Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman Posing - 2001 Arnold Classic - best ever (Read 38985 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #175 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:55:58 PM »

Quote

I guarantee you they sharpen and lighten or darken pics so they look good when put up on sites

lol so now the only reason he looks better in 99 is because they are sharpened up right?

and the video too? LOL

do you guys believe aliens landed in roswell?

that the americans were behind 9/11?

lol

your conspiracy theories have no merit here. sorry.

only real life has merit, something you are all in denial about..

Hulkster · « **Reply #176 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:56:38 PM »

Quote from: Mr.1derful on July 16, 2009, 06:53:24 PM

Next, Huckster will be claiming someone hacked Ronnie's site and posted false information. lol

funny coming from a guy who believes every video and pic from the 99 olympia is faked..

Hulkster · « **Reply #177 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:57:21 PM »

Quote from: TrapsMcLats on July 16, 2009, 03:55:28 PM

dude, he's obviously not close to being fully flexed in both those pics. ronnie's glutes haven't been that un-striated since... well since he retired.

you do realize the level of intellect we are dealing with dont you?

its sad.

Mr.1derful · « **Reply #178 on:** July 16, 2009, 06:59:04 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 16, 2009, 06:56:38 PM

funny coming from a guy who believes every video and pic from the 99 olympia is faked..

Show me where I said that. And it's ironic you calling anyone a "guy", being that you'd bend over at the first sight of Ronnie.

Hulkster · « **Reply #179 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:01:01 PM »

Quote

So I guess according to Hulkster we shouldn't even have the bodybuilders pose in front of judges. We should simply have them pose in pics and videos since according to him they are all that matters. You cannot judge by pics and vids

no one is saying only judge contests by pics and vids.

but answer this question:

in every other instance in the history of the sport, if a competitor shows up in not as good of shape as he did in another contest, that fact is immediately apparent in pics and videos from the contest.

every time. always. thats the way real life works. you see it right away.

eg. compare dorian 97 to 93, compare ronnie 99 to Ronnie 2004, compare Kevin Levrone from 92 to 2003 etc etc etc.

tell us, why do the visuals not show the same from ronnie 2001 AC to 99?

after all, you morons are claiming that "2001 KILLED 99"?

explain. particularly the videos from the contest. this I would love to know your answer to.

your fucked. you can't get around this.

but I am going to enjoy seeing you squirm as you try

BuffD · « **Reply #180 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:38:08 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 16, 2009, 06:55:58 PM

lol so now the only reason he looks better in 99 is because they are sharpened up right?

and the video too? LOL

do you guys believe aliens landed in roswell?

that the americans were behind 9/11?

lol

your conspiracy theories have no merit here. sorry.

only real life has merit, something you are all in denial about..

No I'm not saying that but you are an idiot if you think photographers don't sharpen up their pics before they are posted. I saw Ronnie at the 98 O and yeah he looked incredible. It was close however between him and Flex (don't go posting useless pics comparing the two because as I said pics mean very little). I'm sure Ronnie was unreal in 99. I only have pics to go by for that show since I wasn't there. But I guarantee you the pics and how he looked on stage will vary even if it's only by a slight margin. The same goes for Dorian pics. Now post some pics that fans took from their own digital cam and then MAYBE you can make some kind of judgment. Ever wonder why people when they post their pics always say "pics suck cuz I got a shitty camera?" It's because they do have a crap camera and dont know how to touch up the pics to make them look better. You HAVE TO SEE THEM IN PERSON!

BuffD · « **Reply #181 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:41:25 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 16, 2009, 07:01:01 PM

no one is saying only judge contests by pics and vids.

but answer this question:

in every other instance in the history of the sport, if a competitor shows up in not as good of shape as he did in another contest, that fact is immediately apparent in pics and videos from the contest.

every time. always. thats the way real life works. you see it right away.

eg. compare dorian 97 to 93, compare ronnie 99 to Ronnie 2004, compare Kevin Levrone from 92 to 2003 etc etc etc.

tell us, why do the visuals not show the same from ronnie 2001 AC to 99?

after all, you morons are claiming that "2001 KILLED 99"?

explain. particularly the videos from the contest. this I would love to know your answer to.

your fucked. you can't get around this.

but I am going to enjoy seeing you squirm as you try

I didn't say they alter the pics to COMPLETELY alter their conditioning. You can only do so much so ofcourse there will be a difference between 99 and 01 duh! I also never said I though Ronnie was better in 01 than in 99, you have me confused with someone else. I don't see how you can think you are an expert when it's obvious you only go by pics and haven't seen a show in person.

