-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
u agree?
- Thread starter internal
- Start date
Arnold's back was awesome.
Indeed it was.musclepump said:
Arnold's legs weren't even "bad," they were simply overshadowed by his dominant upper body. And he has the same problem all bodybuilders taller than 5'8 do. THEY'RE TALL.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Sioux Falls South Dakota
Tall one here, 6'5 sucks, even with 28" quads, and 18" calves i look like a damn ostrich. lol It will all work out. Arnold was supreme, and dominant in all.
Arnold was good, a lot better then a lot of pro's today, but nowaday they look for the complete body, and you will never know how arnold's leggs will have looked if they got bigger, they might look like Mustafa Mohammed's leg, and then he would not even come close to the title, or like Coleman's and he would indeed rule supreme, but because we don't know and never will, I considder Coleman the all time greatest.Robert DiMaggio said:
Coleman has some weak points, without a doubt, but his strongpoints are so strong that they make his weakpoints dissapear(whatup foreman? bring it bitch!)
Also Coleman is 65 pounds heavier then Arnold, and that's not just leggs, it's back as well, and shoulders, but can you even compare them?, are they not to different to be compared?, are they not just both the greatest in their time?
Or is Coleman the all time greatest
THEUNIT(XXL) said:Arnold was good, a lot better then a lot of pro's today, but nowaday they look for the complete body, and you will never know how arnold's leggs will have looked if they got bigger, they might look like Mustafa Mohammed's leg, and then he would not even come close to the title, or like Coleman's and he would indeed rule supreme, but because we don't know and never will, I considder Coleman the all time greatest.
Coleman has some weak points, without a doubt, but his strongpoints are so strong that they make his weakpoints dissapear(whatup foreman? bring it bitch!)
Also Coleman is 65 pounds heavier then Arnold, and that's not just leggs, it's back as well, and shoulders, but can you even compare them?, are they not to different to be compared?, are they not just both the greatest in their time?
Or is Coleman the all time greatest
I honestly think Ronnie has better "medicine" than Arnold had.
I agree, that's what I meant by saying that we don't know what his leggs would have looked like, 65 pounds heavier, look at Mustafa Mohammed, big leggs but the leggs look really bad, if Arnold had better medicine, and was able to make them grow bigger, they might look like his leggs!, And if you look at Mustafa, he has an upper body to match Coleman and Cutler, maybe even a little better, but his leggs are just so ugly, that he will never win the Mr.Olympia.
So there is no way of telling how Arnold would have looked.
So there is no way of telling how Arnold would have looked.
THEUNIT(XXL) said:
Yeah, Mustafa's legs are huge, but they tend to have that "so-big-that-has-to-be-synthol" look, even being real muscle.
But do you think he used synthol for real?musclepump said:
THEUNIT(XXL) said:
Dr. E has some bigger fish to fry, Ill handle this for him.
First, lets start with...
Bad pic, I know, couldnt find any published ones of his side "tricep" if you could call it that
Moving on...
These 2 areas speak for themselves
And this one, wow. Wow, just put your hands down Mr. Coleman, nobody needs to see that...
Ronnie is a piece of shit.....you will burn in hell for disrespecting Arnold son.THEUNIT(XXL) said:Arnold was good, a lot better then a lot of pro's today, but nowaday they look for the complete body, and you will never know how arnold's leggs will have looked if they got bigger, they might look like Mustafa Mohammed's leg, and then he would not even come close to the title, or like Coleman's and he would indeed rule supreme, but because we don't know and never will, I considder Coleman the all time greatest.
Coleman has some weak points, without a doubt, but his strongpoints are so strong that they make his weakpoints dissapear(whatup foreman? bring it bitch!)
Also Coleman is 65 pounds heavier then Arnold, and that's not just leggs, it's back as well, and shoulders, but can you even compare them?, are they not to different to be compared?, are they not just both the greatest in their time?
Or is Coleman the all time greatest
@fish, Coleman does wat needs to be done, and his competition has pushed him to this point, so yes some parts are lacking a little, but I will say this: the 2006 Mr.Olympia, will be the greatest shape he has ever walked on stage with.
@fore^*#, I guess I'll be there next to Foreman(for all of the payoffs he did to win) and Arnold(for all of the payoffs he did to win in 1980) and the Myth(for having smaller arms then Coleman).
@fore^*#, I guess I'll be there next to Foreman(for all of the payoffs he did to win) and Arnold(for all of the payoffs he did to win in 1980) and the Myth(for having smaller arms then Coleman).
IDK man, im just not keen on the whole mass monster movement, ya know?
