Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman - 2000 was better than 2003  (Read 10694 times)

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2018, 04:39:34 AM »
on getbig he does

I'd like to think so.  ;D

Getbig right now is a really cool place to be - lots of truth/honesty, yet not overly crass with the insults or trashing of pro bodybuilders, or the industry in general.  I think that's why people like Getbig.  Do people REALLY want to be around Yes Men?  Wouldn't you rather be around someone intelligent, who thinks critically, and who is NOT afraid to point out a flaw when they see one?  I'm confident that means more to most people - and certainly means more to pro bodybuilders as well.

I honestly think that is why Getbig is so popular.  And for as many people as there are who post here, I feel that there are far more who read threads but who do not actively post.  Even when I was away from Getbig, I was still reading on a regular basis.  During my self-imposed timeout, Getbig was a guilty pleasure of mine.  ;)

Natural_O

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Getbig!
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2018, 10:30:00 AM »
If you watch "The Unbelievable" DVD, Ronnie was 287-lb there, and was clearly in contest condition.  I think Ronnie was so far ahead of his time, that neither he nor Chad realized that he could have come into contest at 287-lb, hence the weight drop.  In 2003, they basically realized that Ronnie could easily be over 280 in contest, and decided to actually come in at 287.  But Ronnie had that size in 2000.  It's not like he gained new muscle in 2003 - it's that he actually decided to not cut the weight coming into the contest.  More evidence of this is Ronnie in the 2002 Battle for the Olympia DVD.  He was something like 275-lb in that video, and clearly in contest shape.  Yet he decided to drop 30-lb and came into contest WAY underweight.  Had Cutler competed that year, I believe he would have won, at least if he reproduced the physique that he showed at the 2001 Mr. Olympia contest where he placed 2nd.  It's sort of sad that Jay decided to take 2002 off, in light of Ronnie's lackluster [for Ronnie's standards] performance.

In 2004, based on his size at the press conference to his size on the stage, I have one word:

over-diuresis.

Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.

On_Swole

  • Expert
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2018, 05:33:21 PM »
Based on conditioning, I would agree with you - but based on size, you had one massive bodybuilder literally dwarfing another massive bodybuilder, who was dwarfing *most* of the rest of the lineup.  There were some exceptions there - Dennis James and Art Atwood for example.  But think about how Ronnie - or Jay - looked compared to Darrem Charles or Troy Alves for example.  It was a night-and-day size difference.

PS - aren't you from a southern state that asshole Hollywood movies constantly present as being comprised of a bunch of ignorant hicks.  Georgia?  I have always found your posts to be highly intelligent, going back to your days on Mayhem.  Damn Hollywood movies and their ridiculous stereotypes, all in the name of ending stereotypes.  ::)
I'm not sure that the paragraph beginning with "Based on conditioning..." makes sense, being that (again) Dexter beat Jay and every other larger bodybuilder a couple of weeks later.

I live in Florida, but it's not like Holywood has been very kind to Canada as far as portraying them as intellects goes. Strange Brew, anyone? ;)

On_Swole

  • Expert
  • Getbig III
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2018, 05:35:50 PM »
Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.
Agree 100% that 2002 could've been a golden opportunity for Cutler. However, as off as Ronnie was for Ronnie, I still felt it was a clear cut win when I watched it back then and still do when watching it today.

Nether Animal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13813
  • Team Mower Forever
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2018, 05:38:23 PM »
Agree 100% that 2002 could've been a golden opportunity for Cutler. However, as off as Ronnie was for Ronnie, I still felt it was a clear cut win when I watched it back then and still do when watching it today.

2002 for Ronnie could have been another dominating performance. If she showed up like this Cutler wouldn't have taken him if he showed up.










ChristopherA

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7075
  • Getbig!
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2018, 06:39:04 PM »
I'd like to think so.  ;D

Getbig right now is a really cool place to be - lots of truth/honesty, yet not overly crass with the insults or trashing of pro bodybuilders, or the industry in general.  I think that's why people like Getbig.  Do people REALLY want to be around Yes Men?  Wouldn't you rather be around someone intelligent, who thinks critically, and who is NOT afraid to point out a flaw when they see one?  I'm confident that means more to most people - and certainly means more to pro bodybuilders as well.

I honestly think that is why Getbig is so popular.  And for as many people as there are who post here, I feel that there are far more who read threads but who do not actively post.  Even when I was away from Getbig, I was still reading on a regular basis.  During my self-imposed timeout, Getbig was a guilty pleasure of mine.  ;)
Getbig isn't that popular. Message board for a niche "sport"

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2018, 07:26:28 PM »
Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.

My thoughts exactly!  Great post.  To think that Ronnie was still good enough to win without *much* debate.  As in - no matter how you cut it, it was close.  It's not as if anyone in the lineup was leaps and bounds ahead of him.  I would suspect that everyone had him in their top 2-3, if not as the winner.  That really is something when you think of how huge he was in the 2002 Battle for the Olympia DVD, and was in contest conditioning, carrying an astounding 30-lb more mass than he had on the day of the contest itself.  :o  I think that was the year that John Romano said something to the effect "If anyone wants to beat this guy, they will have to kill him."  ;D

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2018, 07:31:30 PM »
I'm not sure that the paragraph beginning with "Based on conditioning..." makes sense, being that (again) Dexter beat Jay and every other larger bodybuilder a couple of weeks later.

I live in Florida, but it's not like Holywood has been very kind to Canada as far as portraying them as intellects goes. Strange Brew, anyone? ;)

LOL!!! @ your reference to Strange Brew.  100% truth.  It's funny how both American Whites and Canadian Whites are fed propaganda about the others being idiots.  As if the English, French, German, Italian, Irish, and Polish Canadians [or Americans] are so much better than the English, French, German, Italian, Irish, and Polish Americans [or Canadians].  ::)

That's interesting that you live in Florida - I have no idea why I had it in my memory as a less "popular" state.  As I said, my initial memory was that it was Georgia, although given the geographical proximity of Florida and Georgia, I'm wondering if someone else put that idea in my mind.  Maybe someone from Georgia drove to you in Florida to be trained by you.

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2018, 08:03:09 PM »
Getbig isn't that popular. Message board for a niche "sport"

True...but I do suspect that Getbig still gets a decent amount of traffic/visitors though.  According to Alexa, for example, it is far more popular than RXMuscle.  As I have said before, people like the honesty and lack of Yes Men here on Getbig.  They may hate it at times...but they know a compliment from someone not afraid to criticize a pro bodybuilder actually means something.  The same can't be said of a compliment from a Yes Man - such as those who posted on MuscleMayhem back in the day.

The Scott

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21516
  • I'm a victim of soicumcision!!
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2018, 09:05:28 PM »
Exactly right, 2000 was when he filmed the Unbelievable video. After 2001, when it was really close with him and Jay, the judges told Ronnie to come in at 247 like he did when he won the Arnold. Like you said, at the 2002 Battle for the Olympia, he was ready for the show weighing over 275 and then lost almost 30 pounds for the Olympia. That was the year when Gunter looked huge and the crowd booed when Ronnie won. Ronnie was way too flat that year. Even his biceps looked flat. Cutler missed his opportunity by sitting that one out.

Anyone that finds the shit filled blonut physique of Coleman to be even remotely admirable is doubtless about to give birth to a Schmoelien.  The Schmoelien will then run amok until it finds a carapace bellied Shit-Star Sneetch like Coleman to attach itself to and fester in the huge belly.

I can hardly wait for Coleman to wither away.  Oh wait!  He is already doing just that.  Most drugged up non-ambulatory pile of shit of all time award goes to that lazy fatass bastard.  Deadpool 2018.  Fuck that asswipe.

Nether Animal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13813
  • Team Mower Forever
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2018, 09:42:47 PM »
True...but I do suspect that Getbig still gets a decent amount of traffic/visitors though.  According to Alexa, for example, it is far more popular than RXMuscle.  As I have said before, people like the honesty and lack of Yes Men here on Getbig.  They may hate it at times...but they know a compliment from someone not afraid to criticize a pro bodybuilder actually means something.  The same can't be said of a compliment from a Yes Man - such as those who posted on MuscleMayhem back in the day.

