Flex Ranks the BEST Arnold Classic showings of all time ...

[NeoSeminole]

yeah, okay Peter....

Peter McGough never explicitly said Dorian had better conditioning than 01 ASC Ronnie. He simply said that nobody has ever matched Dorian's dryness and hardness. This actually contradicts what he said earlier about 98 Ronnie.

Peter McGough – unknown

“When Mr. Coleman showed up at the New York event in October, Mr. McGough says he immediately noticed the difference. “He was really much harder,” he says. “He retained his size, but he had the density and granite hardness."

seeing as how he referred to both Dorian and Ronnie as being made of "granite," I don't see how Dorian could be harder unless he was talking about certain types of granite. Now let's look at other quotes regarding Ronnie's superb conditioning at the 01 ASC.

Jim Stoppani - Flex, July 2005

"Has anyone ever displayed a more muscular, more shredded, higher-quality physique than a 247-pound Ronnie Coleman at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic?"

Sean Toh – http://creditplushealth.org/sport%20celebrities/Ronnie%20Coleman.htm

“At the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic, Ronnie won the show and his performance at the time was hailed by many to be his best ever showing. He was 245 pounds at the contest, in extremely tight form, and dense as stone.”

one guy hails Ronnie's conditioning as the greatest ever while another compares his density to stone. So unless Dorian was made of diamond, I doubt he had better conditioning than 01 ASC Ronnie.

[Hulkster]

Stop rolling your eyes like an idiot. I bring a perfectly valid point

no, you bring a perfectly invalid excuse yet again as to why the visuals do not support what you guys are saying.

they support what we are saying, which is also validated by quotes like the one in the article about the AC to begin with..

you guys spend all your time coming up with reasons (ie ridiculous excuses) as to why dorian does not look better/better conditioned than Ronnie coleman does at his peak.

the fact that he was NOT as good or NOT as well conditioned does not seem to be one of the possibilities you are considering.

which is stupid.

because that is the whole damn reason why dorian gets dominated by (peak) ronnie in the first place..


despite what you say, there is no hocus pocus to dorian yates

he was not magical.


what you see is what you get just like everyone else: see the crazy conditioning for yourself. it owns dorian yates.

[Hulkster]

Peter McGough never explicitly said Dorian had better conditioning than 01 ASC Ronnie. He simply said that nobody has ever matched Dorian's dryness and hardness. This actually contradicts what he said earlier about 98 Ronnie.

Peter McGough – unknown

“When Mr. Coleman showed up at the New York event in October, Mr. McGough says he immediately noticed the difference. “He was really much harder,” he says. “He retained his size, but he had the density and granite hardness."

seeing as how he referred to both Dorian and Ronnie as being made of "granite," I don't see how Dorian could be harder unless he was talking about certain types of granite. Now let's look at other quotes regarding Ronnie's superb conditioning at the 01 ASC.

Jim Stoppani - Flex, July 2005

"Has anyone ever displayed a more muscular, more shredded, higher-quality physique than a 247-pound Ronnie Coleman at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic?"

Sean Toh – http://creditplushealth.org/sport%20celebrities/Ronnie%20Coleman.htm

“At the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic, Ronnie won the show and his performance at the time was hailed by many to be his best ever showing. He was 245 pounds at the contest, in extremely tight form, and dense as stone.”

one guy hails Ronnie's conditioning as the greatest ever while another compares his density to stone. So unless Dorian was made of diamond, I doubt he had better conditioning than 01 ASC Ronnie.

great post.

these guys are grasping at conspiracy theories at this point.

any excuse (just like in the truce thread) why dorian does not look as good.

[Iceman1981]

Isn't this supposed to be about the best Arnold Classic physiques? Ronnie and Flex presented 2 of the best physiques of all-time when they both won this contest for the first time.

[gordiano]

Peter McGough – unknown

“When Mr. Coleman showed up at the New York event in October, Mr. McGough says he immediately noticed the difference. “He was really much harder,” he says. “He retained his size, but he had the density and granite hardness."

