Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman 1998 Olympia vs 1999 Olympia (Read 8295 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #50 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:03:43 PM »

99 owns 98:

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #51 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:04:55 PM »

Proof that Ronnie's quads were equal in terms of ' cuts ' in 98 V 99 if not better

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #52 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:06:41 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:01:56 PM

no it doesn't.

watch the two videos dumbass..

yeah he does and I just posted visual evidence which according to you is everything and ontop of that the visual evidence I posted is backed up with eyewitness accounts

try it some time lol opppsss forgot you can't

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #53 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:08:48 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:03:43 PM

99 owns 98:

In terms of fullness and size sure in terms of that bone dry rock hard conditioning NO

no one agrees with you which I know you hate because you seek comfort in numbers

Hulkster · « **Reply #54 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:12:53 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 28, 2008, 05:04:55 PM

Proof that Ronnie's quads were equal in terms of ' cuts ' in 98 V 99 if not better

notice that his arms were less cut in 98 though.

LOL ND is fucked.

Shockwave · « **Reply #55 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:14:42 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:12:53 PM

notice that his arms were less cut in 98 though.

LOL ND is fucked.

Wrong. The seperation appears deeper because of more fullness... he wasnt nearly as dried out as in 98.
Sorry.
And btw... you keep posting screencaps. Those screencaps have been shit from day one.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #56 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:16:31 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:12:53 PM

notice that his arms were less cut in 98 though.

LOL ND is fucked.

Hulkster do you actually believe this? or are you just being contrary? again you posted selected shots that you attempt to push off as proof that means nothing and his arms are less cut

just look at the two back double biceps shots I posted 98 his arms show better separation from 98 so stop typing nonsense , seriously .

Hulkster · « **Reply #57 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:17:35 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 28, 2008, 05:08:48 PM

In terms of fullness and size sure in terms of that bone dry rock hard conditioning NO no one agrees with you which I know you hate because you seek comfort in numbers

sigh.

wrong. completely and totally fucking wrong.

there have been lots of accounts of 99 being in better shape than 98 posted in the truce thread eg.

http://www.naturalolympia.com/html/OlympiaReview.htm:

Quote

Last year, Ronnie was about ten pounds heavier and he was just as ripped as when he won the contest the first time in 1998

you just refuse to admit that they exist or brush them off as being 'not credible' as if your eye witness accounts are moreso...

ND exposed

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #58 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:19:26 PM »

Quote from: Shockwave on January 28, 2008, 05:14:42 PM

Wrong. The seperation appears deeper because of more fullness... he wasnt nearly as dried out as in 98.
Sorry.
And btw... you keep posting screencaps. Those screencaps have been shit from day one.

Great post ! lol he thinks those screencaps are Gold lol and everyone is afraid of them lol I been posting 99 Olympia magazine scans since day one , he's the only idiot bragging about 99 being the best any bodybuilding in the history of the sport has looked lol that speaks volumes of his delusion and ignorance .

Hulkster · « **Reply #59 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:19:47 PM »

Quote

Those screencaps have been shit from day one

well, they were so overwhelmingly dominant over dorian's 93 screencaps that they were proclaimed to be 'fake'

LOL

shit is not the right word.

damaging to dorian is more like it.

ps the video is there in the first post for everyone to see.

its very clear and very apparent how good Ronnie was in 1999.

Hulkster · « **Reply #60 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:21:35 PM »

Quote

The seperation appears deeper because of more fullness

LOL did you pull that one out of your ass?

seperation does NOT "appear deeper because of fullness"

it appears deeper BECAUSE IT IS DEEPER dumbass

where do you nuthuggers come up with this shit?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #61 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:17:35 PM

sigh.

wrong. completely and totally fucking wrong.

there have been lots of accounts of 99 being in better shape than 98 posted in the truce thread eg.

http://www.naturalolympia.com/html/OlympiaReview.htm:

you just refuse to admit that they exist or brush them off as being 'not credible' as if your eye witness accounts are moreso...

