Craziest biceps to triceps ratio EVER!!

**Reisinger850** · 10-25-2009, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Newbtime

coleman kinda started getting lazy with his bi training late in his career. look at 01 and earlier, his bis were fukin huge from every angle. not that they were small after 01 though.

In Relentless he still trained them every 4 days, after back, I thought.

And lol at swimmer man for overrated biceps:

......

**Contract Killer** · 10-25-2009, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

In Relentless he still trained them every 4 days, after back, I thought.

......

....Nice bottle of deca?

**Whey Hey** · 10-25-2009, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Contract Killer

....Nice bottle of deca?

lol ! and Box behind it. haha

**stealth_swimmer** · 10-25-2009, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

In Relentless he still trained them every 4 days, after back, I thought.

And lol at swimmer man for overrated biceps:

......

Nice job ignoring my post and strawmanning me.

As i said before, his biceps look great from the back...which is the angle your pics show...they show the long head of the biceps from behind, NOT showing the biceps from the front.

**DPNZ** · 10-25-2009, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

Nice job ignoring my post and strawmanning me.

As i said before, his biceps look great from the back...which is the angle your pics show...they show the long head of the biceps from behind, NOT showing the biceps from the front.

Ok, colour me retarded but WTF does "strawmanning" mean? You're not the first person to say that lately.

**mackenzie-uk** · 10-25-2009, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by DPNZ

Ok, colour me retarded but WTF does "strawmanning" mean? You're not the first person to say that lately.

Where the original argument is ignored, and a different topic brought up to 'win' an argument.

I.e. SS said Ronnie's Biceps were quite poor from the front. Somebody else says SS is an idiot and posts amazing pictures of the back of Ronnie's arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

**Reisinger850** · 10-25-2009, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

Nice job ignoring my post and strawmanning me.

As i said before, his biceps look great from the back...which is the angle your pics show...they show the long head of the biceps from behind, NOT showing the biceps from the front.

You should better watch out:

Well, I think he has the best biceps ever.

From the front, especially.

**stealth_swimmer** · 10-25-2009, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by DPNZ

Ok, colour me retarded but WTF does "strawmanning" mean? You're not the first person to say that lately.

They make a superficially similar argument with a bit of it different and then counter their own made-up argument which they attribute to the person making the original argument.

Originally Posted by mackenzie-uk

Where the original argument is ignored, and a different topic brought up to 'win' an argument.

I.e. SS said Ronnie's Biceps were quite poor from the front. Somebody else says SS is an idiot and posts amazing pictures of the back of Ronnie's arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

exactly

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

You should better watch out:

Well, I think he has the best biceps ever.

From the front, especially.

well we'll have to agree to disagree

I think the first pic it's ok there but msot of the time i felt they weren't that great from the front in comparison to his triceps.

**wlf.vik83** · 10-25-2009, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by reisinger850

you should better watch out:

well, i think he has the best biceps ever.

From the front, especially.

whoa!!!

That arm shot craps all over Arnold, Priest and Heath's arms.

**Captain Sagara** · 10-25-2009, 05:04 AM

Originally Posted by wlf.vik83

whoa!!!

That arm shot craps all over Arnold, Priest and Heath's arms.

Phil Heath disagrees at a bodyweight of 228..

**wlf.vik83** · 10-25-2009, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Sagara

Phil Heath disagrees at a bodyweight of 228..

He is good. and has great arms... but that one ronnie shot is pure domination.

Post a shot from front... not an angled one and you will see what i see.

**Rocky-Balboa** · 10-25-2009, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

You should better watch out:

Originally Posted by Captain Sagara

Coleman's is more bigger, vascular, better separation and much better bicep peaks

**Zeneth** · 10-25-2009, 05:45 AM

Coleman's biceps did look small from the front. His tricep looks twice as big, which isn't the right ratio.

(no hate)

**Captain Sagara** · 10-25-2009, 05:47 AM

Phil Heath was so much better in 2008

**ANARKY** · 10-25-2009, 06:38 AM

**Reisinger850** · 10-25-2009, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zeneth

Coleman's biceps did look small from the front. His tricep looks twice as big, which isn't the right ratio.

(no hate)

Well actually, this would be the right ratio.

**Zeneth** · 10-25-2009, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

Well actually, this would be the right ratio.

No it wouldn't.

Tricep should be 60% of arm mass.

