Finally here is one of the few shots of Lesnar at his peak next to the big show (see previous picture of Big Show and Ronnie) where they’re not using camera angles to make one look much bigger than the other
Finally, as an addendum to previous picture, here is the older picture of Big Show and Ronnie standing next to each other 
Therefore I would say this: Lesnar would LOOK bigger than Ronnie in real life to regular joes and janes. But actual male bodybuilders 5’8" and under would be more impressed by Ronnie’s greater development due to various reasons.
[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
OK you’re right. So going off the Bob Sapp Ronnie offseason pic, I’ll say Lesnar would LOOK bigger standing next to Ronnie.
[/quote]
surely you can troll better than this?
bob sapp is not brock lesnar so why are you posting pics of him?
bob sapp is also 6’5 350 much much bigger than lesnar
ronnie is long retired in this pic and years from his peak size
the other pics you’re posting are also years after he has retired and with people of totally different proportions to brock lesnar anyway.
your trolling used to be about a 6/10 iirc it’s really fallen off lately
[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
[/quote]
Why didn’t you post your proof that he is 260? Even though he weighed officially for UFC fights (with weight cutting) heavier than that.
Nope.
Definitely nope.
Who said on stage?
Ronnie is neither the biggest nor the most muscular BBer Much less human ever.
Being that lean, because muscle is denser, actually makes you smaller for a given weight. 300 pounds at 12% could actually be physically larger than 330 much leaner.
OK lol. I’m curious now - is it genetic or all midgets this way? Lets be serious, shall we, spaz -
Now… as I was saying - Ronnie doesnt look bigger than Lesnar except to midgets like you. Why don’t you get that, spaz??? I have posted enough pictures from 2005 to 2013 to back this up.
He IS bigger than Brock Lesnar though… Ill give you that. He just won’t look the part Ill post some more pictures of people making him look like a choad after your refreshing reply But there’s just soo many of them!! Ill wait.
I’m curious… Does it hurt you little folk when your 5’6" 180 pound body (with a staggering 225 pound bench press 1RM) disappears completely when a relatively untrained 5’11 inch 180 pound kid with a gut - who struggles to bench a plate and change each side stands next to you??? Is that why you NEED Ronnie to be bigger than everyone else out there? So you can hope against hope that by adding enough meat you can one day be considered “big”? Just curious…
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
OK you’re right. So going off the Bob Sapp Ronnie offseason pic, I’ll say Lesnar would LOOK bigger standing next to Ronnie.
[/quote]
surely you can troll better than this?
bob sapp is not brock lesnar so why are you posting pics of him?
bob sapp is also 6’5 350 much much bigger than lesnar
ronnie is long retired in this pic and years from his peak size
the other pics you’re posting are also years after he has retired and with people of totally different proportions to brock lesnar anyway.
your trolling used to be about a 6/10 iirc it’s really fallen off lately[/quote]
The kid’s a spaz. Its a waste of time
Here’s Jay Cutler in PEAK off season standing next to the late great TS (RIP)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ronnie is neither the biggest nor the most muscular BBer Much less human ever.
Being that lean, because muscle is denser, actually makes you smaller for a given weight. 300 pounds at 12% could actually be physically larger than 330 much leaner.[/quote]
[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
OK lol. I’m curious now - is it genetic or all midgets this way?
[/quote]
im 6 foot 1.
i dont really get why you have completely lost the plot in this thread.
you seem to genuinely not understand the topic at hand, as is proven again by your following post:
in a thread asking if brock lesnar is bigger than ronnie coleman you post a picture of jay cutler with someone who is neither brock nor ronnie to “prove” your points.
you have made this thread pretty funny imo i hope you keep posting your idiotic ramblings about my lack of height kai greene’s BMI and constant pictures of people who are neither ronnie nor brock.
to DD:
you are wrong on your points, i dont know how to break up the quotes the way you have and dont have the inclination to nit pick over it all.
all i will say is when i CLEARLY include the qualifier that ronnie is the most muscular man ever (based on height, muscle and LEANESS) i get the impression you are thinking but what about such and such nfl/strongman/whoever, who sure may be TALLER and WEIGH more but are not more muscular than ronnie at his peak. i hope you understand my point and do not now post a pic of greg kovaks or someone, if you do i hope we can just agree to disagree.
if you’re 6 foot 1, I was wrong about your motivations… the arguing with an ass video still fits though. And the spaz/retard comments were out of line, I’m guessing English simply isn’t your first language and/or communication isn’t your forte. Regardless, i’m trying one last time.
