Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: GMCtrk on March 16, 2006, 01:21:27 PM
-
(http://picsorban.com/upload/yates_back.jpg)
-
hm, ears are streamlined, left biceps is already torn, so it must be 95 or later, i bet on 95! i donīt think its 94 where he already competed with torn biceps. i think its right before the 1995 or 1996 olympia
-
I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia
-
That is a great shot of Yates - it looks much better than most of his shots because he is not flexing his arms in the traditional way, this hides the flaw.
Great detail in that shot too, never had that kind of detail in a back double bi onstage though..
Perhaps the stage lighting washes out the Yates Detail?
-
That is a great shot of Yates - it looks much better than most of his shots because he is not flexing his arms in the traditional way, this hides the flaw.
Great detail in that shot too, never had that kind of detail in a back double bi onstage though..
Perhaps the stage lighting washes out the Yates Detail?
I think one thing we need to take in account is Yates always had this detail, but photography is nothing back then what it was today! THey didnt have digital cameras and basically all we have are the few shots that went into magazines. I have yet to see any pictures from any of Yates grand prix's that he did.
-
I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia
ND, I don't think that pic can possibly be from the 93 O. Look at the left biceps muscle - its short as hell - definitely post tear.
Probably from 1995.
-
That is a great shot of Yates - it looks much better than most of his shots because he is not flexing his arms in the traditional way, this hides the flaw.
Great detail in that shot too, never had that kind of detail in a back double bi onstage though..
Perhaps the stage lighting washes out the Yates Detail?
Combo of lighting and Yates has fair skin so it can be hard to see the detail .
-
Combo of lighting and Yates has fair skin so it can be hard to see the detail .
yup, that and all the water.. :-*
Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others. In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups. This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.
-
yup, that and all the water.. :-*
Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others. In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups. This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.
I'm pretty sure that pic is from 93 I have it in my 1993 folder and when I scan the pic go right into the appropriate folder , and " This hurts im onstage " ? not that I agree with that statement but he never placed lower than 2nd in a Pro contest and won 6 Olympias I don't think anything hurt him including a torn bicep .
-
I'm pretty sure that pic is from 93 I have it in my 1993 folder and when I scan the pic go right into the appropriate folder , and " This hurts im onstage " ? not that I agree with that statement but he never placed lower than 2nd in a Pro contest and won 6 Olympias I don't think anything hurt him including a torn bicep .
you're right - it didn't hurt him onstage. but it should have :-*
-
PS -It is definately post tear - the caption of the pic "I'm back" is a tounge in cheek reference to Yates returning after the horrendous 1994 injury fiasco.
-
PS -It is definately post tear - the caption of the pic "I'm back" is a tounge in cheek reference to Yates returning after the horrendous 1994 injury fiasco.
I'll have to find that pic in my magazines when I have the time to see when it was .
-
I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia
wrong nd, it is right before the 95 if i remember correctly and the title of the pic is something like "im back...."
meaning (correctly hulk) it is his return after the 94 problems.
as always, if im wrong i will own up to it but my yates collection says the pic is 95.
-
yup, that and all the water.. :-*
Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others. In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups. This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.
it hurt him onstage, funny hulkster
-
I'll have to find that pic in my magazines when I have the time to see when it was .
it'll be in the pages that are stuck together.
-
yup, that and all the water.. :-*
Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others. In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups. This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.
The reason his isn't "lumpy" is becuase he is so f*cking dry, like no one else has ever been, including coleman.
-
it'll be in the pages that are stuck together.
Yeah I think it is post 93 because this pic is from 93 and I just looked at it in the magazine
-
95' ;)
-
The reason his isn't "lumpy" is becuase he is so f*cking dry, like no one else has ever been, including coleman.
ah, no. lack of "lumpiness" is not because of dryness.
If it were, holding water would equal more lumps:
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy178.jpg)
Which, as you can see here with a water 94 Yates, clearly does not.
It is genetic - I will refrain from illustrating this difference by posting pics of Ronnie, flex and Shawn etc showing their lumpy backs, since I don't want to get flamed for making Yates look bad (yet again :-*)
-
ah, no. lack of "lumpiness" is not because of dryness.
If it were, holding water would equal more lumps:
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy178.jpg)
Which, as you can see here with a water 94 Yates, clearly does not.
It is genetic - I will refrain from illustrating this difference by posting pics of Ronnie, flex and Shawn etc showing their lumpy backs, since I don't want to get flamed for making Yates look bad (yet again :-*)
you lost all credit compared Flex's back to Dorians
-
you lost all credit compared Flex's back to Dorians
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/1000134561.jpg)
no I didn't 8)
Lumps rock!
obviously, overall, Dorian's back kills Flex's since he had no lats. but you have to admit, the detailed, lumpy appearance of his backdouble bi shots is really impressive.
Its just he has no lats to speak of.
-
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/1000134561.jpg)
no I didn't 8)
Lumps rock!
obviously, overall, Dorian's back kills Flex's since he had no lats. but you have to admit, the detailed, lumpy appearance of his backdouble bi shots is really impressive.
Its just he has no lats to speak of.
I seriously have no idea what this "lumpy" you speak of is, I've never heard it used in a bodybuilding context before. Yates's back, as demonstrated in the picture above, was hard as nails, unlike any thing we have ever seen in bodybuilding
-
The problem is, that shot looks really impressive because it is half completed. When Dorian completed the pose the deliniation between the muscle groups (giving that "lumpy" apearance) is not nearly what is was when the arms are not in the traditional stance:
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/976994047.jpg)
dorian's back double bi was always one of his worst poses.
-
According to your terminology, Nasser's back is "lumpy".....Yates's back destroys his, the reason that back double bi doesnt look as good as the above is simply becuase of the lighting. Yates' back was hard as nails, not lumpy or any coleman bullshit like that. Looks like you just fucking too legos and stacked them up on his back
This is what happens when you put Yates under good lighting (or any other athete, see '99 grand prix)
(http://membres.lycos.fr/bodybuilders/bodybuilding/dorian_yates/dy03.jpg)
Short of the biceps, this back double bi beats any other in the history of bodybuilding head to toe
-
nassers back may be lumpy but it is totally soft.
-
I got word from Peter McGough that the pic is 48 hours before the 1996 Mr Olympia and that show was tested for diuretics so his condition in that show is simply amazing
-
The problem is, that shot looks really impressive because it is half completed. When Dorian completed the pose the deliniation between the muscle groups (giving that "lumpy" apearance) is not nearly what is was when the arms are not in the traditional stance:
dorian's back double bi was always one of his worst poses.
His worse pose? I disagree I think its one of his better poses and like GMC said besides the lack of bicep peaks that back double bicep shot is one of the best in the sport , seriously , Yates back was among the widest , thickest , and most complete , including top middle & bottom , his detail was excellent just hard to see at times .
-
His worse pose? I disagree I think its one of his better poses and like GMC said besides the lack of bicep peaks that back double bicep shot is one of the best in the sport , seriously , Yates back was among the widest , thickest , and most complete , including top middle & bottom , his detail was excellent just hard to see at times .
(http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=dorian+yates+nasser/v=2/SID=e/l=IVS/SIG=12pvgfvq4/EXP=1121960059/*-http%3A//www.swhiteside.freeserve.co.uk/images/New_Folder/Big_Backs.jpg)
I disagree about the excellent detail - Dorian's back was seldom detailed come contest time. Obviously, there are a few times where he has sucessfully dried out that area, but most times, it looked like this - huge, thick, but not really detailed (at least in the upper back. Dorian's lower back is probably the greatest of all time).
-
Here is a pic of Coleman that is purported from the 2005 Mr. Olympia. I don't know about the bumps in the back, but the difference between Yates and Coleman is Yates is drier with lats that insert near his posterior iliac crest (down to his ass basically). He is thick as shit, but his arms are definitely lacking and his glutes are not striated. Coleman is as thick but wider, but his lats don't taper down as far. His arms are way better as are his hams/glutes. Yates kills him in the calves, though. I personally think Coleman is the more aesthically pleasing BB, but this is very subjective. Overall, probably the two best back double bi's in history. Take your pick, there is no slam dunk winner. Kind of like Bird vs Magic.
-
BTW, I honestly think Jay is the widest dude in history as his shoulder width is the stuff of a caricature. However, he does not have bumps, Yates does. In some ways, I think Jay with a thicker lower back and more detail could have a back that easily rivals Coleman and Yates. Problem with Cutler is his lack of conditioning from the back. Have to admit he looks pretty damn good, though.
-
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/bluecolemanbacks.jpg)
Jay and Dorian who? 8) - too bad his calves SUCK! ;)
In all seriousness, Jays back has improved a lot, and Ronnie's is not what it used to be (but of course he is a lot older now than he was back in 98 or 99).
However, I still don't agree with Flex Magazine's contention that Jay had better back poses than Ronnie at this past Olympia.
-
Yates looks GREAT in that first shot, the DENSITY was SUPERB and was always one of his strong points over virtually anyone else. Few have had that kind of density going back several decades. The advantage in density's even more obvious in videos, more than pics. Unfortunately even with the tan he still got washed out somewhat from the show lighting-that's the problem, not his back in any way.
One of the ONLY things Ron doesn't have over Yates is DENSITY. Ron's back is HUGE but was never as dry or dense as Dorian's. Even when Ron was an anatomy chart, he had great definition, not the same as density.
