Author Topic: Ronnie Coleman - from great to not-as-great (Read 27241 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #25 on:** January 29, 2006, 07:57:47 PM »

I find it incredibly funny (and terribly sad) that someone can criticize Ronnie in 2004 (which I do myself, he looked not that great) but then at the same time sing the praises of Dorian in 1997. 1997???!!! Ugh.

Why do you think there are pics out there of Dorian getting owned from "lesser" bodbuilders from the front?

The answer is that Dorian fell apart in his later years.

1993 okay. but 1997 (and post tear to boot)??

ugh.

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #26 on:** January 29, 2006, 10:36:11 PM »

Quote from: 8 INCH not biceps on January 29, 2006, 05:29:59 PM

Your opinion sucks because in 97 dorian gut looked horrible and his waist was wide, no one will argue that ronnie's gut was getting out of control but he turned around and got it under control. I still cannot understand how you guys expect a bodybuilder to be 296 lbs on stage at 5ft 11 with a small waist and a flat stomach that is a little unrealistic.

Hey, dumbass, you just agreed with everything I wrote and you don't even realize it. I never said that Dorian looked good, at the 97 O. In fact, he was some 20 lbs above what is ideal for him. My sole point was that Dorian still looked decent at that weight, due to his incredible hardness and dryness. Ronnie looks disproportional and bloated when he gets over 260 lbs. Furthermore, Dorian's shoulder-to-waist ratio, while bad, was always better than Ronnie's. The bottom line, is that Ronnie, loses more of his quality, when he goes over 260 lbs. Once again, Ronnie is at his pinnacle at around 250 lbs(density, dryness, striations, proportion, detail and separation).
SUCKMYMUSCLE

nicorulez · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:26:56 PM »

Ronnie in 2003 craps over any version of Yates. Better separation, better proportions. Yates couldn't ever touch him. Only BB with the mass with class that Coleman had in 2003 was Haney and he was thirty pounds lighter. Dorian has a wide waist, average chest, sucky (thats for you Suckymuscle) arms, and an insane gack. Put it all together and he looked like shit that year. In 1993, his best year, he was amazing. Don't even try to compare him in 1997 to Ronnie in 2003. Now I agree he looked bloated and soft in 2004. Still, he stomped the shit out of Jay and the rest. Only guy with a potential chance to beat him in the future is Vic with 20 pounds. Oh yeah, if Dorian circa 1993 came back then it would be some fun also. However, I totally disagree about Dorian over 270....awful.

pumpster · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:04:46 PM »

Ron in his "worst" Olympia condition still stomps on Yates.

rufjunk · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2006, 09:42:39 PM »

never get enough pictures

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2006, 10:44:10 PM »

Quote from: nicorulez on January 30, 2006, 04:26:56 PM

Ronnie in 2003 craps over any version of Yates. Better separation, better proportions. Yates couldn't ever touch him. Only BB with the mass with class that Coleman had in 2003 was Haney and he was thirty pounds lighter. Dorian has a wide waist, average chest, sucky (thats for you Suckymuscle) arms, and an insane gack. Put it all together and he looked like shit that year. In 1993, his best year, he was amazing. Don't even try to compare him in 1997 to Ronnie in 2003. Now I agree he looked bloated and soft in 2004. Still, he stomped the shit out of Jay and the rest. Only guy with a potential chance to beat him in the future is Vic with 20 pounds. Oh yeah, if Dorian circa 1993 came back then it would be some fun also. However, I totally disagree about Dorian over 270....awful.

Ok. Now, your opinion matters because...? At least Hulkster knows what he's talking about. I completely lost respect for you, after reading your posts; an amazing feat, considering that you have so few of them.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

P.S:Don't call me suckymuscle...you know my muscle does it's best to please you, but your rectum is just too damn loose for any muscle. Not even if I stuck my quadracips, up there, I'd be able to please you. So, how do you expect my fallus femoris to?

rufjunk · « **Reply #31 on:** February 08, 2006, 01:52:34 PM »

Thought I'd bump this over finding some interesting picture comparisons.
This is why people complain about pro's dipping into various chemicals for the sake of size. Check the face and the stomach.

rufjunk · « **Reply #32 on:** February 08, 2006, 04:39:34 PM »

Good point...
The only point I can make is he would've been a better bodybuilder had he not used chemicals that altered his stomach and face. Maybe that means not as much mass, but I would prefer a more aesthetic and truly art-form like Ronnie as opposed to a Mass Monster with a distended stomach.
I guess thats the price you pay, but its unfortunate. I still think someone with with an elongated stomach that distends and a facial structure thats noticably larger from GH use should not be hoisted as the pinnacle of bodybuilding, that just sends the wrong message.
The stomach is the center peice of the body, for him to compromise that to have larger quads and a more thick body should be marked down, which in turn would just negate the extra mass.
He still looks great I guess it's just unfortunate he had to ruin one body part to make the rest bigger. Bigger is not better... it seems some judges ignore this.

Hulkster · « **Reply #33 on:** February 08, 2006, 07:10:19 PM »

its not just chemicals - wasn't there a 10 year age difference between those pics? People may showing aging more in the face than anywhere else. Its aging AND chemicals.

Rome · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2006, 04:22:45 AM »

Quote from: Bluto on January 28, 2006, 11:30:51 AM

Another bash ronnie thread, how exciting!

