Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia  (Read 8342 times)

kyomu

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16407
  • トホカミエミタメ ハラヒタマヒ キヨメタマフ
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2008, 01:23:41 PM »
Agreed,in 98 he was the sharpest in his whole career.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2008, 01:24:12 PM »
LOL when faced with cold hard evidence that Ronnie was more cut in 99 than in 98, ND claims the screenshots are "photoshopped"

are you actually typing this? LOL

 ::)

Hulkster your buddy admitted to photoshopping pic didn't he? and you used them knowing they were photoshopped didn't you? shall I crack out the posts?  ;)

you have NO evidence Ronnie was ' more cut ' you have YOUR opinion which contradicts HIS opinion as well as everyone else , you're an internet-fan-boy you know nothing and your hero OWNS YOU  ;)

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2008, 01:27:23 PM »
yeah back then.

you are afraid to watch them  NOW.

and for damn good reason.

they prove your peter quote to be complely and 100% totally WRONG.

COWARD.

 ::)

the fact that ND refuses to see the evidence pretty much says its all right there: he is wrong, his quotes are wrong, and he knows it.

its stuff like this that caused him to run away from the truce thread. thats how badly he got owned.

Forget me , you're claiming Ronnie Coleman is wrong , Peter MCGough is wrong , Shawn Perine is wrong and a host of others , and you never stepped foot at either contest LMMFAO you're just an internet-fan-boy who thinks he knows what is going on , you must have gotten in the University because you're handicapped and you must have been in special classes lol

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2008, 02:14:00 PM »
I'm going to avalanche you with quotes all referencing Ronnie's best showing and why because of his much better conditioning and you'll notice NONE of these are the 1999 Mr Olympia

While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.

On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.



Shawn Perine Ironage Dec 11, 2004

As much as I love Haney and my IA champs, I think Ronnie circa '98 or at the 2001 Arnold is pretty much untouchable. Except by Dorian Yates 6 weeks out from the '93 O as photographed by our own KMH. Both men, on those specific occasions carried so much dry muscle mass in good proportion and with good lines that it's almost unfair to compare them to others.



review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page  90:

257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.  In comparison to 98, his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep and his front delts have improved; plus the pec anomaly (gyno) is no longer present.

Impressive split biceps.  An awesome back double biceps on which muscle fights with muscle to hang onto his frame.  A big, big lat spead promted Dorian "backman" yates to comment, "ronnie looks like a cartoon character".  when doing back poses, ronnie would hitch up his trunks to expose ripped glutes.



Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001

RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .



Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005

Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.


Ronnie What was your best Olympia? Ronnie Coleman : My first because my conditioning was spot-on



 Ronnie Coleman | 1999

In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.


consider your internet-fan-boy ass owned


Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2008, 02:46:46 PM »
how conveniently ND forgets that McGough stated quite clearly in the now famous article that Ronnie was not only in better conition than in 98, he had more size and fullness too.

he called him a 'walking anatomy chart' in 99.

LOL ND owned.

plays the quotes game and gets caught.

and the videos own you.

watch them for once LOL

 ::)
Flower Boy Ran Away

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2008, 02:52:24 PM »
how conveniently ND forgets that McGough stated quite clearly in the now famous article that Ronnie was not only in better conition than in 98, he had more size and fullness too.

he called him a 'walking anatomy chart' in 99.

LOL ND owned.

plays the quotes game and gets caught.

and the videos own you.

watch them for once LOL

 ::)

Yeah I thought so when avalanched with overwhelming first hand accounts what do you do? LIE no where does he say Ronnie was hard or drier in 1999 thats a lie thats all you have left

I did watch the videos in 1998 and in 1999 and thats how I came to the conclusion Ronnie was sharper condition wise in 1998 and I backed up my claim after the fact what have you done? lied lol


The_One77

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2008, 03:09:47 PM »
hard to say really, 1998 Ronnie doing the side tricep pose was unbelievable. Dont think 1999 ronnie could match that

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2008, 08:13:00 AM »
Yeah I thought so when avalanched with overwhelming first hand accounts what do you do? LIE no where does he say Ronnie was hard or drier in 1999 thats a lie thats all you have left

I did watch the videos in 1998 and in 1999 and thats how I came to the conclusion Ronnie was sharper condition wise in 1998 and I backed up my claim after the fact what have you done? lied lol



backed up your claim how? by posting quotes that are contradicted by other quotes LOL

 ::)

you can't back up any of those claims using visual evidence - which is what really counts in this sport.

talk is cheap.

there is a damn good REASON WHY you can't use visuals to back up the claim - they show that the claims are WRONG.

PERIOD.

you are fucked.
Flower Boy Ran Away

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #33 on: January 27, 2008, 08:23:28 AM »
backed up your claim how? by posting quotes that are contradicted by other quotes LOL

 ::)

you can't back up any of those claims using visual evidence - which is what really counts in this sport.

talk is cheap.

there is a damn good REASON WHY you can't use visuals to back up the claim - they show that the claims are WRONG.

PERIOD.

you are fucked.

No you're fucked Ronnie Coleman , Peter McGough and Shawn Perine all all sayings best showing was 2001 or 1998 and they all say Ronnie was better conditioned on these two occasions , again you and bozzy are the only two claiming this nonsense , again look at all the quotes where is 1999? yeah I thought so lol

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2008, 07:12:01 PM »
Quote
again look at all the quotes where is 1999? yeah I thought so lol

um, its right here moron:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614

and here:

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=6e4acc9776eeb92b8c1b6498ad8bd0c5&t=4268

oh, and its here too:

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/better-99-03-ronnie-93-95-yates-9710.html?t=9710

just me and Bizzy?

lol you are so stupid it is scary.

oh, and don't you find it ironic that even in the fucking comments on youtube about the 98 clip people are commenting how 99 was better?

oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..

too scared because you are afraid that it will show you what exactly what everyone is saying who compares them - that 99 Ronnie was clearly better. and in better condition..

 ::)

what a coward.

 :-\
Flower Boy Ran Away

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2008, 07:13:40 PM »
hard to say really, 1998 Ronnie doing the side tricep pose was unbelievable. Dont think 1999 ronnie could match that

oh yes he could:

 8)

ND is afraid to compare the 99 version compared to the 98 version for a reason:

he will see that 99 Ronnie was better and he refuses to accept that.

Peter McGough has.

so should ND.
Flower Boy Ran Away

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2008, 01:59:29 PM »
um, its right here moron:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614

and here:

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=6e4acc9776eeb92b8c1b6498ad8bd0c5&t=4268

oh, and its here too:

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/better-99-03-ronnie-93-95-yates-9710.html?t=9710

just me and Bizzy?

lol you are so stupid it is scary.

oh, and don't you find it ironic that even in the fucking comments on youtube about the 98 clip people are commenting how 99 was better?

oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..

too scared because you are afraid that it will show you what exactly what everyone is saying who compares them - that 99 Ronnie was clearly better. and in better condition..

 ::)

what a coward.

 :-\

Quote
um, its right here moron:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614

I can't believe how fucking stupid you are . listen you idiot when I said where is 1999 it was in reference to it being his all-time best showing ever and what does Hulkster the total moron do? posts a link to a article where he proves my fucking point LMFAO who taught you how to argue? let me explain something to you  moron you're not supposed to prove my point for me you tool lol

 Ronnie Coleman | 1999

In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.

let me post that again I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. lmmfao you're beyond stupid thanks moron  ;)

Quote
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/99-coleman-everyone-else-4268.html?s=6e4acc9776eeb92b8c1b6498ad8bd0c5&t=4268

oh, and its here too:

http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php/better-99-03-ronnie-93-95-yates-9710.html?t=9710

This is supposed to do what? some how prove that 1999 is better than 2001? lol Ronnie himself said he was better in 1998 do any of these people think they render Ronnie wrong? we already know you think so , again you can't find one credible quote that says Ronnie 1999 is his best showing you cannot do it for a reason other than you and a few select people who are basing your opinions on personal preference and thats okay put please spare us in thinking these people count more than the professional writers and Ronnie Coleman himself


Quote
just me and Bizzy?

lol you are so stupid it is scary.

oh, and don't you find it ironic that even in the fucking comments on youtube about the 98 clip people are commenting how 99 was better?

oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..

Yes you and a select few biased ignorant fans , wow YouTube and MuscleMecca this is your sources? lmfao this is where you're TRYING to match quotes with me? Forget Peter McGough , Shawn Perine , and many more established professional bodybuilding writers and Ronnie Coleman himself , " Bizzy " and " Hulkster " and " Iceman " from the comfort of their living rooms decided Ronnie was better in 1999 than in 2001 and 1998 despite never once stepping foot at a professional contest NEVERMIND attending the three in  question , this is your proof? lol

Quote
oh thats right - you don't know that because you are too scared to watch the clip again..

too scared because you are afraid that it will show you what exactly what everyone is saying who compares them - that 99 Ronnie was clearly better. and in better condition..

 ::)

what a coward.

Again its a matter of credibility its a matter of experience and its a matter of attendance , its not a matter of a group ( a very small number too ) of internet-fan-boys who THINK Ronnie was better in 1999 vs 1998 the fact you're contradicting what many established and credible sources say despite only look at pictures shows how pathetic you are to cling to notion you're some how right and everyone including Ronnie is wrong , again its pathetic you;re soundly proven wrong by me and everyone else its getting sad now , no joking around .

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2008, 02:03:59 PM »
oh yes he could:

 8)

ND is afraid to compare the 99 version compared to the 98 version for a reason:

he will see that 99 Ronnie was better and he refuses to accept that.

Peter McGough has.

so should ND.

Boy this thread backfired huh? they two people who did respond both said he was better in 1998 lol

and Hulkster Ronnie Coleman said on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly in the recap of his Olympia run which Olympia was your best and his response was 1998 and why? because his conditioning was spot on , do you think you know more than Ronnie Coleman? yeah I thought so  ;)

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2008, 02:34:14 PM »
I am reminded of Usmokepole's excellent post from the truce thread:

Quote
eye witness testimony is often a lowly form of evidence, pictures however are factual while testimony is often skewed by context, emotions, etc... you truely are a moron if you think eye witness testimony trumps visual evidence, i assume you have never taken a law course in your life or have read any books concerning the matter to type something so erroneous.
 
 

it fits here quite well too
Flower Boy Ran Away

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2008, 02:55:30 PM »
I am reminded of Usmokepole's excellent post from the truce thread:

it fits here quite well too

I swear to you it just can't be coincidence that most Coleman fans are retarded , again you think you know more than Ronnie?  ;)

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2008, 03:08:26 PM »
I swear to you it just can't be coincidence that most Coleman fans are retarded , again you think you know more than Ronnie?  ;)

it doesn't matter WHAT he says.

if it is clear that what he claims was his best shape wasn't, it wasn't.

period.

its really quite simple.

do you mean to tell me that you believe every competitor when he says "I am in the best shape of my life!"

if I had a dime for every time that was said, I would be retired.

you seem to think that a competitors word is always right, even in the face of clear visual evidence showing otherwise.

you are wrong. its OFTEN not the case.

you should know that by now.
Flower Boy Ran Away

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2008, 03:20:56 PM »
it doesn't matter WHAT he says.

if it is clear that what he claims was his best shape wasn't, it wasn't.

period.

its really quite simple.

do you mean to tell me that you believe every competitor when he says "I am in the best shape of my life!"

if I had a dime for every time that was said, I would be retired.

you seem to think that a competitors word is always right, even in the face of clear visual evidence showing otherwise.

you are wrong. its OFTEN not the case.

you should know that by now.

Quote
if it is clear that what he claims was his best shape wasn't, it wasn't.

period.

its really quite simple.

This quote among most other shows exactly why your retarded , besides telling the man in question he's wrong you offer up NO proof just your word based on pictures ! no there is NO ' period ' in fact just the opposite Ronnie's statement coincides with others in terms of his conditioning compared to 1999

again now you're not just contradicting Ronnie , its Ronnie , McGough , Shawn Perine and the best part if you were NEVER even there lmmfao again pure stupidity on your part

Ronnie's statement is consistent with other credible sources , his two best showings conditioning wise & overall were 1998 & 2001 you can't counter this you never could and fear to death admitting you're wrong because ONCE again that mean I'm right and you're wrong and I know you hate to admit that because in fact I'm always proven you wrong but hey it doesn't change the fact you have nothing as usual .

Miss Demeanor

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2008, 03:41:19 PM »
ronnie 98 NEVER had cuts like this in his quads for example:

care to comment LOL OWNED

 ::)

Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!). 

