Why Coleman At A Large Bodyweight Is Shit.

[suckmymuscle]

  I'm sick and tired of the Coleman trolls bringing up the heavier versions of Ronnie as what they believe could take out Dorian at his best. Here is Peter McGough's review of Ronnie at the 2004 Olympia and why he sucks big time at a large bodyweight.

  Ronnie Coleman 5'11 296 lbs

  "Ronnie was nine pounds bigger than he was last year, and that package swept to a clear victory. However, he wasn't as sharp as last year, particularly in the lower back and, from the sides, his pecs looked flatish"

  So Ronnie wasn't as sharp in 2004 as in 2003, and in his review of Ronnie at the 2000 Olympia McGough said Ronnie wasn't as sharp as in the previous year, and that in the previous year he wasn't as sharp as in 98'. Here are Ronnie's bodyweights for the years in question:

  1998 249 lbs

  1999 257 lbs

  2000 264 lbs

  2003 287 lbs

  2004 296 lbs

  So according to McGough:  98'>99'>2000>03>04

  In 2005 Ronnie was 275 lbs and his conditioning was superior to both 2003 and 2004. What does all of this tell you guys? That Ronnie's did not gain 47 lbs of lean muscle between the 98' and 04' Olmpias like the scale suggests, but that a significant % of that increased bodyweight was subcutaneous fat and water, and the more his scale weight increased, the more of that weight was fat and water and not muscle.

  My point is that it's not fucking fair to compare a ripped-to-the-bone Dorian Yates at 260 lbs and with superb proportions to a bloated cow at 287 lbs with the worst shape a male bodybuilder could possibly have - unmanly huge ass and gut that makes him look obese - and then claim that the size advantage would make Ronnie "destroy" Dorian. Ronnie at the 2003 Olympia did have more muscle than Dorian at 260 lbs, but this increased size came at the expense of sharpness. As I see it, added size as far as bodybuuilding is concerned is only valuable if it comes with equal conditioning. If Ronnie had stepped onstage weighing 27 lbs more than Dorian with equal conditoning and had none of his symmetry issues, then yes, he would undoubtedly destroy Dorian, but alas this is not the case. Dorian could have entered the Olympia much bigger. He sacrificed some muscle to get rid of the very last ounce of fat and water, which Ronnie never cared to do except in 98'.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[just_a_pilgrim]

Peter McGough. Great source.

No but seriously your point is valid. But some of us think Ronnie overall was better. Ronnie in 2005 was 275, Dorian at his last was 270 and not in the same condition as Ronnie was at 275.

Who cares. Do we really need more threads on this?

[elite_lifter]

Had your feelings hurt lately.

[suckmymuscle]

Dorian at his last was 270 and not in the same condition as Ronnie was at 275.

  False. Dorian at 270 lbs had conditioning comparable to Ronnie at the 99' Olympia and maybe as good as Ronnie did in 98'. Yes, dude, Dorian's conditoning is that superior that he is drier&harder while weighting 21 lbs more. Dorian in 97' was shit because of his torn muscles and distended gut and not because he was holding water.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The Coach]

  I'm sick and tired of the Coleman trolls bringing up the heavier versions of Ronnie as what they believe could take out Dorian at his best. Here is Peter McGough's review of Ronnie at the 2004 Olympia and why he sucks big time at a large bodyweight.

  Ronnie Coleman 5'11 296 lbs

  "Ronnie was nine pounds bigger than he was last year, and that package swept to a clear victory. However, he wasn't as sharp as last year, particularly in the lower back and, from the sides, his pecs looked flatish"

  So Ronnie wasn't as sharp in 2004 as in 2003, and in his review of Ronnie at the 2000 Olympia McGough said Ronnie wasn't as sharp as in the previous year, and that in the previous year he wasn't as sharp as in 98'. Here are Ronnie's bodyweights for the years in question:

  1998 249 lbs

  1999 257 lbs

  2000 264 lbs

  2003 287 lbs

  2004 296 lbs
  So according to McGough:  98'>99'>2000>03>04

  In 2005 Ronnie was 275 lbs and his conditioning was superior to both 2003 and 2004. What does all of this tell you guys? That Ronnie's did not gain 47 lbs of lean muscle between the 98' and 04' Olmpias like the scale suggests, but that a significant % of that increased bodyweight was subcutaneous fat and water, and the more his scale weight increased, the more of that weight was fat and water and not muscle.

