Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Positive Bodybuilding Discussion & Talk => Topic started by: 400kwgtr on April 20, 2006, 03:10:05 AM
-
I keep reading how Ronnie is blessed with great genetics. I just cant see it. I think he looked good at the 1998 olympia, although i would have given the trophy to Flex Wheeler. Since 1998 i think he has gone downhill. His gut is a disgrace. I think he has bad genetics for parts such as triceps, especially the outer tricep. Genetically his abs are terrible, with a big hole in the middle of them. His biceps are very peaky but from the front they are way small. Nothing like the big round tennis ball shape that cormier has. His calves are weak, especially compared to yates.
Am i the only one out there who has this opinion?
-
:o "does ronnie coleman have great genetics?" ??!!! DOES DENNIS RODMAN SMOKE COCK?
-
Am i the only one out there who has this opinion?
Yes, you are.
He is a genetic freak....not sure how you are missing that....
-
no you are not the only one. Ronnie is gifted with genetics in certain areas, of course look at him. but he is not all around, just like you said. a true genitic freak has no weak points....you wouldn't be able to citicise one part of his body. I don't think we've seen that person yet. ronnie is Mr.O right now but i don't think he should be.
-
His genetics didnt lead him to getting "weak points" , old school ronnies was a cartoon character
-
I keep reading how Ronnie is blessed with great genetics. I just cant see it. I think he looked good at the 1998 olympia, although i would have given the trophy to Flex Wheeler. Since 1998 i think he has gone downhill. His gut is a disgrace. I think he has bad genetics for parts such as triceps, especially the outer tricep. Genetically his abs are terrible, with a big hole in the middle of them. His biceps are very peaky but from the front they are way small. Nothing like the big round tennis ball shape that cormier has. His calves are weak, especially compared to yates.
Am i the only one out there who has this opinion?
Sorry bro, but you have undoubtedly lost your mind. Ronnie may not be your favorite BB out there, but w/o good genetics there is no way he could stand where he is.
-
I keep reading how Ronnie is blessed with great genetics. I just cant see it.
Was Liberace gay? ??? ::)
You're not the only one to notice that he's flawed, but your conclusion's absurd. Maybe it's time for glasses. ;D
-
I keep reading how Ronnie is blessed with great genetics. I just cant see it. I think he looked good at the 1998 olympia, although i would have given the trophy to Flex Wheeler. Since 1998 i think he has gone downhill. His gut is a disgrace. I think he has bad genetics for parts such as triceps, especially the outer tricep. Genetically his abs are terrible, with a big hole in the middle of them. His biceps are very peaky but from the front they are way small. Nothing like the big round tennis ball shape that cormier has. His calves are weak, especially compared to yates.
Am i the only one out there who has this opinion?
your criticisms of Ronnie's arms are way off:
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/comp986.jpg)
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/6xo28.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/47.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/49.jpg)
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc65.jpg)
when Ronnie is "ON" he has arguably the greatest overall arms ever. His biceps are split with freaky detail. His triceps are not quite as good, but they tie in perfectly with his biceps, making his overall arms seem unreal (see the top two pics).
And, as a result of his:
-small waist
-flaring lats
-wide shoulders
-quad sweep
-ability to train injury free for a long period of time
-biceps definition
yes, I would say he has great genetics.
-
From the front Coleman's biceps look atrophied. They are very peaked but not full.
-
From the front Coleman's biceps look atrophied. They are very peaked but not full.
the fact that they are peaked, split and defined is what makes Ronnie's biceps arguably the greatest ever. They are not as full as say someone like Markus Ruhl, but they don't have to be. They make up for it in other ways:
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/6xo16.jpg)
-
From the front Coleman's biceps look atrophied.
I WANT those attrophied bis. WTF are you talking 'bout?
-
(http://x11.putfile.com/4/10922571510.jpg)
-
Ronnie has virtually perfect genetics for bodybuilding.
-
there is absolutly no way that you get THAT big without beeing blessed with good genetics, roids or no roids.
