insane pic of coleman 2003

[Shockwave]

Okay well we sort of agree then, I don't think 03 judges would give Frank Zane great marks for instance up against Dennis James or whatever even though he's more complete in many ways. But, Ronnie was the most shredded from the back in 03 so conditioning was hardly a non-issue, ask Lee Priest that year.

Ronnie got some big but poorly shaped calves that year, he had crazy overall thickness so it seems unfair/biased as fuck to disregard any pics where you think Ronnie's calves look remotely comparible?!

No, because his calves were not big that year, look at the pic backstage next to Levrone.
Look, there is no way to try and spin it to make that other comparison valid, its not, flat out.

And its not unfail/unbiased to disregard it, when you can clearly see with a little deductive logic that its not a valid comparison. Ronnie's calves were never "big but poorly shaped", they were always small/average sized.

I cant figure out why youre still arguing this, I would have admitted I was wrong long ago and moved on. Lol.

[NarcissisticDeity]

It is pretty amazing how different Ronnie, or anyone, can look just hours apart. I think he killed it at prejudging, and by the final posedown had got watery, couldn't keep his gut in etc. I mean Kevin looks better in that pic but he came what 6th that year? This is why the few minutes onstage for prejudging and comparisons are so important. If Ronnie sucks it in for the judges what can they do? How many kitchen Mr Olympas do we see on here? Only when you square up side by side under stage lights can the truth be seen. Kitchen lights, gym lights, backstage ect don't mean anything as the judges can't see it to judge it, and stage lights require a certain type of condition or they wash out all the colour and detail.

Whether you like it or not Ronnie won in 03 and even 04, so clearly the judges rated his big watery ass, even in 04 over guys like Dexter, but more to the point in 03, and it is in their eyes I have always suggested he would be judged victor in the "all time" O stakes. When you quote the judging criteria, one would believe Dexter, Victor or Shawn Ray or whoever should have won various years...but they didn't, how do you reconcile yourself with this contradiction? You must find yourself shouting the rules at the screen when you remember Ronnie beat Flex, Jay beat Dexter, Ruhl beat Darrem Charles etc. So many examples of the rules being primary guided by size and conditioning - with these days more and more especially means glute/ham conditioning, whether I agree with it or not.

It is pretty amazing how different Ronnie, or anyone, can look just hours apart. I think he killed it at prejudging, and by the final posedown had got watery, couldn't keep his gut in etc. I mean Kevin looks better in that pic but he came what 6th that year? This is why the few minutes onstage for prejudging and comparisons are so important. If Ronnie sucks it in for the judges what can they do? How many kitchen Mr Olympas do we see on here? Only when you square up side by side under stage lights can the truth be seen. Kitchen lights, gym lights, backstage ect don't mean anything as the judges can't see it to judge it, and stage lights require a certain type of condition or they wash out all the colour and detail.

I had no problem with Ronnie winning in 03 , I think he destroyed the field but when it comes to 98 he was lacking. And the pic with Kevin was to show his calves or lack there of and how in the comparison that Neo made with Dorian they are somehow MUCH bigger which isn't reality at all

Whether you like it or not Ronnie won in 03 and even 04, so clearly the judges rated his big watery ass, even in 04 over guys like Dexter, but more to the point in 03, and it is in their eyes I have always suggested he would be judged victor in the "all time" O stakes. When you quote the judging criteria, one would believe Dexter, Victor or Shawn Ray or whoever should have won various years...but they didn't, how do you reconcile yourself with this contradiction? You must find yourself shouting the rules at the screen when you remember Ronnie beat Flex, Jay beat Dexter, Ruhl beat Darrem Charles etc. So many examples of the rules being primary guided by size and conditioning - with these days more and more especially means glute/ham conditioning, whether I agree with it or not.

I have no problem with 03/04 Ronnie was the winner , just compared his best he sucked. And the criteria is the criteria you can dismiss some of it or part of it to make your case but it's still who meets all of it better is the winner. I don't think Dex , Victor or Shawn should have won , I had no problem with Ronnie beating Flex even though Flex is one of my favorites , size and conditioning are important so is the other criteria , it's all contingent on who you're being compared to.

