Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Nether Animal on March 09, 2018, 10:34:26 AM

Title: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Nether Animal on March 09, 2018, 10:34:26 AM
Yes, I said it. Around 265 on stage, holding some water compared to the two years before but an absolute monster. And far less of a gut. Most of that extra weight by 2003 went to his ass, quads and gut.

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=613920.0;attach=683957;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=613920.0;attach=683955;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=613920.0;attach=683958;image)

(http://musclemecca.com/imported-images/2013/06/998517_10151691006704621_61753751_n_zpsb-1.jpg)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=613920.0;attach=683966;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=613920.0;attach=705487;image)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: seCrawler on March 09, 2018, 10:36:19 AM
i'm assuming ronnie grew the gut when he started phucking with chad.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ESFitness on March 09, 2018, 11:23:51 AM
I still vote 03 Ronnie as something that will likely never be topped.. Unless big ramy "dials it in" and doesn't burn out. Remember, it took Ronnie quite a while before he got the mixture right and supposedly never cheated on his diet. I'm sure army has handlers arouns him nearly all day making sure he eats what he's supposed to and takes what he's supposed to. But seems there may be too many cooks in the kitchen. Still, rsmy doesn't have the muscle.mellows and shape that Ronnie had,& I still don't think it'll ever be topped.

Flex at the 99 grand prix is another that likely won't ever be topped. Site injections or not, his muscle bellies held it well and 99 AFTER the Olympia was his best showing ever. Better than the 93 Arnold or Mr o and better than the 98 Arnold(which is supposedly his best EVER yet 20yrs later I've YET to see more than s couple pics with shotty dark blue/purple lighting obscuring everything... AND the 9o Mr o, which at the time, being a Flex fan, thought he should've won, but looking back it was Ronnie show 100%.. It was like the 93 Mr O 'll over again for Flex.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: willl on March 09, 2018, 11:48:17 AM
i agree my personal favorite showing of ronnie is also O2000. sure, water etc, but still overly spectacular

ramy will never be similar to ronnie
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Nether Animal on March 09, 2018, 01:40:38 PM
i agree my personal favorite showing of ronnie is also O2000. sure, water etc, but still overly spectacular

ramy will never be similar to ronnie

Plus his back wasn't as uneven as it was three years later.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: On_Swole on March 09, 2018, 03:20:51 PM
I've maintained this all along. 2003 was otherworldly, but 2000 was the ultimate Coleman (particularly for the finals).
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 09, 2018, 04:53:43 PM
I prefer 2000 over 2003, but 2003 is untouchable when it comes to total domination.

2000 Mr. Olympia
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Nether Animal on March 09, 2018, 05:28:18 PM
2000 GP
 Look at the quad

(http://www.bodybuilders.gr/competitions/ronnie-coleman-manchester-grand-prix-2000.jpg)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: BSN on March 13, 2018, 12:56:03 PM
 :)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 13, 2018, 02:15:26 PM
If you watch "The Unbelievable" DVD, Ronnie was 287-lb there, and was clearly in contest condition.  I think Ronnie was so far ahead of his time, that neither he nor Chad realized that he could have come into contest at 287-lb, hence the weight drop.  In 2003, they basically realized that Ronnie could easily be over 280 in contest, and decided to actually come in at 287.  But Ronnie had that size in 2000.  It's not like he gained new muscle in 2003 - it's that he actually decided to not cut the weight coming into the contest.  More evidence of this is Ronnie in the 2002 Battle for the Olympia DVD.  He was something like 275-lb in that video, and clearly in contest shape.  Yet he decided to drop 30-lb and came into contest WAY underweight.  Had Cutler competed that year, I believe he would have won, at least if he reproduced the physique that he showed at the 2001 Mr. Olympia contest where he placed 2nd.  It's sort of sad that Jay decided to take 2002 off, in light of Ronnie's lackluster [for Ronnie's standards] performance.

