what s the size of this arm ?

[TRIX]

levrones closer to the cam in all those pics, whats your point?

[closeline]

HEATH and LEVRONE look big standing alone because of their narrowness, but next to coleman thei are TWO steps behind (not to say look really small)

Coleman s arms at 290lbs must be 2-3inch bigger at least than heath an levrone at their max.  240lbs

same with levrones so called best shoulders

coleman  s are twice as big

[closeline]

and look at the lenght of the armes on the last pic above

Levrone is all illusion via being narrow and havin so short limbs

coleman s forarm has almost  the size of levrones bis and tris but is 30 percent longer


another insane armpic of unparalleld coleman (at close to 300lbs, while heath still trying hard to get to the 240lbs)

[TRIX]

Boom

[closeline]

Boom

correct, keving can t even keep up with flex (esiclene tris vs. synthol bis and tris)

[TRIX]

[MORTALCOIL]

correct, keving can t even keep up with flex (esiclene tris vs. synthol bis and tris)

Levrone was pretty much done after the '97 O' (where he was kind of screwed). Got two runner-up gifts with half a body missing in '00 and '02.

[closeline]

holy shit

left tri was already injured but right arm is 4ich above the rest

[closeline]

...

[disco_stu]

HEATH and LEVRONE look big standing alone because of their narrowness, but next to coleman thei are TWO steps behind (not to say look really small)

Coleman s arms at 290lbs must be 2-3inch bigger at least than heath an levrone at their max.  240lbs

same with levrones so called best shoulders

coleman  s are twice as big

whilst your method has some merit for gauging something interesting, why not prove it?

there appears to be some 12% difference in the 2 dimensional width of the arms in those comparison pics, but there's nothing accounting for thickness...so its not conclusive.

still, IF the thicknesses were the same in proportion, then coleman's arm is 12% greater in diameter than levrone's. IF coleman's arm is 23" then, assuming a perfect circle to represent the arm, and we all remember our circle formula, then coleman's arm at 23" = pi * D. So D- for this analysis is 7.3". Now we know D, then levrone's is 0.88* 7.3" = 6.44". Which means that Levrone's circumference is 20.5"

of more interest is the ratio of arm size to height... smaller absolute arm measurement looks more impressive on shorter guys. , lets say, coleman at 6' tall- or whatever he is, sports 23" guns. thats 0.32" or arm per inch of height. Lee Priest's 21"arms at 5'3" is 0.33" of arm per inch of height..and they look massive!

im not trying to get the exact numbers for these..just trying to make a point. as the arm to height measurement is such small numbers, three digits is going to be required.

[disco_stu]

...

matching head size doesnt work...you are then scaling the image.

[closeline]

whilst your method has some merit for gauging something interesting, why not prove it?

there appears to be some 12% difference in the 2 dimensional width of the arms in those comparison pics, but there's nothing accounting for thickness...so its not conclusive.

still, IF the thicknesses were the same in proportion, then coleman's arm is 12% greater in diameter than levrone's. IF coleman's arm is 23" then, assuming a perfect circle to represent the arm, and we all remember our circle formula, then coleman's arm at 23" = pi * D. So D- for this analysis is 7.3". Now we know D, then levrone's is 0.88* 7.3" = 6.44". Which means that Levrone's circumference is 20.5"

of more interest is the ratio of arm size to height... smaller absolute arm measurement looks more impressive on shorter guys. , lets say, coleman at 6' tall- or whatever he is, sports 23" guns. thats 0.32" or arm per inch of height. Lee Priest's 21"arms at 5'3" is 0.33" of arm per inch of height..and they look massive!

im not trying to get the exact numbers for these..just trying to make a point. as the arm to height measurement is such small numbers, three digits is going to be required.

good points

[closeline]

matching head size doesnt work...you are then scaling the image.

matching armsize would means phil heath looking like a bubble had   

[Tito24]

[TRIX]

coleman had 22 inch arms ripped to pieces

Lee priest 20 - 21 inch arm he posted had no detail whatsoever compared to coleman

[TRIX]

liar priest seems to be manipulating the tape




Nowhere even close to coleman in terms of conditioning

[Dreadlifter]

Phil has great detail and the sweep of his tris is what really gives that illusion, Levrone was the same way, but stand Levrone next to Coleman and his arms shrunk away like two little scared balls retreating into the scrotum.

To this day, haven't seen a more ridiculous arm shot:

That pic never fails to impress me, no wammter how many times i see it.

I remember a guy i know telling me how he used to hit the waits hard and ended up with massive arms. To directly quote him " i could hardly brush my teeth my arms were that big". 

[Trev]

Exactly. End of thread.

Agreed - Most arms are much smaller than they look. Arnold's were measured once on public (offseason ) and were only around 19" !!

[#1 Klaus fan]

Scary picture haha.

[Pet shop boys]

even if heaths arms are bigger , they look fake. rons arms are rockhard solid muscle

X2.

Heath's arms look SO FAKE ..can't even explain why....

WOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Hulkotron]

HEATH and LEVRONE look big standing alone because of their narrowness, but next to coleman thei are TWO steps behind (not to say look really small)

Coleman s arms at 290lbs must be 2-3inch bigger at least than heath an levrone at their max.  240lbs

same with levrones so called best shoulders

coleman  s are twice as big

Haha, the "two-finger pistol-point side triceps" should be a new mandatory.