Author Topic: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????  (Read 1282 times)

The Squadfather

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25840
WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« on: September 30, 2007, 04:25:17 PM »
come on, Hide at 176? Ronnie at 297? Jay at 274? Melvin at 245? i think they just asked them what they weighed and they took their word for it.

marcus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2007, 04:40:20 PM »
I liked how Will Harris' age was ??.

Meso_z

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17954
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2007, 01:55:02 AM »
I liked how Will Harris' age was ??.

REALLY!!!!!!!!!!??????????

Oh boy......only a gay would "hide" his age........ ::) ::) ::)  :-X :-X :-X

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2007, 03:45:11 AM »
REALLY!!!!!!!!!!??????????

Oh boy......only a gay would "hide" his age........ ::) ::) ::)  :-X :-X :-X

Didn't you know he claim to be an undead vampire?

For real.

Word is he hangs with skinny guys at horror conventions and stuff.
As empty as paradise

Bluto

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33175
  • Well?
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2007, 03:47:09 AM »
they did it just so squadfather could call bullshit on their weight claims on getbig for the next 12 months to the next olympia... that should keep him busy.
Z

SteelePegasus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Life, death, in between is getbig.com
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2007, 05:03:44 AM »
Didn't you know he claim to be an undead vampire?

For real.

Word is he hangs with skinny guys at horror conventions and stuff.

I willing to bet that Matt likes horror conventions also
Here comes the money shot

rockyfortune

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1939
  • "look, it's the drunk piano player."
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2007, 06:05:49 AM »
because the webcast was probably done by a bunch of 7th graders...
footloose and fancy free

triple_pickle

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1796
  • Pull Hard, Move Fast
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2007, 06:37:15 AM »
hahahaha, they showed freeman's weight as 295 i think, while he admitted during the webcast he dropped to 267 or something like that.

SteelePegasus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Life, death, in between is getbig.com
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2007, 06:40:32 AM »
because the webcast was probably done by a bunch of 7th graders...

umm..most 7th grader these days know how to work a web cam..they wouldn't take kindly to be insulted by being associated with that broadcast
Here comes the money shot

slaveboy1980

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8404
  • Thought is the arrow of time; memory never fades.
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2007, 06:47:52 AM »
hahahaha, they showed freeman's weight as 295 i think, while he admitted during the webcast he dropped to 267 or something like that.

yeah it was obvious he wasnt 295....he was soft and "small".

i wonder what happened to him..he bragged that he would be 290-300 onstage

when i saw the MD video of him i knew he was off...small arms and bullshit about doing 25 reps for legs with minimal weight

often high reps is just an excuse to be a pussy.

high reps with heavy (or medium) weights is good for legs. but that MD video with him working legs was a joke...

his legs probably shrunk a couple of inches last few weeks just because he was lazy and didnt do any heavy work.

watching the olympia series has highlighted something that i already knew: how much bullshit the pros talk, how ignorant they are, the amounts of psedo bullshit they believe in.


Bluto

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33175
  • Well?
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2007, 06:49:42 AM »
personally i think it was great that mr olympia was webcast for free

Z

slaveboy1980

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8404
  • Thought is the arrow of time; memory never fades.
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #11 on: October 01, 2007, 06:50:18 AM »
personally i think it was great that mr olympia was webcast for free



free shit is better than paid shit.

but its still shit.

rockyfortune

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1939
  • "look, it's the drunk piano player."
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2007, 06:51:11 AM »
umm..most 7th grader these days know how to work a web cam..they wouldn't take kindly to be insulted by being associated with that broadcast



that bad?
footloose and fancy free

Bluto

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33175
  • Well?
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #13 on: October 01, 2007, 06:51:49 AM »
free shit is better than paid shit.

but its still shit.

loaded fine for me. no slowdown. got no real complaints here

Z

slaveboy1980

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8404
  • Thought is the arrow of time; memory never fades.
Re: WHY WERE THE LISTED WEIGHTS SO OFF ON THE WEBCAST????
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2007, 06:53:34 AM »
loaded fine for me. no slowdown. got no real complaints here



im talking about the competition in itself.

its like a clear high quality picture of diareah