Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Cap on January 23, 2007, 01:37:53 PM
-
best back? Pick one.
All things considered I'm going with Yates.
-
Haney
-
(http://www.kulturistika.com/gallery/1115026842_223.jpg)
Come on. I think Ronnie is a dick - but no one else has even come close.
-
best back? Pick one.
All things considered I'm going with Yates.
coleman.
-
Yates.
-
Yates.
Morphed.
The original shot is impressive enough.
-
Here we go again. Oh well...
-
Dorian has everything everyone else does and then some.
-
Yates
-
Neither Cutler , Coleman or Haney had shredded lower lats and a x-mass three like this
-
Ronnie at his best
-
Haney
-
my perferance is ronnies back. he has so much more thickness and taper then all the other guys.
-
I gotta go with Yates, but Ronnie is close, close 2nd.
-
my perferance is ronnies back. he has so much more thickness and taper then all the other guys.
Ronnie's back was simply puffed up with more water than Yates' back. Yates back was harder, more separated, more detailed, and thicker than Coleman's. Nobody had thicker lats than Yates.
-
Yates.
This is the real picture. Impressive as hell IMO.
-
Yates 1995
-
Some defense could be mounted of the Yates back viewed solely as a bodypart - which I guess was the original poster's question. But if you do a side by side of the back double biceps pose, it's all over.
"Lights out!" as the Chickster likes to say.
-
Yates 1995
his back is dryer for sure, but it has zero taper and looks flat as a pancake. yates lats were not thicker then ronnies.
look at ronnies lats folding over, yates lats were never that thick, nor his middle back. dryer yes. more detailed, probably. ronnies back is definitetly bigger and thicker and wider. and his taper is miles better. back alone it can be argued. but ronnie easily wins the back double bi on account that you have to take the arms, delts, glutes, hams and calves into account. if back is a draw based on preference, then all ronnie loses on is calves.
yates back was not as thick as 03 ronnie and not even close to 04 holland grad prix ronnie.
-
his back is dryer for sure, but it has zero taper and looks flat as a pancake. yates lats were not thicker then ronnies.
look at ronnies lats folding over, yates lats were never that thick, nor his middle back. dryer yes. more detailed, probably. ronnies back is definitetly bigger and thicker and wider. and his taper is miles better. back alone it can be argued. but ronnie easily wins the back double bi on account that you have to take the arms, delts, glutes, hams and calves into account. if back is a draw based on preference, then all ronnie loses on is calves.
yates back was not as thick as 03 ronnie and not even close to 04 holland grad prix ronnie.
That's becuase Ronnie's back was full of water...it was soft and puffy as shit. And nobody has had thicker lats than Dorian
-
in that first pic i see, flat as a pancake back with zero taper. ripped to shreds and dry. shitty arms with biceps non-exsistent, less then stellar hams and great calves. glutes could also be harder and more striated. second pic is a stupid pic that is blown up and on a weird angle.
thrid pic is amazing lats, that are super thick. poor arms and delts with little detail and seperation. chest that is lacking in striations in the pick and good taper.
i think yates flexed and spread his back more in the front lat, while ronnie contracted his chest and delts.
im not a coleman guy, i can see that yates had a great back, but that is my honest opinion of the picks you posted. its really preference bt the two. i like the thickness and crazy taper ronnie has with great detail, over the dry, hard yates with great detail.
-
in that first pic i see, flat as a pancake back with zero taper. ripped to shreds and dry. shitty arms with biceps non-exsistent, less then stellar hams and great calves. glutes could also be harder and more striated. second pic is a stupid pic that is blown up and on a weird angle.
thrid pic is amazing lats, that are super thick. poor arms and delts with little detail and seperation. chest that is lacking in striations in the pick and good taper.
i think yates flexed and spread his back more in the front lat, while ronnie contracted his chest and delts.
im not a coleman guy, i can see that yates had a great back, but that is my honest opinion of the picks you posted. its really preference bt the two. i like the thickness and crazy taper ronnie has with great detail, over the dry, hard yates with great detail.
meltdown
-
I would rather have a "drier" back than a puffy one. ANd honestly, why are glutes so important? I mean honestly, only Thordilvsen and Coleman really have them. It's really pointless IMO. Just my preference.
Like Kamali said: "LIGHTS OUT BABY!!!"
-
If the best Dorian was hitting a rear double bi against the best Ronnie, Dorian would lose.
-
If the best Dorian was hitting a rear double bi against the best Ronnie, Dorian would lose.
Sure he would ::)
-
I would rather have a "drier" back than a puffy one. ANd honestly, why are glutes so important? I mean honestly, only Thordilvsen and Coleman really have them. It's really pointless IMO. Just my preference.
Like Kamali said: "LIGHTS OUT BABY!!!"
Yates has striated glutes , maybe his are harder to see because unlike Ronnie he doesn't have his posing trucks shoved up his ass !
-
Yates.
stop using that morphed pic damn it. yates is wayyyy more than good enough to resort to that.
-
Coleman actually violated the IFBB rules by cramming his trunks up his ass
-
Sure he would
oh please, nukka! Dorian never looked like that onstage. If you want to compare offseason shots, then 02 BFTO Ronnie beats that black and white pic of Dorian.
-
meltdown
i would own you within an inch of your life, you've spent half your life posting pics of dorian arguing the same retarded points in a virtual contest were preferance is really all you have. the second someone mentions coleman you make a triple post meltdown of the same dorian pics. i bet if you argue for another 1000 pages you'll win. hopefully then you can begin to contribute to society, if not off yourself. actually just off yourself.
haha you double and triple post meltdown over and over, obsessed a little?
i can picture you now. you turn off the lights to hit the hay kiss your mom on the lips and tell her you love her. slip into your jammies, make sure the night light is on, then proceed to climb into your bunk bed(top bunk of course for a big boy like you). you flip through old flexes looking for dorian pics to jerk to, you start wanking mumbling in a fake english accent then as you climax you scream "MASS ON THE BACK" . put your thumb in your mouth and doze off.
-
oh please, nukka! Dorian never looked like that onstage. If you want to compare offseason shots, then 02 BFTO Ronnie beats that black and white pic of Dorian.
Best-rear double bi of all-time ;) Coleman looks like a crispy-creme in comparison. His is crisp on the outside, but soft and doughy ;)
-
i can picture you now. you turn off the lights to hit the hay kiss your mom on the lips and tell her you love her. slip into your jammies, make sure the night light is on, then proceed to climb into your bunk bed(top bunk of course for a big boy like you). you flip through old flexes looking for dorian pics to jerk to, you start wanking mumbling in a fake english accent then as you climax you scream "MASS ON THE BACK" . put your thumb in your mouth and doze off.
ha ha ha ha "mass on the back." Owned. ;D
-
ha ha ha ha "mass on the back." Owned. ;D
What he said. :)
-
Lights Out, Game Over
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie26c.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie19.jpg)
-
Lights Out, Game Over
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie26c.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie19.jpg)
Coleman OWNED hahahahahahaha
-
Lights Out, Game Over
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie26c.jpg)
Please take your ridiculous ' comparisons ' back to the drawing board
-
Please take your ridiculous ' comparisons ' back to the drawing board
here's the proof that I used. Now keep in mind that Ronnie is 1 inch taller than Dorian.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie26cProof.jpg)
by all means, you're more than welcome to make a better comparison from the pics that I used. Let's see if you can do a better job. I have a feeling you know it's pretty accurate, hence why you have repeatedly ignored my challenge. I guess you figure it's easier for you to shoot your mouth off rather than prove how my comparison is "ridiculous." ::)
-
I'm still trying to figure out why Ronnie's right forearm is 1 foot longer than yates' despite being in the same position hahahaha....you are a joke neosemen. ;)
-
i would own you within an inch of your life, you've spent half your life posting pics of dorian arguing the same retarded points in a virtual contest were preferance is really all you have. the second someone mentions coleman you make a triple post meltdown of the same dorian pics. i bet if you argue for another 1000 pages you'll win. hopefully then you can begin to contribute to society, if not off yourself. actually just off yourself.
haha you double and triple post meltdown over and over, obsessed a little?
i can picture you now. you turn off the lights to hit the hay kiss your mom on the lips and tell her you love her. slip into your jammies, make sure the night light is on, then proceed to climb into your bunk bed(top bunk of course for a big boy like you). you flip through old flexes looking for dorian pics to jerk to, you start wanking mumbling in a fake english accent then as you climax you scream "MASS ON THE BACK" . put your thumb in your mouth and doze off.
i would own you within an inch of your life, you've spent half your life posting pics of dorian arguing the same retarded points in a virtual contest were preferance is really all you have. the second someone mentions coleman you make a triple post meltdown of the same dorian pics. i bet if you argue for another 1000 pages you'll win. hopefully then you can begin to contribute to society, if not off yourself. actually just off yourself.
haha you double and triple post meltdown over and over, obsessed a little?
You would ' own ' me if you had anything to work with but like all the other Nutt-Huggers you don't , you're just another ignorant Coleman fan who thinks they know what they're talking about , Ronnie has a better back because he has a smaller waist? great fucking-logic ::)
I can articulate exactly why Dorian has a better back for the uneducated and ignorant for yourself
Traps - Dorian's are thicker & denser and show better detail & separation from the related muscles
Teres major & minor - Dorian and Ronnie's show about the same level of detail & separation
Lats - Dorian's have better sweep , they're thicker & denser and his lower lats from the backshow levels of detail & development in which Ronnie or Haney has never shown
Erector spinae - Dorian's christmass tree again shows more detail & development than either Haney or Coleman's ever have
Dorian's lats insert lower to his waist , Ronnie & Haney's don't , hence why you harp on Dorian's back looking ' flat ' like that means anything in the scope of things ::)
Dryness & Hardness , Ronnie would perhaps match Dorian in terms of dryness & hardness in 1998 Olympia and 2001 Arnold classic yet he was just 249 pounds & 244 pounds respectively , its much harder ( no pun ) to do when you're 260 pounds
Density - Dorian is the definition of density
now lets compare that to your assessment
Ronnie has better thickness & taper , WOW you really made your case ::)
i can picture you now. you turn off the lights to hit the hay kiss your mom on the lips and tell her you love her. slip into your jammies, make sure the night light is on, then proceed to climb into your bunk bed(top bunk of course for a big boy like you). you flip through old flexes looking for dorian pics to jerk to, you start wanking mumbling in a fake english accent then as you climax you scream "MASS ON THE BACK" . put your thumb in your mouth and doze off.
