Author Topic: Was the 99' O The Best of All Time (Read 8917 times)

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2009, 08:41:37 AM »

Quote from: Immortal_Technique on June 07, 2009, 08:33:09 AM

Glad McGough has cleared that one up for us, we almost thought for our selves there

We all know what you think , you troll it every 5 minutes under both your accounts

Immortal_Technique · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2009, 08:46:19 AM »

Glad somebody noticed I exist haha, I guess I am a troll, are you not? We are the same you and I, at least I am self-aware..........

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2009, 08:48:29 AM »

Quote from: Immortal_Technique on June 07, 2009, 08:46:19 AM

Glad somebody noticed I exist haha, I guess I am a troll, are you not? We are the same you and I, at least I am self-aware..........

No we're not alike I have one account

Immortal_Technique · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2009, 08:50:47 AM »

Me too, does my being cleverer than you at a younger age intimidate you? How old are you?

Hulkster · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:47:10 AM »

ND works for a flower company. how correct can he be?

Hulkster · « **Reply #30 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:50:21 AM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 07, 2009, 08:40:34 AM

lmao where does he say he was better conditioned? oppppsssss he didn't and he was last on the list because it was sequential moron and he still said 1993 is better than 1999

yup. its sequential - meaning 99 advanced the sport to a higher level than 93 did.

thanks for playing.

ps

he says he was better conditioned right here:

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

he had more size, more fullness and better conditon than the year earlier..

helps to learn english, doesn't it flower boy?

Danimal77 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:52:13 AM »

Quote from: The_Hammer on June 06, 2009, 07:29:42 PM

1993 Hands down.

Agreed that Labrada is underrated at this contest. It was his best physique ever.

And heaviest.

Danimal77 · « **Reply #32 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:58:12 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 09:50:21 AM

yup. its sequential - meaning 99 advanced the sport to a higher level than 93 did.

thanks for playing.

Probably the most idiotic comment EVER made on getbig.com

How in the hell did 1999 advance the sport when the reality is that after 1999 bodybuilders just got worse and worse and worse and worse? From 1993 we saw GREAT competitors get even better. Post 1999 most of those GREAT competitors were retiring and were replaced with FAR inferior replacements that have only regressed the sport about 60 years.

Thanks for playing

Hulkster · « **Reply #33 on:** June 07, 2009, 10:37:28 AM »

Quote

How in the hell did 1999 advance the sport when the reality is that after 1999 bodybuilders just got worse and worse and worse and worse?

simple.

ronnie looked like this:

we are talking about individual physiques here that raised the bar. McGough acknowledges that Ronnie 99 took the sport to a new level as far as Mr. Olympia appearences go..

you misunderstood the article.

he is not saying that collectively the lineup of pros advanced the sport in 99, but rather that Ronnie's 99 olympia presentation did in terms of physique..and, must to the dismay of the nuthuggers, he advanced it to a level above that set by dorian 93..since the list is in cronological order, and of course, you cannot advance the sport by going backwards.

by definition, Peter's article shows that he felt that Ronnie 99> dorian 93.

and notice, that Ronnie 2003 didnt make the list..

the sport may have began to decline after that, but that has nothing to do with what Peter's article is about.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #34 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:20:05 PM »

Quote from: Danimal77 on June 07, 2009, 09:58:12 AM

Probably the most idiotic comment EVER made on getbig.com

How in the hell did 1999 advance the sport when the reality is that after 1999 bodybuilders just got worse and worse and worse and worse? From 1993 we saw GREAT competitors get even better. Post 1999 most of those GREAT competitors were retiring and were replaced with FAR inferior replacements that have only regressed the sport about 60 years.

Thanks for playing

Great post !