  My point is that it's not fucking fair to compare a ripped-to-the-bone Dorian Yates at 260 lbs and with superb proportions to a bloated cow at 287 lbs with the worst shape a male bodybuilder could possibly have - unmanly huge ass and gut that makes him look obese - and then claim that the size advantage would make Ronnie "destroy" Dorian. Ronnie at the 2003 Olympia did have more muscle than Dorian at 260 lbs, but this increased size came at the expense of sharpness. As I see it, added size as far as bodybuuilding is concerned is only valuable if it comes with equal conditioning. If Ronnie had stepped onstage weighing 27 lbs more than Dorian with equal conditoning and had none of his symmetry issues, then yes, he would undoubtedly destroy Dorian, but alas this is not the case. Dorian could have entered the Olympia much bigger. He sacrificed some muscle to get rid of the very last ounce of fat and water, which Ronnie never cared to do except in 98'.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Diabetes is a bitch.

[haider]

Lights out bitches

[ASJChaotic]

I thought the Coleman side was attacking Dorian 
so sad that your hero never came even close to beating Ronnie


SUCKMYPENIS

[Emmortal]

  In 2005 Ronnie was 275 lbs and his conditioning was superior to both 2003 and 2004. What does all of this tell you guys? That Ronnie's did not gain 47 lbs of lean muscle between the 98' and 04' Olmpias like the scale suggests, but that a significant % of that increased bodyweight was subcutaneous fat and water, and the more his scale weight increased, the more of that weight was fat and water and not muscle.

Sorry but that's just complete bullshit and speculation.  You've obviously never dieted down for a contest because anyone who has will tell you that the better your condition the more muscle you're going to loose in the process to get there.  The fact that his conditioning was better and he was at a higher bodyweight tells me just the opposite, he had more lean mass than the scale suggests because more of it was lost dieting down harder.

[MisterMagoo]

your formula is faulty because he never said 2003 was less sharp than 2000. he compared 2004 to 2003, and 2000 to the years prior.

[Hulkster]

Peter McGough. Great source.

lol no shit

these idiots based everything they post on his opinion only, despite most of his assertions to have been thoroughly debunked and proven to  be flat out WRONG based on real pics and videos...

 

[Hulkster]

My point is that it's not fucking fair to compare a ripped-to-the-bone Dorian Yates at 260 lbs and with superb proportions to a bloated cow at 287 lbs with the worst shape a male bodybuilder could possibly have

huh?

superb proportions of dorian?

worst shape a male could have on Ronnie?

LOL

Suckmyasshole displaying his stupidity for all of getbig to see:

 

[SuperNatural]

huh?

 

That definitely is not Coleman's best performance.

[Hulkster]

That definitely is not Coleman's best performance.

agreed. but thats not the point.

the point is that dorian certainly did NOT have "superb proortions" and Ronnie certainly did NOT have 'the worst shape a male bodybuilder could hvae" as Suckmyasshole incorrectly (as always) said...

[just_a_pilgrim]

lol no shit

these idiots based everything they post on his opinion only, despite most of his assertions to have been thoroughly debunked and proven to  be flat out WRONG based on real pics and videos...

 

My point on Peter McGough is he is pro Dorian.

When Ronnie showed up in 2003 with all 'that extra mass' he questioned what it took to gain that much in a year.

Yet when Dorian did it in 1993 it was because he worked harder.

Both times were because both overdieted in previous shows.

Anyway it's a matter of opinion everyone should just get over it. Personally i think Ronnie just got too big for anyone. His physqiue also flowed better. Both had flaws. I think post 2000 Ronnie and maybe Jay for a while were the only one's who could compare to the ridiculous depth of competition Dorian faced in the 90's.

[Alex23]

Lights out bitches

BOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!! 'nufff said.

I'm making grill cheeses with jalapenos. Anyone in?

[QuakerOats]

 

[Luv_2build]

i am a huge Dorian fan, but Ronnie was an absolute freak in 03

[pumpster]

Nutty thread. Coleman looked better at higher bodyweights relative to his height than anyone in history. Not to say that was necessarily his best look all-time but he carried the extra weight far more impressively than anyone else has.

[_bruce_]

huh?

superb proportions of dorian?

worst shape a male could have on Ronnie?

LOL

Suckmyasshole displaying his stupidity for all of getbig to see:

 

Ronnie looks impressive beyond believe - like him better in his earlier days, but the monster-time was good for some insane shots.

[gymguy]

Lights out bitches

No doubt!  That will never be duplicated, let alone beat.

[suckmymuscle]

I thought the Coleman side was attacking Dorian.

  The Coleman side attacks Dorian all the time. They call him barrel with twigs, post pictures of old people with saggy skin and say this is all Dorian's famous conditioning boils down to, etc.

so sad that your hero never came even close to beating Ronnie

  Wrong: Dorian defeated your hero eight times!

SUCKMYPENIS

  SUCKMYMYDICK f.a.g.g.o.t!

[suckmymuscle]

Sorry but that's just complete bullshit and speculation.  You've obviously never dieted down for a contest because anyone who has will tell you that the better your condition the more muscle you're going to loose in the process to get there.  The fact that his conditioning was better and he was at a higher bodyweight tells me just the opposite, he had more lean mass than the scale suggests because more of it was lost dieting down harder.

  Your post is largely incoherent and it's hard to make sense out of it. If you're telling me that Ronnie 2005 was harder than Dorian at 270 lbs, then I have already said that is not true. Dorian was as dry as the 97' Olympia as Ronnie was at the 98' Olympia. Dorian sucked in 97' due to torn muscles and a distended gut and not because of shitty conditoning.

  And Ronnie lost mass while dieting for contests? Boo fucking hoo, that applies to all bodybuilders. I don't give a shit how much mass Ronnie lost while dieting; all I care about is how he compares to Dorian in terms of mass and conditoning on the day they were onstage. Fact: Ronnie has never been onstage at a higher bodyweight than Dorian with equivalent conditioning, which means that you cannot claim that he had an advantage in lean mass. Every contest where Ronnie is as dry as Dorian he was at a lighter bodyweight, which indicates that Dorian actually carried more lean mass than Ronnie. This is corroborated by Kevin Horton, who said that Dorian's conditioning at 280+ lbs has never been matched, and also by McGough who said that Ronnie at any bodyweight above 245 lbs would look soft next to Dorian at a bodyweight as high as 269 lbs. This would suggest that Ronnie needs to be under 245 lbs to match Dorian's conditioning at 257 lbs.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

your formula is faulty because he never said 2003 was less sharp than 2000. he compared 2004 to 2003, and 2000 to the years prior.

 It is implied. Why would the pattern be broken? 2000' he was 264 lbs and was less condiioned than 99' when he was 257 lbs, which was less conditoned than 98' when he was 249 lbs. In 2003 he was a massive 23 lbs heavier than in 2000 and you are going to claim that his conditioning was as good or better than 2000? Get real. I have the FLEX issue that covers the 2000 Olympia and Ronnie looks a hell of a lot more conditoned than he did in 2003.  The pattern is undeniable: an increase of bodyweight for Ronnie results in a decrease in conditoning.

  Bodyweight        Conditioning

 + 249 lbs              best

 ++ 257                  -

 +++264 lbs            --

 ++++ 287              ---

 +++++ 296 lbs        ----

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Lights out bitches

  It is amazing. You post this picture even after I have explained why it is shit and should never be posted again. Look at that huge ass more befitting a woman's. Look at all that fat and water in the back. Huge back, yes, but covered in lard. The onlygood thing about this picture is that it doesen't show Ronnie's horrible calves.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

Wayne Demilla " I've said to Ronnie , " What you've got to realize is that in 98-99 you were probably in the best proportion you could be for your frame . Those muscles have gotten bigger. Just cos you're bigger , doesn't make you better . "

another reason why Coleman sucks at higher bodyweights