you are such a fucking moron 
read and weep idiot:
there you have it moron: size, condition and fullness he lacked a year earlier.
what do you say ND, when you have a quote right here from Peter Fucking McGough that says Ronnie was bigger in 99, better conditioned in 99 and more full in 99..you run no doubt. LOL what a pathetic loser.
from Flex Magazine, Sept. 2005:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614
ND take note: Peter is discussing the BEST EVER Mr. O's, and notice that the 1999 Mr. O is listed by Peter NOT THE 1998 OLYMPIA.
READ THAT AGAIN IDIOT: NOT THE 1998 OLYMPIA.
PETER PREFERS THE 99 FORM OVER THE 98 FORM.
there moron.
right on paper. Peter feels his 99 form was better than his 98 form.
now fuck off before I own you again.
so much for your claim that i was 'making shit up" LOL
no wonder you run from me.
You're an idiot of epic proportions , but this occasion its because you think this has not been addressed before , this is old news and you were corrected and are going to be corrected again. pay attention idiot
In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart.the ONLY thing Ronnie did NOT have the previous year was the FULLNESS he exhibited size , condition but only lacked the fullness NO WHERE does this say Ronnie is harder and drier in 1999 NO WHERE you had to try and make a leap because you're proven wrong
1999 Mr Olympia is NOT considered to be his best showing , not by Ronnie and not by any of the writers specifically because his conditioning lags behind 1998 and 2001 Arnold Classic , Shawn Perine , Peter McGough , Ronnie Coleman all mention his best showings and 1999 isn't it , and how could it not be? he was just as conditioned ( according to you alone , even bizzy admits he wasn't ) how could 99 not be considered his best? I'll tell you why because he wasn't as hard or dry as he was in 98 and 01 this is a proven fact
Peter McGough
While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.
On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.
While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 ArnoldNO WHERE does it say 1999 Mr Olympia and why not? if according to you he was at least 10 pounds heavier and identical condition , because he's NOT
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98. In comparison to 98, his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep and his front delts have improved; plus the pec anomaly (gyno) is no longer present.
Impressive split biceps. An awesome back double biceps on which muscle fights with muscle to hang onto his frame. A big, big lat spead promted Dorian "backman" yates to comment, "ronnie looks like a cartoon character". when doing back poses, ronnie would hitch up his trunks to expose ripped glutes.
ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.Gee so much for being equal or better conditioned lol
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 .
Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98Whoa differing years and same synopsis Ronnie was NOT as hard or dry
Ronnie Coleman Pro Bodybuilding Weekly 2007
Ronnie what was your best Olympia?
Ronnie : I would have to say my first , because my conditioning was spot-on "
my conditioning was spot-onNO WHERE did McGough contradict himself in fact he's on record many times saying Ronnie was NOT as hard or as dry in 99 as 1998 and this in confirmed by Ronnie Coleman himself thats called convergence of evidence , and couple that with everyone quoting Ronnie's best overall package as the 2001 Arnold Classic ( or 98 Olympia ) NOT 1999 Mr Olympia
you're a liar and you're an idiot and I never ran from you I've answered every single one of your retarded statements its YOU who is running from the facts kid not me .
owned ( ad nausem )
