Thread: Arnold Vs Ronnie Coleman?

Ronnie has the bigger gut so he wins.

Not comparable.

Not sure where I read it or if it's even an accurate quote, but I seem to recall Arnold offering his take on judging physiques -- "Who would you rather look like?"

Arnold without a doubt.

Ronnie Coleman achieved an amazing physique, but Arnold had him on chest, calves, and waist.

Originally Posted by curt james

not sure where i read it or if it's even an accurate quote, but i seem to recall arnold offering his take on judging physiques -- "who would you rather look like?"

arnold without a doubt.

Ronnie coleman achieved an amazing physique, but arnold had him on chest, calves, and waist.

biceps!

^^^^ You think Arnold beat Ronnie on biceps?

Arnold had one superhuman biceps and fantastic veins on those beasts, but I'd almost give the nod to Coleman in the biceps department.

Im totally biased...i never liked coleman at all...him and all his gift wins were a dark time for bbing imo....id take arnolds peak over colemans weird split peas anyday...and for most of ronnies reign his arms were injured...i think triceps anyway

I think if we have the experience of understanding the great and many advances in training, foods{what and when to eat and how much}, and by far the greatest advantage of synthetic compounds, and when and how to use them, Arnold would have looked nothing like he did at his best. I would love to see what he actually would have looked like with todays top chemists helping him with gears they just didnt understand and were not available and hgh,slin,ect,ect,ect, and then stuff most of us dont know exists that jay and ronny have the great privaledge of being in a small circle of scientists,chemists who do. If his food and training were advanced as well, Arny i feel would have been a much greater bodybuilder. But as it is, I strongly feel realistacly Arnold at his best should not be compared to the baddest bodybuilder that has ever stepped on stage. Pictures don't show us what cant even be spoken in words, thats truely how much greater Ronnie is than Arnold ever was. Ronnie had soooo much more true muscle, symetry, asthetics, muscle development that is in a class of its own to this day. Truely low bf that could never be acheived back in Arnolds time. Muscle devolopment that is not even human looking{chemicals} that scientists are still working very hard on new advancements. Honestly I would ask Arnold to leave the stage in a kind and gentle manner as he deserves sooo much credit for bringing this sport to where it is today. But Ronnie would truely make arnold on a real stage look stupid. Really stupid!!! That s what I strongly beleive.

I prefer Arnold's physique in every aspect. I don't care about mass as much as overall aesthetics.

But in a Mr. O competition Ronnie wins.

I bet Ronnie has a bigger crank.

Originally Posted by ebn2002

I prefer Arnold's physique in every aspect. I don't care about mass as much as overall aesthetics.

But in a Mr. O competition Ronnie wins.

I think the reason Arnold always wins is exactly because of "overall aesthetics". BB'ing today has lost that except for perhaps "natty" comps. (in quotes because many of those guys have used and retained mass from past cycles even though they currently test clean).

Arnold had the physique of a god-man, think Apollo or Ulysses or Hercules, today's bodybuilders have the physique of something a god-man would fight against in a Homer narrative: maybe a Minotaur or Cyclops.

Arnold, frank zane, reg park, steve reeves, etc.= superhuman aesthetic
modern bb'ers= inhuman or subhuman aesthetic

That's how I see it anyway; someday maybe the judges' tastes will concur.

Originally Posted by bdeljoose

I bet Ronnie has a bigger crank.

Maybe...I heard there's video of Arnold in the Santa Monica days of him wading out of the FREEZING pacific waters naked and he's still swingin' low.

I know I always look like a two year old down there after surfing so if that's true that's saying something...

Originally Posted by Curt James

^^^^ You think Arnold beat Ronnie on biceps?

Arnold had one superhuman biceps and fantastic veins on those beasts, but I'd almost give the nod to Coleman in the biceps department.

They are defined and peaked, but I still think Arnold would win because they were peaked and still long. Arnold's still looked massive when his arm was fully extended as well. Ronnie's arms look short when straight (the mass is not balanced like Arnold's)

I'd give it to Arnold, mainly based on the bad not the good.
Arnold's quads are to small, but Coleman's gut is something else.

My vote gos to Arnold. Ronnie really doesn't do it for me. In his earlier days he was much better imo.

Both of those guys look like they were sculpted out of clay, Arnold looks more impressive because of his height.

Same reason Cory Everson won all those Ms. O's..

Originally Posted by IronAddict

Both of those guys look like they were sculpted out of clay, Arnold looks more impressive because of his height.

Same reason Cory Everson won all those Ms. O's..

Ronnie's nearly as tall as Arnold.

Schwarzenegger is often listed at 6'2" but I'd put him at 6' tops based on four separate "Polaroid moments" at the first, second, third, and fourth Arnold Classic competitions. Coleman is 5'10" or 5'11" based on where you look on teh Interwebz.


L-R: Coleman, some fluorescent white bald guy (6'1") who NEVER shuts up

Originally Posted by KILLEROFSAINTS

Im totally biased...i never liked coleman at all...him and all his gift wins were a dark time for bbing imo....id take arnolds peak over colemans weird split peas anyday...and for most of ronnies reign his arms were injured...i think triceps anyway

lol Which ones were those?

Originally Posted by Curt James

Ronnie's nearly as tall as Arnold.

Schwarzenegger is often listed at 6'2" but I'd put him at 6' tops based on four separate "Polaroid moments" at the first, second, third, and fourth Arnold Classic competitions. Coleman is 5'10" or 5'11" based on where you look on teh Interwebz.


L-R: Coleman, some fluorescent white bald guy (6'1") who NEVER shuts up

I'm 6 and a half, maybe I should list myself at 6' 4".

Maybe, I can pull more bitches...

Ronnie looked damn good in this picture, in regards to size.


Still would go with Arnold though.....

Backs of the "Champs"


(1,000 posts FTW!)

Originally Posted by djlance

Backs of the "Champs"


(1,000 posts FTW!)

who is on the left? dorian?

^^^^ Yup. That's Dorian.

Originally Posted by Curt James

lol Which ones were those?

imo all of them except his first one...there were way better roportioned guys all around him....i thin you could at least give flex one....levrone one or two(especially in 2000) thoough ronnie had him on legs...and cutler was the clear winner in 2001....the only era worse or more controversial than ronnies era is jays

Originally Posted by djlance

Backs of the "Champs"


(1,000 posts FTW!)

Congratulations on your 1,000th post!

And here's another great back. Joel Stubbs!

i would say arnold. gh and slin have brought this sport to another level but it has also caused some messed up looking physiques in some competitors

L-R: Serge Nubret, Sergio Oliva, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Great post!