Funny how no Construction Worker Representative has commented on my last couple of posts (re the thigh challenge).
ps.
WHY do you fools keep saying that Ronnie 96/97 was just as good as Ronnie 1999?
Are you BLIND?:
Here is a little refresher for those who cannot see:
ronnie 1997
Ronnie 1999.
The whole pro-dorian argument seems to be this:
1. Dorian beat Ronnie several times.
2. Ronnie was just as good in those years (1994-1997) as he was in 1999 or the 2001 AC.
3. Therefore Dorian would win.
HOWEVER, as anyone with a brain can plainly see, point number 2 is totally false.
Why is it that Getbig is the ONLY board on the net who has people that refuse to acknowledge the HUGE LEAP that Ronnie made?
I have alreay posted the two comparison videos of 1997 and 1999 and the dorian fans CONTINUE to say that Ronnie was just as good as he was at his peak when Dorian beat him.
Ronnie shot up in the rankings for two reasons:
1. He improved his detail and fullness and changed the overall look of his physique (ie his arms no longer overpowered the rest of his physique, his frame did not look as depleted as it did when he was smaller).
2. He was no longer overlooked at the big competitions (notice, he lost to Flex at the 1996 NOC (a big name contest then) but WON the Canada Pro Cup by beating Flex. He could have just as easily beaten Flex at the NOC, but the judges are always going to pick a big name over a no-name if it is close). By the time the 98 Olympia came around, the judges were not overlooking Ronnie anymore (he won the 98 NOC don't forget).
Once again: I pose the question (it was ignored last time as usual): if Ronnie was so good in 1996, if he had shown up to the 1998 Olympia in his 1996 condition, where do you think he would have placed?
I am still waiting for the challenge about the quads to be accepted.
And I would be interested in comments on this post.
Personally, I think that if you compare the 97 and 99 Ronnie videos posted in this thread, its pretty goddamn obvious that Ronnie was more than a few pounds heavier in 1999 than in 1997 (and the pics show this too - look at the obvious difference in quad size, back width, arm size).
We keep hearing that ronnie was 250 pounds in his 96/97 days, and 257 in his 99 days. But given the DRAMATIC difference in size that is conveyed in the pics (and
especially the videos) do we really know this is accurate?