I wasn't even going to respond to this but I have to , and why? because its so pathetic and so God-damn unoriginal , homophobic rants on a bodybuilding message board? I've never seen those before ::) wow you're a real innovator , like your lame-ass assessment this just reeks of desperation but hey its not like you have much to work with given your limited abilities , especially compared to me , kid word of advice , try doing some research and be a little more original ;)
-
here's the proof that I used. Now keep in mind that Ronnie is 1 inch taller than Dorian.
by all means, you're more than welcome to make a better comparison from the pics that I used. Let's see if you can do a better job. I have a feeling you know it's pretty accurate, hence why you have repeatedly ignored my challenge. I guess you figure it's easier for you to shoot your mouth off rather than prove how my comparison is "ridiculous." ::)
Neo proof ::) give me a fucking break , I don't care if you scaled the height correctly it has NOTHING to do with reality Ronnie's calves are bigger than Dorian's ::) kid please spare me this garbage because thats exactly what it is
-
I'm still trying to figure out why Ronnie's right forearm is 1 foot longer than yates' despite being in the same position hahahaha....you are a joke neosemen.
yawn, is that the best you can come up with? I will answer you in layman's terms b/c you seem to be mentally challenged. Notice how their heads are both roughly the same level, yet Ronnie's hands are above his head while Dorian's are below? Common sense should tell you that their arms aren't positioned the same. Dorian arms are more bent and rotated forward. Ronnie's arms are closer to 90 degrees, and his forearms are pointing straight up. If I scaled the comparison so that their hands are both the same level, then the top of Ronnie's head would come up to Dorian's shoulders.
-
Neo proof give me a fucking break , I don't care if you scaled the height correctly it has NOTHING to do with reality Ronnie's calves are bigger than Dorian's kid please spare me this garbage because thats exactly what it is
go home, little girl. Ronnie's calves are not bigger than Dorian's in that pic.
-
I don't think the comparison is that bad, I just see Yates winning.
Personal preferance though.
-
Lights Out, Game Over
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie19.jpg)
Dorian was dry and hard.. Ronnie is big and watery (look at the back of his neck)
-
go home, little girl. Ronnie's calves are not bigger than Dorian's in that pic.
Lets play Neo's game " look I scaled it correctly Ronnie is one inch taller so it must be right " ::) give me a break , I know you like to think 2003 Ronnie would dwarf Jay but he wouldn't Dorian
-
Its odd this pic is a LOT clearer than the one in Neo's comparison
-
Dorian was dry and hard.. Ronnie is big and watery (look at the back of his neck)
'
dude in that pic ronnies lower back is dryer and his glutes and hams are much more defined and cut.
-
Dorian has no bicep peak. :(
-
'
dude in that pic ronnies lower back is dryer and his glutes and hams are much more defined and cut.
The best part is Dorian is OFFSEASON and Ronnie is contest ready , and Yates' is still harder
-
Dorian has no bicep peak. :(
True and Ronnie has no calves
-
and Ronnie has no calves
Jeebus didn't come through for him on calf genetics. :(
-
dorian doesnt look harder in that pic, his ass looks like a chick from bangbros and his hams are non-exsistent not to mention theres little to no seperation in his back. on top of that his arms look like twigs while ronnies look to be twice the size.
-
:o
-
vince looks amazing there. :o :o
-
dorian doesnt look harder in that pic, his ass looks like a chick from bangbros and his hams are non-exsistent not to mention theres little to no seperation in his back. on top of that his arms look like twigs while ronnies look to be twice the size.
Typical Coleman always equates bigger with better ::) Ronnie 2003 was no where near as hard as he was in 2001 Arnold or 1998 Mr Olympia and those are about the only two occasions Ronnie came close to Dorian in terms of hardness and again Yates is ' offseason' and Ronnie is in a contest , big difference.
-
And FWIW, Dorian is the first Mr. O since Franco to have even worse aesthetics than Ronnie.
-
dorian doesnt look harder in that pic, his ass looks like a chick from bangbros and his hams are non-exsistent not to mention theres little to no seperation in his back. on top of that his arms look like twigs while ronnies look to be twice the size.
Too bad Ronnie was never this hard or detailed from the back.
-
And FWIW, Dorian is the first Mr. O since Franco to have even worse aesthetics than Ronnie.
Yes aesthetic , when I look at Ronnie I have Steve Reeves flashbacks ::)
-
Yes aesthetic , when I look at Ronnie I have Steve Reeves flashbacks ::)
Which part of "even worse than" did you have trouble understanding? :)
-
Like I said, in terms of back, Yates is the clear winner. Just back...back....not front but back....not side but back....not glutes but back....
-
Like I said, in terms of back, Yates is the clear winner. Just back...back....not front but back....not side but back....not glutes but back....
I'd say Dorian rules a lot of the side shots too, especially the quarter turns.
-
I'd say Dorian rules a lot of the side shots too, especially the quarter turns.
Yea, it helps when you do the side chest and tricep correctly. ;D
-
Which part of "even worse than" did you have trouble understanding? :)
Its an obvious statement , no kidding Yates wasn't know for his aesthetics thats not why he won and believe me Ronnie may be more ' aesthetic ' compare to Dorian but its a stretch to call him aesthetic under the normal use of the word.
-
Yea, it helps when you do the side chest and tricep correctly. ;D
Yup!
Ronnie's side chest is deplorable, all you can see is his front delt head.
And gut.
-
Yup!
Ronnie's side chest is deplorable, all you can see is his front delt head.
And gut.
Right !! Kev showing how its done
-
Right !! Kev showing how its done
The "butterfly mouth" really sells the pose!
-
Superior delts and tris ladies and gentlemen.
-
Lets play Neo's game " look I scaled it correctly Ronnie is one inch taller so it must be right " give me a break , I know you like to think 2003 Ronnie would dwarf Jay but he wouldn't Dorian
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137414;image)
nice try kiddo, but I don't photoshop pics to make Ronnie looks better or Dorian look worse in comparisons. It's obvious you made Ronnie narrower. You also used a blurry pic and a clear pic of Dorian. I used two screen caps with equal resolution in my comparison. ;)
-
Its odd this pic is a LOT clearer than the one in Neo's comparison
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137415;image)
I found the back comparison with the black background. I don't know how to cut out only people.
-
nice try kiddo, but I don't photoshop pics to make Ronnie looks better or Dorian look worse in comparisons. It's obvious you made Ronnie narrower. You also used a blurry pic and a clear pic of Dorian. I used two screen caps with equal resolution in my comparison. ;)
Photoshopped did you say photoshopped? LMFAO
-
Photoshopped did you say photoshopped? LMFAO
I'm not really sure why you are laughing. This isn't the first time I've caught you using photoshoped pics. Are you really that dumb that you can't tell Ronnie looks narrower than usual? He weighed 287 lbs at the 03 Mr. Olympia, yet his waist looks 28 inches in this comparison.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137414;image)
-
I'm not really sure why you are laughing. This isn't the first time I've caught you using photoshoped pics. Are you really that dumb that you can't tell Ronnie looks narrower than usual? He weighed 287 lbs at the 03 Mr. Olympia, yet his waist looks 28 inches in this comparison.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137414;image)
lol and spare me the photoshopped pics ::) of who Arnold? I could careless about that pic and you of all people NEVER have a right to bitch about fair comparisons kid
Fact Dorian has a wider waist & hips than Ronnie evident in the comparison I posted
Fact Dorian has bigger calves than Ronnie evident in the comparison I posted
Fact Dorian has small bicep/triceps than Ronnie evident in the comparison I posted
-
I think Ronnie and Coco have the same "ass implant doctor". Either that or he is part horse. Same huge ass and skinny calves. Haha
-
I think Ronnie and Coco have the same "ass implant doctor". Either that or he is part horse. Same huge ass and skinny calves. Haha
Something wrong when your ass can be seen from the front
-
That light really kills the look of thickness in his lats. BUmmer for him. Seriously though, his glutes should not stand out that much.
Coleman's lats are thin in the front double as are his pecs. Yates destroys him.
-
I really think Jay has done a pretty good job of transforming his back although I think the GH is thickening his skin which makes it harder for him to have detail.
He has done a good job of transforming his back but I think the detail is genetic I don't think Jay is using anything different than Yates or Coleman
-
one thing is plainly obvious after all these debates:
the ONLY way the dorian side can make peak Ronnie look worse than dorian is by either:
1. claiming pics/videos are doctored
and/or
2. using blatantly blurry coleman shots (see ND's posts on the truce thread or even ironage.us)
says a lot, doesn't it?
::)
-
one thing is plainly obvious after all these debates:
the ONLY way the dorian side can make peak Ronnie look worse than dorian is by either:
1. claiming pics/videos are doctored
and/or
2. using blatantly blurry coleman shots (see ND's posts on the truce thread or even ironage.us)
says a lot, doesn't it?
::)
Absolutely false. All we want is an accurate comparison. When this is done, it is clear that Yates is superior in enough aspects (namely, muscularity and conditioning) that he would be given the win over Coleman.
-
i think people have surpassed haney, but no one has surpassed ronnie or dorian.
as far as whose back is the best, i gotta agree with what ronnie coleman himself he said.
from FLEX, july 2003.
DESCRIBE DORIAN YATES: A close friend. Dorian is very intelligent, a great Mr. Olympia. He had the best side-chest pose and the thickest freakiest back I have ever seen.
this thread is now over.
-
Flex Wheeler :-*
-
Flex Wheeler :-*
Highly detailed, not thick or wide enough though.
-
Yates.
That pic is fake, here is the real one:
-
his back is dryer for sure, but it has zero taper and looks flat as a pancake. yates lats were not thicker then ronnies.
look at ronnies lats folding over, yates lats were never that thick, nor his middle back. dryer yes. more detailed, probably. ronnies back is definitetly bigger and thicker and wider. and his taper is miles better. back alone it can be argued. but ronnie easily wins the back double bi on account that you have to take the arms, delts, glutes, hams and calves into account. if back is a draw based on preference, then all ronnie loses on is calves.
yates back was not as thick as 03 ronnie and not even close to 04 holland grad prix ronnie.
That's exactly word for word what we have been telling this guy but he still refuses to listen. In 95 yates back was dry but looks flat and not thick in those shots.
-
You would ' own ' me if you had anything to work with but like all the other Nutt-Huggers you don't , you're just another ignorant Coleman fan who thinks they know what they're talking about , Ronnie has a better back because he has a smaller waist? great fucking-logic ::)
I can articulate exactly why Dorian has a better back for the uneducated and ignorant for yourself
Traps - Dorian's are thicker & denser and show better detail & separation from the related muscles
Teres major & minor - Dorian and Ronnie's show about the same level of detail & separation
Lats - Dorian's have better sweep , they're thicker & denser and his lower lats from the backshow levels of detail & development in which Ronnie or Haney has never shown
Erector spinae - Dorian's christmass tree again shows more detail & development than either Haney or Coleman's ever have
Dorian's lats insert lower to his waist , Ronnie & Haney's don't , hence why you harp on Dorian's back looking ' flat ' like that means anything in the scope of things ::)
Dryness & Hardness , Ronnie would perhaps match Dorian in terms of dryness & hardness in 1998 Olympia and 2001 Arnold classic yet he was just 249 pounds & 244 pounds respectively , its much harder ( no pun ) to do when you're 260 pounds
Density - Dorian is the definition of density
now lets compare that to your assessment
Ronnie has better thickness & taper , WOW you really made your case ::)
I wasn't even going to respond to this but I have to , and why? because its so pathetic and so God-damn unoriginal , homophobic rants on a bodybuilding message board? I've never seen those before ::) wow you're a real innovator , like your lame-ass assessment this just reeks of desperation but hey its not like you have much to work with given your limited abilities , especially compared to me , kid word of advice , try doing some research and be a little more original ;)
Man you're still at this :P You are one strange individual. :-\
-
in that first pic i see, flat as a pancake back with zero taper. ripped to shreds and dry. shitty arms with biceps non-exsistent, less then stellar hams and great calves. glutes could also be harder and more striated. second pic is a stupid pic that is blown up and on a weird angle.
thrid pic is amazing lats, that are super thick. poor arms and delts with little detail and seperation. chest that is lacking in striations in the pick and good taper.
i think yates flexed and spread his back more in the front lat, while ronnie contracted his chest and delts.
im not a coleman guy, i can see that yates had a great back, but that is my honest opinion of the picks you posted. its really preference bt the two. i like the thickness and crazy taper ronnie has with great detail, over the dry, hard yates with great detail.
Excellent post again.
-
http://www.dailymotion.com/Tech9/video/xkpsk_bodybuilders
Watch this.
They outline judging.
Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry Big Ron.
-
meltdown
How is that a meltdown? He told your a$$ as he see's things and all you can say is meltdown? What, you can't reply with a decent answer? lol
-
If the best Dorian was hitting a rear double bi against the best Ronnie, Dorian would lose.
Amen to that. And this is coming from a guy named "Jr. Yates".
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137420;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=137002;image)
some of their best back shots.
tough call.
i prefer yates' hardness.
-
Amen to that. And this is coming from a guy named "Jr. Yates".
Coleman's back double bi was never this good ;)
-
Wrong pobrecito, Ronnie kills him in the back double bi. Why, his back is thicker but not as ripped. I agree with you there. However, he has better delts, far superior arms, and striated and thick hams/glutes. Yates has him on calves. Oh well, I guess Ronnie should go back into hiding. Seriously though, Yates back double bi is not overly impressive except for his back detail. Coleman is wider and thicker. The widest is Cutler; he just lacks detail. Overall, this thread is another rehash of Yates vs Coleman. It is old news. ND is forever gonna be a Yates lover. Hulkster is Coleman's biggest fan. Personally, I would love to see someone like Freeman come along and get bigger and more ripped than both of them.
However, while we are debating (again) Yates vs Coleman, consider the following. Yates had detail but zero aesthetics. Ronnie has decent detail (especially in 1998/1999) and far superior size and taper. Sorry ND, the 260 pound Yates had a bloated stomach, average arms and legs that would have gotten raped by Coleman. His calves were better, but his limbs for the most part were average. Good size in the quads and hams, but Ronnie kills him in detail and size. Ronnie has a far superior chest than Yates ever had. Yates has better rectus abdominus, but wider obliques. It is a joke that you think Ronnie in 2003 wouldn't blow Yates off the stage. Anybody without shades realizes that Ronnie would destroy him. The only pics where Yates could even hope to match him in size are three seasons out from the contest in off-season shape. At 290 pounds, Yates had visible fat. Face it, Ronnie is more muscular. Whether you prefer that look is one thing; however, to even insinuate that Yate's was more muscular is laughable.
-
Wrong PubicHair, Ronnie kills him in the back double bi. Why, his back is thicker but not as ripped. I agree with you there. However, he has better delts, far superior arms, and striated and thick hams/glutes. Yates has him on calves. Oh well, I guess Ronnie should go back into hiding. Seriously though, Yates back double bi is not overly impressive except for his back detail. Coleman is wider and thicker. The widest is Cutler; he just lacks detail. Overall, this thread is another rehash of Yates vs Coleman. It is old news. ND is forever gonna be a Yates lover. Hulkster is Coleman's biggest fan. Personally, I would love to see someone like Freeman come along and get bigger and more ripped than both of them.
However, while we are debating (again) Yates vs Coleman, consider the following. Yates had detail but zero aesthetics. Ronnie has decent detail (especially in 1998/1999) and far superior size and taper. Sorry ND, the 260 pound Yates had a bloated stomach, average arms and legs that would have gotten raped by Coleman. His calves were better, but his limbs for the most part were average. Good size in the quads and hams, but Ronnie kills him in detail and size. Ronnie has a far superior chest than Yates ever had. Yates has better rectus abdominus, but wider obliques. It is a joke that you think Ronnie in 2003 wouldn't blow Yates off the stage. Anybody without shades realizes that Ronnie would destroy him. The only pics where Yates could even hope to match him in size are three seasons out from the contest in off-season shape. At 290 pounds, Yates had visible fat. Face it, Ronnie is more muscular. Whether you prefer that look is one thing; however, to even insinuate that Yate's was more muscular is laughable.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/Clapping.gif)
-
What he said. :)
Also what he said ;D
-
Lights Out, Game Over
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie26c.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie19.jpg)
Sorry wrong pic. Here is the right one:
-
Wrong pobrecito, Ronnie kills him in the back double bi. Why, his back is thicker but not as ripped. I agree with you there. However, he has better delts, far superior arms, and striated and thick hams/glutes. Yates has him on calves. Oh well, I guess Ronnie should go back into hiding. Seriously though, Yates back double bi is not overly impressive except for his back detail. Coleman is wider and thicker. The widest is Cutler; he just lacks detail. Overall, this thread is another rehash of Yates vs Coleman. It is old news. ND is forever gonna be a Yates lover. Hulkster is Coleman's biggest fan. Personally, I would love to see someone like Freeman come along and get bigger and more ripped than both of them.
However, while we are debating (again) Yates vs Coleman, consider the following. Yates had detail but zero aesthetics. Ronnie has decent detail (especially in 1998/1999) and far superior size and taper. Sorry ND, the 260 pound Yates had a bloated stomach, average arms and legs that would have gotten raped by Coleman. His calves were better, but his limbs for the most part were average. Good size in the quads and hams, but Ronnie kills him in detail and size. Ronnie has a far superior chest than Yates ever had. Yates has better rectus abdominus, but wider obliques. It is a joke that you think Ronnie in 2003 wouldn't blow Yates off the stage. Anybody without shades realizes that Ronnie would destroy him. The only pics where Yates could even hope to match him in size are three seasons out from the contest in off-season shape. At 290 pounds, Yates had visible fat. Face it, Ronnie is more muscular. Whether you prefer that look is one thing; however, to even insinuate that Yate's was more muscular is laughable.
excellent post!
I see ND and co. are getting their asses handed to them again.
Ronnie 99 would easily beat yates in my opinion.
yes, easily.
he has more aesthetics than dorian, with equal size.
he matched dorian in the back department (something NONE of Dorian's challengers ever did - hence part of why dorian won all the time) and had far better quads, glutes, hams, chest and arms.
He also had far better taper.
had lost out in the ab and calf department.
What else is there to say?
all this bullshit about dorian's "better balance, propoprotion, density, muscular bulk ( ::))" is exactly that:
complete bullshit:
why? because its all words on a page that do not even remotely come close to real life:
just look:
dorian was simply not this good.
Its debatable whether anyone really was.
As mentioned, Flex 93 had the shape and detail that ronnie did, with better abs, but had poor back thickness and lats by comparison..
-
ronnie's 99 double bi:
-
http://www.dailymotion.com/Tech9/video/xkpsk_bodybuilders
Watch this.
They outline judging.
Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry Big Ron.
???
-
Wrong pobrecito, Ronnie kills him in the back double bi. Why, his back is thicker but not as ripped. I agree with you there. However, he has better delts, far superior arms, and striated and thick hams/glutes. Yates has him on calves. Oh well, I guess Ronnie should go back into hiding. Seriously though, Yates back double bi is not overly impressive except for his back detail. Coleman is wider and thicker. The widest is Cutler; he just lacks detail. Overall, this thread is another rehash of Yates vs Coleman. It is old news. ND is forever gonna be a Yates lover. Hulkster is Coleman's biggest fan. Personally, I would love to see someone like Freeman come along and get bigger and more ripped than both of them.
However, while we are debating (again) Yates vs Coleman, consider the following. Yates had detail but zero aesthetics. Ronnie has decent detail (especially in 1998/1999) and far superior size and taper. Sorry ND, the 260 pound Yates had a bloated stomach, average arms and legs that would have gotten raped by Coleman. His calves were better, but his limbs for the most part were average. Good size in the quads and hams, but Ronnie kills him in detail and size. Ronnie has a far superior chest than Yates ever had. Yates has better rectus abdominus, but wider obliques. It is a joke that you think Ronnie in 2003 wouldn't blow Yates off the stage. Anybody without shades realizes that Ronnie would destroy him. The only pics where Yates could even hope to match him in size are three seasons out from the contest in off-season shape. At 290 pounds, Yates had visible fat. Face it, Ronnie is more muscular. Whether you prefer that look is one thing; however, to even insinuate that Yate's was more muscular is laughable.
How soon we forget how contests are judged
The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.
Bulk depending on year - Advantage Yates
Balanced development - at his best Advantage Yates
Muscular density - Advantage Yates
Definition - Advantage Yates although Ronnie may have match him in 98/01 but was down bulk in both years
Dorian simply owns more mandatory poses period , you can keep clinging to superior parts all you want , they don't make a better overall whole , that is where the balanced development comes into play
Sorry Nico a 257 pound Ronnie had a bloated gut , no calves , a mediocre midsection , he's also down on proportionate development and dryness & hardness , pick a year
Ronnie 1998 would be push with Yates on dryness ,and lag behind in bulk , density and balance
Ronnie 1999 would push on bulk , lag behind in dryness , density and balace and
Ronnie 2003 would have a big advantage in bulk , lag behind in density , dryness , and balance
Ronnie 2001 ASC would push on dryness , lag behind in bulk , balance , density
Dorian always has advantage Ronnie doesn't depending on the year he always met the criteria better than almost everyone hence why he NEVER placed below second in any pro contest .
-
yawn
How soon we forget how contests are judged
"The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized as these comparisons will help the judge to decide which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and definition."
Ronnie beats Dorian in muscular bulk and definition while Dorian has better density. They both tie in balance. According to the rulebook, Ronnie wins 2 of the 4 criteria vs Dorian winning only 1.
