Will someone ever surpass ronnie in his prime?

[curpa]

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

I think this statement is correct. There is a point where there can't be dramatic changes any more,because it can't be better than perfect.
The often used sentence doesn't fit anymore: "Every decade,the Champions get better". This is in no way a Jay Cutler bashing, but the following Mr.O's can't progress that visible like in the past, because we have already seen the best in Ronnie Coleman in the year 2003.

Meaning no disrespect toward the greatest ever their certainly will be someone who surpasses him. First, this sport is very subjective. In the opinions of some Ronnie never had the best physique. It's a matter of preference and what the current trend is; i.e.-mass monster or aesthetics. Secondly, we only gauge a decision on what we have seen, not what we might see. As someone else said, 30 years ago the same conversation was probably being had about Arnold. It's not unreasonable that the same conversation could be had 30 years from now about someone else.

[musclePavel]

Originally Posted by antish

i cannot see that happening.atleast not in this century...

well if you think about it, ronnie was not always perfect, levrone and flex beat him easily for most of his career, that is before he became the ronnie we know today. i mean the first time he won the olympia he got 8th or 12th place in the olympia the year before, so perhaps somebody like that , who was never considered a sandow candiate come and surprise everybody-

[Tyrbolift]

Originally Posted by musclePavel

well if you think about it, ronnie was not always perfect, levrone and flex beat him easily for most of his career, that is before he became the ronnie we know today. i mean the first time he won the olympia he got 8th or 12th place in the olympia the year before, so perhaps somebody like that , who was never considered a sandow candiate come and surprise everybody-

That's just it...nobody "predicted" Ronnie...if they say they did they're probably lying.

Whoever can continue with no or minimal injuries, does it all right, exercise selection, workout program, mentoring or training help, nutritional excellence, consistency, perserverance, no or little organ problems from juice, great genetics as far as bone structure and muscle adding ability, muscle shape, and proportion, begins at a young enough age so that he doesn't get too old before he "peaks".

Also, possible new approaches or new "drugs," new nutritional advancements.

No, it's no easy or common, but it will likely happen from some unknown, not Brewer or that short Russian teen phenomenon.

Maybe Wolf or even someone like Lou Joseph, who is still fairly young.

[Pro Bob Chick]

It's a good topic....but one that begs the question: Is it fair to ask?
c cv
When we talk about "surpassing" someone in the sports arena...we have to consider many factors such as era, technology, circumstances, etc....

Did Bonds "surpass" Aaron? Well, certainly by the number...no disputing that. But then comes the arguments...played in a different time, played more/ less years, faced easier pitching, didn't have to face pitchers on 5 days rest, ballpark dimentions, etc, etc....

When we talk physiques...there is no points scored, or total (other than wins)...to consider...just a look, and an opinion.

Arnold won 7 Olympia's...Lee Haney won 8. Did Haney "surpass" Arnold?

Much like we've seen "virtual posedowns" in Flex magazine from our good friend Shawn Perine...while they're fun to look at, and compare...it's virtually impossible to draw fair comparison due to too many factors....

IF Arnold had access to the same gear, IF Sergio had continued on with better knowledge, IF Ferrigno never gets the HULK role, does he go on to win 7 Olympia titles?
IF they had the same equipment, supps, knowledge of cardio, etc.....

So, where does that put us to te\he question at hand...."Will Ronnie (at his best) ever be surpassed?

The answer: Yes, he will....but only in the sense that we get to debate the same argument, with the same questions, and the same unfairness that comes with any comparison of individuals competing in different era's....

[Tyrbolift]

Good answer

[SOMEPARTS]

Agreed for the most part, but mass increased about 20lbs from Arnold to Haney, Haney to Dorian, Dorian to Ronnie - not Ronnie to Jay. I don't see a sub-6' competitor putting an additional 20lbs on 2003 Ronnie and having that judged as superior anytime soon. I think 2003-2005 Ronnie may have been given some leeway on the midsection in the interest of mass, but that is getting revised in current judging. Obviously someone will eventually come along with more "cartoonish" proportions, maybe Wolf at 35.

[wolfsburg2]

it is possible because ronnie didn't have the best ever of every single body part.

levrone's tris, ronnies back, dex's midsection etc.

you can build a better body so it is possible, in theory that someone will do it.

[Wilde]

Originally Posted by Guardian

Very few people can get grainy, it is the rarity as opposed to something to look for. Ony person since Dorian I see do it well was Branch Warren the year he won the ironman I believe.

Since when did Branch ever win the ironman? put the pipe down son...

