Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman training biceps (Read 19024 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:36:33 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on November 10, 2007, 05:35:26 PM

Hey Mr Peak see above 98 where Levrone is schooling Ronnie in triceps , Ronnie called his 98 Olympia showing his best ( peak )

he has also called his 99 shape his best - right at the contest.

deal with it

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:38:32 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:36:33 PM

he has also called his 99 shape his best - right at the contest.

deal with it

So you say

a couple of weeks ago reflecting on his career he specifically stated 1998 was his best Olympia showing ever and why? because his conditioning was SPOT-mother-fucking-ON deal with it

I own YOU KID

England_1 · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:38:50 PM »

Triceps' gone

Hulkster · « **Reply #53 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:39:40 PM »

I am not saying that 99 Ronnie has better tris than Levrone.

what I AM saying is that they were good enough to stand up to his without getting blown off stage, something that 2005 Ronnie or whatever the hell pic was posted here with Badell were not.

but keep in mind: in overall arms, Ronnie's incredible definition and vascularity set his arms apart from Kevin's or anyone elses for that matter.

including Lee Preist.

Hulkster · « **Reply #54 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:40:13 PM »

Quote from: England_1 on November 10, 2007, 05:38:50 PM

Triceps' gone

like I said, 2005/6 whatever Ronnie's tris sucked in some angles.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #55 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:41:07 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:33:49 PM

good you understand the argument. and its not just ronnie that this applies to. for example,

dorian 93 looked different than he did in either 92, 94, 95, 96 or 97.

Ronnie 99 is no different.

it is not an 'argument'.

it is FACT.

People in their all time best shape often look much better in lots of ways over their 'less than peak' form.

its a fact in this sport.

it is well known. or at least should be.

Oh and slick Dorian's triceps looked great NO matter what year get it?

1992
1993
1994
1995

Need anything else corrected?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #56 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:45:00 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:39:40 PM

I am not saying that 99 Ronnie has better tris than Levrone.

what I AM saying is that they were good enough to stand up to his without getting blown off stage, something that 2005 Ronnie or whatever the hell pic was posted here with Badell were not.

but keep in mind: in overall arms, Ronnie's incredible definition and vascularity set his arms apart from Kevin's or anyone elses for that matter.

including Lee Preist.

LMFAO including Lee Priest who Ronnie does NOT have better triceps than either old news , Ronnie's biceps are outstanding , his triceps are forearms are NOT to argue other wise is Hulkster ( retarded )

bmuscle90 · « **Reply #57 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:46:42 PM »

..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #58 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:47:55 PM »

Quote from: bmuscle90 on November 10, 2007, 05:46:42 PM

..

Golden frogs lol

Hulkster · « **Reply #59 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:51:36 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on November 10, 2007, 05:41:07 PM

Oh and slick Dorian's triceps looked great NO matter what year get it?

1992
1993
1994
1995

Need anything else corrected?

yeah, but look at the REST of him dumbass..

thanks for proving my point.

Hulkster · « **Reply #60 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:53:51 PM »

don't even start with the Lee Priest bullshit.

that was already put to bed in another thread.

lee did NOT have the definition to compete with these arms:

sorry:

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #61 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:55:09 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:51:36 PM

yeah, but look at the REST of him dumbass..

thanks for proving my point.

Again he wasn't peak in 92 or 94 yet his triceps didn't change your excuse he wasn't peak is pathetic

Cap · « **Reply #62 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:55:20 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:33:49 PM

good you understand the argument. and its not just ronnie that this applies to. for example,
dorian 93 looked different than he did in either 92, 94, 95, 96 or 97.
Ronnie 99 is no different.
it is not an 'argument'.
it is FACT.
People in their all time best shape often look much better in lots of ways over their 'less than peak' form.
its a fact in this sport.
it is well known. or at least should be.

That's fine but Dorian didn't lose his triceps until his final O. Ronnie never had them. Dorian lost his biceps early on but never really had them begin with anyway. The thing is that each one had a better opposing BP to make up for the other. Dorian's side tricep and back helped him win where his biceps failed him. Ronnie never had the same luck in the side tri pose.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #63 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:56:50 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:53:51 PM

don't even start with the Lee Priest bullshit.

that was already put to bed in another thread.

lee did NOT have the definition to compete with these arms:

sorry:

NO moron YOU started with the Priest shit

need anything else corrected? definition is NOT the only criteria in having outstanding ARMS pay attention to the word ARMS moron biceps/triceps/forearms Lee Priest has Ronnie covered period.