Jay's back is drier, closer to Yates but not quite as detailed or dry.
-
Pumpster, very good point. Yates is freaky dense, almost like iron. Ronnie is bigger and better shaped IMO, but you gotta give Yates props for conditioning. Of todays athletes, Branch from the front seems to have that quality :o. He is very hard and grainy...Dorianesque. Unfortunately for him, he turns around and his back disappears. It almost looks like he forgot to train his back for the first five years he was training. It is good enough against 2nd tier competitors but when he goes against Ronnie, Jay, Dex and even Gunther or an in shape Badell he loses. Ronnie really doe shave everything except for that super dry, grainy condition. Haney also had that look in 1991 in his last Mr. Olympia (especially in the upper body).
-
Only a few others had that density-Robinson more than anyone, Haney, Columbu, Birdsong and a few others more recently, but not many.
-
Ronnie really doe shave everything
really? how would you know? :-*
To me, I have been in the minority in that I have always felt that Dorian did NOT look that dry simply because he lacked a lot striations and seperation in key areas (like delts, arms, quads and chest).
to me, a more striated bodybuilder looks more dense than one who is not as striated.
Striations = dryness.
and dryness (when combined with muscle volume) = density.
(http://www.beyondrelief.com/images/colemanback.jpg)
one of the most dense looking back shots ever, IMO.
-
really? how would you know? :-*
To me, I have been in the minority in that I have always felt that Dorian did NOT look that dry simply because he lacked a lot striations and seperation in key areas (like delts, arms, quads and chest).
to me, a more striated bodybuilder looks more dense than one who is not as striated.
Striations = dryness.
and dryness (when combined with muscle volume) = density.
(http://www.beyondrelief.com/images/colemanback.jpg)
one of the most dense looking back shots ever, IMO.
Ronnie rarely displays striations. Case in point the 99 grand prix....Flex had striations everywhere, yet where were Ronnie's?
-
It's subtle, but striations & defo aren't the same as density and dryness.
Dryness is having nothing between the muscle and skin. Ron even at his best had a little something there between the muscle & skin, despite great defo and striations.
Dryness and density have to do with having nothing between the skin & muscle.
-
Am I the only one who thinks Nasser looks 'better' than Yates in that pic???
-
Ronnie rarely displays striations. Case in point the 99 grand prix....Flex had striations everywhere, yet where were Ronnie's?
right in front of you:
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/52.jpg)
check out the quad seperation.
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/41.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/45.jpg)
check out the delt seperation, not to mention back detail.
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/44.jpg)
check out the lower back.
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/49.jpg)
even his BICEPS were striated (check out the muscle fibers).
And let us not forget the striated glutes and hams.
Not exactly sure which contest you were watching??
Ronnie back the day was seperated/striated as hell!
-
I'm not seeing hardly any striations there as well...."check out the quad separation" WTF does that have to do with striations LMAO
Ronnie with no quad striations...
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/40.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/22.jpg)
-
MONSTER ab & thigh
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/48.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/27.jpg)
-
I'm not seeing hardly any striations there as well...."check out the quad separation" WTF does that have to do with striations LMAO
Ronnie with no quad striations...
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/40.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix/22.jpg)
true, Ronnie didn't display a lot of actual quad strations post 1997. But, as you can see from the pic I posted, his quads still looked fantastic and dry being as seperated as they were.
And here is one of my beefs with saying Yates was dense:
his quads had little seperation OR striations:
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy114.jpg)
how can someone who is so "dry and grainy" have quads (a huge muscle group) that show so little seperation, and look puffy??
It has never made sense to me - if Yates was dry and grainy he should of at least had seperations between the quad muscle groups.
-
true, Ronnie didn't display a lot of actual quad strations post 1997. But, as you can see from the pic I posted, his quads still looked fantastic and dry being as seperated as they were.
And here is one of my beefs with saying Yates was dense:
his quads had little seperation OR striations:
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy114.jpg)
how can someone who is so "dry and grainy" have quads (a huge muscle group) that show so little seperation, and look puffy??
It has never made sense to me - if Yates was dry and grainy he should of at least had seperations between the quad muscle groups.
The famous black and whites, still the most shocking bodybuilding pictures ever taken are what many attribute Dorian's dryness and grainyness.
Also, just for the record, I think Ronnie's all-time best look is post olympia 1997....esepcially in his first training video, he looks absolutely rediculous when he poses in that video
-
by they way, Ronnie is not even flexing his quads yet in EITHER of those pics that you posted..
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974182876.jpg)
even unstriated quads can still look fantastic.
-
The famous black and whites, still the most shocking bodybuilding pictures ever taken are what many attribute Dorian's dryness and grainyness.
those shots are impressive for several reasons:
1. Yates was 269 pounds.
2. the pics were taken in black and white
3. it was not onstage
4. it was pre-tear.
Hell, even Ronnie's "best ever shots" were taken in much the same way (not onstage, heavy weight, etc etc)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2739&stc=1)
I don't think these screenshots ever made the magazines though..
-
I contend, that in coleman's post GH era, the BFTO '02 pictures are his all-time freakiest and best ever.
-
This is pre-GH ronnie at his all-time best:
(http://www.martonaron.hu/~prog/Ronnie%20Dean%20Colemann/974181897.jpg)
-
I contend, that in coleman's post GH era, the BFTO '02 pictures are his all-time freakiest and best ever.
hard to believe that he could look SO different at the 2002 Olympia:
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/2002olympia7.jpg)
every time I see these shots, I think that it looks like someone photoshopped his arms down. But they are real shots.
how Ronnie won in 2002 I'll never know.
-
hard to believe that he could look SO different at the 2002 Olympia:
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/2002olympia7.jpg)
every time I see these shots, I think that it looks like someone photoshopped his arms down. But they are real shots.
how Ronnie won in 2002 I'll never know.
Something went wrong, obviously, and he knew what is was becuase he corrected it in '03. Had he come in properly in '02, we basically would have seen the "new standard of '03" set in 2002
-
I don't know why he had to use GH based on the earlier pics.
-
yup, that and all the water.. :-*
Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others. In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups. This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.
HOLDING WATER?! HOLDING WATER?! Bitch! ::) Now THAT was the stupidest thing said EVER, since the down of Human history! Seriously, girl, remove Ronnie's dick from your throat for a few minutes, so that some oxygen can reach your brain. YOU CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAZY, GIRL! You just said that The Yates, the densest and dryest bodybuilder !EVER! is holding water. :o :-\ I actually feel ashamed for you. :-[
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Again Hulkster the Highhjacker lol he sees someone who thinks Yates has the best back and sure enough he has to defend his hero , again I'm staying out of this , people have had enough .
-
Again Hulkster the Highhjacker lol he sees someone who thinks Yates has the best back and sure enough he has to defend his hero , again I'm staying out of this , people have had enough .
and you don't want to get embarrassed again! :-*
-
Am I the only one who thinks Nasser looks 'better' than Yates in that pic???
Nope, he had him beat for at least one olympia.
He raped him from the front everytime.
-
Am I the only one who thinks Nasser looks 'better' than Yates in that pic???
Nope, he had him beat for at least one olympia.
He raped him from the front everytime.
I think Nasser's upper back is a little soft compared to Yates, but Nasser takes him in the lower body (hell, his calves are on par with Yates!)
-
Again Hulkster the Highhjacker lol he sees someone who thinks Yates has the best back and sure enough he has to defend his hero , again I'm staying out of this , people have had enough .
actually, most of the Ronnie pics posted were in response to the "ronnie wasn't striated in 1999".
I am merely pointing out that nothing could be farther from the truth.
But, if you want to call it hijacking, be my guest.
but I call it "correcting misinformation".
-
Nasser looks like he had more delt and arm size in that back double biceps, maybe even a little advantage in lat width, but he didn't have quite the sharpness of Yates.
-
Gotta wonder what this man's back would have looked like had he trained and competed in the modern era - Hard to believe the man looked like THIS in the 60s and 70s - Sergio on modern drugs, suppliments, cutting techniques, etc. would have been a force to be reckoned with.
-
Gotta wonder what this man's back would have looked like had he trained and competed in the modern era - Hard to believe the man looked like THIS in the 60s and 70s - Sergio on modern drugs, suppliments, cutting techniques would have been a force to be reckoned with.
Sergio Oliva:most genetically gifted bodybuilder EVER.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
sergio had the longest muscle bellies ive ever seen
-
Again Hulkster the Highhjacker lol he sees someone who thinks Yates has the best back and sure enough he has to defend his hero , again I'm staying out of this , people have had enough .
Replace the word "hero" with "pimp", and we'll agree. ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
On conditioning and density, Yates over almost anyone past or present. Overall, Ron's way ahead, but on this issue..
-
I don't know about the bumps in the back, but the difference between Yates and Coleman is Yates is drier with lats that insert near his posterior iliac crest (down to his ass basically).
The latissimus dorsi insertion is the floor of the intertuberculuar sulcus of the humerus.
-
On conditioning and density, Yates over almost anyone past or present. Overall, Ron's way ahead, but on this issue..
Funny how despite being "way ahead", he still got raped in the pooper, by Yates, every time they had a showdown. I would loooooooooooove to see a contest between the 93 O Dorian and today's Ronnie. Seriously. The ONLY year that the case for a Ronnie victory could be made would be for his 2003 form. But even then, Dorian had such a better overall package that I think he would still win, anyway.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I think it's funny, everyone talks about how ronnie 2003 trounces Dorian '93, people who know what they are talking about can clearly see Dorian's far superior proportion. Not to mention his superior conditioning. How much have Ronnie weighed in 2003 with Dorian's 93 conditioning?
-
I think it's funny, everyone talks about how ronnie 2003 trounces Dorian '93, people who know what they are talking about can clearly see Dorian's far superior proportion. Not to mention his superior conditioning. How much have Ronnie weighed in 2003 with Dorian's 93 conditioning?
Well, Ronnie circa 2003 was 287 lbs, at something like 5 or 6% bodyfat. His dryness was ok, but not off the charts, like Dorian's at ALL his contests-of course, at the 2004 O, Ronnie looked TERRIBLE. The 93 O Dorian was 257 lbs, at 2% bodyfat and as dry as the Death Valley. He looked better. His proportions were also better. Of course, you could argue that:"Yeah, but Ron surpassed him by 30 lbs.". When you take into account bodyfat and water weight, though, the difference goes down to 15 lbs or so.
Funnily, at the 97 O-which I attended-, Dorian was 270+ lbs by the night show, yet he still maintained his trademarked 2% bodyfat and freakish dryness. In other words, even when it comes to sheer size, the 97 O Dorian trumps the 2005 O Ronnie. Coleman has just been raped. For the gazzilionth time. :o ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I'm watching the '91 Olympia right now. FUCK dorian looked awesome. Haney was gifted this win in '91 in my opinion after watching the tape, even the announcer says "he's like Haney, but with better legs." His back was also better, harder and drier. It is true, Mr. Olympia stays Mr. Olympia until he retires
-
I'm watching the '91 Olympia right now. f**k dorian looked awesome. Haney was gifted this win in '91 in my opinion after watching the tape, even the announcer says "he's like Haney, but with better legs." His back was also better, harder and drier. It is true, Mr. Olympia stays Mr. Olympia until he retires
Yep! If you win it twice, only death or retirement will stop you from keeping on winning.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Well, Ronnie circa 2003 was 287 lbs, at something like 5 or 6% bodyfat. His dryness was ok, but not off the charts, like Dorian's at ALL his contests-of course, at the 2004 O, Ronnie looked TERRIBLE. The 93 O Dorian was 257 lbs, at 2% bodyfat and as dry as the Death Valley. He looked better. His proportions were also better. Of course, you could argue that:"Yeah, but Ron surpassed him by 30 lbs.". When you take into account bodyfat and water weight, though, the difference goes down to 15 lbs or so.
Funnily, at the 97 O-which I attended-, Dorian was 270+ lbs by the night show, yet he still maintained his trademarked 2% bodyfat and freakish dryness. In other words, even when it comes to sheer size, the 97 O Dorian trumps the 2005 O Ronnie. Coleman has just been raped. For the gazzilionth time. :o ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
That must have been great to see the Shadow live. Since many regard 97 as one of Yates worst years (behind 94), just how did he look in person?
-
That must have been great to see the Shadow live. Since many regard 97 as one of Yates worst years (behind 94), just how did he look in person?
UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!!!!! By the night show, he was 274 lbs. As I said on another thread a long time ago, while discussing this very topic(quoting myself):
"I've been to some three hundred bodybuilding contests, both at the amateur and pro levels and I've never seen anything that looked like The Yates. I was both at the 96 O in Chicago and the 97 O in Long Beach, and they were my most memorable bodybuilding contests experiences. I remember that, when Dorian entered the stage at the 97 O, I said to myself:'What the f**k is THAT and what are those things trying to crawl from under his skin?!' Yates looked like a Human anatomy chart come to life, only drier, much drier. There's no possible way to describe it, really. I was also at the 2001 and 2003 Os, and Ronnie never impressed me that much. Humongous, yes, but not really that off-this-worldly. There were also other guys who were just as big as Ron, like Jean-Pierre Fux, Aaron Baker, Paul Dillet, Roland Kickinger and Nasser and they never impressed me as well. To me, Ronnie's best for was at the 99 O, when he had as much striations, details, separation and dryness as in 98, but with 10 lbs more lean mass. Ronnie never looked that good again."
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Bullshit GMC, I was in the front row at the 1991 Mr. Olympia (it was in Orlando in Lake Buena Vista). Dorian did not rape Haney, you are insane. Haney was bigger, tighter with a smaller waist, and had symmetry that absolutely blew Yates away. Every bodybuilder in the audience who was not slanted to the "anybody but Haney" attitude agreed he won. Have you ever been to a show. In 3D, it is a hell of a lot different than 2D on the magazine pics. Sucky, you persist in stating Yates was 2% BF at 270; that is physiologically impossible. Essentially, you are full of shit. Ask Ether, there is more fat present than the purpurted 5.4 lbs that Yates carried around the vital organs. Do you believe that if Peter McGough said the Earth was flat it is the "truth." ::) Yates was huge and probably the driest BB ever. However, to say he was bigger and better ::) than Coleman 2003 (whom Flex Magazine, MD, and many a pro bodybuilder said is the sickest condition anybody has ever brought to the stage) is laughable.
BTW, you guys talk about little guys getting screwed, before he died from diuretic abuse, MoMo Benaziza (spelling?) beat Yates at the Night of Champions. He could have been the first short Mr. Olympia. after Franco.
-
I was also at the 2001 and 2003 Os, and Ronnie never impressed me that much. Humongous, yes, but not really that off-this-worldly. There were also other guys who were just as big as Ron, like Jean-Pierre Fux, Aaron Baker, Paul Dillet, Roland Kickinger and Nasser and they never impressed me as well.
Not off this world? Your taste is clearly biased towards Yates; others don't share your indifference against Coleman, Dillet or Nasser.
-
Bullshit GMC, I was in the front row at the 1991 Mr. Olympia (it was in Orlando in Lake Buena Vista). Dorian did not rape Haney, you are insane. Haney was bigger, tighter with a smaller waist, and had symmetry that absolutely blew Yates away. Every bodybuilder in the audience who was not slanted to the "anybody but Haney" attitude agreed he won. Have you ever been to a show. In 3D, it is a hell of a lot different than 2D on the magazine pics. Sucky, you persist in stating Yates was 2% BF at 270; that is physiologically impossible. Essentially, you are full of shit. Ask Ether, there is more fat present than the purpurted 5.4 lbs that Yates carried around the vital organs. Do you believe that if Peter McGough said the Earth was flat it is the "truth." ::) Yates was huge and probably the driest BB ever. However, to say he was bigger and better ::) than Coleman 2003 (whom Flex Magazine, MD, and many a pro bodybuilder said is the sickest condition anybody has ever brought to the stage) is laughable.
BTW, you guys talk about little guys getting screwed, before he died from diuretic abuse, MoMo Benaziza (spelling?) beat Yates at the Night of Champions. He could have been the first short Mr. Olympia. after Franco.
Your post clearly demonstrates how pathetic the state of medical schools are nowadays. So you can't get down to 2% bodyfat, bitch? Then how is that Michael Jordan carried 3% bodyfat throughout his entire career, and !gasp! played basketball with it? Myself, I've taken my bodyfat down to 4.5%-measured by hydrostatic weighing-and I'm no pro bodybuilder. Just because you're some fat doctor, who probably gorges on pork rinds and cheap beer and has more cellulite on your chest than Sally Struders has on her ass, doesen't mean that everyone else is too.
As for Ronnie's physique, well, I don't like it. Get it? I think a man of his height and bone structure should compete around 250 lbs; even his 270 lbs package is ugly-as is Yates'. At 280+ lbs, Coleman seems like he's pregnant with an alien queen and has thighs that overpowers his upper body, besides a shoulder-traps complex that makes his chest look flat and small. Yeah, his 2005 270+ package is not as bad, but he is still clearly losing in detail, separations and striations, at that bodyweight. Again, his best form ever was his 99 O form, when he was 250 lbs. This is my opinion and if you don't like it, then go fuck yourself.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Not off this world? Your taste is clearly biased towards Yates; others don't share your indifference against Coleman, Dillet or Nasser.
Shut the f**k up, you faggo t. Pump my milk with your rectal muscles, pumpster.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Funny how despite being "way ahead", he still got raped in the pooper, by Yates, every time they had a showdown
no, its not funny, since Ronnie had not reached his peak yet:
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974026807.jpg)
here is Dorian, in great shape winning the 1992 Olympia, and he looks like shit.
Why? because his arms and chest SUCK. Not to mention his quads. Overrated as you can get.
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/bwcoleman0edecbab.jpg)
just goes to show you that not only the 2003 Ronnie would destroy yates, but also the 2001 versions as well (at the AC).
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/99%20grand%20prix/more%20pics/1999BritishGrandPrix_2__0033.jpg)
Dorian could NEVER stand next to this and come away the winner. And this is not even showing the back!
Sure, Dorian killed Ronnie when Ronnie was pre-peak form. But that sure wouldn't have happened later on.
-
Yates' most muscular is EMBARASSING. How did he ever beat Coleman again?
Oh ya, Weider always knows who the winner will be. ;D
-
Yates' most muscular is EMBARASSING. How did he ever beat Coleman again?
Oh ya, Weider always knows who the winner will be. ;D
Dorian's horrible most muscular illustrates quite clearly, that, other than his lats, Dorian was NOTHING SPECIAL from the front.
