Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 03:09:04 PM

Title: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 03:09:04 PM
impressive
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: body88 on October 01, 2006, 03:10:16 PM
Exactly. Hulkster why do you never post this shot?
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Weightpit on October 01, 2006, 04:46:21 PM
impressive

Jeezzz...Cutler's back is incredible.........He blew everyone away this year with that back!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: HERACLES on October 01, 2006, 04:48:05 PM
His hamstrings look insane too. ... his legs are so thick....amazing....
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: pobrecito on October 01, 2006, 04:49:50 PM
Compared to Dorian and ROnnie peak thats not impresive at all :-X
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Weightpit on October 01, 2006, 04:50:30 PM
His hamstrings look insane too. ... his legs are so thick....amazing....

What blows my mind is that I'm the same height as Jay and I can't imagine carrying around that mass - I'm 220 and know there is no way I can function at the size he's at......

The guy is incredible.....
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: HERACLES on October 01, 2006, 04:52:44 PM
What blows my mind is that I'm the same height as Jay and I can't imagine carrying around that mass - I'm 220 and know there is no way I can function at the size he's at......

The guy is incredible.....

220 most of which is fat, hes at what, 5% or less? im 5'8" and stripped to contest shape im 185 max...puts it into perspective...
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: getfast81 on October 01, 2006, 05:00:15 PM
impressive
Not impressive.  Looks almost the same as it did three years ago.  He beat Ronnie this year.  Not Vic, Dex, and Melvin though.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: HERACLES on October 01, 2006, 05:01:38 PM
LOL!! Not all fat.....I hit the weights 5 days a week......48"chest....18 +" arms.....34 waist.......27" legs.......and I'm 38!!! I would say I am at about 11-12% fat....a guess......I can just make out my abs........he comes in at about 3% I thought....which is sick!! I can't imagine what he does to get like that. 

You sound like you're in awesome shape, dude......I don't compete but if I did I would have to lose about 15 pounds or more.....

Nah, im 213, getting there though.... i didnt mean all fat lol, but you know what i mean, these guys make us all look fat, call eachother fat, lol...you know what i mean...id be content with getting to 200. but 190 id be really polished.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: MAXX on October 01, 2006, 05:02:39 PM
impressive
awesome shot!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Weightpit on October 01, 2006, 05:08:14 PM
Nah, im 213, getting there though.... i didnt mean all fat lol, but you know what i mean, these guys make us all look fat, call eachother fat, lol...you know what i mean...id be content with getting to 200. but 190 id be really polished.

 ;D  Trust me...I know what you mean and I really appreciate your note......I am a fat slob compared to these dudes.....I do this to stay in shape and stay healthy...I even got my wife into it.

I think you are right on about the 190 weight.......it just sucks to get to a certain bulk and then know you have to lose it to look better. It blows my mind how guys can have a 30-32" waist and still hang on to 22 inch arms or something.

Keep at it, man....you'll get it!!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Dball on October 01, 2006, 05:09:00 PM
gotta love how you can see his killer quad sweep even in this pose.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: tommywishbone on October 01, 2006, 05:17:09 PM
Photoshop out his obliques and it is crazy.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: haider on October 01, 2006, 05:18:44 PM
His symmetry was way better than Ron's, and he also edged him out int he back department by virtue of better conditioning and dryness.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: natural al on October 01, 2006, 05:21:42 PM
top to bottom that's a great pose, calves, hamstings, detailed thick back....very nice.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 05:24:40 PM
some more... these are from MADMAX's personal camera btw... a little blurry but I'd say dave was a tad excited when he took these...
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Hulkster on October 01, 2006, 06:41:52 PM
Compared to Dorian and ROnnie peak thats not impresive at all :-X

exactly.

Jay's back is still not that great.

eg here is Jay's back comapared to two famous backs, in similar poses:

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=98046.0;attach=106608;image)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974182578.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974028047.jpg)
Unlike many, I am not blinded by the hype. Just because Jay won does not mean his back has become fantastic.

Jay's back has gone from "not that great" to good- that is all.

It is not on a level of other "great backs" like Samir, Haney, Ronnie and Yates. (or Flex or Shawn for that matter)

If you compare shots of 2006 Jay to 2003 or 2004 Jay, his back does not look much different at all. It looks a bit thicker and wider, but thats it.  It doesn't have more detail, which is what Jay has needed all along.

Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: haider on October 01, 2006, 06:43:42 PM
Who cares. His back was still better than Ronnie's yesterday. Bodybuilding is a game of comparisons. Comparitively, Jay was very good.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 06:46:26 PM
ronnie was DRY in 98!!!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Hulkster on October 01, 2006, 06:49:52 PM
Who cares. His back was still better than Ronnie's yesterday. Bodybuilding is a game of comparisons. Comparitively, Jay was very good.

correct.

but that is totally different than claiming:

"oh my god Jay's back is fantastic!!!!!"

which is what is happening here.

Jay beat Ronnie fair and square.

But that does not mean that his back is suddenly on a level with the other Olympians known for their backs, like Haney, Bannout, Ronnie (in shape) and Yates.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 06:51:52 PM
Jay beat Ronnie fair and square.
wow the hulkster admits his guy got done over... kudos
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: slayer on October 01, 2006, 06:52:36 PM
exactly.

Jay's back is still not that great.

eg here is Jay's back comapared to two famous backs, in similar poses:

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=98046.0;attach=106608;image)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974182578.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974028047.jpg)
Unlike many, I am not blinded by the hype. Just because Jay won does not mean his back has become fantastic.

Jay's back has gone from "not that great" to good- that is all.

It is not on a level of other "great backs" like Samir, Haney, Ronnie and Yates. (or Flex or Shawn for that matter)

If you compare shots of 2006 Jay to 2003 or 2004 Jay, his back does not look much different at all. It looks a bit thicker and wider, but thats it.  It doesn't have more detail, which is what Jay has needed all along.


jays back is much wider then both of them!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: MAXX on October 01, 2006, 06:54:44 PM
Only flaw with Jays back is that he has some lose skin in his lower back that takes away some detail.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 06:55:20 PM
the 98 ronnie still would have won easily brother!

how dry is the prick!?
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: HERACLES on October 01, 2006, 06:56:02 PM
jays back is much wider then both of them!

You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 06:57:03 PM
You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
the right side still looks pretty good at least...
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: slayer on October 01, 2006, 06:57:33 PM
You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
your fuckin nuts, jays back is way wider then ronnies ever was!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: MAXX on October 01, 2006, 06:57:59 PM
You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
not ever wider. maybe thicker in his prime
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Hulkster on October 01, 2006, 07:04:37 PM
no and no

(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/bluecolemanbacks.jpg)
don't give in to the hype.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: jwb on October 01, 2006, 07:05:37 PM
jay certainly gets a better spread going than ronnie which may have more to do with scapula flexibilty than anything else.

Ronnie always looks like he could spread it more if he really wanted to...
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: The_Hammer on October 01, 2006, 07:05:40 PM
                                               Jay makes Dorian look like shit

                               (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=97886.0;attach=106516;image)






                                                                  NOT!
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: MAXX on October 01, 2006, 07:26:41 PM
Jay is wider Hulkster.

Here i made a proof:

(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8978/jayvsronwidthrj8.jpg)
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: bailey on October 01, 2006, 07:35:56 PM
Could someone tell me if there was a " Best legs " award like last year and hwo won it ???????
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: MAXX on October 01, 2006, 07:36:29 PM
Could someone tell me if there was a " Best legs " award like last year and hwo won it ???????
no there wasnt
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: nicorulez on October 01, 2006, 08:28:06 PM
he is wider because Coleman was missing his left lat.  Jesus people, anybody with eyes can see that Ronnie got a gift getting second, much less win.  Hell, Jay looked worse than last year.  His back is wide, but no detail.  His abs...we won't even go there. ;)
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: JaggyShortBuff on October 01, 2006, 08:28:13 PM
OMG, the more pics people post of Iron Jay's back the more I lose my interest in him compared to other Olympians.....Jay is great, but damn I must be blind to not see what he has over the others in the pics posted....Jay better watch his "so-called" back when Martinez takes  the Olympia from him....Sorry but Jay "The Company Man" Cutler will have his crown taken very very soon....
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: phyxsius on October 01, 2006, 08:42:44 PM
Only flaw with Jays back is that he has some lose skin in his lower back that takes away some detail.

Jay has the tendency to arch too much
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: JaggyShortBuff on October 01, 2006, 08:44:37 PM
Jay has the tendency to arch too much

Ohhh, damn and all this time I thought it was a conditioning flaw....Wow, was I soo wrong.... ::)
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: ramazon on October 01, 2006, 11:06:33 PM
exactly.

Jay's back is still not that great.

eg here is Jay's back comapared to two famous backs, in similar poses:

(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=98046.0;attach=106608;image)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974182578.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974028047.jpg)
Unlike many, I am not blinded by the hype. Just because Jay won does not mean his back has become fantastic.

Jay's back has gone from "not that great" to good- that is all.

It is not on a level of other "great backs" like Samir, Haney, Ronnie and Yates. (or Flex or Shawn for that matter)

If you compare shots of 2006 Jay to 2003 or 2004 Jay, his back does not look much different at all. It looks a bit thicker and wider, but thats it.  It doesn't have more detail, which is what Jay has needed all along.


Thanks, H.  We needed that!  I'm in SHOCK that Cutler toppled Coleman.  My people at the O reported that Coleman was the obvious surefire winner.  They anticipated a race riot when the winner was announced.  It was THAT tense and disturbing an event.  So thanks for the in-you-face cold shower truth.  BTW, I know your mother-in-law, Gail.  I like her shop in T.O.  Great taste! 
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Weightpit on October 02, 2006, 04:43:20 AM
Thanks, H.  We needed that!  I'm in SHOCK that Cutler toppled Coleman.  My people at the O reported that Coleman was the obvious surefire winner.  They anticipated a race riot when the winner was announced.  It was THAT tense and disturbing an event.  So thanks for the in-you-face cold shower truth.  BTW, I know your mother-in-law, Gail.  I like her shop in T.O.  Great taste! 

A RACE RIOT???? OVer a bodybuilding contest???? African-Americans would be that upset over something like this to cause a RACE RIOT???? I love it....whenever a black dude or chick gets "dissed"....the first thing that happens is that the race card gets thrown and the potential of a RACE RIOT becomes reality. It's getting old, people.....actually, it's been old!  :P

Gee...when Cutler looked to beat Coleman last year, or in 2001 - I didn't hear any white people talk about causing a race riot.........why is that???
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: TDK on October 02, 2006, 11:07:16 AM
Jay only appeared so good because Ronnie was off.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: body88 on October 02, 2006, 11:10:51 AM
Thanks, H.  We needed that!  I'm in SHOCK that Cutler toppled Coleman.  My people at the O reported that Coleman was the obvious surefire winner.  They anticipated a race riot when the winner was announced.  It was THAT tense and disturbing an event.  So thanks for the in-you-face cold shower truth.  BTW, I know your mother-in-law, Gail.  I like her shop in T.O.  Great taste! 

Are you black? If so how does it feel to be a disgrace to your entire race? Take your race card and shove up your ass you dirty ,filthy ,disgrace to the entire African race :D Africans get a bad name due to fools like you.
Title: Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
Post by: Weightpit on October 02, 2006, 11:16:27 AM
Are you black? If so ,how does it feel to be a disgrace to your entire race? Take your race card and shove uo your ass you dirty filthy disgrace to the entire african race :D Africans get a bad name due to fools like you.

Thank you!! Well said!