Hulkster · « **Reply #182 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:42:48 PM »

this whole debate is so stupid, considering the fact that we have two VIDEOS showing his condition at both contests.

its not like we have a pic here or a pic there.

no, we have two fucking VIDEOS that do a great job of showing what he looked like onstage..

and they can be compared easily, directly and with validity..

when the 'experts' were sitting there watching Ronnie in 01, how do we know they had a correct recollection of what ronnie looked like in 99? how do we know they weren't influenced by the fact that "oh my God, Mr. O. is competing in the AC!" like I said before?

you don't realize the human aspect of all this.

the footage is not influence by this. the footage doesnt have to recall what ronnie looked like. it doesnt care. it is what it is.

thats why videos are used as evidence in courts.

thats why the videos of the two contests tell all.

even though its not what the nuthuggers want to hear...

Hulkster · « **Reply #183 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:46:10 PM »

Quote

Ever wonder why people when they post their pics always say "pics suck cuz I got a shitty camera?" It's because they do have a crap camera and dont know how to touch up the pics to make them look better. You HAVE TO SEE THEM IN PERSON!

I have seen pros up close and in person. they are massive, pics don't do them justice, thats for sure.

but the reason why people say "crap pics" is because they have crappy camers (or cell phone cameras) as you say.

problem is, the AC video and the 99 Olympia vid are not done by people with crappy cameras.

so that argument goes out the window.

ronnie was better in 99. thats just something that is true as shown.

and we have to deal with it. much to ND's dismay LOL

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #184 on:** July 17, 2009, 01:20:42 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 16, 2009, 08:42:48 PM

this whole debate is so stupid, considering the fact that we have two VIDEOS showing his condition at both contests.

its not like we have a pic here or a pic there.

no, we have two fucking VIDEOS that do a great job of showing what he looked like onstage..

and they can be compared easily, directly and with validity..

when the 'experts' were sitting there watching Ronnie in 01, how do we know they had a correct recollection of what ronnie looked like in 99? how do we know they weren't influenced by the fact that "oh my God, Mr. O. is competing in the AC!" like I said before?

you don't realize the human aspect of all this.

the footage is not influence by this. the footage doesnt have to recall what ronnie looked like. it doesnt care. it is what it is.

thats why videos are used as evidence in courts.

thats why the videos of the two contests tell all.

even though its not what the nuthuggers want to hear...

The problem isn't with the pics and video the problem is YOU , it's a proven FACT you don't have the first clue on what great conditioning is . after viewing the pics and video YOU came to the conclusion Ronnie at the 99 Olympia easily surpassed Dorian at looking grainy , YOU after looking at the pics and video came to the conclusion Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex Wheeler , YOU after looking at the pics and video came to the conclusion Ronnie 99 has more detailed calves than Dorian ever did , its YOU who after looking at the pics and video came to the conclusion Dorian's conditioning was nothing more than a myth

you don't know what you're talking about case closed , you constantly contradict those who do and have the stupidity to claim they are wrong and you are right HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH the height of ignorance

you can't back up your position and never could all you can do is say ' see '

Ronnie must have decided he wouldn't mind a Hummer and an extra hundred grand in his checking account, so he broke tradition and competed at the Arnold Classic in March, winning handily at a ripped and streamlined 250 pounds. To this day, there are still many who consider this the best 'look' Ronnie has ever displayed, as his waist was tight, he was thick and full all over, and his condition was spot-on.

from Ronnie's own website

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #185 on:** July 17, 2009, 01:22:51 AM »

Quote from: Mr.1derful on July 16, 2009, 06:59:04 PM

Show me where I said that. And it's ironic you calling anyone a "guy", being that you'd bend over at the first sight of Ronnie.