If he were, he would have looked a whole lot more impressive than that.
-
Yates & Hany had the same problem-all TORSO with SMALL ARMS. If everything else had been in balance with their torsos, they would've both been incredible instead of just very good.
-
Yates & Hany had the same problem-all TORSO with SMALL ARMS
yup. and here you have people saying that Yates' proportions were "far superior" to Ronnie's.
ah no.
Ronnie's has calves that are too small for his quads.
Yates has entire arms and chest that are too small for his upper body.
which would you say is worse?
and besides:
Yates CANNOT have better proprotions that Ronnie did because his taper looked like this at his VERY BEST shape:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_shawn_ray_flex_wheeler.jpg)
having a taper like that is certainly not "far superior".
Being well proportioned includes having a pleasing taper, like this:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc104.jpg)
man, all these Yates fans are brainwashed. The guy has no arms, no chest, no taper, no vascularity etc etc and you have people arguing like he was the best thing since sliced bread. ::) ::)
-
man, all these Yates fans are brainwashed. The guy has no arms, no chest, no taper, no vascularity etc etc and you have people arguing like he was the best thing since sliced bread
and, before you guys all jump on me saying that Yates has arms, chest, taper, etc, etc, I would like to point out that compared to Ronnie at his peak (which is the comparison that you guys keep bringin up), he doesn't.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy35.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43892.0;id=45835;image)
no arms, among other things..
-
Quote Ironaman Jan 1995 former IFBB Judge Roger Schwab 1994 Mr Olympia
" Best Most Muscular - Yates. When he poses , everything explodes. "
" Best Chest - Yates and Levrone-torn pec and all. "
" Best Legs - Yates from top to bottom "
" Best Back - Yates. He has too much back to be compared. "
-
Quote Ironaman Jan 1995 former IFBB Judge Roger Schwab 1994 Mr Olympia
" Best Most Muscular - Yates. When he poses , everything explodes. "
" Best Chest - Yates and Levrone-torn pec and all. "
" Best Legs - Yates from top to bottom "
" Best Back - Yates. He has too much back to be compared. "
best legs??? best most muscular?? that has to be some of the dumbest quotes I have EVER heard.
Look at Yates' most muscular - it is TERRIBLE.
look at his quads- no seperation to speak of:
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy114.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy183.jpg)
all torso - no arms, puffy, watery quads.
best legs my ass - most AMATEURS have better quads!
-
figures an IFBB judge would say ridiculous stuff like that.
No wonder Yates got a gift at the 1994 O. ::)
-
Again you're basing this on pictures to say a 6 time Mr Olympia is overrated shows you don't know what you're talking about and you know more than an IFBB judge .
-
poop
-
Again you're basing this on pictures to say a 6 time Mr Olympia is overrated shows you don't know what you're talking about and you know more than an IFBB judge .
oh, and you do??
You argued that dorian has better arms than Ronnie ad nauseum and you are saying that I don't know what i am talking about?? ::) ::) ::)
I may not be a judge but I am certainly not blind.
-
ND, if yates most muscular and quads are so good, it should be obvious in photos as well as onstage.
But in pictures they both suck.
Yates isn't some magic bodybuilder who only looks good onstage and like shit in photos.
No one else is like that - if they look good in pics they look good onstage.
Yates is not an exception - if he looks like shit in photos (eg most muscular), you can bet he looked like shit onstage.
-
Well if you talk to anyone who has seen Dorian they all say the same " Pictures do not do this guy justice , you have to see him in person to get the full effect "
And you insist his mostmuscular sucks and thats your opinion , obviously this former IFBB judge doesn't agree with you and neither do I , bottom like when you make claims like he is overrated while winning 6 Sandows its safe to assume you don't know what you're talking about .
-
Suckymuscle, you are schmoe with no medical background at all. I have yet to see an in shape bodybuilder like Yates, Coleman, etc ever get a true bodyfat measurement by hydrodensitometry weighting or DEXA. Hell, if they have the cash, they could use perceived new gold standard the MRI (hahahaha). Whatever dude, I don't believe the weights that bodybuilders spew about anyway. I bet you if you weighed bodybuilders like Yates and Coleman the same way and with the strict measurements of even a high school wrestling meet (underwear and no shirt), the true weights would not approach 274 (for Yates) or 296 (for Coleman). BB is a joke as everything about it is magnified and exagerrated. Where did you get that "2% bodyfat" claim from Sucky....does McGough have DEXA vision or something. I agree, Yates was the man and I like the dude. However, he is anything but the epitome of bodybuilding....he has too many weaknesses. However, I agree that his shape was astounding in the black and whites, but he never seemed to hit that degree of conditioning except maybe in the 2003 Mr. Olympia. Coleman looked damn good this year at a lighter weight, but he was at his best 1998/1999. In 2003, he was the largest BB in condition who ever stepped on shape. I bet you if you did true bodyfat measurements with underwater weighing, DEXA and maybe MRI (never seen it used for such but possible), they would average 4-5 percent.
-
And you insist his mostmuscular sucks and thats your opinion ,
and the opinion of almost anyone who sees his most muscular.
-
LOL!!
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60049.0;attach=70296;image)
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy26.jpg)
Ronnie's NOT EVEN FLEXING YET and his arms-forward pose is STILL better than Yates.
Now can you see why I maintain this guy was overrated ND???
If stuff like this doesn't make it obvious, I don't know what can.
-
Hulkster your hatred of Dorian is bordering on becoming disturbing. As is your worship of Ronnie. You can find great pictures of Ronnie and poor ones of Dorian and someone else can do the opposite and both points can therefore be argued. The way you have to get in on every thread about Dorian by initially saying something positive (to try and disguise your hatred?) and then proceed to cut him down merely to be argumentative is rather sad. To make blanket statements such as describing Dorian's most muscular as "terrible" (by which you refer to the crab shot as there are many variations) is ridiculous. Sure, others have been better but it's still pretty good and other shots of his are remarkable. Have you ever actually seen Dorian compete? You lose credibility by merely commenting on photos selctively. Dorian never looked as blocky on stage as he can in pics and his proportion (skeletal structure, i.e. ratio of arms to legs to torso) was just about perfect and other guys not so fortunate as him in this area often looked EXTREMELY flawed stading next to him. Levrone especially with his slightly longer torso.
You have to remember that Dorian raised the bar during his time to a far greater extent than Ronnie ever did - in fact I would contend Ronnie never achieved this. He has not made the 'quantum leap' if you will, that Dorian did. In that sense Dorian was the pioneer considering both guys started as pros at roughly the same time (early 90s). Haney did the same in 94, and Arnold and Sergio prior to that.
I DO actually get what you mean about the back detail, "lumpy" as you call it, but I think that look is far better personified by others other than Ronnie - perhaps Flex, Shawn and if you want a really prime example then check out Mike Christian at his peak.
-
Here is my in depth commentary regarding who is better between Dorian and Ronnie:
Ronnie.
Any questions?
-
You lose credibility by merely commenting on photos selctively.
and you lose credibility by not see the flaws that are obvious in EVERY Yates photo. (and your constant bashing of Ronnie).
ronnie didn't raise the bar? What would you call 2003?
No, I have not seen Dorian compete - as I said - that doesn't matter:
His quads won't magically gain seperation and his arms, chest and taper won't magically get better just because he is on stage. if they were good, they would look good in a photo just like everybody else.
I don't hate Dorian any more than you hate Ronnie.
But I do think he was vastly overrated. He is, as I said before, The Supreme Ruler of All Overratedness!!
-
Hulkster your hatred of Dorian is bordering on becoming disturbing. As is your worship of Ronnie. You can find great pictures of Ronnie and poor ones of Dorian and someone else can do the opposite and both points can therefore be argued. The way you have to get in on every thread about Dorian by initially saying something positive (to try and disguise your hatred?) and then proceed to cut him down merely to be argumentative is rather sad. To make blanket statements such as describing Dorian's most muscular as "terrible" (by which you refer to the crab shot as there are many variations) is ridiculous. Sure, others have been better but it's still pretty good and other shots of his are remarkable. Have you ever actually seen Dorian compete? You lose credibility by merely commenting on photos selctively. Dorian never looked as blocky on stage as he can in pics and his proportion (skeletal structure, i.e. ratio of arms to legs to torso) was just about perfect and other guys not so fortunate as him in this area often looked EXTREMELY flawed stading next to him. Levrone especially with his slightly longer torso.
You have to remember that Dorian raised the bar during his time to a far greater extent than Ronnie ever did - in fact I would contend Ronnie never achieved this. He has not made the 'quantum leap' if you will, that Dorian did. In that sense Dorian was the pioneer considering both guys started as pros at roughly the same time (early 90s). Haney did the same in 94, and Arnold and Sergio prior to that.
I DO actually get what you mean about the back detail, "lumpy" as you call it, but I think that look is far better personified by others other than Ronnie - perhaps Flex, Shawn and if you want a really prime example then check out Mike Christian at his peak.
You make an excellent point , everytime he starts off slow and then reverts right back to his Yaes-hater mode , but he does this with everyone he highjacks threads he is so concerned that everyone doesn't agree that Ronnie is the best ever and no one ever comes close and he constantly feels a need to defend Coleman lol its bizzare anyway Hulkster defend away while I laugh away !! ;)
-
and you lose credibility by not see the flaws that are obvious in EVERY Yates photo. (and your constant bashing of Ronnie).
ronnie didn't raise the bar? What would you call 2003?
No, I have not seen Dorian compete - as I said - that doesn't matter:
His quads won't magically gain seperation and his arms, chest and taper won't magically get better just because he is on stage. if they were good, they would look good in a photo just like everybody else.
I don't hate Dorian any more than you hate Ronnie.
But I do think he was vastly overrated. He is, as I said before, The Supreme Ruler of All Overratedness!!
Actually it does matter if you havent seen a guy compete because photos and videos do not tell the tale. All bodybuilders have flaws (obviously Dorian's bicep, poor execution of the rear dbl bi shot, upper pecs to a small degree) but due to your inexperience you miss important factors - like skeletal structure for example. Up close where the judges are Dorian's legs were very well separated and Ronnie's actually weren't - sorry but I have seen them side by side from 10 yards. Sure Ronnie is bigger now and his detail from the rear has been amazing but he still lacks it from the front.
There are many competitors I have been much bigger fans of (Haney, Labrada, Al Beckles) but the Dorian bashing is ridiculous. I also cannot see how Dorian would have been the preferred candidate of Joe Weider as some would suggest considering he never lived in the USA and he's not exactly the best looking guy in the world. So why did the judges award him all those victories? Perhaps because they were there and saw how he overwhelmed Wheeler, Ray, Levrone et al every year including 94? Like I say, those judges were there and they saw fit to give the decision to Dorian - are you more knowledgeable than them? I remember talking with the photographer Chris Lund once and he was amazed at how many people thought they could judge a show from pics and videos, as he said, you can't, the difference is substantial.
Some of you kids who have only been interested in bb for a short amount of time make me laugh as you are not tuned in to the finer points of physique development and think you know it all and are experts from a few pictures. Are you even out of high school? LOL.
ND - yes I agree, Hulster is clearly a little disturbed (not such a bad thing just a fact). The hijacking of threads in the way you describe is kind of odd and shows his immaturity. But like I said, what do you expect of a kid who has Ronnie posters on his ceiling?
-
Here is my in depth commentary regarding who is better between Dorian and Ronnie:
Ronnie.
Any questions?
Go back to sleep son.
-
Are you even out of high school? LOL.
LOL. I have finished University and grad. school.
Just because I ACT like a kid doesn't mean that I am one! 8)
but then again, I'm not exactly an old fart either!
ps - if Yates quads were seperated up close, most other bodybuilder's quads must look UNREAL up close, since Dorian's quads suck in pictures ;)
-
Go back to sleep son.
Dorian himself said he could not have beaten Ron, stfu.
-
ps - if Yates quads were seperated up close, most other bodybuilder's quads must look UNREAL up close, since Dorian's quads suck in pictures ;)
Quite possbily - but as I said, not Ronnie's - having been that close. Don't get too excited at the thought :P
-
Dorian himself said he could not have beaten Ron, stfu.
But he did beat Ronnie, several times. Now go kill yourself.
-
since flaws that show up in pictures are not actually there onstage, do ya think that Dorian's left biceps that was missing in pictures made an appearance onstage? ;)
An unseperated quad is an unseperated quad. period.
Sure, lighting can wash out detail to some extent, but EVERY shot shows the same flaw.
Dorian's legs were a big flaw. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that.
-
But he did beat Ronnie, several times. Now go kill yourself.
Yeah, when Ron was natural.
-
since flaws that show up in pictures are not actually there onstage, do ya think that Dorian's left biceps that was missing in pictures made an appearance onstage? ;)
An unseperated quad is an unseperated quad. period.
Sure, lighting can wash out detail to some extent, but EVERY shot shows the same flaw.
Dorian's legs were a big flaw. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that.
f**k! You're obsessed man! Plenty of pics from 91, 93 and 95 showing good separation in the quads on DY if you want the pics, i'm sure you have some of them yourself - and very clear sartorius btw which Ronnie lacks.
MT - when was Ronnie natural? Perhaps in 90 but that's it. Anyway, I enjoy the banter with Hulkster as he has half a brain (even if he can't spell SEPARATED), you on the other hand, are a waste of space.
-
Suckymuscle, you are schmoe with no medical background at all. I have yet to see an in shape bodybuilder like Yates, Coleman, etc ever get a true bodyfat measurement by hydrodensitometry weighting or DEXA. Hell, if they have the cash, they could use perceived new gold standard the MRI (hahahaha). Whatever dude, I don't believe the weights that bodybuilders spew about anyway. I bet you if you weighed bodybuilders like Yates and Coleman the same way and with the strict measurements of even a high school wrestling meet (underwear and no shirt), the true weights would not approach 274 (for Yates) or 296 (for Coleman). BB is a joke as everything about it is magnified and exagerrated. Where did you get that "2% bodyfat" claim from Sucky....does McGough have DEXA vision or something. I agree, Yates was the man and I like the dude. However, he is anything but the epitome of bodybuilding....he has too many weaknesses. However, I agree that his shape was astounding in the black and whites, but he never seemed to hit that degree of conditioning except maybe in the 2003 Mr. Olympia. Coleman looked damn good this year at a lighter weight, but he was at his best 1998/1999. In 2003, he was the largest BB in condition who ever stepped on shape. I bet you if you did true bodyfat measurements with underwater weighing, DEXA and maybe MRI (never seen it used for such but possible), they would average 4-5 percent.
Um, getbig.com is a BB website ::) Don't like it, leave :o
-
To determine the winner we must look at the mandatory poses:
95 Yates vs 98 Ronnie
Abs/thigh - YATES
Side Tricep - YATES
Front D.Bicep - YATES
Front Lat Spread - YATES
Rear Lat Spread - YATES
Back Double Biceps - Ronnie
Most Muscular - YATES
YATES is better end of story.
-
LMAO @ ::)
-
To determine the winner we must look at the mandatory poses:
95 Yates vs 98 Ronnie
Abs/thigh - YATES
Side Tricep - YATES
Front D.Bicep - YATES
Front Lat Spread - YATES
Rear Lat Spread - YATES
Back Double Biceps - Ronnie
Most Muscular - YATES
YATES is better end of story.
I would do '93 Yates (257 lbs) vs. '99 Coleman (252 lbs)
Ab/Thigh - Yates
Side Tricep - Yates
Front Double Biceps - Toss up, Yates is slighly bigger and more proportioned, Ronnie better biceps
Front Lat spread - Yates
Rear Lat Spread - Toss up
Back Double Biceps - Coleman
Most Muscular - Coleman
As you can see its brutally close, Yates has a better lower back, calves of course. Ronnie better biceps, possible more striated.
-
*Can't* be a superstar with Yates mediocre arms & delts, overall blockiness & lack of aesthetics. Can't have a great most muscular with weak arms and average delts! It's man against boy. Does everyone conveniently forget none other than Schwarzenegger's disparaging remarks about Yates when Yates was competing?
I have a feeling most or all who like Yates just happen to be white. Just a coincidence, of course! ;) It's a matter of identifying with one of your own. Anyone who likes Yates would have trouble putting him ahead of someone else who was seriously flawed-Haney. They're so similar-all torso, very high muscle quality & density, robbed of greatness by the absence of arms and in Haney's case, legs, in Yates case, overall powerlifter blockiness and lack of flow or aesthetics.
At their best:
Yates & Coleman have comparable lats-Yates with more density, Coleman with more size - a draw:
Advantages:
Yates: density/dryness
calves
That's IT..
New standards in powerlifter hips & butt.
Mediocre arms-tris look ok in only that *one* side shot, not in any other shot
Mediocre delts (Nasser's yet another who blows out Yates on arms & delts, check those pics)
Coleman: Everything else:
TAPER
OVERALL MUSCLE VOLUME (not even close)
ARMS (not even close bis or tris on any criteria-the difference between superstar & ok)
DELTS
THIGHS
CHEST
CONCLUSION:
Ron's a superstar in the pantheon of greats alongside Oliva & Schwarzenegger. Exactly why Yates admits he would lose, he knows it, has the class to admit it. He beat Coleman sure-Zane once beat Schwarzenegger when he was coming up, who cares now, other than Yates groupies?
Yates joins Haney in the "good but seriously flawed" B-level, ahead of Chris Dickerson & Franco Columbu. Tiny arms & delts and overall blockiness will *never* equal superstar, period. If Haney or Yates had great arms, they move up to a different neighborhood!
Here's an embarassing reminder-excellent density, *PUNY* arm & delt size = *cannot* win back or front double bi shots or most muscular.. I cringe on his behalf for those arms!
-
Suckymuscle, you are schmoe with no medical background at all. I have yet to see an in shape bodybuilder like Yates, Coleman, etc ever get a true bodyfat measurement by hydrodensitometry weighting or DEXA. Hell, if they have the cash, they could use perceived new gold standard the MRI (hahahaha). Whatever dude, I don't believe the weights that bodybuilders spew about anyway. I bet you if you weighed bodybuilders like Yates and Coleman the same way and with the strict measurements of even a high school wrestling meet (underwear and no shirt), the true weights would not approach 274 (for Yates) or 296 (for Coleman). BB is a joke as everything about it is magnified and exagerrated. Where did you get that "2% bodyfat" claim from Sucky....does McGough have DEXA vision or something. I agree, Yates was the man and I like the dude. However, he is anything but the epitome of bodybuilding....he has too many weaknesses. However, I agree that his shape was astounding in the black and whites, but he never seemed to hit that degree of conditioning except maybe in the 2003 Mr. Olympia. Coleman looked damn good this year at a lighter weight, but he was at his best 1998/1999. In 2003, he was the largest BB in condition who ever stepped on shape. I bet you if you did true bodyfat measurements with underwater weighing, DEXA and maybe MRI (never seen it used for such but possible), they would average 4-5 percent.
