Arnold vs Ronnie

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-03-2005, 05:31 AM

I think the main thing about arnold is that he was such a good poser. I mean in the mandatory poses he isnt all that(rear lat spread for instance). But when he is allowed to do all his different twisting and turning poses he is incredible.

He was the master at highlighting his strong points while covering up the weak ones. Think about it, all the poses he does where chest and arms is the main focus is incredible. We all have them etched into our minds as perfection. But how many memorable poses does he have that doestn hightlight those 2 musclegroups?

His most muscula is pretty good, his latspreads isnt all that, his rear dubbel biceps isnt amazing, I have never seen him hit a side triceps pose

ab and thighs I have never seen either.

Arnold isnt symetrical but he is astheticly pleasing. Coleman is more symetrical, he has almost all muscles as well developed(except calves).

**Squatman51** · 08-03-2005, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by johan

I think the main thing about arnold is that he was such a good poser. I mean in the mandatory poses he isnt all that(rear lat spread for instance). But when he is allowed to do all his different twisting and turning poses he is incredible.

He was the master at highlighting his strong points while covering up the weak ones. Think about it, all the poses he does where chest and arms is the main focus is incredible. We all have them etched into our minds as perfection. But how many memorable poses does he have that doestn hightlight those 2 musclegroups?
His most muscula is pretty good, his latspreads isnt all that, his rear dubbel biceps isnt amazing, I have never seen him hit a side triceps pose

ab and thighs I have never seen either.

Arnold isnt symetrical but he is astheticly pleasing. Coleman is more symetrical, he has almost all muscles as well developed(except calves).

good points made i never really thought of that

**lcpl kill** · 08-03-2005, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Kreatine_Kid

That my friend is absolute bollocks! This has nothing to do with race or colour! This is about the most visually appe****g and well defined physique! Its about a human being who has taken his body to its limits of perfection!

You honestly telling me that 295lbs of mass that just hangs off the body is perfection!!! It is the complete opposite! Coleman has one of the ugliest physiques of all time! His lats HANG from his body like lumps of meat, his stomach protrudes like it he's pregnaunt! How often do you think Coleman gets a laid........... hardly ****ing ever! The chicks couldnt even get close to his dick due to the size of his stomach! Arnold on the other hand was a total PIMP! He stories of sexual adventure are almost as famous as his bodybuilding success!!

Im a white guy and I can tell you that the only guy I think should be the next "Mr O" is Dexter Jackson!

To quote the gay inmate form PI, "That man has a beautiful body!" The blade is huge, cut, defined and is totally symmetrical! He is the PERFECT bodybuilder of our time bar no-one!

im not even going to compare the two, thats like comparing our military today to our military in vietnam they are and were the best "of thier times" period. but as far as dexter jackson is conscerned he is the man plain and simple and i would love someone to "try" and prove me wrong.

**Sir Lifts-a-lot** · 08-03-2005, 03:56 PM

Just imagine what Arnold would look like if he was bodybuilding in this era.

**rev911apollyon** · 08-03-2005, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by hydroP

I cant believe anyone is even saying Arnold compares to Ronny, its simply a matter of evolution in the sport in which Arnold is simply outclassed....sure Arnold was a great in his time but its like comparing a 1960's Ferrari to a new Ferrari Enzo, yes the 60's Ferrari had class and was great in its time but if you were to race the old & new the outcome would be simple......technology wins hands down.

Arnold wouldnt even compare to most of the pro's these day let alone Mr Olympia Ronnie Coleman. Bodybuilding is about mass with symmetric muscles and Arnold didnt have the mass to compete with bodybuilding standards.
It is true that we have many scientific advances but to the person above who mentioned that they only used a little test with no anti-e's; you might try doing a little research before you say stupid things like that, they had primo, anadrol dbol , and deca and many others.
Someone also said they had no anti-e's, well Nolvadex was invented in 1978 and Clomid was invented in the 50's, HCG was discovered in pregnat women's urine in 1927.
Whether or not they used them is up to them personally but I'm sure some of them did.
Anyone that competes will agree that the pro's of today are genetic freaks compared to the pro's of yesterday.

The difference now aday is growth hormone , the pro's today (some) abuse that shit. Arnold and Franco or Lou, none of those guys had that. But it is very true, the pro's now make the ones (from Arnolds decade) look tiny. but I'll be the first to admit I'd rather have Arnolds body back in his day versus ronnie's body now

**Baseball_centerfield** · 08-03-2005, 06:18 PM

Ronnie Wins! Ronnie Wins!