he can't show you were you said that because he's a LIAR and makes shit up when faced with facts . he tries the same shit with anyone even Kevin Horton , he's already been busted using photoshopped pics , I busted him twice outright making up quotes , he has nothing and when pushed to back up his claims he just doesn't respond

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #186 on:** July 17, 2009, 01:28:14 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 16, 2009, 08:46:10 PM

I have seen pros up close and in person. they are massive, pics don't do them justice, thats for sure.

but the reason why people say "crap pics" is because they have crappy camers (or cell phone cameras) as you say.

problem is, the AC video and the 99 Olympia vid are not done by people with crappy cameras.

so that argument goes out the window.

ronnie was better in 99. thats just something that is true as shown.

and we have to deal with it. much to ND's dismay LOL

YOU NEVER SEEN RONNIE COLEMAN and you never seen him in 1999 and 2001 and then you have the balls to say those who did are wrong and you are right

you seen what you want and you simply CAN NOT back up your claim , it's an empty claim like every thing you type

Ronnie must have decided he wouldn't mind a Hummer and an extra hundred grand in his checking account, so he broke tradition and competed at the Arnold Classic in March, winning handily at a ripped and streamlined 250 pounds. To this day, there are still many who consider this the best 'look' Ronnie has ever displayed, as his waist was tight, he was thick and full all over, and his condition was spot-on.

Ronnie's website

Hulkster · « **Reply #187 on:** July 17, 2009, 02:08:43 PM »

Quote

YOU NEVER SEEN RONNIE COLEMAN and you never seen him in 1999 and 2001 and then you have the balls to say those who did are wrong and you are right

no, real life shows they are wrong quite easily and nicely..

not me. sorry.

I love how you say "I have the balls" as if what we are saying is somehow unlikely.

meanwhile, we have tons of pics and two great VIDEOS from the contests to support the obvious truth that we are saying LOL

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #188 on:** July 17, 2009, 02:14:09 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 17, 2009, 02:08:43 PM

no, real life shows they are wrong quite easily and nicely..

not me. sorry.

I love how you say "I have the balls" as if what we are saying is somehow unlikely.

meanwhile, we have tons of pics and two great VIDEOS from the contests to support the obvious truth that we are saying LOL

Who's we? all the follow dummies who were NEVER at either contest ? morons

Ronnie must have decided he wouldn't mind a Hummer and an extra hundred grand in his checking account, so he broke tradition and competed at the Arnold Classic in March, winning handily at a ripped and streamlined 250 pounds. To this day, there are still many who consider this the best 'look' Ronnie has ever displayed, as his waist was tight, he was thick and full all over, and his condition was spot-on.

Ronnie's website

you can't beat that moron

Hulkster · « **Reply #189 on:** July 17, 2009, 03:11:06 PM »

its funny how all your arguments (whether its this or the dorian stuff) is all based on quotes that don`t even match up to the any of the pics and vids. the pics and vids all show the opposite story (ie the real truth, not human error)

what a weak argument given the nature of this sport (based on visuals)

Mr.1derful · « **Reply #190 on:** July 17, 2009, 04:17:14 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 17, 2009, 02:08:43 PM

no, real life shows they are wrong quite easily and nicely..

not me. sorry.

I love how you say "I have the balls" as if what we are saying is somehow unlikely.

meanwhile, we have tons of pics and two great VIDEOS from the contests to support the obvious truth that we are saying LOL

So pics and vids are "real life" as you call it, where as witnessing the contest first hand is to be disregarded? Your stupidity abounds.

Hulkster · « **Reply #191 on:** July 17, 2009, 04:33:56 PM »

Quote from: Mr.1derful on July 17, 2009, 04:17:14 PM

So pics and vids are "real life" as you call it, where as witnessing the contest first hand is to be disregarded? Your stupidity abounds.

humans make errors in judgement. videos don't. thats the point.

eg. if you are sitting at the AC, blown away you might be thinking that ronnie's shape was his best ever. However, had you went and saw shots/footage of the 99 Olympia would change your mind quickly.

you morons should note that the same thing happened at the 2003 olympia. immediately after the show, people that were there were freaking out, saying it was ronnie's best etc.

however, once people looked with a more informed eye, it was quite clear he was better at the AC, in 98, 99 etc.