Bulk depending on year - Advantage Yates
except for 98 and 01 ASC, the advantage goes to Ronnie.
Balanced development - at his best Advantage Yates
Dorian at his best was either 92 or 93. He was considerably smaller in 92 but had a trim waist. In 93, his midsection began to grow which ruined his taper and made his arms look like twigs. Forget about his 95 package. We are talking about balanced development here.
Muscular density - Advantage Yates
I agree
Definition - Advantage Yates although Ronnie may have match him in 98/01 but was down bulk in both years
from Merriam-Webster online
"definition:
clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail."
Please show me where it talks about conditioning. Like I've said, Ronnie has superior definition from head to toe. ;)
-
http://www.dailymotion.com/Tech9/video/xkpsk_bodybuilders
Watch this.
They outline judging.
Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry Big Ron.
???
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
in condition an presenting there besy ever BODY
itS RONNIE . THEN DORIAN , THEN HANEY, THEN CUTLER
-
excellent post!
I see ND and co. are getting their asses handed to them again.
Ronnie 99 would easily beat yates in my opinion.
yes, easily.
he has more aesthetics than dorian, with equal size.
he matched dorian in the back department (something NONE of Dorian's challengers ever did - hence part of why dorian won all the time) and had far better quads, glutes, hams, chest and arms.
He also had far better taper.
had lost out in the ab and calf department.
What else is there to say?
all this bullshit about dorian's "better balance, propoprotion, density, muscular bulk ( ::))" is exactly that:
complete bullshit:
why? because its all words on a page that do not even remotely come close to real life:
just look:
dorian was simply not this good.
Its debatable whether anyone really was.
As mentioned, Flex 93 had the shape and detail that ronnie did, with better abs, but had poor back thickness and lats by comparison..
as always wrong again.
ronnie had better biceps, quads, and a taper.
that's it.
his triceps suck and his chest has gyno.
so what if ronnie has asethetics with size.
when have asethetics really mattered or decided a winner?
everyone who competed against dorian has stated his greatness.
the same CANNOT be said for ronnie.
you have ignored at least 10 quotes from nasser, ronnie coleman himself, dillet, ruhl, ray, wheeler, etc. explaining why you are wrong.
-
Both guys are wide.
-
This is still going?? Im more of a Dorian fan than ronnie fan. I know that Ronnie would beat Dorian.
-
This is still going?? Im more of a Dorian fan than ronnie fan. I know that Ronnie would beat Dorian.
They competed against each other 8 times or more and Coleman lost every time.
Pwned. LOL
-
They competed against each other 8 times or more and Coleman lost every time.
Pwned. LOL
kind of hard to say that considering dorian was in his prime and ronnie wasn't.
same could be said about jay being owned for 4 years at the O ,but now he won...shit happens!
Ronnie's record speaks for itself...end of story.
You can go on all day comparing physiques but in the end ronnie wins.
Ronnie has flex wheeler type muscle shape and fullness. just blown the fuck up.
dorians shape is not the same...while he is great, his body is made alot differently.
i just don't see ronnie losing to dorian, much less anyone in his prime, (2003 olympia or even 99 olympia / british gran prix.)
-
yawn
Ronnie beats Dorian in muscular bulk and definition while Dorian has better density. They both tie in balance. According to the rulebook, Ronnie wins 2 of the 4 criteria vs Dorian winning only 1.
except for 98 and 01 ASC, the advantage goes to Ronnie.
Dorian at his best was either 92 or 93. He was considerably smaller in 92 but had a trim waist. In 93, his midsection began to grow which ruined his taper and made his arms look like twigs. Forget about his 95 package. We are talking about balanced development here.
I agree
from Merriam-Webster online
"definition:
clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail."
Please show me where it talks about conditioning. Like I've said, Ronnie has superior definition from head to toe. ;)
Ronnie beats Dorian in muscular bulk and definition while Dorian has better density. They both tie in balance. According to the rulebook, Ronnie wins 2 of the 4 criteria vs Dorian winning only 1.
except for 98 and 01 ASC, the advantage goes to Ronnie.
Sure and Ronnie 01 is just as big as he was in 1999 ::) kid you have much to learn
Ronnie only beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 2003 his other noteworthy showings NO
1998 Ronnie 249 pounds - Dorian 1993 257 pounds 1995 260 pounds
1999 Ronnie 257 pounds at 5'11" and Dorian 5'10" 257 pounds , 260 pounds
2001 Ronnie 244 pounds Dorian 257 pounds 260 pounds
in NO way with the exception of 2003 does Ronnie beat Dorian in muscular bulk and muscular bulk means conditioned muscular bulk not holding water so while Ronnie may come close in 1999 he's clearly holdong water compared to 1998 and 2001 , Ronnie only gets very dry & hard below 250 pounds , your nonsense that Ronnie carries more muscular bulk will not be entertained , just corrected
Dorian at his best was either 92 or 93. He was considerably smaller in 92 but had a trim waist. In 93, his midsection began to grow which ruined his taper and made his arms look like twigs. Forget about his 95 package. We are talking about balanced development here.
I agree
Dorian's best was 1993/1995 and I can post pictures from EVERYONE of Ronnie's Olympia wins with his bloated midsection , and you can find shots of Dorian's distended midsection when RELAXED but not when held tight in a mandatory pose , this was a real pathetic attempt at an empty edge , taper ::) Dorian never won any of his contests by having the best taper , and taper has ZERO to do with balance , its a retarded assessment that they tie on balance it just is , and again you're ice-skating up-hill trying to sell that one
Dorian's arms do look small in some poses , does that mean they are small? NO they can't be small and appear big , depending on the angle Dorian's arms appear small , however you insane to compare balance in favorable terms
Ronnie has underdeveloped/undersized calves , oversized quads strike one way overdeveloped glutes that can be seen from the front strike two oversized biceps/triceps that dominate undersized forearms strike three factor in biceps/triceps that make his delts look small in the rear double biceps shot and overdeveloped front & side delts that obscure his pecs in the side chest pose its clearly evident Ronnie isn't close to Dorian in terms of balance only and idiot would argue other wise , oh wait you're arguing otherwise ;)
from Merriam-Webster online
"definition:
clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail."
Please show me where it talks about conditioning. Like I've said, Ronnie has superior definition from head to toe. ;)
Now this is hands down one of the more pathetic attempts you've lodged to prove a point , alsolutely pathetic , when I first read it I honestly laughed out loud lol definition is conditioning , how does ones muscles become defined ? by the absence of water & fat and what does Merriam-Webster know about muscle definition ? Ronnie has superior definition head to toe :: how can that be when he lacks ANY definition in the gastrocnemious inner & outter heads , soleus , he doesn't have better abdominal definition , seratus definition , intercostals definition , obliques definition , where is Ronnie's better triceps definition? Ronnie doesn't have better defined lower lats , better defined erector spinae , his thigh-rod isn't as defined as Dorian's either , so no matter how you want to phrase it you're still behind the 8-ball ;)
You're ignorant Neo and there is nothing wrong with that but stop acting like you know what you're talking about because as time progresses you're like Hulkster you are getting more desperate with each post ;)
-
kind of hard to say that considering dorian was in his prime and ronnie wasn't.
same could be said about jay being owned for 4 years at the O ,but now he won...shit happens!
Ronnie's record speaks for itself...end of story.
You can go on all day comparing physiques but in the end ronnie wins.
Ronnie has flex wheeler type muscle shape and fullness. just blown the f**k up.
dorians shape is not the same...while he is great, his body is made alot differently.
i just don't see ronnie losing to dorian, much less anyone in his prime, (2003 olympia or even 99 olympia / british gran prix.)
Arms and delts like Flex Wheeler maybe. But tits like Jordan and a stomach like Big Daddy. LOL
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137421;image)
(http://evajoel2002.free.fr/VPL/Update21/jordan-001.jpg)
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k181/gravityx2002/BigDaddy.jpg)
-
Ronnie's record speaks for itself...end of story.
You can go on all day comparing physiques but in the end ronnie wins.
Ronnie has flex wheeler type muscle shape and fullness. just blown the f**k up.
dorians shape is not the same...while he is great, his body is made alot differently.
i just don't see ronnie losing to dorian, much less anyone in his prime, (2003 olympia or even 99 olympia / british gran prix.)
fantastic post!
too bad the dorian nuthuggars will never get it... ::)
-
fantastic post!
too bad the dorian nuthuggars will never get it... ::)
Too bad the judges don't agree with ya. If you watch the video I posted, where the Judges, and even the Weiders, go over juding, they look for muscularity, CONDITIONING, and most of all, PROPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry, the judges have spoken. ;D
-
Sure and Ronnie 01 is just as big as he was in 1999 kid you have much to learn
Ronnie only beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 2003 his other noteworthy showings NO
You have much to learn, grasshopper. Bulk refers to size and volume. Ronnie beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 99, 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, and 06. Dorian may have carried more lean mass than 99 Ronnie, but his muscles looked smaller due to less intracellular water (i.e. they were flat).
Dorian's best was 1993/1995 and I can post pictures from EVERYONE of Ronnie's Olympia wins with his bloated midsection , and you can find shots of Dorian's distended midsection when RELAXED but not when held tight in a mandatory pose , this was a real pathetic attempt at an empty edge , taper Dorian never won any of his contests by having the best taper , and taper has ZERO to do with balance , its a retarded assessment that they tie on balance it just is , and again you're ice-skating up-hill trying to sell that one
I consider 93 Dorian's best package. You may prefer his 95 look, but Dorian would be at a disadvantage with a torn bicep. If we are comparing both at their respective best to see who would win, there is no way the judges would pick a guy with a torn muscle over a guy with greater size and no torn muscles.
Dorian's arms do look small in some poses , does that mean they are small? NO they can't be small and appear big , depending on the angle Dorian's arms appear small , however you insane to compare balance in favorable terms
it's irrelevant whether Dorian's arms were actually big or not. The issue here is that they were too small for his body. They could have been 21" for all I care. His arms still looked like twigs on a tree stump. This is just as much of a liability as Ronnie's proportionately small calves.
Now this is hands down one of the more pathetic attempts you've lodged to prove a point , alsolutely pathetic , when I first read it I honestly laughed out loud lol definition is conditioning , how does ones muscles become defined ? by the absence of water & fat and what does Merriam-Webster know about muscle definition?
Definition is most certainly not conditioning. I even posted its definition from Merriam-Webster online. The term "definition" in bodybuilding refers to how separated and striated each muscle is. What is the purpose of conditioning? To display better muscular definition, not vice versa. For this reason, I believe Dorian's conditioning wouldn't help him much against Ronnie. If we entertain your nonsense that the judges award places based on conditioning, then it's theoretically possible (according to you) that a guy can have absolutely no detail and look like a smooth blob, yet win the Mr. Olympia b/c he has the best conditioning. Fortunately, you are wrong.