Hulkster = owned

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #35 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:25:42 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 10:37:28 AM

simple.

ronnie looked like this:

we are talking about individual physiques here that raised the bar. McGough acknowledges that Ronnie 99 took the sport to a new level as far as Mr. Olympia appearences go..

you misunderstood the article.

he is not saying that collectively the lineup of pros advanced the sport in 99, but rather that Ronnie's 99 olympia presentation did in terms of physique..and, must to the dismay of the nuthuggers, he advanced it to a level above that set by dorian 93..since the list is in cronological order, and of course, you cannot advance the sport by going backwards.

by definition, Peter's article shows that he felt that Ronnie 99> dorian 93.

and notice, that Ronnie 2003 didnt make the list..

the sport may have began to decline after that, but that has nothing to do with what Peter's article is about.

Did he advance the sport in terms of muscular bulk? NO sorry Dorian was 257 in 1993 , did he advance the sport in density & dryness while being 257 pounds? NO Dorian did that in 1993 did he advance the sport as far as having near perfect balance & proportion while being hard as nails and dry as fuck at 257 pounds? NO Dorian did that in 1993

notice he still says 2001 Arnold Classic is better than 1999 Mr Olympia

and you was smaller albeit harder and drier , you'll cling to this quote from McGough that he advanced the sport but dismiss him when he said on multiple occasions he was better conditioned , Mr Pick and chooses what quotes he wants and tosses the rest , typical hypocritical Hulkster

2001 beats 1999 Mr Olympia and what does Ronnie have to say on the subject? 1998 is his best Olympia showing more specifically because everything was spot-on , which means in 1999 everything was NOT spot-on

stick 1999 up your ass

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #36 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:31:34 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 09:50:21 AM

yup. its sequential - meaning 99 advanced the sport to a higher level than 93 did.

thanks for playing.

ps

he says he was better conditioned right here:

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

he had more size, more fullness and better conditon than the year earlier..

helps to learn english, doesn't it flower boy?

I know you're slow but please pay attention , NO it doesn't mean his conditioning was better you idiot , especially when BOTH say it wasn't , the only plus was his fullness AT THE EXPENSE of deity learn what conditioning is

in fact in the same article he states 2001 is his best and he wasn't as big or as full as he was in 1999 and it's still considered his best for that specific reason

you can't escape that 1999 is NOT his best showing and it's NOT his best showing specifically because he wasn't as hard or as dry . there is NO debate just your denial

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.

Hulkster · « **Reply #37 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:35:23 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 07, 2009, 12:25:42 PM

Did he advance the sport in terms of muscular bulk? NO sorry Dorian was 257 in 1993 , did he advance the sport in density & dryness while being 257 pounds? NO Dorian did that in 1993 did he advance the sport as far as having near perfect balance & proportion while being hard as nails and dry as fuck at 257 pounds? NO Dorian did that in 1993

notice he still says 2001 Arnold Classic is better than 1999 Mr Olympia and you was smaller albeit harder and drier , you'll cling to this quote from McGough that he advanced the sport but dismiss him when he said on multiple occasions he was better conditioned , Mr Pick and chooses what quotes he wants and tosses the rest , typical hypocritical Hulkster

2001 beats 1999 Mr Olympia and what does Ronnie have to say on the subject? 1998 is his best Olympia showing more specifically because everything was spot-on , which means in 1999 everything was NOT spot-on

stick 1999 up your ass

I suggest you take your beef up with Peter McGough. its his article you can't deal with.

Hulkster · « **Reply #38 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:38:31 PM »

Quote

Did he advance the sport in terms of muscular bulk? NO sorry Dorian was 257 in 1993 , did he advance the sport in density & dryness while being 257 pounds? NO Dorian did that in 1993 did he advance the sport as far as having near perfect balance & proportion while being hard as nails and dry as fuck at 257 pounds? NO Dorian did that in 1993

you make the mistake up breaking up all the attributes individually, which is a classic beginner mistake. probably from spending too much time arranging flowers and not enough time follwing the sport...

as a total package that combines all those, yes, he advanced the sport, just like your friend Peter McGough says:

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #39 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:38:42 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 12:35:23 PM

I suggest you take your beef up with Peter McGough. its his article you can't deal with.

