1999 Mr Olympia

[Hulkster]

Ronnie was heavier BUT not as hard or as dry as he was in 1998 , Ronnie himself confirmed this on Pro Bodybuilding Weekly when asked what year was his best Olympia and his response was " My first because my conditioning was spot-on. " which echo's the sentiments of the highly esteemed Peter McGough

These pictures are magazine scans and NOT some screencaps that people toyed with , Ronnie was much fuller but his conditioning was not as sharp as it was in 1998 or 2001 ASC his best overall showing. 

actually, the day AFTER the 99 olympia he confirmed that he was in better shape in 99 than in 98 at his seminar.

I was almost 15 pounds heavier than last year, with a little bit better conditioning than last year.

http://www.dennisbweis.com/Articles/Colman.html

the video clips and pics confirm this.

so fuck off. you have nothing: 15 pounds heavier and the same if not better sharpness.

deal with it:

[Hulkster]

Peter McGough stating the obvious.

Ronnie disagrees

[Hulkster]

ronnie's quads in 99 was just one area that he was way more cut than in 98.

[Hulkster]

ND should note that other reviewers that were there had a different opinion than McGough: (one that is verified by the visuals too)

Musclemag International 1999 Mr. Olympia Review By Johnny Fitness

Ronnie was gargantuan, herculean, and every adjective in between.
He was ripped, sharper than last year, and filled with a champions confidence.

and Ronnie agreed with that assessment.

hahahaha ND what do you have?

NOTHING!

[pumpster]

Dillett getting owned at every turn

U need glasses.

[Iceman1981]

Great scans, thanks.

[m8]

Lol, I can't believe some people actually had Flex in first.

[Lurker79]

Looking at these pics makes me realize how bodybuilding has not progressed at all. Put any of those guys onstage today and they would clean up. '99 Jay looks better than he does now.

[the_swami]

hulkster is absolutely correct in his assessment here

ND relying on the fat, out of shape peter mcgough for his opinion, mc gough who knows very little about judging BB objectively obviously

mcgough who helped yates to 3 very tainted O wins 1994, 1996 and 97 when yates got gift decisions

[pumpster]

ND relying on the fat, out of shape peter mcgough for his opinion, mc gough who knows very little about judging BB objectively obviously

mcgough who helped yates to 3 very tainted O wins 1994, 1996 and 97 when yates got gift decisions

ROFL

[England_1]

ROFL

u wanna fight?

[Meso_z]

GREAT pics. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

hulkster is absolutely correct in his assessment here

ND relying on the fat, out of shape peter mcgough for his opinion, mc gough who knows very little about judging BB objectively obviously

mcgough who helped yates to 3 very tainted O wins 1994, 1996 and 97 when yates got gift decisions

Hi Sharma  and stick to the topic we're talking about Coleman and NO ONE else

[NarcissisticDeity]

actually, the day AFTER the 99 olympia he confirmed that he was in better shape in 99 than in 98 at his seminar.

http://www.dennisbweis.com/Articles/Colman.html

the video clips and pics confirm this.

so fuck off. you have nothing: 15 pounds heavier and the same if not better sharpness.

deal with it:

meltdown    Sorry sport Ronnie after having time to reflect on his career when posed the question which Olympia was his best he said 1998 because his conditioning was spot-on  deal with it fan-boy oh and he was most certainly NOT 15 pounds heavier  in 1999 LMMFAO and you have the balls to post this as proof? he was 250 pounds in 1998 and 257 pounds in 1999 NOT 265 pounds . so much for your proof ....


Peter McGough echoing his earlier statements commenting on Ronnie at the 2000 Olympia


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 .

Hulkster = owned 

[d0nny2600]

Nasser looks to be in the early stages of Palumboism

[RZA]

I have to agree with ND here. Coleman's conditioning was better in '98 which of course seems natural as he was lighter. He still won easily, Flex was not even close, Cormier did look great and deserved the 2nd place IMHO but Coleman was just too much for all the other competitors. As time went by, Coleman had more and more problem keeping a good conditioning. From 2000, it fluctuated from great to mediocre (look at te difference between his 2001 ASC and his 2001 Olympia).

[NarcissisticDeity]

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.



Again Ronnie was bigger but he wasn't as hard or as dry ! its a proven FACT that the heavier Ronnie got the more his conditioning suffered which is exactly why 2001 is his best showing , he slimmed down to just 244 pounds and looked amazing , his dryness & hardness were the best they've been since 1998 is other best showing as far as conditioning is concerned .

Ronnie looked good fuller but to bad he couldn't replicate that same bone dry & rock hard look of 1998 if he did 1999 would surely be considered his best overall showing.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I have to agree with ND here. Coleman's conditioning was better in '98 which of course seems natural as he was lighter. He still won easily, Flex was not even close, Cormier did look great and deserved the 2nd place IMHO but Coleman was just too much for all the other competitors. As time went by, Coleman had more and more problem keeping a good conditioning. From 2000, it fluctuated from great to mediocre (look at te difference between his 2001 ASC and his 2001 Olympia).

Great post ! and spot-on ( like Ronnie's conditioning in 1998 ) he did easily walk all over Flex this year despite not being as hard or as dry as 1998 . and I agree with you Cormier should have beat Flex .

[Karl Kox]

Flex and Ronnie both looked great in 99.  To me those two physiques from that year are almost perfect.

[RZA]

I never thought Flex could carry that type of weight. Also he looked a bit "fake" (synthol probably). Shoulders and arms looked cartoonish (and soft) to me. Flex was never better than in '93. He would have won easily the Sandow that year if he hadn't had the misfortune to compete against Yates at his best (or close).

[Alex23]

Good memories.. we need more threads like these, cool scans!!!

Again, NarcissisticDeity making a foo'

[Hulkster]

anyone who feels that Ronnie was still better in 1998 should watch this video:

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport

its part of why Ronnie himself says he was better

then if you really want to rub it in, watch the 98 video.

then you will see why people like Ronnie, Jonny Fitness and others said he was sharper in 99.

[England_1]

Ronnie said he was better in 98. I even emailed him about it.

[kyomu]

Its so tough to see the condition judging with only video,his condition of 1998 looks better.
But seeing live is so different from video.....

[RZA]

You guys will never agree on this subject. 'Cause it's just a matter of taste. To me, Ronnie looked better in '98 as the balance between mass, proportions and conditioning was more pleasing to the eye IMHO. He looked great also in '99. After that, he could be impressive in every way possible but aesthetically which for me is important. If you're a mass fanatic then you could argue that 2003 Ronnie was even better than '98 or '99. And then comparing him to Yates is just too difficult and leads to too many speculations, what-ifs...But one thing is for sure: Yates is the man who changed the rules for the mass/conditioning combo and that's the end of the story.