ND exposed

Lots of accounts ? where? you posted one where are the rest? and where does it say he was HARDER & DRIER than 1998 ? it doesn't and in fact this contradicts you claim that he was BETTER conditioned in 99 when in fact it says he was just as ripped NOT more so and he could theoretically be just as ripped but pay attention you ignorant fuck , NOT as hard its called density learn it

so just like your other thread you owned yourself thanks idiot for making my job easier

Hulkster · « **Reply #62 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:23:26 PM »

does this seperation appear deeper because of fullness?

LOL

you guys are something else $:-\$

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #63 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:23:52 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:19:47 PM

well, they were so overwhelmingly dominant over dorian's 93 screencaps that they were proclaimed to be 'fake'

LOL

shit is not the right word.

damaging to dorian is more like it.

ps the video is there in the first post for everyone to see.

its very clear and very apparent how good Ronnie was in 1999.

No we didn't claim they were fake we PROVED they were photoshopped

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #64 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:25:10 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:21:35 PM

LOL did you pull that one out of your ass?

seperation does NOT "appear deeper because of fullness"

it appears deeper BECAUSE IT IS DEEPER dumbass

where do you nuthuggers come up with this shit?

his quads are fuller sure , it helps with the cuts appearing deeper but thats moot is he overall harder & drier ? thats the question and we all know the answer

Hulkster · « **Reply #65 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:25:22 PM »

ND is still too scared to watch the videos LOL

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #66 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:27:02 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:25:22 PM

ND is still too scared to watch the videos LOL

what the video bizzy made with the photoshopped pics? I seen the real video both of them and I agree 1998 Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998

Hulkster · « **Reply #67 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:30:17 PM »

ND, if you think these cuts were "photoshopped in" then you are even more sad than previously thought.

you show the guy real concrete evidence and what does he do?

say they are fake because they show he is an idiot.

LOL

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #68 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:32:32 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 05:30:17 PM

ND, if you think these cuts were "photoshopped in" then you are even more sad than previously thought.

you show the guy real concrete evidence and what does he do?

say they are fake because they show he is an idiot.

LOL

Please show where I said these cuts are photoshopped ? please do

and NO i said they were photoshopped and I proved my point by posting a quote from the guy who said so any more questions?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #69 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:34:13 PM »

I don't fear 99 Olympia

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #70 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:47:44 PM »

Quote from: Miss Demeanor on January 28, 2008, 03:41:19 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

Great post and an example of differing lighting has a differing effect on the exact same shot

Hulkster · « **Reply #71 on:** January 28, 2008, 09:03:51 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 28, 2008, 05:47:44 PM

Great post and an example of differing lighting has a differing effect on the exact same shot

but that is not just the lighting retard, you are comparing a straight on shot to a shot from the bottom right hand angle..

and that is ONE SHOT.

it doesn't apply for the whole fucking contest LOL.

you will come up with ANY EXCUSE won't you?

anything to avoid admiting you are WRONG.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #72 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:06:48 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 09:03:51 PM

but that is not just the lighting retard, you are comparing a straight on shot to a shot from the bottom right hand angle..

and that is ONE SHOT.

it doesn't apply for the whole fucking contest LOL.

you will come up with ANY EXCUSE won't you?

anything to avoid admiting you are WRONG.

its not just the lighting its the lighting and the angle? lol I'll leave that one to stand on its own two feet and I'm not wrong , all the credible sources confirm what I have said even your hero lol you can't find me one single quote saying Ronnie was better conditioned in 98 than 98 , I can find you many saying the contrary

see you're so stupid you commit to insanely stupid comments like Ronnie 1999 is not only equal in terms of conditioning as he was in 1998 in fact your stupid ass takes it a step further he's now even better conditioned than 1998 lol this is just laughable you can't prove anything you've typed on the topic for a reason , and thats the difference between you and I , I can .

Shockwave · « **Reply #73 on:** January 29, 2008, 10:58:17 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 28, 2008, 09:03:51 PM

but that is not just the lighting retard, you are comparing a straight on shot to a shot from the bottom right hand angle..

and that is ONE SHOT.

it doesn't apply for the whole fucking contest LOL.

you will come up with ANY EXCUSE won't you?

anything to avoid admiting you are WRONG.

No wonder everyone thinks you're such a toolbag.
Epic delusion.

England_1 · « **Reply #74 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:54:28 PM »

Hulkster is utterly clueless