Ronnie has superior definition head to toe how can that be when he lacks ANY definition in the gastrocnemious inner & outter heads , soleus , he doesn't have better abdominal definition , seratus definition , intercostals definition , obliques definition , where is Ronnie's better triceps definition? Ronnie doesn't have better defined lower lats , better defined erector spinae , his thigh-rod isn't as defined as Dorian's either , so no matter how you want to phrase it you're still behind the 8-ball
Oh please, you are nitpicking to make Dorian appear to have more definition. I can do the same. Ronnie has superior detail in his biceps brachii, biceps brachialis, triceps long, medial and lateral heads, forearms, delts anterior, middle and posterior heads, pectoralis major, pectoralis minor, glutes, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius inner and outer heads.
-
Did dorian train hes legs or do they naturally just disappear like hes bi's in the rear double bi? Coleman has the more complete physique in that pose.
-
Did dorian train hes legs or do they naturally just disappear like hes bi's in the rear double bi? Coleman has the more complete physique in that pose.
I think you're just used to overdeveloped legs now.
-
Did dorian train hes legs or do they naturally just disappear like hes bi's in the rear double bi? Coleman has the more complete physique in that pose.
It's called angles.
-
Ronnie only beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 2003 his other noteworthy showings NO
You have much to learn, grasshopper. Bulk refers to size and volume. Ronnie beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 99, 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, and 06. Dorian may have carried more lean mass than 99 Ronnie, but his muscles looked smaller due to less intracellular water (i.e. they were flat).
I consider 93 Dorian's best package. You may prefer his 95 look, but Dorian would be at a disadvantage with a torn bicep. If we are comparing both at their respective best to see who would win, there is no way the judges would pick a guy with a torn muscle over a guy with greater size and no torn muscles.
it's irrelevant whether Dorian's arms were actually big or not. The issue here is that they were too small for his body. They could have been 21" for all I care. His arms still looked like twigs on a tree stump. This is just as much of a liability as Ronnie's proportionately small calves.
Oh please, you are nitpicking to make Dorian appear to have more definition. I can do the same. Ronnie has superior detail in his biceps brachii, biceps brachialis, triceps, forearms, delts, pectoralis major, pectoralis minor, glutes, quads, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius inner and outer heads.
Ronnie only beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 2003 his other noteworthy showings NO
You have much to learn, grasshopper. Bulk refers to size and volume. Ronnie beats Dorian on muscular bulk in 99, 00, 01, 03, 04, 05, and 06. Dorian may have carried more lean mass than 99 Ronnie, but his muscles looked smaller due to less intracellular water (i.e. they were flat).
Bulk refers to CONDITIONED size NOT water-logged sized , know this. 99 257 pounds still one inch taller than Yates and still NOT as fucking dry , i.e. NOT conditioned bulk , 00 264 pounds carrying more water than 99 , more water-logged mass , 01 again 264 pounds and you guessed it holding water , 03 287 pounds probably still had more bulk even though he was holding water , same for 04/05/06 all HOLDING water
The hardest & driest Ronnie has even been in ANY contest was 1998 Mr Olympia , 2001 Arnold classic in all probability as hard & dry as Yates but NOT carrying the same condition at 257/260 pounds
I consider 93 Dorian's best package. You may prefer his 95 look, but Dorian would be at a disadvantage with a torn bicep. If we are comparing both at their respective best to see who would win, there is no way the judges would pick a guy with a torn muscle over a guy with greater size and no torn muscles.
I think Dorian's best overall package was either 93/95 1993 he didn't have any torn muscles so this would be his ideal package , however Yates was never at a disadvantage because of a shorter bicep the judges in fact comment on and said it made NO overall difference what so ever , thats garbage you need to cling to , and having two pathetic calves is much worse than one shorter bicep , why? two poor calves can been seen in every single pose , a torn bicep in one
and if we're comparing both at their respective bests , 1) Ronnie 1999 isn't it , he's lacking in conditioning and 2) Ronnie 1999 doesn't carry more conditioned size than Yates , he's fuller as a result of being softer than 98 and no where near as hard as Yates at his best , and the judges would choose the guy who meets the criteria the best , and thats Yates , you ever wonder why Dorian never placed below 2nd as a pro?
The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.
it's irrelevant whether Dorian's arms were actually big or not. The issue here is that they were too small for his body. They could have been 21" for all I care. His arms still looked like twigs on a tree stump. This is just as much of a liability as Ronnie's proportionately small calves.
You wish Ronnie's only problem was proportionately small calves , and Ronnie's calves aren't just to small they suck in terms of development , detail , shape and density oh and ' definition ' ;) YOU think Dorian's arms look to small for his body , you're judging his arms compared to Ronnie's and Ronnie's are overdeveloped this is a fact , everyone admits that Ronnie's front latspread would look better if his arms weren't so big , i.e. overdeveloped if everything was proportionate in this pose his front latspread would be outstanding like Dorian's and its NOT , this is exactly why Dorian has a better front latspread because of his better balance & proportion despite all of his flaws in this pose , wider waist & hips , his ' bigger ' joints Dorian owns this pose for a reason .
Oh please, you are nitpicking to make Dorian appear to have more definition. I can do the same. Ronnie has superior detail in his biceps brachii, biceps brachialis, triceps, forearms, delts, pectoralis major, pectoralis minor, glutes, quads, hamstrings, and gastrocnemius inner and outer heads.
I'm not knitpciking its a fact , Ronnie doesn have superior detail in his biceps brachii & brachialis , triceps ::) , forearms ? give me a fucking break , delts NONSENSE its a push if anything , pecs Ronnie may have more striations thats a straw , glutes LMFAO Dorian's glutes are striated see pecs , quads NOT quick maybe better upper separtion , push on tear drops and Yates has the edge in thigh-rod , nice try typical Coleman-fan blanket statement , hamstrings BULLSHIT I can post pics to stop that lie , did you type? calves? amd I reading this correctly? are you fucking high? Hulkster tried that nonsense Ronnie 99 has more detail in his calves than Yates and I crushed him on that and he's yet to make that mistake again and now you're making it?
FACT Dorian was known for his conditioning , its legendary Ronnie's isn't ... he may have come close at 244 pounds and 249 pounds respectively BUT not consistantly , Dorian's skin has been described as being like ' tissue paper ' wrapped around pure muscle , hell most of Ronnie's career he's been holding water post 1998 Olympia and the only other exception was 2001 Arnold , its very easy to be ripped when you're light , its very easy to be big , its near impossible to be huge & dry , Dorian was very consistant with this , Ronnie wasn't
You can't counter this argument and never will , no matter how many blanket statements you make or how much bull shit you type
The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.
Dorian has the edge in muscular bulk over Ronnie 1998/1999/2001 his best showings , he doesn't have the edge in 2003 but he has others
Dorian has the edge in balanced development , anything to the contrary will not be entertained just corrected
Dorian has the edge all years in density
Dorian has the edge in definition against Ronnie 1999 to present with the sole exception of 2001 ASC
Posing & presentation - Dorian clearly has the better ability to pose and present his physique to its best while minimizing his flaws , this is another area Ronnie would lose to Dorian
mathematical probability , Dorian's win/loss ratio is 88% while Ronnie's is just 40% the odds like the criteria favor Yates , so no matter which way you turn kid , Dorian and I have you covered . ;)
-
kind of hard to say that considering dorian was in his prime and ronnie wasn't.
same could be said about jay being owned for 4 years at the O ,but now he won...shit happens!
Ronnie's record speaks for itself...end of story.
You can go on all day comparing physiques but in the end ronnie wins.
Ronnie has flex wheeler type muscle shape and fullness. just blown the f**k up.
dorians shape is not the same...while he is great, his body is made alot differently.
i just don't see ronnie losing to dorian, much less anyone in his prime, (2003 olympia or even 99 olympia / british gran prix.)
ronnie wasnt in his prime, but every advantage other than a increase in conditioning he had against dorian - better arms, taper, etc.
that got him no where against yates.
jay only won bc coleman is too old and got injured.
flex had great shape, but never really got his conditioning straight.
when he did, he still lost to dorian.
even called him untouchable.
shape is one criteria for a contest but far below mass and conditioning.
-
Watch this.
They outline judging.
Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry Big Ron.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Why does the Ronnie side continually skip over this?!
The Judges and Weiders outline how the judging goes.
Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry Big Ron.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Why does the Ronnie side continually skip over this?!
The Judges and Weiders outline how the judging goes.
Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry Big Ron.
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
They fear it for a reason lol and then have the balls to deny it !
-
Bulk refers to CONDITIONED size NOT water-logged sized , know this. 99 257 pounds still one inch taller than Yates and still NOT as fucking dry , i.e. NOT conditioned bulk , 00 264 pounds carrying more water than 99 , more water-logged mass , 01 again 264 pounds and you guessed it holding water , 03 287 pounds probably still had more bulk even though he was holding water , same for 04/05/06 all HOLDING water
bulk is defined as the magnitude in three dimensions. Therefore, muscular bulk refers to how large the muscles appear. It doesn't matter if Ronnie's muscles were carrying more water b/c the issue here is about size - NOT percentage of lean mass.
I think Dorian's best overall package was either 93/95 1993 he didn't have any torn muscles so this would be his ideal package , however Yates was never at a disadvantage because of a shorter bicep the judges in fact comment on and said it made NO overall difference what so ever , thats garbage you need to cling to , and having two pathetic calves is much worse than one shorter bicep , why? two poor calves can been seen in every single pose , a torn bicep in one
Dorian never faced a prime Ronnie. So you cannot say that he wouldn't be at a disadvantage with a torn bicep. The reason Dorian won the Mr. Olympia with a torn muscle is b/c he was so far ahead of the competition. It would be like racing a Ferrari with a dent on the front hood against a Honda. The Ferrari will still win easily. However, now race the Ferrari against a brand new Lamborghini (i.e. Ronnie). Suddenly the dent on the front hood becomes a disadvantage.
and if we're comparing both at their respective bests , 1) Ronnie 1999 isn't it , he's lacking in conditioning and 2) Ronnie 1999 doesn't carry more conditioned size than Yates , he's fuller as a result of being softer than 98 and no where near as hard as Yates at his best , and the judges would choose the guy who meets the criteria the best , and thats Yates , you ever wonder why Dorian never placed below 2nd as a pro?
