I totally understand why the 2003 Ronnie is held in such high regard, but man, that gut is just unavoidable for me. Totally disrupts the flow. In the front double bicep, it looks like a beach ball is chilling in there
I might be one of the only people to point out that his facial structure and tissues changed throughout the years , just remember GH is a hellavuh drug
Thank you Marx Max Muscle! That was a very interesting presentation as always and I do agree with your conclusion, but my personal favourite version is '03
1998 all day just because he is extremely ripped, vascular, grainy and the symmetry was there with the deepest cuts and muscle separation . Some size would absolutely be sacrificed compared to 2003 but his physique was so much more detailed and better.
1993 coleman was by far the best, not from a bodybuilding standpoint, but from a aesthetic point of view, he was a god. A 1993 coleman would make bumstead look like an amateur in the classic physique mr olmypia.
I saw an interview where Ronnie said that If he had to pick a favourite version that he would pick 1998 because he didn't think he would place any higher than 5th going into that years Mr.Olympia
Ronnie was big in 03 but you could already see his lower back beginning to recede also his waistline grew taking away from the taper he had in 1999 which is clearly his best
99 english grand prix ronnie was the best single physique presented on stage oat. The lighting, the conditioning, the mass, and even the competitors were at their peaks like flex wheeler and kevin but ronnie is the goat
If Ronnie had got the surgery for his Diastasis Recti, the 2003 version would've been the most impressive specimen to ever compete, but because he never got the surgery, I'm gonna have to go with his 99 Olympia or 2001 Arnold versions.
He was the biggest and most shredded starting in 98. He could’ve maintained that physique and been Mr O 15 times but he chose to keep getting bigger.....and worse......like they all do!
The problem in 1999 is the photos, cause there are a lot that have SUCH A BAD QUALITY, and some others pictures are taken in the bad moment, and you can see it in the side triceps, cause he is not even flexing his abs, men he is just taking a rest, and there are other examples like the side chest, cause that photo just look like a screenshot (like most of 99 photos), actually if you take a look, you will find in internet a photo from the finals in 99 that shows how good was his side chest that year (and when you see the footage of 99 it’s just even more obvious, cause actually the footage look FAR BETTER that that shitty photos)
Not taking anything from the '98 '99 nor '03 which are phenomenal images but a handful of people would say the 2001 Arnold Classic was his best shape ever...
100% agree just unbelievably difficult to find high quality pictures from that show. Some on his website ronniecoleman.net with pics of him taken at the gym few weeks out as well-those pics really show the magnitude of amazing size, conditioning and lines prior to that 01 Arnold.
Don't like the way the pictures miss the lower leg and calf. And I didn't feel the thighs were showing clearly enough: the key difference between '98 and '99 is better legs in '99. Presentation aside, this comparison asks an existential question about bodybuilding: is it about aesthetics as well as sheer size and conditioning? The 90s Ronnie is awesome IMO, while '03 is freaky but utterly unattractive.
Yeah, IMO Ronnie was at his best in the late 90's. When he got bigger that gut got huge. But it's hard to compare exactly 3 different years, as the lighting is so different. At 6:30 it appears that 1998 is his best version back double biceps, but the other 2 years the lighting is way flatter. He' is definitely smoother in 2003, but looking carefully at 1999 - his condition there may be as good, but it's just that 1998 is lit more from above providing more dramatic shadows? In fact the 1999 pic may have been taken with a flash on the camera, and that always washes out detail.
