Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce

[pumpster]

Point to note Hulkster the general consensus is pictures & video Do Not do Yates justice , he must be seen in person to be believed , so you can't gauge him on a few magazines scans and a compressed video on-line , I have the whole contest on tape and he doesn't lack any detail .

ND finally comes up with an excuse on the incriminating videos and pics 15 pages later! Basically the excuse is that nothing is verifiable other than evidence he has available..how convenient!hahahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahhahahahahahh ahahahahahahahahhahah

[pumpster]

This is an APPALLING MM. Haven't seen ANY pics facing directly into the camera that look anything but. Serious tier-B stuff; garbage.

Let's review:

-No size
-No detail
-Cuts...sorta..?
-A couple of ugly-ass veins that look vericose.
-Blah shape
-Aesthetics? hahahhahahahhahahahahaha hhahahah

[NeoSeminole]

[NeoSeminole]

By the way, I'd love to see Dorian attempt this pose

[NarcissisticDeity]

It doesn't matter how thin his skin is if he has nothing to showcase underneath it.
Aside from huge veins on his underdeveloped, nonpeaked, torn biceps, he has none.
Few striations. His muscle isn't multi-layered like Coleman's (particularly the pecs and biceps).

Show me one f*cking contest where striations don't matter! Jesus Christ, how delusional are you?I don't know how they run things in Denmark or wherever the hell you are from, but in the states, striations are an exceptionally important element of bodybuilding criteria. They are the focal point of muscle detail!

Here we go again...
Was he ever standing next to 2003 Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman? Nope.

The point is, Dorian's so called "strengths" (lower back detail, calves, upper back width/separation/thickness) look less impressive next to the other competitors, competitors I might add that are nowhere near Ronnie's 2003 level.

You don't pay attention , it doesn't matter how thin his skin is? this shows you know nothing , Dorian does have striations not as many as Coleman but he isn't devoid , his chest , glutes , lower back , lower lats , intercostales , you're like Hulkster you cling to this notion that because Ronnie has more striations & vasculairty he's a automatic winner !! thats bull

And in 1993 at his best his bicep was not torn , pay attention please , and Dorian has nothing to showcase under his thin skin? how about some of the most dense & developed muscle tissue ever packed on a 5'10" frame? how about muscle thickness & seperation ?

And how you got I live in Demark is beyond me  and striations don't win contests ask Andreas Munzer how many Pro contests he won ( zero ) same with Hamdullah Aykutlu !! muscle density , hardness & dryness win contests , among other reasons two of the biggest reasons Dorian won because he was extremely dense & extremely dry , he didn't win because he had an aesthetic body or because he had a great taper

Ronnie Coleman may have a lot of volume in 2003 but he's lacks Dorian' density and dryness , Ronnie Coleman was very dry in 98 maybe as dry as Dorian but he lacked Dorian's muscle density , if Coleman 03 stood side by side Yates in 93 you'd be able to tell very qickly who was dry and who wasn't .
 

[pumpster]

Dorian does have striations not as many as Coleman but he isn't devoid , his chest , glutes , lower back , lower lats , intercostales

Part of the problem with Yates' hugely flawed physique lies in a striking lack of detail or striations in various prominent areas. Bereft of detail on arms and delts from this angle, and made worse when combined with an absence of size. Traps are not exactly jumping out either!

[NarcissisticDeity]

You do realize that we are subject to linear time, don't you?
Each and every year, people and conditions change, sometimes (in Ronnie's case) dramatically.
Firsthand testimony is only relevant to the appropriate timeframe.

Lastly, you are familiar with the concept of relativity, aren't you?
"He's gotten bigger, with even more muscularity and detail."
The adjectives are relative, not absolute. Compared to Dorian's previous standard, he came in with greater muscularity and detail.

A 400lb fat chick who is leaner, now 375lbs, is still a fat tub of shit.
Likewise, Dorian, although he had even more detail, still lacks sufficient overall detail.
Dorian cannot match Ronnie's vascularity or striations in a single isolated department.

