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

[pobrecito]

flex wheeler
paul dillett
dexter jackson (these last 3 have all claimed ronnie is the greatest ever)

hmm....last time I checked they were all black, and last time I checked they all got their ass handed to them by a no name guy from england hahahahahahahahah

[NeoSeminole]

none of those have anything to do with Ronnie vs. dorian.

fact is,

getbig poll
popular opinion
flex wheeler
paul dillett
dexter jackson (these last 3 have all claimed ronnie is the greatest ever)

are specific to Ronnie vs dorian and they ALL favor Ronnie.

don't forget Peter McGough and Dorian who both said Ronnie would win. Now how many people said that Dorian would win against prime Ronnie in a contest? The only person is Lee Priest.

[Iceman1981]

hahaha look at this f*ggot....you probably fantasize about circle jerks

meanwhile I'm fucking your mom in the ass hahahahahahahahha

I don't think that last statement was called for. That shows what a low life roach you are.

[Iceman1981]

hmm....last time I checked they were all black, and last time I checked they all got their ass handed to them by a no name guy from england hahahahahahahahah

What does being black have anything to do with it?

[Hulkster]

What does being black have anything to do with it?

desperation.


"racism"
"fake  99 pics/ 99 footage"
"photoelectric effect"..



the list of excuses to avoid the reality of the comparison goes on and on and on...

[Hulkster]

don't forget Peter McGough and Dorian who both said Ronnie would win. Now how many people said that Dorian would win against prime Ronnie in a contest? The only person is Lee Priest.

and even then he was speaking about the shitty as hell 2004 ronnie...

[suckmymuscle]

exactly.

the majority opinion says ronnie was better at his best than dorian.

I find it so funny that you are now stating the EXACT thing that ND has been battling this entire debate.

you guys argue against yourselves

  Completely wrong. Why? Because evaluating hardness is something very simple, that even a child can do. Conversely, determining who is the better of two bodybuilders is something far more complicated, that involves knowing judging procedures, etc.

  So, quotes from random people are good enough to testify that Dorian looks harder in person than on film or pictures, but they are not good enough to say who was better between the two as far as bodybuilding goes.

  Now, Hulkster, if you come up with quotes from several professional judges stating that Ronnie at his best would defeat Dorian at his best, then I will agree that there is some truth to so many qualified people stating that. Do you have these quotes? No. So the next time you think of taking what I say out of context, think twice otherwise I'll own your ass again.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

 

[NeoSeminole]

Completely wrong. Why? Because evaluating hardness is something very simple, that even a child can do. Conversely, determining who is the better of two bodybuilders is something far more complicated, that involves knowing judging procedures, etc.

utter bullshit. If you showed a child a picture of a bowling ball and a rock and asked them which is harder, they would probably take a random guess. Hardness is a tactile perception - not a visual one. To me, Ronnie looks "harder" in some areas - biceps, delts, pecs, glutes, quads and hamstrings - than Dorian.

So, quotes from random people are good enough to testify that Dorian looks harder in person than on film or pictures, but they are not good enough to say who was better between the two as far as bodybuilding goes.

"Quotes that work in my favor are acceptable, but any quotes that support your argument are not good enough." How lame.

Now, Hulkster, if you come up with quotes from several professional judges stating that Ronnie at his best would defeat Dorian at his best, then I will agree that there is some truth to so many qualified people stating that. Do you have these quotes? No. So the next time you think of taking what I say out of context, think twice otherwise I'll own your ass again.

Peter McGough is the closest person we have to a judge, and he says that Ronnie would beat Dorian.

[suckmymuscle]

utter bullshit. If you showed a child a picture of a bowling ball and a rock and asked them which is harder, they would probably take a random guess. Hardness is a tactile perception - not a visual one. To me, Ronnie looks "harder" in some areas - biceps, delts, pecs, glutes, quads and hamstrings - than Dorian.

  No, the fact remains that it's much easier to see who looks harder than to say who is a better bodybuilder. The first thing is apparent to the eyes of anyone, while the latter requires knowledge of what is being looked for. You can't get over that fact.

  As for the child, give me a fucking break. So if you showed a picture of a fat man and a muscular man to a child he wouldn't be able to say that the fat guy looks softer? Sperm, you are a retard.

"Quotes that work in my favor are acceptable, but any quotes that support your argument are not good enough." How lame.

  Not at all. You are deluded if you think that quotes from random people about who was the better bodybuilder carries as mcuh weight as they do regarding conditioning, which is apparent. The two things are not the same, because one involves more complexity than the other, so your analogy sucks.

  Let me extend my example further. I have already accepted that Ronnie has better taper than Dorian when stading relaxed from the front. Why? Because it's readily apparent to the eyes. Now, arguing that he was a better bodybuilder overral because of this does not follow, because it's not apparent.

  In conclusion, anyone can tell who looks harder in person, whether Dorian or Ronnie, but only specialists can tell who's the better bodybuilder, so quotes are meaningless to that efect from lay people. Another example: anyone can say that Shaquille O' Neil is taller than Allan Iverson, because it's apparent to the eyes, but only someone who understands the sport of basketball can tell who's the better basketballer. Catch my drift, Sperm?

  Now, if you come up with a group of specialists, namely, professional judges, and they say that Ronnie is better than Dorian at his peak, then I will accept that as evidence and will recogize that Ronnie would win. You're wrong if you think that the complexity involved in seeing who's more in shape is the same as evaluating who's the better bodybuilder overral. That is the key diference between both things, which makes your analogy inadequate. So your charge that I'm ignoring quotes that don't benefit me is not fair, and I expect and apology from you.

Peter McGough is the closest person we have to a judge, and he says that Ronnie would beat Dorian.

  He didn't say that. He said that Ronnie's physique is the best he's ever seen onstage, but himself, Horton, Bob Kennedy, Jim Manion and Chris Lund have all remarked that Dorian's physique a few weeks out from the Olympia is the best of all times. Furthermore, as much as I respect McGough's opinion, he's not a official I.F.B.B judge, so his opinion is not official. Please bring about quotes from I.F.B.B judges saying that Ronnie would defeat Dorian at their respective all-time bests and I'll listen.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

Flex Wheeler at his prime had a better back than Nasser, yet it's much narrower. So that blows your first comment out of the water. 01 ASC Ronnie's back was certainly thicker than Dorian's. This is the price that Dorian payed for having such outstanding definition. His back muscles literally looked shrink wrapped to his body. However, they lacked any thickness whatsoever in the rear double biceps. His lower back seemed almost non-existent except for the crazy striations.



Dorian's arms were too small for his body, which negates Ronnie's undersized calves. However, Dorian had a torn biceps. I'm sure you would agree that imbalanced, asymmetrical arms are more of a liability than simply imbalanced calves.

More to a back than just muscularity , Flex had more detail and separation in his back yet lacked width like Nasser , Dorian didn't lack anything he had width , thickness , muscularity , separation , detail

You''' never get away where claiming that a 244-247 pound Ronnie had a thicker back than a 260 pound Dorian , its just the dumbest thing you ever typed , Dorian's lats are thicker , traps are thicker and his x-mas tree his thicker , look at the of Dorian 1996 and Ronnie 1996 he weighs just 7 pounds more and crushes Ronnie in thickness & width now bump Dorian up 3 pounds and Ronnie down 3-6 pounds and Ronnie's back is supposed to me wider and thicker? lol keep dreaming again dumbest post you ever typed

Dorian's arms were too small for his body, which negates Ronnie's undersized calves. However, Dorian had a torn biceps. I'm sure you would agree that imbalanced, asymmetrical arms are more of a liability than simply imbalanced calves.

No you feel Dorian's arms were to small for his body ,this doesn't negate Ronnie's undersized calves , and lets entertain they are to small for his body , they're not lacking development , detail , separation , Ronnie's calves are and he has ONE bicep shorter than the other Ronnie has TWO undersized underdeveloped calves that hurt every single pose he hits , so again poor analogy

[NeoSeminole]

No, the fact remains that it's much easier to see who looks harder than to say who is a better bodybuilder. The first thing is apparent to the eyes of anyone, while the latter requires knowledge of what is being looked for. You can't get over that fact.

obviously not since a few of you still believe that Dorian was harder overall.

As for the child, give me a fucking break. So if you showed a picture of a fat man and a muscular man to a child he wouldn't be able to say that the fat guy looks softer? Sperm, you are a retard.

did I compare a fat man and a bodybuilder? No, you piece of shit. The difference in conditioning between Dorian and Ronnie is so small that if you asked a child who is harder, they probably wouldn't know hence my analogy with the bowling ball and a rock.
 

anyone can tell who looks harder in person, whether Dorian or Ronnie, but only specialists can tell who's the better bodybuilder, so quotes are meaningless to that efect from lay people. Another example: anyone can say that Shaquille O' Neil is taller than Allan Iverson, because it's apparent to the eyes, but only someone who understands the sport of basketball can tell who's the better basketballer. Catch my drift, Sperm?

oh really? Ask anyone who looks "harder" in these pics. Let's see if everyone unanimously agrees.

He didn't say that. He said that Ronnie's physique is the best he's ever seen onstage, but himself, Horton, Bob Kennedy, Jim Manion and Chris Lund have all remarked that Dorian's physique a few weeks out from the Olympia is the best of all times.

oh my, how I love making you my b*tch.

Peter McGough - "Ronnie sporting that (01 ASC) look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable."

Did he say it would be a tie? No.

[NeoSeminole]

More to a back than just muscularity , Flex had more detail and separation in his back yet lacked width like Nasser , Dorian didn't lack anything he had width , thickness , muscularity , separation , detail

who gives a shit? I just wanted to make you look like a fool for putting words in my mouth like you always do. You claimed that I said 01 ASC Ronnie's back was wider than Dorian's when I never said that.

You''' never get away where claiming that a 244-247 pound Ronnie had a thicker back than a 260 pound Dorian , its just the dumbest thing you ever typed , Dorian's lats are thicker , traps are thicker and his x-mas tree his thicker , look at the of Dorian 1996 and Ronnie 1996 he weighs just 7 pounds more and crushes Ronnie in thickness & width now bump Dorian up 3 pounds and Ronnie down 3-6 pounds and Ronnie's back is supposed to me wider and thicker? lol keep dreaming again dumbest post you ever typed

blah blah blah. I've supported my comments with pics meanwhile all you can do is disagree with me using words. In the court room, visual evidence carries more weight than testimony. This argument is no exception. Dorian's back looked thick when relaxed, but it flattened out like a pancake when he hit a rear double biceps. Ronnie's back was equally as wide and much fuller in this pose.

No you feel Dorian's arms were to small for his body ,this doesn't negate Ronnie's undersized calves , and lets entertain they are to small for his body , they're not lacking development , detail , separation , Ronnie's calves are and he has ONE bicep shorter than the other Ronnie has TWO undersized underdeveloped calves that hurt every single pose he hits , so again poor analogy

sure, Ronnie's calves are lacking detail.



although they weren't huge by any means, his calves were the most balanced they ever were at the 01 ASC. They certainly didn't present as much of a liability as a torn biceps.

[IceCold]

is there a limit to the number of pages allowed in a thread?

[IceCold]

none of those have anything to do with Ronnie vs. dorian.

fact is,

getbig poll
popular opinion
flex wheeler
paul dillett
dexter jackson (these last 3 have all claimed ronnie is the greatest ever)


are specific to Ronnie vs dorian and they ALL favor Ronnie.

flex called dorian untouchable.  what did flex ever say about ronnie when they were competiting against each other?

the only flex said was that he could beat coleman.

paul said that the 95 yates was the best he's ever seen.

do i need to post the quote again?

you're saying that various people said things, but you never post any of the quotes?

hmmmm.

besides, most people, especially in this thread, 1st thought coleman was better, but after really looking at the evidence, now they say yates is superior.

[NarcissisticDeity]

who gives a shit? I just wanted to make you look like a fool for putting words in my mouth like you always do. You claimed that I said 01 ASC Ronnie's back was wider than Dorian's when I never said that.

blah blah blah. I've supported my comments with pics meanwhile all you can do is disagree with me using words. In the court room, visual evidence carries more weight than testimony. This argument is no exception. Dorian's back looked thick when relaxed, but it flattened out like a pancake when he hit a rear double biceps. Ronnie's back was equally as wide and much fuller in this pose.

sure, Ronnie's calves are lacking detail.



although they weren't huge by any means, his calves were the most balanced they ever were at the 01 ASC. They certainly didn't present as much of a liability as a torn biceps.

who gives a shit? I just wanted to make you look like a fool for putting words in my mouth like you always do. You claimed that I said 01 ASC Ronnie's back was wider than Dorian's when I never said that.

