Author Topic: r ronnie colemans arms 24inches? (Read 28600 times)

kicker · « **Reply #75 on:** January 21, 2006, 12:17:33 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 21, 2006, 12:03:58 PM

It is also worth noting that, although Kevin Levrone claims 24 inch arms, Ronnie's arms in 2000 were noticably bigger than his too.

which means that kevins were no where near 24 inches.

But then we already knew this anyway..

Kevin at his best, contest time, were probably around 22" as well. He didn't have the biceps peaks that Ronnie's had, but his triceps were huge, making up for the difference. I think Kevin's triceps were bigger than Ronnie's.

ChristopherA · « **Reply #76 on:** January 21, 2006, 02:41:22 PM »

I think it was Muscular Development that had a picture of Dillet's arm being taped at 26". Could have been a bogus tape though.It was in his column,The Word. Seems a little rediculous,26".Dillets definately are the biggest though.Sick tris, no one really talks about them either. Everyone saying Arnolds are 20" need to wake up.My are 18" and Arnolds are sure as hell more than 2" bigger.I'd say 22".

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #77 on:** January 21, 2006, 03:16:24 PM »

Quote from: BigBuehl on January 21, 2006, 02:41:22 PM

I think it was Muscular Development that had a picture of Dillet's arm being taped at 26". Could have been a bogus tape though.It was in his column,The Word. Seems a little rediculous,26".Dillets definately are the biggest though.Sick tris, no one really talks about them either. Everyone saying Arnolds are 20" need to wake up.My are 18" and Arnolds are sure as hell more than 2" bigger.I'd say 22".

Paul's tris .

Rudee · « **Reply #78 on:** January 21, 2006, 03:21:42 PM »

Quote from: BigBuehl on January 21, 2006, 02:41:22 PM

I think it was Muscular Development that had a picture of Dillet's arm being taped at 26". Could have been a bogus tape though.It was in his column,The Word. Seems a little rediculous,26".Dillets definately are the biggest though.Sick tris, no one really talks about them either. Everyone saying Arnolds are 20" need to wake up.My are 18" and Arnolds are sure as hell more than 2" bigger.I'd say 22".

All you need to do is add a little slack to the tape when you wrap it around your arm, thus it can read 26" in the front but there's two inches of slack that you can't see on the other side of the bicep. I can have the tape show my biceps are 22" with that trick. (They're really only 17)

brianX · « **Reply #79 on:** January 21, 2006, 03:59:58 PM »

Someone on Ironage measured Gunter's arms at 22", and he is probably the biggest pro bodybuilder in the world. Makes you wonder about all these guys on the boards who claim 20" arms.

Do you have any idea how big a 24" arm would be? That's TWO FEET in circumference. By way of comparison, a 24" arm would have around 40% more cross sectional area than a 20" arm. I refuse to believe that any human being could be that big.

(nothing) · « **Reply #80 on:** January 21, 2006, 06:11:44 PM »

Quote from: BigBuehl on January 21, 2006, 02:41:22 PM

I think it was Muscular Development that had a picture of Dillet's arm being taped at 26". Could have been a bogus tape though.It was in his column,The Word. Seems a little rediculous,26".Dillets definately are the biggest though.Sick tris, no one really talks about them either. Everyone saying Arnolds are 20" need to wake up.My are 18" and Arnolds are sure as hell more than 2" bigger.I'd say 22".

arthur jones measured arnold's arm, so you would have to bring that up with him.

Gord · « **Reply #81 on:** January 21, 2006, 06:23:59 PM »

Couple more Arnold shots. Second one not very sharp, admittedly.

gibberj2 · « **Reply #82 on:** January 21, 2006, 06:31:01 PM »

This is not 22??

blaster · « **Reply #83 on:** January 21, 2006, 07:42:57 PM »

Quote from: sculpture on January 20, 2006, 02:13:59 PM

22-23 inches. Come on you guys dont act like gullible fools who swallow all kinds of bb bullshit. If we consider colemans arms to circulate around the 23 inch mark at his heaviest then theres no way on earth arnolds were 22-23. A legitimate 20.5-21 at their max - but "even" this is a truly massive and musclular arm

I'm 6'4" and at biggest my arms were 21". I've seen Ronnie's arms in person. They are rediculously big. I couldn't stop staring at them and remember, I had 21" arms.

The Luke · « **Reply #84 on:** January 21, 2006, 07:56:07 PM »

To put all this into perspective:

Assuming a perfectly circular upper arm:
16'' arm has a cross sectional area of (16²/12.566) =20.37243355 inches²
17'' arm has a cross sectional area of 22.998 inches²
18'' arm has a cross sectional area of 25.783 inches²
19'' arm has a cross sectional area of 28.728 inches²
20'' arm has a cross sectional area of 31.831 inches²
21'' arm has a cross sectional area of 35.094 inches²
22'' arm has a cross sectional area of 38.516 inches²
23'' arm has a cross sectional area of 42.097 inches²
24'' arm has a cross sectional area of 45.837 inches²
25'' arm has a cross sectional area of 49.737 inches²
26'' arm has a cross sectional area of 53.795 inches²

Does anyone notice the trend here??
The amount of muscle needed to increase the cross sectional area increases exponentially...
16'' to 17'' means gaining 2.626 inches²
17'' to 18'' means gaining 2.785 inches²
18'' to 19'' means gaining 2.944 inches²
19'' to 20'' means gaining 3.103 inches²
20'' to 21'' means gaining 3.262 inches²
21'' to 22'' means gaining 3.421 inches²
22'' to 23'' means gaining 3.581 inches²
23'' to 24'' means gaining 3.740 inches²
24'' to 25'' means gaining 3.899 inches²
25'' to 26'' means gaining 4.058 inches²

...there is a HUGE difference between a 17'' arm and an 18'' arm, the difference between a 20'' arm and a 21'' arm is ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS.

By extrapolation, if you had to gain 15 lbs of bodyweight to go from a 16'' arm to a 17'' arm, then you'd still have to gain another 176 lbs of solid muscle to get 26'' arms.

Get real people... Ronnie's arms are probably around 22'' in contest shape... maybe 23'' at 320 lbs offseason.

Whereas Arnold was about 50 lbs of muscle away from having 22'' arms. Contest day... Arnold's arms were probably about 19'' maybe 19.5'' at most.

The Luke

sarcasm · « **Reply #85 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:01:05 PM »

Quote from: blaster on January 21, 2006, 07:42:57 PM

I'm 6'4" and at biggest my arms were 21". I've seen Ronnie's arms in person. They are rediculously big. I couldn't stop staring at them and remember, I had 21" arms.

that tells me that your arms aren't 21 inches.

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #86 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:01:43 PM »

we dont need to see anymore arnold pics ...it's like enough overkill with ronnie and all the other over saturated winners
more pictures of paul please

blaster · « **Reply #87 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:09:20 PM »

Quote from: sarcasm on January 21, 2006, 08:01:05 PM

that tells me that your arms aren't 21 inches.

Ur dead right, chasm, they aren't 21" now at all. But they WERE. To be completely honest, I think my left was 20.5". I pull with my right hand, you see.

sarcasm · « **Reply #88 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:10:27 PM »

Quote from: blaster on January 21, 2006, 08:09:20 PM

Ur dead right, chasm, they aren't 21" now at all. But they WERE. To be completely honest, I think my left was 20.5". I pull with my right hand, you see.

of course they "were", "blaster".

DIVISION · « **Reply #89 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:11:17 PM »

Quote from: sarcasm on January 21, 2006, 08:10:27 PM

of course they "were", "blaster".

ATTACK, Mirzy, ATTACK!!!!

DIV

blaster · « **Reply #90 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:14:25 PM »

Quote from: sarcasm on January 21, 2006, 08:10:27 PM

of course they "were", "blaster".

What? Sarcy, ur not gonna rile me up, bro. I know ur game.

They were 21. Dunno what they are now. Can't find a tape measure.

If it makes u feel better, I've got a small dick.

The Luke · « **Reply #91 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:19:29 PM »

Here's a couple of photos of a woman who was filmed in Bluff Creek, Northern California in 1967.

She didn't stick around for anyone to get any pictures... or measurements... but measurements taken at the site allowed photogrametric measurements estimating her proportions...

She apparently did indeed have a genuine, cold, 23'' arm... at 7'3'' and 530 lbs.

Enjoy!

blaster · « **Reply #92 on:** January 21, 2006, 08:23:02 PM »

HEYA!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'm freakin packin tiny 18's ATM!

Fuck that!

Just used the old string and ruler method.

At least that's cold.

*Sigh* Time to hust the Sust again, I feel.

kaylos · « **Reply #93 on:** January 21, 2006, 10:03:29 PM »

Quote from: aliamini on January 21, 2006, 08:14:44 AM

I don’t think Manfred used Synthol

Manfred used Synthol, it is sure and has been already revelated

RIPED · « **Reply #94 on:** January 22, 2006, 06:11:22 PM »

Quote from: The Luke on January 21, 2006, 07:56:07 PM

To put all this into perspective:

Assuming a perfectly circular upper arm:
16'' arm has a cross sectional area of (16²/12.566) =20.37243355 inches²
17'' arm has a cross sectional area of 22.998 inches²
18'' arm has a cross sectional area of 25.783 inches²
19'' arm has a cross sectional area of 28.728 inches²
20'' arm has a cross sectional area of 31.831 inches²
21'' arm has a cross sectional area of 35.094 inches²
22'' arm has a cross sectional area of 38.516 inches²
23'' arm has a cross sectional area of 42.097 inches²
24'' arm has a cross sectional area of 45.837 inches²
25'' arm has a cross sectional area of 49.737 inches²
26'' arm has a cross sectional area of 53.795 inches²

