I agree.
IMO some of these people here seem to have a fascination with someone “dwarfing” someone else in real life and it is invariably linked with their own self perception.
As far as MOST muscular ever, we don’t know about that. Ronnie had THE combination: frame, a smallish head, muscle bellies, propensity to add size without losing his proportions as much as most other BBers and a proclivity to train using powerlifter-sized weights which made him a cult hero to legions of younger men tired of stringbeans preaching “quality muscle stimulation” ad nauseam (yeah yeah you don’t use PEDs anymore, we get it). For sheer muscularity: Yates had a heaviest contest weight of 270ish at 5’9", Ruhl was 5’10" and competed as heavy as 280, and the newer guy Ramy clocked in at 286 pounds at 5’9", Joel Stubbs and Gunter Schlierkamp weighed in at 300 pounds but at 6’3" and 6’1" and Big Lou weighed in at 315 pounds at 6’5" (heavier than Ronnie) and Noah Steere 330 pounds at 6’6" - so from a sheer SIZE perspective Ronnie isn’t the heaviest! There’s Bbers taller and heavier and Bbers shorter and lighter.
Point being, Ronnie had the winning combination thats relevant ONLY (and I mean ONLY) to competitive bodybuilding and nothing else. That has jack shit to do with dwarfing everyone else in real life UNLESS we’re talking about other adult males from any and all athletic backgrounds 5’11" and under and not more than 15% body fat.
In keeping with the line of the thread, here’s Ronnie circa 2010 (I believe) and Mark Henry
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Look at the massive dude on the left next to the two other small gentlemen
[quote]TheCB wrote:
all excellent points from Stu
hmm the greatest bodybuilder in history who weighed 290 with almost zero BF
against a guy lighter fatter and taller
hmm i wonder who would look bigger[/quote][/quote]
how bizarre that in a thread asking if brock lesnar is bigger than ronnie you post a pic of the big show instead
the big show who is 7ft tall and over 400lbs (whereas lesnar is 6’3 and about 260) and standing with a clearly retired ronnie anyway
second pic dont know the guy but again ronnie long retired and the guy clearly far larger than brock lesnar
[/quote]
If I remember correctly lensar was cutting to get to 265 in MMA. I believe at his biggest he was over 300. An athletically lean 6-3 @300+ could probably give ronnie a run for his money walking around in street clothes.[/quote]
i find these posts so strange.
firstly, please show some evidence brock was an “athletically lean 300+” which is a very big claim
secondly, ronnie coleman is the most muscular human to ever live (based on height/muscularity/leaness)
hes dwarfed every pro BB in history never mind some WWE wrestler
brock lesnar is a big guy no doubt, but put them next to each other on stage it would be laughable how much bigger ronnie would be
put them in “street clothes” condition, ronnie was well known to be 330 offseason while still being in reality VERY lean again ronnie by miles
[/quote]
This whole thread is strange. Lesnar isn’t a bodybuilder so why talk about him being on stage? Regardless of muscle mass carried, one person can look bigger just because of skeletal structure. One thing that really stood out to me in one Jay Cutlers teenage pictures was how broad his shoulders were, and his deltoids weren’t even a strong point at that time (his legs and lats seemed to have the most mass on them) - He just had really wide clavicles and would look big in street clothes. [/quote]