Flex Magazine: 20 Best Backs of All Time-- a bone to pick

[England_1]

Due to Yates' flapjacks; the biceps barely exist.

The shot is taken from below dummy, of course you won't be able to see much of the biceps. Plus, as typical, are using the worst shot you can. If you actually used good shots of Yates you'd be contradicting yourself left and right hahahaa

[pumpster]

Stop trolling , this has to do with backs NOT biceps , stick to the topic troll 

Pot calling kettle..double-flaps in yo face.

[England_1]

In terms of back, this is in color and more definitive in terms of lat width and taper.

OWNED

Yes, a blurry ass screencap when Yates at a 70 degree angle is "definitive"  You are obviously in monster denial of the clear as day photograph ND posted.

[NarcissisticDeity]

The shot is taken from below dummy, of course you won't be able to see much of the biceps. Plus, as typical, are using the worst shot you can. If you actually used good shots of Yates you'd be contradicting yourself left and right hahahaa

That back double biceps shot lacks absolutely nothing from head to toe.

[England_1]

Pot calling kettle..double-flaps in yo face.

Ah, another half assed, mid pose shot from below. Never saw that one coming 

[NarcissisticDeity]

In terms of back, this is in color and more definitive in terms of lat width and taper.

OWNED

No its not Yates is at the far corner and Ronnie is closest to the camera and his smaller waist & hips help with the ILLUSION of great width 


same contest side-by-side , the difference is staggering and this isn't Yates at his best lol

[bizzy]

This is a known shot of them side-by-side NEITHER are at their best but the difference is staggering Yates is just 7 pounds heavier and his back is just in another league

His back there was a shell of what it eventually became.

[NarcissisticDeity]

His back there was a shell of what it eventually became.

Bullshit ! he was 250 pounds in that pic with Yates he was 247 pounds in 1998 and 244 pounds in 2001 his back is very comparable in 1996 & 1997 , but 1999 he was a tad wider and fuller but again at the expense of density . by 2000 his back was super wide and full ( again soft ) and 2003 but his back in 1996 is comparable when he was lighter

these pic are Ronnie at 255 pounds in 1997 his back was already massive the next year he completely dried out and lost some size but looked leaps & bounds better for it

[bizzy]

Bullshit ! he was 250 pounds in that pic with Yates he was 247 pounds in 1998 and 244 pounds in 2001 his back is very comparable in 1996 & 1997 , but 1999 he was a tad wider and fuller but again at the expense of density . by 2000 his back was super wide and full ( again soft ) and 2003 but his back in 1996 is comparable when he was lighter

these pic are Ronnie at 255 pounds in 1997 his back was already massive the next year he completely dried out and lost some size but looked leaps & bounds better for it

The proof without a doubt are in the pictures I posted after your black and white one.
If you think his back didn't improve alot then your entitled to your opinion but I disagree
and I believe the pictures I posted prove it.

[pumpster]

Flapjacks are completely overwhelmed by delts, almost non-existent in all the back double-bi pics lol tris balance perfectly are equally tiny.

[NarcissisticDeity]

The proof without a doubt are in the pictures I posted after your black and white one.
If you think his back didn't improve alot then your entitled to your opinion but I disagree
and I believe the pictures I posted prove it.

I said it did improve but by 1996/97 his back was already thick and wide and comparable to his 1998/2001 in terms of width & thickness although not as dense which doesn't matter because Yates wrote the book on width , thickness , density , depth , and detail

Now just based on this look at the thickness difference , the size difference ( length )  of the traps , infraspinatus & teres , look at how much lower his lats insert near the waist NONE of these change with added size , he added some thickness sure and width okay BIG DEAL Yates wrote the book on it

[pumpster]

Pssssst Yates has *no* biceps in that shot lol

[England_1]

Pssssst Yates has *no* biceps in that shot lol

What place did Ronnie get in that contest? ....crickets....hahahaha h

[NarcissisticDeity]

Pssssst Yates has *no* biceps in that shot lol

Ronnie has no calves , oh thats right you're obsessed with ' show muscles ' lol and despite not having ' no ' biceps he managed to destroy Ronnie and his great ' show muscles ' 8 times imagine that

he has biceps in this shot 

[bigbobs]

Your Hero Disagrees with you and so did Team Flex in 1999 

Ronnie Coleman : 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.

In 99 Yates may still have been known as the bodybuilder with the best back, but that title did not last long as is apparent by Flex 2008.

[CigaretteMan]

Peter McGough never said Dorian had better overall conditioning than Ronnie. He just says that nobody ever surpassed him.

  Wrong. I have the quote from FLEX editorial "Dorian's Delicate Condition", which states:

 "No bodybuilder has ever been as hard and dry as he man who won six Sandows."

[alexxx]

Uh thats ronnies back.

Anyway, i think its undeniable that despite his many flaws, cormier has the finest thigh rods ever to be displayed on stage

Shoot your right lol! Should have know that he was missing some tatoos! But Damn that is a crazy back The BEST!

[NeoSeminole]

Cocky would be " yeah I could beat all of them " he never committed to a clear cut statement , just like Yates never did

cocky would also be saying, "Come on now, this is the age of Ronnie Coleman. Who else would win?"

[Hulkster]

Ronnie's back was negligibly larger in 98 and 99 compared to that shot. He would still be dwarfed by the great Dorian Yates.

bullshit. comparing Ronnie's 99 back to his 96 back is stupid.

99 back was noticably thicker and wider.

[NeoSeminole]

Wrong. I have the quote from FLEX editorial "Dorian's Delicate Condition", which states:

"No bodybuilder has ever been as hard and dry as he man who won six Sandows."

conditioning includes body fat and water levels. Peter McGough only refered to dryness.

[alexxx]

DAMN THIS BACK IS DAMN NEAR PERFECT!!! INSANE!

[Hulkster]

The proof without a doubt are in the pictures I posted after your black and white one.
If you think his back didn't improve alot then your entitled to your opinion but I disagree
and I believe the pictures I posted prove it.

ND and Pubes are the only idiots on the planet who cannot see the improvement in the back Ronnie made from 96 to 99.

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

cocky would also be saying, "Come on now, this is the age of Ronnie Coleman. Who else would win?"

I disagree , again you're forced to guess what he would say or might have said , lets focus on what he did say ! 

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND and Pubes are the only idiots on the planet who cannot see the improvement in the back Ronnie made from 96 to 99.

 

Hulkster I said by 99 his back would be wider but not 2003 type wide and thicker again not like 2003 and the comment still stands his traps can't get longer , his infraspinatus & teres get any bigger his lats didn't get any lower thats all impossible , so what are you left with? thicker & wider which Yates wrote the book on

[CigaretteMan]

conditioning includes body fat and water levels. Peter McGough only refered to dryness.

  Bullshit. He would be soft if he had significant bodyfat, so your claim is flat out wrong. You do know that McGough refered to both bodyfat and water levels, but of course you won't admit it because otherwise it would be admitting that you were wrong about McGough never claiming that Dorian's condiitoning was never matched. You are a bold faced liar, and you know it.

  Hard = low bodyfat

  You can't be hard with a high bodyfat level. Fat is soft.