Author Topic: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??  (Read 30220 times)

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #100 on: July 19, 2010, 07:11:29 PM »
LOL bone dry my ass ::)

dorian is famous for his wrinkles of flab, while ronnie is bone dry:


holy shit, I can't wait to hear their expertise and excuses about these photos they'll probably just say "you don't know how to judge" or one of their usual excuses

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #101 on: July 19, 2010, 07:13:08 PM »


one more time as proof, nuff said love it or hate it this is reality, no more arguing

There is NO argument just denial , Dorian faced Ronnie 8 times and handed him his ass 8 times  ;)

just a lot of but-hurt fan-boys wishing Ronnie was good enough

that's reality.

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #102 on: July 19, 2010, 07:13:45 PM »
Everything in BBing is genetic you dope.

The guys with the better genetics win.

Being striated doesn't mean anything.... ::)

Unless of course Dorian was striated....then it would be "Look at those striations!!!!!!! he's shredded!!!!"  ;)
thank you fucking groink!

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #103 on: July 19, 2010, 07:14:25 PM »




one more time as proof, nuff said love it or hate it this is reality, no more arguing
You mean a WAY out of balance coleman, who is holding a film of fat and water?
98,99 are widely considered his best, he had huge balance issues in 03, not to mention his conditioning was only considered "acceptable" if you read the reviews. They say HUGE mass with "acceptable" conditioning, so again, to MY eyes those pics work in Dorians favor.  ::)

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #104 on: July 19, 2010, 07:15:56 PM »
Like I said fanboy proof isn't your friend  ;)

Dorian's lower back shits on Ronnies

Not really... Much different lighting, they are both dry in that pic....IMO  Ronnie looks Better, his shape TRULY shits on Dorian's


Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #105 on: July 19, 2010, 07:16:31 PM »
thank you fucking groink!
Thank you for what?
Where did he say striations were indicative of conditioning? Oh wait, he didnt.
Striations are certainly pretty to look at, but for you to say they are a way to judge conditioning, youre just stupid.  ::)

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #106 on: July 19, 2010, 07:19:45 PM »
holy shit, I can't wait to hear their expertise and excuses about these photos they'll probably just say "you don't know how to judge" or one of their usual excuses
Excuses? You dont know shit, flat out, Mr "striations are a good way to show conditioning", You dont know shit, you just know what you THINK looks better, what you THINK is what they want, go read up the actual judging standards, the rules, and how conditioning is defined and you might learn something. Right now youre just arguing on which pics you like better, and trying to pass it off as fact.

You remind me of that guy that goes talking a bunch about shit they know nothing about.

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #107 on: July 19, 2010, 07:21:29 PM »
Thank you for what?
Where did he say striations were indicative of conditioning? Oh wait, he didnt.
Striations are certainly pretty to look at, but for you to say they are a way to judge conditioning, youre just stupid.  ::)

Then why do you guys shoot loads over Dorian's "christmas tree" lower back?

I thought being stridated didn't mean anything  :D

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #108 on: July 19, 2010, 07:24:09 PM »
Then why do you guys shoot loads over Dorian's "christmas tree" lower back?

I thought being stridated didn't mean anything  :D
If you read my posts, I dont shoot loads over his christman tree, lol, but you and I both know Ronnie has those same striations 20lbs from contest weight.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #109 on: July 19, 2010, 07:30:52 PM »
Everything in BBing is genetic you dope.

The guys with the better genetics win.

Being striated doesn't mean anything.... ::)

Unless of course Dorian was striated....then it would be "Look at those striations!!!!!!! he's shredded!!!!"  ;)

Dope? sensitive yet? Hey DOPE Dorian's shape sucked compared to guys like Flex and Dillett and Levrone and Ray and yet he managed to kick their asses for years DOPE

and I dare you to find where I said being striated doesn't mean anything I dare you , you're like these guys making shit up

Munzer had more striations than ANYONE how many contests did he win? striations alone don't mean much , it's who meets ALL of the judging criteria better than the guys he's competing with and that was Dorian

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #110 on: July 19, 2010, 07:35:55 PM »

best bodybuilder is, as best bodybuilder does

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #111 on: July 19, 2010, 07:36:07 PM »
Not really... Much different lighting, they are both dry in that pic....IMO  Ronnie looks Better, his shape TRULY shits on Dorian's



Ronnie's not as dry as Dorian that year but it's good , the feathering of the lats is NO contest Dorian by a contry mile as well as the spinal erectors which are more visible and more abundant

Ronnie's had that ' shape ' all the years Dorian trampled him , which excuse would you like to use for why he lost? the slanted judging? racism ? I've heard them all

1997 same SHAPE and 9th place against a career-worse Yates so much for ' shape '

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #112 on: July 19, 2010, 07:36:23 PM »
there really isn't any contest here.

loose flabby skin vs dry striations: its not hard folks.
Flower Boy Ran Away

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #113 on: July 19, 2010, 07:38:24 PM »
Dope? sensitive yet? Hey DOPE Dorian's shape sucked compared to guys like Flex and Dillett and Levrone and Ray and yet he managed to kick their asses for years DOPE

and I dare you to find where I said being striated doesn't mean anything I dare you , you're like these guys making shit up

Munzer had more striations than ANYONE how many contests did he win? striations alone don't mean much , it's who meets ALL of the judging criteria better than the guys he's competing with and that was Dorian



LOLOL...keep your shirt on ND....stop melting.