you guys really need a lesson in human psychology. among many other things.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #192 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:25:26 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 17, 2009, 03:11:06 PM

its funny how all your arguments (whether its this or the dorian stuff) is all based on quotes that don`t even match up to the any of the pics and vids. the pics and vids all show the opposite story (ie the real truth, not human error)

what a weak argument given the nature of this sport (based on visuals)

based on visuals LIVE AND IN PERSON you weren't there and your don't know what the fuck you're talking about to begin with after looking at the visuals

Ronnie was grainier than Dorian ever as you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals
Ronnie's calves were more detailed than Dorians you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals
Dorian lost the 93 Olympia THE MOST DOMINATING WIN in the contests history you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals
Dorian's conditioning was a myth you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals

you know NOTHING old news .....next

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #193 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:26:51 PM »

Quote from: Mr.1derful on July 17, 2009, 04:17:14 PM

So pics and vids are "real life" as you call it, where as witnessing the contest first hand is to be disregarded? Your stupidity abounds.

You have to love his backwards retard logic , can anyone be so dumb as to claim pics are more accurate than being there? LMMFAO

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #194 on:** July 17, 2009, 05:29:18 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 17, 2009, 04:33:56 PM

humans make errors in judgement. videos don't. thats the point.

eg. if you are sitting at the AC, blown away you might be thinking that ronnie's shape was his best ever. However, had you went and saw shots/footage of the 99 Olympia would change your mind quickly.

you morons should note that the same thing happened at the 2003 olympia. immediately after the show, people that were there were freaking out, saying it was ronnie's best etc.

however, once people looked with a more informed eye, it was quite clear he was better at the AC, in 98, 99 etc.

you guys really need a lesson in human psychology. among many other things.

videos led you to the following conclusions

Ronnie was grainier than Dorian ever as you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals
Ronnie's calves were more detailed than Dorians you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals
Dorian lost the 93 Olympia THE MOST DOMINATING WIN in the contests history you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals
Dorian's conditioning was a myth you came to this conclusion after looking at the visuals

you're ignorant and blind bad combo

back up your claims via experts eyewitnesses still waiting

Hulkster · « **Reply #195 on:** July 19, 2009, 08:19:43 AM »

still waiting for the visuals to back up your claim that 'ronnie 2001 KILLS 99"

hint: if the two damn videos didn't show it, nothing ever will.

because 2001 was not better than 99.

end of story.

oh, and by the way, Ronnie's gut was signficantly worse at the 2001 AC (and 2000 olympia for that matter) than it was in 99.

too bad your eye witnesses didnt pick up on that did they?

Immortal_Technique · « **Reply #196 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:10:23 PM »

Many believe 98/98 was his best. Many believe 2001 was his best. I personally believe 2003 was his most dominant, whether he actually looked the best/most aesthetic or not. Many would agree with me, but we can't know how many "many" is. I don't think any stats on percentages on which year was the "right" answer have or will ever be obtained, so we'll never know. How's that?

Hulkster · « **Reply #197 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:17:26 PM »

not good enough because ND claims no one believes 99 was his best

.

he was a few quotes from some people in the industry that say 2001 was his best (in their opinion - regardless of whether or not it has merit), and thats all he goes by..

thats how easily influenced and narrow minded he is..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #198 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:21:59 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 19, 2009, 01:17:26 PM

not good enough because ND claims no one believes 99 was his best .

he was a few quotes from some people in the industry that say 2001 was his best (in their opinion - regardless of whether or not it has merit), and thats all he goes by..

thats how easily influenced and narrow minded he is..

LIAR show me where I ever claimed ' no one believes 99 was his best ' LIAR I said no experts feel 99 was his best and neither does he , a bunch of ignorant fan-boys think 99 is the best and NONE of the experts say it is , it's like saying 1992 was Dorian's best when in contradicts reality and the general consensus

Hulkster · « **Reply #199 on:** July 19, 2009, 01:24:47 PM »

Quote

it's like saying 1992 was Dorian's best when in contradicts reality

LOL

so now, after tons of comparison pics and two videos showing 2001 was not as good as 99, you are talking about 'contradicting reality" all of a sudden?

oh boy...