1999 Mr Olympia

[NeoSeminole]

still not the same and don't go by the number go by how he looked in 1996 he was 257 but small & depleted he didn't look anything like 1993 but again Ronnie was light with a huge gut he didn't have the extra mass to compensate for it at 247 pounds

ha ha ha, have you lost your marbles? Dorian's weight deviated 3 lbs at most from 260 lbs during 4 yrs. He basically weighed the same yet his gut continued to grow.

[NarcissisticDeity]

ha ha ha, have you lost your marbles? Dorian's weight deviated 3 lbs at most from 260 lbs during 4 yrs. He basically weighed the same yet his gut continued to grow.

it doesn't matter what the original point was dummy Ronnie had a massive gut without being able to compensate for it with extra mass , look at his gut 2001 at a maximum of 247 pounds thats worse than Yates and why? because he has a shorter torso Dorian doesn't so his gut is more distributed Ronnie's is in a more confined area hence why it protrudes more thats the point

[NeoSeminole]

it doesn't matter what the original point was dummy

yes, it does. Don't packpeddle after being proven wrong about Dorian's weight.

Ronnie had a massive gut without being able to compensate for it with extra mass , look at his gut 2001 at a maximum of 247 pounds thats worse than Yates and why? because he has a shorter torso Dorian doesn't so his gut is more distributed Ronnie's is in a more confined area hence why it protrudes more thats the point

both men had guts. However, Ronnie in 03 outweighed Dorian by almost 30 lbs. So yes, Ronnie carried the extra muscle mass to compensate for his gut.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes, it does. Don't packpeddle after being proven wrong about Dorian's weight.

both men had guts. However, Ronnie in 03 outweighed Dorian by almost 30 lbs. So yes, Ronnie carried the extra muscle mass to compensate for his gut.

NO I'm actuyally right it doesn't matter if it is by only 3 pounds I'm still right 

and stop equating 30 pounds of redundant size for quality muscle , he was soft in 2003 and his balance & proportion were way off from his best nevermind Dorians and his gut in 03 was horrible as well so you're right back to square one , it reminds me of McGough stating the obvious a heavier Ronnie standing next to a rock hard Yates would just look soft and the judges would see that as well

[NeoSeminole]

NO I'm actuyally right it doesn't matter if it is by only 3 pounds I'm still right

you believe that if it makes you feel better.

and stop equating 30 pounds of redundant size for quality muscle , he was soft in 2003 and his balance & proportion were way off from his best nevermind Dorians and his gut in 03 was horrible as well so you're right back to square one , it reminds me of McGough stating the obvious a heavier Ronnie standing next to a rock hard Yates would just look soft and the judges would see that as well

redundant size is unrefined mas. Ronnie in 03 had plenty of separations and striations from head to toe, and those in attendance remarked about his conditioning.

Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004

"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."

Mike Matarazzo - Flex, January 2004

"Ronnie had so much dense muscle that it looked as though his skin could no longer hold it and he'd explode. His quads were so full and dense, they don't look real. He's an amazing individual, an amazing athlete. He's just a freak."

[NarcissisticDeity]

you believe that if it makes you feel better.

redundant size is unrefined mas. Ronnie in 03 had plenty of separations and striations from head to toe, and those in attendance remarked about his conditioning.

Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004

"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."

Mike Matarazzo - Flex, January 2004

"Ronnie had so much dense muscle that it looked as though his skin could no longer hold it and he'd explode. His quads were so full and dense, they don't look real. He's an amazing individual, an amazing athlete. He's just a freak."

you believe that if it makes you feel better.

I'm still right regardless if its only by 3 pounds 

Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004

"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."

Mike Matarazzo - Flex, January 2004

"Ronnie had so much dense muscle that it looked as though his skin could no longer hold it and he'd explode. His quads were so full and dense, they don't look real. He's an amazing individual, an amazing athlete. He's just a freak."

Again he wasn't as hard or as dry as he was early on his career old news , stop equating extra size with extra conditioned size , you know like the conditioned size he had in 1998/2001 he's not anywhere near as conditioned as these two contests couple that with his lacking balance & proportion and any size advantage is meaningless

next

[NarcissisticDeity]

03 V 98  MASSIVE difference in density & dryness and detail and balance and proportion

[NarcissisticDeity]

While not 2003 you can still see the huge discrepancy between the hardness & dryness

[NeoSeminole]

I'm still right regardless if its only by 3 pounds

I could care less if the difference was 1 ounce. The fact you're grasping at straws here shows the weakness of your argument.