[NarcissisticDeity]

You pretty much say here that any comparison where Ronnie comes close in calves is not admissable as you KNOW he would get killed. You have made up your mind.

And so he should have his mind made up , because there is NO comparison in calves , they weren't close at anytime and never would be even when Ronnie was heavier.

[Immortal_Technique]

You effectively want me to admit all on-stage pre-judging pics from that year of Ronnie where his calves are flexed and seen from the back are doctored in his favour to make his calves look half decent?

Clearly they look whack in that levrone pic, he also looks watery and bloated as fuck, but there are many rounds, they pump up what 4 times throughout the contest, take god knows what shit in between rounds, in 2002 Ronnie's arms went from huge to tiny in a couple of days. If I find one pick of Dorian looking a certain way does it prove every other pic is fake?!?!?!

The Ronnie pic from that comparison, regardless of scale, is generally accepted to be one of many very impressive screencaps from prejudging that year.

[Immortal_Technique]

And so he should have his mind made up , because there is NO comparison in calves , they weren't close at anytime and never would be even when Ronnie was heavier.

Whilst I wouldn't argue different necessarily, Dorian's calves were generally a shitload better, it doesn't mean impressive Ronnie pics have to be fake. I'm having a hard time discounting pictures in favour of you guys' prejudiced typed form of counter evidence.

Dorian still has better calves in the comparison in fullness and shape etc, but Ronnie's were better than normal that year,is all I'm saying.

Pics from 97 you have to bear in mind Ronnie leapfrogged like 7 other guys from 97 so arguing he was basically the same in 96 , 97 seems somewhat detached in basis.

[NarcissisticDeity]

You effectively want me to admit all on-stage pre-judging pics from that year of Ronnie where his calves are flexed and seen from the back are doctored in his favour to make his calves look half decent?

Clearly they look whack in that levrone pic, he also looks watery and bloated as fuck, but there are many rounds, they pump up what 4 times throughout the contest, take god knows what shit in between rounds, in 2002 Ronnie's arms went from huge to tiny in a couple of days. If I find one pick of Dorian looking a certain way does it prove every other pic is fake?!?!?!

The Ronnie pic from that comparison, regardless of scale, is generally accepted to be one of many very impressive screencaps from prejudging that year.

You effectively want me to admit all on-stage pre-judging pics from that year of Ronnie where his calves are flexed and seen from the back are doctored in his favour to make his calves look half decent?

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with Dorian Yates because he wasn't on-stage side-by-side against a career best Dorian Yates in 2003

Clearly they look whack in that levrone pic, he also looks watery and bloated as fuck, but there are many rounds, they pump up what 4 times throughout the contest, take god knows what shit in between rounds, in 2002 Ronnie's arms went from huge to tiny in a couple of days. If I find one pick of Dorian looking a certain way does it prove every other pic is fake?!?!?!

Who said anything was fake? you're arguing against a point no one has made. Ronnie's calves even in 2003 will not be anywhere near as big as Dorians even though he's much heavier , nevermind in the comparison where they are clearly bigger

The Ronnie pic from that comparison, regardless of scale, is generally accepted to be one of many very impressive screencaps from prejudging that year.

Arguing another point no one made , I agree 100% Ronnie is impressive as fucking hell in that back double biceps pic from 2003 , the size difference is what I find laughable the scale is way off and in reality it wouldn't be anything close to that scale

[Shockwave]

No one said Ronnies pics were fake.
The comparison where Ronnie and Dorian are standing next to each other are not accurate, not because the Ronnie pic is doctored, but because the angles, distance from stage, way they were standing, hell EVERYTHING is different.

You can tell this, because Dorians calves were ALWAYS much, much larger than Ronnies, even in 03. You can see this, by comparing Ronnie's waist and calves to others that Dorian has stood next to.

Therefore, that comparison is not valid, because it has Ronnie's waist and his calves appearing to be the same size or larger than Dorians, which they NEVER, EVER, were.

I dont understand why youre still arguing, is it that hard to admit that you were wrong and that comparison is not scaled anywhere near correct? lol.
And I dont understand where this doctored/fake business comes from, no one has said anything is fake besides those caps Hulkster used to use all the time. Lol.

