Author Topic: Arnold vs.Ronnie (Read 27032 times)

hipolito mejia · « **on:** January 20, 2007, 04:30:03 PM »

Since front double bicep is the # 1 pose in bodybuilding-

who in your opinion looks better at their prime Arnod or Ronnie (in that particular pose)

remember Just front double bicep..... PLEASE

Thank you.

ribonucleic · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:33:30 PM »

You're living in the past. Arnold could barely qualify for the O today. Not a slam on him. That's just the march of progress.

Hulkster · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:34:14 PM »

ronnie:

Royalty · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:35:01 PM »

If Ronnie was transplanted from our era into the seventies (using just 70's deca, primo, and dianobol), I would say that Arnold would win the pose. Along with, at least, the side chest.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:35:14 PM »

if Arnold posed how you're supposed to in the front double biceps (standing straight up, no twisting, facing the judges) then Ronnie destroys Arnold.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:36:21 PM »

Quote from: Royalty on January 20, 2007, 04:35:01 PM

If Ronnie was transplanted from our era into the seventies (using just 70's deca, primo, and dianobol), I would say that Arnold would win the pose. Along with, at least, the side chest.

The better comparison is drop Ronnie down to a pound-for-pound weight and see how well he compares to Arnold , lets drop Ronnie down to about 225 pounds and see how impressive he is compared to Arnold

Hulkster · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:37:15 PM »

wow. you can really see how balanced ronnie's bis and tris are in comparison to arnold.

looks like arnold is missing some of his lower arm..

Hulkster · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:39:53 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 04:36:21 PM

The better comparison is drop Ronnie down to a pound-for-pound weight and see how well he compares to Arnold , lets drop Ronnie down to about 225 pounds and see how impressive he is compared to Arnold

why don't we drop arnold's height down by 4 inches to equal Ronnie's while we are at it?

thats a whole lot less mass relative to height.

Royalty · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:44:41 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:39:53 PM

why don't we drop arnold's height down by 4 inches to equal Ronnie's while we are at it?

thats a whole lot less mass relative to height.

Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, Insulin, and Clen, and you would be shocked at how much of a difference it would make.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:46:37 PM »

Arnold 75 VS Ronnie 98 lol

ribonucleic · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:50:18 PM »

Quote from: Royalty on January 20, 2007, 04:44:41 PM

Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, Insulin, and Clen, and you would be shocked at how much of a difference it would make.

Unless the question is who had better genetics - and it isn't - what's yer point?

The poster asked who wins the pose. Look at the composite photo. It's not close even if you're squinting.

Hulkster · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:50:51 PM »

Quote from: Royalty on January 20, 2007, 04:44:41 PM

Ronnie is on about ten times more drugs than Arnold in that pic. Give Arnold some Tren, Supension, GH, and Clen, and you would be shocked how much of a difference it would make.

true.

Arnold was more aesthetic than Ronnie, but Ronnie's arms were a whole lot better..

Hulkster · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:53:39 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 04:46:37 PM

Arnold 75 VS Ronnie 98 lol

don't even start your ironage crap here.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:55:07 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:53:39 PM

don't even start your ironage crap here.

Yawn

Hulkster · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:55:52 PM »

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:56:47 PM »

ribonucleic · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2007, 04:58:24 PM »

In fact, this question is so uninteresting that I feel the need to immediately reframe it...

Who scored the hotter chick?

TheAnimal · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:00:03 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 20, 2007, 04:50:51 PM

true.

Arnold was more aesthetic than Ronnie, but Ronnie's arms were a whole lot better..

What makes you say that Arnold is more aesthetic... by those pictures Ronnie looks far more sensational... perhaps in that very shot right there is the greatest X frame we have ever seen in that shot Ronnie arms are so large that his waist appears tapered due to the appearance of clear obliques not seen in many Coleman shots... once again quad seperation is evident with the X frame highlighted by the intimidating size and definition of the hamstrings. Aesthetics is right there in ya face only thing that stops you guys from admitting his aesthetic presence is the huge amount of muscle but ill tell you that its all in the right places. Only flaw, is calves... and that it! Amazing shot Hulkster i'm so damn impressed by the clean lines I don't see how Arnold is more aesthetic but that is something that is subjective as by definition aesthetics is a reference to beauty.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:01:54 PM »

Quote from: TheAnimal on January 20, 2007, 05:00:03 PM

What makes you say that Arnold is more aesthetic... by those pictures Ronnie looks far more sensational... perhaps in that very shot right there is the greatest X frame we have ever seen in that shot Ronnie arms are so large that his waist appears tapered due to the appearance of clear obliques not seen in many Coleman shots... once again quad seperation is evident with the X frame highlighted by the intimidating size and definition of the hamstrings. Aesthetics is right there in ya face only thing that stops you guys from admitting his aesthetic presence is the huge amount of muscle but ill tell you that its all in the right places. Only flaw, is calves... and that it! Amazing shot Hulkster i'm so damn impressed by the clean lines I don't see how Arnold is more aesthetic but that is something that is subjective as by definition aesthetics is a reference to beauty.

LMFAO at Ronnie being aesthetic , hell Arnold wasn't even aesthetic but he certainly more so than Ronnie

ribonucleic · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:02:50 PM »

Arnold was sorta aesthetic from the rib-cage up - but not full figure.

TheAnimal · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:03:26 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:01:54 PM

LMFAO at Ronnie being aesthetic , hell Arnold wasn't even aesthetic but he certainly more so than Ronnie

How is this not aesthetic?

ribonucleic · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:05:44 PM »

Quote from: TheAnimal on January 20, 2007, 05:03:26 PM

How is this not aesthetic?

That ugly lump between the traps ruins it for me.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:06:12 PM »

Quote from: TheAnimal on January 20, 2007, 05:03:26 PM

How is this not aesthetic?

because he's a collection of parts that lack harmony and balance & proportions , calves , abdominals and delts are all aesthetic muscles Ronnie is lacking in two of areas couple that with the fore mentioned and its easy to see why thats NOT aesthetic , Flex Wheeler yes , Ronnie Coleman give me a break

Buttsuck · « **Reply #23 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:08:43 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on January 20, 2007, 04:35:14 PM

if Arnold posed how you're supposed to in the front double biceps (standing straight up, no twisting, facing the judges) then Ronnie destroys Arnold.

You mean if Ronnie posed how you are supposed to in the front double bi Arnold would destroy him.... but then again i don't think ronnie is capable of twisting his fat waist.

TheAnimal · « **Reply #24 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:10:08 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 20, 2007, 05:06:12 PM

because he's a collection of parts that lack harmony and balance & proportions , calves , abdominals and delts are all aesthetic muscles Ronnie is lacking in two of areas couple that with the fore mentioned and its easy to see why thats NOT aesthetic , Flex Wheeler yes , Ronnie Coleman give me a break

I see your point - the lack of calves ruins all proportions along with the gyno but there are extreme aesthetic qualities but upon review the flow is not evident particulary due to a missing bodypart.