In 2004, based on his size at the press conference to his size on the stage, I have one word:

over-diuresis.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ratherbebig on March 13, 2018, 02:24:56 PM
not this shit again...

yes some time they will be better than other times.

how is that even worth debating?

Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 13, 2018, 02:43:18 PM
not this shit again...

yes some time they will be better than other times.

how is that even worth debating?

Maybe it's just nostalgia for that era of bodybuilding?

I am happy that after Ronnie's showing at the 2002 Mr. Olympia where he showed up lighter than ever - around 245 to 247-lb - he said to himself "You know what?  I'D RATHER BE BIG!  Next year, it's 287-lb, baby!  I'm going to knock everyone's socks off!"

And he did.

He literally made Jay Cutler look like an amateur...and meanwhile, Dexter Jackson and everyone placing 3rd and lower were nowhere near Jay's size.

So you had Ronnie as the clear winner, WAY ahead of Jay, with Jay being WAY ahead of everyone 3rd place and lower.

When has that ever happened before?  When has the Mr. Olympia ever made the second best bodybuilder on the planet look like an amateur?
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ratherbebig on March 13, 2018, 02:47:50 PM
well youre just guessing anyway

you were not there.

you dont have any clear video.

all you got are a few still shots.

a lot of times the difference between the bodybuilder placing first and second is hard to decide even for the trained eye of a professional judge who watch it live from the first row, and yet on getbig everyone's an expert after watching a couple of still shots...

give me a break.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: On_Swole on March 13, 2018, 03:04:50 PM
So you had Ronnie has the clear winner, WAY ahead of Jay, with Jay being WAY ahead of everyone 3rd place and lower.
The part about Ronnie is right, but the part about Jay couldn't be further from the truth. A surging and all-time best Dexter could've (and perhaps should've) placed ahead of Jay. This was confirmed when two or three weeks later Dexter beat an improved Jay at the GNC Show of Strength (though Dexter had improved as well).
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Bevo on March 13, 2018, 04:55:30 PM
2018 current Ronnie is the best version
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: That_Dude on March 13, 2018, 07:29:15 PM
Ronnie is the GOAT bodybuild died when his reign the as Mr O came to an end.

Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Bevo on March 13, 2018, 07:31:03 PM
Ronnie is the GOAT bodybuild died when his reign the as Mr O came to an end.



Arnold forever will be the GOAT

No one outside of bbing even knows who Ronnie is

Ronnie and Dorian ruined bbing, chasing after mass

Lee Haney was a much better bber than both of them
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: That_Dude on March 13, 2018, 07:42:34 PM
Arnold forever will be the GOAT

No one outside of bbing even knows who Ronnie is

Ronnie and Dorian ruined bbing, chasing after mass

Lee Haney was a much better bber than both of them

Ronnie in 99 looked better than Arnold at any point in his life (competition wise). Honorable mention to Haney.

Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Bevo on March 13, 2018, 07:46:22 PM
Ronnie in 99 looked better than Arnold at any point in his life (competition wise). Honorable mention to Haney.




That’s cause it’s a different era, different standard of judging, different combos or drugs

Ronnie’s best was 98, 99, and 01 arnold

2003 and 2004 was fun to watch but far from best
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 13, 2018, 10:11:43 PM
well youre just guessing anyway

you were not there.

you dont have any clear video.

all you got are a few still shots.

a lot of times the difference between the bodybuilder placing first and second is hard to decide even for the trained eye of a professional judge who watch it live from the first row, and yet on getbig everyone's an expert after watching a couple of still shots...

give me a break.


Hmm...to be honest, I do agree that what you have described does indeed happen.  I don't think that applies to 2003 though.  Ronnie was just...that much better.  He was huge.  He was 31-lb heavier than Jay, who was 256-lb, and himself a giant.  While I do get what you are saying, I still maintain that 2003 was an exception - Ronnie really WAS that much better - of course, only IMO.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 13, 2018, 11:28:46 PM
The part about Ronnie is right, but the part about Jay couldn't be further from the truth. A surging and all-time best Dexter could've (and perhaps should've) placed ahead of Jay. This was confirmed when two or three weeks later Dexter beat an improved Jay at the GNC Show of Strength (though Dexter had improved as well).

