Author Topic: Cutler back shot in better lighting...  (Read 5819 times)

jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2006, 06:57:03 PM »
You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
the right side still looks pretty good at least...

slayer

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2736
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2006, 06:57:33 PM »
You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
your fuckin nuts, jays back is way wider then ronnies ever was!

MAXX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • MAGA
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2006, 06:57:59 PM »
You look like an idiot Slayer. STFU already. Ronnie has the biggest back in bodybuilding, everyone knows that. You post a pic from an angle of ROnnie, compared to a non angle view of Jay? Get real. Jays back is awesome, ROnnies is THICKER and wider though.
not ever wider. maybe thicker in his prime

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2006, 07:04:37 PM »
no and no


don't give in to the hype.
Flower Boy Ran Away

jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5811
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2006, 07:05:37 PM »
jay certainly gets a better spread going than ronnie which may have more to do with scapula flexibilty than anything else.

Ronnie always looks like he could spread it more if he really wanted to...

The_Hammer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4423
  • President Barack Obama -- 2 Term U.S. President
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2006, 07:05:40 PM »
                                               Jay makes Dorian look like shit

                              






                                                                  NOT!

MAXX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • MAGA
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2006, 07:26:41 PM »
Jay is wider Hulkster.

Here i made a proof:


bailey

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Getbig!
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2006, 07:35:56 PM »
Could someone tell me if there was a " Best legs " award like last year and hwo won it ???????

MAXX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • MAGA
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2006, 07:36:29 PM »
Could someone tell me if there was a " Best legs " award like last year and hwo won it ???????
no there wasnt

nicorulez

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Getbig!
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2006, 08:28:06 PM »
he is wider because Coleman was missing his left lat.  Jesus people, anybody with eyes can see that Ronnie got a gift getting second, much less win.  Hell, Jay looked worse than last year.  His back is wide, but no detail.  His abs...we won't even go there. ;)

JaggyShortBuff

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Art Work In Motion
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2006, 08:28:13 PM »
OMG, the more pics people post of Iron Jay's back the more I lose my interest in him compared to other Olympians.....Jay is great, but damn I must be blind to not see what he has over the others in the pics posted....Jay better watch his "so-called" back when Martinez takes  the Olympia from him....Sorry but Jay "The Company Man" Cutler will have his crown taken very very soon....
Watching The Haters

phyxsius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6264
  • Mini Getbigger
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2006, 08:42:44 PM »
Only flaw with Jays back is that he has some lose skin in his lower back that takes away some detail.

Jay has the tendency to arch too much
I am a mini beast

JaggyShortBuff

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Art Work In Motion
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2006, 08:44:37 PM »
Jay has the tendency to arch too much

Ohhh, damn and all this time I thought it was a conditioning flaw....Wow, was I soo wrong.... ::)
Watching The Haters

ramazon

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2006, 11:06:33 PM »
exactly.

Jay's back is still not that great.

eg here is Jay's back comapared to two famous backs, in similar poses:




Unlike many, I am not blinded by the hype. Just because Jay won does not mean his back has become fantastic.

Jay's back has gone from "not that great" to good- that is all.

It is not on a level of other "great backs" like Samir, Haney, Ronnie and Yates. (or Flex or Shawn for that matter)

If you compare shots of 2006 Jay to 2003 or 2004 Jay, his back does not look much different at all. It looks a bit thicker and wider, but thats it.  It doesn't have more detail, which is what Jay has needed all along.


Thanks, H.  We needed that!  I'm in SHOCK that Cutler toppled Coleman.  My people at the O reported that Coleman was the obvious surefire winner.  They anticipated a race riot when the winner was announced.  It was THAT tense and disturbing an event.  So thanks for the in-you-face cold shower truth.  BTW, I know your mother-in-law, Gail.  I like her shop in T.O.  Great taste! 

Weightpit

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • Remember Sharon Tate...Carpe Diem
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2006, 04:43:20 AM »
Thanks, H.  We needed that!  I'm in SHOCK that Cutler toppled Coleman.  My people at the O reported that Coleman was the obvious surefire winner.  They anticipated a race riot when the winner was announced.  It was THAT tense and disturbing an event.  So thanks for the in-you-face cold shower truth.  BTW, I know your mother-in-law, Gail.  I like her shop in T.O.  Great taste! 

A RACE RIOT???? OVer a bodybuilding contest???? African-Americans would be that upset over something like this to cause a RACE RIOT???? I love it....whenever a black dude or chick gets "dissed"....the first thing that happens is that the race card gets thrown and the potential of a RACE RIOT becomes reality. It's getting old, people.....actually, it's been old!  :P

Gee...when Cutler looked to beat Coleman last year, or in 2001 - I didn't hear any white people talk about causing a race riot.........why is that???

TDK

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 172
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2006, 11:07:16 AM »
Jay only appeared so good because Ronnie was off.

body88

  • Guest
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2006, 11:10:51 AM »
Thanks, H.  We needed that!  I'm in SHOCK that Cutler toppled Coleman.  My people at the O reported that Coleman was the obvious surefire winner.  They anticipated a race riot when the winner was announced.  It was THAT tense and disturbing an event.  So thanks for the in-you-face cold shower truth.  BTW, I know your mother-in-law, Gail.  I like her shop in T.O.  Great taste! 

Are you black? If so how does it feel to be a disgrace to your entire race? Take your race card and shove up your ass you dirty ,filthy ,disgrace to the entire African race :D Africans get a bad name due to fools like you.

Weightpit

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • Remember Sharon Tate...Carpe Diem
Re: Cutler back shot in better lighting...
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2006, 11:16:27 AM »
Are you black? If so ,how does it feel to be a disgrace to your entire race? Take your race card and shove uo your ass you dirty filthy disgrace to the entire african race :D Africans get a bad name due to fools like you.

Thank you!! Well said!