the fact that you think those particular bodybuilders are more complete than a 98/99 Ronnie shows how biased YOU are.
Said the "leader of the Colemaniacs". ::)Ok, let's see...
Wheeler - huge glaring lack of lats, hams and glutes against Ronnie, who only has a lack of calves.
His lats were not as wide as Ronnie's; granted, he competed at a bodyweight 40 lbs lighter! But the fact remains that he was more complete. His hams were as tight as Ronnie's, but again not as big. Glutes should
not be large: like abs, the glutes is one of the few bodyprts which should not be hypertrophied. Wheeler's head-to-toe balance was always superior to Ronnie's.
Arnold - huge glaring lack of triceps, lats, quads against Ronnie, who only has a lack of calves.
Only you would say that. There's almost an universal consensus that Arnold or Sergio was the greatest bodybuilder ever. One of the two. Arnold incomplete? Please...the only bodyart he was sub-par at were exactly the same as Ronnie's: calves. Arnold's pecs were the most massive ever, his lats were wide, tapered and very thick - for the standards of the time. Triceps? His tris were not as good as his biceps, but they were the best of his era...besides Oliva's. His quads were not that great, ok, but his front quad separations were phenomenal. Saying that
Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't a complete bodybuilder...
Hulkster, Hulkster...
Dorian - huge lack of arm, delt, pec and quad shape against Ronnie, poor biceps in comparison to peak Ronnie, who only lacks calves.
See my 600 posts and 300 pics on the truce thread...
Sergio - sergio had the taper, but lacked the detail against ronnie (since it was the 60's its no wonder why), who only lacks calves.
Oliva's genetics, refinement, taper, fullness, completeness and long muscle bellies make Ronnie look like an amateur compared to him, when it comes to balance and quality. You're talking about the most genetically gifted bodybuilder of all times...
[/quote]
SUCKMYMUSCLE
