# Arnold Vs Ronnie Coleman?



## TJTJ (Dec 15, 2011)




----------



## GFR (Dec 15, 2011)

Ronnie has the bigger gut so he wins.


----------



## D-Lats (Dec 15, 2011)

Not comparable.


----------



## Curt James (Dec 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 15, 2011)

curt james said:


> 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!


----------



## Curt James (Dec 15, 2011)

^^^^ 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.


----------



## Curt James (Dec 15, 2011)

YouTube Video


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 15, 2011)

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


----------



## slownsteady (Dec 15, 2011)

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.


----------



## ebn2002 (Dec 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## bdeljoose (Dec 16, 2011)

I bet Ronnie has a bigger crank.


----------



## banker23 (Dec 16, 2011)

ebn2002 said:


> 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.


----------



## banker23 (Dec 16, 2011)

bdeljoose said:


> 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...


----------



## banker23 (Dec 16, 2011)

Curt James said:


> ^^^^ 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)


----------



## PushAndPull (Dec 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## wisco (Dec 16, 2011)

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


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 16, 2011)

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..


----------



## Curt James (Dec 16, 2011)

IronAddict said:


> 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


----------



## Curt James (Dec 16, 2011)

KILLEROFSAINTS said:


> 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?


----------



## IronAddict (Dec 16, 2011)

Curt James said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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

Maybe, I can pull more bitches...


----------



## ~RaZr~ (Dec 16, 2011)

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





Still would go with Arnold though.....


----------



## ~RaZr~ (Dec 16, 2011)

Backs of the "Champs"  





*(1,000 posts FTW!)*


----------



## alex_200 (Dec 16, 2011)

djlance said:


> Backs of the "Champs"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



who is on the left? dorian?


----------



## Curt James (Dec 16, 2011)

^^^^ Yup. That's Dorian.


----------



## KILLEROFSAINTS (Dec 16, 2011)

Curt James said:


> 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


----------



## Curt James (Dec 16, 2011)

djlance said:


> Backs of the "Champs"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congratulations on your 1,000th post!

And here's _another _great back. Joel Stubbs!


----------



## juicespringsteen (Dec 16, 2011)

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


----------



## Curt James (Dec 16, 2011)

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


----------



## Lang (Dec 18, 2011)

Great post!


----------



## JJ-INSANE1 (Dec 18, 2011)

Arnold's physique was good during his time , but would never beat the freaks of today . I think he could have given Lee Haney a run for his money , but unlikely he would have won .


----------



## Orlag (Dec 19, 2011)

They come from completely different eras in body building, so its hard to compare.

I don't Arnie wouldn't have a chance of winning the Olympia these days.
But Ronnie probably wouldn't have won back in Arnies day, he simply would have been to much of a freak, no way they would have been ready for that.


----------



## megatron_rulz (Dec 20, 2011)

Very hard to compare the two across two different eras.  But, for me, Arnold - no doubt.  Coleman could be the GOAT, though as far as mass.

I would want a body that when I walked down the beach, the girls would say "WOW" not "YUCK"

Plus, I am sure Arnold's life was much more comfortable knowing that he could slim down in the offseason and could probably sleep better, wipe his own ass, etc.


----------

