Author Topic: joel stubbs vs. Ronnie Coleman on back and back only! (Read 30355 times)

healthiswealth · « **on:** March 12, 2007, 01:33:59 PM »

all of the poses which involve the back as the primary bodypart.

Hulkster · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2007, 01:55:03 PM »

Ronnie all the way: not in 2006 though.

Hulkster · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:02:16 PM »

an earlier stubbs vs ronnie comparison:

(thanks to iceman)

Rudee · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:12:14 PM »

Damn, Stubbs needs forearms bad. They look like twigs.

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:20:02 PM »

ronald was fucking insane, no one has ever been close to matching him in those pics..

triple_pickle · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:31:43 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on March 12, 2007, 02:02:16 PM

an earlier stubbs vs ronnie comparison:

(thanks to iceman)

wow, stubbs looks like a kid next to ronnie....

tommywishbone · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:48:59 PM »

Quote from: triple_pickle on March 12, 2007, 02:31:43 PM

wow, stubbs looks like a very little kid next to ronnie....

There you go.... better.

swilkins1984 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2007, 02:54:42 PM »

Ronnie but Stubbs can stand next to him and compare favorably.

Hulkster · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2007, 03:09:52 PM »

Quote from: JOHN MATRIX on March 12, 2007, 02:20:02 PM

ronald was fucking insane, no one has ever been close to matching him in those pics..

exactly.

affy · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:01:58 PM »

that throws away all this speculation about stubbs having the best back ever.

he looks great and all, but you can't compare gold with silver. His arms and forearms don't help him either

Still, he still has one of the best backs today

Alex23 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:03:56 PM »

Stubbs too tall. End of the story.

240 is Back · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:12:47 PM »

Ronnie better shape and arms in the back poses.

Hulkster · « **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:16:41 PM »

ronnie at his peak had the greatest back of all time.

still unmatched to date.

but not in 2006

IceCold · « **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:29:56 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on March 12, 2007, 04:16:41 PM

ronnie at his peak had the greatest back of all time.

still unmatched to date.

but not in 2006

not according to ronnie himself........

Hulkster · « **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2007, 04:33:42 PM »

ronnie was not cocky back then.

GoneAway · « **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2007, 05:10:19 PM »

Ronnie wins.

pobrecito · « **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2007, 05:44:40 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on March 12, 2007, 04:16:41 PM

ronnie at his peak had the greatest back of all time.

still unmatched to date.

but not in 2006

Oh really? Then how do you explain this after the 99 Olympia? hahahahahahahah

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #17 on:** March 12, 2007, 06:41:40 PM »

Quote from: healthiswealth on March 12, 2007, 01:33:59 PM

all of the poses which involve the back as the primary bodypart.

Stubbs, no doubt. Not only is he 6'3, but his lats attach lower in the tendon and have a round shape that Ronnie can only dream of. Considering his height and lat muscle belly lengh, Stubb's back would dwarf Ronnie's if he took as much shit as Ronnie takes.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

SteelePegasus · « **Reply #18 on:** March 12, 2007, 06:47:22 PM »

Quote from: suckmymuscle on March 12, 2007, 06:41:40 PM

Stubbs, no doubt. Not only is he 6'3, but his lats attach lower in the tendon and have a round shape that Ronnie can only dream of. Considering his height and lat muscle belly lengh, Stubb's back would dwarf Ronnie's if he took as much shit as Ronnie takes.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

how do you know how much shit stubbs take?

I am guessing that you don't and you are just talking because you a computer and an internet connection..I hope they cut off your connection

pumpster · « **Reply #19 on:** March 12, 2007, 06:54:55 PM »

Quote from: pobrecito on March 12, 2007, 05:44:40 PM

Oh really? Then how do you explain this after the 99 Olympia? hahahahahahahah

Poses like that are exactly why Yates was known as the Columbu of the 90s. Only pubes and a few others keep posting a mediocre shot, clueless to the reality that it's nothing special. Pics like this remind that Yates should have lost a few times to more deserving BBs.hahahahahahahha

Stubb's back looks good next to Coleman. Problem is nothing other than back & delts stack up.

pobrecito · « **Reply #20 on:** March 12, 2007, 06:59:31 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on March 12, 2007, 06:54:55 PM

Poses like that are exactly why Yates was known as the Columbu of the 90s. Should have lost a few times to more deserving BBs.hahahahahahahha

Stubb's back looks good next to Coleman. Problem is nothing other than delts stack up.

Posts like this are why you are known as the douche of GetBig.

Hope this helps

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #21 on:** March 12, 2007, 07:00:12 PM »

Quote from: SteelePegasus on March 12, 2007, 06:47:22 PM

how do you know how much shit stubbs take?

I am guessing that you don't and you are just talking because you a computer and an internet connection..I hope they cut off your connection

you're not the only person who wishes this.