Peter knows his shit.....

[Hulkster]

Isn't this supposed to be about the best Arnold Classic physiques? Ronnie and Flex presented 2 of the best physiques of all-time when they both won this contest for the first time.

agreed. but once again, ND cannot win because reality (visuals) work against him.

so he goes back to dorian vs ronnie, where the same exact thing happens..

[CigaretteMan]

Peter McGough never explicitly said Dorian had better conditioning than 01 ASC Ronnie. He simply said that nobody has ever matched Dorian's dryness and hardness.

  Which is analogous to saying that no one has matched Dorian's conditioning.

  Hardness&dryness = conditioning

  So what's your point?

[England_1]

The quality of this screencap is mindboggling 

[NeoSeminole]

Which is analogous to saying that no one has matched Dorian's conditioning.

Hardness&dryness = conditioning

almost, but not quite. You're forgetting about being shredded. Ronnie was able to drop more body fat than Dorian. This is evident by Ronnie's better display of separations and striations from head to toe. Genetics influence where you're most (or least) likely to store body fat. A person can have great genetics for displaying striated triceps, but the subcutaneous fat that would normally cover it up must be stored somewhere else (e.g. midsection, back, glutes, etc) otherwise they have a lower body fat % by default.

[CigaretteMan]

almost, but not quite. You're forgetting about being shredded. Ronnie was able to drop more body fat than Dorian.

  Speculation. You don't know if Ronnie dropped more fat than Dorian. Furthermore, I have already explained to you - to no avail -, that there are factors other than bodyfat which play a role in determining how deep a muscle's definition will be.

This is evident by Ronnie's better display of separations and striations from head to toe. Genetics influence where you're most (or least) likely to store body fat. A person can have great genetics for displaying striated triceps, but the subcutaneous fat that would normally cover it up must be stored somewhere else (e.g. midsection, back, glutes, etc) otherwise they have a lower body fat % by default.

  Unlikely. Genetics also determine the insertion point of muscles in the tendom, and that affects muscular definition. Again, andreas Munzer showed striations when he was off-season, while there are bodybuilders in contest shape who lack them.

[NeoSeminole]

Speculation. You don't know if Ronnie dropped more fat than Dorian. Furthermore, I have already explained to you - to no avail -, that there are factors other than bodyfat which play a role in determining how deep a muscle's definition will be.

that's like saying Peter McGough's assessment is all speculation. The fact is we will never truly know Dorian's and Ronnie's lean body mass when they competed since nobody measured them using hydrostatic weighing. So the next best thing is to use visuals to estimate their body fat and water levels. Medical literature supports my assessment that Ronnie was more shredded than Dorian.

Unlikely. Genetics also determine the insertion point of muscles in the tendom, and that affects muscular definition. Again, andreas Munzer showed striations when he was off-season, while there are bodybuilders in contest shape who lack them.

your response doesn't make any sense. If a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go?

[CigaretteMan]

that's like saying Peter McGough's assessment is all speculation. The fact is we will never truly know Dorian's and Ronnie's lean body mass when they competed since nobody measured them using hydrostatic weighing. So the next best thing is to use visuals to estimate their body fat and water levels. Medical literature supports my assessment that Ronnie was more shredded than Dorian.

  The fact is that it is pure speculation on your part that Ronnie's superior definition was the result of lower bodyfat. There are other elements that affect it. Furthermore, I contend that Dorian was harder exacly because he had lower bodyfat. Can you prove me wrong? No, you can't. McGough was referring to both bodyfat and water levels when he said no bodybuilder has been as hard and dry as Dorian. In this case:

  Hard = low bodyfat&water levels.

  Dry = especifically referring to low water levels.

  You become harder by losing bodyfat. There is no other plausible alternative.
 

your response doesn't make any sense. If a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go?

  It is your question that doesen't make any sense. Seriously. Read it again and you'll see that there's no coherence to it.