Hey...I know!!! How about instead of just comparing one body part to another, or talking about dryness/graininess/vascularity as is so often the case, how about looking at Ronnie Coleman the person?!?!?! In this video, there are 9 different sets of comparison photos. 7 of those sets are forward-facing, so we can see his face. (And it is "not lost on me" that in one of the 2 sets of comparison photos where we do not see his face, starting at 6:00, we see a 1999 Coleman whose posterior gives me a guilt-induced migraine to end all migraines because I FEEL the horns starting to sprout through my skull!!!) In all but one of those sets, the 1998 and 1999 Colemans have a *much* better expression on his face than the 2003 Coleman - a more broadly beaming, effervescent, and clear smile, which, in comparison to the 2003 Coleman, almost make that version look like a mug, quite frankly. (And, I have to say, that in nearly every photo I have ever seen of the man, he looks like he's never had a single bad thought in his life because his facial expression is so mystifyingly exuberant - LOL. Certainly not to take a dig at him, because he is 100% man, but it is as if in so many photos, his expression is saying something like "Look, Ma, I'm the best good boy in the world!" LOL!) In the other one of those 7, the 1999 Coleman doesn't look too effervescent/bright/shiny, but at least he doesn't look any worse than the 2003 Coleman, but the 1998 version looks better in that and every other photo than the 2003 Coleman. So, in 6 of 7 sets of photos and 13 of 14 individual photos, 1998 and 1999 Coleman look much better, facially, than 2003 Coleman, in terms of energy output. Surely this should count for something and should be an obvious indicator of his health, which should somehow, hopefully, count for *something* in these competitions. Surely, there should be some way to actually quantify and be able to measure real, underlying health, rather than just muscular development, at bodybuilding competitions. Maybe there is, and I'm not an expert on the matter - just that I'm not hearing or reading many comments along these lines. Let's not forget to look at the WHOLE person.
@@iambodybuildingyt221 His stomach look bad in every front pose and looked bad in the side chest as well. He also was softer and more watery than 98 and 99 Coleman.
@Dom Bodybuilding Ronnie never used Synthol. His calves looked like that because they were like that, his insertions were short and if you look his first competing video, you will see that they always looked like that.
once Ronnie went full blown he went to s&*t. Just look at his posing for one.Look at his face.Not just here watch the videos.He went from near perfect to bloatlord. SURE he is a monster.We all love those monster physiques. BUT totally went overboard and lost his flow,lines,symmetry,tighter midsection,V taper etc. Just my unpopular opinion.
Max ronnie was weak on the side chest in 03 his midsection was weak and soft his upper body conditioning is weaker than 98 and 99 and the flow is not there compared to 98 and 99
@@michaeltrinibai5499 no but he is big and conditon while being symetrical. I got to look at it from a bb point of veiw not whay would i want to see ,be or whats most likley to be on a beach
@Michael Mayers I disagree, yes he is much bigger but the flow of his body from a symmetrical point of view isnt as appealing to the eye, his in depth cuts are almost none existant and his vascularity has deteriorated drastically. He did play the size game knowing most competitors wouldn't stand a chance to get to the size he was in 2003. I felt like 98 and 99 was all ART and vision and 2003 was all about being the biggest regardless of what it might take away from a physique stand point. In 98 and 99 you see striations in almost every pose and to top it off this abominable area in 98 and 99 was on point!! He didn't look pregnant at all compared to 2003.
03 is the least impressive. By far the least conditioned, proportions off. Unsymmetrical back. Size aint everything boys. 98-99 both great version but bcause of the gyno 99 wins
I totally understand why the 2003 Ronnie is held in such high regard, but man, that gut is just unavoidable for me. Totally disrupts the flow. In the front double bicep, it looks like a beach ball is chilling in there
The ab separation looks terrible.
Huge gap
For me his best psyhique was in 1999 but not on mr Olympia, but on British Grand Prix.
in grand prix 1999 everyone look like in his prime
Agree, in 1998 his symmetry and conditioning are top notch. Best Ronnie Coleman version to my eyes.
he says the same
I might be one of the only people to point out that his facial structure and tissues changed throughout the years , just remember GH is a hellavuh drug
His head and jaw got bigger
Thank you Marx Max Muscle! That was a very interesting presentation as always and I do agree with your conclusion, but my personal favourite version is '03
1998 all day just because he is extremely ripped, vascular, grainy and the symmetry was there with the deepest cuts and muscle separation . Some size would absolutely be sacrificed compared to 2003 but his physique was so much more detailed and better.
This super set man guy could become something...
Ronnie should've won the Mr. olympia all these years. Wow!
He did.
He did lol he won every year from 98-05
It was sarcasm brothers xD
Ik he is the GOAT!
