Who Would Look Bigger: Coleman or Lesnar?

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Bodybuilding is about being as MUSCULAR as possible at a certain height since that creates the illusion. If you’re insecure about your height and want to be referred to as “big” despite being 5’8 and under its likely not going to happen since most people will see you as small. And that is OK. But I agree that Ronnie offseason in his prime would be considered “bigger” than Lesnar.

There’s a bunch of 5’4" kids who walk around with ILS in my gym after grinding 2 plates on the bench (thats still almost 2 times bodyweight brahhhh) and who go around congratulating each other (you’re huge brah…no YOU’RE huge brahhh) but the rest of the gymgoers normal height and over (especially the women) look at these little men with an amused expression on their faces. The girl who works the counter lost her job for saying “look at the choads slapping around on the bench”. If they posted selfies on here, they’d be considered big lol.

[/quote]

what is the point of this post?

ronnie is 5’11 he is not short

he didnt have the “illusion” of being large - he WAS absolutely monstrous

I already said Ronnie IS/WAS huge AND bigger than LESNAR any which way you slice it. Im guessing you had an argument with someone and made this thread to bolster support for yourself (Coleman) so here you go.
Coleman in the offseason was bigger than Lesnar but he is dwarfed by several pro wrestlers.

(EDIT: I just realised you weren’t the OP, I apologise)

My point was simply that it makes no sense talking of SIZE on a bodybuilding forum except to compare two people at the same height and similar body fat levels since perception of size has a lot more to do with height and structure rather than simply LBM levels. Would Ronnie look bigger than Lesnar standing next to him? To be perfectly honest it depends on how they stand next to each other and how the photograph is taken but yeah he would definitely look bigger if he wanted to.

I just wanted to make it clear that pro bodybuilders on an average are far from the BIGGEST muscular guys walking the planet simply because they’re just too short to be considered huge (even 5’11 is too short when standing next to professional strongmen or pro wrestlers or even some pro football players) Heck even some pro Basketball players could make our GOAT look like a kid standing next to them.

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Bodybuilding is about being as MUSCULAR as possible at a certain height since that creates the illusion. If you’re insecure about your height and want to be referred to as “big” despite being 5’8 and under its likely not going to happen since most people will see you as small. And that is OK. But I agree that Ronnie offseason in his prime would be considered “bigger” than Lesnar.

There’s a bunch of 5’4" kids who walk around with ILS in my gym after grinding 2 plates on the bench (thats still almost 2 times bodyweight brahhhh) and who go around congratulating each other (you’re huge brah…no YOU’RE huge brahhh) but the rest of the gymgoers normal height and over (especially the women) look at these little men with an amused expression on their faces. The girl who works the counter lost her job for saying “look at the choads slapping around on the bench”. If they posted selfies on here, they’d be considered big lol.

[/quote]

what is the point of this post?

ronnie is 5’11 he is not short

he didnt have the “illusion” of being large - he WAS absolutely monstrous

[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
But honestly, Brock isn’t the best example for your question. He is a big boy but not that big… every division I football team has at least 20 guys his sizer bigger. And he isn’t tell enough to make a huge difference next to Ronnie who isn’t exactly short at 5’11".
[/quote]

Seeing a prime Coleman in real life would be like seeing Bugs Bunny in real life. There’s no way to describe just how much muscle he had. Posting a bunch of pics of him several years after his retirement makes no sense. Lesnar is big (obviously), but people that are 6’3" and 3-bills aren’t that uncommon. NO ONE is 5’10" and 3-bills with 5% bodyfat. Coleman in a landslide.

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Bodybuilding is about being as MUSCULAR as possible at a certain height since that creates the illusion. If you’re insecure about your height and want to be referred to as “big” despite being 5’8 and under its likely not going to happen since most people will see you as small. And that is OK. But I agree that Ronnie offseason in his prime would be considered “bigger” than Lesnar.

There’s a bunch of 5’4" kids who walk around with ILS in my gym after grinding 2 plates on the bench (thats still almost 2 times bodyweight brahhhh) and who go around congratulating each other (you’re huge brah…no YOU’RE huge brahhh) but the rest of the gymgoers normal height and over (especially the women) look at these little men with an amused expression on their faces. The girl who works the counter lost her job for saying “look at the choads slapping around on the bench”. If they posted selfies on here, they’d be considered big lol.

[/quote]

what is the point of this post?

ronnie is 5’11 he is not short

he didnt have the “illusion” of being large - he WAS absolutely monstrous

[/quote]

Again, I have met Ronnie and no way he is 5’11. He 5’10 AT BEST.

  • A 4 inch difference is not small.

  • You said dwarf and he would not dwarf him. Bad choice of words? Perhaps but, that is on you.

