I know you're not 240lbs as you once said, but in all fairness your back looks good and unlike many who give you grief on getbig you look like a weightlifter or atleast a gymnast.(gymnast is not a joke, ever see the gymnasts in the olympics, like mini BB's.keep up the training, just ease up on the wild weight claims,regards, the Doc
By "most muscular" I don't mean biggest but someone who had as much mass as possible packed on to his frame.
He's a good example.To be honest, even Ronnie's most muscular doesn't seem as dense as Rich Gaspari's in the pictures hulkster posted. This picture comes closest I think:
I don't think Ronnie looks real hard. He is in great condition, but he doesn't have that superdense look. How scary would it be if he did?
ronnie's looked a little "squishy" since 2001. it's weird.
especially considering how heavy he trains - I though Intensity built Density? or is hardness and density different in bodybuilding? i was never sure . . .
I would say hardness and density are the same thing. I think they are just the same illusion created by the thinness of the skin.
Thanks Lucius - either way it's nuts when they move their skin and you can see the muscle underneath. K-Lo did that in the BFTO 1996 - freaked me out
Yeah, that is a frightening thing . Just curious, but can striations actually be felt?
depending on the depth, yes. a guy i lift with sometimes has striated shoulders and its definitely ridged.
One of only a few weaknesses and one of Yates' few strengths. Coleman never had great density, which isn't the same as definition.
Sergio Oliva was the man.
His midsection in 2003 was the same size as it was in 2002. Very impressive given that he was 42 pounds heavier.That picture of him doing the splits in 2002 was pitiful.
the pics I posted don't seem as dense because Ronnie was in off season shape - check out his cutless quads in the pics.When he is in shape, he is dense:damn imressive except for his 2003 midsection. unreal quads.
Ronnie has the most massive quads of all-time, Platz included.