Again he wasn't as hard or as dry as he was early on his career old news , stop equating extra size with extra conditioned size , you know like the conditioned size he had in 1998/2001 he's not anywhere near as conditioned as these two contests couple that with his lacking balance & proportion and any size advantage is meaningless

I never said he was, dipshit. The fact remains Ronnie was in great condition at the 03 Mr. Olympia. He still had separations and striations from head to toe and I posted a quote from somewhere who was there saying Ronnie carried dense muscle. Your quote from Peter McGough only tells us Ronnie wasn't as conditioned as he was in 98/01. No kidding.

[QuakerOats]

I could care less if the difference was 1 ounce. The fact you're grasping at straws here shows the weakness of your argument.

I never said he was, dipshit. The fact remains Ronnie was in great condition at the 03 Mr. Olympia. He still had separations and striations from head to toe and I posted a quote from somewhere who was there saying Ronnie carried dense muscle. Your quote from Peter McGough only tells us Ronnie wasn't as conditioned as he was in 98/01. No kidding.

are you inferring that a Mr. Olympia should have a better FDB than this, Neo?

[NeoSeminole]

are you inferring that a Mr. Olympia should have a better FDB than this, Neo?

minus the torn bicep? No. Dorian had a great front double biceps pose. However, he should have been penalized after tearing his bicep. The "best built man on the planet" shouldn't have a torn muscle. period.

[Bauce Major]

Ronnie still looks awesome.

[NarcissisticDeity]

minus the torn bicep? No. Dorian had a great front double biceps pose. However, he should have been penalized after tearing his bicep. The "best built man on the planet" shouldn't have a torn muscle. period.

But its okay to have two missing calves? 

[NarcissisticDeity]

I could care less if the difference was 1 ounce. The fact you're grasping at straws here shows the weakness of your argument.

I never said he was, dipshit. The fact remains Ronnie was in great condition at the 03 Mr. Olympia. He still had separations and striations from head to toe and I posted a quote from somewhere who was there saying Ronnie carried dense muscle. Your quote from Peter McGough only tells us Ronnie wasn't as conditioned as he was in 98/01. No kidding.

I could care less if the difference was 1 ounce. The fact you're grasping at straws here shows the weakness of your argument.

It doesn't matter he still wasn't the same like you claimed , you're still wrong no matter how small the difference

I never said he was, dipshit. The fact remains Ronnie was in great condition at the 03 Mr. Olympia. He still had separations and striations from head to toe and I posted a quote from somewhere who was there saying Ronnie carried dense muscle. Your quote from Peter McGough only tells us Ronnie wasn't as conditioned as he was in 98/01. No kidding.

I always said his conditioning was acceptable in 03 but still not on par with his best showings and STILL NOT as good as Dorian so any advantage in muscular bulk becomes moot when its at the expense of density & dryness and balance & proportion

Dorian may be down 18 pounds but he's up on density , dryness , and balance & proportion and posing and he's still NOT complete either

[NeoSeminole]

But its okay to have two missing calves?

if you want to play dumb, Dorian is missing biceps and upper pecs.

[NarcissisticDeity]

if you want to play dumb, Dorian is missing biceps and upper pecs.

lmfao missing upper pecs  and Dorian's biceps weren't missing they were good not great Ronnie calves suck they're not even good not in shape , length , development , proportion

You're high if you think there is anything wrong with his upper pecs

[NeoSeminole]

It doesn't matter he still wasn't the same like you claimed , you're still wrong no matter how small the difference

again, I could really care less. I was generalizing when I said he weighed the same from 93-96.

I always said his conditioning was acceptable in 03 but still not on par with his best showings and STILL NOT as good as Dorian so any advantage in muscular bulk becomes moot when its at the expense of density & dryness and balance & proportion

the difference in size > the difference in conditioning. Ronnie outweighed Dorian by 30 lbs. The only way for you to claim his advantage in muscular bulk becomes moot at the expense of conditioning would be to prove he carried 30 lbs of fat and water.

Dorian may be down 18 pounds but he's up on density , dryness , and balance & proportion and posing and he's still NOT complete either

where did you come up with 18 lbs? Dorian weighed 257 lbs in 93 and Ronnie weighed 287 lbs in 03. That's a difference of 30 lbs. Ronnie also has the advantage in separations, striations, symmetry, shape, and fullness.

[NarcissisticDeity]

again, I could really care less. I was generalizing when I said he weighed the same from 93-96.

the difference in size > the difference in conditioning. Ronnie outweighed Dorian by 30 lbs. The only way for you to claim his advantage in muscular bulk becomes moot at the expense of conditioning would be to prove he carried 30 lbs of fat and water.

where did you come up with 18 lbs? Dorian weighed 257 lbs in 93 and Ronnie weighed 287 lbs in 03. That's a difference of 30 lbs. Ronnie also has the advantage in separations, striations, symmetry, shape, and fullness.

again, I could really care less. I was generalizing when I said he weighed the same from 93-96.

