« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?  (Read 6597 times)

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2006, 03:09:18 PM »
Quote
He lost because his back wasn't dominant and his lat looks torn/partially so, thus affecting his training.

Honestly its as plain as pie.  Every year preceeding this year we've been talking about how it is "lights out" when they turn around and this year Ronnie didn't have it.  He didn't have his best weapon and quite frankly Jay was close last year.

Yep; didn't have it, may be too old now. Someone from Weider's camp really should've had a talk with him about retiring before the show..

His waist looks bad:









Logged

MindSpin

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9985
  • MMA > Boxing
Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2006, 03:15:52 PM »
Quote from: MattT on October 01, 2006, 08:51:30 PM
He was more ripped then Jay, so why did he lose?

If you don't stop confusing the words "than" & "then", I'm going to delete your sorry-ass account...seriously.
Logged
w

God Luke

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Getbig!
Re: Was Ronnie's condition really that far off?
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2006, 04:20:07 PM »
ronnie is missing 2 bodyparts "no calves doesnt have any shape to speak of " and his triceps are just not there when he tries to flex them anymore, so if ur missing 2 bodyparts how can u expect to win a title that makes you the greatest bodybuilder on earth
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »