Arnold and coleman posedown

we're talking about Arnold ... long before growth hormones were even fathomed. Imagine if Arnold added GH to the mix?? Coleman who?

And being 6'1" versus Coleman's 5'11", I give more credit to the taller guys. It's more difficult for the tall guys to build that kind of shape than it is for the short guys.... but damn Coleman's legs are like oak trees.
 
The_Iceman said:
were both pictures taken at the same distance? is so, ronnie is taller than i thought. and is it just me or do arnold's arms look way bigger?
Click to expand...


arnold's Bi's are bigger.

man.. even when Ronnie is on constant GH. i see more definition on

Arnold. Arnold Rocks dude. he had the perfect body.
 
if the judges are looking for symetry and proportion, that would be Arnold.
if the judges are looking for mass with a bit of symetry and proportion,
that would be Ronnie.
But still, Arnold would win. Good separations, tight waistline, and your ideal bodybuilder.
 
arnold has always and will always be the best. The 70's in my opinion were the golden years of bodybuilding, back when it was more about an aesthetically pleasing physique and not just pure mass thats cut. Look at Arnolds waste compared to Coleman's it is way better, and honestly i think the shape of arnolds muscles is better too. Besides Coleman may be huge, but I don't think he could even do a vacuum pose.
 
they werent trying to acheive the same bodies, so "better" is a pretty relative word. Arnold was perfect for 1975, and I fuckin love his body, but it doesnt match todays standards.
 
I can appreciate Ronnie's size, but I'm a beigger fan Arnold's proportions and balance. The fact is that they both had to build the physique required to win for their times. Also, I doubt Ronnie would have all that size without the improved drugs and methods available today. Those pictures don't really show a lot as they are. You would have to have them in the the same lighting, same distance from the camera, etc to really tell much. I don't think anyone would believe Arnold was as close to Ronnie's size as the pictures seem to suggest. Either way they both are inspirational.
 
arnold was better for his time, but anyone who thinks he would stand a chance today against ronnie is an idiot. 5'10 294 lbs and probably less bodyfat than arnold was at 6'4 240 lbs? Arnold would not stand a chance, all arnold has is biceps and chest. Any pic showing their backs, legs, or triceps coleman would kill him.
 
whatever your vote is, comes down to personal preference, or judging criteria. If you like aesthetics n symmetry, arnie gets the nod.
If you want vascular striated muscle mass, ronnie gets the nod hands down. In fact if you could put arnie's prime physique against ronnie's today, he doesn't stand a chance, he's a stack of dimes next to ronnie just like everyone else. Personally though, i like arnolds look much better, its one that i wouldn't mind having for myself. I'm sure most girls are disgusted when they see something as freaky as ronnie w/ acceptions of course, but i don't know too many girls that didnt like a body like arnolds.
 
nabiller said:
... my opinion: arnold started BBing from a way young age... wasnt it like 14? well lifting at such a young age during puberty could train your muscles earlier, and in the long run make them look way better. ive noticed that with me- i used to work a lot of chest and tri's when i was in high school, dont ask me why, but most of my workout was chest and tri's. and now they are way better then my other body parts andi have to work twice as hard on them to match my chest and tri's. getting started younger would be more beneficial in muscle shape and development imo...
Click to expand...

I think starting early has something to do with it too. I'm glad I've finally found someone who agrees. However, my problem is with my legs and traps. They respond to training better than any other part of my body. Training for American football in high school, I worked everything, but legs were stressed in our program. So, all my show muscles (bis, chest) have trouble keeping up. I'm 15% BF right now, and I still have veins standing out on my thighs. I WISH I could have that problem with my chest.

As far as Coleman and Arnold goes, I go with Arnold. I like the less pharmaceutical look. Ronnie probably spends more on pharmies in a year than an entire Grateful Dead tour's worth of hippies. :druggie: On a more serious note, Ronnie is incredible, regardless. As far as his weight, I agree that part of Coleman's weight advantage is that every organ in his body is probably twice its original size, not to take away though from his incredible leg development which also makes up part of his weight advantage.

Did you guys check out the Coleman 800 lb deadlift video? Incredible. There's a guy at my gym that's in his late 40s, and he can still deadift 850. He's an all natural powerlifter; well, he tried 1-AD for 2 weeks and hated it. Other than that, he's a naturale.
 
Once and for all: Ronnie is 5'11" and Arnold is supposed to be 6'2" (according to pumping iron), but apparently "his spokespeople" say his height is 6' flat. I heard that many people were surprised at how much shorter than expected he was during the recall election campaign last year. Another theory is that Arnie wears risers in his boots when out in public, check out the link if you want:

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-177.html

PS I like Arnold's physique better, I like the old school 70s builders better aswell, I think these days size is way to wanted instead of definition.
 
Last edited:
h-town_boy said:
arnold is 6'2", coleman is 5'11"
Click to expand...
I can't believe nobody here has challenged this. Has nobody ever stood next to Ronnie Coleman. I have and I am 5'9" and I was looking down at him. Now don't get me wrong I have total respect for what Ronnie has accomplish but I just can't understand why he would write 5'11" on his website when he is clearly 5'8".
As for comparing him to Arnold, come on people. Ronnie Coleman looks like a power lifter next to Arnold. I mean if Ronnie looks better then why stop there, why not Gene Rychklack.
 
Arnie's the man hands down. Coleman's quads are too big. It looks supernatural. Coleman has done some great work though. His pic there can't be recent, I thought his contest weight was in the 290's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
10 week Test Prop & Anavar - First Cycle
Replies
1
Views
703
Milton
Milton
V
What’s a “Normal” Testosterone Level and How to Measure Your Test (How to get bloods)
Replies
4
Views
7K
.Vision.
V
Fullgoldcrown
I would love to see some new viewpoints and peptide vets in here!
Replies
1
Views
757
Fullgoldcrown
Fullgoldcrown
S
Cypionate working or placebo effect?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Sedg1
S
S
New to TRT
Replies
8
Views
1K
LittleJohnny
L
Back
Top