Braaq
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 5,992
- Points
- 38
He was impressive
until he killed someone, wasnt it his gf?
He was impressive
The massive Oak chest
^^ its about the side chest pose nothing to do with legs.
^^ its about the side chest pose nothing to do with legs.
I would go with the Oak.
until he killed someone, wasnt it his gf?
I think it is definitely safe to say you know nothing about bodybuilding and have not competed have you? In every pose every part is included, even if your emphasizing on a certain area like side chest. oh the nieve ones on here
No i haven't competed yet why, have you? Also whats with the best chest 30 years ago statment? You clearly are blind and need to buy a pair of glasses.
Yes, little one I have competed and have been into this sport for many years. To think that legs are not apart of side chest shows your ignorance.
I think it is you who needs to open your eyes little guy, Arnold had a great side chest no doubt. But as far as thickness goes, he is no where near the bodybuilders of today. That is what we are talking about, so before you try to spout your mouth off like you have something to say.... think first so you dont embarass yourself again. Your comparing apples and oranges buddy. Arnold didnt even have the thickest side chest of his day, Franco easily took that title. Arnold was just a better poser.
Little guy? Right we all know where this is going lol. Right only embarrasing your self on a internet forum concerns you.
I had no fued, i am also learning about the posing and what gets counted. I just thought Arnold looked better thats all but if its everything Ronnie does win because of legs.
There ya go, that is all you have to say. Stating one's opinion is really all we are all doing on here. Didnt mean to get personal there, so that is my bad.
Arnold has an awesome side chest, that is what got him discovered by Joe Weider. But comparing him to Ronnie Coleman is apples and oranges. Two completely different genres and bodybuilders.