Start a thread about the above topic with that as the title ^^^^^^ and see how stupid that statement you just made will make you look
SMOOTH lacking muscle density especially in his back and he looks smooth compared to his really dense & dry showings 2001/1998 the muscle looks inflated and soft , you look at 2001 his skin looks like it has been shrink wrapped around pure muscle it's no coincidence that at his best condition wise he was light under 250 pounds anything over that his density & dryness suffer this isn't up for debate it's a fact Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001RONNIE 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 .
are you saying that being on stage with somebody for couple of minutes makes you a better judge than looking over photos and videostime and time again? LMAO
I agree that at a lower weight he is more shredded, but a man that is 300 pounds and that shredded has not been equalled, EVER.
Oh no ignorant GetBig posters will think I'm ' stupid ' lol you're to simple Bizzy opps I mean iceman His front latspread sucks compared to Dorian , no balance & proportion , you can hardly see the lats , he's not even doing the pose correctly
You actually beleive that shyt?Stop jumping from topic to topic and start a thread already with the statement you made. Is that too hard?hardly see the lats? LOL
You actually believe that shyt?Stop jumping from topic to topic and start a thread already with the statement you made. Is that too hard?hardly see the lats? LOL
He would win the ab/thigh and side tri
Nobody has EVER had lats like this. Jesus
hahahahhaa, predictable, same answer every time "what about the calves?"