[NeoSeminole]

The fact is that it is pure speculation on your part that Ronnie's superior definition was the result of lower bodyfat.

no kidding it's speculation on my part since I never hydrostatically weighed Dorian and Ronnie. However, it's no more speculation than Peter McGough's assessment. We're both using visuals to estimate their body fat and water levels.

There are other elements that affect it.

for example?

Furthermore, I contend that Dorian was harder exacly because he had lower bodyfat. Can you prove me wrong? No, you can't. McGough was referring to both bodyfat and water levels when he said no bodybuilder has been as hard and dry as Dorian.

I can prove you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt using medical literature. Conditioning and definition are directly correlated. As a person drops subcutaneous fat and water, the distance between the skin and muscles decreases revealing more separations and striations. There's no medical reason why definition would cease to improve after a certain point while that person continues to drop more fat and water.

Ronnie at the 01 ASC displayed better definition from head to toe than Dorian. Therefore, it logically follows that he had better overall conditioning. Now give me your explanation for why Dorian had lower body fat and water levels. And don't give me a quote b/c I can easily provide quotes supporting my argument.

It is your question that doesen't make any sense. Seriously. Read it again and you'll see that there's no coherence to it.

my question makes perfect sense. Genetics influence separations and striations by determining where we are most (or least) likely to store body fat. A person can have great genetics for displaying striated triceps, but the subcutaneous fat that would normally cover it up must be stored somewhere else. For example, my arms and chest are pretty defined even at a higher bf% but I tend to store the extra fat around my waist. One of my friends, however, has the opposite problem - he has visible abs at a higher bf% but his arms and chest lack definition.

Now let's look at my question again. If a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go?

[hamood]

I think its the personality of the 5 posters - whereas most of us give our few points and don't care about getting the last word in or not, these guys will continue repeating themselves almost every day, reposting the same pictures, all in attempt to get the last word.  As long as personalities like that exist I think the thread will last until eternity 

[Rearden Metal]

GIVE THESE ENORMOUS guys THIER OWN FORUM TO SIT AND ARGUE AND JACK OFF ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC ALL DAY FOR THE REST OF DAYS.

O GOD WHY DO I CLICK ON THESE LINKS WHEN I KNOW IT WILL DETERIORATE INTO THIS MUSCLE GAYNING?


SOMEONE POST THE ATOM BOMB PIC HYACHACHACHACHCHAHCHCAHC HACACHACHAHCHACHAHCCHHAC HACHAHCHACHACAAA!!!!

[NarcissisticDeity]

the side triceps is meant to showcase the triceps development. This includes definition. It doesn't matter if nobody had striated triceps when the pose was first named. Conditioning has improved since then. As a result, the standard for definition has been raised. Your objection is akin to me saying Dorian's striated traps, lats, and lower back don't matter since nobody had that level of conditioning when the back double biceps and back lat spread were named. Talk about a f*cking moron, and you're calling me simple?

read your own comment again, you dumbass.

"I do disagree that Ronnie showed more definition in his back post 1999 his back was just as defined in 1998 as it was in 2001"

I wasn't comparing Ronnie with Dorian at 269 lbs. I was responding to your claim that Ronnie's back didn't improve from 98 to 01. Learn to read, dipshit.

Ronnie: "Come on now, this is the age of Ronnie Coleman who else would win?"

there are only 2 logical interpretations - either he would beat Dorian or Dorian would beat him. Which is it?

the side triceps is meant to showcase the triceps development. This includes definition. It doesn't matter if nobody had striated triceps when the pose was first named. Conditioning has improved since then. As a result, the standard for definition has been raised. Your objection is akin to me saying Dorian's striated traps, lats, and lower back don't matter since nobody had that level of conditioning when the back double biceps and back lat spread were named. Talk about a f*cking moron, and you're calling me simple?

