Author Topic: K.Greene 09/10 Comparison (Read 4994 times)

Method101 · « **on:** March 10, 2010, 03:25:59 AM »

Hardly changed at all.

2009 Arnold

2010 Arnold

Sherief Shalaby · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:42:37 AM »

same weight?

Cleanest Natural · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:44:31 AM »

He seems a little bigger though. Also holdin more water

JasonH · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:45:38 AM »

Maybe it justifies his Arnold win then? People have been going on about it as if he'd lost quality, or he wasn't dry enough etc etc - I can barely tell the difference between the two pictures and I'm pretty sure the judges couldn't tell either.

kyomu · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2010, 03:53:39 AM »

I see major change in thickness.

MORTALCOIL · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:01:15 AM »

From that pic, he's holding a little more water but not as bad as some have said. But his traps look better, might be the slightly different angle. Also his tris look a bit fuller, bis definitely look softer.

kyomu · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:03:12 AM »

Quote from: MORTALCOIL on March 10, 2010, 04:01:15 AM

From that pic, he's holding a little more water but not as bad as some have said. But his traps look better, might be the slightly different angle. Also his tris look a bit fuller, bis definitely look softer.

Yes. Thicker but softer also.

MORTALCOIL · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:05:56 AM »

You can see he's not as conditioned from his obliques mainly. His waist is no better nor worse than last year but his obliques do look bigger and that's water most likely.

Meso_z · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:09:40 AM »

Quote from: Method101 on March 10, 2010, 03:25:59 AM

Hardly changed at all.

2009 Arnold

2010 Arnold

at this level, its very hard to show visible improvements.

Small details do matter when youre pretty much maxed out... thickness, dryness etc..

alnassak · « **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:22:26 AM »

How about Coleman 2002 to 2003 ..?

Sherief Shalaby · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:29:14 AM »

Quote from: alnassak on March 10, 2010, 04:22:26 AM

How about Coleman 2002 to 2003 ..?

or dorian 92 t0 93 or nasser 94 to 95 or ronnie 97 to 98 or jay 2000 to 2001!!..

MORTALCOIL · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:33:53 AM »

Actually, Ronnie's tranformation from2002 to 2003 is the most surprising because since the 2001 AC is seemed to be declining. Dorian from 92 to 93 was also crazy because it really set a new standard but he was still on his way up. You could tell Nasser and Jay had still a growth potential though. Coleman just brought a freakier than freaky physiquue where lines and aesthetics meant nothing anymore. But he still could handle the mass even with that gut to just crush the competition (which was no very good though that year).

Meso_z · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:38:29 AM »

Quote from: alnassak on March 10, 2010, 04:22:26 AM

How about Coleman 2002 to 2003 ..?

coleman was overdieted in 2002 or seems to have gotten sick before the contest.imo

MORTALCOIL · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:44:28 AM »

Quote from: Meso_z on March 10, 2010, 04:38:29 AM

coleman was overdieted in 2002 or seems to have gotten sick before the contest.imo

He didn't look good at the 2001 O either.

Sherief Shalaby · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:48:13 AM »

Quote from: MORTALCOIL on March 10, 2010, 04:44:28 AM

He didn't look good at the 2001 O either.

same can be said about his shape in 2000.. many felt levrone was better!.. ronnie was great but like dorian he didnt deserve all his olympia victories!..

MORTALCOIL · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:56:04 AM »

I agree he didn't look good in 2000 also. But Levrone showed up with half a body. He could have showe dup in a wheelchait that it would have been the same. No legs at all.

Sherief Shalaby · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2010, 04:59:30 AM »

Quote from: MORTALCOIL on March 10, 2010, 04:56:04 AM

I agree he didn't look good in 2000 also. But Levrone showed up with half a body. He could have showe dup in a wheelchait that it would have been the same. No legs at all.

most of the top guys were not in good shapes on that day, flex, nasser were both far away from their best and i am not sure about shawn ray.. bad for the olympia but good for ronnie!!..

Genius · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2010, 05:49:53 AM »

Quote from: Meso_z on March 10, 2010, 04:38:29 AM

coleman was overdieted in 2002 or seems to have gotten sick before the contest.imo

Kevin gave him a run for the money that year.

Ronnie's back saved him. It was "close".

BanksMcgee · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2010, 06:28:13 AM »

Facial expression and hair due is the biggest difference.

Game Time · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2010, 07:15:35 AM »

His goatee is clearly thicker in 2009

Sherief Shalaby · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2010, 07:20:03 AM »

even the same posing trunk!!.. this is a proof he didnt sell it

dantelis · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2010, 07:24:04 AM »

Quote from: Method101 on March 10, 2010, 03:25:59 AM

Hardly changed at all.

2009 Arnold

2010 Arnold

Anyone else think Kai's biceps look weird? They seem like he has a tennis ball in his arm in these shots and they don't seem balanced by his triceps.

lastrep · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2010, 07:40:30 AM »

He's bigger and SHARPER in 2010

MORTALCOIL · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2010, 07:44:54 AM »

Quote from: dantelis on March 10, 2010, 07:24:04 AM

Anyone else think Kai's biceps look weird? They seem like he has a tennis ball in his arm in these shots and they don't seem balanced by his triceps.

Not really. Probably has a very short bicep. The insertion is so far from the elbow that it gives that impression but also is responible for the crazy peak he's got. His triceps are not bad at all but they don't pop the same way. Also he seems less confortable with triceps poses.

Palpatine Q · « **Reply #24 on:** March 10, 2010, 07:47:37 AM »

Quote from: MORTALCOIL on March 10, 2010, 07:44:54 AM

Not really. Probably has a very short bicep. The insertion is so far from the elbow that it gives that impression but also is responible for the crazy peak he's got. His triceps are not bad at all but they don't pop the same way. Also he seems less confortable with triceps poses.

Wiggs says he knows for a FACT the he oils his biceps