Don't throw this haphazard analysis around where Haney is comparing 1993 Dorian to his prior package(s) and expect us to interpret that as a sign that he presented a level of detail on par with 2003 bodybuilders, let alone a bodybuilder as dominant as Ronnie Coleman.

No the claim was he had no detail I provided proof to the contrary , now its he has no detail compared to Ronnie , and time does change and atheltes become bigger & better conditionied Ronnie 2003 was a lot bigger but was he was dry as Yates in 93? nope , he wasn't as dry as Ronnie in 98/99

Dorian cannot match Ronnie's vascularity or striations in a single isolated department.

He doesn't have to match Ronnie on vascularity or striations , his skin is tissuepaper thin while have insane muscle density at 257lbs , Ronnie Coleman's skin is not as thin or as dry at 287lbs compared to Dorian at 257lbs , it may have been good enough to win over a flat/soft Jay Cutler but not over Yates .

[Tombo]

WTF are you sad mother fuckers arguing this shit for still? GET YOURSELVES LIVES!

[natural al]

there has been a "best of" Dorian yates video with many scenes from 1993.

Also there are pics out there, like this one:


and again, we see a few striations in the chest, but really nothing special compared to Ronnie's detail. We see almost NO detail in the delts and arms, and quads that look really, really, strange with not much detail.

Here is a mm muscular comparison, with Dorian in great shape from 1992, and Ronnie from 1999:



hell, dorian was more detailed in 1992 than he was in 1993.  But again, this ililistrates the point that has been totally ignored by ND and co:  For all the dryness dorian had, he STILL did not have the level of Detail as a whole that Ronnie had. Also, muscle shape plays a  really big role as you can see.

I just watched the Best of Dorian Yates on YouTube and there are 2 shots of Dorian from the 93 Olympia, 1st one is 0:47 seconds in and is a shot of his upperback where you really can't see anything because it's too close, the 2nd is at the 2:05 mark and it shows a shot from way out of Dorian walking down the steps and kneeling with his back to the audience getting ready to start his routine, I'm pretty sure that's it and you can't tell a thing from those scenes.  the other vids that come up with the search for Dorian Yates are from FIBO where he is not even close to contest condition, the 91 Olympia and the 92 Olympia. 

[Praetor Fenix]

No the claim was he had no detail I provided proof to the contrary , now its he has no detail compared to Ronnie , and time does change and atheltes become bigger & better conditionied Ronnie 2003 was a lot bigger but was he was dry as Yates in 93? nope , he wasn't as dry as Ronnie in 98/99

He doesn't have to match Ronnie on vascularity or striations , his skin is tissuepaper thin while have insane muscle density at 257lbs , Ronnie Coleman's skin is not as thin or as dry at 287lbs compared to Dorian at 257lbs , it may have been good enough to win over a flat/soft Jay Cutler but not over Yates .

You just don't get it. The entire point of thin skin is to showcase vascularity and striations.
Its called muscle maturity. Like Chris Cook, Dorian has baby muscle.
Ronnie has better muscle maturity, and it is a MAJOR portion of that ever-elusive (in your mind, that is) 33% that takes into account conditioning/muscle maturity/separation and all the other associated variables..

Thin skin is not a virtue in and of itself. It is only effective if the underlying muscle is riddled with vascularity and striations (Dave Palumbo is the best example, he is world renowned for his muscle maturity). Hell, an in-shape Will "World" Harris has better muscle detail/vascularity/striations than Dorian and he is infamous for owning some of the thickest skin (literally speaking) in bodybuilding.

The sole point of thin skin is to showcase the detail in the underlying muscle.
Dorian did not have hardly any of this detail, let alone enough to stand next to Ronnie on stage.