**lcpl kill** · 08-04-2005, 12:22 PM

As Far A Over All Build Ronnie Wins Hands Down Thats Obvious, But When You Look At Who Contributed More To The Sport Arnold Rains Supreme.

**kaptainkeezy04** · 08-09-2005, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by TryingHard

Arnold would NEVER beat Ronnie. Bodybuilding is about who can build the most mass. If you want to look at a "Nice Body", check out some chicks, not guys. The problem with most people is they want a "White" Mr O. That is all it boils down to. If you dont like the massive beasts we have on stage, then go watch the woman.

Oh my God are you kidding me?...If its all about mass then how did Dexter Jackson beat Chris Cormier at the Arnold Classic in 2005 this year when he weighed 20 less pounds then Chris? How come Frank Zane beat Arnold at Arnold's first competition in America when he weighed 40 pounds less than Arnold? You should do your research on the subject of quality vs. mass.

**TryingHard** · 08-10-2005, 06:27 AM

Body Building is about MASS!!!!! That is why you will never see a little Mr O ever again!!! Lee Haney started with the Mass Monsters, Yates continued it, now Coleman has taken the sport to a new level. And it is true that they didn't have the drugs they have nowadays, but they did take "Large" amounts of Roids even for back then. Its easy to compare pictures with Ronnie, and Arnold, but if you stood them side by side, Ronnie would make Arnold look "TINY". And another thing, the only reason Arnold made it big in movies is because of his body, because his acting skills are like my baseball skills...."NONE"!!!!!! You haters have a great day!!! RONNIE COLEMAN IS THE MAN, AND WILL BE THE MAN UNTIL "HE" DECIDES TO STOP COMPETING.

**TryingHard** · 08-10-2005, 06:29 AM

ABOUT ARNOLD IN T3, THAT WAS NOT HIS BODY!!! EVER HEAR OF BODY DOUBLES, AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY?????? JUST LIKE WHEN BRANDON LEE DIED, THEY USED HIS HEAD ON ANOTHER MANS BODY.....GET REAL PEOPLE ARNOLD IS IN HIS 50's.......HIS BODY DOES NOT LOOK GOOD ANYMORE.......

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-10-2005, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by TryingHard

ABOUT ARNOLD IN T3, THAT WAS NOT HIS BODY!!! EVER HEAR OF BODY DOUBLES, AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY?????? JUST LIKE WHEN BRANDON LEE DIED, THEY USED HIS HEAD ON ANOTHER MANS BODY.....GET REAL PEOPLE ARNOLD IS IN HIS 50's.......HIS BODY DOES NOT LOOK GOOD ANYMORE.......

are you claiming its not arnolds bodie in t-3

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-10-2005, 07:56 AM

zane and ferigno still looks great aswell so "old" people can be fit for ****s sake

**the hulkster** · 08-10-2005, 08:38 AM

Arnold was perfect, coleman looks like a swollen mass of solid rock blob, and arnold did have 19 in calves, Arnold will remain the "best bodybuilder ever" and coleman will go down as the "biggest bodybuilder ever".

**Lucifer1** · 08-18-2005, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by the hulkster

Arnold was perfect, coleman looks like a swollen mass of solid rock blob, and arnold did have 19 in calves, Arnold will remain the "best bodybuilder ever" and coleman will go down as the "biggest bodybuilder ever".

agreed. IMO Arnold is the best ever. Coleman is great because of the chemicals available to him. If Arnold was lifting nowadays instead of back in his time he would be just as big. However Arnolds body was a work of art. Ronnies is massive but not nearly as great.

**decadbal** · 08-18-2005, 01:43 PM

if i were a mod, id ban all u arnold ppl... riduculus.. even he said ronnie is the greatest of all time... phuckin morons

**scriptfactory** · 08-18-2005, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Decadbal

if i were a mod, id ban all u arnold ppl... riduculus.. even he said ronnie is the greatest of all time... phuckin morons

Well said. You people need to get off Ahnold's cock! Just kidding...

...or am I?

**kaptainkeezy04** · 08-19-2005, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

Well said. You people need to get off Ahnold's cock! Just kidding...

...or am I?

You need to get off Ronnie's cock...seriously everywhere i go you are defending ronnie...ill admit he works his ass off in the gym but he is not pleasing to look at...for those of you who like mass freaks, i can see why you would like him, but for those of you who like symmetry, definition, and proportion its obviously arnold you would like...agreed?

**scriptfactory** · 08-19-2005, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04

You need to get off Ronnie's cock...seriously everywhere i go you are defending ronnie...ill admit he works his ass off in the gym but he is not pleasing to look at...for those of you who like mass freaks, i can see why you would like him, but for those of you who like symmetry, definition, and proportion its obviously arnold you would like...agreed?

