Author Topic: Dorian 1995 Prejudging- No Controversy, Dorian wins by far (Read 22472 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #50 on:** May 23, 2008, 04:43:52 PM »

Quote

Hell, Dorian's conditioning was miles ahead of almost any bodybuilder who's ever competed. Especially in 1995.

lol

total BULLSHIT:

95 dorian being taught what conditioning really is by the man who took it to the next level, Ronnie Coleman:

countdown to the excuses...5..4...3...2.. .1...

Hulkster · « **Reply #51 on:** May 23, 2008, 04:46:15 PM »

oops. dorian being taught about conditioning yet again!

so much for his 95 being the best conditioning ever..

don't get me wrong: dorian was insanely well conditioned.

but others have equalled that:

bigguns23 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:16:45 PM »

Quote from: bigbobs on May 23, 2008, 12:32:39 PM

I disagree. The video doesn't even have very good resolution. Here are some better resolution comparisons from 95.

For fuck sake again?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #53 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on May 23, 2008, 04:46:15 PM

oops. dorian being taught about conditioning yet again!

so much for his 95 being the best conditioning ever..

don't get me wrong: dorian was insanely well conditioned.

but others have equalled that:

lmfao at others equaled it just like your post that Ronnie was more grainy than Dorian lol what do you know again?

bodybuilder1234 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:20:11 PM »

Thin skin is pretty hard to see on a competitor, its far easier to see tie-ins, striations and muscle seperation for example.
This is why Dorians conditioning is underappreciated, its because it takes a keen eye to really see his dryness. Someone who had knowledge would say for example that Kevin Levrone looked soft compared to Yates, they all did.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #55 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:21:16 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on May 23, 2008, 04:43:52 PM

lol

total BULLSHIT:

95 dorian being taught what conditioning really is by the man who took it to the next level, Ronnie Coleman:

countdown to the excuses...5..4...3...2.. .1...

Its just so easy to correct

While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.

On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.

" he was never drier or harder than Dorian. "

" on the subject of conditioning, NO-ONE did it better than Dorian. "

next

Hulkster · « **Reply #56 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:21:36 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on May 23, 2008, 05:17:36 PM

lmfao at others equaled it just like your post that Ronnie was more grainy than Dorian lol what do you know again?

yeah, how funny my post is:

95 dorian being equalled by Ronnie and from the BACK no less: dorian had more detail in the upper traps, but thats it. and he had far less detail from the front.

ND you are ridiculous.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #57 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:22:35 PM »

Quote from: bodybuilder1234 on May 23, 2008, 05:20:11 PM

Thin skin is pretty hard to see on a competitor, its far easier to see tie-ins, striations and muscle seperation for example.
This is why Dorians conditioning is underappreciated, its because it takes a keen eye to really see his dryness. Someone who had knowledge would say for example that Kevin Levrone looked soft compared to Yates, they all did.

You my friend know what you're talking about ! give this man a cigar. dead right on the money.

thank you.

Hulkster · « **Reply #58 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:24:26 PM »

Quote

its because it takes a keen eye to really see his dryness

more like it takes a keen eye to really see what was so special about dorian... $:-\$

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #59 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:25:50 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on May 23, 2008, 05:24:26 PM

more like it takes a keen eye to really see what was so special about dorian... $:-\$

. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.

next

Hulkster · « **Reply #60 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:27:35 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on May 23, 2008, 05:25:50 PM

. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.

next

convenient excuse..

it applied to everyone else too you know.. not just dorian yates

next.

bodybuilder1234 · « **Reply #61 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:28:19 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on May 23, 2008, 05:21:36 PM

yeah, how funny my post is:

95 dorian being equalled by Ronnie and from the BACK no less: dorian had more detail in the upper traps, but thats it. and he had far less detail from the front.

ND you are ridiculous.

In that back comparison Dorian's back is bigger and is in better condition....The guy has striations all over.
Ronnies although has a better V-taper condition is inferior but his arms are better.

Hulkster · « **Reply #62 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:35:41 PM »

the thing with dorian's back (and this is focused in on the video) is how it really flattens out when he his the rear double bi.

Ronnie's is much thicker and appears a little wider due to his equal lat width but smaller waist (ie superior taper).

they were very close in the back, with the slight edge going to ronnie (even McGough agrees taht Ronnie had the greatest back of all time, but no doubt ND will ignore this particluar McGough quote LOL

)

but like lots of other bodybuilders, Ronnie owns dorian from the front side.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #63 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:45:19 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on May 23, 2008, 05:35:41 PM

the thing with dorian's back (and this is focused in on the video) is how it really flattens out when he his the rear double bi.