I know you could care less because you;re wrong

the difference in size > the difference in conditioning. Ronnie outweighed Dorian by 30 lbs. The only way for you to claim his advantage in muscular bulk becomes moot at the expense of conditioning would be to prove he carried 30 lbs of fat and water.

I'm sure you believe the size difference would crush the conditioning difference however you're neglecting the balance & proportion and posing as well , remember all arounds are physique rounds

where did you come up with 18 lbs? Dorian weighed 257 lbs in 93 and Ronnie weighed 287 lbs in 03. That's a difference of 30 lbs. Ronnie also has the advantage in separations, striations, symmetry, shape, and fullness.

Dorian at 269 pounds thats where and and see above 2003 would looks soft next to Yates as well as a bunch of parts thrown together

[NeoSeminole]

lmfao missing upper pecs and Dorian's biceps weren't missing they were good not great Ronnie calves suck they're not even good not in shape , length , development , proportion

You're high if you think there is anything wrong with his upper pecs

seriously, where are his upper pecs?

[NarcissisticDeity]

seriously, where are his upper pecs?

Its just the way the pecs insert again look at his upper pecs thick clearly defined

[NeoSeminole]

I know you could care less because you;re wrong

not really. A deviation of 3 lbs from 260 lbs is negligible. Only a fool would argue that it actually means something. I could understand if his weight fluctuated by 10 lbs in a year. Then you would have an argument.

I'm sure you believe the size difference would crush the conditioning difference however you're neglecting the balance & proportion and posing as well , remember all arounds are physique rounds

exactly, that's why I mentioned other criteria in my last post.

Dorian at 269 pounds thats where and and see above 2003 would looks soft next to Yates as well as a bunch of parts thrown together

Dorian at 269 lbs had worse conditioning and even less separations and striations than on stage. Even though he would gain 10 lbs in size, it would come at the expense of definition. So basically it would come down to whether Dorian's advantage in density and proportion be enough to overcome Ronnie's huge lead in bulk, definition, symmetry, shape, and fullness?

[NeoSeminole]

Its just the way the pecs insert again look at his upper pecs thick clearly defined

where? All I see are pics that confirm what I said.

[NarcissisticDeity]

not really. A deviation of 3 lbs from 260 lbs is negligible. Only a fool would argue that it actually means something. I could understand if his weight fluctuated by 10 lbs in a year. Then you would have an argument.

exactly, that's why I mentioned other criteria in my last post.

Dorian at 269 lbs had worse conditioning and even less separations and striations than on stage. Even though he would gain 10 lbs in size, it would come at the expense of definition.

not really. A deviation of 3 lbs from 260 lbs is negligible. Only a fool would argue that it actually means something. I could understand if his weight fluctuated by 10 lbs in a year. Then you would have an argument.

it may be negligable but it doesn't matter you're still wrong and it did fluctuate from 242 pounds in 1992 to 257 pounds in 1993 so again you're wrong

Dorian at 269 lbs had worse conditioning and even less separations and striations than on stage. Even though he would gain 10 lbs in size, it would come at the expense of definition.

LMFAO and how the fuck would you know? the pics we do have are NOT in a contest setting , no contest lighting NO tan and NO posing oil , and his conditioning according to eyewitnesses was top 3 at that years Olympia  in hardness and his thickness was unbeatable so much for your expense of definition


Kevin Horoton GetBig Dec 30th

The photo is technically terrible, fortunately the physique is awesome.
I'd agree with Kris about Dorian showing up on stage how he looked a few weeks out. There are some shots of him at around 280 - 285 shredded. That conditioning has not been surpassed.

shredded 

Kevin Horton

When I photgraphed Dorian , I told him " You should step onstage at 270 pounds. Do that , and there won't be a man on earth who can beat you." At 270 pounds Dorian was in very , very good condition , enough to put him in the top three onstage in hardness , and his untouachble size and thickness would have assured him the victory.

VERY , VERY good condition , enough to put him in top 3 at the Olympia

[NarcissisticDeity]

where? All I see are pics that confirm what I said.

and we all know you see what you want to see

[NeoSeminole]

it may be negligable but it doesn't matter you're still wrong and it did fluctuate from 242 pounds in 1992 to 257 pounds in 1993 so again you're wrong

can you read, stupid boy? I just said not more than 2 post ago that I was talking about 93-96. So why are you bringing 92 into this?

LMFAO and how the fuck would you know? the pics we do have are NOT in a contest setting , no contest lighting NO tan and NO posing oil , and his conditioning according to eyewitnesses was top 3 at that years Olympia  in hardness and his thickness was unbeatable so much for your expense of definition

use your brain. Why would Dorian drop from 269 lbs to 257 lbs unless he needed to lose more fat and water?