Unless....the government has him signed up for some biological testing and they give him some geneshit that we don't even know of ;D
-
It's called steroids and training.
-
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/47.jpg)
I still can't believe that you think that these biceps look atrophied ???
Check out the shape, peak, split, size, they have it ALL.
-
Look at the above post comparing Cutler and Coleman. Cutler's bicep is twice as big and he's like 2 inches shorter.
-
okay, but then by the same logic, you must say that Albert Beckles, Darrem Charles and Robby Robinson all have atrophied biceps.
bigger is not necessarily better.
-
(http://x11.putfile.com/4/10922571510.jpg)
Ronnie pecs are flat and Jay's are pronounced in that pic? :o
You don't need glasses you need a telescope...
-
Its really a matter of preference.
Some people (like myself) prefer biceps like Kevin Levrone's.
Dome shaped (not particularly peaked) with thick muscular development low on the tendon.
Personally, I think Ronnie's peaks are too extreme - it looks as though the first 1/2 of his bicep is missing.
-
In 2002 his biceps were horrendous (relatively speaking, as always). These pictures should suffice to demonstrate.(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/2002olympia7.jpg)
As you can see here, with a reduced peak, there is a glaring deficiency as the bicep approaches the insertion (or in otherwords, look at the outer segment between the peak and forearm of each picture).
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/2002olympia10.jpg)
Another example
-
HAHAAHAHA Ronnie's bicep is deformed and atrophied.
-
Ronnie pecs are flat and Jay's are pronounced in that pic? :o
You don't need glasses you need a telescope...
Turn them both to the side in that pic and the following will be revealed:
Ronnie's lower half sticks out at far as his chest making his torso look like a giant pancake.
Cutler's chest sticks out farther than his waist ....PLUS he has far better V-Taper and full biceps AND better abs. Ronnie just looks.......odd.
-
Its really a matter of preference.
Some people (like myself) prefer biceps like Kevin Levrone's.
Dome shaped (not particularly peaked) with thick muscular development low on the tendon.
Personally, I think Ronnie's peaks are too extreme - it looks as though the first 1/2 of his bicep is missing.
Cutler's biceps are full and peaked.
-
Cutler's biceps are full and peaked.
Agreed, but in all honesty his arms need more overall size.
His waist is entirely too wide these days although his midsection is flat.
His latissimus dorsi are broader than ever, his deltoids are insanely wide, and he has a huge trapezius.
The factors above make his arms look small. Its similar to Branch Warren's problem in many respects.
-
That's a fair assessment. He looks very balanced in the first comparison in this thread though.
Not sure how much more size he can add to his arms. They are among the biggest in the pros. The balance issue is not horribly obvious like Ruhl's missing triceps or Priest poor chest.
-
Ronnie's arms were definately screwed in 2002. But in 2003, with proper contest prep, they were setting a new standard:
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=50084.0;id=51597;image)
coleman's biceps are not the largest out there (see Markus for that one) but what sets them apart from all the others is the incredible DEFINITION that they have.
-
Ronnie's arms were definately screwed in 2002. But in 2003, with proper contest prep, they were setting a new standard:
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=50084.0;id=51597;image)
coleman's biceps are not the largest out there (see Markus for that one) but what sets them apart from all the others is the incredible DEFINITION that they have.
This picture illustrates what I was talking about - that is.......Coleman looks like a pancake.
-
His only genetic weakness is his ugly shaped abs....aside from that he looks like he is from another planet!!..His gut looks terrible but that isn't genetics.
-
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/99%20grand%20prix/2.jpg)
atrophied biceps my ass.
-
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/99%20grand%20prix/2.jpg)
atrophied biceps my ass.
LOL....Hulkster does not approve of Ronnie Bashing...and how can anyone say Ronnie's biceps are atrophied? They are huge.
-
This is the most ridiculous thread ever. No, he has all those Sandows because he has poor genetics. Remember, genetics (receptors) also determines how you respond to gear. Freak All around! End of Story.