I already told you I personally feel that Ronnie's best is either his 01 ASC or 03 package. Hulkster believes that 99 is Ronnie's best. From an overall standpoint, I would go with 03 Ronnie. His combination of muscularity, conditioning, and symmetry would be too much for Dorian to handle. Others have come close but usually fall short in one or more of the criteria. For example, Nasser had the muscularity and symmetry but lacked conditioning from the back. Dorian Yates had the conditioning and symmetry, but falls short on muscularity by almost 30 lbs.
-
bulk is defined as the magnitude in three dimensions. Therefore, muscular bulk refers to how large the muscles appear. It doesn't matter if Ronnie's muscles were carrying more water b/c the issue here is about size - NOT percentage of lean mass.
Dorian never faced a prime Ronnie. So you cannot say that he wouldn't be at a disadvantage with a torn bicep. The reason Dorian won the Mr. Olympia with a torn muscle is b/c he was so far ahead of the competition. It would be like racing a Ferrari with a dent on the front hood against a Honda. The Ferrari will still win easily. However, now race the Ferrari against a brand new Lamborghini (i.e. Ronnie). Suddenly the dent on the front hood becomes a disadvantage.
I already told you I personally feel that Ronnie's best is either his 01 ASC or 03 package. Hulkster believes that 99 is Ronnie's best. From an overall standpoint, I would go with 03 Ronnie. His combination of muscularity, conditioning, and symmetry would be too much for Dorian to handle. Others have come close but usually fall short in one or more of the criteria. For example, Nasser had the muscularity and symmetry but lacked conditioning from the back. Dorian Yates had the conditioning and symmetry, but falls short on muscularity by almost 30 lbs.
bulk is defined as the magnitude in three dimensions. Therefore, muscular bulk refers to how large the muscles appear. It doesn't matter if Ronnie's muscles were carrying more water b/c the issue here is about size - NOT percentage of lean mass.
What are you making these up as you go along? small joints help with the illusion of greater bulk does that mean there is greater bulk? NO bulk is conditioned bulk NOT soft & smooth bulk , its all about how much lean mass you carry NOT how much mass despite being lean you carry , get serious
Dorian never faced a prime Ronnie. So you cannot say that he wouldn't be at a disadvantage with a torn bicep. The reason Dorian won the Mr. Olympia with a torn muscle is b/c he was so far ahead of the competition. It would be like racing a Ferrari with a dent on the front hood against a Honda. The Ferrari will still win easily. However, now race the Ferrari against a brand new Lamborghini (i.e. Ronnie). Suddenly the dent on the front hood becomes a disadvantage.
Where the fuck do you gets these analogies? Your logic baffles the mind , Dorian's shorter bicep would be a disadvantage yet Coleman's two undersized , underdeveloped unproportionate calves wouldn't? calves are much worse they hurt ALL the mandatory poses at the absolute worse Dorian's bicep only effects the front double bicep shot and if you really , really want to knitpick and this is being kind you could add the rear double biceps shot ALL other mandatory poses are NOT effected , Ronnie's calve's hurt every single pose he makes PERIOD , couple that with the host of other proportion problems he has
Everyone likes to go on about Ronnie set new standards in 1999 , new standards of what? he was 257 pounds in pretty damn good conditioning , big deal Yates was 257 pounds six years earlier and bone dry & rock hard , something Ronnie 1999 couldn't match , he came close in 1998 but he's still down in density , bulk , and balance , Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie 98 I have no doubts about this , Ronnie almost lost to Flex who wasn't Flex 93 when he Ronnie just barely beat him by 3 points , one of the closest Mr Olympia contests ever , Dorian never faced Ronnie at his best this is true however he still has all the edges he had over everyone else and they'd still be there for any Ronnie , what new does Ronnie 99 offer that Yates couldn't beat ? improved size and better conditioning FOR RONNIE That is , BIG DEAL Yates has the size , the conditioning , the density and the balance to counter anything ' new Ronnie ' brings to the table , Dorian 1993 and 1995 changed the sport , for better or worse he singlehandedly changed the sport of bodybuilding Ronnie 1998/1999 DID NOT , new Ronnie so what Yates has to many advantages
I already told you I personally feel that Ronnie's best is either his 01 ASC or 03 package. Hulkster believes that 99 is Ronnie's best. From an overall standpoint, I would go with 03 Ronnie. His combination of muscularity, conditioning, and symmetry would be too much for Dorian to handle. Others have come close but usually fall short in one or more of the criteria. For example, Nasser had the muscularity and symmetry but lacked conditioning from the back. Dorian Yates had the conditioning and symmetry, but falls short on muscularity by almost 30 lbs.
01 ASC was for all purposes his best showing ever , why ? dry and hard all over as well but light , especially compared to a Yates , 2003 Ronnie changed the sport as far as size with very good conditioning his flaws in 03 are at their all time worse by far and his conditioning is off , especially compared to a super dry & hard Yates , but Yates still has avantages , I'm more than willing to say Yates might lose depending on how the judging would go in 03 but if anything it would be close , Yates beat many a bigger bodybuilder by virtue of his strengths and 03 he would look very unbalanced and very soft next to Yates and I know you like to thing 03 Ronnie would dwarf Yates but I don't see that happening either , Yates despite the way people feel about how his physique looks has to many strengths even for Ronnie
-
Too bad the judges don't agree with ya. If you watch the video I posted, where the Judges, and even the Weiders, go over juding, they look for muscularity, CONDITIONING, and most of all, PROPORTIONATE DEVELOPMENT.
Sorry, the judges have spoken. ;D
but the judges never had the opportunity to judge 99 Ronnie vs. 93 yates.
Yates dominated a "skinny", not-so-conditioned-and-not-filled-out-yet Ronnie that looked like this:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman16.jpg)
things changed quite a bit 8):
-
but the judges never had the opportunity to judge 99 Ronnie vs. 93 yates.
Yates dominated a "skinny", not-so-conditioned-and-not-filled-out-yet Ronnie that looked like this:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman16.jpg)
you do realize that this is basically Coleman in his 98 form, don't you?
-
but the judges never had the opportunity to judge 99 Ronnie vs. 93 yates.
Yates dominated a "skinny", not-so-conditioned-and-not-filled-out-yet Ronnie that looked like this:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman16.jpg)
things changed quite a bit 8):
Yes things changed for Ronnie , Dorian still has edges in density , balance , bulk and conditioning , Ronnie got a little bigger and better conditioned , big deal Yates has than and then some.
-
Yes look how ' skinny ' Ronnie was in 1996 , 250 pounds skinny ::)
-
once again, ND shows how little he knows about the sport.
numbers mean nothing:
here is "250 pound" ronnie looking quite skinny and not filled out compared to his later years:
its the illusion, not the numbers, that count:
if the numbers are even accurate...
-
once again, ND shows how little he knows about the sport.
numbers mean nothing:
here is "250 pound" ronnie looking quite skinny and not filled out compared to his later years:
its the illusion, not the numbers, that count:
if the numbers are even accurate...
LMFAO Monster Self-Ownage 1995 kid he was NOT 250 pounds in 1995 nice try don't past go , don't collect 200 pounds he was lucky if he was 230 pounds in that pic , lmafo jackass
-
Here is Ronnie 1997 at 250 pounds , genius
-
but the judges never had the opportunity to judge 99 Ronnie vs. 93 yates.
Yates dominated a "skinny", not-so-conditioned-and-not-filled-out-yet Ronnie that looked like this:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman16.jpg)
things changed quite a bit 8):
Don't deflect...
The video, where the JUDGES, and WEIDERS, outline the established criteria:
Judging is based on Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT. Straight from the horses mouths.
What do you not understand?
According to that, Ronnie loses.
Sorry, game, set match.
-
LMFAO Monster Self-Ownage 1995 kid he was NOT 250 pounds in 1995 nice try don't past go , don't collect 200 pounds he was lucky if he was 230 pounds in that pic , lmafo jackass
you have claimed that Ronnie was 255-60 in 1996 in the past.
::)
so which is it?
you can't have it both ways...
Ronnie didn't gain 30 pounds of muscle between 95 and 96...
-
Don't deflect...
The video, where the JUDGES, and WEIDERS, outline the established criteria:
Judging is based on Muscularity, Conditioning, and most of all, PROPORTIONED DEVELOPMENT. Straight from the horses mouths.
What do you not understand?
According to that, Ronnie loses.
Sorry, game, set match.
what do you not understand about the fact that dorian had glaring imbalances (massive torso, small arms) while Ronnie had minor ones? (calves too small)
-
you have claimed that Ronnie was 255-60 in 1996 in the past.
::)
so which is it?
you can't have it both ways...
Ronnie didn't gain 30 pounds of muscle between 95 and 96...
You seriously remind me of a lawyer.
You take insignificant facts and run with them in order to deflect away from the fact that you're losing the argument.
-
you have claimed that Ronnie was 255-60 in 1996 in the past.
::)
so which is it?
you can't have it both ways...
Ronnie didn't gain 30 pounds of muscle between 95 and 96...
1996 he competed at the Olympia at 250 pounds , 1997 Mr Olympia he was 255 pounds , 1995 he was NOT 250 pounds and he's no where near 250 pounds in that pic.
-
what do you not understand about the fact that dorian had glaring imbalances (massive torso, small arms) while Ronnie had minor ones? (calves too small)
The problem is, that Dorian's arms were in fine balance 1993, and good balance 95.
Ronnie has Quads too big for his calves, Biceps to big for his tris/forearms, a horrible midsection, and less than stellar (but quite good) conditioning.
Umm, Ronnie loses (again).
-
The problem is, that Dorian's arms were in fine balance 1993, and good balance 95.
Ronnie has Quads too big for his calves, Biceps to big for his tris/forearms, a horrible midsection, and less than stellar (but quite good) conditioning.
Umm, Ronnie loses (again).
Yes and yates had proportioned arms to the rest of hes body, quads over powering he's upperbody, along with monsterous bis that dominated hes tris, especially he's left one. A small waist which accentuated hes X frame and the fullest muscle bellies combined with extreme muscle mas anyone has seen since flex wheeler. You are spot on shockwave, you should be an IFBB judge.
-
Yes and yates had proportioned arms to the rest of hes body, quads over powering he's upperbody, along with monsterous bis that dominated hes tris, especially he's left one. A small waist which accentuated hes X frame and the fullest muscle bellies combined with extreme muscle mas anyone has seen since flex wheeler. You are spot on shockwave, you should be an IFBB judge.
Im glad you took the time to watch that video, where the Judges and Weider explained how they pick a winner. Muscularity, Conditioning, Proportion.
You don't agree with them on how thing's are supposed to be judged; fine, thats your opinion. But don't try to say that Ronnie is going to blow Dorian offstage when the established criteria the judges use to pick a winner points otherwise.