@Pro life only
Dorian deserved only one olympia with your logic. He tore his biceps and his wais was fat.
1993 coleman was by far the best, not from a bodybuilding standpoint, but from a aesthetic point of view, he was a god. A 1993 coleman would make bumstead look like an amateur in the classic physique mr olmypia.
"he's thicc huh? Very thick I believe"
I saw an interview where Ronnie said that If he had to pick a favourite version that he would pick 1998 because he didn't think he would place any higher than 5th going into that years Mr.Olympia
His 2001 Arnold Classic was his best shape IMO
2003 Ronnie was just on another level compared to the other 2 years. Just look at his glutes and his hamstrings in 2003.
2003 is the worst between them
@@giovannirusso8423 depends on how you look at it, if you are going for mass 2003 wins easy
@@Atlas-mm3dn conditioning also
You make the worst takes on BB
The 99 physique was best of both worlds 👍
I subscribed because you are canadian. 😁
Cant deny the ridiculous mass of 2003 but 1999 was the most balanced of all 3 imo.
why does my mind synonymize ronnie coleman with greatness?
Ha! That's awesome! I've never heard or read anybody use the word "synonymous" transitively as a verb! You get points for that!
@@williamnoel1682 😂
Hi Marx,can u do Ron 03 vs 04? Thanks!
99 because it’s a hybrid in between 98 and 2003. 99 more then enough size and is ripped aesthetic and massive
+ no gyno
oof maroomph 100%
Overall 1999 is best version of ronnie
All three pictures are scaled different in the first shot. You can see it if you compare heads and hips. This makes a huge difference.
💯
Ronnie was big in 03 but you could already see his lower back beginning to recede also his waistline grew taking away from the taper he had in 1999 which is clearly his best
His tan in and oil in 99 is perfect
99 english grand prix ronnie was the best single physique presented on stage oat. The lighting, the conditioning, the mass, and even the competitors were at their peaks like flex wheeler and kevin but ronnie is the goat
If Ronnie had got the surgery for his Diastasis Recti, the 2003 version would've been the most impressive specimen to ever compete, but because he never got the surgery, I'm gonna have to go with his 99 Olympia or 2001 Arnold versions.
I think his first and last wins (1998 and 2005) were his best conditioning.
He was the biggest and most shredded starting in 98. He could’ve maintained that physique and been Mr O 15 times but he chose to keep getting bigger.....and worse......like they all do!
check the score cards for each year , judges have the last say regardless of what we think
Dude the front lat spread 1999 his lat was fine... he’s just not facing directly forward in that one.
Without the gyno '98 would be almost perfect!
Am I the only person who likes 2000 Ronnie the most?
1998 was the best beat favorites Fkex Wheeler and Kevin Levrone for the title
The actual demon with a back
Ronnie was an older guy in 03 and it showed. 98 and 99 all day but p3 wins the show due to shear mass
Only Ronnie Coleman can compete against himself and win!
1998!
2003 his waist got thicker.He loose the control 😣
In opinion 1999 was the most perfect version of Ronnie Coleman
1998 for me no gut can tell in his face he is peeled to the bone
you forget Arnold classic 2001
Ronnie shouldve just tried to maintain that 99 physique. I think he still wouldve won the same amount of titles. That 99 physique beats anyone.
in the 90s, bodybuilders had much more defined and harder muscles
the best decade in terms of mass and definition
How about Arnold Classic 2001?
99 all day!
The problem in 1999 is the photos, cause there are a lot that have SUCH A BAD QUALITY, and some others pictures are taken in the bad moment, and you can see it in the side triceps, cause he is not even flexing his abs, men he is just taking a rest, and there are other examples like the side chest, cause that photo just look like a screenshot (like most of 99 photos), actually if you take a look, you will find in internet a photo from the finals in 99 that shows how good was his side chest that year (and when you see the footage of 99 it’s just even more obvious, cause actually the footage look FAR BETTER that that shitty photos)
The 1998 Ronnie Coleman is the best.
Not taking anything from the '98 '99 nor '03 which are phenomenal images but a handful of people would say the 2001 Arnold Classic was his best shape ever...
It was a better 98 same conditioning but he didn't sacrifice fullness that year. And even if he had a gut 98 had gyno.
LEFT ONE
98 for me without a doubt, if only his gyno was in check
Read double bicep in 2003 looks too much. He is so massive that it's actually blurring out detail
yep, a big hamburger with biceps 😂
99 ronnie all day
1998
He's a jolly big chap.
01 Arnold hands down. He had condition of '98, size of '03, lines '99
100% agree just unbelievably difficult to find high quality pictures from that show. Some on his website ronniecoleman.net with pics of him taken at the gym few weeks out as well-those pics really show the magnitude of amazing size, conditioning and lines prior to that 01 Arnold.
hahah what?? size of '03?? He was just as small as he was in 1998, what are you talking about?
His 98 version was his alltime best, no doubt
You forget about 2001 arnold classic
Ronnie Coleman
IMO Ronnie looks best in 1999
Phil has way better separation , symmetry ,3D proportion
98 is the best
Don't like the way the pictures miss the lower leg and calf. And I didn't feel the thighs were showing clearly enough: the key difference between '98 and '99 is better legs in '99. Presentation aside, this comparison asks an existential question about bodybuilding: is it about aesthetics as well as sheer size and conditioning? The 90s Ronnie is awesome IMO, while '03 is freaky but utterly unattractive.
Yeah, IMO Ronnie was at his best in the late 90's. When he got bigger that gut got huge. But it's hard to compare exactly 3 different years, as the lighting is so different. At 6:30 it appears that 1998 is his best version back double biceps, but the other 2 years the lighting is way flatter. He' is definitely smoother in 2003, but looking carefully at 1999 - his condition there may be as good, but it's just that 1998 is lit more from above providing more dramatic shadows? In fact the 1999 pic may have been taken with a flash on the camera, and that always washes out detail.
@@mikthe2004 yeah it may be taken further off too. He just looks... Shrunk?
What are "lags"?
I think he’s saying “legs”
2003 may lose in this comparison, but this version cant be beaten by other bodybuilders imo
1999
Bodybuilding is a strange sport...a competitor can look like garbage standing relaxed, but master the mandatory poses and win the Olympia.
Ronnie far no weakness he could of win 12 titles
Grosso bello emuscoloso 10:46
Ur drunk
1999 was his best physique....
Photos doesn't do justice
yeeeeeee
1998.
I think roney 99 and 03 best version
98 for me
98. Minus the gyno.
Best glutes of all time. I wish he would've done a glute spread once or twice on stage. I would've loved that.
Pause.
Lol tf
🤔
Ayo what
Ronnie fanboys are something else lmao
Please Marx do Robby Robinson vs Shawn Ray
7:14 he didn't say that, he said "CHCKIN" SWEET POTATOES, anyway he and Paul Dillet were the greatest
2005
colman 1997 is my fav - but not at mr olympia
98
My vote goes to '99 Olympia, but I have a feeling that '01 Arnold Classic would take the cake if it were here!
Stomach looks too weird 2003
1998-1999 looks big enough & aesthetic
I still say 99
99 best
YOUR SOUL" LOL"
Hey...I know!!! How about instead of just comparing one body part to another, or talking about dryness/graininess/vascularity as is so often the case, how about looking at Ronnie Coleman the person?!?!?! In this video, there are 9 different sets of comparison photos. 7 of those sets are forward-facing, so we can see his face. (And it is "not lost on me" that in one of the 2 sets of comparison photos where we do not see his face, starting at 6:00, we see a 1999 Coleman whose posterior gives me a guilt-induced migraine to end all migraines because I FEEL the horns starting to sprout through my skull!!!) In all but one of those sets, the 1998 and 1999 Colemans have a *much* better expression on his face than the 2003 Coleman - a more broadly beaming, effervescent, and clear smile, which, in comparison to the 2003 Coleman, almost make that version look like a mug, quite frankly. (And, I have to say, that in nearly every photo I have ever seen of the man, he looks like he's never had a single bad thought in his life because his facial expression is so mystifyingly exuberant - LOL. Certainly not to take a dig at him, because he is 100% man, but it is as if in so many photos, his expression is saying something like "Look, Ma, I'm the best good boy in the world!" LOL!) In the other one of those 7, the 1999 Coleman doesn't look too effervescent/bright/shiny, but at least he doesn't look any worse than the 2003 Coleman, but the 1998 version looks better in that and every other photo than the 2003 Coleman. So, in 6 of 7 sets of photos and 13 of 14 individual photos, 1998 and 1999 Coleman look much better, facially, than 2003 Coleman, in terms of energy output. Surely this should count for something and should be an obvious indicator of his health, which should somehow, hopefully, count for *something* in these competitions. Surely, there should be some way to actually quantify and be able to measure real, underlying health, rather than just muscular development, at bodybuilding competitions. Maybe there is, and I'm not an expert on the matter - just that I'm not hearing or reading many comments along these lines. Let's not forget to look at the WHOLE person.
