Author Topic: Best FLS in the 90s! (Read 13155 times)

Royal Lion · « **Reply #75 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:52:24 PM »

Dorian had a much better FLS that Nasser; notice his superiority in conditioning as well...

Hulkster · « **Reply #76 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:00:38 PM »

you need a better pic to prove your point.

look at nasser's right quad, it is more sliced and well conditioned than anything dorian is presenting.

97 was not a good year for dorian in terms of conditioning..

Royal Lion · « **Reply #77 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:03:12 PM »

I disagree; Nasser's quads are shaped differently (they do look sliced). However, look at the dryness of Dorian's upper body in comparison.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #78 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:04:55 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 02:00:38 PM

you need a better pic to prove your point.

look at nasser's right quad, it is more sliced and well conditioned than anything dorian is presenting.

97 was not a good year for dorian in terms of conditioning..

hahahaha his right quads is more sliced so he wins the pose , more stupid logic by GetBig's resident idiot

and 1997 was a good year for Yates in terms of conditioning only dummies think otherwise , you don't know what constitutes great conditioning you're the moron who claimed Dorian was soft & smooth in 1995 , you know what?

Hulkster · « **Reply #79 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:13:33 PM »

ND, we all know you are used to looking at dorian's back half, since thats where his ass is, but he does have a front side and he looked like shit..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #80 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:16:39 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 02:13:33 PM

ND, we all know you are used to looking at dorian's back half, since thats where his ass is, but he does have a front side and he looked like shit..

Stop projecting your homo fantasies on me , you're the one who compared Ronnie's glutes from one year to the next

looked like shit is a BIG difference between having conditioning problems and Ronnie was where in 1997?

opppsssss I guessed that meant Ronnie really , really looked like shit

Royal Lion · « **Reply #81 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:19:37 PM »

Granted, 97 was a bad year for Dorian's fdb.....his MM looks good in that shot from Hulkster though. In 97 he had an awesome front relaxed (when he was in the pose!), the best FLS on stage, and an equally great ab thigh. From the side and back we all know it was game over for the competition, which is why Dorian justifiably won.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #82 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:19:51 PM »

From the front , back , sides his conditioning wasn't the problem ! torn muscles were and again what does that say about Ronnie being in 9th?

Immortal_Technique · « **Reply #83 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:20:33 PM »

Ronnie was busy placing behind at least 5 top guys he would beat the next year due to dramatic improvements.

Hulkster · « **Reply #84 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:21:40 PM »

Quote

I guessed that meant Ronnie really , really looked like shit

compared to what he looked like 2 years later, YES:

dorian must have been damn glad he retired:

Hulkster · « **Reply #85 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:22:40 PM »

^
notice how chris is owning ronnie in 97

but ronnie is destroying chris by 99..

Hulkster · « **Reply #86 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:23:45 PM »

Quote from: Immortal_Technique on October 06, 2009, 02:20:33 PM

Ronnie was busy placing behind at least 5 top guys he would beat the next year due to dramatic improvements.

but remember, in a desperate effort to make dorian seem better, the nuthuggers downplay any improvements ronnie made to go from 9th place to 8 Mr. O wins..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #87 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:24:55 PM »

Quote from: Immortal_Technique on October 06, 2009, 02:20:33 PM

Ronnie was busy placing behind at least 5 top guys he would beat the next year due to dramatic improvements.

in conditioning ! not in balance & proportion , not in size , not in shape , not in calves , not in anything other than being totally dried out

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #88 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:26:04 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 02:22:40 PM

^
notice how chris is owning ronnie in 97

but ronnie is destroying chris by 99..

JohnnyTosh GetBig 12-20-07

Hulkster, I have one question for you? .... Were you there in Long Beach in 97? Because I was. AND I was there in 93 & 95 in Atlanta & 96 in Chicago. It's been said a million times. Yates has a Thickness & density from every angle that had to be seen in person, and that NOBODY else had.

I think Milos is awesome. I would LOVE to have his body, but Yates smoked everybody in the totality of ALL poses. From the side & from the back, yates crushed everybody.

Unless you were there, you cannot really say accurately. BTW, Demilia gave me tickets right behind the judges every year.

Not flaming, but Yates reigned supreme.. YES. HIS GUT was sticking out in 97 & Nasser looked as good, or maybe a hair better from the front in 97, but when they turned to the side & rear, DORIAN ruled again.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #89 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:28:44 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 02:23:45 PM

but remember, in a desperate effort to make dorian seem better, the nuthuggers downplay any improvements ronnie made to go from 9th place to 8 Mr. O wins..

Bitch tits is an improvement? since when?

what did Ronnie improve on from 1997 to 1998? conditioning and NOTHING more he came in spot-on

Hulkster · « **Reply #90 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:29:45 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on October 06, 2009, 02:24:55 PM

in conditioning ! not in balance & proportion , not in size , not in shape , not in calves , not in anything other than being totally dried out

LOL what do you mean not in size?

look at the drastic difference in upper body and quad size here:

http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027

its like night and day.

but Like I said, you try and rewrite history saying that there was no difference..

Royal Lion · « **Reply #91 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:32:34 PM »

Didn't Ronnie place 6th in 1996? It would seem then that he was comparing well with the likes of Ray, Flex, Kevin, and Nasser prior to 98/99. He did improve, but it wasn't that dramatic.

Hulkster · « **Reply #92 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:37:06 PM »

no, he actually placed a crappy 7th and never got to the posedown.

he placed 6th only AFTER nasser was dq'd for failing a diuretics test..

try as the nuthuggers may, ronnie was shitty when dorian was facing him.

facts are facts.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #93 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:40:32 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 02:29:45 PM

LOL what do you mean not in size?

look at the drastic difference in upper body and quad size here:

its like night and day.

but Like I said, you try and rewrite history saying that there was no difference..

LOL dummy I said 1998 moron , 1998

I know you're not that smart put learn to pay attention to the conversation

other than conditioning how did Ronnie improved from 1997 to 1998 , stop running and answer the question

Hulkster · « **Reply #94 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:12:55 PM »

Quote

other than conditioning how did Ronnie improved from 1997 to 1998 , stop running and answer the question

he added visible size, especially in the back, quads and chest:

ND is now on sucicide watch..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #95 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:37:10 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 03:12:55 PM

he added visible size, especially in the back, quads and chest:

ND is now on sucicide watch..

Hahahahahaha sure he did 255 pounds in 1997 249 pounds in 1998 yet he somehow added more size in most of his body , fantastic logic LMFAO don't mistake appearing larger for being larger that's what great conditioning does stupid

he got lighter and got bigger Bwwwwwwaaaaaahhahahahaha hahah he's not even hitting the same exact pose , the distance between the camera is different LMFAO

epic Hulkster backfire as usual

Hulkster · « **Reply #96 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:46:59 PM »

you act like the numbers are accurate?

ronnie was not 255 in 97 if he was 257 in 99

cause he was noticably bigger in 99..a hell of a lot more than a measly 2 pounds.

and ronnie had stated in interviews at the time that he was adding about 5 pounds of muscle per year.

he went UP in size as he won Mr. O's, not down..

use your brain man.

he was bigger in 98 than in 97, and bigger in 99 than in 98 and...it goes on.

duh.

Hulkster · « **Reply #97 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:50:55 PM »

Quote

Hahahahahaha sure he did 255 pounds in 1997 249 pounds in 1998 yet he somehow added more size in most of his body

yup. you can see the size in the videos and pics.

your mistake is you are taking the 255 weight value in 97 as being accurate.

it isn't. hellen keller can see that.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #98 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:52:24 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on October 06, 2009, 03:46:59 PM

you act like the numbers are accurate?

ronnie was not 255 in 97 if he was 257 in 99

cause he was noticably bigger in 99..a hell of a lot more than a measly 2 pounds.

and ronnie had stated in interviews at the time that he was adding about 5 pounds of muscle per year.

he went UP in size as he won Mr. O's, not down..

use your brain man.

he was bigger in 98 than in 97, and bigger in 99 than in 98 and...it goes on.

duh.

Proof would be nice .......hey wait that's something you could never do is back up your claims and posting pictures and saying ' see ' not proof , sorry

when in doubt deny , deny , deny

Ronnie's only improvement over 97 was he nailed his conditioning and that's one hell of an improvement but as far as size , shape , balance , proportion , width and gyno he didn't change which is exactly why he said Dorian would still beat him because he knows Dorians harder & drier while being bigger

Hulkster · « **Reply #99 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:54:58 PM »

there is more proof than you can ever handle: the size increase is pretty damn obvious: