How can an off Cutler own an off Coleman? Neither looked anywhere near their best. I would give it to Jay this time only by virtue of the fact he was less off than Ronnie. Judging by pictures I have seen, I would have gone with Ruhl in first, followed by Jay in second and Ronnie in third. At the Olympia, I would have given it to Ronnie, but it depends how much weight you put on back. If backs win shows, then Jay should definitely have won the Olympia.
Tonight was one of Ronnie's worst showings in years. He looked as he did when he lost the 2002 GNC to Gunter.
I will format this article in a couple of hours, but it explains my point of view in greater detail:
http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/jaycutlerversusronniecoleman2006.html
You keep saying Cutler was off, despite every knowledgable person saying he was on.
How do you feel he was off?
He was harder than he's ever been.
He was full (something he hasn't been able to do when he comes in dry)
And he was a full 10 or more lbs bigger than any other show he's ever done.
He himself will say that was his best appearance ever.
Every top bodybuilder has said that was his best appearance ever.
But, you feel he was off?
I think even Jay knows that an ON Coleman beats him, and if they're both off, Jay still loses. But, Jay was on, and Coleman wasn't.
Not bashing, I just really want to know why you think he was off.