Based on conditioning, I would agree with you - but based on size, you had one massive bodybuilder literally dwarfing another massive bodybuilder, who was dwarfing *most* of the rest of the lineup.  There were some exceptions there - Dennis James and Art Atwood for example.  But think about how Ronnie - or Jay - looked compared to Darrem Charles or Troy Alves for example.  It was a night-and-day size difference.

PS - aren't you from a southern state that asshole Hollywood movies constantly present as being comprised of a bunch of ignorant hicks.  Georgia?  I have always found your posts to be highly intelligent, going back to your days on Mayhem.  Damn Hollywood movies and their ridiculous stereotypes, all in the name of ending stereotypes.  ::)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: cephissus on March 14, 2018, 12:09:57 AM
Do you have any friends, Matt?
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ratherbebig on March 14, 2018, 03:23:29 AM
Do you have any friends, Matt?

on getbig he does
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 14, 2018, 04:27:33 AM
Do you have any friends, Matt?

Yes - and they come to me.

Based on writing long posts, it stands to reason that I have no friends?  Why do you think that?  Yes, I am chatty.  But I articulate myself well, and make full points that are backed up with a lot of evidence.

I have the cash to travel to all the expos, but I would ratherbewithmyfamily.  I live the life that I want, and I have five brands of beer at home.
 Since I am at home a lot, it is just a chill place to be, and my friends - and women - come to me.  I live in a quaint little home, but it's nice and comfortable here.  People like it, and again - the beer.  I have found one great truth - people LOVE free alcohol.

And I say that seriously - you don't win friends with salad.  You DO win friends with alcohol though.  :D

Am I really so nerdy?  ???  I sort of think of myself as a bit of a jock...am I way off base there?  But yes, I talk a lot - A LOT.  But people do listen.

Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 14, 2018, 04:35:31 AM
Pffft.  Here's to this fucktard going the way of the Dodo in 2018. 
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 14, 2018, 04:39:34 AM
on getbig he does

I'd like to think so.  ;D

Getbig right now is a really cool place to be - lots of truth/honesty, yet not overly crass with the insults or trashing of pro bodybuilders, or the industry in general.  I think that's why people like Getbig.  Do people REALLY want to be around Yes Men?  Wouldn't you rather be around someone intelligent, who thinks critically, and who is NOT afraid to point out a flaw when they see one?  I'm confident that means more to most people - and certainly means more to pro bodybuilders as well.

I honestly think that is why Getbig is so popular.  And for as many people as there are who post here, I feel that there are far more who read threads but who do not actively post.  Even when I was away from Getbig, I was still reading on a regular basis.  During my self-imposed timeout, Getbig was a guilty pleasure of mine.  ;)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Natural_O on March 14, 2018, 10:30:00 AM
If you watch "The Unbelievable" DVD, Ronnie was 287-lb there, and was clearly in contest condition.  I think Ronnie was so far ahead of his time, that neither he nor Chad realized that he could have come into contest at 287-lb, hence the weight drop.  In 2003, they basically realized that Ronnie could easily be over 280 in contest, and decided to actually come in at 287.  But Ronnie had that size in 2000.  It's not like he gained new muscle in 2003 - it's that he actually decided to not cut the weight coming into the contest.  More evidence of this is Ronnie in the 2002 Battle for the Olympia DVD.  He was something like 275-lb in that video, and clearly in contest shape.  Yet he decided to drop 30-lb and came into contest WAY underweight.  Had Cutler competed that year, I believe he would have won, at least if he reproduced the physique that he showed at the 2001 Mr. Olympia contest where he placed 2nd.  It's sort of sad that Jay decided to take 2002 off, in light of Ronnie's lackluster [for Ronnie's standards] performance.