Here’s the thing - I DID post a lot of seemingly irrelevant pictures but ONLY to make you understand that how big you are (LBM, body weight) is useless to compare people with even a 3-4 inch height differential. That may not seem like much for you but it could be. Depending on the individual. And even at the same height you can’t rely solely on BMI/mass for a reasonable estimate on who LOOKS bigger standing next to each other.
Brock Lesnar has a frame that greatly exaggerates his size next to most people. Ronnie has a frame that is wide but the addition of 4 extra inches and Lesnar’s structure could easily make him look much larger.
Another thing to understand is the extra LBM Ronnie has over Lesnar will not make him look any wider (unless he’s posing), it will make him look THICKER. this thickness is not going to be obvious when someone is standing next to him UNLESS he’s posing to show it off (example pec thickness using a side pose or flare his lats or most muscular)
Of course his muscle density and quality are in a different league altogether compared to Lesnar but again this does not contribute to the visual aspect of SIZE.
That is why bodybuilders need to be extremely lean and dehydrated AND flexing for all they’re worth on stage - if they don’t you will underestimate their mass unless you’re a seasoned competitor who knows what to look for.
Stature and width make you look way larger. Thickness/density/quality can greatly increase your lean weight without carrying over dramatically to the visual aspect of size. UNLESS you pose to show it off!
Vic Richards is the most muscular person ever in the 5’10-5’11 range EVEN though he never got as lean/dry as Ronnie did.
And Noah Steere is the BIGGEST bodybuilder ever. B-I-G-G-E-S-T 
[quote]TheCB wrote:
all i will say is when i CLEARLY include the qualifier that ronnie is the most muscular man ever (based on height, muscle and LEANESS)
[/quote]
[quote]Depression Boy wrote:
Vic Richards is the most muscular person ever in the 5’10-5’11 range EVEN though he never got as lean/dry as Ronnie did.
And Noah Steere is the BIGGEST bodybuilder ever. B-I-G-G-E-S-T
[quote]TheCB wrote:
all i will say is when i CLEARLY include the qualifier that ronnie is the most muscular man ever (based on height, muscle and LEANESS)
[/quote][/quote]
no man in history has been the equivalent size of a 5’11 296 4% bodyfat ronnie coleman. definitely not vic richards. ronnie was far bigger than him.
again, if you really knew what you were talking about and were aware of just how MONSTROUS those proportions are, you wouldnt still be posting.
have you ever met any REALLY big motherfuckers? i have met and trained around multiple pro BBs/world level strongmen and WR powerlifters.
a peak ronnie would make them all look like kids honestly. and ive met plenty of reasonably lean 6’2 300lb types, im aware of how big they are.
This takes arguing over nothing to an entirely new level. I’m curious to see at what point these guys realise what they’re writing slabs and slabs of text over…
Next up: Does a dump truck look bigger than a sports car?
I agree. But arguing is just rewarding at another level.
CB: “Ronnie would dwarf Lesnar”
P: “Not necessarily, here’s a series of pics of Ronnie with strongmen and wrestlers 6 feet and above making him look like a complete choad”
CB: “They have nothing to do with Lesnar. They’re much bigger”
P: “True. So here’s a few more in Lesnar’s size range like Savagednatiion, Trevor Smith (RIP) and Mark Henry”
CB: “Mark Henry is fat. You can’t use him”
P: "So lets set some basic criteria for this comparison? We’re talking BMI at a certain minimum leanness? That has nothing to do with the OPs question of who would look visually more imposing (not more impressive to people who’ve been training for a long time)
CB: “Nope. Ronnie is long retired in these pics. Its not a fair comparison”
P: “No, he is in the 2005-2010 range in many of these pictures though not all of them but even 20 additional pounds would make his arms looks DIFFERENT and his waist and thighs look larger so not directly contribute to the imposing aspect”
CB: “Ronnie is the most muscular person alive. How could he not dwarf everyone else”
P: “Muscle weight tends to manifest itself in the form of quality and density and thickness instead of sheer size after the basic level (that Lesnar and even some basketball players have achieved) so even if Ronnie went up to 350 pounds stage weight he’d not look much BIGGER to the average person unless he was posing. Height and structure have way more to do with the visual perception of size than sheer muscle mass.”