-
what do you not understand about the fact that dorian had glaring imbalances (massive torso, small arms) while Ronnie had minor ones? (calves too small)
what do you not understand about the fact the what you claim as dorian's weaknesses didnt really matter that much.
his strengths overcame any weaknesses you claim he had.
the judges agree with me.
no one agrees with you.
ronine's were not minor at all.
his structure sucks.
he has a shitty four pack,
narrow clavicles,
chest is too long,
glutes are too big,
forearms are too small for his arms,
calves are too small for his upper legs,
and he has gyno
-
Im glad you took the time to watch that video, where the Judges and Weider explained how they pick a winner. Muscularity, Conditioning, Proportion.
You don't agree with them on how thing's are supposed to be judged; fine, thats your opinion. But don't try to say that Ronnie is going to blow Dorian offstage when the established criteria the judges use to pick a winner points otherwise.
Ok, Muscularity, Conditioning and Proportion. As far as all 3 go, Ronnie is far more musclar and proportioned non debatable. The conditioning is debatable from the back dorian at hes best is a tad bit drier, but turn around to the front and side poses ronnie has him beat. Ronnie at hes best is far more superior than dorian, I dont think we will see the size shape and conditioning of another BBer for years to come. Ronnie is genetically designed for BBing.
-
Ok, Muscularity, Conditioning and Proportion. As far as all 3 go, Ronnie is far more musclar and proportioned non debatable. The conditioning is debatable from the back dorian at hes best is a tad bit drier, but turn around to the front and side poses ronnie has him beat. Ronnie at hes best is far more superior than dorian, I dont think we will see the size shape and conditioning of another BBer for years to come. Ronnie is genetically designed for BBing.
very very true:
-
Ok, Muscularity, Conditioning and Proportion. As far as all 3 go, Ronnie is far more musclar and proportioned non debatable. The conditioning is debatable from the back dorian at hes best is a tad bit drier, but turn around to the front and side poses ronnie has him beat. Ronnie at hes best is far more superior than dorian, I dont think we will see the size shape and conditioning of another BBer for years to come. Ronnie is genetically designed for BBing.
I dunno where you get your facts, but Dorian carried more muscle than Ronnie, except for 2003-06. But his conditioning was sub par.
As far as proportion, Dorian has less liabilities than Ronnie.
Ronne has Calves, Forearms, and Tris at a proportiate disadvantage, not to mention his horrid midsection. Dorian is without a doubt drier than Ronnie, back is the ultimate telltale sign of conditioning/dryness, and Dorian's back looks like a roadmap, with each muscle seperated by deep ruts, devoid of water.
Side wise, Ronnie's front and side delts obscure everything, that is why his side chest lacks so much. Side Tri isn't even a factor, Ronnie's second to worst pose after Ab&Thigh. And his quads overpower his hams and calves in every single pose.
As far as the quarter turns, Dorian looks much better in everything except the front relaxed. (this is mostly due to Dorian's superior posing skill)
-
very very true:
Hey Dr. Desperation, stop posting 96 to try and prove your point, to people who havent been following along.
-
very very true:
Loser played himself and admits defeat when resorting to posting these type of comparisons lol
-
Yates is just killing Ronnie here.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137675;image)
-
I dunno where you get your facts, but Dorian carried more muscle than Ronnie, except for 2003-06. But his conditioning was sub par.
This has to be some sort of joke, ronnie destroyed dorian on musclarity. Have the pictures shown in mandatory poses not shown you that. Dont let your own bias cloud your judgement.
Show any average joe who knows zero about bbing pics of ronnie and dorians in their prime. 9/10 they will say Ronnie blows dorian out of the water.
PS. All hail to sub par conditioning and the less musclar ronnie.
-
This has to be some sort of joke, ronnie destroyed dorian on musclarity. Have the pictures shown in mandatory poses not shown you that. Dont let your own bias cloud your judgement.
Show any average joe who knows zero about bbing pics of ronnie and dorians in their prime. 9/10 they will say Ronnie blows dorian out of the water.
PS. All hail to sub par conditioning and the less musclar ronnie.
The problem here lies in the fact that Dorian is not on that stage.
Ronnie weighed in the 240 lb range in 98, and Dorian in 93 weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 250, 10 lbs more mass, combined with better conditioning = better muscularity. Not to mention, Dorian is visibly thicker (pardon me for not having Dorian pics saved for comparison)
-
This has to be some sort of joke, ronnie destroyed dorian on musclarity. Have the pictures shown in mandatory poses not shown you that. Dont let your own bias cloud your judgement.
Show any average joe who knows zero about bbing pics of ronnie and dorians in their prime. 9/10 they will say Ronnie blows dorian out of the water.
PS. All hail to sub par conditioning and the less musclar ronnie.
Oh, and the second pic is 2003, where I already said he has better muscularity, but is severly down on conditioning, and holding a gallon of water.
-
i dont understand why they keep arguing about proportion. yates arms as a whole were to small for his back and his calves were to large for his tiny quads. his waist was wide and his MM shows glaring imbalances. his arms look smoothish and small, with less then round delts and a flat chest. non seperated quads and little vascularity and detail. ronnie has better condition from the front also.
-
his tiny quads.
get the fuck out.
-
i dont understand why they keep arguing about proportion. yates arms as a whole were to small for his back and his calves were to large for his tiny quads. his waist was wide and his MM shows glaring imbalances. his arms look smoothish and small, with less then round delts and a flat chest. non seperated quads and little vascularity and detail. ronnie has better condition from the front also.
You lost all credibility when you said his calves are too big for his quads.
It's obvious you're a Johnny come lately to BB, and you're just used to the "New lineup" and their complete lack of calves.
-
You lost all credibility when you said his calves are too big for his quads.
It's obvious you're a Johnny come lately to BB, and you're just used to the "New lineup" and their complete lack of calves.
Apart from calves too big for quads he is pretty much spot on, MM shot of dorian does nothing for him and exposes he's flaws majorly.
This is how its done.
-
i dont understand why they keep arguing about proportion. yates arms as a whole were to small for his back and his calves were to large for his tiny quads. his waist was wide and his MM shows glaring imbalances. his arms look smoothish and small, with less then round delts and a flat chest. non seperated quads and little vascularity and detail. ronnie has better condition from the front also.
everything in bold is 100% true.
but try telling that to the dorian nuthuggers.
they will just ignore harsh reality as always and post paragraphs outlining criteria that dorian that dorian may meet, but that 1999 Ronnie meets much better...thanks to fully muscle bellies with predominantly better shape, detail and vascularity, esp. from the front.
just look:
-
everything in bold is 100% true.
but try telling that to the dorian nuthuggers.
they will just ignore harsh reality as always and post paragraphs outlining criteria that dorian that dorian may meet, but that 1999 Ronnie meets much better...thanks to fully muscle bellies with predominantly better shape, detail and vascularity, esp. from the front.
just look:
Im pretty damn sure neither the judges nor the Weiders mentioned Shape OR vascularity in there. Those are criteria you WISH were implemented, but sadly for you, aren't so.
-
MM shot of dorian does nothing for him and exposes he's flaws majorly.
as I have said, its not my fault dorian's mm sucked compared to ronnie's.
he just didn't have the upper body like ronnie did.
I get criticized for always posting shots of it, but it is a great pose for showcasing the arms, chest and traps (and quads depending).
it also is a great pose for showcasing FLAWS as we see in dorian's version...
-
as I have said, its not my fault dorian's mm sucked compared to ronnie's.
he just didn't have the upper body like ronnie did.
I get criticized for always posting shots of it, but it is a great pose for showcasing the arms, chest and traps (and quads depending).
it also is a great pose for showcasing FLAWS as we see in dorian's version...
Thats one pose.
Too bad the entire contest isn't based on that one shot, eh?
-
Im pretty damn sure neither the judges nor the Weiders mentioned Shape OR vascularity in there. Those are criteria you WISH were implemented, but sadly for you, aren't so.
you have been reading ND's ignorant babble for far too long.
shape is always a consideration, and given all other things equal, it will be an advantage. it will not win contests by itself, but it can help.
dorian beat guys with better shape because he was way bigger and/or had a good back. (eg. kevin, nasser, flex and shawn)
in Ronnie both advantages would be gone because ronnie had great shape WITH equal size AND a good back.
so, to say that dorian's shape would not hurt him against a 99 257 pound ronnie is just being very very naive.
I'm just waiting for what you guys will say next...that muscles are not actually judged? ::)
-
you have been reading ND's ignorant babble for far too long.
shape is always a consideration, and given all other things equal, it will be an advantage. it will not win contests by itself, but it can help.
dorian beat guys with better shape because he was way bigger and/or had a good back. (eg. kevin, nasser, flex and shawn)
in Ronnie both advantages would be gone because ronnie had great shape WITH equal size AND a good back.
so, to say that dorian's shape would not hurt him against a 99 257 pound ronnie is just being very very naive.
I'm just waiting for what you guys will say next...that muscles are not actually judged? ::)
I didn't read ND's stuff.
I went out and learned all I could about Judging, Bodybuilding, and everything related.
My decision is based on the WEIDERS and the JUDGES explaining their criteria for selecting a winner.
Muscularity, CONDITIONING, PROPORTION.
It's right in the video, right from the horses mouths. The explanations don't lie buddy.
-
I didn't read ND's stuff.
I went out and learned all I could about Judging, Bodybuilding, and everything related.
My decision is based on the WEIDERS and the JUDGES explaining their criteria for selecting a winner.
Muscularity, CONDITIONING, PROPORTION.
It's right in the video, right from the horses mouths. The explanations don't lie buddy.
Im sorry but that is a compination of all 3, Ronnie has all 3 dorian does not. He has proportionality flaws and major ones when compared to ronnie. If you dorian fanatics are establishing dorian is superior to ronnie because he has him on conditioning from the back then im sorry that is complete rubbish. If that were the case Munzer would have many olympias under hes belt.
Ronnie is as close as it come's to being perfect under those specific criteria in which the video shows.
-
...
-
Just one note guys. This thread has turned out to be a Coleman vs. yates thread. Why don't we take our opinions to the Truce Thread, so we wouldn't bother the other members.
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie40.jpg)
-
..........
-
..............
-
isn't there already a 900 fucking page thread about this?
-
Wrong pobrecito, Ronnie kills him in the back double bi. Why, his back is thicker but not as ripped. I agree with you there. However, he has better delts, far superior arms, and striated and thick hams/glutes. Yates has him on calves. Oh well, I guess Ronnie should go back into hiding. Seriously though, Yates back double bi is not overly impressive except for his back detail. Coleman is wider and thicker. The widest is Cutler; he just lacks detail. Overall, this thread is another rehash of Yates vs Coleman. It is old news. ND is forever gonna be a Yates lover. Hulkster is Coleman's biggest fan. Personally, I would love to see someone like Freeman come along and get bigger and more ripped than both of them.