Again you're arguing over dumb shit he has striated triceps just because you can't see them in the side triceps shot means NOTHING what does it mean? he's triceps aren't well defined? lol and again striations aren't always a great indicator of a well conditioned person because you can be holding water and still be striated even without the striations in the side triceps shot Dorian is still the driest & hardest guy

read your own comment again, you dumbass.

"I do disagree that Ronnie showed more definition in his back post 1999 his back was just as defined in 1998 as it was in 2001"

I wasn't comparing Ronnie with Dorian at 269 lbs

you made the claim that quote was useless because it was from 1999 and Ronnie's back improved by 2001/2003 , his back didn't improve by 2001 thats simple not true and how did it improve by 2003? he was wider but it came at the expense of detail & hardness so having a wider softer back is improvement? bottom line what makes the latest team flex list more valid than the old one and many other who have said Yates back is better all post 2001 with the Ronnie quote coming from 2003 !! as well,  its all a matter of opinion on a very subjective topic ! to claim this list is valid and anyone else who disagrees is wrong is laughable I've said many times its arguable thats the difference you people are claiming its law and its not

Ronnie: "Come on now, this is the age of Ronnie Coleman who else would win?"

there are only 2 logical interpretations - either he would beat Dorian or Dorian would beat him. Which is it?

it doesn't matter what the logical interpretations are he NEVER committed to an answer , I said many times he eluded to it but NEVER committed to a definite answer on the two occasions he did commit to a definite answer and elaborated on it what was his answer? that Dorian would beat him, so all you're left with his playing with words .

[NeoSeminole]

Again you're arguing over dumb shit he has striated triceps just because you can't see them in the side triceps shot means NOTHING what does it mean? he's triceps aren't well defined? lol and again striations aren't always a great indicator of a well conditioned person because you can be holding water and still be striated even without the striations in the side triceps shot Dorian is still the driest & hardest guy

you originally posted pics of Dorian hitting the same pose 3x. So I asked you to post shots of Dorian's triceps in other poses like I did with Ronnie. Then I simplified my request by only asking you to show me a pic where Dorian's triceps are striated in the side triceps. You couldn't answer any of my challenges, which means you concede that Dorian's overall triceps were inferior to Ronnie's. Surely you must have some pics to prove me wrong since you boast about contributing the most pics of anyone here.

you made the claim that quote was useless because it was from 1999 and Ronnie's back improved by 2001/2003 , his back didn't improve by 2001 thats simple not true

Ronnie's back did improve from 98 to 01. You're a f*cking moron if you think he just sat on his ass and didn't work out back for 3 years. He may not have added a lot of size and definition, but his back did improve.

and how did it improve by 2003? he was wider but it came at the expense of detail & hardness so having a wider softer back is improvement?

Ronnie wasn't just wider in 03. He was a hell of a lot wider, thicker, and fuller.

bottom line what makes the latest team flex list more valid than the old one and many other who have said Yates back is better all post 2001 with the Ronnie quote coming from 2003 !! as well,  its all a matter of opinion on a very subjective topic ! to claim this list is valid and anyone else who disagrees is wrong is laughable I've said many times its arguable thats the difference you people are claiming its law and its not

Ronnie's back improved at the 01 ASC (better definition) and 03 Mr. Olympia (better size). The quote you posted was from 99. So it's null and void. The new Flex list takes into account Ronnie's latter years.

it doesn't matter what the logical interpretations are he NEVER committed to an answer , I said many times he eluded to it but NEVER committed to a definite answer on the two occasions he did commit to a definite answer and elaborated on it what was his answer? that Dorian would beat him, so all you're left with his playing with words.

answer the question. Either Ronnie is saying he would beat Dorian or Dorian would beat him. Which is it?

Ronnie: "Come on now, this is the age of Ronnie Coleman who else would win?"

[NarcissisticDeity]

no kidding it's speculation on my part since I never hydrostatically weighed Dorian and Ronnie. However, it's no more speculation than Peter McGough's assessment. We're both using visuals to estimate their body fat and water levels.

for example?

I can prove you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt using medical literature. Conditioning and definition are directly correlated. As a person drops subcutaneous fat and water, the distance between the skin and muscles decreases revealing more separations and striations. There's no medical reason why definition would cease to improve after a certain point while that person continues to drop more fat and water.

Ronnie at the 01 ASC displayed better definition from head to toe than Dorian. Therefore, it logically follows that he had better overall conditioning. Now give me your explanation for why Dorian had lower body fat and water levels. And don't give me a quote b/c I can easily provide quotes supporting my argument.

my question makes perfect sense. Genetics influence separations and striations by determining where we are most (or least) likely to store body fat. A person can have great genetics for displaying striated triceps, but the subcutaneous fat that would normally cover it up must be stored somewhere else. For example, my arms and chest are pretty defined even at a higher bf% but I tend to store the extra fat around my waist. One of my friends, however, has the opposite problem - he has visible abs at a higher bf% but his arms and chest lack definition.

Now let's look at my question again. If a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go?

no kidding it's speculation on my part since I never hydrostatically weighed Dorian and Ronnie. However, it's no more speculation than Peter McGough's assessment. We're both using visuals to estimate their body fat and water levels.

The big difference being he was at all the contests in question and you weren't  and couple this with the fact that Dorian looks leaps & bounds better in person than he does in pictures & video than this limits your ' opinion ' even more so ontop of not knowing exactly what makes one person have superior conditioning over the other and to add insult to injury Dorian Yates ( who is an IFBB judge mind you ) has said specifically to the topic of who was better conditioned said he had better conditioning than Ronnie !

So you're proven wrong by two very big names in the sport of bodybuilding to say they're wrong and you're right is the height of arrogance & stupidity especially considering you never even been to a professional bodybuilding contest .

I can prove you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt using medical literature. Conditioning and definition are directly correlated. As a person drops subcutaneous fat and water, the distance between the skin and muscles decreases revealing more separations and striations. There's no medical reason why definition would cease to improve after a certain point while that person continues to drop more fat and water.

Ronnie at the 01 ASC displayed better definition from head to toe than Dorian. Therefore, it logically follows that he had better overall conditioning. Now give me your explanation for why Dorian had lower body fat and water levels. And don't give me a quote b/c I can easily provide quotes supporting my argument.

no shit conditioning and definition are directly correlated , who arguing its not? separations are partly genetic as well as striations and its been explained to you that striations aren't always an accurate gauge for determining great conditioning because one can be striated and still be holding water and why some bodybuilder have more striations in places others don't the same with vascularity , Munzer was the only guy I've ever seen with striated rectus femoris and its NOT because others have never been as dry or as hard its because he was dry and because of his genetics

I've said many times Ronnie may have matched Yates for that extremely dry & dense looks only at his lightest Dorian could maintain that same conditioning at much higher bodyweights ! but to claim Ronnie is better conditioned despite never seeing him in person or Dorian for that matter is just so limited ! and then to say the people who have seen them both as their best are wrong is just stupid and arrogant

I've posted many quotes from pros , judges and writers all saying two things , pictures & video are USELESS compared to actually being at an event and Dorian ontop of that looks leaps & bounds better in person than he does in pictures and video , your opinion no matter how well thought you believe to be is severely limited to begin with and now couple that with your blatant bias there is no way for you to make declarations on who is better conditioned and then have the balls to claim the people who were there are wrong and the people who do know like Dorian Yates who is an IFBB judge is wrong it just boggles the mind

my question makes perfect sense. Genetics influence separations and striations by determining where we are most (or least) likely to store body fat. A person can have great genetics for displaying striated triceps, but the subcutaneous fat that would normally cover it up must be stored somewhere else. For example, my arms and chest are pretty defined even at a higher bf% but I tend to store the extra fat around my waist. One of my friends, however, has the opposite problem - he has visible abs at a higher bf% but his arms and chest lack definition.

Now let's look at my question again. If a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go?