Ronnie's is much thicker and appears a little wider due to his equal lat width but smaller waist (ie superior taper).

they were very close in the back, with the slight edge going to ronnie (even McGough agrees taht Ronnie had the greatest back of all time, but no doubt ND will ignore this particluar McGough quote LOL )

but like lots of other bodybuilders, Ronnie owns dorian from the front side.

Oh you like McGough's quotes when the suit your purpose

hypocrite they actually weren't close in back regardless of what people say , Dorian's lats are wider and insert LOWER his spinal erectors are leaps & bounds better , his traps are thicker , his lower lats are striated in a man Ronnie can't touch , Yates has em on back and in 2003 Ronnie said Dorian had the thickest Freaikest back he ever seen

I almost spit my Dasani out when I read Ronnie owns Dorian from the side lol man thats another keeper.

johnnytosh · « **Reply #64 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:47:02 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on May 23, 2008, 12:35:04 PM

Anyone who thinks 1995 Mr Olympia was anyone other than Dorian Yates does not know about competitive bodybuilding how its judged and what they're looking at period. end of sentence

1995 was one of the most dominate wins of any Olympia winner ever .

BINGO! '95 Yates was the best we ever saw of Him. He dominated that show. I was there in the 3rd row, right behind Enrico Baldandini (judge).

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #65 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:50:16 PM »

oh and Hulkster Ronnie's back looks thicker ( to you ) because his lats are slightly higher and his waist & hips give him the ILLUSION of greater width ( although depending on the year Ronnie's back is probably as wider or a tad wider , although no where near as hard ) this is a pic of them side-by-side no excuses now and this is 1996 not Yates at his best

its clear Yates lats are way lower and his back is wider although Ronnie is scrunching his together this doesn;t change the fact Yates' back is still lower and has more area it may appear ' flat ' to you but his thickness , density & detail are unrivaled .

johnnytosh · « **Reply #66 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:50:42 PM »

Quote from: bigmikecox on May 23, 2008, 12:40:38 PM

1995 was his best year by far. Now, Find a video of 1994, 1996 and 1997. He had his fat, bloated ass handed to him by Ray in 1994 and by Nasser in 1997. Dorian peaked 3 times during his Olympia reign.

No, 96 Yates was "Spot ON", almost a clone of '95. I agree that "94 & '97 he was off, not '96

Hulkster · « **Reply #67 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:50:54 PM »

95 was the best we ever saw of Yates conditioning wise - but he still had that torn bi.

pre tear was better by definition - he had both arms back then..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #68 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:51:06 PM »

Quote from: johnnytosh on May 23, 2008, 05:47:02 PM

BINGO! '95 Yates was the best we ever saw of Him. He dominated that show. I was there in the 3rd row, right behind Enrico Baldandini (judge).

Thank you ! another eyewitness puts another nail in hulkster's ignorant coffin.

Hulkster · « **Reply #69 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:52:00 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on May 23, 2008, 05:50:16 PM

oh and Hulkster Ronnie's back looks thicker ( to you ) because his lats are slightly higher and his waist & hips give him the ILLUSION of greater width ( although depending on the year Ronnie's back is probably as wider or a tad wider , although no where near as hard ) this is a pic of them side-by-side no excuses now and this is 1996 not Yates at his best

its clear Yates lats are way lower and his back is wider although Ronnie is scrunching his together this doesn;t change the fact Yates' back is still lower and has more area it may appear ' flat ' to you but his thickness , density & detail are unrivaled .

speaking of being unrivaled, his piss poor arms in that shot are "unrivaled" in their mediocrity. $:-\$

Hulkster · « **Reply #70 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:52:42 PM »

Quote from: johnnytosh on May 23, 2008, 05:50:42 PM

No, 96 Yates was "Spot ON", almost a clone of '95. I agree that "94 & '97 he was off, not '96

true, he should have lost in 94 and 97..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #71 on:** May 23, 2008, 05:54:02 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on May 23, 2008, 05:50:54 PM

95 was the best we ever saw of Yates conditioning wise - but he still had that torn bi.

pre tear was better by definition - he had both arms back then..

You're arguing over a bicep that was a tad shorter than the other its not like he has two missing calves

93 and 94