homegrowncc
New member
In which order from biggest to smallest.
Is mariuz bigger than brock? Where does ronnie coleman fit.
Is mariuz bigger than brock? Where does ronnie coleman fit.
Who is bigger Brock lesnar, Ronnie coleman or mariuz?
- Thread starter homegrowncc
- Start date
Young Gotti
Well-known member
define biggest....tallest? most muscular?....ronnie in his prime? because brock sits at a way higher bodyfat % than ronnie did
to me ronnie on stage is a more impressive example of size than what brock displayed in the ufc
to me ronnie on stage is a more impressive example of size than what brock displayed in the ufc
Torobestia
Well-known member
Completely agree. And in terms of muscle size there's no comparison (Ronnie taking the cake), partly due to the height difference.
Factually speaking, Ronnie weighed more than Brock when they were both off season and both in season.
jmiyamoto
New member
In terms of height, that's easy -- Brock Lesnar is 6'3", so he's taller than all of them.
In terms of muscle-to-height ratio? Ronnie Coleman, no contest. His contest weight is 300lb and his offseason weight is 330lb. Brock's "contest" weight (the weight he had to cut for the UFC) is a little under 265lb, and his "offseason" weight (when not cutting for the UFC) is approximately 285. In both cases that puts Ronnie with 35lb and 45lb respectively on Lesnar, and in both cases with far more muscle mass. This is not taking into consideration that Lesnar, when cut for the UFC, is still at a considerably higher body fat % than Coleman; if Brock had cut down to Ronnie's contest body fat percentage for the UFC, he'd be closer to 250lb. Ronnie has between 30-50lb (but probably closer to 40-50lb) of muscle on Lesnar at any given time.
Think about how much of a difference 40lbs of muscle would make. That's the difference.
Or, to put it another way: if Brock Lesnar had Ronnie Coleman's size at his height, he'd weigh something like 380lbs.
In terms of muscle-to-height ratio? Ronnie Coleman, no contest. His contest weight is 300lb and his offseason weight is 330lb. Brock's "contest" weight (the weight he had to cut for the UFC) is a little under 265lb, and his "offseason" weight (when not cutting for the UFC) is approximately 285. In both cases that puts Ronnie with 35lb and 45lb respectively on Lesnar, and in both cases with far more muscle mass. This is not taking into consideration that Lesnar, when cut for the UFC, is still at a considerably higher body fat % than Coleman; if Brock had cut down to Ronnie's contest body fat percentage for the UFC, he'd be closer to 250lb. Ronnie has between 30-50lb (but probably closer to 40-50lb) of muscle on Lesnar at any given time.
Think about how much of a difference 40lbs of muscle would make. That's the difference.
Or, to put it another way: if Brock Lesnar had Ronnie Coleman's size at his height, he'd weigh something like 380lbs.
killandgo
New member
I've seen all three in person. Just in clothes (not talking height, just SIZE.) 1. Mariusz 2. Brock 3. Ronnie (at the 95 Mr. O, this was before he got really jacked, though).
In offseason mode, probably Ronnie and Mariusz would be pretty comparable. Ronnie would look more ridiculous. Even though he was strong, he was a bb'er, where Mariusz was a strongman, geared towards functionality. For fat-free muscle, Ronnie wins hands-down. Mariusz was pretty jacked, though.
I seen Brock at his biggest when he was first starting out with the WWE at the gym. He was f'in huge. By far the biggest wrestler I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen pro wrestlers, most of them look WAY smaller in person. I dwarfed the late Chris Benoit, which surprised me, since he looked so muscular on TV.
In offseason mode, probably Ronnie and Mariusz would be pretty comparable. Ronnie would look more ridiculous. Even though he was strong, he was a bb'er, where Mariusz was a strongman, geared towards functionality. For fat-free muscle, Ronnie wins hands-down. Mariusz was pretty jacked, though.
I seen Brock at his biggest when he was first starting out with the WWE at the gym. He was f'in huge. By far the biggest wrestler I've ever seen. For those who haven't seen pro wrestlers, most of them look WAY smaller in person. I dwarfed the late Chris Benoit, which surprised me, since he looked so muscular on TV.
Zac Speed
Member
You ever seen Ronnie's workouts? He's every bit as strong as Marius.
Rodja
Board Sponsor
Pure strength, Mariusz is much stronger. The famous vid of Ronnie squatting 800 isn't raw; it's in a suit. Mariusz has squatted ~830 and pulled ~900 raw.
Torobestia
Well-known member
Mariusz is probably on the same level as Brock regarding athleticism. If you mentioned that because Mariusz got his ass beat in MMA I would attribute that not to a lack of athleticism but rather a lack of training/skill in the discipline of fighting. Many Strongman events certainly have a high demand for superb conditioning.
Torobestia
Well-known member
Haha, I wasn't even aware of his career after fighting.
kingk0ng
Active member
Totally agree here. Professional wrestlers are athletes that sacrifice a lot and regardless if the show is staged or not, they do take a lot of hard hits and risks for the cameras.
Brock Lesnar isn't just a WWE superstar. Brock was an NCAA wrestling champion, WWE Wrestling Champion, UFC World Heavyweight Champion and he spent some time in the NFL. How many people on this board could accomplish one and I mean just one of those four things?
Brocks physique is kind of weird looking. He looks like a heavier guy that would gas quickly, but if you watch his workouts or even watch him in the ring he has tremendous conditioning and athleticism. Brock was such a star in the WWE because he had the strength of the Big Show, the wrestling ability of Kurt Angle/Bret Hart, but he could move like Eddie Guerrero; those traits are very rare to find in an athlete.
I could never imagine Lesnar being a bodybuilder, because he doesn't have the symmetry; the muscle density/visibility. Lesnar is probably the tallest out of the guys, but Ronnie Coleman or Marius would look "bigger" muscular wise just due to their muscle density.