I agree that genetics influence separations & striations however not everyone not matter how dry or hard they become are capable of getting striations in the same place , example Munzer with the striated rectus femoris , no matter how dry & hard Ronnie ever was he never had striations in his rectus femoris does this mean that muscle just wasn't dry enough or hard enough? NO it means genetically he's not predisposed for striations in this area for what ever reason its the same with veins some are more vascular like Jim Quinn  and other guys who were just as conditioned aren't

[Hulkster]

and couple this with the fact that Dorian looks leaps & bounds better in person than he does in pictures & video than this limits your ' opinion '

um... so does Ronnie fucking Coleman..

 

what is your point?

 

[Hulkster]

The quality of this screencap is mindboggling 

yesl, because with a better quality screencap we could see the andreas munzer-like striations and ripped shreaded mass that dorian displays just like Ronnie does.. yeah, sure..

 

the list of excuses never stops growing...

 

[NeoSeminole]

The big difference being he was at all the contests in question and you weren't and couple this with the fact that Dorian looks leaps & bounds better in person than he does in pictures & video than this limits your ' opinion ' even more so ontop of not knowing exactly what makes one person have superior conditioning over the other

pics are a reliable means of ascertaining one's conditioning. I agree that bodybuilders look more impressive in person, but that applies to almost every competitor - not just Dorian. So it's safe to assume that Ronnie would look equally more impressive live than in pics. This negates whenever people say "you have to see Dorian in person to understand."

and to add insult to injury Dorian Yates ( who is an IFBB judge mind you ) has said specifically to the topic of who was better conditioned said he had better conditioning than Ronnie!

Dorian never stated which versions he was comparing. For all we know, he could have been comparing his 95 self to Ronnie in 04.

no shit conditioning and definition are directly correlated , who arguing its not? separations are partly genetic as well as striations and its been explained to you that striations aren't always an accurate gauge for determining great conditioning because one can be striated and still be holding water and why some bodybuilder have more striations in places others don't the same with vascularity , Munzer was the only guy I've ever seen with striated rectus femoris and its NOT because others have never been as dry or as hard its because he was dry and because of his genetics

maybe you missed this part.

"There's no medical reason why definition would cease to improve after a certain point while that person continues to drop more fat and water."

I agree that genetics influence separations & striations however not everyone not matter how dry or hard they become are capable of getting striations in the same place , example Munzer with the striated rectus femoris , no matter how dry & hard Ronnie ever was he never had striations in his rectus femoris does this mean that muscle just wasn't dry enough or hard enough? NO it means genetically he's not predisposed for striations in this area for what ever reason its the same with veins some are more vascular like Jim Quinn  and other guys who were just as conditioned aren't

so answer the question: if a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go? Does it just magically disappear or does it get stored somewhere else?

[NarcissisticDeity]

you originally posted pics of Dorian hitting the same pose 3x. So I asked you to post shots of Dorian's triceps in other poses like I did with Ronnie. Then I simplified my request by only asking you to show me a pic where Dorian's triceps are striated in the side triceps. You couldn't answer any of my challenges, which means you concede that Dorian's overall triceps were inferior to Ronnie's. Surely you must have some pics to prove me wrong since you boast about contributing the most pics of anyone here.

Ronnie's back did improve from 98 to 01. You're a f*cking moron if you think he just sat on his ass and didn't work out back for 3 years. He may not have added a lot of size and definition, but his back did improve.

Ronnie wasn't just wider in 03. He was a hell of a lot wider, thicker, and fuller.


Ronnie's back improved at the 01 ASC (better definition) and 03 Mr. Olympia (better size). The quote you posted was from 99. So it's null and void. The new Flex list takes into account Ronnie's latter years.

answer the question. Either Ronnie is saying he would beat Dorian or Dorian would beat him. Which is it?

Ronnie: "Come on now, this is the age of Ronnie Coleman who else would win?"

you originally posted pics of Dorian hitting the same pose 3x. So I asked you to post shots of Dorian's triceps in other poses like I did with Ronnie. Then I simplified my request by only asking you to show me a pic where Dorian's triceps are striated in the side triceps. You couldn't answer any of my challenges, which means you concede that Dorian's overall triceps were inferior to Ronnie's. Surely you must have some pics to prove me wrong since you boast about contributing the most pics of anyone here.

You posted a comment about Ronnie's triceps are better because they're striated and I posted 3 pictures clearly showing Yates has striated triceps , then you said well he doesn't have them in the side triceps pose and I laughed at you for being retarded like it means anything ( because one can have striations and still be holding water ) like his arms are really conditioned in one pose but when it ' counts ' the most ( side triceps ) they're not LMFAO his arms are still dry & hard despite not have visible striations in the side triceps shot

and again my points still stand Dorian did have better triceps than Ronnie & forearms , I love your win by default position , ' either show me a shot of Yates triceps striated in side triceps pose or concede his triceps are inferior ' lmfao you're just to simple kid ! show me one single pic of Ronnie with striated traps , lats & spinal erectors like Dorian or you run the risk of conceding his back is inferior LMFAO I mean its just retarded

Ronnie's back did improve from 98 to 01. You're a f*cking moron if you think he just sat on his ass and didn't work out back for 3 years. He may not have added a lot of size and definition, but his back did improve.

I love how you just say it improved but don't offer up any proof what so ever , just that he worked out really hard LMFAO

1998 Ronnie was dry & hard at 247 pounds his back looked outstanding 1999 his back is fuller & wider ( because he's heavier duh ) 2000 his back is even wider and fuller than ever before , its also a lot softer and not as detailed

2001 Ronnie completely dries out again and low and behold he's down to 244 pounds , you think his back is wider than 1998? NO thicker than 1998? NO harder than 1998? NO shows better separation between the muscles? NO so specific to his back improved in 2001 over 1998 you're dead wrong period

Ronnie wasn't just wider in 03. He was a hell of a lot wider, thicker, and fuller.


Ronnie's back improved at the 01 ASC (better definition) and 03 Mr. Olympia (better size). The quote you posted was from 99. So it's null and void. The new Flex list takes into account Ronnie's latter years.

Thicker & fuller in 2003 mean softer & less detailed , he was wider ( duh 287 pounds ) the same contest they hail his 2001 ASC showing as better for a reason so is 2003 really an improvement? what aspect other than being fuller and wider at the expense of hardness & detail is an improvement ? its not

2003 is also the year Ronnie said Yates had the thickest & freakiest back he ever seen you think the Flex list makes this null & void SORRY not quite or the Samir quote or the Rhul quote of others? sorry I don't think so.

thanks for playing , we have some lovely parting gifts for you .

[NeoSeminole]

You posted a comment about Ronnie's triceps are better because they're striated and I posted 3 pictures clearly showing Yates has striated triceps , then you said well he doesn't have them in the side triceps pose and I laughed at you for being retarded like it means anything ( because one can have striations and still be holding water ) like his arms are really conditioned in one pose but when it ' counts ' the most ( side triceps ) they're not LMFAO his arms are still dry & hard despite not have visible striations in the side triceps shot

I said Ronnie's overall triceps are better b/c they are bigger and more defined. Get it right. And the 3 pics you posted were all the same pose. I posted 3 different poses where Ronnie's triceps are striated, and 5 more where they look good in mandatory poses besides in the side triceps. If Dorian's triceps were better, then they should look good in more than 1 mandatory pose.

and again my points still stand Dorian did have better triceps than Ronnie & forearms , I love your win by default position , ' either show me a shot of Yates triceps striated in side triceps pose or concede his triceps are inferior ' lmfao you're just to simple kid ! show me one single pic of Ronnie with striated traps , lats & spinal erectors like Dorian or you run the risk of conceding his back is inferior LMFAO I mean its just retarded

striated traps

couldn't find one.

striated lats and spinal erectors

[NarcissisticDeity]

pics are a reliable means of ascertaining one's conditioning. I agree that bodybuilders look more impressive in person, but that applies to almost every competitor - not just Dorian. So it's safe to assume that Ronnie would look equally more impressive live than in pics. This negates whenever people say "you have to see Dorian in person to understand."