[gomez26]

Originally Posted by Pro Bob Chick

IF Arnold had access to the same gear, IF Sergio had c
..

yo man, cant talk about that stuff in this section...



final warning

[flangmasterj]

Damn your good Bob.

[TangerineRavine]

Originally Posted by Danny213

There has to be a cut off point though, surely? Humans haven't existed long enough to find out, but surely no one can ever break 5 seconds on the 100m sprint? Nothing human anyway.

For some reason when I read that my mind was filled with scary thoughts of sub human super mutants with tentacles streaking as blurs through abandoned streets.... I don't now why....just the way you put it.. nothing human anyway...lol active imagination

Originally Posted by Oldtime

i mean from the back they look skinny almost.. i know its an illusion and his legs are at very very least 5 inches bigger then mine, and alot leaner...

but even from the front, his quads don't look that good to me.. no conditioning or definition really

He's just too damn tall!

[Reisinger850]

Originally Posted by curpa

Meaning no disrespect toward the greatest ever their certainly will be someone who surpasses him. First, this sport is very subjective. In the opinions of some Ronnie never had the best physique. It's a matter of preference and what the current trend is; i.e.-mass monster or aesthetics. Secondly, we only gauge a decision on what we have seen, not what we might see. As someone else said, 30 years ago the same conversation was probably being had about Arnold. It's not unreasonable that the same conversation could be had 30 years from now about someone else.

I hate it when someone says: "If you look for mass-monsters,take Ronnie". The crazy thing about Ronnie was that he combined inrecible mass WITH aesthetics. His physiques from 1999 and 2005 will go down as the most aesthetic physiques ever in my opinion.

"There is Ronnie Coleman and then there's the rest of bodybuilding."

I want to add something regarding the discussion if Ronnie can be surpassed: there are still records in track & field which aren't broken yet, however they were set several years ago. What does this mean??

Furthermore I think Ronnie has the best genetics ever, better than Dillet (awful structure), Cormier (wtf?) and Wheeler (compensated lack of genetics with synthol). Ronnie's calfes weren't that much of a problem to my mind, and if he sucked his gut in, he looked fine even in the midsection. <------ NO FLAWS

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by Wilde

Since when did Branch ever win the ironman? put the pipe down son...

Thats why I said I believe, he won one big show I cant remember what it was maybe someone can help me I believe it was in 2005.

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by kethnaab

you're going to have to define "surpass" and "Ronnie's prime"

Ronnie's prime (my definition)

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

I hate it when someone says: "If you look for mass-monsters,take Ronnie". The crazy thing about Ronnie was that he combined inrecible mass WITH aesthetics. His physiques from 1999 and 2005 will go down as the most aesthetic physiques ever in my opinion.

"There is Ronnie Coleman and then there's the rest of bodybuilding."

I want to add something regarding the discussion if Ronnie can be surpassed: there are still records in track & field which aren't broken yet, however they were set several years ago. What does this mean??

Furthermore I think Ronnie has the best genetics ever, better than Dillet (awful structure), Cormier (wtf?) and Wheeler (compensated lack of genetics with synthol). Ronnie's calfes weren't that much of a problem to my mind, and if he sucked his gut in, he looked fine even in the midsection. <------ NO FLAWS

He has a mishapen 4 pack, and your saying he has the best genetics? Please

[_Dominik_]

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

Cormier (wtf?)

Yeah, Cormier really sucked

[Reisinger850]

Originally Posted by Guardian

He has a mishapen 4 pack, and your saying he has the best genetics? Please

Come on man, only beacuse his upper abs aren't seperated you really think that his genetics aren't superior in contrast to other bodybuilders? At least they aren't blocky...

Great genetics are more than having the best abs out there, it's rather the ability to bring incredible mass on stage, however, this incredible amount of mass is ripped!! That is art. Moreover, he has perfect muscle shape, only because his damn abs aren't the most pleasing to your eye doesn't mean his genetics aren't as good as Cormiers oder Dillets.


With regard to Cormier: I didn't say that he sucks, but he can't hold a candle next to Ronnie, even in the genetic field. I would rather come in more shredded than my opponent than to have two seperated lower ab muscles....

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

Come on man, only beacuse his upper abs aren't seperated you really think that his genetics aren't superior in contrast to other bodybuilders? At least they aren't blocky...

Great genetics are more than having the best abs out there, it's rather the ability to bring incredible mass on stage, however, this incredible amount of mass is ripped!! That is art. Moreover, he has perfect muscle shape, only because his damn abs aren't the most pleasing to your eye doesn't mean his genetics aren't as good as Cormiers oder Dillets.


With regard to Cormier: I didn't say that he sucks, but he can't hold a candle next to Ronnie, even in the genetic field. I would rather come in more shredded than my opponent than to have two seperated lower ab muscles....

Superioir? Yes

The best? Definatly not

You will find very few people in the bbing community and here who agree with you that Coleman has the best genetics ever. Im not trying to be an ass, Yates didnt have the best genetics either. Very often the people on top in this sport are the ones that have great genetics but not the best. Most likely having alittle less then the best genes gives them a ton more self drive and effort which more then makes up for it which is why nearly every Mr Olympian had competitors who had better genes then they did.

[vaerk24]

Originally Posted by Guardian

Superioir? Yes

The best? Definatly not

You will find very few people in the bbing community and here who agree with you that Coleman has the best genetics ever. Im not trying to be an ass, Yates didnt have the best genetics either. Very often the people on top in this sport are the ones that have great genetics but not the best. Most likely having alittle less then the best genes gives them a ton more self drive and effort which more then makes up for it which is why nearly every Mr Olympian had competitors who had better genes then they did.

Quite the contrary. When asking a professional and/or amateur bodybuilder who has the greatest genetics, more often than not, Ronnie Coleman is the first name I hear. To quote Bob Chic, "Ronnie is just not from this planet." When you hear who has the best genetics, usually you hear Ronnie, Levrone, Cormier, and Dillet. So I honestly do not know what you read, if you hear a little voice in your head that says Ronnie sucks, but come on man, your dislike for Ronnie Coleman is an opinion thing, and it gets so annoying that you try to make it come off as a fact that he isn't good.

[vaerk24]

And before you reply, don't give me a stupid response about how Ronnie was good in 96 or whatever and post that same picture you put up every time someone calls you out about how you do not like Ronnie.

[curpa]

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

I hate it when someone says: "If you look for mass-monsters,take Ronnie". The crazy thing about Ronnie was that he combined inrecible mass WITH aesthetics. His physiques from 1999 and 2005 will go down as the most aesthetic physiques ever in my opinion.

"There is Ronnie Coleman and then there's the rest of bodybuilding."

I want to add something regarding the discussion if Ronnie can be surpassed: there are still records in track & field which aren't broken yet, however they were set several years ago. What does this mean??

Furthermore I think Ronnie has the best genetics ever, better than Dillet (awful structure), Cormier (wtf?) and Wheeler (compensated lack of genetics with synthol). Ronnie's calfes weren't that much of a problem to my mind, and if he sucked his gut in, he looked fine even in the midsection. <------ NO FLAWS

Maybe I should have been clearer. I'm not attacking Ronnie's physique or saying that he does not have an aesthetically pleasing physique. I think Ronnie at the 05 Olympia was the greatest bodybuilding presentation I've ever seen. My point is that who is the best bodybuilder is subjective. And saying that a bodybuilder who weighs in at 300 pounds on a 5'10" frame isn't a mass monster is absurd. IMO Ronnie is the best we've ever seen to this point.

[Reisinger850]

Originally Posted by Guardian

Superioir? Yes

The best? Definatly not

You will find very few people in the bbing community and here who agree with you that Coleman has the best genetics ever. Im not trying to be an ass, Yates didnt have the best genetics either. Very often the people on top in this sport are the ones that have great genetics but not the best. Most likely having alittle less then the best genes gives them a ton more self drive and effort which more then makes up for it which is why nearly every Mr Olympian had competitors who had better genes then they did.

Nah I don't know your theory isn't that bad but to say Dillet has better genetics like Coleman makes no sense. Genetics refer to everything like height (I think Ronnie has the perfect height with 1,80 m)and receptors and the ability to move much weight and so on. It doesn't only come down to some bodyparts.

I still think Ronnie has the best genetics and moreover, I think he has the FEWEST flaws of all bodybuilders EVER ( don't say Shawn Ray, not perfect height is also a flaw).

[Reisinger850]

Originally Posted by curpa

Maybe I should have been clearer. I'm not attacking Ronnie's physique or saying that he does not have an aesthetically pleasing physique. I think Ronnie at the 05 Olympia was the greatest bodybuilding presentation I've ever seen. My point is that who is the best bodybuilder is subjective. And saying that a bodybuilder who weighs in at 300 pounds on a 5'10" frame isn't a mass monster is absurd. IMO Ronnie is the best we've ever seen to this point.

Okay I'm sorry, I misunderstood your post a little bit.

