ronnie / dorian / arnold back comparison

natedogg · 11-16-2005, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by max-rot98

Thread is old I know but I just stumbled onto it and I know for a fact arnold is less than 6'. Stood right next to him coleman cutler dorian etc many many times before at the arnold. The only real tall bb's are lou ferrigno, art atwood, markus ruhl, and a select few more. Arnie is at most 5-11 and the same applies for ron and dorian. POSITIVE!

I've had the oppurtunity to shake Dorian's hand and he isn't 5-11. I'm 6' and he was at least 2 to 3 inches shorter than I was.

Grifter · 11-16-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magickk

I would never want to be as big as any of them... But I wouldn't mind looking a tad smaller than like a 20 year old arnold

Same here.

max-rot98 · 11-17-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by natedogg

I've had the oppurtunity to shake Dorian's hand and he isn't 5-11. I'm 6' and he was at least 2 to 3 inches shorter than I was.

Exactly like I said at most 5-11. Oh yeah gunter is pretty tall too.

Nullifidian · 11-17-2005, 02:56 PM

Well, one thing is for sure, Dorian seemed to be a lot taller than I am. I'm 5'6.5" though so that doesn't say much. But honestly I don't think he could possibly be any shorter than 5'10".

Highschool man · 11-17-2005, 06:07 PM

If your looking for wideness its Ronnie.

But I also prefer Arnolds look alot more than Ronnie's or any of the top BB's today. They are just way to big, bulging guts, and the muscles are not proportionate to each other, where as Arnold's muscles look well together.

logan · 11-18-2005, 08:27 PM

I like Dorian and Arnold's backs. They seem to have lats that insert a bit lower than Coleman(although his is freaking wide!)

In regards to Arnold's height, it is very possible he used to be 6'2 or so back in the 70's. That was over 30 years ago and the man is in his 50's, of course he isn't as tall anymore, you loose a few inches as you get older!!!

What we need is someone who met him in the 70's to tell us how tall he was.

max-rot98 · 11-22-2005, 11:34 AM

Sorry dude my father is fifty and has remained 6'2" since his early 20's. If arnie was 80+ that theory might hold but the guy didn't lose four inches. From 25 to 50. No way.

Nullifidian · 11-22-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan

I like Dorian and Arnold's backs. They seem to have lats that insert a bit lower than Coleman(although his is freaking wide!)

In regards to Arnold's height, it is very possible he used to be 6'2 or so back in the 70's. That was over 30 years ago and the man is in his 50's, of course he isn't as tall anymore, you loose a few inches as you get older!!!

What we need is someone who met him in the 70's to tell us how tall he was.

This especially doesn't hold up for 2 very important reasons.

People only lose height when their bone density is fairly low.

1) Arnold's bone density is high because he took Dianabol for many years; a drug that at one time was prescribe explicitly to increase bone density.

2) Weight training increases bone density, and Arnold still trains regularly.

Gettinpumped · 03-15-2006, 09:07 PM

Ronnie without a doubt

Beatmaster · 03-16-2006, 06:29 PM

yates, all the way, can't stand coleman........

Kris4153 · 03-16-2006, 07:41 PM

Yates has the bast by far. Ronnies looks deformed

mrallnatural · 03-26-2006, 05:49 PM

I think Dorian has the better back overall.....his traps blend right into his massive back and that is the look I think the judges look for. Has more detail also...but then again it depends when the pics were taken....night of a show??? Weeks before a show??? After a Show?? Ronnie, Arnold in pants but Dorian in posing trunks....

As for height....Danny Padilla trains at our gym and whom I'm also good friends with....According to Danny....Arnold was not the 6'2" or 6'3" that he, weider and mags claimed he was. Size sells products...so the bigger the better for business.

How about Lee Haneys Back...compare all 4....love to see that!

ktw · 03-29-2006, 08:42 PM

Ok if Arnold was 230 contest, and Ronnie has been 287 in contest, there is no comparison. Arnold looks like a statue of a Greek God or something, Ronnie and Dorian look like a genetic creation made in a lab. They do not even look remotely human anymore. I hate the way bodybuilders look today compared to the 60's and 70's. Sure they are bigger and stuff, but Draper and Arnold looked healthy and beastly and actually resembled human perfection.

James · 04-28-2006, 07:58 PM

Have to go with Yates.

**Zero Tolerance** · 05-07-2006, 02:30 AM

Coleman looks like he's pumped with synthol.. Come on.. Look at the bottom of his lats. heh.

**Zero Tolerance** · 05-07-2006, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktw

Ok if Arnold was 230 contest, and Ronnie has been 287 in contest, there is no comparison. Arnold looks like a statue of a Greek God or something, Ronnie and Dorian look like a genetic creation made in a lab. They do not even look remotely human anymore. I hate the way bodybuilders look today compared to the 60's and 70's. Sure they are bigger and stuff, but Draper and Arnold looked healthy and beastly and actually resembled human perfection.

YOU'RE RIGHT! Arnold looks human. Yates and Coleman look like lab experiments.

**BigVrunga** · 05-13-2006, 08:13 PM

Arnold all the way...

LCSULLA · 05-13-2006, 10:41 PM

Art Jones measured Arnolds arm in the 70's and I think it came out to be slightly over 19.
And Dorian is/was a gentic freak. He doesn't compete anymore but weighs about 225-230 at 5'9 5'10 and fairly lean.

heftylefty58 · 05-14-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kris4153

Yates has the bast by far. Ronnies looks deformed.

I agree 100%. For this particular shot of Ronnie, his back is so voluminous that the muscles almost look like they create fat creases to me. I think it's just the angle at which his outer lats hang from his side. As far as aesthetics goes, I'd rank Dorian first, Arnold second, and Ronnie last.