1999 Mr Olympia

[Hulkster]

2007 PBW Ronnie admits his best Olympia is 1998 and why? he's better conditioned thats a fact jack. 

if its a fact, then you should have no trouble finding 98 shots to blow these away:

show us how Ronnie 99 is softer and not as well conditioned..

LOL

 

[Hulkster]

Peter McGough

has been proven wrong many times before and is only one opinion. which Ronnie himself disagrees with.

hope this helps.

[NarcissisticDeity]

if its a fact, then you should have no trouble finding 98 shots to blow these away:

show us how Ronnie 99 is softer and not as well conditioned..

LOL

 

See natural Ironman's quote who says pics are useless lol sucker he was there for both contests were you? yeah I thought so 

[NarcissisticDeity]

has been proven wrong many times before and is only one opinion. which Ronnie himself disagrees with.

hope this helps.

proven wrong by who? you LMMFAO I wont even dignify this with a response , Ronnie Coleman disagree with you and verifies McGough's claims as well as others

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.

no 99 Olympia for a good reason 

[Hulkster]

something tells me that if the visuals all worked in McD's favor he would be campaigning about the usefullness of pics LOL

 

honestly ND, you won't accept the visuals because they prove you wrong.

just admit it.

 

[Hulkster]

LOL I love how ND when faced with the brutal onslaught of visual reality he comes up with this gem:

"pics are useless (because they show what a dumbass I am)"

LOL

[Hulkster]

See natural Ironman's quote who says pics are useless lol sucker he was there for both contests were you? yeah I thought so 

in other words, you can't produce anything visual to back up your argument.

lol

yeah, real strong argument in a visual sport..

 

what an idiot.

[NarcissisticDeity]

something tells me that if the visuals all worked in McD's favor he would be campaigning about the usefullness of pics LOL

 

honestly ND, you won't accept the visuals because they prove you wrong.

just admit it.

 

your interpretation on visuals leave a lot to be desired , especially considering after viewing the visuals you came to the conclusion Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia has better detailed calves than Dorian Yates , what do you know? just based on that statement alone nothing what so ever

Natural Ironman who was there said pictures don't replace being there again what do you know? nothing I posted pictures and you deny , deny , deny lol its all you have . eyewitnesses are all wrong Hulkster sitting at home on his computer proved them all wrong LMMFAO

visual ' proof ' Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 verified by Ronnie himself , Peter McGough , Shawn Perine and fans alike 

Hulkster as usual you have nothing for me except excuses and attacks

[NarcissisticDeity]

in other words, you can't produce anything visual to back up your argument.

lol

yeah, real strong argument in a visual sport..

 

what an idiot.

yeah a visual sport that can ONLY be accurately & honestly judged when you're live & in person lol


see visual proof , see 99 go down in flames , see the facts , see Hulkster deny . lol

[Hulkster]

ND, you still don't seem to understand:

Ronnie himself said he was sharper in 99.

no amount of your whining and pussy bitching will EVER change this statement.

and he knows a fuck of a lot more than you or natural ironman lol

[Hulkster]

yeah a visual sport that can ONLY be accurately & honestly judged when you're live & in person lol

ronnie was there.

McD owned.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Visual proof , countdown to the excuses........3........ ..2.........1........... ...

[Hulkster]

and here is a comparison of McD's 'visual" proof  compared to what ronnie 99 actually looked like when flexing:


care to explain, McD?

LOL

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND, you still don't seem to understand:

Ronnie himself said he was sharper in 99.

no amount of your whining and pussy bitching will EVER change this statement.

and he knows a fuck of a lot more than you or natural ironman lol

WRONG ! stop lying its pathetic and old

" Ronnie what was your best Olympia?

Ronnie: My first because my conditioning was spot-on "


Flex Magazine August 2003

Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row

if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.

not his 99 Olympia form lol

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.

1998 or 2001 NO 1999 Olympia I wonder why 

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

NO 1999 Olympia

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. 



ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR ROCK HARD IN 98

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 .

oh snap .....Hulkster = owned 

[NarcissisticDeity]

and here is a comparison of McD's 'visual" proof  compared to what ronnie 99 actually looked like when flexing:


care to explain, McD?

LOL

 

Well we all knew the excuses were coming lol he's not flexing lol see above post

[bodybuilder1234]

How can you accurately judge Ronnie's condition when you have different picture variations of the same contest?
Some pictures he looks soft and some hard, pictures are useless when trying to find out if he was sharper in 98 than 99 because its not alot to tell apart. Unless you have 2 pictures of Ronnie doing the same pose with the same picture quality then its going to be very hard to tell whose conditioning is superiour.