[Lax891122]

Ronnie is a legend.. but for some to say someone wont surpass his could be true... not because he is such a legend.. but because many wont beable to match his size. The Olympia has gone from asthetics and size to SIZE. Ronnie in no way had appealing quads. look at this quads in 05-06. Theyre just slabs of meat.. There are cuts but Theyre so overblown that its just not appealing.

I think bodybuilding on a professional level has hit its prime already. Can these guys take in more GH without actually killing themselves? How else could there be another "step" in BB? No way are people going to get any bigger than they are. Sure there will be changes from person to person in size.. some being bigger like Wolf and Vic.. But Id LOVE to see how these guys are going to honestly get bigger in a semi-healthy sense. In no way am I saying the older bodybuilders didn't juice beyond belief.. but the more recent take "beyond belief" and make it a blunt, no matter reality.

So sure.. Ronnie may win the overall mass category for a LONG time. I think he could only be beat if the Olympia world took a turn from MASS monsters to asthetically pleasing mass. I just find it hard that Ronnies ab gap could honestly be considered asthetically pleasing... or his HUGE gut. He is a great bodybuilder who, by today's norms, can never be passed.

*I am NOT putting any bodybuilder down. They are great and work their asses off harder than I ever could.

[Lax891122]

Originally Posted by _Dominik_

Ronnie's prime (my definition)

I agree. He is asthetic in there. My opinion is that while his mass increased, his asthetics decreased. IE. the gh gut(sure many have it but his is RIGHT in the open.. and the others havent won Olympias), ab gap(weird), and odd looking quads.

That picture sums up Ronnie's Prime. His abs were GREAT, quads nice, and great size. Now.. his abs are so stretched across his body.


*Ronnie is a great bodybuilders so dont take this as bashing.

[Danny213]

Originally Posted by Lax891122

I agree. He is asthetic in there. My opinion is that while his mass increased, his asthetics decreased. IE. the gh gut(sure many have it but his is RIGHT in the open.. and the others havent won Olympias), ab gap(weird), and odd looking quads.

That picture sums up Ronnie's Prime. His abs were GREAT, quads nice, and great size. Now.. his abs are so stretched across his body.


*Ronnie is a great bodybuilders so dont take this as bashing.

His abs are ****. They have always been ****. He's the biggest, but in my eyes, not the best.

Try and look beyond the mass-game. I've always hated his abs and chest, but that's just me. Arnold has a greater chest than Coleman.

I won't hate on Coleman. I like the guy. But he's not the best the world has ever seen. He's just the biggest and most popular.

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by vaerk24

Quite the contrary. When asking a professional and/or amateur bodybuilder who has the greatest genetics, more often than not, Ronnie Coleman is the first name I hear. To quote Bob Chic, "Ronnie is just not from this planet." When you hear who has the best genetics, usually you hear Ronnie, Levrone, Cormier, and Dillet. So I honestly do not know what you read, if you hear a little voice in your head that says Ronnie sucks, but come on man, your dislike for Ronnie Coleman is an opinion thing, and it gets so annoying that you try to make it come off as a fact that he isn't good.

Well I guess we hear different things

Whenever I hear talk of the best genetics I hear Wheeler, Olivia, and Dillet.

Just because you say someone doesnt have the best genetics has nothing to do with liking them or there physique.

I like Branch Warren but I know his genetics arent terrific, are you going to say Im lying about liking him? Mmmk so stop making assumptions based off me saying one thing about someone.

[Reisinger850]

Originally Posted by Danny213

Try and look beyond the mass-game. I've always hated his abs and chest, but that's just me. Arnold has a greater chest than Coleman.

you don't know what you are talking about. Although Arnold was taller, his chest was measured way smaller compared to Coleman's , who has probably the biggest and best chest ever....

[Guardian]

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

you don't know what you are talking about. Although Arnold was taller, his chest was measured way smaller compared to Coleman's , who has probably the biggest and best chest ever....

News to me, the best measurements of Colemans chest Ive heard is 60-61 inches while most say its more along the lines of 58-59. Yes he has a couple inches on Arnold, but you figure the back is a considerable amount of chest size so its not far off to say the actual chest alone of Arnolds was bigger considering Arnolds dismall back thickness compared to Coleman.

Furthermore if you work the realistic figures, Arnolds chest to waist ratio was better then Colemans, perhaps this is one reason some people argue we havent made much progress overall in the past 30 years.

[Wayneizgod]

Look out for victor man, the dude is still young..he sure does got the size to come close to ronnie but exactly that close if you know what i mean..honestly tho i dont think its ever gonna happen because ronnie is not human lol