Bullshit, you dumb cun t! A healthy young male, who exercises regularly and has a diet devoid of processed foods, can have 2-4% bodyfat. Wild game, who feed strictly on grass and runs around all day, has around 3% bodyfat. Michael Jordan had 3% bodyfat all through his career. I've never competed professionaly, yet I've taken my bodyfat down to 4.5%, as measured by hydrostatic weighting, by eliminating processed foods and doing a low-carb diet for two months, with daily aerobic exercise; nothing more natural and expected, when you do the opposite that the medical establishment tells you to(doctors still give dextrose in the IV serum for hospital patients, even though they're aware that high-glycemic index carbohydrates are primary contributors to the onset on insulin resistent, type 2 diabetes). If I had taken sauce, GH, IGF-1, cytomel and clenbuterol, how ripped would I'd become?
Oh, yeah, removing the shirt and shoes off will make a tremendous difference in the scale! ::) Yeah, as I said, Ronnie was humongous in 2003. But a better CONDITIONING than Dorian, you say? Girl, Jim Schmaltz, Peter McGough, Wayne De Milia and Jim Manion are all unanimous in saying, that Yates, had the best conditioning OF ALL TIMES! This includes the current Mr.O. The 280+ lbs Ronnie has so many flaws that it's not even worth mentioning. I do believe that the 270+ lbs Dorian is superior to the 270+ lbs Ronnie:better hardness, density and overall structure. But that's just me; I don't expect a non-bodybuilding fangirl to understand. At the bodyweight they both excel at, around 250 lbs, Dorian is so superior to Ronnie-evidenced by all the times he raped Ronnie in the pooper, onstage-, that it's pointless to even discuss it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
P.S:Stop calling me Suckymuscle, as calling me that is reserved exlusively to your mom. To you, it's Mr.Suckymuscle. ;D
-
But he did beat Ronnie, several times. Now go kill yourself.
HA HA HA! ;D Monster triceps, you've just been:
R-A-P-E-D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Um, getbig.com is a BB website ::) Don't like it, leave :o
Leave him:he's one of those fat doctors, who believes that modern processed foods are good for you. And who will be responsible for the extinction of the Human Species, due to having prescribed so many antibiotics since the 1950's, that now viruses are much tougher and deadlier. Oh, the wisdom of medicine! Do you know what practically everyone who makes it to the three-digit birthday years have in common? They seldom went to the doctor! ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
It's not close at all. There's obviously some racism here, white guys who associate with Yates.
Did someone just give Yates most muscular, with those arms? ::) As soon as he gets most muscular, the entire analysis has to be thrown out.
At their best:
Yates & Coleman have comparable lats-Yates with more density, Coleman with more size - a draw:
Advantages:
Yates: density/dryness
calves
That's IT..
New standards in powerlifter hips & butt.
Mediocre arms
Mediocre delts (Nasser's yet another who blows out Yates on arms & delts, check those pics)
Coleman: Everything else:
TAPER
OVERALL MUSCLE VOLUME (not even close)
ARMS (not even close-the difference between superstar & ok)
DELTS
THIGHS
CHEST
Here's an embarassing reminder-excellent density, *NO* arm or delt size = cannot win back or front double bi shots..
Actually, it's the opposite dumbass:it is Blacks who usually discriminate against Whites, for the "bruthas". >:(
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Actually it does matter if you havent seen a guy compete because photos and videos do not tell the tale. All bodybuilders have flaws (obviously Dorian's bicep, poor execution of the rear dbl bi shot, upper pecs to a small degree) but due to your inexperience you miss important factors - like skeletal structure for example. Up close where the judges are Dorian's legs were very well separated and Ronnie's actually weren't - sorry but I have seen them side by side from 10 yards. Sure Ronnie is bigger now and his detail from the rear has been amazing but he still lacks it from the front.
There are many competitors I have been much bigger fans of (Haney, Labrada, Al Beckles) but the Dorian bashing is ridiculous. I also cannot see how Dorian would have been the preferred candidate of Joe Weider as some would suggest considering he never lived in the USA and he's not exactly the best looking guy in the world. So why did the judges award him all those victories? Perhaps because they were there and saw how he overwhelmed Wheeler, Ray, Levrone et al every year including 94? Like I say, those judges were there and they saw fit to give the decision to Dorian - are you more knowledgeable than them? I remember talking with the photographer Chris Lund once and he was amazed at how many people thought they could judge a show from pics and videos, as he said, you can't, the difference is substantial.
Some of you kids who have only been interested in bb for a short amount of time make me laugh as you are not tuned in to the finer points of physique development and think you know it all and are experts from a few pictures. Are you even out of high school? LOL.
ND - yes I agree, Hulster is clearly a little disturbed (not such a bad thing just a fact). The hijacking of threads in the way you describe is kind of odd and shows his immaturity. But like I said, what do you expect of a kid who has Ronnie posters on his ceiling?
Amen! ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
SUCKMYMUSCLE with more childlike 5-year old name-calling and muddled logic that masquerades for content..::)
Yates was *never* great because of his serious flaws (small arms & delts, big hips, blockiness Jay Cutler would be proud of), but he's white, like most who identify with him. Boxing's always looking for a white guy too. Yates is bodybuilding's Gerry Cooney..;D
-
SUCKMYMUSCLE with more childlike 5-year old name-calling and muddled logic that masquerades for content..::)
Yates was *never* great because of his serious flaws (small arms & delts, big hips, blockiness Jay Cutler would be proud of), but he's white, like most who identify with him. Boxing's always looking for a white guy too. Yates is bodybuilding's Gerry Cooney..;D
And of course...you're black! ::) I'm shocked :o...not!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Tiny Arms and Delts? HA
-
Tiny Arms and Delts? HA
tiny is not the right word. "crappy" would be better, at least compared to Ronnie.
-
:)
-
Yates was *never* great because of his serious flaws (small arms & delts, big hips, blockiness Jay Cutler would be proud of),
Totally wrong. Yates had very narrow hips and long legs, not blocky at all. To compare him to Cutler is laughable. His structure is much closer to Haney & Coleman.
-
if those pictures of Yates had been taken in color, would this conversation be happening.
B & W's change everything.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60049.0;attach=70386;image)
man, ronnie looked so good at that show he can be halfway flexing and still crush Yates
<cums all over keyboard> :-* :-*
-
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/974026359.jpg)
Yates had very narrow hips and long legs, not blocky at all.
no, not at all ;).
-
Totally wrong. Yates had very narrow hips and long legs, not blocky at all. To compare him to Cutler is laughable. His structure is much closer to Haney & Coleman.
What's laughable is that you've completely "forgotten" the crummy arms, the lack of aesthetics and the weightlifter look he always had, exactly as mentioned by Schwarzenegger. Take a good look at the pic above-blocky, once again, structure *nothing* like Haney, who had lines and tapers to small joints, a small waist & slender hips! Long legs? You need glasses.
-
if those pictures of Yates had been taken in color, would this conversation be happening.
B & W's change everything.
I agree. Nobody would have even have heard of Yates if those shots had been in colour. He was really only 110lbs with one leg 6 inches longer than the other and as smooth as a babies arse. He would never have won all those titles either because the judges were obviously influenced by the black and white tonality.
Amazing what Tri-X can do for a physique. Kodak should use it in their advertising campaign.
-
According to your terminology, Nasser's back is "lumpy".....Yates's back destroys his, the reason that back double bi doesnt look as good as the above is simply becuase of the lighting. Yates' back was hard as nails, not lumpy or any coleman bullshit like that. Looks like you just fucking too legos and stacked them up on his back
This is what happens when you put Yates under good lighting (or any other athete, see '99 grand prix)
(http://membres.lycos.fr/bodybuilders/bodybuilding/dorian_yates/dy03.jpg)
Short of the biceps, this back double bi beats any other in the history of bodybuilding head to toe
wtf?! no.
-
What's laughable is that you've completely "forgotten" the crummy arms, the lack of aesthetics and the weightlifter look he always had, exactly as mentioned by Schwarzenegger. Take a good look at the pic above-blocky, once again, structure *nothing* like Haney, who had lines and tapers to small joints, a small waist & slender hips! Long legs? You need glasses.
That picture is from the '97 O, Yates' worst condition and the end of his career. A fairer comparison is to look at Yates and Haney at similar bodyweights ('91 O), and you can see the similarity in their structures.
-
Sucky...hahahahah....how about dumbass muscle. You got to 4.5%, right.....and you did it naturally I assume. You state MJ was at 3% BF for his whole career. Let us see the absurdity of your post...all of your posts. First of all, let us assume that Dorian got down to 2% like you claim. He maintained that condition for maybe a night or pushing it a week. Then, Jordan was at 3% for the 12+ seasons he played basketball. Not only was he performing, he was the best damn player ever. How would be possible to be at such a depleted level and function so phenomenally for so long. Granted, he probably was around 5-6% BF but 3% continually. First of all, it is not possible, he would have had a cardiac arrhythmia at some point. Second, Dorian looked excellent in the Black and White pics, but he was never at 2% BF. The pic above seems to bear this out. I would guess at his leanest he was 3-4%, but if you read any of the measurement studies used (underwater hydrodensitometry), even it has an error rate of 1-2 percent. Keeping that in mind, Yates could be anywhere from 0% BF ( ::)) to 4% if he did in fact have his BF tested. I surmise that you base your analysis on Peter McGough. BTW, you suck Dorian's cock more than Hulkster ever has with Coleman. Your posts for the most part are laughable.
-
Sucky...hahahahah....how about dumbass muscle. You got to 4.5%, right.....and you did it naturally I assume. You state MJ was at 3% BF for his whole career. Let us see the absurdity of your post...all of your posts. First of all, let us assume that Dorian got down to 2% like you claim. He maintained that condition for maybe a night or pushing it a week. Then, Jordan was at 3% for the 12+ seasons he played basketball. Not only was he performing, he was the best damn player ever. How would be possible to be at such a depleted level and function so phenomenally for so long. Granted, he probably was around 5-6% BF but 3% continually. First of all, it is not possible, he would have had a cardiac arrhythmia at some point. Second, Dorian looked excellent in the Black and White pics, but he was never at 2% BF. The pic above seems to bear this out. I would guess at his leanest he was 3-4%, but if you read any of the measurement studies used (underwater hydrodensitometry), even it has an error rate of 1-2 percent. Keeping that in mind, Yates could be anywhere from 0% BF ( ::)) to 4% if he did in fact have his BF tested. I surmise that you base your analysis on Peter McGough. BTW, you suck Dorian's cock more than Hulkster ever has with Coleman. Your posts for the most part are laughable.
Hey, doc, you've probably got Alzheimer's or mad cow disease, because you obviously don't have a neuron left. The fact that you graduated, as a medical doctor, is yet another reason for me to take care of my health:I wouldn't want to depend on someone like you, suckydoctor.
Your idiotic post did nothing to contradict anything I wrote:where's the evidence? The fact that MJ had 3% bodyfat is well documented. And even if there is a margin of error in the measurement, it would still put him in the 2-4% bodyfat range I'm talking about.
So your momma is now calling it "Dorian's cock"? Strange nickname for a cun t. ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Suckmycock, you seem to be infatuated with dorian's 1997 condition (when most people say he sucked that year).
Can you show us some clips/photos of dorian that year?
I have hardly seen any. I just want to see if he lives up your hyperbole.
-
ND made these excellent comparison pics of the two. Dorian or Ronnie? You decide....
(http://x4.putfile.com/2/4821001784.jpg)
(http://x10.putfile.com/12/34800155099.jpg)
(http://x4.putfile.com/2/4820592238.jpg)
-
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/janspot/coleman-yates-lat-spread-rear-relaxed.jpg)
;)
-
Hulkster has a habit of posting the worst Dorian pics. We must agree that we can only compare one version of each bodybuilder to be fair. Ronnie 2005 can't take advantage of the "wasp" waist he was sporting in 98.
After 98, Coleman was sporting an "average powerlifter physique" with deformed abdominals, twig calves, protruding stomach, and a chest that disappears in the front double biceps.
So Hulkster, I ask you, which version of Ronnie beats Yates in a majority of the mandatory poses?
(http://x11.putfile.com/3/7713242552.jpg)
Coleman can never come close to this shot:
(http://x11.putfile.com/3/7713213264.jpg)
-
either the 99 English Grand Prix, or the 2001 AC:
(http://www.dennis-james.com/Gallery/01ac/images/full/djames_AC02e.jpg)
(http://www.dennis-james.com/Gallery/01ac/images/full/djames_AC03b.jpg)
as you can see, his back shots at the 2001 AC are superior to yates, never mind most of the other poses.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc104.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_shawn_ray_flex_wheeler.jpg)
in 2001, ronnie's amazing taper and far superior quads, arms, chest, detail etc. would have been way too much for Dorian to overcome, since, even at his very best shape, (1993, pre-tear) he had some major flaws that account for his overratedness.
-
Yates' powerlifter waist is almost twice the size of the other guys, with Gustavo-like obliques. That thong looks ready to blow.. :P
This guy HAS to be the most over-rated winner ever. I will admit though, that he trumps Dickerson or Columbu, hands down. :D
-
He is..The Supreme Ruler of ALL OVERRATEDNESS!!! 8)
that much is painfully obvious.
Nice guy, I'm sure. But way overrated as a Mr. Olympia.
Can you imagine Ronnie vs. Yates in the symmetry round?
The taper difference would be astounding...and not in Yates' favor.
-
Whatever Sucky...you state this and that. It is documented you state...whatever. You have never provided proof for one of your assertions. You suck Doz off constantly, you are so up Dorian's ass that you have oxygen depravation. The ridiculousness of whatever spews from your mouth is amazing :o. Michael Jordan speaks and it is truth; same goes about him never gambling. Doz is 2% BF b/c one bodybuilding authority purportedly had it on good info that it was true. You are as delusional as you are ignorant. Get your head out of Doz's ass; he doesn't want you there and you will eventually get anoxic brain injury if it has not already occurred.
BTW, Coleman in 2003 would have destroyed Yates in any of his Mr. Olympia wins. You guys think his one arm, big-waist, average thighs condition could have taken on Coleman 2003....delusional. Moreover, I assert that if Cutler gets his back up in the next few years he could take Doz too. In ten years, the same will be said of that era's Mr. O about Doleman. You guys always mention the B&W Dorian photos, but they were not representative of the man who showed up to win. The body in the posts above is what usually showed up. If that is 2% BF, then so be it. Ronnie in 2003 with a striated ass was 1% BF and Andreas Munzer was at 1/2% BF. Munzer destroyed everybody in conditioning, until the lasix, clenbuterol, metolazone and other drying/cutting agents caused him to have a fatal arrhythmia.
-
either the 99 English Grand Prix, or the 2001 AC:
(http://www.dennis-james.com/Gallery/01ac/images/full/djames_AC02e.jpg)
(http://www.dennis-james.com/Gallery/01ac/images/full/djames_AC03b.jpg)
as you can see, his back shots at the 2001 AC are superior to yates, never mind most of the other poses.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc104.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_shawn_ray_flex_wheeler.jpg)
in 2001, ronnie's amazing taper and far superior quads, arms, chest, detail etc. would have been way too much for Dorian to overcome, since, even at his very best shape, (1993, pre-tear) he had some major flaws that account for his overratedness.
Ronnie at his best is 250lbs, Dorian as his best is almost 10lbs heavier, and he comes in drier than Coleman. Not to mention he is an inch shorter than Coleman.
-
Ronnie at his best is 250lbs, Dorian as his best is almost 10lbs heavier, and he comes in drier than Coleman. Not to mention he is an inch shorter than Coleman.
dryness doesn't matter because his muscles do not show as much detail as ronnie (few striations in chest, arms, delts, etc, poor seperation in the quads etc).
(http://www.bigroncoleman.com/media/Arnold.05_LG.jpg)
Ronnie is more detailed even if he is not as dry.
-
dryness doesn't matter because his muscles do not show as much detail as ronnie (few striations in chest, arms, delts, etc, poor seperation in the quads etc).
(http://www.bigroncoleman.com/media/Arnold.05_LG.jpg)
Ronnie is more detailed even if he is not as dry.
Dorian had plenty of striations, Ronnie being black gives him a large advantage on color, he stands out a lot more...
If you watch Bllood & Guts Dorian displays striated triceps in the middle of the offseason at over 300lbs.
-
wtf?! no.
LOL. you are comparing a water buffalo to a dried up cactus. No comparison whatsoever, well, except for the fact that one has 6 O's and one will never have any.
-
Yates' powerlifter waist is almost twice the size of the other guys, with Gustavo-like obliques. That thong looks ready to blow.. :P
This guy HAS to be the most over-rated winner ever. I will admit though, that he trumps Dickerson or Columbu, hands down. :D
You're like Hulkster you expect Yates at 257lbs to have a waist a small as a 200lbs Shawn Ray and a 220lbs Flex ?
and Ronnie's best ever he was sporting a nice gut as well .
-
ND made these excellent comparison pics of the two. Dorian or Ronnie? You decide....
I didn't make those , but whoever did , did a pretty good job.
-
In those last shots Ron's arms look 4" bigger than Yates'. :o
-
In those last shots Ron's arms look 4" bigger than Yates'. :o
They may be and Yates calves must me 4" bigger than Rons .
-
Not to mention in that picture that keeps getting posted from '93, Yates is RELAXED, unlike Shawn and Flex.
here's yates spanking Flex in the ab&thigh not to mention he's not even fully hitting the pose yet!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_flex_wheeler.jpg)
-
Right here is from 1993 , its laughable how Hulkster goes on and on about having no taper which is laughable because he has among the widest backs in the sport & a good midsection when held tight at 257lbs , Sonny is impressed .
-
Just out of curiosity, and without taking sides, could someone post a picture of Dorian at the 1997 Olympia in Long Beach? :o
Everyone keeps talking about Ronnie's gut, I was at that Olympia and Dorian literally looked like a beer barrel with arms. Not only his gut, but his whole torso was HUGE...it was pretty disgusting :-\
-
You're like Hulkster you expect Yates at 257lbs to have a waist a small as a 200lbs Shawn Ray and a 220lbs Flex ?
and Ronnie's best ever he was sporting a nice gut as well .
but at Dorian's best (1993) he had a huge gut also (as is evident by that pic) so they BOTH have a gut at their respective best ever shapes, so that doesn't help the argument much.
HOWEVER, only Ronnie has a narrow waist.
(http://www.bigroncoleman.com/media/Arnold.06_LG.jpg)
-
Not to mention in that picture that keeps getting posted from '93, Yates is RELAXED, unlike Shawn and Flex.
here's yates spanking Flex in the ab&thigh not to mention he's not even fully hitting the pose yet!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_flex_wheeler.jpg)
I don't think if they were both fully flexing Flex would be getting a spanking. dorian would be getting crushed. In fact, you will notice that Dorian's quads look the same whether they are half flexed or fully flexed. His quads were god awful from the front :-\
-
1997 Olympia his gut was probably his biggest not his year either .
-
Hulkster look at that pic I posted of Yates & Sonny his waist is narrow when held tight , NOT as narrow as Colemans but a lot narrower than when fully relaxed , both at thier bests had a gut period.
-
Hulkster look at that pic I posted of Yates & Sonny his waist is narrow when held tight , NOT as narrow as Colemans but a lot narrower than when fully relaxed , both at thier bests had a gut period.
but that shot is not from the 1993 olympia, Yates obvious pre-tear best.
-
but that shot is not from the 1993 olympia, Yates obvious pre-tear best.
That one was from the 1993 Olympia notice his number 16 , its from 1993 Mr Olympia .
-
maybe so, but the blackness of the pic makes his waist seem smaller than it is.
Look how horrible it looked onstage!:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_flex_wheeler_.jpg)
even Flex has to point it out! :)
-
maybe so, but the blackness of the pic makes his waist seem smaller than it is.
Look how horrible it looked onstage!:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/diablo86/93%20olympia/dorian_yates_flex_wheeler_.jpg)
even Flex has to point it out! :)
You're not telling me anything , I was bitching about back in 1993 !! and you can't have it both ways Hulkster , if its good for Ronnie's Goose its good for Dorian's Gander , if you find it 100% acceptable for Ronnie please don't be a hypocrite and complain about Yates' it shows your bias ;)
-
Yates' gut is on par with Ron's. Since Yates wasn't as big & didn't have the same taper, it's actually worse. :'( This never occurred to you?
-
Right here is from 1993 , its laughable how Hulkster goes on and on about having no taper which is laughable because he has among the widest backs in the sport & a good midsection when held tight at 257lbs , Sonny is impressed .
hulkster, he has you there.
-
Yates' gut is on par with Ron's. Since Yates wasn't as big & didn't have the same taper, it's actually worse. :'( This never occurred to you?
I dare you to find me a single pic where Yates' gut sticks out as bad as Coleman's 2003 , both have distension but Ronnie took it to new levels in 2003 in more way than one .
-
98 Ronnie was similar to Flex and we already know the outcome of Flex vs. Yates.
-
98 Ronnie was similar to Flex and we already know the outcome of Flex vs. Yates.
no offense, but that is totally retarded for one reason:
(http://www.bigroncoleman.com/media/1998_12LG.jpg)
Flex lost to Yates becauase he was narrow. Ronnie was just as wide.
-
hulkster, he has you there.
no he doesn't - poor lighting back stage means nothing.
Its what is on display ONstage that counts.
-
I dare you to find me a single pic where Yates' gut sticks out as bad as Coleman's 2003 , both have distension but Ronnie took it to new levels in 2003 in more way than one .
and I dare you to find me a single pic of Dorian at 287 pounds and then we will talk ;).
-
He was wide, but Yates was heavier than a 98 Coleman. Coleman just get's outmuscled.
-
He was wide, but Yates was heavier than a 98 Coleman. Coleman just get's outmuscled.
by 7 pounds!! Nothing significant.
Yates 1993 Olympia - 257
ronnie 2001 AC - 250 pounds.
Not enough to get blown away or outmuscled.
Flex lost because, even though he had great detail, he was narrow and small
compared to yates
In ronnie, you have all of flex's best qualities, plus lat width, so its really a no brainer, He would win handily.
-
by 7 pounds!! Nothing significant.
Yates 1993 Olympia - 257
ronnie 2001 AC - 250 pounds.
Not enough to get blown away or outmuscled.
Flex lost because, even though he had great detail, he was narrow and small
compared to yates
In ronnie, you have all of flex's best qualities, plus lat width, so its really a no brainer, He would win handily.
winning handily???
Ronnie has better biceps and that is it.
-
winning handily???
Ronnie has better biceps and that is it.
LOL. quads? delts? overall arms? taper? chest? detail? back (okay, they are pretty close on the back). Hams? glutes?
LOL. LOL. LOL.
I suppose ronnie's better biceps (and thats it) are the sole reason for the enormous difference in their most musculars? LOL.
You guys crack me up.
-
the difference in most muscular??? if any, it's due to the lighting, pale skin gets washed out..
Yates' density would be far too much for Ronnie to handle. Yates is 1 to 2" shorter than Ronnie, nearly 10lbs heavier, and better conditioned. Not to mention, better poser.
-
and I dare you to find me a single pic of Dorian at 287 pounds and then we will talk ;).
300lbs ;) no gut !!
-
Can you imagine this shot is Yates not near his best...
(http://picsorban.com/upload/yates_back.jpg)
I'd be scared to see this same shot from '93...can you say "lights out" Ronnie :D
-
by 7 pounds!! Nothing significant.
Yates 1993 Olympia - 257
ronnie 2001 AC - 250 pounds.
Not enough to get blown away or outmuscled.
Flex lost because, even though he had great detail, he was narrow and small
compared to yates
In ronnie, you have all of flex's best qualities, plus lat width, so its really a no brainer, He would win handily.
Ronnie was 245lbs at the ASC so Yates at his best 269lbs in the B&W's Horton pics BIG difference add in Yates being about one inch shorter no contest , in my humble arm-chair quaterback opinion .
-
300lbs ;) no gut !!
great view of dorian's midsection. very funny!
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy107.jpg)
300 pounds and a huge gut!!
-
the difference in most muscular??? if any, it's due to the lighting, pale skin gets washed out..
Yates' density would be far too much for Ronnie to handle. Yates is 1 to 2" shorter than Ronnie, nearly 10lbs heavier, and better conditioned. Not to mention, better poser.
you think the difference is due to LIGHTING??? WTF??
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/comp986.jpg)
I think muscle shape, detail and density might have a little more to do with it than lighting..
-
Suckmycock, you seem to be infatuated with dorian's 1997 condition (when most people say he sucked that year).
Can you show us some clips/photos of dorian that year?
I have hardly seen any. I just want to see if he lives up your hyperbole.
Girly, the 97 O Dorian was at his worst. If you weren't such a retard and had actually read my posts, you'd have seen that I mentioned that Dorian was at his best at the 250+ lbs range. Just like Ronnie. My point was that, even though they both look like crap over 270 lbs, Dorian looks better. That's all.
By the way, you shouldn't be telling anyone to suck your cock:the fact that you call yourself the "leader of the Colemaniacs", goes to show who's really deep-throating it big time. ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Whatever Sucky...you state this and that. It is documented you state...whatever. You have never provided proof for one of your assertions. You suck Doz off constantly, you are so up Dorian's ass that you have oxygen depravation. The ridiculousness of whatever spews from your mouth is amazing :o. Michael Jordan speaks and it is truth; same goes about him never gambling. Doz is 2% BF b/c one bodybuilding authority purportedly had it on good info that it was true. You are as delusional as you are ignorant. Get your head out of Doz's ass; he doesn't want you there and you will eventually get anoxic brain injury if it has not already occurred.
BTW, Coleman in 2003 would have destroyed Yates in any of his Mr. Olympia wins. You guys think his one arm, big-waist, average thighs condition could have taken on Coleman 2003....delusional. Moreover, I assert that if Cutler gets his back up in the next few years he could take Doz too. In ten years, the same will be said of that era's Mr. O about Doleman. You guys always mention the B&W Dorian photos, but they were not representative of the man who showed up to win. The body in the posts above is what usually showed up. If that is 2% BF, then so be it. Ronnie in 2003 with a striated ass was 1% BF and Andreas Munzer was at 1/2% BF. Munzer destroyed everybody in conditioning, until the lasix, clenbuterol, metolazone and other drying/cutting agents caused him to have a fatal arrhythmia.
Once again, suckydoc fails to provide any evidence for his assertions. Michael Jordan having 3% bodyfat, during his competitive career, has been well documented:even "TIME" Magazine once mentioned it. If a magazine with this prestige prints it, then it's true; a more reliable opinion than that of some second-tier medical professional(in medicine, the guys who are really competent become surgeons. That's where the money is.). Oh, by the way, the oxygen deprivation line is mine; apparently, being creative is not a requirement for becoming an M.D. ;D
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I agree. Nobody would have even have heard of Yates if those shots had been in colour. He was really only 110lbs with one leg 6 inches longer than the other and as smooth as a babies arse. He would never have won all those titles either because the judges were obviously influenced by the black and white tonality.
Amazing what Tri-X can do for a physique. Kodak should use it in their advertising campaign.
Owned. 8)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Owned. 8)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Great posts !!
-
I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia
ummmm, 95. any questions?