For glaring contrast to Getbig, look at MD's ironically titled "No Bull" section. That board is FULL of yes men who gang up on posters who critique pros for looking like shit. Many also have absolutely NO idea what they are talking bout. It's a strange dichotomy and there is a lot of delusion rampant over there.

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2018, 09:51:34 PM »
For glaring contrast to Getbig, look at MD's ironically titled "No Bull" section. That board is FULL of yes men who gang up on posters who critique pros for looking like shit. Many also have absolutely NO idea what they are talking bout. It's a strange dichotomy and there is a lot of delusion rampant over there.

Haha, it's hilarious that they call it that.  :D Sheer delusion.

Sexybeast777

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2736
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2018, 11:14:41 PM »
a true monster

Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2018, 08:04:21 AM »
Ronnie 2000 Mr. Olympia Prejudging.

BSN

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2878
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2018, 11:37:11 AM »
Ronnie at the 1997 Mr.Olympia. Great back

Nether Animal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13813
  • Team Mower Forever
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #40 on: March 16, 2018, 11:39:57 AM »
Ronnie at the 1997 Mr.Olympia. Great back

He was better in 1996.

BSN

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2878
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2018, 12:08:56 PM »
Ronnie Coleman at San Marino Pro 2000. really impressive


ESFitness

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
  • i win.
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2018, 10:35:36 PM »
True...but I do suspect that Getbig still gets a decent amount of traffic/visitors though.  According to Alexa, for example, it is far more popular than RXMuscle.  As I have said before, people like the honesty and lack of Yes Men here on Getbig.  They may hate it at times...but they know a compliment from someone not afraid to criticize a pro bodybuilder actually means something.  The same can't be said of a compliment from a Yes Man - such as those who posted on MuscleMayhem back in the day.

There's actually intelligent grown-ups with experience on rx... And a lack of trolls, which ruins everything there. You can disagree with somebody's opinion, like a grown-up,& not get a time-out. Unlike mayhem. Here, we have grown men who's only goal is to argue and fuck up threads, going largely un-checked.


Aside from that, there's no way jay would've beaten Ronnie in 02. Look at jays 03 showing, where he had 2yrs to prep and plan... And even his 03 condition wouldn't beat an 02 pre-injury Ronnie.

The only thing that could beat Ronnie was Ronnie... And That's what happened

ESFitness

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
  • i win.
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2018, 10:41:15 PM »
Ronnie at the 1997 Mr.Olympia. Great back

Funny thing is, Ronnie has always pretty much looked the same, muscle-wise, since 94/95 or so. It was the conditioning/dryness that changed the game and once he figured that out (with help), it shut the door on everybody for nearly a decade.

Came out at the 98 NOC with a physique that probably could be beaten Dorian in 97 & maybe 96.

Desolate

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4868
  • I dream of Gods
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2018, 10:50:18 PM »
I just know that he never ate/eats vegetables according to his DVDs.

How in the hell does he shit?

With all the steroids, GH, diuretics, and lack of roughage, dude's insides must be gross.

I'm amazed he's still alive.

Looked best in 1999 and 2000.

ESFitness

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
  • i win.
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2018, 12:04:06 AM »
I just know that he never ate/eats vegetables according to his DVDs.

How in the hell does he shit?

With all the steroids, GH, diuretics, and lack of roughage, dude's insides must be gross.

I'm amazed he's still alive.

Looked best in 1999 and 2000.

There are plenty of us who don't eat vegetables that waste space in our stomachs,& we shit just fine.

Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2018, 10:00:46 AM »
I just know that he never ate/eats vegetables according to his DVDs.

How in the hell does he shit?

With all the steroids, GH, diuretics, and lack of roughage, dude's insides must be gross.

I'm amazed he's still alive.

Looked best in 1999 and 2000.

He did eat a lot of beans and potatoes. He probably took a fiber supplement.

BSN

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2878
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2018, 11:33:58 AM »
2003 Russia Grand Prix

BSN

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2878
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2018, 11:34:57 AM »
2004 Russia Grand Prix

Ronnie Rep

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10117
  • Getbig!
Re: RONNIE 2000 was better than 2003
« Reply #49 on: March 17, 2018, 11:51:51 AM »
2000 GP
 Look at the quad



That shot shows Ronnie's superiority.  :o