And "everywhere I go" you are defending Arnold. Maybe if you weren't on my nutsack you would see that.

I think Ronnie looks incredible. His symmetry is as good or better than Arnolds. His definition is leaps and bounds better than Arnolds. His proportions are, IMO, better than Arnolds. Why is it obvious that you would like Arnold better? For his time Arnold was king, but there is no way in hell you can compare him to the top bodybuilders of today.

A big chest and biceps do not a bodybuilder make.

**kaptainkeezy04** · 08-19-2005, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

And "everywhere I go" you are defending Arnold. Maybe if you weren't on my nutsack you would see that.

I think Ronnie looks incredible. His symmetry is as good or better than Arnolds. His definition is leaps and bounds better than Arnolds. His proportions are, IMO, better than Arnolds. Why is it obvious that you would like Arnold better? For his time Arnold was king, but there is no way in hell you can compare him to the top bodybuilders of today.

A big chest and biceps do not a bodybuilder make.

Why is it that everywhere I go you are talkin about dicks, cocks, or nutsacks...haha..that is like seriously the 4th post I've seen where you are tellin someone to get off a nutsack or some shit like that...get some new material. Oh and for your info I've only posted about Arnold twice so I know I dont post about him nearly as many times as you post about Ronnie.

**scriptfactory** · 08-19-2005, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04

Why is it that everywhere I go you are talkin about dicks, cocks, or nutsacks...haha..that is like seriously the 4th post I've seen where you are tellin someone to get off a nutsack or some shit like that...get some new material. Oh and for your info I've only posted about Arnold twice so I know I dont post about him nearly as many times as you post about Ronnie.

I didn't know you were such a fan...

I feel like I have to defend Ronnie against the hordes of Arnie whores. It's a complex.

**hurley11** · 08-20-2005, 11:54 AM

This post is getting stupid...Arnold hands down is, was and probably will be the greateset bodybuilder of all time...want me to prove it??? Walk down the street and mention Arnolds name...everyone knows him...Ronnie Coleman on the other hand is the current Mr Olympia and 90% of the people you asked would be like Ronnie who??? No one who doesn't no body building gives a shit about Coleman. I admit he is the best thing out there right now...but if he lives 20 more years then he is beating the odds. Ronnie's gut is disgusting along with Jackson's for that matter and IMO Arnold was actually nice to look at. I think its sad that Body Building has turned into who can have the hugest most distorted figure...I think it has lost a lot of credability...kind of like when they introduced bench shirts to Powerlifting. These are all opinions and feel free to post otherwise but Arnold in my mind is still the king.

**trisdog** · 08-20-2005, 12:10 PM

Arnold is the man, just face it, He'll also smack the shit out of ronnie

**G-13** · 08-20-2005, 02:46 PM

you can't compare two different bodybuilders from 2 different eras' its like comparing football players from 20 years ago to football players of today. They aren't the same period. Arnold set the standard for what bodybuilding is today.

With Arnold's dedication, drive desire to win.. everyone knows how competative he was, if he competed at this day and time with all the new gear against Ronnie Coleman,
he would blow them all away...because he wouldn't settle for anything less.
imagine what arnold would look like with HGH and Igf-1 long...jesus christ i cant believe anyone hasn't even considered that....he built himself up with primo and d-bol from what we know...imagine what he would have done with test,eq,tren or any number of drugs....especially HGH..he would still be a God admired by all...and his arms and chest blow ronnie away...2/3 of ronnie's weight is his gut..you can't tell me thats pleasing to look at, looks like he swollowed a fukin pumpkin....

**Kärnfysikern** · 08-21-2005, 04:42 AM

they had test back then bro. Didnt they have deca ?

Also its a big possibility that if he competed now he would have a enormous gut aswell. He seems like the kind of guy that would use anything and everything to get a edge.

**kaptainkeezy04** · 08-26-2005, 12:03 PM

okay if Arnold (1975) and Ronnie (2005) walked down the street or beach or whatever, who do you think the girls would go running to? lol Def Arnold.

**rsmihula** · 08-26-2005, 03:24 PM

Arnold is no question the Godfather of bodybuilding and even though he didn't have what the bodybuilders have these days he has had the greatest impact on bodybuilding all together period!

**IronSheff** · 08-26-2005, 11:46 PM

It's so difficult to compare. Who knows what Arnie would have looked like with GH and Slin, etc. I prefer Arnolds physique any day. Much better aesthetics.