In 2004, based on his size at the press conference to his size on the stage, I have one word:

over-diuresis.

Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: On_Swole on March 14, 2018, 05:33:21 PM
Based on conditioning, I would agree with you - but based on size, you had one massive bodybuilder literally dwarfing another massive bodybuilder, who was dwarfing *most* of the rest of the lineup.  There were some exceptions there - Dennis James and Art Atwood for example.  But think about how Ronnie - or Jay - looked compared to Darrem Charles or Troy Alves for example.  It was a night-and-day size difference.

PS - aren't you from a southern state that asshole Hollywood movies constantly present as being comprised of a bunch of ignorant hicks.  Georgia?  I have always found your posts to be highly intelligent, going back to your days on Mayhem.  Damn Hollywood movies and their ridiculous stereotypes, all in the name of ending stereotypes.  ::)
I'm not sure that the paragraph beginning with "Based on conditioning..." makes sense, being that (again) Dexter beat Jay and every other larger bodybuilder a couple of weeks later.

I live in Florida, but it's not like Holywood has been very kind to Canada as far as portraying them as intellects goes. Strange Brew, anyone? ;)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: On_Swole on March 14, 2018, 05:35:50 PM
Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.
Agree 100% that 2002 could've been a golden opportunity for Cutler. However, as off as Ronnie was for Ronnie, I still felt it was a clear cut win when I watched it back then and still do when watching it today.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Nether Animal on March 14, 2018, 05:38:23 PM
Agree 100% that 2002 could've been a golden opportunity for Cutler. However, as off as Ronnie was for Ronnie, I still felt it was a clear cut win when I watched it back then and still do when watching it today.

2002 for Ronnie could have been another dominating performance. If she showed up like this Cutler wouldn't have taken him if he showed up.

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=621815.0;attach=694671;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=621815.0;attach=694672;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=621815.0;attach=727817;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=621815.0;attach=727818;image)

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=621815.0;attach=727820;image)
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ChristopherA on March 14, 2018, 06:39:04 PM
I'd like to think so.  ;D

Getbig right now is a really cool place to be - lots of truth/honesty, yet not overly crass with the insults or trashing of pro bodybuilders, or the industry in general.  I think that's why people like Getbig.  Do people REALLY want to be around Yes Men?  Wouldn't you rather be around someone intelligent, who thinks critically, and who is NOT afraid to point out a flaw when they see one?  I'm confident that means more to most people - and certainly means more to pro bodybuilders as well.

I honestly think that is why Getbig is so popular.  And for as many people as there are who post here, I feel that there are far more who read threads but who do not actively post.  Even when I was away from Getbig, I was still reading on a regular basis.  During my self-imposed timeout, Getbig was a guilty pleasure of mine.  ;)
Getbig isn't that popular. Message board for a niche "sport"
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 14, 2018, 07:26:28 PM
Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.

My thoughts exactly!  Great post.  To think that Ronnie was still good enough to win without *much* debate.  As in - no matter how you cut it, it was close.  It's not as if anyone in the lineup was leaps and bounds ahead of him.  I would suspect that everyone had him in their top 2-3, if not as the winner.  That really is something when you think of how huge he was in the 2002 Battle for the Olympia DVD, and was in contest conditioning, carrying an astounding 30-lb more mass than he had on the day of the contest itself.  :o  I think that was the year that John Romano said something to the effect "If anyone wants to beat this guy, they will have to kill him."  ;D
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 14, 2018, 07:31:30 PM
I'm not sure that the paragraph beginning with "Based on conditioning..." makes sense, being that (again) Dexter beat Jay and every other larger bodybuilder a couple of weeks later.