You keep mentioning muscle density. I'm not even entirely sure you know what that means.
Please explain to me in clear terminology what your perception of muscle density is, and how peak contest Dorian's muscle density somehow exceeds peak contest Ronnie's. I think its simply a buzzword you have thrown around a few hundred times now because it sounds good and nobody has called you out on it yet. I DO know what muscle density is, and although it IS one of Dorian's strengths, he is hopelessly outmatched by Coleman himself in this particular facet.

[Praetor Fenix]

You don't pay attention , it doesn't matter how thin his skin is? this shows you know nothing , Dorian does have striations not as many as Coleman but he isn't devoid , his chest , glutes , lower back , lower lats , intercostales , you're like Hulkster you cling to this notion that because Ronnie has more striations & vasculairty he's a automatic winner !! thats bull

You are a hypocrite. If I overemphasize striations & vascularity, then you equally overemphasize dryness & graininess. What a double standard!

The funny thing is, dryness is meant to exhibit striations and vascularity! (Its like claiming a Kia is a better vehicle than a Bentley because the Kia has a better coat of wax  )

Dorian does NOT have a striated chest!! THIS is a striated chest:

Dorian's chest is small, flat as a pancake, and devoid of any/all detail.
Ronnie's detail and condition looks 100% better than dry, detail-less Dorian any day of the week.
Dorian's chest also has a glaring deficiency in the sterno-costal attachment region. Awful.

Dorian's glutes are striated but nowhere near the level that Ronnie's display. You are silly for even mentioned Dorian's glutes in a comparison thread vs. Ronnie. You are just asking for an epic beatdown on that one.

In contest shape: Lower back. Granted. Lower lats. Granted. Intercostals. Granted.
Still ND, that list is pathetic. Just look how small, narrow, and isolated it is. Inexcusable.

And in 1993 at his best his bicep was not torn , pay attention please , and Dorian has nothing to showcase under his thin skin? how about some of the most dense & developed muscle tissue ever packed on a 5'10" frame? how about muscle thickness & seperation ?

Regardless, his biceps were grossly asymmetrical.
Oh God ... "the most dense & developed muscle tissue ever" ... get out of here!
You love that "density" buzzword don't you?  You're getting alot of mileage out of it I see.

It wasn't the most developed muscle because it wasn't very large and it wasn't mature. You yourself said his size was not overwhelming, and certainly nowhere, NOWHERE near 2003 Coleman's muscularity, so this general blanket statement has been rendered ineffective by yours truly.

As I requested earlier, please give me an idea of what you consider muscle density to be, and how Dorian's muscle density is superior to Ronnie. I wait with bated breath for this next invention of yours...

And how you got I live in Demark is beyond me  and striations don't win contests ask Andreas Munzer how many Pro contests he won ( zero ) same with Hamdullah Aykutlu !! muscle density , hardness & dryness win contests , among other reasons two of the biggest reasons Dorian won because he was extremely dense & extremely dry , he didn't win because he had an aesthetic body or because he had a great taper

You had a reference to Danish girls in your profile. I really hope for your sake that English isn't your primary language, because your grammar and syntax is very poor, esp. for a grown man.

The fact that you even mention Hamdullah Aykutlu is clearly indicative of the time bubble you live in. Seriously ... you belong at Iron Age, not an objective modern bodybuilding forum.

Dryness does not win contests if there is no detail underneath the skin.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Regardless, dryness is only 1 element of many in a comprehensive 33% of the criteria.

You yourself admit his aesthetics were shit. So stop trying to claim, along with suckmymuscle, that Dorian had better symmetry than Ronnie. You admit his taper is subpar too, yet earlier you argued vehemently that it was better than Ronnie's, despite this ever so simple equation:

Wider lats + Wider delts + Smaller waist = Superior V-taper.

Once again, its clear as day that you don't have the slightest f*cking clue what you mean by "muscle density", but you think you look good when you cite it in Dorian's defense (you don't). If you truly knew what muscle density was, you would know that Ronnie's exceeds Dorian's by light-years.

