99 coleman = greatest bb as of yet.
i think people who vote arnold maybe do so because he isn't so insanely massive and ridiculous as ronnie, and possibly they see arnold's build as more achievable and therefore can identify with his physique more :dunnodude: idk just a theory because i don't see how you can possibly say arnold beats ronnie from a bodybuilding criteria perspective.
I think Arnold himself would laugh at the idea that he looked better than Ronnie. Don't get me wrong, I love Arnold, if I could look like either I would choose Arnold, but there is no comparison to be made on a bodybuilding level.
This should not even be a contest, Arnold was great at this time and did the most to build the sports popularity. But from a bodybuilding perspective Ronnie wins in every aspect other than calves.
From a personal standpoint Arnold's physique may be more desirable and attainable. But the two generations are apples and oranges and not even fair.
yup exactly. those who vote arnold are judging more on who looks "cooler" or who they would more like to look like. hey even if you don't want to look like ronnie, you got to give the man his due. based on what bodybuilding is judged on, ronnie wins in a total landslide.
My 2 cents.
No matter how you look at it a 97-98-99 Ronnie Coleman (those where the years where he looked the best IMO) and put him up against Arnold, Coleman would win hands down.
a very understandable justification. but what i think you fail to see is what ronnie looked like in the early 90's. the man was highly aesthetic. it seems to me you are judging ronnie more on his olympia wins overall (his reign can be summed up by some as him just being the biggest, most ripped competitor alive) rather than particular years when he was absolutely unreal. even with your criteria factored into the judging equation, i don't see how you can place arnold from any year above say, 99' coleman?