[Immortal_Technique]

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with Dorian Yates because he wasn't on-stage side-by-side against a career best Dorian Yates in 2003


Who said anything was fake? you're arguing against a point no one has made. Ronnie's calves even in 2003 will not be anywhere near as big as Dorians even though he's much heavier , nevermind in the comparison where they are clearly bigger

Arguing another point no one made , I agree 100% Ronnie is impressive as fucking hell in that back double biceps pic from 2003 , the size difference is what I find laughable the scale is way off and in reality it wouldn't be anything close to that scale

Read all of shockwaves posts properly and it will make more sense what I am arguing against.

[Shockwave]

Read all of shockwaves posts properly and it will make more sense what I am arguing against.

I never said any of Ronnie's pics were worked or fake. Im confused.

[Immortal_Technique]

No one said Ronnies pics were fake.
The comparison where Ronnie and Dorian are standing next to each other are not accurate, not because the Ronnie pic is doctored, but because the angles, distance from stage, way they were standing, hell EVERYTHING is different.

You can tell this, because Dorians calves were ALWAYS much, much larger than Ronnies, even in 03. You can see this, by comparing Ronnie's waist and calves to others that Dorian has stood next to.

Therefore, that comparison is not valid, because it has Ronnie's waist and his calves appearing to be the same size or larger than Dorians, which they NEVER, EVER, were.

I dont understand why youre still arguing, is it that hard to admit that you were wrong and that comparison is not scaled anywhere near correct? lol.
And I dont understand where this doctored/fake business comes from, no one has said anything is fake besides those caps Hulkster used to use all the time. Lol.

I look at height, head size, waist size, non-muscular unbiased means of determining scale. You guys look at calf size and if Ronnie is holding a candle to Dorian in that department it must be fake/biased unfair whatever, hahaha  enjoy the rest of this thread.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Whilst I wouldn't argue different necessarily, Dorian's calves were generally a shitload better, it doesn't mean impressive Ronnie pics have to be fake. I'm having a hard time discounting pictures in favour of you guys' prejudiced typed form of counter evidence.

Dorian still has better calves in the comparison in fullness and shape etc, but Ronnie's were better than normal that year,is all I'm saying.

Pics from 97 you have to bear in mind Ronnie leapfrogged like 7 other guys from 97 so arguing he was basically the same in 96 , 97 seems somewhat detached in basis.

Not sure what you're saying here , but Ronnie was better conditioned in 1996 hence why his Olympia placing was better than 97 , ironically he was lighter , see a pattern here? better conditioned , lighter and more detailed = better contest placing ( again contingent on who you're competing with )

Ronnie's placing in 1997 9th at the Olympia , to winner next year why? a couple of reasons , Dorian wasn't competing , Nasser was off as well as Flex and he finally nailed his conditioning perfectly , and was slightly lighter than 1996 and noticeably lighter than 1997

Whilst I wouldn't argue different necessarily, Dorian's calves were generally a shitload better, it doesn't mean impressive Ronnie pics have to be fake. I'm having a hard time discounting pictures in favour of you guys' prejudiced typed form of counter evidence.

Who is saying they are fake? they're just not scaled accurately , if they were his calves would NOT be as big ( nevermind anywhere near as good ) or bigger , they wouldn't even be close in size.

Dorian still has better calves in the comparison in fullness and shape etc, but Ronnie's were better than normal that year,is all I'm saying.

Ronnei's weren't better than normal , his calves never improved , they may have been bigger than lets say 1998 but that has nothing to do with Dorian Yates

Pics from 97 you have to bear in mind Ronnie leapfrogged like 7 other guys from 97 so arguing he was basically the same in 96 , 97 seems somewhat detached in basis.

[Shockwave]

I look at height, head size, waist size, non-muscular unbiased means of determining scale. You guys look at calf size and if Ronnie is holding a candle to Dorian in that department it must be fake/biased unfair whatever, hahaha  enjoy the rest of this thread.

No, I look at things I KNOW I can compare.
Head size you cant, because they (camera) can be at different angles, not to mention holding there heads differently. Period.
You clearly dont use waist size, because I use waist size, as Dorians waist should NEVER be as small as Ronnie's, and if it is, its obviously not scaled right.
Height cant be used, again, angle of camera, way theyre leaning, etc all makes height iffy at best.
You have to use things you know you can compare. Waist is the best in this case, and the calves are the nail in the coffin for that comparison.

Youre starting to sound like a butthurt pouting child, all because Im pointing out that one comparison is bogus? Why cant you accept youre wrong and move on?

I never said that pic of Ronnie used to compare to Dorian isnt impressive, it is, its just not scaled accuratley, quit acting like a little bitch cause youre trying to defend that comparison, no one attacked Ronnie, youre just acting like a spoiled brat who's arguing why your toy is better than his.

Jesus christ.

[NarcissisticDeity]

No, I look at things I KNOW I can compare.
Head size you cant, because they can be at different angles, holding there heads differently. Period.
You clearly dont use waist size, because I use waist size, as Dorians waist should NEVER be as small as Ronnie's, and if it is, its obviously not scaled right.
Height cant be used, again, angle of camera, way theyre leaning, etc all makes height iffy at best.

Youre starting to sound like a butthurt pouting child, all because Im pointing out that one comparison is bogus? Why cant you accept youre wrong and move on?

Jesus christ.

 

You make a ton of valid points sir.

[GoneAway]

Are you seriously attempting to claim Ronnie wasn't soft in 04? and BTW he was fully flexed in that pic , I know I've watched the video

here is Ronnie 98 compared 03 both fully flexed and he's softer in 03 than 98 the difference is blatant and the discrepancy is even more so in 04

Just on his back alone, he looks softer than '98 and less muscular than '03 but it's close. It's like he lost muscle in his middle back in '04 compared to the previous year or it's just hard to see it clearly in that shot. Fair point, though.

[Nirvana]

This is NOT reality , this is laughable , this appeals to fanboys like yourself who think this would be reality

oh, but the other one is? 

[Iceman1981]

Here are better pics showing Ronnie to be a lot bigger than Jay. These pics are from a better angle.

[Iceman1981]

Ronnie still bigger.

[Iceman1981]

And still bigger

[TRIX]

Reality 

Ronnie's not even close

someone made this side-by-side because they bitched Ronnie wasn't flexed yet , good point but it doesn't change anything , Dorian's wider too 

not even close? Lol

Ronnie is blowing yates,away in chest, look at the thickness, look at his arms, the striations, he even has bigger better quads, and this is 96 coleman... Yates has calves and a birdys chest

[Nirvana]

Here are better pics showing Ronnie to be a lot bigger than Jay. These pics are from a better angle.

ronnie is clearly better in those shots which for some reason means it's not reality.

hold on let me find a blury screen cap to better represent reality.  if I can't I'll just play semantics

[NarcissisticDeity]

not even close? Lol

Ronnie is blowing yates,away in chest, look at the thickness, look at his arms, the striations, he even has bigger better quads, and this is 96 coleman... Yates has calves and a birdys chest

Yes exactly why Ronnie won this contest and Dorian was 6th  ....................... ..hey wait 

not even close kid

[NarcissisticDeity]

ronnie is clearly better in those shots which for some reason means it's not reality.

hold on let me find a blury screen cap to better represent reality.  if I can't I'll just play semantics

I love how you respond to quotes people never made and argue points no one made. Who said Ronnie wasn't clearly better? or even bigger?

This my friend is not reality , was Ronnie bigger? absolutely , was Ronnie dwarfing Jay like he was in this picture? NO Jay is 2" shorter yet he appears much shorter and smaller

and is this screencap blurry? yeah I thought so 

[mesmorph78]

made jay look like a kid.....

[QuakerOats]

Here are better pics showing Ronnie to be a lot bigger than Jay. These pics are from a better angle.

honestly except for in the rear lat spread i think they pretty comparable in sheer size in every other picture.

[QuakerOats]

made jay look like a kid.....

no he didnt, was he better and somewhat bigger? yes, but nowhere near what people make it sound.