In fact, I will spell it out for you right now. Muscle Density is the sheer amount of muscle retained within a specific volume (in this case, the amount of muscle retained within the epimycium). So basically muscle density is no different from muscle fullness, so in otherwords, relative muscularity, and you have admitted repeatedly that this is not Dorian's strength.

You have no right to claim his muscles are dense when his biceps are flat, his deltoids and underwhelming, his back in contest condition is 2dimensional in the back double bicep, his quadriceps are nowhere near as developed and full as Coleman's.

Nothing happens when Dorian strikes a pose. He looks the same flexed as he does relaxed.
Ronnie, on the otherhand, looks like his muscles will rupture the epimycium whenever he hits a pose, particularly his most musculars:


You aren't very bright ND. In the future I am going to call you out on it whenever you cite Dorian's "muscle density" as a strength, because his muscles are not developed to the extent that Ronnie's are. Dorian's quads, hamstrings, and glutes are not nearly as large or full at Ronnie's are, so with the exception of his calves, his lower-body density is utter shit in relation to Coleman. Coleman packs more muscle per unit volume than Dorian, it is that simple.

From the front, Dorian's chest is flat, his deltoids aren't full, his biceps are astoundingly weak.
WHERE IS THIS DENSITY YOU SPEAK OF ND?
Oh wait, its only in his back, the only strength you can justifiably cite in his defense.

Nonetheless, Ronnie's back is wider, his lats and trapezius are far more developed, and Ronnie has more 3 dimensional thickness in the back double bicep.

Congratulations ND! Dorian's lower back is dry AND dense! *golf clap*

The difference in their height doesn't come anywhere close to compensating for their difference in competition weight. Not even close ND. Ronnie Coleman is far more dense, and to argue the contrary clearly demonstrates that you don't even have an elementary understanding of what exactly density entails. I only wish I had addressed this sooner, but nonetheless, I have rendered 100s of pages of your claims to "superior density" worthless. I'm sorry.

Ronnie Coleman may have a lot of volume in 2003 but he's lacks Dorian' density and dryness , Ronnie Coleman was very dry in 98 maybe as dry as Dorian but he lacked Dorian's muscle density , if Coleman 03 stood side by side Yates in 93 you'd be able to tell very qickly who was dry and who wasn't .

Once again, Coleman does not lack Dorian's density, he exceeds it.
For f*ck's sake, learn what the term means. The amount of muscle per unit of volume.
Their height difference was quite negligible, but scale-weight difference was substantial.
Similar size and structure, yet Coleman has more muscle.
As a result, he has more density. You shot yourself in the foot on this one.

DORIAN DOES NOT HAVE SUPERIOR DENSITY. You have no right to continue to make this claim.

[4thAD]

This thread needs to go away! Please!Please!Please!Please!

[pumpster]

This thread needs to go away! Please!Please!Please!Please!

Maybe if i post again it'll go away.

[suckmymuscle]

Sucky, you are truly a schmuck to the nth degree.  I enjoy this thread because it shows all the GetBiggers what a delusional, ignorant fool you are.  You continually crack on everyone, but the only one who looks poorly is you.  Winning General...of what war....the English vs the Argentines in the Falkland islands...you are one of the Argentinian generals....General Galtieri (look it up as I know you don't have a clue).  Better yet, you are like Al Gore...still think you won the Presidency.  What an idiot.  It is fun fucking with you.  BTW, internet threats are against the law assclown.  I wouldn't go to the FBI because you are not considered a national security threat...instead, it is the bane of all of America that we have to care for ignorant, low IQ individuals as yourself so you are a hindrance.  So, Dorian is the best heh?  Your GetBig poll clearly shows differently.  Videos do not lie also.    BTW, why do you always have to type in such large letters.  Are you trying to annoy everyone on this board.  If so, you have been successful.