I live in Florida, but it's not like Holywood has been very kind to Canada as far as portraying them as intellects goes. Strange Brew, anyone? ;)

LOL!!! @ your reference to Strange Brew.  100% truth.  It's funny how both American Whites and Canadian Whites are fed propaganda about the others being idiots.  As if the English, French, German, Italian, Irish, and Polish Canadians [or Americans] are so much better than the English, French, German, Italian, Irish, and Polish Americans [or Canadians].  ::)

That's interesting that you live in Florida - I have no idea why I had it in my memory as a less "popular" state.  As I said, my initial memory was that it was Georgia, although given the geographical proximity of Florida and Georgia, I'm wondering if someone else put that idea in my mind.  Maybe someone from Georgia drove to you in Florida to be trained by you.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 14, 2018, 08:03:09 PM
Getbig isn't that popular. Message board for a niche "sport"

True...but I do suspect that Getbig still gets a decent amount of traffic/visitors though.  According to Alexa, for example, it is far more popular than RXMuscle.  As I have said before, people like the honesty and lack of Yes Men here on Getbig.  They may hate it at times...but they know a compliment from someone not afraid to criticize a pro bodybuilder actually means something.  The same can't be said of a compliment from a Yes Man - such as those who posted on MuscleMayhem back in the day.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 14, 2018, 09:05:28 PM
Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.

Anyone that finds the shit filled blonut physique of Coleman to be even remotely admirable is doubtless about to give birth to a Schmoelien.  The Schmoelien will then run amok until it finds a carapace bellied Shit-Star Sneetch like Coleman to attach itself to and fester in the huge belly.

I can hardly wait for Coleman to wither away.  Oh wait!  He is already doing just that.  Most drugged up non-ambulatory pile of shit of all time award goes to that lazy fatass bastard.  Deadpool 2018.  Fuck that asswipe.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Nether Animal on March 14, 2018, 09:42:47 PM
True...but I do suspect that Getbig still gets a decent amount of traffic/visitors though.  According to Alexa, for example, it is far more popular than RXMuscle.  As I have said before, people like the honesty and lack of Yes Men here on Getbig.  They may hate it at times...but they know a compliment from someone not afraid to criticize a pro bodybuilder actually means something.  The same can't be said of a compliment from a Yes Man - such as those who posted on MuscleMayhem back in the day.

For glaring contrast to Getbig, look at MD's ironically titled "No Bull" section. That board is FULL of yes men who gang up on posters who critique pros for looking like shit. Many also have absolutely NO idea what they are talking bout. It's a strange dichotomy and there is a lot of delusion rampant over there.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 14, 2018, 09:51:34 PM
For glaring contrast to Getbig, look at MD's ironically titled "No Bull" section. That board is FULL of yes men who gang up on posters who critique pros for looking like shit. Many also have absolutely NO idea what they are talking bout. It's a strange dichotomy and there is a lot of delusion rampant over there.

Haha, it's hilarious that they call it that.  :D Sheer delusion.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Sexybeast777 on March 14, 2018, 11:14:41 PM
a true monster
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 16, 2018, 08:04:21 AM
Ronnie 2000 Mr. Olympia Prejudging.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: BSN on March 16, 2018, 11:37:11 AM
Ronnie at the 1997 Mr.Olympia. Great back
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Nether Animal on March 16, 2018, 11:39:57 AM
Ronnie at the 1997 Mr.Olympia. Great back

He was better in 1996.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: BSN on March 16, 2018, 12:08:56 PM
Ronnie Coleman at San Marino Pro 2000. really impressive

Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ESFitness on March 16, 2018, 10:35:36 PM
True...but I do suspect that Getbig still gets a decent amount of traffic/visitors though.  According to Alexa, for example, it is far more popular than RXMuscle.  As I have said before, people like the honesty and lack of Yes Men here on Getbig.  They may hate it at times...but they know a compliment from someone not afraid to criticize a pro bodybuilder actually means something.  The same can't be said of a compliment from a Yes Man - such as those who posted on MuscleMayhem back in the day.

There's actually intelligent grown-ups with experience on rx... And a lack of trolls, which ruins everything there. You can disagree with somebody's opinion, like a grown-up,& not get a time-out. Unlike mayhem. Here, we have grown men who's only goal is to argue and fuck up threads, going largely un-checked.


Aside from that, there's no way jay would've beaten Ronnie in 02. Look at jays 03 showing, where he had 2yrs to prep and plan... And even his 03 condition wouldn't beat an 02 pre-injury Ronnie.

The only thing that could beat Ronnie was Ronnie... And That's what happened
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ESFitness on March 16, 2018, 10:41:15 PM
Ronnie at the 1997 Mr.Olympia. Great back

Funny thing is, Ronnie has always pretty much looked the same, muscle-wise, since 94/95 or so. It was the conditioning/dryness that changed the game and once he figured that out (with help), it shut the door on everybody for nearly a decade.

Came out at the 98 NOC with a physique that probably could be beaten Dorian in 97 & maybe 96.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Desolate on March 16, 2018, 10:50:18 PM
I just know that he never ate/eats vegetables according to his DVDs.

How in the hell does he shit?

With all the steroids, GH, diuretics, and lack of roughage, dude's insides must be gross.

I'm amazed he's still alive.

Looked best in 1999 and 2000.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: ESFitness on March 17, 2018, 12:04:06 AM
I just know that he never ate/eats vegetables according to his DVDs.

How in the hell does he shit?

With all the steroids, GH, diuretics, and lack of roughage, dude's insides must be gross.

I'm amazed he's still alive.

Looked best in 1999 and 2000.

There are plenty of us who don't eat vegetables that waste space in our stomachs,& we shit just fine.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 17, 2018, 10:00:46 AM
I just know that he never ate/eats vegetables according to his DVDs.

How in the hell does he shit?

With all the steroids, GH, diuretics, and lack of roughage, dude's insides must be gross.

I'm amazed he's still alive.

Looked best in 1999 and 2000.

He did eat a lot of beans and potatoes. He probably took a fiber supplement.
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: BSN on March 17, 2018, 11:33:58 AM
2003 Russia Grand Prix
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: BSN on March 17, 2018, 11:34:57 AM
2004 Russia Grand Prix
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Ronnie Rep on March 17, 2018, 11:51:51 AM
2000 GP
 Look at the quad

(http://www.bodybuilders.gr/competitions/ronnie-coleman-manchester-grand-prix-2000.jpg)

That shot shows Ronnie's superiority.  :o
Title: Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 17, 2018, 08:55:03 PM
2000 BGP
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Sexybeast777 on March 26, 2018, 02:16:09 PM
he was truly massive, no homo
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 26, 2018, 08:06:21 PM
he was truly massive, no homo

He was (and remains) a massive shit stain of a liar.  I so look forward to reading of his demise from "natural" causes.  Probably something along the lines of  a congenital stupidity coupled with his decades of drug abuse.

Fuck Coleman.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 26, 2018, 08:35:49 PM
He was (and remains) a massive shit stain of a liar.  I so look forward to reading of his demise from "natural" causes.  Probably something along the lines of  a congenital stupidity coupled with his decades of drug abuse.

Fuck Coleman.

Why do you hate him so bad? lol
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Sexybeast777 on March 26, 2018, 09:42:55 PM
He was (and remains) a massive shit stain of a liar.  I so look forward to reading of his demise from "natural" causes.  Probably something along the lines of  a congenital stupidity coupled with his decades of drug abuse.

Fuck Coleman.
no need to be so hateful, relax
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 27, 2018, 05:05:27 AM
no need to be so hateful, relax

And you?  No need to be so obsequious toward that pile of shit.  Do you do this because he's such a fake pile of shit devotee of Jayzus? 

Fuck Coleman to the hell he belongs in.  He's turning into what he really is.  A stinking pile of manlet.  He is so non-ambulatory that soon he'll be covered in flies. Good riddance.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 27, 2018, 05:08:03 AM
Why do you hate him so bad? lol

There is absolutely nothing of merit in him. His life, such as it is/was/will be is a sham.  His physique was totally artificial and his IQ totally subterranean.  He's a typical fake christian.  A thankew Jayzus charlatan.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Royalty on March 27, 2018, 05:31:27 AM
There is absolutely nothing of merit in him. His life, such as it is/was/will be is a sham.  His physique was totally artificial and his IQ totally subterranean.  He's a typical fake christian.  A thankew Jayzus charlatan.

Did you ever meet him?
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Sexybeast777 on March 27, 2018, 05:58:12 AM
And you?  No need to be so obsequious toward that pile of shit.  Do you do this because he's such a fake pile of shit devotee of Jayzus? 

Fuck Coleman to the hell he belongs in.  He's turning into what he really is.  A stinking pile of manlet.  He is so non-ambulatory that soon he'll be covered in flies. Good riddance.
stop the hate! you racist!
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 27, 2018, 09:52:50 AM
There is absolutely nothing of merit in him. His life, such as it is/was/will be is a sham.  His physique was totally artificial and his IQ totally subterranean.  He's a typical fake christian.  A thankew Jayzus charlatan.

I've met Ronnie before and he seems like a nice guy. No one lives a perfect life no matter what they do.

So, what is a real Christian?
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: nicorulez on March 27, 2018, 04:20:22 PM
There is absolutely nothing of merit in him. His life, such as it is/was/will be is a sham.  His physique was totally artificial and his IQ totally subterranean.  He's a typical fake christian.  A thankew Jayzus charlatan.

Wow you are butthurt aren't you. Are you a Dorian supporter that realizes that his hero would get slaughtered by the black manlet  ::) ::) ::). Only people who have such disdain for an athlete who they do not know and have never met are isolated, paranoid little men who live in mommy's basement jerking off to Playboys from the 70's and sucking on a pacifier. You are quite funny Scott....are you even from Scotland. Most Scottish folk I know are cool so I think you are a wannabe bitch.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 27, 2018, 08:45:50 PM
Wow you are butthurt aren't you. Are you a Dorian supporter that realizes that his hero would get slaughtered by the black manlet  ::) ::) ::). Only people who have such disdain for an athlete who they do not know and have never met are isolated, paranoid little men who live in mommy's basement jerking off to Playboys from the 70's and sucking on a pacifier. You are quite funny Scott....are you even from Scotland. Most Scottish folk I know are cool so I think you are a wannabe bitch.

You're obviously retarded.  Now, go ask your mother what that means.  Sheesh, what a SFB.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 27, 2018, 08:47:57 PM
I've met Ronnie before and he seems like a nice guy. No one lives a perfect life no matter what they do.

So, what is a real Christian?

You already know the answer.  And no, it sure as fook isn't me or you.  Coleman's a mental midget with barely enough brain power to breath and circulate his blood without having to think about it.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 27, 2018, 08:50:10 PM
Did you ever meet him?

Nope. Did you ever meet a pedophile or murderer?  Get it?  There's enough out there by the manlet himself to inform anyone of Coleman's idiocy let alone his dependence upon drugs and his artificial faith.

And no, I am not picking on you.   I simply answered your question with a question of sorts.
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: The Scott on March 27, 2018, 08:51:10 PM
stop the hate! you racist!

Oh STFU you pathetic phony. 
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Sexybeast777 on March 27, 2018, 10:42:09 PM
Oh STFU you pathetic phony. 
HOW DARE YOU!
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Iceman1981 on March 28, 2018, 08:01:26 AM
You already know the answer.  And no, it sure as fook isn't me or you.  Coleman's a mental midget with barely enough brain power to breath and circulate his blood without having to think about it.

Which bodybuilders do you like the most?
Title: Re: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003
Post by: Matt on March 28, 2018, 09:02:50 AM
Wow you are butthurt aren't you. Are you a Dorian supporter that realizes that his hero would get slaughtered by the black manlet  ::) ::) ::).

Dorian and Ronnie were/are both 5'10.5".  Although Ronnie is possibly 5'9.5" or shorter today due to all the neck and back surgeries.

5'10"+ is hardly manlet status, nicorulez.