There is no beef , he doesn't say Ronnie was harder and drier in 1999 or 1999 Olympia is better than 1993 or his best showing this is you once again WRONG as usual

McGough says specifically he CAN NOT choose a best Mr Olympia yet you think because he listed his pics sequentially it means he was better and it's not true

2001 kicks the shit out of 1999

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #40 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:41:28 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 12:38:31 PM

you make the mistake up breaking up all the attributes individually, which is a classic beginner mistake. probably from spending too much time arranging flowers and not enough time follwing the sport...

as a total package that combines all those, yes, he advanced the sport, just like your friend Peter McGough says:

Hulkster I don't arrange follows another pathetic attempt from you to divert you getting your ass kicked

the total package would include density & dryness something he says specifically he's lacking compared to the previous year and NEVER equaled Yates ANY year

and that's according to my friend Peter McGough

owned

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #41 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:44:27 PM »

Quote from: Immortal_Technique on June 07, 2009, 08:50:47 AM

Me too, does my being cleverer than you at a younger age intimidate you? How old are you?

Clever ? hiding under a gimmick constitutes clever? you need to aim a little higher

Hulkster · « **Reply #42 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:48:57 PM »

Quote

Hulkster I don't arrange follows another pathetic attempt from you to divert you getting your ass kicked

you don't arrange flowers?

well, at least that gives you something to aim for

Im sure if you work hard you can advance lol

Hulkster · « **Reply #43 on:** June 07, 2009, 01:19:10 PM »

Quote

the total package would include density & dryness something he says specifically he's lacking compared to the previous year

ronnie has publicly stated he was in better condition in 99 than in 98.

I know you hate this and it gets your flowers in bunch but its true.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #44 on:** June 07, 2009, 02:31:31 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 12:48:57 PM

you don't arrange flowers?

well, at least that gives you something to aim for

Im sure if you work hard you can advance lol

I could be a garbage man and I still know 10X what you do on this subject

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #45 on:** June 07, 2009, 02:34:03 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 01:19:10 PM

ronnie has publicly stated he was in better condition in 99 than in 98.

I know you hate this and it gets your flowers in bunch but its true.

Sure he said it right after the contest and everyone says they were in the best shape of their lives , after they have time to reflect and see the pics and video they can step back and make an honest assessment and guess what he's said on multiple occasions? the same as Peter McGough

Ronnie has stated 1998 is his best Olympia as have many others deal with it

Hulkster · « **Reply #46 on:** June 07, 2009, 02:51:38 PM »

this coming from someone who finds the 99 olympia video of Ronnie's physique so incredible that they have to claim that it is doctored..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #47 on:** June 07, 2009, 02:54:19 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 07, 2009, 02:51:38 PM

this coming from someone who finds the 99 olympia video of Ronnie's physique so incredible that they have to claim that it is doctored..

1999 is NOT even his best showing , it's not even his best Olympia showing SAYS Ronnie himself

the video footage from Bizzy is worked I have the VHS copy and I'm watching it right now on my PC and compared the Truvideo footage from Bizzy and guess what? they don't match , he got his worked screencaps from his worked copy that simple

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #48 on:** June 07, 2009, 02:56:38 PM »

You can NOT explain how a smaller , less full Ronnie in 2001 is considered his best showing and 1999 isn't

You claim he's 10 pounds heavier , much fuller with equal or better conditioning and yet somehow NO ONE feels this is his best , lmfao I wonder why?

thanks for playing though

Hulkster · « **Reply #49 on:** June 07, 2009, 03:01:05 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 07, 2009, 02:54:19 PM

1999 is NOT even his best showing , it's not even his best Olympia showing SAYS Ronnie himself

the video footage from Bizzy is worked I have the VHS copy and I'm watching it right now on my PC and compared the Truvideo footage from Bizzy and guess what? they don't match , he got his worked screencaps from his worked copy that simple

here is a youtube clip from someone other than bizzy. ronnie's physique looks identical as it does in any of the bizzy, iceman or forcedreps shots:

are you trying to clain that slight colour diffrences between all these different people posting the clips means they are all fake?

two people can post two clips from two different sources and the colours many not be 100% identical. doesn't mean it was doctored in any way. why can't you learn this? oh thats right, you work in a flower shop..thats why.. $:-\$