  Funny how my "low" I.Q didn't sop me from joining Mensa, Intertel and the Triple Nine Society. And it's also funny, that despite my "low" I.Q, you complimented several of my posts on political topics. Go figure!

  Once again, my criticism stands: you are OBVIOUSLY upset that there are those who think Dorian was better than Ronnie, and you coe back every so many pages or so to remind us, with great rage and foul language, how better Ronnie was.

  Why haven't you called the F.B.I yet? I'm sure you'll argue that it's because I'm too insignificant to bother. This will help you pretend to forget the real reason: I called you on your bluff, and you aren't man enough to go through with it.

  Nicorulez, I have decided to not answer your posts again. I'll only here from you again when I receive that subpoena from a federal judge , intimating me to court, for haing threatened you. Before I go, one last thought for you: I wish your patients could read your posts on this board. Regards, loser.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

Muscle density and muscle volume are NOT the same , drugs can give muscle volume but years and years of heavy training give the muscles density , Dorian's muscle desinty has been attributed to his short heavy work outs , its like comparing a ballon filled with water to a bowling ball both may have the same volume but not density , you look at 2003 he does NOT look as hard as Dorian desipte having so much more volume despite having striations Ronnie in 2003 looks like he's carrying water is conditioning may be good enough to win the show but he is not as hard as he was in 1998 , how do you explain his gut ? you think thats dense muscle ? mature muscle? thats his internal organs growing and pushing their way outward , Ronnie 2003 looks pre-contest and still needs to shed water , Ronnie looks like his muscles were pumped up with air and Dorian looks like he was carved out of a solid block of granite , Paul Dillett is another phsyique who had a lot of volume but didn't really convey a dense look !!

[suckmymuscle]

From top to bottom: Ronnie has a better V-taper, a smaller waist, and superior quad sweep.

From left to right: Dorian's biceps never matched, even before the tear.
Dorian's quadriceps have never matched.
The medial heads of his triceps are grossly out of balance.

So yes, I do understand: Ronnie's symmetry is 100% better.

Ronnie's quadriceps have much better separation. I challenge you to find one piece of visual evidence, one photograph of Dorian, that can match the separation in his quadriceps:


Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes are miles ahead of Dorian, in terms of size and separation.
Dorian's back in contest shape is 2 dimensional in the most muscular, whereas Coleman has mounds and ridges of solid muscle in his back. Dorian's dryness cannot compensate for Ronnie's superior thickness. Don't tell me contest Yates' back was thicker and more dense, the only pictures you guys can produce that attest to any semblance of thickness are those black and white pre-season photographs, but he has such little detail at that stage of preparation its moot.

Dorian is dry, but has few striations and no vascularity. You and ND constantly overlook this.
Ronnie is not as dry but still showcases a great deal of detail, far more than Dorian.

Ronnie has a better taper than Dorian:
Smaller waist + Wider lats + Wider delts = Superior taper. Get over it.

We are comparing ONE peak form! You can't mix and match Dorian's strengths in various years and act as though he showcased all of them at one time.

You are wrong. 2003 Coleman destroys Yates in the muscularity department. 33%
Symmetry is not even close. Ronnie > Dorian. 33% + 33% = 66%

The only issue that is even a debate is muscle maturity / condition, the remaining 33%
Dorian was dry but lacked detail (striations, vascularity).
I would still hand this facet over to Ronnie, although I do acknowledge it could go either way.

Ronnie's pecs are so dense, you can just see the layers of thickly proportioned muscle.
Dorian would be heavily penalized for the minimal detail / separation in his chest and quadriceps.
Dorian would win lower-back condition and perhaps abdominals. The remainder is comparable.
Regardless, it is not nearly enough for Yates to even tie, let alone win soundly as you claim.

  Once again, you shoot yourself on the foot and then run your mouth on a marathon of bullshit. You keep arguing that a bodybuilding contest is judged on muscle size, muscle symmetry and muscle maturity. Wrong. Interestingly, you STILL haven't replied to my post, where I explin how a bodybuilding contest is judged. To recap, here are the criterias:

1. Muscularity
2. Musco-skeletal balance
3. Mandatories.

  The only place where the judging criteria, for  bodybuilding contest, encomapasses muscle size, muscle symmetry and muscle maturity, is in your hed. I've been to some 300 bodybuilding contests, amateur and pro, and I've never seen  single one that was judged by your criteria.

  I've already explained all of this before and I'm doing it all over again. The ONLY shot Ronnie hs at beating Dorian is if you match his best, 250 lbs form, the one he had at the 98 O, against Dorian's 270 lbs version from the 97 O. That's the only possibility. What advantages does the 287 lbs Ronnie, from 2003, have over Dorian besides sheer, disproportional volume? None.

  In 1998, Ronnie, at 250 lbs, had one of the best tapers, quad and delt detils ever seen on a bodybuilding stage. Superb. His 98 form is one of my favorite ever; like a larger, denser Flex Wheeler. If you match that against Dorian's 270 lbs form, then he'd have  real shot of winning. This DESPITE the fact that, at 270 lbs, Dorian takes the 250 lbs Ronnie in all the mandatory poses! Why do I think Ronnie would still win? Well, because his advantage in taper and detail would be so overwhelming.

  But this is not the case if you compare Ronnie at 280+ lbs against Dorian. Again, the best shot that the 280+ lbs Coleman would have, at defeating Shadow, would be against his sub-par 270 lbs form. Both of them hve terrible tapers at those respective weights, but Dorian is far better. AND Dorian maintains his trademanrked hardness and dryness at that weight, but...with greater fullness! But still, you could argue that the difference in size, although small, would tip the scales in Ronnie's favor and make him win. Ok.

  But there is no fucking way in hell, !ever!, that the 280+ lbs version of Ronnie would defeat the 257 lbs Dorian. NO FUCKING WAY!!! Not by bodybuilding criteria! It's like saying that a 310 lbs Roland Kickinger would defeat a 230 lbs Wheeler. Sorry, dude: not possible. The 257 lbs Dorian has great(not merely good) taper, extreme hardness, incredible etchiness, a level of detail that, although not quite as good, is very close to the 250 lbs Ronnie and superb muscular-skeletal balance, the likes of which Ronnie could only dream of!(because Roonie has a long waist, high calves, assymetrical abs, etc...).

  Now, compare how the 250 lbs and the 287 lbs Ronnie would compare to a 257 lbs Dorian, as far as muscularity, musco-skeletal balance and in the mandatories. The 287 lbs Ronnie does surpass Dorian in muscle size, but only compares to him in muscularity. And when you take into considertion that he flat out loses in balance&proportions - even you have to agree with that -, you realize the only thing left are the mandatories. The problem here is that Ronnie's distended gut becomes a major liability in ALL the mandatories, especifically: abs-and-thighs, front lat spread, side chest and rear lat spread.

  When it comes to the 250 lbs Ronnie, Dorian loses several of his advantages, but still wins out. How? The 257 lbs Dorian wins flat out in muscularity and loses in taper, but still has the best overall musco-skeletal balance. All that's left then, is the mandatories. How would the 250 lbs Ronnie fair agains the 257 lbs Dozer? Ronnie would win the front double biceps, and tie both the most muscular and back double biceps - and his despite Dorian's much, much greater thickness, width and hardness! But that's it. In all other mandatories, Dorian would simly cream Ronnie in the pooper.