Hulkster · « **Reply #64 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:57:56 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on November 10, 2007, 05:55:09 PM

Again he wasn't peak in 92 or 94 yet his triceps didn't change your excuse he wasn't peak is pathetic

I never said dorian's triceps changed.

man, english is really hard for you isn't it?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #65 on:** November 10, 2007, 05:58:08 PM »

Quote from: cap86 on November 10, 2007, 05:55:20 PM

That's fine but Dorian didn't lose his triceps until his final O. Ronnie never had them. Dorian lost his biceps early on but never really had them begin with anyway. The thing is that each one had a better opposing BP to make up for the other. Dorian's side tricep and back helped him win where his biceps failed him. Ronnie never had the same luck in the side tri pose.

I mean you know what you're talking about this kid is clueless , great post.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #66 on:** November 10, 2007, 06:01:00 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on November 10, 2007, 05:57:56 PM

I never said dorian's triceps changed.

man, english is really hard for you isn't it?

Stop fixating on nonsense you used the excuse of peak VS no-peak and you were corrected it doesn't matter peak or non peak Ronnie's triceps still left a lot to be desired especially compared to guys who had them , and his whole side triceps pose sucked no matter what year and why? lack of a great side head , lack of balance & proportion , lack of calves , a protruding midsection it NOT a strong pose for him , if you knew anything other than hero-worship you'd know this but you don't and you won't listen to people who do know this that makes you ignorant and biased . nothing new.

Master Blaster · « **Reply #67 on:** November 10, 2007, 06:16:36 PM »

Ron:

Please put ND and Hulkster in timeout.
Thanks,

-"The Master"

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #68 on:** November 10, 2007, 06:18:33 PM »

Quote from: Master Blaster on November 10, 2007, 06:16:36 PM

Ron:

Please put ND and Hulkster in timeout.
Thanks,

-"The Master"

McFarland · « **Reply #69 on:** November 10, 2007, 06:35:20 PM »

Quote from: Matt C on November 09, 2007, 09:47:03 AM

No one can touch Ronnie at his prime.

Seven years later, and Jay is still years away from looking like Ronnie did in 2000.

~~Jay's more like 5 or 6 years from that.~~ Jay's like an eternity and two different parents from looking like that. And I shook his hand in the gym today. I like him alot, I really do. But Ronnie, I'm not sure we will ever see anything like that ever again, I really am not sure. Watching The Unbelievable for the first time I knew I was looking at the end of all things to come! And I don't even know what that means!

Hulkster · « **Reply #70 on:** November 10, 2007, 07:34:38 PM »

agreed. we have yet to see a physique that can match prime Ronnie, and with the way things are going, we may never.

Wolfe is the only one with the potential right now, but even then, do his genetics allow for the detail and refinement ronnie had?

hard to say.

The Squadfather · « **Reply #71 on:** November 10, 2007, 07:36:55 PM »

this picture is all the evidence you need of Coleman's dominance.

Cap · « **Reply #72 on:** November 10, 2007, 09:04:57 PM »

Coleman in The Unbelievable was awesome. I was awed watching it for the first time but he was 5 weeks out and training hard so the condition I saw was different than what I would see onstage in pics. No doubt freaky but I think that Ronnie onstage was not as impressive to me as the guys I saw on ESPN when I was younger or in the 90's mags.

Parker · « **Reply #73 on:** November 10, 2007, 09:20:16 PM »

In 1999 or 2000, Flex mag ran a series of black and white pics of the 1999 Olympia. Ronnie was running commentary on the pics. In one pic, Flex was pinching the lateral head of his tris, while comparing his to Ronnie's. Ronnie (from my memory) said , "Flex is trying to show that his tris are better than mine, he should point out any thing he has on me, because it's not much"

ND, do you have that Flex or those photos?

pumpster · « **Reply #74 on:** November 10, 2007, 09:20:28 PM »

Quote from: The Squadfather on November 10, 2007, 07:36:55 PM

this picture is all the evidence you need of Coleman's dominance.

Some of the geniuses here don't understand anatomy enough to know that this arm is in large part due to huge triceps. Not as defined as Yates but much bigger.

This arm isn't just biceps.