# u agree?



## internal (Mar 18, 2006)

in my opinion arnold dominated his era due to his fantastic bis and chest only other guys could beat him in any other areas (lats,, back...?) u agree?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 18, 2006)

his entire upper body.


----------



## musclepump (Mar 18, 2006)

Arnold's back was awesome.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Mar 18, 2006)

musclepump said:
			
		

> Arnold's back was awesome.


Indeed it was.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 18, 2006)

every part of his upper body was awesome, he had no weak spot from the waist up.


----------



## musclepump (Mar 18, 2006)

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.


----------



## NEW_IN_THE_GAME (Mar 18, 2006)

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.


----------



## Mudge (Mar 18, 2006)

All of them had tiny legs back then, that was the standard.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 19, 2006)

Mudge said:
			
		

> All of them had tiny legs back then, that was the standard.



pretty much, if Arnold was in today's era I think he would be the Mr.O for as long as he wanted.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Mar 19, 2006)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> pretty much, if Arnold was in today's era I think he would be the Mr.O for as long as he wanted.


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


----------



## min0 lee (Mar 19, 2006)

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.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Mar 19, 2006)

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.


----------



## musclepump (Mar 19, 2006)

THEUNIT(XXL) said:
			
		

> 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.



Yeah, Mustafa's legs are huge, but they tend to have that "so-big-that-has-to-be-synthol" look, even being real muscle.


----------



## internal (Mar 20, 2006)

i see that sergio had to edge him away in 72 !! he didint deserve it ,, like mentzer in 80 ..bb is all about names !!


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Mar 20, 2006)

musclepump 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?


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Mar 20, 2006)

THEUNIT(XXL) 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!)



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...


----------



## GFR (Mar 20, 2006)

internal said:
			
		

> in my opinion arnold dominated his era due to his fantastic bis and chest only other guys could beat him in any other areas (lats,, back...?) u agree?


Many people forget Arnold had amazing symmetry and the best shaped legs of his day.


----------



## GFR (Mar 20, 2006)

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


Ronnie is a piece of shit.....you will burn in hell for disrespecting Arnold son.


----------



## GFR (Mar 20, 2006)

internal said:
			
		

> i see that sergio had to edge him away in 72 !! he didint deserve it ,, like mentzer in 80 ..bb is all about names !!


I have watched the film of the 1972 Mr O and Sergio did win IMO......but in 1980 Mentzer looked like shit with a huge gut...Arnold won the 80 olympia easily.


----------



## THEUNIT(XXL) (Mar 22, 2006)

@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).


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Mar 22, 2006)

IDK man, im just not keen on the whole mass monster movement, ya know?


----------