CB: “You don’t get it. I’ve trained with multiple Mr Olympias and worlds strongest men in my gym. Ronnie would dwarf all of them”
P: “Yawn. Here we go again. Are you ready kids???”
[quote]tsantos wrote:
This takes arguing over nothing to an entirely new level. I’m curious to see at what point these guys realise what they’re writing slabs and slabs of text over…[/quote]
again, dont have all day to point out what an utter moron you are depression boy.
let’s just leave it at you thinking trevor smith and mark henry “are in brock lesnar’s size range.”
it says it all.
[quote]Silvercrank wrote:
Who would look bigger if they were standing beside each other do you think, Ronnie Coleman or Brock Lesnar? Ronnie had a ton more muscle and was heavier than Lesnar, but Brock had a bigger frame and thicker bones. [/quote]
Despite all the arguing, let’s look at the question posed. The OP acknoweldges that Ronnie had more muscle, and also that Brock was larger by height and structural standards.
So, is the question just to see who on this forum automatically uses the term “big” to mean jacked (it is a bodybuilding sub-forum), is it to see who defines big with being physically impressive in either manner discussed, or is he just wondering if Ronnie’s shoulder width gives the quick impression of standing out more than Brock’s superior height?
If we’re just asking about structure, then Kareem Abdul Jabar is a lot “bigger” than Coleman in his prime.
S
Get out with that common sense! You know it has no place on an internet forum like this one
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Silvercrank wrote:
Who would look bigger if they were standing beside each other do you think, Ronnie Coleman or Brock Lesnar? Ronnie had a ton more muscle and was heavier than Lesnar, but Brock had a bigger frame and thicker bones. [/quote]
Despite all the arguing, let’s look at the question posed. The OP acknoweldges that Ronnie had more muscle, and also that Brock was larger by height and structural standards.
So, is the question just to see who on this forum automatically uses the term “big” to mean jacked (it is a bodybuilding sub-forum), is it to see who defines big with being physically impressive in either manner discussed, or is he just wondering if Ronnie’s shoulder width gives the quick impression of standing out more than Brock’s superior height?
If we’re just asking about structure, then Kareem Abdul Jabar is a lot “bigger” than Coleman in his prime.
S[/quote]
Sorry, I’m more impressed by Danny Padilla and Lee Priest. They’re both bigger than these permabulkers according to my standards.
j/k…I’m curious - does Brian Shaw ever train the bench press?
The only videos I ever see of him are deadlift, squat and the strongman “pick things up put them down” I’m guessing he does log presses at some point since thats one of the main events.
He also has a very “different” look from the other strongmen if you know what I mean. Even someone at the bf level of Savickas clearly has some huge muscles moving under there when you see him training (traps, chest,delts) - ditto for Phil Pfister, Poundstone and Hugo Girard and many others. Heck take a look at Kaz back in the day and you can see how built he was. You can almost get a feel for how big they’d look if they dieted down…Shaw honestly looks more like a regular guy scaled up exponentially.
[quote]Angus1 wrote:
Strongmen are freaking huge.[/quote]
He has more of a “strongman look” in that picture posted above though.
[quote]jeremielemauvais wrote:
Sorry, I’m more impressed by Danny Padilla and Lee Priest. They’re both bigger than these permabulkers according to my standards.
j/k…I’m curious - does Brian Shaw ever train the bench press?
The only videos I ever see of him are deadlift, squat and the strongman “pick things up put them down” I’m guessing he does log presses at some point since thats one of the main events.
He also has a very “different” look from the other strongmen if you know what I mean. Even someone at the bf level of Savickas clearly has some huge muscles moving under there when you see him training (traps, chest,delts) - ditto for Phil Pfister, Poundstone and Hugo Girard and many others. Heck take a look at Kaz back in the day and you can see how built he was. You can almost get a feel for how big they’d look if they dieted down…Shaw honestly looks more like a regular guy scaled up exponentially.
[quote]Angus1 wrote:
Strongmen are freaking huge.[/quote]
[/quote]
lol. I’ve actually briefly met and shaken hands with both Brian Shaw and Jay Cutler (and Phil Pfister). Shaw is very thick and very muscular even for his frame and didn’t seem to carry all that much fat (this was a couple of years ago). His hands even seem big for his size. Some of the strongmen guys like Mark Felix seem like very large humans. Halfthor, Pfister, Shaw, est are almost un-human in person. But I’d even say Felix seemed bigger than Cutler (though Cutler I saw after he’d retired, he was still in really good shape).