The important thing here is, Hulkster, lighting can work all kinds of wonders.  Look how cut Flex was at the 1999 English Grand Prix.  He didn't look half that ripped at the Olympia, and you know he peaked for the latter. 

I think Ronnie was drier and more ripped in 1998.  His added size accentuated his separation somewhat better in '99, though, so it's a toss-up as to which is his best shape.  Personally, I like him a little better in '98, but that's in small part because I saw that show with my daddy and brother.  I didn't get to go in '99 :(

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2008, 03:48:48 PM »
Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!). 

The important thing here is, Hulkster, lighting can work all kinds of wonders.  Look how cut Flex was at the 1999 English Grand Prix.  He didn't look half that ripped at the Olympia, and you know he peaked for the latter. 

I think Ronnie was drier and more ripped in 1998.  His added size accentuated his separation somewhat better in '99, though, so it's a toss-up as to which is his best shape.  Personally, I like him a little better in '98, but that's in small part because I saw that show with my daddy and brother.  I didn't get to go in '99 :(

its not the lighting.

there are specific areas that ronnie was way more cut in 99 than in 98, eg. Ironman's Lonnie Teper specifically commented on the cuts exhibited in Ronnie's quads sin 99 that were absent in 98.

its very clear in the pics too: 99 vs 98

the thing is, apart from these few areas where he was MORE cut in 99 than in 98 (eg. delts, quads, glutes, hams) he was about the same in terms of cuts in other areas.
Flower Boy Ran Away

England_1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2008, 03:54:36 PM »
its not the lighting.

there are specific areas that ronnie was way more cut in 99 than in 98, eg. Ironman's Lonnie Teper specifically commented on the cuts exhibited in Ronnie's quads sin 99 that were absent in 98.

its very clear in the pics too: 99 vs 98

the thing is, apart from these few areas where he was MORE cut in 99 than in 98 (eg. delts, quads, glutes, hams) he was about the same in terms of cuts in other areas.

No, it's not the lighting considering it was almost pitch black in 99 and very bright in 98  ::) Oh, and Ronnie was wrong when he said he was in better condition in 98 too...even though he said he thought he was going to die backstage. Quote from Ronnie on the 99O: "It's not worth risking $100,000" (referring to the hit or miss chance of achieving the condition he did in 98)
Team Yates

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2008, 03:54:53 PM »
Quote
Based solely on those photos, I would agree (though you do exaggerate ... Ronnie's quadriceps were some kind of cut-up in 98!).  

don't get me wrong - they were cut in 98.

but in 99 they were off the charts in terms of cuts: :o
Flower Boy Ran Away

England_1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2008, 03:57:02 PM »
Why do you keep posting this picture Hulkster? LOL.

Coleman with a soft, watery, undefined midsection that is sticking out farther than his chest. Then there is the flat out ugly lateral head of the triceps, non-existent calves, and watery side thigh. Oh yeah, don't forget the bucktooth smile.

Team Yates

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2008, 04:54:55 PM »
its not the lighting.

there are specific areas that ronnie was way more cut in 99 than in 98, eg. Ironman's Lonnie Teper specifically commented on the cuts exhibited in Ronnie's quads sin 99 that were absent in 98.

its very clear in the pics too: 99 vs 98

the thing is, apart from these few areas where he was MORE cut in 99 than in 98 (eg. delts, quads, glutes, hams) he was about the same in terms of cuts in other areas.

Again its not the lighting  ::) stop speaking like you know and you were there and McGough mentions his quads were bigger in 99 with better sweep not better cuts , Ronnie shows just as great separation of all four muscles of the quadriceps in 1998 as he does in 1999 , seriously and the bottom like is he was harder & drier in 1998 its old news to everyone except you .

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79532
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2008, 04:57:31 PM »
Why do you keep posting this picture Hulkster? LOL.

Coleman with a soft, watery, undefined midsection that is sticking out farther than his chest. Then there is the flat out ugly lateral head of the triceps, non-existent calves, and watery side thigh. Oh yeah, don't forget the bucktooth smile.



He actually thinks thats a dominating shot lol it shows how little he knows , 98 kills 99 in the conditioning department

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia
« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2008, 05:01:56 PM »
He actually thinks thats a dominating shot lol it shows how little he knows , 98 kills 99 in the conditioning department

no it doesn't.

watch the two videos dumbass..

 ::)
Flower Boy Ran Away