I think the the gut thing is overrated in some ways. Although I see why it's hard to ignore when it sticks out like that in the photos. That ND guy seems to bring it up now again. It does not help in the abdominal-thigh obviously; it can't be ignored, like any other pose. And England_1 keeps bringing it up in the back bicep poses is just picking at straws. If we turn up the brightness and sharpness we can see a slight distention, from the back! He had to modify it by that much just to see it slightly, AND it's a back double bicep so it's totally irrelevant. England_1 = owned for sissyness
No, here's where you get it wrong. The abdomen is the
focal point of the body. It is what breaks or makes a physique. Have you ever seen an obese man being xcomplimented by his physique? All the body's symmetry is dependent on the abdomen. It is the one bodypart that is visible from more than one angle. Having a distended gut compromises your symmetry in the front relaxced and side relaxed part of the symmstry round, and it compromises your symmetry in 5 of the 7 mandatory poses.
Ronnie in '99 was slightly above and beyond previous contest. First, because because the bigger size, coupled with freaky conditioning which was as good if not better, included: striations everywhere, shredded, dry quads and even forearms were covered in veins.
You just made what is known as a blanket statement. Something is just because you say it is. I'm sorry, but Ronnie's xconditioning was not as good or better in 1999 as it was in 1998; it was worse. All your other points following that are redundant since they are based on a flase axiom.
I think there were more striations in the tricep area in '99 over previous competition. '96 was right up there too with 1998 conditioning and seperation, easily.
No, Ronnie's triceps were better in 1998. And remeber that you are forgetting other aspects which are important, especially that Ronnie looked better overral in the side triceps pose in 1998 than 1999. Ronnie's calves were more appropriate for his size in 1998 than 1999, and he had sharper serratus, which makes his side triceps better overral.
And fullness, are you kidding!! Just look at the most muscular poses from the 1999 Mr. Olympia. That's all that can be said.
Ugh...I especifically said that Ronnie was fuller in 1999 than 1998, so I have no idea what you're bitching about. And I'm sorry to break it to you, but fullness is
not a part of xconditioning. Ronnie was bigger and fuller in 1999, but he was not not more conditioned.
Hulkster knows it and so does everyone else.
Hulkster is the guy who said that Ronnie had more striated calves than Dorian, that Dorian lost the 1994 Olympia to shawn Ray and he is also the guy who uses such sophisticated arguments for why Ronnie is better than Dorian by saying that Dorian's back double biceps was "as flat as a pancake", and that Ronnie's back is more "3D". I'm sorry, but hulkster hardly qualifies as a bodybuilding excpert.
Picture a '98 Coleman on that same stage with the ones in the videos. The '99 Coleman would be slightly better, and slightly bigger. In '98 he had trademark seperation and detail, blew Levrone out of water on detail I would say, though not size.
In '94, Dorian looked like a discolored glass ornament in some shots, but fantastic in the abdominal pose with other guys on-stage. So this is obviously important too.
Dorian has the best abs of any bodybuilder over 250 lbs. Period. And if Dorian should have lost in 1994, then it is an outrage that Ronnie didn't lose in 2001.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
