Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce

[NarcissisticDeity]

you didn't answer my question ND.

why is ronnie's back just as hard in the 99 prejudging pic as it is in your 98 pic?

I am waiting for your answer (or excuse).

I don't make excuses  you've cornered the market on them this is the same picture you posted but scanned at the same DPI as the 98 pictures and again its clearly evident Ronnie 99 is not as hard or dry

[NarcissisticDeity]

Hulkster man you can't make any excuses for this

[NarcissisticDeity]

Its easy to prove you wrong

[Hulkster]

ummm. there is no difference in the last set of pics you posted.

the lighting is different.

the hardness and detail are not.

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

ummm. there is no difference in the last set of pics you posted.

the lighting is different.

the hardness and detail are not.

 

Hulkster that was a joke comparison like you do , of course the lighting is different thats why I did it like you post slanted comparisons , and you can't counter this , these are both magazine scans by me at the same DPI and it clearly shows Ronnie is much harder and drier in 1998 , you posted the same image from a screencap and it looks different from my scan for a reason , now you have nothing to work with because its the same image and he's like Peter said Not as hard or as dry .

[Hulkster]

you posted the same image from a screencap and it looks different from my scan for a reason

of course it looks different you moron.

its not the same image...

your excuses are really running thin..

[Hulkster]

the biggest problem with alot of the 99 shots is that the lighting is horrible.

it washes out all the detail.

if we darken the pic to eliminate this washed out effect, we can clearly see that Ronnie was just as hard in both years:

[Hulkster]

notice: insignificant difference..only with more size in 99

ND consider yourself OWNED.

[NarcissisticDeity]

the biggest problem with alot of the 99 shots is that the lighting is horrible.

it washes out all the detail.

if we darken the pic to eliminate this washed out effect, we can clearly see that Ronnie was just as hard in both years:

Hulkster you're the KING of excuses , he's NOT as hard ( soft ) and NOT as dry ( water ) in 99 its a fact that you can't dispute .

[Hulkster]

Hulkster you're the KING of excuses , he's NOT as hard ( soft ) and NOT as dry ( water ) in 99 its a fact that you can't dispute .

ironic since the pics and videos dispute it quite nicely..

[NarcissisticDeity]

notice: insignificant difference..only with more size in 99

ND consider yourself OWNED.

lmfao owned? you're beyond the grace of God , you've been proven dead wrong and you now have the balls to say I'm owned?  Peter McGough is wrong despite being two feet away from Ronnie and Hulkster  from the comfort of his home based an ENTIRE contest on a cpuple of pictures and video lol IceCold was right you are having a ZachG_85 meltdown lol

Ronnie was 262 pounds in 1999 with equal conditioning if NOT better than 1998 with better detail in his calves than Dorian lol

[IceCold]

hulkster,

just look at the difference between ronnie's hamstrings from 98 to 99.

98, they were ripped.

99, nothing.

that's how you can tell coleman was in better shape - not to mention coleman's back was harder with more seperation.

not a whole lot, but there is still a difference.

its not as you've been claiming - him coming in bigger but in the same shape. 

you're confusing him with dorian - dorian did that in 92 and 93,96 and 97.

[RocketSwitch625]

see, look at how hard ronnie's lower back is in 98.

then look at it in 99- it is soft in that pic.

BUT look at it in this shot:

it is hard as nails:

I know that the "he's not flexing fully" line gets used alot, but if there was EVER an appropriate time for it, it is NOW:

Screen captures don't count.

[Hulkster]

Screen captures don't count.

 

here are some pics of Ronnie 99 then, showing how incredibly ripped he was:

[Hulkster]

hulkster,

just look at the difference between ronnie's hamstrings from 98 to 99.

98, they were ripped.

99, nothing.

are you taking lessons from suckmyasshole on how to post misinformation?

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

here are some pics of Ronnie 99 then, showing how incredibly ripped he was:

Hulkster he was ripped no one is claiming otherwise , he was detailed , but he was NOT as hard or dry as 1998 this has been proven .

[Hulkster]

Hulkster he was ripped no one is claiming otherwise , he was detailed , but he was NOT as hard or dry as 1998 this has been proven .

not according to the pics:

[NarcissisticDeity]

You can ' touch-up ' the photo all you want it doesn't change the fact.

[Shockwave]

Look at the difference in the hamstrings in those two pics, NOT your screencaps.
There is a significant difference.

[Hulkster]

LOL ND again proves himself and Peter M. wrong.

LOL

[NarcissisticDeity]

Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001

RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .

[NarcissisticDeity]

Same shot , one photo one screencap neither as dry as 1998

[Hulkster]

Look at the difference in the hamstrings in those two pics, NOT your screencaps.
There is a significant difference.

of course there is, ronnie is not always tensing his hams to the max in photos.

compare from the SAME contest, 2003 Mr. Olympia one shows ripped hams, the other does not:


this isn't difficult to understand people.

hell, watch the 99 video if you want - his hams were just as ripped in 99 as they were in 98..

go ahead and watch if you don't believe the pics.

[Hulkster]

more pics to illustrate my point:

both from the 98 O. this time:


ripped hams.


not ripped hams.

According to you guys, this means that he was ripped in one pose and not the other in the same contest 3 seconds apart...

I am not as dumb as you think...

[Hulkster]

ps I love how the simple fact that because we have 4 billion screencaps of Ronnie in 99 and very few pics,

that because the screen caps prove some of your arguments about his detail wrong, that they somehow don't count or create detail that is not really there...

 

thats really pathetic.