Dorian was a very good BB and i think he deserved most of his O wins.  I just think that when Ronnie came into his own a few years later he eclipsed him....It's all opinion here, no one is an authority, including you  ;)

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #114 on: July 19, 2010, 07:41:21 PM »

LOLOL...keep your shirt on ND....stop melting.

Dorian was a very good BB and i think he deserved most of his O wins.  I just think that when Ronnie came into his own a few years later he eclipsed him....It's all opinion here, no one is an authority, including you  ;)

You're the one melting calling people ' dopes ' and claiming I said striations didn't matter  ;)

I'm not an authority but I sure as fuck know more about how contests are judged than all of you combined  ;)

fact is Dorian easily beat Ronnie for years , this is reality. anything is fantasy  :)

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #115 on: July 19, 2010, 07:42:33 PM »
Ronnie's not as dry as Dorian that year but it's good , the feathering of the lats is NO contest Dorian by a contry mile as well as the spinal erectors which are more visible and more abundant

Ronnie's had that ' shape ' all the years Dorian trampled him , which excuse would you like to use for why he lost? the slanted judging? racism ? I've heard them all

1997 same SHAPE and 9th place against a career-worse Yates so much for ' shape '

Wow...you really think where they placed reflects the physiques onstage ??   LOLOLOLOL. that's funny

So you think Jay deserved to win his second O, or franco. or Arnold in 81 or 72, or ronnie in 01 or.....etc. etc, etc

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #116 on: July 19, 2010, 07:43:25 PM »
Quote
Ronnie's had that ' shape ' all the years Dorian trampled him , which excuse would you like to use for why he lost? the slanted judging? racism ? I've heard them all

no excuses. just very poor conditioning and less mass in important places relative to later years like 99:

see for yourself:

and besides, everyone knows dorian should have lost in 97. years ago before you got dorian's cock shoved completely down your throat even you admitted this many times and were quoted on it by me and many others at the time.
Flower Boy Ran Away

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #117 on: July 19, 2010, 07:43:26 PM »


here's those striated quads some one wanted, it's so painfull for team dorian to view such graphic images

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #118 on: July 19, 2010, 07:44:57 PM »
Wow...you really think where they placed reflects the physiques onstage ??   LOLOLOLOL. that's funny

So you think Jay deserved to win his second O, or franco. or Arnold in 81 or 72, or ronnie in 01 or.....etc. etc, etc
yes this is their biggest source of hope

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #119 on: July 19, 2010, 07:45:07 PM »
Wow...you really think where they placed reflects the physiques onstage ??   LOLOLOLOL. that's funny

So you think Jay deserved to win his second O, or franco. or Arnold in 81 or 72, or ronnie in 01 or.....etc. etc, etc

Oh the old politics plea , I think Jay was good enough and Arnold was in 80 NOT 81 that was Franco , and I think Ronnie was good enough in 01 close calls but they pulled it out

either all contests are fixed or not contests are fixed you can't have it both ways as I've explained to Team Nasser

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #120 on: July 19, 2010, 07:45:26 PM »
Quote
Wow...you really think where they placed reflects the physiques onstage ??  

yes, ND really is that stupid.

amazing, isn't it?
Flower Boy Ran Away

Nirvana

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5121
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #121 on: July 19, 2010, 07:47:05 PM »
Oh the old politics plea , I think Jay was good enough and Arnold was in 80 NOT 81 that was Franco , and I think Ronnie was good enough in 01 close calls but they pulled it out

either all contests are fixed or not contests are fixed you can't have it both ways as I've explained to Team Nasser
::)

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #122 on: July 19, 2010, 07:48:22 PM »
yes, ND really is that stupid.

amazing, isn't it?

says the dummy who claimed Ronnie dominated in 2001 by losing the entire prejudging hahahahahaha

the guy who claims 94 was controversial and 98 wasn't even a close contest and Dorian deserved to lose in 1993

yes it is amazing how fucking retarded you are  ;D you never cease to amaze me in this area

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #123 on: July 19, 2010, 07:50:26 PM »
Oh the old politics plea , I think Jay was good enough and Arnold was in 80 NOT 81 that was Franco , and I think Ronnie was good enough in 01 close calls but they pulled it out

either all contests are fixed or not contests are fixed you can't have it both ways as I've explained to Team Nasser

You've said yourself that Dorian shouldn't have won in 97....but he did.  :)


NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83517
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Is Colemans back still special by todays standards??
« Reply #124 on: July 19, 2010, 07:51:17 PM »
yes this is their biggest source of hope

Says the guy relying a home-made comparison chart where Dorian has smaller waist , hips and joints than Ronnie , and Ronnie has bigger calves LMFAO

this is your proof Ronnie is better  ::)