  Conclusion: the largest version of Ronnie loses to the smaller version of Dorian and ties with the lrger version. The smaller version of Coleman, conversely, defeats the largest version of Dorian but still loses - even if only by points - to the smaller version of Dorian. Game over. Here are a few shots of Ronnie at his great 280+ lbs form, which clearly demonstrates how his terrible taper, lack of details, horrendous balance and overall softeness are in no way acceptable for a pro, let alone a Mr.O.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

The funny thing is, dryness is meant to exhibit striations and vascularity!

bingo. this is why I have always stated that Dorian's detail was a myth. He never had the detail of a flex or Ronnie at their respective peaks, even if he was just as dry.

ND has been saying the following for years:

Bodybuilder (insert name) who is super (vascular or striated) has never won a contest or a Mr. olympia therefore, it shouldn't matter if Dorian does not have tons of striations or vascularity compared to Ronnie.

Typically, he mentions the following bodybuilders in this fallacy:

Paul Dillett for vascularity
Andreas Munzer (and Ayktulu) for striations.

What he has yet to grasp is that in ISOLATION these traits do not win contest.

but when combined with shape and size, they do.

A perfect example of this phenomenon is the fact that Dorian's most muscular looks like total shit compared to Ronnie's. This has been shown time after time after time.

They are both the same size.

But ronnie has the combo of detail, shape and vascularity that combine to create a far, far far better looking pose.

When faced with one of Dorian's myriad of flaws when compared to Ronnie, this is a favorite tactic of ND:

-isolate the flaw
-pick a bodybuilder who did not have the flaw but had little else
-state that said bodybuilder never won anything

 And therefore:

-proclaim flaw to be meaningless

But, as anyone can see, you can't isolate traits in bodybuilding, you have to look at the whole picture.

[suckmymuscle]

This is an APPALLING MM. Haven't seen ANY pics facing directly into the camera that look anything but. Serious tier-B stuff; garbage.

Let's review:

-No size
-No detail
-Cuts...sorta..?
-A couple of ugly-ass veins that look vericose.
-Blah shape
-Aesthetics? hahahhahahahhahahahahaha hhahahah

  Oh, poopster, but this is a most muscular from a time when Dorian was still a bodybuilding baby! And interestingly, he still displays awesome density and overall hardness. I want to see Roonie come even close to having a MM like this...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

Suckmyasshole, why do you keep posting this pic?

Ronnie is just standing there doing nothing. Jay is admiring his striated ass.

Are you wishing you were Jay?

[Hulkster]

 Oh, poopster, but this is a most muscular from a time when Dorian was still a bodybuilding baby! And interestingly, he still displays awesome density and overall hardness. I want to see Roonie come even close to having a MM like this...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

watch the video of the 99 Olympia again. towards the end of his routine, Ronnie hits a mostmuscular that is probably the greatest of all times - even better than Arnold, because, in addition to his super detailed and shapely delts, chest and arms, his quads are sliced so deep they look like they are about to fall apart.

[Hulkster]

Show me one f*cking contest where striations don't matter! Jesus Christ, how delusional are you?I don't know how they run things in Denmark or wherever the hell you are from, but in the states, striations are an exceptionally important element of bodybuilding criteria. They are the focal point of muscle detail!

 

hahaahahahahahahahaaha!

[Praetor Fenix]

Muscle density and muscle volume are NOT the same

I never said they were.
Muscle volume is the total amount of muscle.
Muscle density is the relative amount of muscle packed into a unit area of specified size.

Dorian has more than his fair share of "flat", less than-stuffed bodyparts.
Chest, biceps, hamstrings, glutes, quadriceps, and deltoids fall far short of Coleman's standard.
There is no way a bodypart can look dense when it isn't even fully developed.

You never see Dorian's muscles "straining" against his skin when he hits a pose like this
(Refer to most muscular attachment #1)
THAT is muscle density! Muscle packed so deep into a unit area that it no longer looks like it can be contained within the skin.

See his right deltoid ND! THAT IS MUSCLE DENSITY!