-
:o "does ronnie coleman have great genetics?" ??!!! DOES DENNIS RODMAN SMOKE COCK?
hahahha
-
Once again ... it amazes me that people cannot accept the fact that JAY CUTLER WILL NEVER BE MR. OLYPMIA for as long as RONNIE COMPETES. Never.
He has a more complete package, is better balanced and is simply thicker than Jay. Jay does not come in at 100% conditioning ever.
If you want to argue peaks, why not point out that Jay is lopsided and never balanced? Why not point out that Jay never has vascularity up top and is overly ripped in the quads, which overshadows his thighs?
Guys, forget it: Jay will not win this year, next year, or any other year that Ronnie competes. It's written in stone, accept it.
-
Ronnie has a short torso which makes him appear even thicker than he is in the upper body. This is a good thing for bodybuilding genetics. Also, genetically, he does have a narrow waistline, genetically. Also, he has thick pecs (when flexed correctly), great round shoulders, huge thighs and huge lats and traps. All of these things combined give him this incredibly impressive "X" shape. With the right conditioning, and controlling his stomach, Ronnie is definately a deserving champ and does have great genetics. But, of course, he isn't perfect- his abs for one thing. But, what great Mr. O was known for great abs? Dorian, Arnold etc. all had short torsos which gave them the four pack as oposed to the traditionally accepted 6 pack. Just goes to show the advantage that a shorter torso gives.
I do think Jay at his best should beat Ronnie when Ronnie is off. But, structurally, Ronnie does have the advantage. Jay is a large dude who more than pays his dues. Ronnie is a genetic superior (as is Jay in different ways) who also works very hard, but has flaws: sometimes in conditioning, posing, and a few genetically. But, that's the "sport" of bodybuilding: you hope and plan that you come in at your best and your competition doesn't.
J.
-
I keep reading how Ronnie is blessed with great genetics. I just cant see it. I think he looked good at the 1998 olympia, although i would have given the trophy to Flex Wheeler. Since 1998 i think he has gone downhill. His gut is a disgrace. I think he has bad genetics for parts such as triceps, especially the outer tricep. Genetically his abs are terrible, with a big hole in the middle of them. His biceps are very peaky but from the front they are way small. Nothing like the big round tennis ball shape that cormier has. His calves are weak, especially compared to yates.
Am i the only one out there who has this opinion?
Maybe you shoul dlook up the word "genetics" in the dictionary! I cant beleive you asked that question! lol.. Hes a MONSTER.
-
i would say ron is the only bodybuilder that can come to O and take it at 245lb now days. his muscles are very very very big and then some. try to think about it....take runner up O at 275lb and take ron and put him at 245lb and ron will still LOOK bigger. he as phenominal genetics for bodybuilding
-
i would say ron is the only bodybuilder that can come to O and take it at 245lb now days. his muscles are very very very big and then some. try to think about it....take runner up O at 275lb and take ron and put him at 245lb and ron will still LOOK bigger. he as phenominal genetics for bodybuilding
That's a good point. Of course, this is only the case if he is dead on at 245 like he was at the 2001 Arnold. He has great genetics, period. I remember seeing him in pictures from his early Olympia contests. I kept thinking to myself (looking at his most muscular shots) "How is this guy placing 15 or 16?!" He looked great then. I think he said he entered his first O weighing 215! This was way before he was placing well, but he still looked great. Hell, all the top guys have EXCELLENT genetics. There's not a guy on the Olympia stage who has "bad" genetics.
Jacob
-
Maybe you shoul dlook up the word "genetics" in the dictionary! I cant beleive you asked that question! lol.. Hes a MONSTER.
absolutely... Ron is the king!
-
who's MR OLYMPIA ?????????????????????????????????????
End of story.................
-
someone post some back shots, notice the hams glutes all the way up... then rename the thread "Is Ronnie Coleman a human being?"
-
Yes, Ronnie Coleman is infact a genetic abnormanlity. He's had those biceps since he was 12.
Cutler is a farmer, he should have done something like MMA instead just like Matt Hughes (also a farmer), whom I respect highly.
-
Ronnie has the muscle building gene equivelant of the Silver-back Gorilla!