They're always SO enlightening and original aren't they?

pumpster · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2006, 06:00:20 AM »

Aging, chemicals plus the fact than anyone looks less good above their ideal weight.
Bottom line he looked damn good last October and was still clearly the best.

sgt. d · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2006, 08:59:34 AM »

Quote from: suckmymuscle on January 30, 2006, 10:44:10 PM

Ok. Now, your opinion matters because...? At least Hulkster knows what he's talking about. I completely lost respect for you, after reading your posts; an amazing feat, considering that you have so few of them.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
P.S:Don't call me suckymuscle...you know my muscle does it's best to please you, but your rectum is just too damn loose for any muscle. Not even if I stuck my quadracips, up there, I'd be able to please you. So, how do you expect my fallus femoris to?

ok mr. 280 monster with no pics to show

rufjunk · « **Reply #37 on:** February 10, 2006, 07:45:00 AM »

I say we make a petition for the Olympia judges to change their criteria. Guys coming up like Ronnie won't have to drastically alter their bone structure and health just to compete at the top level.

Richard Jones is choosing not to GH it up, why not Gustavo?

rufjunk · « **Reply #38 on:** February 16, 2006, 01:31:29 PM »

old pics

rufjunk · « **Reply #39 on:** February 16, 2006, 01:35:53 PM »

I know it's small but when's the last time you saw this pose?

This is a humorous comparison..

candidate2025 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 16, 2006, 01:56:31 PM »

Quote from: rufjunk on February 10, 2006, 07:45:00 AM

I say we make a petition for the Olympia judges to change their criteria. Guys coming up like Ronnie won't have to drastically alter their bone structure and health just to compete at the top level.
Richard Jones is choosing not to GH it up, why not Gustavo?

absolutley not....ronnie this year was the best he has ever loked. probably the best anyone has ever loked...except maybe markhus ruhl in 2002.

and he(ronnnie) is healthy.

Hulkster · « **Reply #41 on:** February 16, 2006, 02:50:50 PM »

Quote from: candidate2025 on February 16, 2006, 01:56:31 PM

absolutley not....ronnie this year was the best he has ever loked. probably the best anyone has ever loked...except maybe markhus ruhl in 2002.
and he(ronnnie) is healthy.

correction: it was the best he has ever looked in several years.
It was not the best anyone has ever looked.
Although ronnie version 2005 is far better than version 2004, it was not better than 98,99 or AC 2001.

gibberj2 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 16, 2006, 09:36:41 PM »

98 gyno

candidate2025 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 16, 2006, 09:39:49 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 16, 2006, 02:50:50 PM

correction: it was the best he has ever looked in several years.
It was not the best anyone has ever looked.
Although ronnie version 2005 is far better than version 2004, it was not better than 98,99 or AC 2001.

i have to disagree....ive never seen apicture or video of anyone (including ronnie) look better than ronnie did at this years olympia.

Hulkster · « **Reply #44 on:** February 16, 2006, 11:16:18 PM »

Quote from: candidate2025 on February 16, 2006, 09:39:49 PM

i have to disagree....ive never seen apicture or video of anyone (including ronnie) look better than ronnie did at this years olympia.

there. now you have

delta9mda · « **Reply #45 on:** February 17, 2006, 04:53:20 AM »

Quote from: rufjunk on January 28, 2006, 02:12:21 PM

Also I apologize, the two pictures are obviously different and don't do Ronnie justice..
It's the best I could find...
But does anyone else feel the same way I do.. you can notice he's sorta bulging out his stomach in the first one.. flexing his abs in the second.. Even with him flexing his abs it still looks a lot better than his current form. I know there is someone out there that believes Insulin and GH use does alter muscle size and shape and causes distended stomachs, all for the sake of size.

you can not alter a muscles shape. get off ronnies dick hes one of the best ever, though we all know how many times he never came close to yates- hulkster?

pumpster · « **Reply #46 on:** February 17, 2006, 05:46:27 AM »

Ron looked good in '05, the best he's looked in a few years but anyone who thinks that's his best hasn't done the homework.

No comparison with when he was lighter, athletic and basically an anatomy chart. He looked damn good in '05 though, still clearly ahead of everyone else when you see the video.

Forget Yates in this, it's tired. Yates was never in the same league and wouldn't have won in any other era than the one he was fortunate to have been in. Let it go; he was solid and the subject's boring.

delta9mda · « **Reply #47 on:** February 17, 2006, 11:10:55 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 17, 2006, 05:46:27 AM

Ron looked good in '05, the best he's looked in a few years but anyone who thinks that's his best hasn't done the homework.
No comparison with when he was lighter, athletic and basically an anatomy chart. He looked damn good in '05 though, still clearly ahead of everyone else when you see the video.
Forget Yates in this, it's tired. Yates was never in the same league and wouldn't have won in any other era than the one he was fortunate to have been in. Let it go; he was solid and the subject's boring.

you mean the era with the most competition? yates beat the best at their best. do the math.

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #48 on:** February 17, 2006, 12:20:33 PM »

Quote from: delta9mda on February 17, 2006, 11:10:55 AM

you mean the era with the most competition? yates beat the best at their best. do the math.

Bravo!

Finally a non-retard on this board! Dorian raped Ronnie, more times, than Kobe Bryant raped that dumb bitch!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Hulkster · « **Reply #49 on:** February 17, 2006, 03:47:44 PM »

Quote from: delta9mda on February 17, 2006, 11:10:55 AM

you mean the era with the most competition? yates beat the best at their best. do the math.

but that has no relevance on Yates beating anyone in Ronnie's era.
physiques progress (at least until we hit the gut age).
oh wait...who started that??
Oh yeah, Dorian!