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Look at the massive dude on the left next to the two other small gentlemen :stuck_out_tongue:

[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.

Jesus. I’ve trained with Adam Scherr, he’s a SURE 6’8". I didn’t think Big Show was that big. He looks way taller than Scherr in comparison to the mutual Ronnie photos.

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

Again, I have met Ronnie and no way he is 5’11. He 5’10 AT BEST.

[/quote]

I’ve met him several times and he is no doubt 5’11", when someone is that muscular it’s often hard to evaluate height properly.

On another topic the pics of Ronnie posted with other people in this thread were FAR from being at his peak so they aren’t really solid comparisons.


Better comparison here. Ronnie off season circa 2005 and Bob Sapp

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

Again, I have met Ronnie and no way he is 5’11. He 5’10 AT BEST.

[/quote]

I’ve met him several times and he is no doubt 5’11", when someone is that muscular it’s often hard to evaluate height properly.

On another topic the pics of Ronnie posted with other people in this thread were FAR from being at his peak so they aren’t really solid comparisons.[/quote]

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Standing next to Adam Scherr here (circa 2013)

[/quote]

That’s a big ol’ guy on the right.

[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 :stuck_out_tongue:

[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]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 :stuck_out_tongue:

[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.


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 :stuck_out_tongue:

[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]

it’s crazy how big some humans get

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:

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.
[/quote]

save the attempts at psychoanalysis you’re just embarrassing yourself.

why have you posted a picture of mark henry? this thread is about brock lesnar.

also yet another pic of ronnie nearly a decade past his peak. and standing with someone carrying comfortably 50lbs of extra fat.

the rest of your post is even worse, don’t know where to begin.

Hit a nerve, I see. Ok little man, hop up on a stool and I’ll throw you a bone.

BTW the Mark Henry picture was 200-2011 so not a decade past his peak lol. We had a picture of Bob Sapp next to Ronnie at his peak off season though but whatever, pictures don’t lie.

Q1. Lets set limits on who we can draw comparisons with so we can stop making Ronnie look small shall we?

Max Height? 6 feet and under?
Max bodyfat? 12% bodyfat and lower? Contest condition?

Q2. And what do you mean by “bigger”?
A. more lean body mass?
B. highest BMI for a given minimum leanness (see Q1)? This is the best way to skew things in the Bber’s favour.
C. some subjective comparison such as best illusion of size in stage?

Since the OP is about Lesnar I propose we fix a maximum height of 6’3" and a max body fat of 15%
For a size comparison we can use the BMI at 15% body fat.

The height cutoff would eliminate a lot go the superheavy linemen and heavyweight strongmen and also most of the more massive wrestlers and people like Bob Sapp. The BMI focus in addition to the leanness restriction will skew things significantly in the bodybuilder’s favour.

Big Ramy: 42.2 (contest)
Ruhl: 41.3 (contest)
Ronnie: 41.1 (contest)
Lesnar: 30-32 depending

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]Depression Boy wrote:

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.
[/quote]

save the attempts at psychoanalysis you’re just embarrassing yourself.

why have you posted a picture of mark henry? this thread is about brock lesnar.

also yet another pic of ronnie nearly a decade past his peak. and standing with someone carrying comfortably 50lbs of extra fat.

the rest of your post is even worse, don’t know where to begin.[/quote]

OOPS i forgot to add:

Vic Richards with a contest BMI of 47.3 and
Kai Greene with a contest BMI of 43.3
blow them all away :stuck_out_tongue: theres the biggest bodybuilder ever - Vic Richards 5’10 330 on stage!

oh dear you’ve really gone off the deep end now lol.

why have you started to talk about the BMI of kai greene and vic richards etc?

this thread is about brock lesnar.

who would look bigger at their peak ronnie or brock?

i answered correctly in about the 3rd post: ronnie. end thread.

yet here you are 2 pages in using “science” to “prove” that vic richards was in fact bigger than ronnie coleman.

wtf.


OK you’re right. So going off the Bob Sapp Ronnie offseason pic, I’ll say Lesnar would LOOK bigger standing next to Ronnie.

Happy???

[quote]TheCB wrote:
oh dear you’ve really gone off the deep end now lol.

why have you started to talk about the BMI of kai greene and vic richards etc?

this thread is about brock lesnar.

who would look bigger at their peak ronnie or brock?

i answered correctly in about the 3rd post: ronnie. end thread.

yet here you are 2 pages in using “science” to “prove” that vic richards was in fact bigger than ronnie coleman.

wtf.

[/quote]

Finally, here’s Savagednatiion from this site (same size as Lesnar) standing next to Ronnie a few weeks out a year or so before he retired.

Who looks bigger?