I don't care if it says it was his biggest no where does it say 2003 is Ronnie's best overall showing even the Joe Weider and the Team Flex quotes all mention different years they feel Ronnie is at his best and 2003 isn't it you're the idiot who constantly claims things to the contrary , in fact I don't thing I've seen single quote saying 2003 was his best overall showing , I've seen plenty from 2001/1998
it doesn't matter if you care or not. What matters is the quote was referring to 03. Spare me your lame excuse that it doesn't explicitly mention what year. The quote could've said "Ronnie weighed 287 lbs" and you still would argue it doesn't explicitly say 03.
ha ha ha when in doubt try and play with words , get the fuck out of here with your garbage , I'll take your opinion seriously when you can find me multiple credible sources that claim 2003 was his best overall showing and I wont be waiting for them either
wow, just wow. The quote used the present tense and was featured in the 03 Mr. Olympia review issue. It's not my fault you don't understand how to read.
yeah present tense directly related to his previous showings where he lost or came very close to losing , which are examples of Ronnie NOT being at his ' best ' it has nothing to do with his overall showing in 1998 and 2001 once again another example of you taking liberties because you can't find any quotes to support your 'argument' because you can't anyone to validate your ' opinion ' outright and explicitly
if Ronnie wasn't at his best, then it wouldn't make sense for Steve Blechman to use the present tense when referring to Ronnie's physique.
Same shit with you all the time kid , you reaching as usual. Ronnie did set a new standard in 2003 for size with acceptable conditioning no one is arguing to the contrary , NO WHERE does it say 2003 is his best overall showing more of you and YOUR reading comprehension skills or lack thereof , see how its done above and again who the fuck is Ryan Mackie? his opinion is about as right as yours
nowhere does the quote specifically isolate size as the only standard that was set by Ronnie. In fact, it refers to Ronnie's overall package as evident by this line:
"furthermore bodybuilding had just seen the bar of excellence raised even further"
lmmfao like Hulkster I can always count on your for a laugh. who cares if he presented a physique that has never seen seen? that has NOTHING to do with if it was his personal best overall showing and NO MORON another example of the lack of your reading comprehension skills NO it most certainly doesn't mean EVERYONE is history you're such a fan-boy with these dumb statements ' could not possibly be equaled ' means BY THE FUCKING PEOPLE HE WAS COMPETING WITH AT THAT CONTEST you dummy , Ronnie 2001 or Dorian doesn't have to equaled that physique to beat that physique , its already established 2003 wasn't his best overall showing because his balance & proportion were off as well as his conditioning , he's already down in parts of the criteria and you think extra ' soft ' size can compensate for his lacking in other areas more fan-boy ignorant train of thought
again, it doesn't matter if you care or not. What matters is the meaning of the quote when we analyze its parts and look at its context. The line "'presented a physique that has never been seen" refers to Ronnie's combination of size, definition, and symmetry. Nowhere does it specifically isolate parts of the judging criteria, instead using "physique" to refer to his overall package. The line "Ronnie destroyed the competition with a physique that could not possibly be equaled" means nobody in history or the foreseeable future can match let alone exceed him. Your interpretation is incorrect b/c it's redundant to say Ronnie destroyed his competition and his competition couldn't match him in the same sentence. Maybe that's how you talk but it's not proper English.
More examples of you taking liberties in quotes because you don't have anything to work with , pure speculation on your behalf and nothing more find me a quote from Ray saying 2003 is better than 2001/1998 specifically and then you'll be working with something but these attempts by you of trying to connect the dots are an exercise in failure as usual , see Ronnie calves are comparable to Jay in 03 therefore they'd be comparable to Dorians LMFAO your posts are always good for a laugh riddled with poor comprehension , assumptions , ignorance , quotes from ' fans ' lol
is it speculation on my part? Yes, but so is everything else you read and interpret. That's where reading comprehension comes in. So far your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. Don't just take my word for it. Other Getbig members have criticized you too.
Yeah you're right thats why Greg Kovacs was Mr Olympia and Rhul always placed at the top of the heap and Art Atwood crushed everyone LMMFAO you're to simple , no its true Jay wasn't the most conditioned as well as Ronnie and Haney however dummy what you still can't seem to grasp is ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS meaning its the guy who meets all of the criteria the best is the winner
if you have a problem, I suggest you take it up with Dorian.
Dorian Yates – PBW Radio Interview"The judges would probably choose Ronnie [over me]." (referring to the judges' propensity to reward mass)
Again size of ALL muscles not certain ones , a guy 260 pounds is carrying more muscular bulk than a guy 247 pounds , I hope this helps and we're referring to conditioned muscular bulk NOT soft muscular bulk and entertaining your stupidity carrying more muscular bulk at the expense of balance & proportion , density & dryness is an empty advantage and why? because All Rounds are Physique Rounds so your back to square one
ha ha ha, oh brother! Name one muscle group besides waist and calves that Dorian was bigger. Ronnie had larger biceps, triceps, delts, pecs, glutes, and quads.
stop playing with words it gets old already , you think you accomplish anything by trying to toy with words it just exposes your ignorance , you already proven you don't know the basics of competitive bodybuilding you know like balance & proportion , density & dryness , all rounds are physique rounds , judges heavily favor size over conditioning LMMFAO run along with your ignorance
don't get mad just b/c you cannot refute my point. If definition and conditioning are synonymous, then they should be interchangable which they are not.
No you're not going by what is given , what was given is Dorian saying specific to the debate of Ronnie , he has better balance he's an IFBB judge and his word is Gold , its well established you're ignorant , so when Yates says he has better balance for all intents & purposes he has better balance , so either way YOU want to take the quote have at it , he still says he has better balance and his opinion will always crushes yours
sorry, but when a person contradicts him or herself, then their word no longer carries as much weight. Dorian explicitly defines balance and then contradicts himself by saying he has better balance than Ronnie.