Author Topic: If Lee Haney, Dorian Yates, and Ronnie Coleman competed today... (Read 23373 times)

Parker · « **on:** February 13, 2009, 01:45:58 PM »

If you took those three at their peak and had them compete today, in today's environment, today's drugs and (Lee brought up his legs and arms). Who'd you think come on top. All three of these men were the dominate forces in their era, and force others to follow.

And No Effin Nasser posts either!!!!

No Patience · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:48:59 PM »

1. Ronnie
2. Haney
3. Yates

Nasty Nate · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:49:49 PM »

Ronnie... easily.

QuakerOats · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:50:05 PM »

Ronnie, Yates, Haney in that order.

bigbobs · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:50:22 PM »

Quote from: Parker on February 13, 2009, 01:45:58 PM

If you took those three at their peak and had them compete today, in today's environment, today's drugs and (Lee brought up his legs and arms). Who'd you think come on top. All three of these men were the dominate forces in their era, and force others to follow.

And No Effin Nasser posts either!!!!

JasonH · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:50:41 PM »

Ronnie, Yates, Haney.

bigbobs · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:51:20 PM »

Yaney, Honnie, Rates

QuakerOats · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:52:17 PM »

should be Ronnie, NASSER, Yates, Haney, to be honest.

bigbobs · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:55:11 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 01:52:17 PM

should be Ronnie, NASSER, Yates, Haney, to be honest.

bigbobs · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:56:32 PM »

Actually Parker this has already been discussed in detail http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0

Even with throwing in Lee Haney in your subject title to mix it up this thread is still bound to become another slugfest between ND and Hulkster with discussions of photoshopped pics, bizzy's PM's, 93 Yates, 98 vs 99 Ronnie, etc.

QuakerOats · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:57:43 PM »

Quote from: bigbobs on February 13, 2009, 01:56:32 PM

Actually Parker this has already been discussed in detail http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.0

Even with throwing in Lee Haney in your subject title to mix it up this thread is still bound to become another slugfest between ND and Hulkster with discussions of photoshopped pics, bizzy's PM's, 93 Yates, 98 vs 99 Ronnie, etc.

all joking aside Nasser at his biggest and best ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS Haney's best, Haney would look tiny next to Nasser.

Parker · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2009, 01:58:17 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 01:52:17 PM

should be Ronnie, NASSER, Yates, Haney, to be honest.

Actually no, if Lee Haney and Nasser were compared, and Lee was competing at today's weight, that roughly be 260-270 on his 5'11 frame. Take in his small waist, Huge Chest, and detail, and wide back, Nasser would get blown back. Nasser had a wide back, but lacked detail, he lacked a huge chest, and detailed arms.

If all three peaked, it might be Ronnie, and then Yate or Haney fighting for second.
I think there is a pic of Haney pulling off a vacuum pose, which is something niether Yate, or Coleman could do in their reigns (or Nasser)

Parker · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:00:46 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 01:57:43 PM

all joking aside Nasser at his biggest and best ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS Haney's best, Haney would look tiny next to Nasser.

Ronnie won his title under 250 pounds, whereas Nasser competed around the 275-280 mark. Nasser has lost to a 224 pound Flex before.
Haney was also 5'11, with a small waist, so he would actually look more impressive

bigbobs · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:01:21 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 01:57:43 PM

all joking aside Nasser at his biggest and best ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS Haney's best, Haney would look tiny next to Nasser.

x2. Parker find a single Haney video that would not make him look tiny next to this:

QuakerOats · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:02:11 PM »

Quote from: Parker on February 13, 2009, 02:00:46 PM

Ronnie won his title under 250 pounds, whereas Nasser competed around the 275-280 mark. Nasser has lost to a 224 pound Flex before.
Haney was also 5'11, with a small waist, so he would actually look more impressive

Nasser HAS ALSO BEATEN BOTH RONNIE AND FLEX, remember that.

Wiggs · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:03:01 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 01:52:17 PM

should be Ronnie, NASSER, Yates, Haney, to be honest.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. You aren't really on the nasser bandwagon are you?

For the record he's not better than Yates and def not better than Haney.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:03:05 PM »

Quote from: Parker on February 13, 2009, 01:58:17 PM

Actually no, if Lee Haney and Nasser were compared, and Lee was competing at today's weight, that roughly be 260-270 on his 5'11 frame. Take in his small waist, Huge Chest, and detail, and wide back, Nasser would get blown back. Nasser had a wide back, but lacked detail, he lacked a huge chest, and detailed arms.

If all three peaked, it might be Ronnie, and then Yate or Haney fighting for second.
I think there is a pic of Haney pulling off a vacuum pose, which is something niether Yate, or Coleman could do in their reigns (or Nasser)

Playboy · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:03:36 PM »

Ronnie...easy answer. He had the whoe package and introduced what its like to bring a 290lb frame ripped to the bone at a competition.

bigbobs · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:04:44 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 02:02:11 PM

Nasser HAS ALSO BEATEN BOTH RONNIE AND FLEX, remember that.

Exactly, and Flex did look tiny next to Nasser

Playboy · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:04:57 PM »

Quote from: QuakerOats on February 13, 2009, 02:02:11 PM

Nasser HAS ALSO BEATEN BOTH RONNIE AND FLEX, remember that.

A ROOKIE Ronnie & Flex

A prime Ronnie & Flex would blow him out of the water.

bigbobs · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:06:00 PM »

Quote from: Playboy on February 13, 2009, 02:04:57 PM

A ROOKIE Ronnie & Flex A prime Ronnie & Flex would blow him out of the water.

Oh yeah, Flex was a rookie in the 95, 96, and 97 Olympia?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:09:52 PM »

Quote from: bigbobs on February 13, 2009, 02:04:44 PM

Exactly, and Flex did look tiny next to Nasser

Flex didn't need to be big to beat Nasser , he beat him many times despite not being anywhere near as heavy

Wiggs · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:10:14 PM »

Quote from: bigbobs on February 13, 2009, 02:06:00 PM

Oh yeah, Flex was a rookie in the 95, 96, and 97 Olympia?

Didn't compete in the 97 O, this was the year of the Ninja
96 nasser DQd
95 First year back after accident

Them at their best Flex wins everytime

97 AC - Flex
98 AC - Flex
98 O - Flex
99 O - Flex

Need I go on?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:12:06 PM »

Quote from: Wiggs on February 13, 2009, 02:10:14 PM

Didn't compete in the 97 O, this was the year of the Ninja
96 He looked like shit was 7th or 8th
95 First year back after accident

Them at their best Flex wins everytime

97 AC - Flex
98 AC - Flex
98 O - Flex

Need I go on?

ouch lol

bigbobs · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2009, 02:13:51 PM »

Quote from: Wiggs on February 13, 2009, 02:10:14 PM

Didn't compete in the 97 O, this was the year of the Ninja
96 He looked like shit was 7th or 8th
95 First year back after accident

Them at their best Flex wins everytime

97 AC - Flex
98 AC - Flex
98 O - Flex

Need I go on?

97 counts as a loss because he withdrew knowing he would lose to Nasser. If he knew he could get second or first in 97 he surely woudl not have withdrew.