[NarcissisticDeity]

See this statement alone is real damaging for many reasons

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 .

oh snap


because its honest , consistent and its from a very well respected and knowledgeable source with eons of experience who is objective .

we can discount Ronnie's statement about himself ( positive or negative ) for a few reasons , one being objectivity especially when its about themselves ( key word , very key ) a lot of the times you here a guy say " I'm in the best shape of my life "  and he's not however McGough statement is consistent with his first comments and many more comments after the fact

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.



and a two years latter his opinion is consistent and accurate

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 .

oh snap

which coincides with other firsthand eyewitness accounts such as Natural Ironman among others and at the reflection of his career Ronnie himself when not burdened with pride or being caught up in the moment admits the obvious his conditioning in 1998 was better than 1999 its old news to everyone with the exception of you and Bizzy

1999 is not Ronnie's best showing because he's not as hard or dry as he was in 1998 or 2001 its that simple no amount of denial changes these facts.

[NarcissisticDeity]

How can you accurately judge Ronnie's condition when you have different picture variations of the same contest?
Some pictures he looks soft and some hard, pictures are useless when trying to find out if he was sharper in 98 than 99 because its not alot to tell apart. Unless you have 2 pictures of Ronnie doing the same pose with the same picture quality then its going to be very hard to tell whose conditioning is superiour.

thank you , I was waiting for someone to point out this fact ! which proves you CANNOT ascertain a person's conditioning via pictures or video which is why neither will ever replace actually being there and which is why we have to rely on people who were actually there live & in person and the general consensus is Ronnie was hard & drier in 1998 & in 2001

someone who gets it.

[CigaretteMan]

yeah, real strong argument in a visual sport..

  Visual evidence doesen't mean anything if you don't know what you're looking for in the first place. It's like looking at an abstractionist piece of art and considering it nothing but a mess, because you are judging it by the standard of traditionla art, where a painting is supposed to represent something from the real World, like a tree, a person, a landscape, etc.

  Likewise, you look at Dorian's physique and consider it inferior because you are applying your standard for what a great physique is supposed to be like, and not the standard that judges actually use. All of the qalities you value in a physique are not what the judges value. You look at Dorian and you see that he is unaesthetic and has a thick waist, and believe that he is inferior to Ronnie's who has a small waist and rounder muscles. But the judges look at Dorian and see that, although unaesthetic, he has perfect symmetry both from a muscle as well as structural point of view, great amount of lean mass and outstanding hardness, and that is more important to the judges than round muscles. A bodybuilder with round muscles, like Ronnie, but inferior symmetry is considered by the judges to be inferior to a bodybuilder with squarer muscles but superior symmetry like Dorian.

[Hulkster]

video is much better than still pics:

and Ronnie 98 can't touch this:

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

something that ND and co conveniently forget..

Ronnie Coleman and Musclemag's Johnny Fitness (who pretty much reviewed every major contest of the 90's for musclemag)

BOTH stated he was sharper than 98. and the videos confirm it as well as the still pics.

no amount of excuses will ever change this.

none.

[Hulkster]

  Visual evidence doesen't mean anything if you don't know what you're looking for in the first place.

this might be McD's problem.

the board has long known he has no fucking clue what he is talking about..

[Hulkster]

I was waiting for someone to point out this fact ! which proves you CANNOT ascertain a person's conditioning via pictures or video which is why neither will ever replace actually being there

Ronnie Coleman and Johnny Fitness were both there and both stated he was sharper in 99.

so, what do you have to say now?

LOL

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

video is much better than still pics:

and Ronnie 98 can't touch this:

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

something that ND and co conveniently forget..

Ronnie Coleman and Musclemag's Johnny Fitness (who pretty much reviewed every major contest of the 90's for musclemag)

BOTH stated he was sharper than 98. and the videos confirm it as well as the still pics.

no amount of excuses will ever change this.

none.

That video is poor quality , obviously way to dark another quality gem by bizzy lol anyway pictures & video pale in comparison to firsthand eyewitness accounts and McGough crushes Johnny Fitness and musclemag

again you're dealing with nothing as usual .

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ronnie Coleman and Johnny Fitness were both there and both stated he was sharper in 99.

so, what do you have to say now?

LOL

 

Ronnie Coleman , Peter McGough and a host of others have all claimed Ronnie was better in 1998

you still haven't answered why 1999 isn't considered his best showing is what you and Johnny Fitness claim is true that his conditioning was better lol

1999 would be Ronnie's best showing ever is that was the case and NO ONE in the know is claiming this.

[Hulkster]

you seem to forget that McGough specificaly singled out 1999 not 1998 in his article about Mr. O's that advanced the sport.

for good reason: 99 shape was better than 98 shape.

as far as what was better 2001 AC or 99:

hard to say.

because people always forget that Ronnie was at least 10 pounds bigger in 99 than he was at the AC but with the virtually the same hardness:

that makes for a crazy combo: