Dorian Guestposing Video - 1992

[Hulkster]

my ass it did:

note the enormous quad/chest/arm improvement, while keeping the waist size the same.

its amazing how full of shit you are.

do you even bother to LOOK at pics of the two contests before you type this shit?

because its obvious, you DONT:

[NarcissisticDeity]

no, even Ronnie himself said he was better in 99 than in 98:


also you and ND will hate this independent review of the 99 olympia, by someone WHO WAS THERE, who also says ronnie was better in 99 than in 98:




not only that, the pics/vids show he was better.

face it, your fucked.

everywhere you look, people are saying and showing that ronnie improved from 98 to 99, not regressed as you say.

This is from SOMEONE WHO WAS there and someone you said is flat out wrong on many occasions , this is an independent review from someone who was actually there


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.

He's not better because he's not as hard or as dry 


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 .



oppsss sorry Ronnie bigger you get the softer you become

PBW Ronnie what was your best Olympia? Ronnie Coleman : I would have to say my first because my conditioning is spot on

Ronnie himself in 2008 , saying the obvious he was better in 1998 specifically better conditioned

[NarcissisticDeity]

Hulkster sucks to be you kid another interview with Ronnie stating the obvious 

David Robson interview :

Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot

      Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.

      I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.


      Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.


Everything was just spot on for that show LMFAO you're owned again fan-boy , Ronnie Coleman admitting once again 1998 was his best Olympia and NOT 1999 and why? because of the obvious his conditioning is SPOT ON   

1998 = spot-on 1999 = not spot-on owned

[NarcissisticDeity]

my ass it did:

note the enormous quad/chest/arm improvement, while keeping the waist size the same.

its amazing how full of shit you are.

do you even bother to LOOK at pics of the two contests before you type this shit?

because its obvious, you DONT:

Quads are fuller absolutely , chest/arms are NOT improved ar all and his waist is most certainly not the same . delts are fuller too albeit softer with less detail , midsection is night & day just look at the two hands clasped most musculars his midsection is tight , flat and sharp NOT in 1999 , again did Ronnie improve in 1999? sure in some areas did he digress? look at the pics you're damn right he did

[The_Hammer]

Coleman looked incredible because his main competition became weaker.  Shawn Ray, Levrone, and even Flex were shells of their former selves with Wheeler being the best of the 3 near the end of their era, but far from his best.

The physique Coleman presented in '96 & '97 were not far off from his best, yet he struggled to make top 10 those two years.  When the greats from the 90's were in peak condition, they make Ronnie's main competition from his era look bad (Cutler, Dexter, Gunter, Wheeler/Levrone/Ray *way past their primes*).

[just_a_pilgrim]

Pics are nothing without a video.

In 1998 Ronnie was big but still looked the same size as Nasser but in 1999 it was all over. He dominated in size and conditioning overall. I thought at Pre-judging he was very close to the 1998 condition but did lose it by the finals.

If he looked better in 1997 than 1999 he would have won in 1997.

[Hulkster]

Pics are nothing without a video.

In 1998 Ronnie was big but still looked the same size as Nasser but in 1999 it was all over. He dominated in size and conditioning overall. I thought at Pre-judging he was very close to the 1998 condition but did lose it by the finals.

If he looked better in 1997 than 1999 he would have won in 1997.

how about the 99 olympia video, a video so good that the nuthuggers have been claiming it is faked since day one:

http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027

 

honestly, this 97>99 argument is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen,  ND and England are reaching new lows of stupidity..

 

[Hulkster]

ND has a great shot of 97 and a few bad shots of 99 and he thinks that Ronnie looked better in 97 where he placed 9th than he did in 99 where he dominated with perfect scores LOL

 

you guys are total morons.

99 blew 97 away:

take note Flowerboy and England:

just when you think you two cant be any more stupid, you come up with a gem like this:

[Hulkster]

Quads are fuller absolutely , chest/arms are NOT improved ar all and his waist is most certainly not the same . delts are fuller too albeit softer with less detail , midsection is night & day just look at the two hands clasped most musculars his midsection is tight , flat and sharp NOT in 1999 , again did Ronnie improve in 1999? sure in some areas did he digress? look at the pics you're damn right he did

alright, time to put your stupid argument to death:

compare these two videos: 97 olympia Ronnie vs 99 olympia ronnie, its like night and day

enormous improvements to the back, arms, chest, quads, you name it.

its like a different person:

http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND has a great shot of 97 and a few bad shots of 99 and he thinks that Ronnie looked better in 97 where he placed 9th than he did in 99 where he dominated with perfect scores LOL

 

you guys are total morons.

99 blew 97 away:

take note Flowerboy and England:

just when you think you two cant be any more stupid, you come up with a gem like this:

You're the moron who doesn't get it , I never claimed he was better in 1997 than 1999 I said in some areas he's sharper delts , midsection , his waist is tiny and flat , you see a comparison to 1999 and automatically assumed we're saying he was better , overall he wasn't but he's comparable in some areas , idiot and those aren't bad shots either , according to you who posted them  million times as overwhelming visual evidence he was better than Dorian and now they're just bad shot lmao hypocrite

[NarcissisticDeity]

how about the 99 olympia video, a video so good that the nuthuggers have been claiming it is faked since day one:

http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027

 

honestly, this 97>99 argument is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen,  ND and England are reaching new lows of stupidity..

 

You posted the video from the guy who worked the screencaps for you  you know the one Kevin Horton busted you using many times over 

[Hulkster]

chest/arms are NOT improved ar all

wrong. watch the vids flowerboy.

oh, and his quads are 1000x more cut in 99 too.

not just fullness.

watch the videos again flowerboy.

his back is much better/thicker in 99

watch the videos again flowerboy lol

[Hulkster]

You posted the video from the guy who worked the screencaps for you  you know the one Kevin Horton busted you using many times over 

yes, the vid is doctored..

keep clinging flowerboy.

no one believes you.

[Cleanest Natural]

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes, the vid is doctored..

keep clinging flowerboy.

no one believes you.

Ha ha ha Kevin Horton busted you the video is the source where Bizzy got those worked screencaps LMAO

NO ONE believe you  the best contest photographer in the business agrees with me , as well as many others 99% of Bizzy's garbage is worked 

[NarcissisticDeity]

wrong. watch the vids flowerboy.

oh, and his quads are 1000x more cut in 99 too.

not just fullness.

watch the videos again flowerboy.

his back is much better/thicker in 99

watch the videos again flowerboy lol

meltdown 

I have the videos I have 1995/1996/1997/1998/1999 and guess what? 1998 crushes 1999 in terms of conditioning by far and funny thing my copy doesn't look ANYTHING like Bizzy's I wonder why 

[Hulkster]

because your lying.

thats why.

my olympia vid looks almost identical to the prejudging vid posted.

[NarcissisticDeity]

because your lying.

thats why.

my olympia vid looks almost identical to the prejudging vid posted.

No I have the prejudging video from the one Bizzy hosted on truevideo and mine and guess what? he fucked with the lighting , saturation and hue as well as the color , I will post a side-by-side comparison if you like and kick your ass some more  I will embarrass you just like Kevin Horton did 

[Hulkster]

and guess what? 1998 crushes 1999 in terms of conditioning by far

not according to Ronnie Coleman (in his victory seminar)

not according to Peter McGough

in this article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/

In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart.

not according to reviews of the contest from people that were there:

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=1999+Mr.+Olympia+prejudging&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=CA&SpellState=n-256457493_q-%2FRZpLWjbLA0inWrSsLFbeQAAAA%40%40&u=www.fitnetusa.com/mro99.doc&w=1999+mr+olympia+prejudging+prejudge&d=P81GAxlMS51q&icp=1&.intl=us

Ronnie came in showing the same condition as last year, with an added 8 pounds of beef on his frame.  

not according to all the pics and videos.



what do you have? nothing.

flowerboy lol

[NarcissisticDeity]

not according to Ronnie Coleman (in his victory seminar)

not according to Peter McGough

in this article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/

not according to reviews of the contest from people that were there:



not according to all the pics and videos.



what do you have? nothing.

flowerboy lol

ha ha ha meltdown

Ronnie said on multiple occasions now 98 is his best Olympia deal with it  and guess what? he was there , McGough was there Perine was there 

[NarcissisticDeity]

] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot

      Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.

      I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.


Everything was spot-on 

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.


Where is 1999? oh yeah that's right taking a back seat to 2001 and 1998 and FYI these guys were there 

[Hulkster]

ha ha ha meltdown

Ronnie said on multiple occasions now 98 is his best Olympia deal with it  and guess what? he was there , McGough was there Perine was there 

so, you are sweeping all that under the carpet as always..

you never learn.

go and tend to your flowers lol

[NarcissisticDeity]

so, you are sweeping all that under the carpet as always..

you never learn.

go and tend to your flowers lol

Sweeping nothing under the carpet , Ronnie has stated numerous times his best Olympia is his first because his conditioning was spot-on which coincides with McGough , Perine and everyone else , 1998 is better you're the only one saying otherwise and as usual you got it wrong nothing new , you got it wrong when you claimed Ronnie had more detailed calves than Dorian , you got it wrong when you claimed Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex , you got it wrong when you typed Dorian was never harder or drier than Ronnie , you got it wrong when you said Bizzy's screencaps weren't worked lmao and Kevin Horton exposed you , shall I continue?

you have a very long track record of being wrong and being corrected BY ME you're in another Dorian Yates thread getting your ass kicked as usual nothing new 

[Hulkster]

hey Flowerboy,

if 98 was better than 99 as you say, where is 98 in McGough's article?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/

and he specifically states that Ronnie had more size, condition and fullness than the year before..

fucking owned.

go prune the tulips 

[NarcissisticDeity]

hey Flowerboy,

if 98 was better than 99 as you say, where is 98 in McGough's article?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/

and he specifically states that Ronnie had more size, condition and fullness than the year before..

fucking owned.

go prune the tulips 

I said 1998 was better in terms of density & dryness the same reasons why 2001 is considered his best minus the gyno and you misquoted me as well as McGough seeing you're not that bright I'll explain this to you ( again )

Ronnie Coleman | 1999

In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.

" Coleman exhibited size , condition AND sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier "

You can't grasp the word and no where did McGough say he was more conditioned than the previous year in fact on multiple occasions he said this , as has Ronnie only multiple occasions , which is old news

You can't escape the fact that 1999 is NOT considered his prime showing and 2001 is and just saying you were right 1999 should be because he's 257 pounds with equal or better conditioning and more fullness , yet it's NOT so guess what you're wrong  

the only one who is owned is you because you can't explain how Ronnie 10 pounds lighter is better