Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: MattT on October 01, 2006, 08:51:30 PM

Title: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: MattT on October 01, 2006, 08:51:30 PM
He was more ripped then Jay, so why did he lose?
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: MattT on October 01, 2006, 08:53:36 PM
Keep prayin Ronnie, you'll beat Jay in 2007 ;)
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: adamthetrain on October 01, 2006, 08:53:57 PM
He lost because bodybuilding is BULLSHIT!!!
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: Stavios on October 01, 2006, 08:54:53 PM
he looked good from the front
he looks very good in those pics, if he does the GP shows, he could win against Jay if he is tighter
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: Hulkster on October 01, 2006, 08:57:03 PM
Ronnie lost not because he was a whole lot worse than Jay.

he lost because he was much worse than his previous year's showing.

normally, the judges don't care about how you used to look.

(see 1994, 2001, 1997)

they will give you the title anyway if your normal best is better than your competition.

 but strangely, not this year.

Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: gtbro1 on October 01, 2006, 08:59:40 PM
  Ronnie is well known for his striated ass and the slabs of muscle that literally just hang from his back...both of which were not there this year.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: MattT on October 01, 2006, 09:00:52 PM
I think its close, he was abit off from the back, but his arms, chest, and legs improved! Yet he still lost >:(
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: IFBBwannaB on October 01, 2006, 09:02:01 PM
Keep prayin Ronnie, you'll beat Jay in 2007 ;)

OMFG! Look at his back in that shot!  :o
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: jmt1 on October 01, 2006, 09:22:10 PM
jay had him beat on conditioning.

ronnie needed to show more seperation in his quads...and his back double bi and rear lat spread were off.

jay is the only guy on that stage how could have beat ronnie if he came in off and thats what happened...martinez,dex,melvin...no way.

the placing was fair.

ronnie will be back next year and will once again be untouchable.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: figgs on October 01, 2006, 09:32:32 PM
Did Ronnie tear his left lat?
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: bic_staedtler on October 01, 2006, 09:49:14 PM
...people just make me laugh out loud....."...Ronnie wins cause Mr O ALWAYS WINS!!!"......or "Ronnie lost cause bodybuilding is BULLSHIT!!"...

...please, if anyone can call a bodybuilding show, inform the guys competing.  Other than that, realize that whoever shows up the BIGGEST, most RIPPED will WIN....

..and for those thinking Ronnie is going to get better with age gotta stop smokin' dat crack.  While I'd like to see Ronnie make a comeback next year, I think that Jay has consistently gotten better at the Mr O with each year, and will continue to do so.  Age is on his side. 

It seems like nothing will change in the Mr O until it's awarded to a truly genetic mutant, the likes of Heath or someone like him....somebody with size but also with proportion. 

If we can look forward to Jay Cutler being the Mr O of the future, then I don't see pro bodybuilding moving forward.  Maybe (hopefully) this is a transition away from the mass monster...setting up the young guys next year.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: rocket on October 01, 2006, 09:51:23 PM
He lost because his back wasn't dominant and his lat looks torn/partially so, thus affecting his training.

Honestly its as plain as pie.  Every year preceeding this year we've been talking about how it is "lights out" when they turn around and this year Ronnie didn't have it.  He didn't have his best weapon and quite frankly Jay was close last year.

Nobody could claim Jay was better from the front, ronnie has far more detail in his biceps, shoulders etc and whilst he doesn't have as good striations as jay in the quads he does have a different level of detail.

All in all I'd still pick Ronnie because his physique is bottom line more freaky than jay but I definitely agree that dorian should never have won an olympia with a torn bicep so it would be hypocritical to suggest that Ronnie should not have been penalised for his injury.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: gibberj2 on October 01, 2006, 09:54:34 PM
if you didnt watch it on video then dont say nothin
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on October 01, 2006, 09:57:16 PM
He got the ugliest physique in bodybuilding, too bad he ruined it!
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: ali23 on October 01, 2006, 10:04:51 PM
  Ronnie is well known for his striated ass and the slabs of muscle that literally just hang from his back...both of which were not there this year.

look at his ass in those pictures retard

wow you are a fucking retard.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: rocket on October 01, 2006, 10:12:54 PM
It doesn't look like they are striated to me either (glutes).
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: gtbro1 on October 01, 2006, 10:20:59 PM
look at his ass in those pictures retard

wow you are a fucking retard.

well retard...you must not have ever seen his older pics...when they actually were striated. I don't mean they are soft compared to the average guy,just soft compared to the ronnie of the past,that's all.


  wow,you are a fucking retard.hahahaha we  have to explain everything to you.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: PhoenixBuff on October 01, 2006, 10:48:52 PM
He was more ripped then Jay, so why did he lose?

He lost because he lost EVERY single round to Cutler, that's why he lost.  Except for the Front Double Bi, you could argue that Jay won every pose.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: slayer on October 02, 2006, 05:44:48 AM
look at his ass in those pictures retard

wow you are a fucking retard.
smooth as a baby's bottom! :) he got a total gift  to be in the top 5! what a joke!

look at the 2 toothpics ronnie is standing on, that fucker got a gift from day 1 with those pathetic calves!

thank god we have a mr o with  a real set now!
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: wannabebig5 on October 02, 2006, 10:45:04 AM
damn im surprised, i thought i saw all the pics but that most muscular at the top looks like hes at a guest pose from like 6 weeks out.  his delt usually look much more ripped and although his chest is massive, his striations are usually everywhere.  just another reason for jay to win ;D
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: arce377 on October 02, 2006, 10:46:25 AM
Moses ass is ripped!
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: gibberj2 on October 02, 2006, 01:13:19 PM
i will say again. put the pictures away. if you watch the video you see what's what and he was way off. his conditioning was similar to Paco's exept with much better shape.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: bmacsys on October 02, 2006, 01:48:54 PM
Jay is not even close to Ronnie in this pose:

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=98101.0;attach=106718;image)

I think they both work hard and I have no qualms with Jay winning.  Personally I think Ronnie was better, but Jay has worked his ass off and there have been close calls before which made for debatable decisions.  This is no different than plenty of other decisions.

Whats up with Ronnie's left arm?
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: gibberj2 on October 02, 2006, 02:02:54 PM
would anyone agree that ronnie's super-glutes are taking away from his physique?
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: Jr. Yates on October 02, 2006, 02:48:49 PM
damn im surprised, i thought i saw all the pics but that most muscular at the top looks like hes at a guest pose from like 6 weeks out.  his delt usually look much more ripped and although his chest is massive, his striations are usually everywhere.  just another reason for jay to win ;D
yup Ronnie lost to his previous condition thats forsure.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: pumpster on October 02, 2006, 03:09:18 PM
Quote
He lost because his back wasn't dominant and his lat looks torn/partially so, thus affecting his training.

Honestly its as plain as pie.  Every year preceeding this year we've been talking about how it is "lights out" when they turn around and this year Ronnie didn't have it.  He didn't have his best weapon and quite frankly Jay was close last year.

Yep; didn't have it, may be too old now. Someone from Weider's camp really should've had a talk with him about retiring before the show..

His waist looks bad:









Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: MindSpin on October 02, 2006, 03:15:52 PM
He was more ripped then  Jay, so why did he lose?

If you don't stop confusing the words "than" & "then", I'm going to delete your sorry-ass account...seriously.
Title: Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
Post by: God Luke on October 02, 2006, 04:20:07 PM
ronnie is missing 2 bodyparts "no calves doesnt have any shape to speak of " and his triceps are just not there when he tries to flex them anymore, so if ur missing 2 bodyparts how can u expect to win a title that makes you the greatest bodybuilder on earth