Author Topic: Ronnie vs Arnold. Switched legs (Read 17974 times)

TestDummy · « **Reply #25 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:33:35 AM »

Quote from: benchthis on February 03, 2007, 01:28:47 AM

thats why you dont train them

Hey Bitchtits, what are you saying don't train legs?

gtbro1 · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:35:45 AM »

Quote from: TestDummy on February 03, 2007, 01:33:35 AM

Hey Bitchtits, what are you saying don't train legs?

This is the same guy who says forearms don't matter

Sjipes · « **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:38:37 AM »

yep - i knew it. looks disgusting, i think its that particular pic. i always thought arnolds legs looked great, they were in proporition to the rest of his body, despite many ppl think theyre ''chicken legs'' certainly, they may be compared to the top competitors. there was a time, when ronnie legs looked good - in 1998

also, i think that is a particular bad photo of coleman, if not the worst...his face, chest, legs, everything just looks horrible and is not pleasing to look at. maybe forearms and lats are good, but thats it for me!

TestDummy · « **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2007, 01:40:43 AM »

Quote from: gtbro1 on February 03, 2007, 01:35:45 AM

This is the same guy who says forearms don't matter

I could just see this guy in the gym, Mr. bench press and curls every day...

gtbro1 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 03, 2007, 02:04:35 AM »

Quote from: TestDummy on February 03, 2007, 01:40:43 AM

I could just see this guy in the gym, Mr. bench press and curls every day...

I doubt it... he is on here all the time.Has about 50 accounts.

Pollux · « **Reply #30 on:** February 03, 2007, 04:23:21 AM »

Quote from: realkarateblackbelt on February 02, 2007, 11:10:22 PM

hahaha Arnold completely dominates Coleman.

Even WITH photoshopping. Arnold was/is that much of a bad-ass.

quadzilla456 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 03, 2007, 05:41:10 AM »

Very interesting comparison and well done whoever did it. It really shows how much better Arnold's upper body was. Because Arnold looks good with both sets of legs yet Ronnie looks totally out of proportion with zero taper with the smaller set of legs.

ether · « **Reply #32 on:** February 03, 2007, 05:43:58 AM »

Arnold fucking crushes him in that pic without the shop!

Necrosis · « **Reply #33 on:** February 03, 2007, 05:47:33 AM »

thats probably the worst ronnies ever looked. why dont you post a good pic of ronnie for a fair comparison.

gtbro1 · « **Reply #34 on:** February 03, 2007, 06:12:12 AM »

Wait until Hulkster sees these pictures.

Hulkster · « **Reply #35 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:41:23 AM »

Quote from: ether on February 03, 2007, 05:43:58 AM

Arnold fucking crushes him in that pic without the shop!

agreed. ronnie never ever looked worse than he did at that show.

however, put arnold and ronnie onstage at their bests, and Ahhnold would be crushed.

Hulkster · « **Reply #36 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:42:55 AM »

here is a neat comparison - almost the same pose:

the shadow · « **Reply #37 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:46:12 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 03, 2007, 09:42:55 AM

here is a neat comparison - almost the same pose:

ronnie looks like a midget next to arnold..arnold is 6.2 and your boy is 5.11..go fig

donrhummy · « **Reply #38 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:50:47 AM »

Quote from: Iceman1981 on February 02, 2007, 07:48:18 PM

........Found this pic on another board. I did not photoshop it. Someone else did.

LOL that's a great photo. Ronnie loks so funny. It really points out two things:

1. Arnold's legs in 1975 were WAAAY below par (see 1974 for Arnold with good legs). But his tiny waist helped mask that.
2. Ronnie's waist is horribly wide. Arnold has much, much better shape.

body88 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 03, 2007, 09:58:37 AM »

Hulkster always finds the best picture of Ronnie, and the worst of whomever he compares him to!

Hulkster · « **Reply #40 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:02:33 AM »

Quote from: body88 on February 03, 2007, 09:58:37 AM

Hulkster always finds the best picture of Ronnie, and the worst of whomever he compares him to!

you think those are bad pics of Arnold?

Hulkster · « **Reply #41 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:05:18 AM »

the shadow · « **Reply #42 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:07:19 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 03, 2007, 10:05:18 AM

arnold looks better..next question

Hulkster · « **Reply #43 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:09:22 AM »

two classic shots:

the shadow · « **Reply #44 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:11:21 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 03, 2007, 10:09:22 AM

two classic shots:

ARNOLD LOOKS BETTER...NEXT QUESTION

Buttsuck · « **Reply #45 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:11:39 AM »

Quote from: tommywishbone on February 02, 2007, 08:12:41 PM

How come you gave Arnold, Ronnie's trunks, but you let Ronnie keep his own trunks?

Because he is a homo and wanted to see arnold in a thong BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Hulkster · « **Reply #46 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:16:54 AM »

Quote from: the shadow on February 03, 2007, 10:11:21 AM

ARNOLD LOOKS BETTER...NEXT QUESTION

but why?

although Arnold had a GREAT back, he of course, would have had a lot of trouble against Ronnie

slaveboy1980 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:18:08 AM »

Quote from: donrhummy on February 03, 2007, 09:50:47 AM

LOL that's a great photo. Ronnie loks so funny. It really points out two things:

1. Arnold's legs in 1975 were WAAAY below par (see 1974 for Arnold with good legs). But his tiny waist helped mask that.
2. Ronnie's waist is horribly wide. Arnold has much, much better shape.

arnold never had a tiny waist...actually ronnie has (had) a smaller waist than arnold....but ronnie has a gut...which arnold never did. arnold was a clever poser he would always twist his upper torso when posing thus making his waist look smaller.

im not getting into who was best etc....all i will say is that an arnold competing nowdays would have been a fucking tank.

Hulkster · « **Reply #48 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:19:31 AM »

you really can't compare them in all honesty - two different eras.

Ronnie, with modern 'technology' has arms that make the 1975 Arnold's look smooth:

so its not really fair:

body88 · « **Reply #49 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:20:12 AM »

Case and point. Unfavorable back shot or Arnie, from a bad angle, further away. Clearly not a good picture of Arnold. Against a shot of Ronnie at his best, dead on angle, with modern technology used to snap a very detailed picture.

The pictures you posted above show Arnie looking pretty much just as good if not better then Ronnie 30 years ago.

Edit I just saw your most recent post. I agree, There is really no way to compare someone from 30 years ago to those of today. The technology alone was so inferior, it is almost impossible.