Does anyone notice the trend here??
The amount of muscle needed to increase the cross sectional area increases exponentially...
16'' to 17'' means gaining 2.626 inches²
17'' to 18'' means gaining 2.785 inches²
18'' to 19'' means gaining 2.944 inches²
19'' to 20'' means gaining 3.103 inches²
20'' to 21'' means gaining 3.262 inches²
21'' to 22'' means gaining 3.421 inches²
22'' to 23'' means gaining 3.581 inches²
23'' to 24'' means gaining 3.740 inches²
24'' to 25'' means gaining 3.899 inches²
25'' to 26'' means gaining 4.058 inches²

...there is a HUGE difference between a 17'' arm and an 18'' arm, the difference between a 20'' arm and a 21'' arm is ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS.

By extrapolation, if you had to gain 15 lbs of bodyweight to go from a 16'' arm to a 17'' arm, then you'd still have to gain another 176 lbs of solid muscle to get 26'' arms.

Get real people... Ronnie's arms are probably around 22'' in contest shape... maybe 23'' at 320 lbs offseason.

Whereas Arnold was about 50 lbs of muscle away from having 22'' arms. Contest day... Arnold's arms were probably about 19'' maybe 19.5'' at most.

The Luke

This is true if you are measuring a circle. Most arms are not circles but elliptical. The cross sectional area of an ellipse can be significantly smaller given the same circumference. The higher the peak, the more elliptical.

Andre Nickatina · « **Reply #95 on:** June 30, 2007, 08:30:01 PM »

marcus · « **Reply #96 on:** July 01, 2007, 02:58:17 AM »

pumpster · « **Reply #97 on:** July 01, 2007, 05:28:17 AM »

Quote from: The Luke on January 20, 2006, 03:52:03 AM

I'd say Ronnie's arms are somewhere around the 21'' mark, 22'' might be a possibility... but these figures of 24 and 25 inches are just ridiculous.

Greg Valentino's arms stretch the tape to 24.5 inches (he had them taped on Ripley's Believe It Or Not), Manfred Hoeberl at 6'5'' and 300 lbs had 25'' arms, and they looked horrifically disproportionate.

If Ronnie's arms were really 23 plus inches then the height of his arm from the peak of his flexed biceps to the belly of his tricep would be supstantially taller than his head. It's not! Ronnie's only 5'10''/5'11'', a 24'' arm would be about 10 or 11 inches tall... couldn't that be measured relative to Ronnie's height in a photo??

I'd go so far as to say Ronnie's arms might well be somewhere between 20.75 and 21.5 inches in competition shape. Any bigger than that and his arms would be sherical because the distance from Ronnie's deltoid tie-in to his forearm is only about 12 inches (if that).

Don't believe the hype!!

The Luke

Too low; they're a lot bigger than Oliva or Arnold, who were already in the range you're claiming for Coleman. About 20.5" cold, close to 22" pumped for Arnold or Sergio.

Joe Roark · « **Reply #98 on:** July 01, 2007, 05:30:55 AM »

When I measured Manfred's arm at the Arnold, through a thorough mix-up, the photographer who was to record the event, did not show- perhaps because the schedule was bumped ahead (earlier) by 30 minutes.
At any rate, I was later told that some German television station recorded the measuring, but I have never been able to confirm it.
The only photos I have of the event are grainy shots taken from too far away by a friend.

Here's a gimmick you can use. If someone is working for a supplement company at a booth, ask if you can snap a photo of the can of protein powder right next to his bicep. Have a friend hold the can so that the bottom of the can is on the same plane as the bottom of the arm.

This will not be exact, by but knowing the height of the can, you can determine if the height of the arm is taller, or not. Manfred's arm was 10" tall when I measured it with calipers- and it was taller than two Pepsi cans we placed next to it.

Priest told me that he could add an inch by pumping his arms, which is reasonable. With lower bodyfat at contest time, arm size would decrease, and perhaps this is why so many bodybuilders are allergic to the tape measure near an event?

When I asked to measure Dillet's arm in Atlanta at the Olympia, he said I could measure it at the Arnold later...

As with lifting claims, measurement claims beg for verification, but usually no satisfaction is forthcoming.

Does it matter if someone's arm is 22" or 24"? Only if such a claim is made by the person. Then it is time for proof.

pumpster · « **Reply #99 on:** July 01, 2007, 05:31:24 AM »

Quote from: kicker on January 21, 2006, 12:17:33 PM

Kevin at his best, contest time, were probably around 22" as well. He didn't have the biceps peaks that Ronnie's had, but his triceps were huge, making up for the difference. I think Kevin's triceps were bigger than Ronnie's.

Triceps were not that much bigger than Coleman's, just different shape and Coleman had a lot more in bis.