Author Topic: coleman pics (Read 10387 times)

aussiejosh · « **on:** June 03, 2006, 09:16:34 AM »

http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/ronniecolemanclips-pictures/51.jpg[/img]

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:20:19 AM »

I love ronnie to death but those cut off jeans are......lol

Mr. Intenseone · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:21:56 AM »

Arnold owns Ronnie

!!

aussiejosh · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:26:16 AM »

sorry about the frog fellas i know it pisses people of.

freeagain · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:35:47 AM »

arnold f'uckin destroys coleman there.

just a shame bigger legs wernt favoured in the 70s .. if arnie would have blown his legs up to meet the judgin standards of the 80s and 90s .. coleman wouldnt be able to beat him on one body part.

look at arnies biceps ffs!

bigtmoney · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:44:01 AM »

Quote from: freeagain on June 03, 2006, 09:35:47 AM

arnold f'uckin destroys coleman there.

just a shame bigger legs wernt favoured in the 70s .. if arnie would have blown his legs up to meet the judgin standards of the 80s and 90s .. coleman wouldnt be able to beat him on one body part.

look at arnies biceps ffs!

I think Ronnie is the king, but I have to agree with you there.

lilwoday09smb · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:46:37 AM »

arnold is king, his legs might be smaller but so is his gut.

pumpster · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:46:43 AM »

Quote

arnold f'uckin destroys coleman there.

just a shame bigger legs wernt favoured in the 70s .. if arnie would have blown his legs up to meet the judgin standards of the 80s and 90s

Man you are lame-that's obviously a poor choice of shots of Ron and one of Schwarzenegger's best poses and best pics, from a pro-1970s BB site. Gotta be smarter.

Same thing on legs-just use common sense that you're short on-if Schwarzenegger put so much work and got the calves so good it's a pretty good hint that he *was* going all-out to develop legs, but couldn't get the thighs or hams any bigger. He would pose the thighs at certain angles, knowing that it would help mask the size problem; they're inherently too small for the upper body. Schwarzenegger was always about ego and developing show muscles. Hams were non-existent.

M75 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:49:19 AM »

Lee Haney holds his own just fine against Ronnie in that pic.

Gord · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:52:03 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 03, 2006, 09:46:43 AM

Man you are lame-that's obviously a horrible shot of Ron and one of Schwarzenegger's best poses, from a pro-1970s BB site. Gotta be smarter.

Same thing on legs-just use common sense that you're short on-if Schwarzenegger's calves were so good it's a pretty good hint that he *was* going all-out to develop lets, but couldn't get the thighs or hams any bigger. His thighs only look good from certain angles, given the lack of size, and the hams are non-existent.

You are right to say that's not Ronnie's best shot, but to be fair that's not Arnold's best shot either. That's from the 1975 Olympia when (other than 1980 'O') Arnold competed at his smallest size/body weight, soon after filming "Stay Hungry".

aussiejosh · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:53:57 AM »

like i said before in my jay cutler thread the purpose of this thread was just to get some diffrent pics out there i was not tryin to pwn and bbers what so ever so enjoy the pics.p.s I know this wont stop debates on who is better.

pumpster · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:54:11 AM »

Quote

but to be fair that's not Arnold's best shot either. That's from the 1975 Olympia

Incorrect; he was very close to peak weight & condition in '75. Schwarzenegger was a hyper-responder to roids, and actually got to within 10 lb. of his '74 weight in those shots, on short notice. He was much lighter in '80. Those were far closer to his best shots.

Quote

Lee Haney holds his own just fine against Ronnie in that pic.

Maybe in some pics, but he always had serious balance issues.

aussiejosh · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2006, 09:57:49 AM »

Truth is pumpster someone who is a fan of ronnie such as yourself is never going to admit someone owns him. specialy arnold personaly I do think arnold owns ronnie in that shot besides legs but I prefer the detail in arnolds legs to the bulk of ronnies cheers.

pumpster · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:01:24 AM »

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is pumpster someone who is a fan of ronnie such as yourself is never going to admit someone owns him. specialy arnold personaly I do think arnold owns ronnie in that shot besides legs but I prefer the detail in arnolds legs to the bulk of ronnies cheers.

Truth is you're making assumptions; I'm not particularly a fan of Coleman's but recognize greatness, so your entire premise is flawed. There are other BBs that are great that I don't particularly care for, who deserve credit.

The pic and that comparison is a joke. I'm a big fan of accuracy; my points are valid.

Gord · « **Reply #14 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:02:52 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 03, 2006, 09:54:11 AM

Incorrect; he was very close to peak weight & condition in '75. Schwarzenegger was a hyper-responder to roids, and actually got to within 10 lb. of his '74 weight in those shots, on short notice. He was much lighter in '80. Those were far closer to his best shots.

Maybe in some pics, but he always had serious balance issues.

From what I've read Arnold's weight was 220 - 225 lbs in 75 and 240 - 245 in 74. Of course, this could be wrong (guessing BBs true weight is not exactly an exact science), but while I agree his conditioning was very good in 75, size wise he seemed noticeably smaller than in 73 or 74, epsecially in his quad size.

Here's a 74 shot.

ANAL DISCHARGE · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:04:18 AM »

Both Haney and Arnold destroy Coleman. See how superior Arnold's legs are. Ok they aren't huge like Ronnie'e bloated water melons but the quality and separation is light years ahead.

pumpster · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:05:05 AM »

The interview I read with him he said he was in the low 230s in '75, and in the high 230s in '74. I expected more of a difference; he does look around 225. I thought he looked best in '73, which is subjective of course, not quite as big as in '74 but leaner.

Gord · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:09:00 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 03, 2006, 10:05:05 AM

The interview I read with him he was in the low 230s in '75, and in the high 230s in '74. I expected more of a difference. I thought he looked best in '73, which is subjective of course, not quite as big as in '74.

You could be right; as I said guessing BBs weight is tircky at the best of times. Btw, I agree he looked his best in 73 and for what it's worth I thought Ronnie looked awesome mid to late 90s.

Arnold in 73.

CAPTAIN MARVEL · « **Reply #18 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:10:02 AM »

Quote from: Gord on June 03, 2006, 10:02:52 AM

From what I've read Arnold's weight was 220 - 225 lbs in 75 and 240 - 245 in 74. Of course, this could be wrong (guessing BBs true weight is not exactly an exact science), but while I agree his conditioning was very good in 75, size wise he seemed noticeably smaller than in 73 or 74, epsecially in his quad size.

Here's a 74 shot.

truth

Gord · « **Reply #19 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:13:20 AM »

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack Ronnie's thread, but one more Arnold shot from 73.

Gord · « **Reply #20 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:14:37 AM »

A young Ronnie looking good here.

Mr. Intenseone · « **Reply #21 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:33:09 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 03, 2006, 09:46:43 AM

Man you are lame-that's obviously a poor choice of shots of Ron and one of Schwarzenegger's best poses and best pics, from a pro-1970s BB site. Gotta be smarter.

Same thing on legs-just use common sense that you're short on-if Schwarzenegger put so much work and got the calves so good it's a pretty good hint that he *was* going all-out to develop legs, but couldn't get the thighs or hams any bigger. He would pose the thighs at certain angles, knowing that it would help mask the size problem; they're inherently too small for the upper body. Schwarzenegger was always about ego and developing show muscles. Hams were non-existent.

LOL...the first pic of Ronnie is even worse than the first....yeah, good choice of pics

!!

pumpster · « **Reply #22 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:34:03 AM »

[quoteLOL...the first pic of Ronnie is even worse than the first....yeah, good choice of pics ][/quote]

Maybe it's time for glasses..hahahhahhahah

delta9mda · « **Reply #23 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:41:32 AM »

Quote from: Gord on June 03, 2006, 10:14:37 AM

A young Ronnie looking good here.

yeah his lower legs are really symmetrical wit the rest of him

pumpster · « **Reply #24 on:** June 03, 2006, 10:45:25 AM »

Some classics where Schwarzenegger gets owned. Haven't even bothered yet with rear-lat spreads..

Author Topic: coleman pics (Read 10387 times)

Mr. Intenseone

Mr. Intenseone