Let me get this straight 01 Ronnie has thicker lats than Dorian but they're NOT as wide? great logic lol

blah blah blah. I've supported my comments with pics meanwhile all you can do is disagree with me using words. In the court room, visual evidence carries more weight than testimony. This argument is no exception. Dorian's back looked thick when relaxed, but it flattened out like a pancake when he hit a rear double biceps. Ronnie's back was equally as wide and much fuller in this pose.

No I supported my comment withs pictures , pictures of Dorian at 257 pounds and Ronnie at 250 pounds directly side-by-side and Dorian's back crushes Ronnie's in thickness , no ifs-ands-or-buts about it and its a REAL comparison of the two side-by-side and its a lot closer to the weights we're comparing the two at in 95/01 Add three pounds for Dorian and subtract anywhere from 3-6 pounds for Ronnie and Ronnie's back is thicker Ha ! and his back wasn't equally wide or wider thats a dream not in 01 Ronnie's back is at its smallest since maybe 1998 , again this is the dumbest thing you ever typed NO way in hell is Ronnie's back thicker while being 13-16 pounds lighter

sure, Ronnie's calves are lacking detail.



although they weren't huge by any means, his calves were the most balanced they ever were at the 01 ASC. They certainly didn't present as much of a liability as a torn biceps.

You think thats detail? where is the separation and development of the inner & outer heads of the gastrocnemious? where is the diamond shape? and they're lacking size and they're high and while the proportion is good for Ronnie they still leave a lot to be desired , you're still down two calves to one bicep shorter than the other and his calves can been seen in every single pose a torn bicep could only effect the front double biceps shot

[IceCold]

yes, the gut is a bit large, but even from this pic with everyone standing relaxed you can clearly see how much thicker, denser, and harder yates is than anybody.  (i realize yates is the closest to the camera but i didnt reference him being the biggest). 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Proof ! Dorian's traps much , much thicker and bigger especially his lower traps ( strike one ) Dorian's lats wider , insert lower and much thicker ( strike two ) and Dorian's x-mass tree much thicker ( strike three ) you're out  and insult to injury Dorian has thicker infraspinatus and teres major to boot

Now factor in Ronnie would be lighter than his by anywhere from 3-6 pounds and Dorian would be heavier by 3 pounds , and how can Dorian have both a extremely thick back while relaxed and it ' flat ' flexed ? Dorian's back is the yardstick in which thickness is measured by , it ' appears ' flat for two reasons , one he does his pose straight ON not leaning back like Coleman who scrunches his shoulder blades together and two he has lower inserting lats , Ronnie's lats insert a tad higher and that with the combo of his scrunching his shoulder blades and leaning back  once again the dumbest thing you ever posted

[NarcissisticDeity]

Only a moron would claim a 247 pound max Ronnie has thicker lats than these , he's NOT even flexing for christ's sake and his lats are insane thick , wide and dense .

[IceCold]

Now factor in Ronnie would be lighter than his by anywhere from 3-6 pounds and Dorian would be heavier by 3 pounds , and how can Dorian have both a extremely thick back while relaxed and it ' flat ' flexed ? Dorian's back is the yardstick in which thickness is measured by , it ' appears ' flat for two reasons , one he does his pose straight ON not leaning back like Coleman who scrunches his shoulder blades together and two he has lower inserting lats , Ronnie's lats insert a tad higher and that with the combo of his scrunching his shoulder blades and leaning back  once again the dumbest thing you ever posted

great post.


also, coleman's torso is much shorter than dorian's giving the appearance that his back is thicker.  which it isnt.

yates also has a better taper from the rear bc of his longer torso than ronnie's.

[suckmymuscle]

delts to waist does not taper. waist is one measurment, width of shoulders another how does that taper? to have taper you wouold have to have a gradual incline, hence the lats, they get wider as you approach the shoulders thus creating taper.

again according your you definition dillet had the best taper or toney freeman. this agian is wrong, melvin anthony has better taper then both yet isnt as wide. the reason being his lats flare much more coupled with a small waist.


there is no gradual incline from waist(one measurement) to delts(second measurement).

  So are you saying that taper in the front relaxed round is created by the lats even though they are not visible from this angle? And you're wrong in you example. Of course taper can be created by the shoulders. Dry a line going from the outernmost part of the delts to the waist. What shape does it create? That's right: a V. It literally "tapers" down to the waist.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

sucky you obviously dont understand what taper is. the delts do not taper down to the waist. the lats create the gradual taper.

your analogy is saying that the letter T creates a taper. if you draw a line from both ends of the top portion of the T(delts) to the bottom of the letter(waist) you would in fact have a v drawn. however, this is not taper,  V is a taper see how it gradual increases in size from one point. the delts to waist are the endpoints, and have there part in taper but the lats from the waist are what create taper. people with low lat insertions have the most potential for taper.

the lats are visible in the front relaxed. ahah were did you come up with this?

heres a pic, erase his lats and tell me how there is a gradual decrease from shoulder to waist? you cant, your wrong. unless you dont understand what taper means. please post the definition your working from

[Necrosis]

  So are you saying that taper in the front relaxed round is created by the lats even though they are not visible from this angle? And you're wrong in you example. Of course taper can be created by the shoulders. Dry a line going from the outernmost part of the delts to the waist. What shape does it create? That's right: a V. It literally "tapers" down to the waist.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

what creates a V, your imaginary line which in reality is the lats ahahahahahah. the delts and waist create a T dude. your dead wrong. someone erase his lats for me. iceman can you hook that up?

[NeoSeminole]

Let me get this straight 01 Ronnie has thicker lats than Dorian but they're NOT as wide? great logic lol

Ronnie's lats are just as wide as Dorian's but have more depth in the rear double biceps. So yes, they are thicker.

No I supported my comment withs pictures , pictures of Dorian at 257 pounds and Ronnie at 250 pounds directly side-by-side and Dorian's back crushes Ronnie's in thickness , no ifs-ands-or-buts about it and its a REAL comparison of the two side-by-side and its a lot closer to the weights we're comparing the two at in 95/01 Add three pounds for Dorian and subtract anywhere from 3-6 pounds for Ronnie and Ronnie's back is thicker Ha ! and his back wasn't equally wide or wider thats a dream not in 01 Ronnie's back is at its smallest since maybe 1998 , again this is the dumbest thing you ever typed NO way in hell is Ronnie's back thicker while being 13-16 pounds lighter

your argument is retarded b/c you are only looking at the numbers instead of the pics. Ronnie weighed more in 98 than at the 01 ASC, yet he looks much bigger in every pic I've seen of him at the Arnold. You also assume that his weight has a direct correlation with back size. I already explained to you that most of the weight he lost from 99 came as a result from improved conditioning and smaller quads. His back didn't seem to lose any size b/c it looked big as always. In fact, several people including Peter McGough said that 01 ASC Ronnie looked huge.

Flex Magazine, August 2005 - Peter McGough

"Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig)."

John Hansen, 2x Mr. Natural Universe and Mr. Natural Olympia

"With his incredible thickness and muscle shape, Coleman doesn't need to weigh over 260 pounds onstage to look big. When he won the Arnold Classic last year, Ronnie only weighed 247 pounds but he looked like he weighed 20 pounds heavier."

You think thats detail? where is the separation and development of the inner & outer heads of the gastrocnemious? where is the diamond shape? and they're lacking size and they're high and while the proportion is good for Ronnie they still leave a lot to be desired , you're still down two calves to one bicep shorter than the other and his calves can been seen in every single pose a torn bicep could only effect the front double biceps shot

Dorian's twig arms leave a lot to be desired. You're still down imbalanced, asymmetrical arms to imbalanced calves.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ronnie's lats are just as wide as Dorian's but have more depth in the rear double biceps. So yes, they are thicker.

your argument is retarded b/c you are only looking at the numbers instead of the pics. Ronnie weighed more in 98 than at the 01 ASC, yet he looks much bigger in every pic I've seen of him at the Arnold. You also assume that his weight has a direct correlation with back size. I already explained to you that most of the weight he lost from 99 came as a result from improved conditioning and smaller quads. His back didn't seem to lose any size b/c it looked big as always. In fact, several people including Peter McGough said that 01 ASC Ronnie looked huge.