2003 wins for me no matter what he left the planet that year
His gut declared it's indepedence that year.
@@xaviervega468 his stomach only looked bad in the most muscular no one in history can beat 2003 Ronnie coleman
@@iambodybuildingyt221 His stomach look bad in every front pose and looked bad in the side chest as well. He also was softer and more watery than 98 and 99 Coleman.
@@xaviervega468 even if his stomach wasn't at his best overall Ronnie was untouchable in 2003
@@iambodybuildingyt221 It's not even the best version of Ronnie
I’ve seen better pictures of 99 the ones in this video doesn’t do him justice. He is just as good as 98 just without gyno
99 dude... wth
he didnt have bad calves at all lol
Dom Bodybuilding maybe, but they didn’t look as awkward as Dex’s or Flex’s
@Dom Bodybuilding Ronnie never used Synthol. His calves looked like that because they were like that, his insertions were short and if you look his first competing video, you will see that they always looked like that.
@@DruiD.aprime never?lol
@@caleyyyjeen9750 do you have any proofs ?
Pro life only yoooo, small says the amateur for life 😂😂😂🤣
98 by a Lidddle
2003 is horrible. No flow, the gut ruins everything. As we saw with Dorian, Jay, Ronnie and Phil… they were at the best when they was smaller
once Ronnie went full blown he went to s&*t. Just look at his posing for one.Look at his face.Not just here watch the videos.He went from near perfect to bloatlord. SURE he is a monster.We all love those monster physiques. BUT totally went overboard and lost his flow,lines,symmetry,tighter midsection,V taper etc. Just my unpopular opinion.
Yeah, as shocking as his growth was from 2002 to 2003, it was not an improved overall look. That bloated gut was pretty disgusting!
2003 to me is the all time best
Coleman's 2003 physique is one the most overrated physiques ever.
Max ronnie was weak on the side chest in 03 his midsection was weak and soft his upper body conditioning is weaker than 98 and 99 and the flow is not there compared to 98 and 99
2003 easy he is a monster and better bb. Look as t the arms
He had much worse conditioning in 03
@@menknurlan stills out muscles them
Size isn't everything
@@michaeltrinibai5499 no but he is big and conditon while being symetrical. I got to look at it from a bb point of veiw not whay would i want to see ,be or whats most likley to be on a beach
@Michael Mayers I disagree, yes he is much bigger but the flow of his body from a symmetrical point of view isnt as appealing to the eye, his in depth cuts are almost none existant and his vascularity has deteriorated drastically. He did play the size game knowing most competitors wouldn't stand a chance to get to the size he was in 2003. I felt like 98 and 99 was all ART and vision and 2003 was all about being the biggest regardless of what it might take away from a physique stand point. In 98 and 99 you see striations in almost every pose and to top it off this abominable area in 98 and 99 was on point!! He didn't look pregnant at all compared to 2003.
All these comparisons are stupid. You cant compare anything until you are on the same stage with same lighting and camera.
03 is the least impressive. By far the least conditioned, proportions off. Unsymmetrical back. Size aint everything boys.
98-99 both great version but bcause of the gyno 99 wins
03 is to big it would win easy
he was pregnant back in then so..
Y see better in 2003
1999 is bad angled