**SinCityMan** · 08-27-2005, 02:40 AM

Just my opinion

My dad was a bodybuilder during the 80's, and I look at the progression of the sport from my earliest recollection and I can't help but think how utterly disgusting the sport has become. Like it has been said before today people are so interested in shear mass that it has lost many of its followers. I personally would not want to be as big as Arnold not to mention be as freaky huge as Ronnie. Another good point that someone brought up is what is appealing to the opposite sex. Sure you can find a few chicks that are into that huge pregnant GH belly thing that Ronnie has, but I guarantee for every chick that likes that nasty look there are 100's that prefer the look like the pic included. (Minus the goggles and swim cap but you get the point)

**Danbrooks2k** · 11-06-2005, 09:48 AM

well its like comparing bruce lee to mike tyson...

arnold looked like a work of art, he didnt look that way by accident...

ronnie has a bloated gut, i dont think he did excercises to make it bloated it is just a side effect ... ronnie is big, huge even... but I think he looks disgusting and I would never want to look like that...

arnold, wow thats the body that men want to get and women want to get with...

the oak rules

**UCFTransam** · 11-11-2005, 02:52 PM

Arnold had the body of a greek god. There has been not one person in history to match the look of him. It doesnt matter if his legs were not as big as his upper body, they were going for aesthetic proportion- what looked pleasing to the eye.

The question is what are you comparing? Are you comparing who has more mass? Obvioiusly its Ronnie coleman. Are you comparing who is more eye pleasing? Arnold.

Arnie is the best looking body builder of all time, i don't think its an opinion. But a fact. Hence the competitions named after him, the movies, books, biographys. Whats ronnie got going for him? A heart transplant in about 10 years.

**Brent_G** · 11-11-2005, 05:43 PM

id much rather have arnolds body then ronnie's. Ronnie doenst even look human anymore.

**jdh** · 11-11-2005, 08:07 PM

who the fvck would choose to look like ronnie over arnold? youd have to be pure nuts. the whole point of bodybuilding is not only to build larger muscles but to get that perfect symetry and that aesthetic look. ronnie looks like a tard. big old gh induced bone structure of his head, not to mention the protruding gut. todays bber's sacrifice the look that the sport was founded with. they go for just pure mass and throw out the symetry. they have no control of their abs whatsoever, mainly ronnie when i say that. you cant even compare todays bber's with greats of the past, its like two different things completely. ronnie couldnt perform some of the movements and stuff that arnold did. he hasnt got 1/4 the flexibility arnold did and youll never see him doing vaccuums . look at the graceful sweep of arnolds back to narrow waist, note i said narrow, not bulging like ronnies, thats why the 3/4 pose doesnt exist anymore. its a shame. pure circus freaks.

***DaRooster*** · 12-04-2005, 11:00 PM

Arnold is better. nuf said.

**stayinstacked** · 12-04-2005, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by S.P.G

can we decide with this...its arnold for me.

That pic is photoshopped. Arnolds quads never had that much sweep in them, and the hams are exaggerated in that pic. Dont get me wrong, he's the man nonetheless, but thats def a photoshop

**Born Threat** · 12-04-2005, 11:26 PM

Arnold hands down....

Ronald makes me sick.

Originally Posted by decadbal

if i were a mod, id ban all u arnold ppl... riduculus.. even he said ronnie is the greatest of all time... phuckin morons

**V5RED** · 12-05-2005, 01:01 AM

as for who would ppl recognise....arnold, yes, but not for bbing, for his movies

most ppl dont even know bodybuilding is a sport

bodybuilding=mass

male models=looks

if u watch bodybuilding to see who is the most attractive man then ur basically watching it as softcore gay porn

if u watch it to see freaks then ur watching it like it should be watched

**marcus300** · 12-05-2005, 08:35 AM

ronnie is far better, no1

**heavyrotation92** · 12-05-2005, 02:43 PM

Simple as this...

Ronnie=bigger.

Arnold=better looking.

**Bigpup101** · 12-05-2005, 03:08 PM

IMO arnolds legs and abs were severely lagging..his chest though is out of this world..they were their own bodies huge and perfect in shape..but like said a dozen times already..you can't really compare the two...how many home runs would babe ruth have hit if he juiced (mcquire, sosa) it's all speculation..

**ironmike250** · 12-05-2005, 04:07 PM

Does anyone remember seeing the "virtual posedown" in flex from a couple months ago? It had Ronnie 2001, Ronnie now, and Frank Zane back in the 70's at 190 lbs, then Frank with a 20 extra lbs.?
Coleman looked so much better (more defined and symmetrical) in 2001. He's so massive that he's lost his definition.
I think Arnold would destroy Coleman.