Author Topic: who looked better in their primes ? Francois or Cutler (Read 6062 times)

MRMD2003 · « **on:** December 09, 2006, 03:57:12 PM »

Who looked better in their primes ?

The Squadfather · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:57:36 PM »

Francois.

davidpaul · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2006, 03:57:52 PM »

Quote from: The Squadfather on December 09, 2006, 03:57:36 PM

Francois.

i agree

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:05:57 PM »

Jay couldn't match this shot.

willie mosconi · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:07:42 PM »

cutler

cutler is more refined. francois, while very good, was missing something. his mid-section was worse than cutler's

also, cutler has brought his back up so much, that francois doesn't even have the advantage there

MRMD2003 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:09:02 PM »

thanks guys. you guys just contributed to a steak dinner at outback !!!!!

logical? · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:44:17 PM »

Francois. No way his mid-section was worse than Cutler's. He could have had abs like an offseason King Kamali; but with that waist size, Jay's always going to look more like a fridge than westinghuose.

The Squadfather · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:47:13 PM »

Quote from: Matt C on December 09, 2006, 04:44:23 PM

Who could?

i don't think even Ronnie matches the thickness of that back, the spinal erectors look a foot thick.

logical? · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2006, 04:47:59 PM »

Quote from: Matt C on December 09, 2006, 04:44:23 PM

Who could?

Matt, just hypothetic-ising- if Dorian and Ronnie could both match that shot, who would you say was better out of the two?

Palpatine Q · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2006, 05:50:31 PM »

Francios by a mile.

titusisback · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2006, 05:59:46 PM »

Quote from: willie mosconi on December 09, 2006, 04:07:42 PM

his mid-section was worse than cutler's

What the hell are you smoking? Find me a shot ot Cutler with a better midsection than this.

Mike was unbelievable

gmflex · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2006, 06:28:13 PM »

Mike looked better!!
Too bad he got seriously sick!!!

logical? · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2006, 07:32:46 PM »

Quote from: Matt C on December 09, 2006, 05:54:17 PM

Good question. I would say Ronnie if anyone. Possibly Ronnie's width and overall size could match Francois' thickness in terms of "wow factor", but I don't think either had spinal erectors like that as Squadfather said. All three are definitely among the three best backs ever, if not the three best backs ever.

Yeah. Do you ever feel that debates like these are futile, and that these three backs are so good, may as well just give all three 10/10 and be done with any discussion?

Figo · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2006, 07:34:33 PM »

Francois was great.

Figo · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2006, 07:35:46 PM »

Quote from: logical? on December 09, 2006, 07:32:46 PM

Yeah. Do you ever feel that debates like these are futile, and that these three backs are so good, may as well just give all three 10/10 and be done with any discussion?

No, never.

onlyme · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2006, 07:50:32 PM »

I remember seeing Francois guest posing here in the early 90's. The guy was UNREAL HUGE. He was awesome. Never heard much from him after that though.

logical? · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2006, 07:51:05 PM »

Quote from: Figo on December 09, 2006, 07:35:46 PM

No, never.

You might feel at home in the truce thread then

Disgusted · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2006, 08:25:32 PM »

Quote from: onlyme on December 09, 2006, 07:50:32 PM

I remember seeing Francois guest posing here in the early 90's. The guy was UNREAL HUGE. He was awesome. Never heard much from him after that though.

I've seen him up close recently and was shocked at how narrow boned he really is. He really must have packed a ton of muscle on his frame to look that big.

Rimbaud · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2006, 11:37:23 PM »

In my humble opinion Mike.

MisterMagoo · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2006, 12:02:43 AM »

mike looked better for that brief time he was around, but it's hard to say what would have happened if he wasn't forced to retire.

disco_stu · « **Reply #20 on:** December 10, 2006, 12:44:21 AM »

how can the current mr.o look worse than an also ran early 90s pro?

lord how the years make the old guys great.

guys M.F. had plenty to show and plenty to work on.

next to levrone et al he was about a top 5-8 finisher...thats it.

this thread is stupid.

lets start one that says, who looks better, lee haney or ronnie coleman...

how about vince taylor v ronnie coleman?

silly stuff.

you can only really compare mr.o's to other mr.os or top 2-3 contenders and supposedly the latest top 2-3 guys should be better than yesteryears...

titusisback · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2006, 01:37:59 AM »

Quote from: disco_stu on December 10, 2006, 12:44:21 AM

next to levrone et al he was about a top 5-8 finisher...thats it.

He was in a shitty shape in one Olympia and didn't place well, true. Otherwise, he was the guy who stopped Flex Wheeler at Arnold Classic. This year, Ronnie was in crappy shape and wouldn't have beat Flex in his prime. Neither would've Cutler who must have the most boring Mr. Olympia physique since Chris Dickerson. But Francois was able to beat Flex, period. Yes, he was THAT good.

the shadow · « **Reply #22 on:** December 10, 2006, 01:48:18 AM »

Quote from: disco_stu on December 10, 2006, 12:44:21 AM

how can the current mr.o look worse than an also ran early 90s pro?

lord how the years make the old guys great.

guys M.F. had plenty to show and plenty to work on.

next to levrone et al he was about a top 5-8 finisher...thats it.

this thread is stupid.

lets start one that says, who looks better, lee haney or ronnie coleman...

how about vince taylor v ronnie coleman?

silly stuff.

you can only really compare mr.o's to other mr.os or top 2-3 contenders and supposedly the latest top 2-3 guys should be better than yesteryears...

100% agreed.....

MAXX · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2006, 01:51:03 AM »

i think Cutler would make him look small. Great physique though.

&mode=related&search=

titusisback · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2006, 01:57:10 AM »

Quote from: disco_stu on December 10, 2006, 12:44:21 AM

how can the current mr.o look worse than an also ran early 90s pro?

lord how the years make the old guys great.

guys M.F. had plenty to show and plenty to work on.

next to levrone et al he was about a top 5-8 finisher...thats it.

this thread is stupid.

lets start one that says, who looks better, lee haney or ronnie coleman...

how about vince taylor v ronnie coleman?

silly stuff.

you can only really compare mr.o's to other mr.os or top 2-3 contenders and supposedly the latest top 2-3 guys should be better than yesteryears...

Of course you can compare a former competitor to someone who competes today. Or, was Chris Dickerson better than Arnold? Columbo better than Arnold? Sometimes (in fact often) the level of competition goes down until someone picks it up. Coleman did just that when he won the title. But after 2003, he's been getting worse and no one has been able to take the sport to the next level. Cutler winning was not because he's that good, that's because he didn't face first class competition. Yes.... Francois in his prime would beat Cutler in his prime. It's logical to think "today's Mr. O must be the best physique ever" but unfortunately it's been far from truth many many times.