However, while we are debating (again) Yates vs Coleman, consider the following. Yates had detail but zero aesthetics. Ronnie has decent detail (especially in 1998/1999) and far superior size and taper. Sorry ND, the 260 pound Yates had a bloated stomach, average arms and legs that would have gotten raped by Coleman. His calves were better, but his limbs for the most part were average. Good size in the quads and hams, but Ronnie kills him in detail and size. Ronnie has a far superior chest than Yates ever had. Yates has better rectus abdominus, but wider obliques. It is a joke that you think Ronnie in 2003 wouldn't blow Yates off the stage. Anybody without shades realizes that Ronnie would destroy him. The only pics where Yates could even hope to match him in size are three seasons out from the contest in off-season shape. At 290 pounds, Yates had visible fat. Face it, Ronnie is more muscular. Whether you prefer that look is one thing; however, to even insinuate that Yate's was more muscular is laughable.
Nicorulez, I thought you were more reasonable than that. So the 2003 Coleman would "absolutely destroy" Dorian? First of all, you're wrong that Dorian only came in at 260 lbs because he couldn't come in heavier without looking soft. Dorian had a visible six-pack and christmas-tree at 305 lbs off-season. Even to this day, he remains one of the top three more haevily muscled individuals ever.
The reason why Dorian came in at "only" 260 lbs is because he brought nothing to the table but pure muscular tissue on top of bones and organs. He was shredded to the bone. In fact, at the 1997 Olympia, at a bodyweight above 270 lbs, Dorian was still infinitely drier and harder than Coleman was in 2003. And the difference in bodyweight between the two there would be, at the most 15 lbs.
You assume that Ronnie would blow Dorian off the stgagwe because he would so soundly defeat him in muscularity. You make the mistake of assuming that Ronnie had 27 lbs of lean muscle mass over Dorian, when in reality he only had 10 lbs or so: most of it was gut distension and sub-cutaneous water. What happens when a man because fat? His weight increase. What's the sign that a man is overweight? A gut. Guts add weight to the body, and it doesen't matter if it is filled with fat or enlarged internal organs; regardless, it's not muscle!
You say that his arms wers shit next to Ronnie? How is this relevant since Dorian wins an entire mandatory due to his triceps? The only pose where Ronnie's superior overral arr mass is visible is in the front double biceps. That's one pose out of seven. On all other mandatories, Ronnie's arms wouldn't due shit for him. As far as arms goes, Dorian would win all mandatories where his lateral triceps head si envolved, which includes that side chest, triceps and back doubble biceps.
Speaking of the back double biceps, the only thing that Ronnie has on Dorian is biceps, which is barely visible here regardless. Dorian has triceps that are as big as Ronnie's in this pose with greater hardness. His delts may be smaller, but the difference is very small and Dorian has the three heads more equally developed. Dorian's christmas-tree is thicker than Ronnie's although the latter outweights him by 30 lbs, and his lats, although not as thick, are roughly as wide and have superior hardness. All of his back muscles are more dlineated and he doesen't have a film of water obscuring definition like Ronnie does. Ronnie's glutes are hypertrophied, which is a very, very bad thing as far as bodybuilding goes: together with the abs, the glutes are the only bodypart that should not be hypertrophied by a male bodybuilder. Why? Because bodybuilding is about exagerating the male form, and large glutes are unmanly. Dorian is also more symmetrical in this mandatory exactly because his glutes are smaller and his calves, bigger.
And Dorian does not have average legs. That's a riddiculous argument if there ever was one. Ronnie's quadriceps might be slightly bigger in 1999, but I think most of the appearance of size was due to his smaller joints. Dorian's quads were fantastic is size, although not so much in separations - but he compensated with greater hardness. Dorian's hams were striated; so were his glutes - and they were smaller than Ronnie's, which is a good thing. Now the 2003 Coleman far surpassed Dorian in quad size, but Dorian still had the advantage in hardness, witht he added bones that he had better separations than the 2003 Coleman. And as much as Ronnie's quads became huge in 2003, his glutes became even bigger. Horrible. If you can make the argument that Dorian had small arms for his torso, well, then I can make the argument that the 2003 Coleman had quads that dwarfed his torso as well!
Ronnie migh have the bigger pecs in 2003, but the difference was far smaller than you make it to be, and Dorian made his pecs work better for him, because he had the better symmetry in tyhe side chest mandatory and his pecs were almost as thick. This mandatory emphasized just how huge Ronnie's vastus lateralis were over all other muscles in this pose. His calves are pathetic, and his three deltoid heads are lacking in symmetry in relation to each other. You're out of your mind if you think that the 2003 Coleman would walk all over Dorian; if anything, Dorian would win. Ronnie's monster gut is distended beyong belief and, at an unbiased contest, would make Coleman lose the symmetry round flat out. As far as muscularity goes, nothing is set in stone, because Dorian still holds his own in the back mandatories, and had much, much superior conditioning overral - with plenty of muscle to spare. Before, I used to give credit to the 2003 Coleman; not anymore. Now I realized that most of that weight he gained was water and gut distension, witht he rest going to his quads. His arms were only 1" bigger in 2003 than in 1999. Ronnie looked like a preganant water-buffalo in 2003, and it showed.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
oh please, nukka! Dorian never looked like that onstage. If you want to compare offseason shots, then 02 BFTO Ronnie beats that black and white pic of Dorian.
good call, plus that b/w yates back double bi is still doesn't make his arms look much cop. He is a torso bodybuilder, which i don't find as impressive to look at as a more slim waisted guy with arms.
-
Yes look how ' skinny ' Ronnie was in 1996 , 250 pounds skinny ::)
Well clearly weight = quality. ergo a heavy bodybuilder must be a good one. ::)
You are one learned guy. Do you know anything about bodybuilding?
I think you need a lesson in assessing phisyques, lol.
-
ronnie dominates in every shot especially the back double bi
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20vs%20Ronnie/DorianvsRonnie40.jpg)
-
U cant compare backs with yates...clearly the man had a density that would knock your aunt connie's socks off....look at the separation in his lower back with the christmas tree....They should make artificial christmas trees with dorian yates' christmas tree as a model.....when it comes to the rear delt lat separation....second to none...ronnie coleman is just one mass of muscle....yes he had separation...but nothing compared to yates...yates was dry as fuck, Granite...its almost as if someone took a 260 pound piece of it and chiseled it to a bodybuilder's body and named it DORIAN YATES......best back ever...he didnt need amazing arms to stay mr olympia because everythin else he had was the best on every night that he was in the olympia...abs, thighs, calves, back, the man was unbeatable, even in his worst form. nobody trained like he did...he was like a robot, nutrition for him was a way of life and i cnat imagine another bodybuilder that could follow his lifestyle.......but for the purpose of this string, he had the best back ever in my opinion
-
..............
Ronnie's side chest sucks from a judging standpoint.
His front delts and side delts are overdeveloped, obscuring the pecs, and his arms overpower everything.
But for the total WOW factor, that shot is impressive.
-
..............
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=121955.0;attach=137728;image)
thanks for posting a precontest shot of yates vs. an offeason shot of coleman.
this is more like it.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy18.jpg)
-
ronnie dominates in every shot especially the back double bi
very true.
-
Well clearly weight = quality. ergo a heavy bodybuilder must be a good one. ::)
You are one learned guy. Do you know anything about bodybuilding?
I think you need a lesson in assessing phisyques, lol.
I've been trying to get ND to enroll in both bodybuilding 101 and Reading Comprehension Level 1 for months now! 8)
-
I've been trying to get ND to enroll in both bodybuilding 101 and Reading Comprehension Level 1 for months now! 8)
Yawn , you still haven't learned a damn thing , you NEVER knew how contests are judged until I posted the criteria ;) you think Ronnie has better muscular balance than Dorian , lmfao and you also claimed that Ronnie's calves in 1999 had more ' detail ' than Dorian LMMFAO the saddest part is you believe this nonsense and your fantastic ability to critique the professional bodybuilder's physique led you to the conclusion that Dorian Yates is the most overrated bodybuilder of all time lol and you know what? thats right ;)
-
I've been trying to get ND to enroll in both bodybuilding 101 and Reading Comprehension Level 1 for months now! 8)
apparently you are the one who cant read or undestand bodybuidling.
you ignore quotes.
you ignore direct instructions from the IFBB juding criteria.
you pretend that fake pictures - where its obivous that have been docutured and match no other source - are the real ones. (see how you dont post them anymore)
i'm sure there are other delusions that many can think of.
it seems that everytime ronnie has a meltdown, you have 1 as well.
just like the evening of the 2006 Mr. Olympia, this months' issue of FLEX with the Ask Mr. Olympia column with JAY CUTLER, and after ronnie's PR disaster last week.
-
apparently you are the one who cant read or undestand bodybuidling.
you ignore quotes.
you ignore direct instructions from the IFBB juding criteria.
you pretend that fake pictures - where its obivous that have been docutured and match no other source - are the real ones. (see how you dont post them anymore)
i'm sure there are other delusions that many can think of.
it seems that everytime ronnie has a meltdown, you have 1 as well.
just like the evening of the 2006 Mr. Olympia, this months' issue of FLEX with the Ask Mr. Olympia column with JAY CUTLER, and after ronnie's PR disaster last week.
Hulkster is owned
-
Hulkster is owned
nothing new.
he'll just post a picture of yates from 96 or the one from 95 that matches nothing else related to 95 and therefoer is invalid.
-
........................ .............
-
Yates.
This shot is sick...
-
nothing new.
he'll just post a picture of yates from 96 or the one from 95 that matches nothing else related to 95 and therefoer is invalid.
you never answered my question:
do you think ND's dark Haney screencaps are fake and invalid?
::)
you have been owned over this fake pics bullshit too many times to count.
-
Here we go again. Oh well...
Ronnie is really soft in the back here.
-
would have to say it's dead even between coleman and yates. if i had to give someone the nod, i would give it to coleman. has more sepeartion and cuts !!!! when i trained with kev's gym in millersville, md. i used to ask him about certain competitors. he said that colemans back was the best of all time. this came from a man that came 2nd to coleman and yates twice.
-
you never answered my question:
do you think ND's dark Haney screencaps are fake and invalid?
::)
you have been owned over this fake pics bullshit too many times to count.
1) they seem to be from different contests
2) if they arent, they are all from different sources. 1 is from a dvd and the other are scanned pics from mags.
the problem with your fake pics is they dont match the originals. you're claiming the fake pics are from a 99 rip, but they dont acutally match the dvd.
the haney clips do.
you keep bitching about how everyone has proved you wrong regarding those pictures, but yet you never post them anymore.
owned again loser.
-
Just to put my 2cents in I really don't think Cutler deserves to be compared to Coleman and Yates...Jay doesn't have that overpowering physique and never will.... ::)