**Reisinger850** · 10-25-2009, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Zeneth

No it wouldn't.

Tricep should be 60% of arm mass.

It is said 2/3 or even 3/4, which would be 66-75 %...

**Ian_B** · 10-25-2009, 07:52 AM

lol @ you guys arguing over percentages that don't mean anything

Ronnie had huge biceps and huge triceps but the issue is in the fact that the long head of his triceps overpowered his biceps from the front.

**Zeneth** · 10-25-2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ian_B

lol @ you guys arguing over percentages that don't mean anything

Ronnie had huge biceps and huge triceps but the issue is in the fact that the long head of his triceps overpowered his biceps from the front.

In other words, the ratio wasn't right.

Glad I could be of help.

**the-craig** · 10-25-2009, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

Veins are not muscle....they look good, but they're not muscle. They had great split and peak to them, i never said anything against that. Point out where I said his peak wasn't good.

What I said was that they're too small in comparison to his triceps from the front. And they looked great from the back. Nice job trying to strawman me.

I never said veins were muscle did I, I just added something which makes Coleman's arms look even better. I never said you thought he peak wasn't good either, I was just giving a general description. I just think it's stupid for anyone to say Coleman's arms are overrated. Nice job trying to turn around what I said.

Edit: Not sure how I'm trying to strawman you. I was saying why I thought Coleman's arms aren't overrated.

**Ian_B** · 10-25-2009, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zeneth

In other words, the ratio wasn't right.

Glad I could be of help.

In other words, you made up a meaningless ratio...

Originally Posted by Zeneth

No it wouldn't.

Tricep should be 60% of arm mass.

Glad I could be of help.

**Grinners** · 10-25-2009, 09:11 AM

I agree with stealth swimmer that Ronnies bi's were often overpowered by his triceps from the front.

The opposite problem arnold sometimes had.

**Grinners** · 10-25-2009, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by the-craig

I never said veins were muscle did I, I just added something which makes Coleman's arms look even better. I never said you thought he peak wasn't good either, I was just giving a general description. I just think it's stupid for anyone to say Coleman's arms are overrated. Nice job trying to turn around what I said.

Edit: Not sure how I'm trying to strawman you. I was saying why I thought Coleman's arms aren't overrated.

Oh and that was a good example of SS strawmanning you: implying that you said viens are muscle (which you didn't) and then correcting you

**the-craig** · 10-25-2009, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Grinners

Oh and that was a good example of SS strawmanning you: implying that you said viens are muscle (which you didn't) and then correcting you

A very good point

Stealth not looking so clever now.

**Zeneth** · 10-25-2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ian_B

In other words, you made up a meaningless ratio...

Glad I could be of help.

Er no, it's the standard ratio of muscle size.

No charge for the anatomy lesson.

**stealth_swimmer** · 10-25-2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by the-craig

I never said veins were muscle did I, I just added something which makes Coleman's arms look even better. I never said you thought he peak wasn't good either, I was just giving a general description. I just think it's stupid for anyone to say Coleman's arms are overrated. Nice job trying to turn around what I said.

Edit: Not sure how I'm trying to strawman you. I was saying why I thought Coleman's arms aren't overrated.

oh ok, well i thought that's what you were saying. Made it sound that way, lol.

Originally Posted by the-craig

A very good point

Stealth not looking so clever now.

i didnt' say that you thought veins were muscle. Simply stated that it doesn't say anything about whether or not the biceps themselves are well developed.

**Ian_B** · 10-25-2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Zeneth

Er no, it's the standard ratio of muscle size.

No charge for the anatomy lesson.

Actually both the biceps and triceps both have three heads... if that's what you're going by then they should theoretically be the same size. Obviously the insertions for the triceps are usually considerably longer so they "should" be bigger but to make up percentages is ridiculous.

**JOSEF RAKICH** · 10-25-2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Reisinger850

You should better watch out:

Well, I think he has the best biceps ever.

From the front, especially.

Wow check out his glutes, from this angle!

(no homo)

**Big B Bro** · 10-25-2009, 04:19 PM

Small biceps, yes, but he can make them grow easily.

Thread: Craziest biceps to triceps ratio EVER!!

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Similar Threads

whats so bad about doing like biceps and triceps every work out?

Is chest/biceps, back/triceps a good combo??

huge biceps,no triceps

How many of YOU train Biceps and Triceps on SAME day?

biceps and triceps ?!?!?!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions