drier to boot too
-
NO you are just very set in your ways. I am right here. Hope this helps
"Hard = dense" omfg go run in front of a bus will you
I'm set in the right way , you're stuck on stupid and can't grasp simple concepts.
-
Your so called simple concepts have absolutely no meaning and are garbage. You are a condescending arrogant prick to boot.
Translation : I can't grasp the concept so it's bullshit in my mind
I am condescending and arrogant , you get that way after dealing with people who can't compete intellectually :D
and the simple concept I just showed you over and over , if you directly compare Ronnie 2001 to Ronnie 2002 you can clearly see he's harder in 2001 ( density ) and drier to boot , how can we tell this? visually we can see there is no water , or fat to obscure the muscles from showing their details , their separations , and their depth , we can clearly see how the skin appears like tissue paper directly over pure muscle with nothing to fill it out and blur it's appearance , nothing to fill in the area that should show depth etch separation of all the muscles
-
I repeat
Hardness = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc
Density = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc
Fat and water are the only thing that counts and once again, I repeat
you CAN NOT see inside the muscle.
keep repeating your strawman about seeing inside the muscle , NO ONE is claiming you can , just externally
and no kidding all that matters is fat & water that's an oversimplification , now what does matter is to what degree is someone fat free and dry and also how much muscle they are carrying while doing it
Hamdullah Aykutlu is a perfect example of always being hard & dry yet not carrying much muscle , but what he did carry was the pinnacle of conditioning , in juxtaposition Paul Dillett super big , full yet his muscles were never dense & dry as his , why? he was carrying more intramuscular fat & water
It's one thing to be hard & dry and a whole other ball of wax being , hard , dry while being 270lbs , next to impossible .
Once again you post a picture where Coleman has more fat and water on him than the other.
Need proof? Just look at his shoulders or glutes. Again density/hardness = made up bullshit lingo made up to look like they are some different criteria.
Yes more fat , more intramuscular fat and water , I'm glad you finally agree.
-
I have seen all your arguments, and I am done here. Thanks for playing.
You were done a long time ago when you claimed density is a bullshit word. I've yet to see your argument that it's bullshit and the strawman wasn't it.
-
You still don't get it huh? I said nothing negative about Coleman , I know you're not that sophisticated but get with the program. I did say he looked amazing in fact try and pay attention for once to what was actually typed.
I don't need to try to be sophisticated... here
I am where I need to be.. My profession...
Arguing for coleman v yates 5 years seems to be quite important and highlight to you ...
Not me
I'm merely pointing out facts you don't like ronnie colemans physique
Yet you are on EVERY Coleman thread, with your quotes and notes ready copy and paste and always the one arguing the most and posting the most..
80% of your posts are on ronnie threads...
You kind of remind me of comic guy from the simpsons
very "passionate" .. Over the top even when ever it comes to Coleman
On the other side of the coin you do post good old school bodybuilding rare pics
And seem to be rational when it comes to any other subject
So whatever... I guess
-
I repeat
Hardness = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc
Density = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc
Fat and water are the only thing that counts and once again, I repeat
you CAN NOT see inside the muscle.
Cmon Xerxes, you are acting like the arrogant hardheaded coach that you despise so much.
Youre thinking too logically, like Seminole said. Hardness/Density is a way to describe the lack of fat in the muscle itself, that give it that puffy balloon look. Its a completely different term than traditional subcutaneous fat, because that just alows you to see the separation between muscle groups.
Todays competitors get shredded, but for whatever reason (Insulin IMHO), they dont get that super dense rock hard look of the 90's, and that is IM fat, not SC fat. See? Density?Hardness is a term to describe that effect.
Why are you so being so hardheaded about this, when youre the one always telling people to keep an open mind?
You had your mind made up in the begining, and you have no intention whatsoever of being objective on this subject, which is sad, because youre the one always touting objectivity.
-
I don't need to try to be sophisticated... here
I am where I need to be.. My profession...
Arguing for coleman v yates 5 years seems to be quite important and highlight to you ...
Not me
I'm merely pointing out facts you don't like ronnie colemans physique
Yet you are on EVERY Coleman thread, with your quotes and notes ready copy and paste and always the one arguing the most and posting the most..
80% of your posts are on ronnie threads...
You kind of remind me of comic guy from the simpsons
very "passionate" .. Over the top even when ever it comes to Coleman
On the other side of the coin you do post good old school bodybuilding rare pics
And seem to be rational when it comes to any other subject
So whatever... I guess
Believe me your lack of sophistication follows you everywhere
You tend to fixate only on the Coleman/Yates subject , I don't in fact I almost don't argue it anymore , just correct a lot of ignorant people on the subject , I post on much , much more than this subject you don't know because you haven't looked you just like assuming and we all know what they say about assumption.
even in this thread you couldn't get it right when in fact I said nothing negative in the least , I said he looked outstanding and it's no wonder why the mass consensus is this was the best he's ever looked or anyone for that matter , like I said before PAY ATTENTION to what was actually typed and base your comment on that or you run the risk of looking stupid , something you obviously don't care about.
80% of my posts are Ronnie topics? my ass how would you know unless you were tallying them up? and even if it were the case ( which it's not ) at least it's on the subject unlike 90% of the topics on this site and you'll only point out my obsession and not others , especially considering Hulkster's post count is 99% Dorian Yates yet you wont say a word because you agree with him , don't be a hypocrite , which I exposed you as already , acting like you're above this topic and then posting in the Truce Thread , it's A-O-Kay when anyone posts endlessly in praise of Ronnie but when they don't it's a obsession or a bad thing , please spare me the hypocrisy.
the bottom line , I said nothing negative in this thread about Ronnie so once again try and follow along.
-
Yet you still cannot tell me how to spot lack of intramuscular fat other than "poofy" look ??? ::)
If you can then I will change my mind.
I just gave you a detailed explanation and multiple photographic comparisons , you can't see then don't change your mind , you'll be just another guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about.
-
Yet you still cannot tell me how to spot lack of intramuscular fat other than "poofy" look ??? ::)
If you can then I will change my mind.
Sigh.
Jim posted exactly how.
Picture of Phil Heath vs. Munzer. Except instead of just accepting that youre wrong, you went off about the striations (which are genetic, but unless you have dieted off all the fat, including IM fat(Hardness) then you wont be able to see the).
A good example of that is the pic of Ronnie from 96 where you can see the feathered striations in his leg, but now in 98. (where his conditioning was better, and his SC fat was lower, but his IM fat was higher (Hardness)).
So replace a pic of Phil with a pic of Dorian 95. There is a series in 95 of the quarter turns where you can see every fiber in Dorians abdominal/oblique muscles. Ill find it if I can in an old thread.
ND maybe you can help me out with those pics?
-
Your photographic comparisons where of a person leaner and less watery, didnt tell me anything about the fat inside his muscles
leaner = less fat intramuscularlly , Ronnie in 04 is still carry low bodyfat especially compared to the average human but his density is not on par with 01
-
Ok show me a picture of someone who is ripped and dry to the bone but not dense??
Phil Heath. Lol.
Paul Dillet. <--- Epic lol.
-
Sophistication is relative like I said in my profession
Not here... Plus I don't pride myself on sophistication because it's a a facade at the core
Anyway in regards to the truce threa I posted 10 to posts on that thread as after a I could see opinion was overriding logic
You probably posted 10,000 AT LEAST no contest
anyway I'll leave you to it
Mes.
-
flex and kevin were at their best facing dorian - not ronnie.
you mean a legless levrone and a too heavy, synthol filled flex wheeler?
no, I mean a prime Kevin and Flex. What contests do you consider their respective bests?
as for your no legs comment...
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/9d097bd3e8ef30567a5c/kevin-levrone-beim-russian-gp-1997
btw, Ronnie won ;)
cormier? please - wasnt even top 6 against the guys yates faced.
lol, who gives a shit? Chris Cormier didn't peak until later. In bodybuilding, all that matters is how you looked at your best
Flex was still an amateur when Haney competed. Following your logic, that must mean he sucked ::)
dont even try to compare jay and dex to anyone from the 90's not even close.
bwahahaha
-
Says the guy who thought balance & proportion were the same thing.
says the guy who knows more about what color posing trunks bodybuilders wore every contest than about anatomy and physiology
density and dryness are NOT the same thing , need correcting let me know
either you're conditioned or you're not. Need help understanding? :)
-
Also please show me a black person with density.
Kai and Ronnie
-
best physique of all-time 8)
when people make such statements they DO realize that a persons face is part of their physique right? :-\
-
"density" refers to appearance in this case, not actual physical structure. the muscle just looks harder, denser. dorians "grainyness" helped to make him look more "dense", coupled with his very low bodyfat and subq water stores. ronnie was shredded, and round.. didnt look quite as dense or grainy because his muscles looked softer and more baloon like, except for his arms.
ronnie is the better bodybuilder but the term density is real.
-
Wiggs I think you misunderstood me, ok heres a question for you, no matter how ripped diced etc Kai or Ronnie came in would the Dorian crowd ever admit to them having more "density" than Dorian?
I have a feeling it's a no, and that its just a look of the muscle, where as black guys just don't have the same look to them cause of the skintone. I still think it's bullshit and certainly don't think you can possibly see how dense a muscles fibres are.
I fully understand what you want to say....I think Ronnie was better than Dorian to be honest, but his muscles looked like blown up balloons with striations...Dorians looked rock-hard with striations.