His back density is evident: look at the ridges, bumps, and troughs.
Dorian's back, though dry, could never match that size, thickness, or density.

drugs can give muscle volume but years and years of heavy training give the muscles density , Dorian's muscle desinty has been attributed to his short heavy work outs

Ronnie's style is quite similar to Dorian's in many respects.
Ronnie's lower back training is almost indistinguishable from Dorian.
Identical exercises, similar weights relative to their respective strength levels, analogous repetition ranges, high intensity, etc.

Nevertheless, as Charles Glass said, Dorian's style was also responsible for his injuries.
I'm not sure the reward was worth the risk, esp. when you look at Coleman's longevity.

its like comparing a ballon filled with water to a bowling ball both may have the same volume but not density , you look at 2003 he does NOT look as hard as Dorian desipte having so much more volume despite having striations Ronnie in 2003 looks like he's carrying water is conditioning may be good enough to win the show but he is not as hard as he was in 1998

Pure, unadulterated bias. A balloon filled with water? Comical.
Coleman DOES look every bit as hard as Yates.
The only pictures that even vaguely support Dorian's superior hardness are in black & white.
The pictures of Coleman in black & white, no surprise, look every bit as hard, if not moreso.

In fact, Ronnie's chest, biceps, deltoids, glutes, hamstrings, and quadriceps look immensely harder than Dorian's. I challenge you to post one Dorian picture in contest-ready shape that indicates otherwise.

Your perception of Ronnie being soft stems from his relaxed look. Nevertheless, when he hits a pose his muscles come to life and look as though they will burst through their enveloped sheath. You don't have an argument here with hardness ND. When Ronnie is flexing its not even close.

how do you explain his gut ? you think thats dense muscle ? mature muscle? thats his internal organs growing and pushing their way outward , Ronnie 2003 looks pre-contest and still needs to shed water , Ronnie looks like his muscles were pumped up with air and Dorian looks like he was carved out of a solid block of granite , Paul Dillett is another phsyique who had a lot of volume but didn't really convey a dense look !!

Dorian had the same problem with his midsection.
To compound the problem, his waist was wider and his obliques were too large.

As I said, I will concede, peak Dorian was better conditioned than 2003 Coleman. That said, "unconditioned" Coleman still managed to display more striations, more vascularity, more muscle detail, and comparable hardness (superior hardness in some regions) than "conditioned" Dorian.

Dorian's dryness and conditioning would not compensate for Coleman's muscle detail and maturity, precisely because the whole point of coming into the show dry and conditioned is to showcase that very detail and maturity he lacks!

Ronnie would win this 33% as well, and coupled with the muscularity and symmetry criteria:
Coleman takes the show with unanimous 1st's across the board.  

Thank you for playing folks.
Praetor Fenix.

[pumpster]

but this is a most muscular from a time when Dorian was still a bodybuilding baby! And interestingly, he still displays awesome density and overall hardness. I want to see Roonie come even close to having a MM like this...

Cognitively challenged SUCKMYASSHOLE fell right into the trap. I've said repeatedly there exists NO good Yates MM facing straight at the camera.

THE FIRST SHOT IS AT AN ANGLE AND IS A DISTORTION OF THE TRUE MM. NICE ATTEMPT TO  REMOVE THE FOCUS FROM THE MISERABLE SHAPE, MEDIOCRE SIZE AND VARICOSE VEINS.

THE SECOND SHOT IS THE ACCURATE (PATHETIC?) MM..

3RD SHOT IS COLEMAN BLOWING HIM AWAY-DID ND MUTTER SOMETHING ABOUT COLEMAN'S DELTS?

[Hulkster]

 

It has been said that Dorian looks more dense than Ronnie because Ronnie's muscles look like they have been inflated by a pnuematic pump.


like in this shot.

Personally, I have always felt this was backwards. The fact that they look like they are about to burst through the skin showing great detail and vascularity makes them look a whole lot more dense than this:


 

[sculpture]

Looking at that last comparison, it really does beg belief that ND can have the nerve to say dorians arms are better than ronnies.

The fucking audacity.