Flex Magazine, August 2005 - Peter McGough

"Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig)."

John Hansen, 2x Mr. Natural Universe and Mr. Natural Olympia

"With his incredible thickness and muscle shape, Coleman doesn't need to weigh over 260 pounds onstage to look big. When he won the Arnold Classic last year, Ronnie only weighed 247 pounds but he looked like he weighed 20 pounds heavier."

Dorian's twig arms leave a lot to be desired. You're still down imbalanced, asymmetrical arms to imbalanced calves.

Ronnie's lats are just as wide as Dorian's but have more depth in the rear double biceps. So yes, they are thicker.

You cried about me putting words into your mouth and then say the absurd lol Ronnie at 247 pounds is wider than Yates at 260 pounds , again the dumbest thing you ever typed

your argument is retarded b/c you are only looking at the numbers instead of the pics. Ronnie weighed more in 98 than at the 01 ASC, yet he looks much bigger in every pic I've seen of him at the Arnold. You also assume that his weight has a direct correlation with back size. I already explained to you that most of the weight he lost from 99 came as a result from improved conditioning and smaller quads. His back didn't seem to lose any size b/c it looked big as always. In fact, several people including Peter McGough said that 01 ASC Ronnie looked huge.

No , no , no I'm looking at pics of Dorian and Ronnie 1996 and Dorian crushes Ronnie in thickness everywhere and again this is a direct comparison of the two side-by-side and similar weights and Dorian crushes Ronnie in thickness and width ,  now using that 96 pic as a template just imagine Dorian 3 pounds heavier and Ronnie 3 pounds lighter , Neo he's NOT getting thicker and wider by being smaller

And Ronnie weighed more at the 1998 Mr Olympia than he did at the 01 ASC by TWO-fucking-POUNDS and I disagree about Ronnie 01 ASC looking bigger I think he's very comparable and ironically both these shows are his hardest & driest and also his lightest and once again you're out of your fucking mind if you think 1999 Ronnie was 01 ASC were comparable in terms of back , 99 he was very full and wide in the back 01 he was NOT he was bone dry and rock hard but full like 99 not by a mile

Flex Magazine, August 2005 - Peter McGough

"Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig)."

John Hansen, 2x Mr. Natural Universe and Mr. Natural Olympia

"With his incredible thickness and muscle shape, Coleman doesn't need to weigh over 260 pounds onstage to look big. When he won the Arnold Classic last year, Ronnie only weighed 247 pounds but he looked like he

You're right he did look big at 247 pounds but the key word is looked big , and they said the same thing about Ronnie 1998 , now Dorian was supersharp in 1995 and he was superbig to boot ! someone said that Dorian could have said he was 275 pounds and no one would have questioned him and Ronnie 98/01 looks lean albeit supersharp but he does look lean especially compared to 99/00

Dorian's twig arms leave a lot to be desired. You're still down imbalanced, asymmetrical arms to imbalanced calves.

His arms aren't twigs not by a long shot , and his arms don't lack development or separation Ronnie is screwed because not only are his calves small , they're high and they lack development , so nice try Ronnie is down three !

[NarcissisticDeity]

Peter McGough

Flex magazine Dec 1995

Dorian Yates : Skin like tissue paper. In the crucial front double-biceps shot , the left bicep is short , but NOT fatally so. Traps look as if they have the capacity to render him deaf. Back , upper and lower , is sensational in EVERY respect : width , thickness and detail. Side triceps is a masterpiece that he's made into a Broadway production number. Thighs have more sweep than before . Calves? Yates wrote the book on calves . In muscle thickness , he's in a class of his own . Today's combination of size , proportion , shape and condition make this his peak form.


No , No Peter a 247 pound ( max ) Ronnie Coleman is much thicker lmfao