Dorian never stated which versions he was comparing. For all we know, he could have been comparing his 95 self to Ronnie in 04.

maybe you missed this part.

"There's no medical reason why definition would cease to improve after a certain point while that person continues to drop more fat and water."

so answer the question: if a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go? Does it just magically disappear or does it get stored somewhere else?

pics are a reliable means of ascertaining one's conditioning. I agree that bodybuilders look more impressive in person, but that applies to almost every competitor - not just Dorian. So it's safe to assume that Ronnie would look equally more impressive live than in pics. This negates whenever people say "you have to see Dorian in person to understand."

ics are a reliable means of ascertaining one's conditioning this ends the debate it just does I mean its a retarded statement that contradicts what many respect eyewitnesses say I mean you're beyond the point of being taken seriously . again you're assuming this applies to all bodybuilders and it doesn't case in point this quote

Peter McGough Flex Magazine May 2002

Let it be said that the camera can lie at physique contests. Some guys look great onstage but not so great on final film (Dorian Yates, for one) and vice versa (Shawn Ray is an example). 

now from a size prospective it would apply to all bodybuilders but from the aspect of details and conditioning it wouldn't and why? many factors but again I've posted countless quotes from writers , competitors and judges going out of their way to explain this , yet I don't see any quotes stating the same for Ronnie ever wonder why? I'll elaborate on why I think its this way ......skin tone Black bodybuiders don't have the same problem as white bodybuilders especially ones like Dorian with fair skin the contest lighting contrasts better off of dark skin especially better in pictures & video , while the same lighting can wash out the details on a fairer skin person , again to claim this applies to everyone is not accurate

Dorian never stated which versions he was comparing. For all we know, he could have been comparing his 95 self to Ronnie in 04.

The question was posed Ronnie at his best vs Dorian at his , so it doesn't matter and converge that with the McGough statement that Ronnie was NEVER as hard or dry as Yates it doesn't matter which year , lets say Ronnie did match Yates at the least for conditioning he would only do so at his absolute lightest he'd still be down thickness , bulk and proportion , and posing etc , etc so its moot

maybe you missed this part.

"There's no medical reason why definition would cease to improve after a certain point while that person continues to drop more fat and water."

No i read it and again the medical reason is genetic predisposition thats why you just don't believe and again striations can be seen under a film of water so much for that

so answer the question: if a person has great genetics for displaying a highly defined body part, then where does the subcutaneous fat and water that normally covers it up go? Does it just magically disappear or does it get stored somewhere else?

the sub-q fat & water is lost during the process of become dense and dry lmfao so Dorian's biceps could be just as split & defined as Ronnie's if he just dried out a little more? LMFAO

[NarcissisticDeity]

I said Ronnie's overall triceps are better b/c they are bigger and more defined. Get it right. And the 3 pics you posted were all the same pose. I posted 3 different poses where Ronnie's triceps are striated, and 5 more where they look good in mandatory poses besides in the side triceps. If Dorian's triceps were better, then they should look good in more than 1 mandatory pose.

striated traps

couldn't find one.

striated lats and spinal erectors

I said Ronnie's overall triceps are better b/c they are bigger and more defined. Get it right. And the 3 pics you posted were all the same pose. I posted 3 different poses where Ronnie's triceps are striated, and 5 more where they look good in mandatory poses besides in the side triceps. If Dorian's triceps were better, then they should look good in more than 1 mandatory pose.

as well as striated ! again it does NOT matter if Dorian's triceps aren't striated in any other pose his triceps as as hard and dry as they come they're just as conditioned as Ronnies , and you think they only look good in one pose I disagree and so did the judges so my point stands he had better triceps & forearms

Neither of those shots touch Yates in the lowerlats & spinal erectors I don't even need to post pictures we all know