Ronnie in 2003 really doesn't impress me at all..

[pobrecito]

Sure, overall, Ronnie "set a new standard" in 2003, but in reality he didn't. After watching the BFTO 2002 and 2003 tapes, honestly, it looks like Ronnie made NO positive improvements in 2003. His waist balooned up, his taper got worse, he had worse quad separation, and was not nearly as dry. 17 days out from the 2002 Mr. Olympia Ronnie was in BETTER condition than he was at the 2003 mr. olympia. 2002 was basically Ronnie's 1999 form with 15lbs more muscle.










thanks to bodybuilding pro for the screencaps

[Hulkster]

argreed that Ronnie 2003 was worse than his onstage 1998/9 appearences.

However, you have to admit ths this shot is damn impressive:


 


also, his back was the widest of all time:




so there were some good things about his appearence, eg. arms, chest, thigh sweep, but he lacked the great lines of his earlier performances.

Interesting most muscular comparison:


1999

2003

[pobrecito]

argreed that Ronnie 2003 was worse than his onstage 1998/9 appearences.

However, you have to admit ths this shot is damn impressive:


 


also, his back was the widest of all time:




so there were some good things about his appearence, eg. arms, chest, thigh sweep, but he lacked the great lines of his earlier performances.

Interesting most muscular comparison:


1999

2003

But look at his back in 2003, it looks watery compared to 1998/9 and not nearly as dry as BFTO 2002. Also, check the quads in the 2003 most-muscular compared to the 99 version, much less cuts. 2002 BFTO was ronnie's all-time best, 275lbs in 1999 olympia form.

[Hulkster]

But look at his back in 2003, it looks watery compared to 1998/9 and not nearly as dry as BFTO 2002. Also, check the quads in the 2003 most-muscular compared to the 99 version, much less cuts. 2002 BFTO was ronnie's all-time best, 275lbs in 1999 olympia form.

agree about his back and quads..but, ronnie's back is not as soft in 2003 as most people think - the reason is there are a whole lot of "half flexed" shots of Ronnie's back that are shown everywhere, such as this one:


that gets posted all the time...




when fully flexed his back does not look as bad in 2003 as everyone says.

[Hulkster]

ronnie's quads were not nearly as cut as in 99, but they were so huge and had such good sweep that it was hard not to be impressed:


but his waist is really wide compared to 99..

[TheAnimal]

ronnie looks awesome in that pic

[NeoSeminole]

Ronnie's quads in 03 looked pretty good when they were fully flexed.

[fathead]

.I've been to all the Olympias since 97 except for 98. 2003 was soooooo fucken impressive. He can out at prejudging and the show was over. It was Unreal!!!   

[pobrecito]

Ronnie's quads in 03 looked pretty good when they were fully flexed.

yes but they were BETTER in 2002, 17 days out. Plus, in 2003 his waist balooned up and his taper got worse. I prefer quality over quantity.

[Sir William Idol]

Sure, overall, Ronnie "set a new standard" in 2003, but in reality he didn't.

the best thesis is always one that immediately contradicts itself.   well done

[haider]

the best thesis is always one that immediately contradicts itself.   well done

yes, cant believe I missed that. wtf? 

[Robbie]

Those pics don't impress me either....





They blow me away. Got to love these arm chair critics 

[Croatch]

Yes.  Coleman has never impressed me.  He's a bit on the small side, lacks definition and dedication.

[Robbie]

Yes.  Coleman has never impressed me.  He's a bit on the small side, lacks definition and dedication.

lol 

[pumpster]

-All multiple winners have had off years relative to their best. Nothing new here.

-Unlike some other winners, at less than his best he was still comparable or slightly better than the competition.