for all you ronnie coleman doubters! "pics"

**saboudian** · 11-08-2002, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by palme

I think it´s you thats not getting my point. The glute isnt judged and there for shouldnt be involved, otherwise they would be wearing thongs.
I just want a rule clearify, offcourse i think it´s better with a ripped glute then a smooth one.

So let me get this straight, i'm not getting the point by saying that glutes are important, but then u say glutes are not judged but its better to have ripped glutes then smooth glutes

Tell Ronnie his glutes are worth nothing.

**palme** · 11-08-2002, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by saboudian

So let me get this straight, i'm not getting the point by saying that glutes are important, but then u say glutes are not judged but its better to have ripped glutes then smooth glutes

Im getting tierd of this.
My personal preferens is ripped glutes...as i guess everyones is.

But in the rule book it´s said that the glute isnt to be scored points on right? So it shouldnt really matter if it is shredded or smooth from a judges prespective...right?

**saboudian** · 11-09-2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by saboudian

You are missing the point. Ultimately the judges are looking at the entire package, look at any of ronnie's back poses. He has this huge but at the same time incredibly define back, helping create the illusion of a smaller waist, and then not just the back but his outstanding glute and hamstring development add so much to the pose. If u look at a bodybuilder who doesn't have that type of glute and hamstring development it just looks horrible next to a guy like ronnie.

By the way, i don't know if u're into bodybuilding and doing the posing thing, but is there a single pose where u're not supposed to flex a certain muscle? If u do are asked to do a front double biceps pose, why would u want to flex your legs when they should be looking at your biceps?

get my point?

So what u're saying is that when i wrote this i was right.

**retired** · 11-10-2002, 11:10 AM

I think that Coleman was at his best in '98 and '99. Since then he has lost something from the front- his shoulder-to-waist ratio is not what it used to be. From the back he is still a beast, but what made him a real freak was the combination of conditioned mass and structure. I think that he has played the size game to the detriment of his overall aesthetics.

**BullDogg20** · 11-10-2002, 10:46 PM

Jay had ronnie beat hands down!!!
Coleman look like shit, ya he is big and all, but so is jay, infact jay looks alot better then ronnie, in preatty much all aspects.

Ya us canadian boys all stick togeather, except for a couple of the outsiders!!!!

**Luke530** · 11-12-2002, 09:10 PM

Ronnie is simply #1

**Luke530** · 11-12-2002, 09:11 PM

you don't get much better than this... cutler can kiss his ass if he comes in looking like this in 2003

**saboudian** · 11-12-2002, 09:53 PM

I doubt this will happen, but if ronnie comes in next year like he did this year, he's done. However ronnie is too good to mess up twice in a row, but if he's does, someone else is going to jump on the chance and take the O from ronnie for good

**sicilian40** · 11-12-2002, 09:56 PM

well guys ronnie is def the best but for me Arnie will always be King...im sorry but hes just a classic and for me hes got the absolute best body

**StrongChick** · 11-13-2002, 01:03 AM

Okay I need to add my 2cc's here....WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT CUTLER? HE TOOK THE YEAR OFF. Now, Gunter is another story.
Check this out

**StrongChick** · 11-13-2002, 01:04 AM

and this

**StrongChick** · 11-13-2002, 01:06 AM

one more

**StrongChick** · 11-13-2002, 01:06 AM

The O is a joke

**Pete235** · 11-13-2002, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by StrongChick
The O is a joke

Which is exactly the reason Cutler didn't compete this year. Besides, he can make more money and get just as much exposure by winning the Arnold Classic. Some people will talk about the prestige of winning the Olympia, but the Olympia is, in fact, Joe Wieders Olympia and as much as he has done for BBing, he is still a huge ego-maniac who has made hundreds of millions from the backs of the people he rigorously promotes. Not only do they line his pockets but he gets to live vicariously through them solidifying himself as the KING of all muscledom.

Gunter looked great this year, hard as nails and flawless conditioning, but I really don't think he has pleasing lines, Cutler and others are more asthetically pleasing IMO. Size he has for sure, but I think there will be a changing of the guard and Papa Joe will be looking for somebody he can market for several years, Jay fits the bill as he is still relativly young and has still to go through more mucle maturation. Just my .02.

**palme** · 11-13-2002, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by saboudian

So what u're saying is that when i wrote this i was right.

You still dont understand what i meant. I wanted answer on what is said in the rule book. Not personal preferences.

**saboudian** · 11-13-2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by palme

You still dont understand what i meant. I wanted answer on what is said in the rule book. Not personal preferences.

Well if u put it that way, here is a question for ya, will there ever be in the future, a Mr Olympia without striated glutes? I don't think so, obviously u might wonder why someone might put an extraordinary effort into getting those striated glutes if they are worth nothing but obviously they are worth something.

I have not read the rule book or whatever for bodybuilding, but i can relate. In soccer, the rulebooks for the refs, almost every sentence begins "in the opinion of the ref". When a judges scores someone they are stating their opinion, this is why Bodybuilding is so controversial, everyone has a different opinion. Some ppl don't mind that Mr. Olympia has a huge gut sticking out, but obviously some ppl don't mind it. How do u score a wide waist vs. a gut?

So what is my point? Every judge has a different rule book. Heck look at figure, go check out that thread with livnfit competing, and it is easy to see that the judges simply throw out the real rule book, and use their own book and this might hurt the competitors like livnfit. The real rule book, like in soccer, is nothing but an extremely broad outline to judges. Bodybuilding can never have a book that judges follow word for word, it is always changing and developing. There is no rule for judging a mass monster vs a frank zane.

Bottom line: Sure u're right palme, but i guarantee no one else will agree with u if they were to compete. Try and tell Ronnie that his glutes are worth nothing, that he wasted his time developing them, it'd be interesting how he would respond to that.

**palme** · 11-13-2002, 04:28 PM

And still i did not say i want the glute to be smooth. i told you what i prefer.

And if your not able to tell me whats in the rule book why even answer me? That was my question in the first place but you made it out to be personal preferences and there we have already agreed havent we?

Last post i make on this thread.

**saboudian** · 11-13-2002, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by palme
And still i did not say i want the glute to be smooth. i told you what i prefer.

And if your not able to tell me whats in the rule book why even answer me? That was my question in the first place but you made it out to be personal preferences and there we have already agreed havent we?

Last post i make on this thread.

c'mon i can't just let u have the last word

I know I babbled alot, but my point was that the rule book exists but simply doesn't matter in the eyes of a judge. Each judge has their own set or criteria.

**Luke530** · 11-16-2002, 01:16 PM

ronnie... 1 more!

**Bigkid** · 11-17-2002, 11:47 PM

I love how everyone that post Ronnie pics, posts ones that are at least 2 years old in most cases. And bigkev posting a pic from 99, claiming it to be from 2001. This pic tells the story of the 2001 Mr. O better that anyone. http://www.issresearch.com/mro2001/mropics6a.jpg

**saboudian** · 11-18-2002, 12:06 AM

Good call BigKid.

**ZachG_85** · 11-19-2002, 04:03 PM

Awesome picture.

But this here's picture of the year from the GNC.

**Nate_Dog** · 12-14-2002, 05:33 AM

I am going to get hated on for this but,....

Ronnie has a killer Read double Bi.... but look how shit his quads are? They are big,... but no separation.... well not like jays... they look shit house.

I am over Ronnie... he is old news now.... time to save face and retire.

**Colibri** · 12-17-2002, 01:55 PM

Gimme Lee Priest anyday.

They don't call him superman for anything you know, well, they do actually, his tattoo, but that's beyond the point.

Ah fuck it,he's great.

**ZachG_85** · 12-17-2002, 02:09 PM

The man, in my mind.

**Nate_Dog** · 12-17-2002, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by ZachG_85
The man, in my mind.

get that sythrol abuser out of here. HE is big,... but just looks fucked up. I preffer ronnie. Sorry bud.

**Luke530** · 12-17-2002, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Nate_Dog

get that sythrol abuser out of here. HE is big,... but just looks fucked up. I preffer ronnie. Sorry bud.

agreed... nice guy... but ronnie is better...

**ZachG_85** · 12-17-2002, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Nate_Dog

get that sythrol abuser out of here. HE is big,... but just looks fucked up. I preffer ronnie. Sorry bud.

1) He's got some synthol in his shoulders. Damn. I agree it should go away, but really.

2) That picture was considerably before his Synthol adventures. When people show how great Ronnie is, they use shots from 98/99, same thing.

**saboudian** · 12-17-2002, 11:23 PM

yeah everyone always looks at the good pics, how bout we do this. Compare worst poses. I think that'd be more fun. Compare a ronnie ab pose to a ruhl back pose. (probably the worst pose for each of em, or at least that i can think of). Do the comparison with pix from the present, after both of em went downhill. I think we'd have some fun with this one. Just imagine all the possibilities with all the other BB comparisons too....I'm sure yall will think of some good ones.

**Nate_Dog** · 12-18-2002, 05:56 AM

I agree Ronnie used to look good. Real good... but he is over the hill...

Hell I actually went back and looked at the Marcus Ruhl photo... and hey he did look a lot better back then. But he has really messed himself up now, the word that best sums him up is WRONG.

**ZachG_85** · 12-18-2002, 06:00 AM

Ruhl got a little messed up in the synthol game, yeah. But I think if he let that drain he could do really well, like top 3-ish.

And I'd say his worst pose is side tri. You'll never see a shot of him doing that in a magazine.

**Luke530** · 12-18-2002, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by ZachG_85
Ruhl got a little messed up in the synthol game, yeah. But I think if he let that drain he could do really well, like top 3-ish.

And I'd say his worst pose is side tri. You'll never see a shot of him doing that in a magazine.

Zach, Ruhl in not a Chevrolet, it's not like an oil change where you can just let it drain... plus, the scar tissue buildup will mean he will never be the same... personally, I lose respect for bodybuilders who try to cheat their way to the top by using synthol...

**ZachG_85** · 12-18-2002, 06:33 PM

Yeah, Ruhl's more like a tank

Anyway, Synthol WILL drain if the user lets it, as for scar tissue, it will be present but not horrible, and probably not insanely noticeable. Ever notice how pictures of Ruhl in magazines before contests his shoulders look normal? I've heard that Synthol drains considerably quicker than people seem to think.