Author Topic: Flex Wheeler 1993 vs. 1998. (Read 26853 times)

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #50 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:38:04 PM »

Quote from: suckmymuscle on July 12, 2009, 03:24:29 PM

Flex is one of those bodybuilders who looks exactly the same year after year. The only "improvement" Flex did from contests he looked shitty to the ones he looked great was shed the film of water under his skin. Flex stopped evolving in terms of muscular development when he turned pro. Or maybe when he was a top amateur.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

This is very true 1993 was as good as he ever was after that was a struggle to come in anywhere near what he was , great post.

Hulkster · « **Reply #51 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:39:33 PM »

Quote

and that pic is from 1996 it's not great quality , this is 1996 as well I'm guessing he came in flat who knows why made it was a ' screw up ' but he was still hard as nails

lol your delusion is incredible.

this is not 'hard as nails' in anyone's book:

96 was a bad year for your hero.

Hulkster · « **Reply #52 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:40:31 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on July 12, 2009, 03:38:04 PM

This is very true 1993 was as good as he ever was after that was a struggle to come in anywhere near what he was , great post.

93 Flex at the AC was awesome. its too bad (and lucky for dorian) that he never duplicated this shape ever again..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #53 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:40:50 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 03:36:27 PM

yup.. all round are physique rounds

and in all rounds the judges looked the other way when it came to your hero.

hope this helps NarcisissticDaisy

Well I can always count on you crying the old politics game when you can not counter with facts

and yet Ronnie escaped these politics lol hypocrite I own you and your retard logic keep trying to attack my profession in some weak attempt at diverting from the topic , I will always bright you right back to your ignorance

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #54 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:46:49 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 03:39:33 PM

lol your delusion is incredible.

this is not 'hard as nails' in anyone's book:

96 was a bad year for your hero.

lmfao you know what about density? you're the same moron who insisted Ronnie Coleman was ' grainier ' than Dorian ever was , you know nothing

Dorian's problem was never his conditioning

JimmyJam1974 · « **Reply #55 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:48:56 PM »

Quote from: WillGrant on July 12, 2009, 04:19:31 AM

hmmm bro , size does not equal a champion if it does not flow..Flex would of been the most geneticly gifted and visual looking bodybuilders in history..its a shame he landed in an era when freaky mass ruled.

"Visual Looking" - well said

Hulkster · « **Reply #56 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:51:25 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on July 12, 2009, 03:46:49 PM

lmfao you know what about density? you're the same moron who insisted Ronnie Coleman was ' grainier ' than Dorian ever was , you know nothing

Dorian's problem was never his conditioning

epic ignoring of the shots from 96 grand prix shows..lol

you say conditioning was never his problem.

well, he certainly had a problem at the 96 GP shows:

Hulkster · « **Reply #57 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:53:17 PM »

Quote

Well I can always count on you crying the old politics game when you can not counter with facts

you havent countered the mountain of pics.

those are all the facts we need.

kiwiol · « **Reply #58 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:55:50 PM »

Hulkster, if you are going to claim Dorian had poor conditioning, at least don't post pics that show the exact opposite

Conditioning is a major factor that sometimes makes the guy with the better structure lose to a guy with an inferior structure, if the latter has more of it than the former. That is why Gunther beat Ronnie in 2002.

Mr Nobody · « **Reply #59 on:** July 12, 2009, 03:57:26 PM »

Quote from: kiwiol on July 12, 2009, 03:55:50 PM

Hulkster, if you are going to claim Dorian had poor conditioning, at least don't post pics that show the exact opposite

Conditioning is a major factor that sometimes makes the guy with the better structure lose to a guy with an inferior structure, if the latter has more of it than the former. That is why Gunther beat Ronnie in 2002.

Damn spot on kiwi

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #60 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:08:02 PM »

Quote from: kiwiol on July 12, 2009, 03:55:50 PM

Hulkster, if you are going to claim Dorian had poor conditioning, at least don't post pics that show the exact opposite

Conditioning is a major factor that sometimes makes the guy with the better structure lose to a guy with an inferior structure, if the latter has more of it than the former. That is why Gunther beat Ronnie in 2002.

Ouch Hulkster just got bitch slapped lol

he constantly posts pics and says ' see ' when it proves how little he knows

Hulkster = the king of backfires

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #61 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:10:17 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 03:53:17 PM

you havent countered the mountain of pics.

those are all the facts we need.

Oh you mean the unhanced screencaps compared to the youtube screengrabs LMFAO

Hulkster pics are useless compared to actually being there and you've yet to find me a single person who claims Ronnie was better conditioned than Dorian and Dorian's conditioning was lacking , his density & dryness weren't his problems it was tears

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #62 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:12:17 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 03:51:25 PM

epic ignoring of the shots from 96 grand prix shows..lol

you say conditioning was never his problem.

well, he certainly had a problem at the 96 GP shows:

How can I ignore a pic from the grand prix show when in fact I already posted one?

owned

Antony77 · « **Reply #63 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:13:20 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on July 12, 2009, 03:36:16 PM

What I realized was happening was that I was just about as hard as I was going to get anyway. And if you are losing more weight at that point, what are you losing? I came to the conclusion that I was losing muscle. Although I was big and shredded in '92, I was competing well below my potential so, with that knowledge and all of my records, I decided the following year I would try to avoid that, basically the over dieting.

and that pic is from 1996 it's not great quality , this is 1996 as well I'm guessing he came in flat who knows why made it was a ' screw up ' but he was still hard as nails

So he realised that he overdieted in 92 and wouldn't make that mistake in 93. Why then did he drop so much weight from those black and white shots to when he stepped on stage, did he screw up again? Because he doesn't say that he lost that muscle on purpose.

And I knew that pic was from 96, I just wanted to know why he was so small since you seem to think he chooses to be for some reason.

Even his side tri which was one of his best poses looks bad compared to previous years.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #64 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:20:25 PM »

Quote from: Antony77 on July 12, 2009, 04:13:20 PM

So he realised that he overdieted in 92 and wouldn't make that mistake in 93. Why then did he drop so much weight from those black and white shots to when he stepped on stage, did he screw up again? Because he doesn't say that he lost that muscle on purpose.

And I knew that pic was from 96, I just wanted to know why he was so small since you seem to think he chooses to be for some reason.

Even his side tri which was one of his best poses looks bad compared to previous years.

I'm not sure about 1996 he was flat particularly in the quads and maybe he tried to come in smaller to try and counterbalance his gut and appear more streamline who knows but he realized he was way to small in 1996 which is why he decided to compete at 270 in 1997

Hulkster · « **Reply #65 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:20:45 PM »

part of why the tri pose looks bad is his conditioning is off compared to most years.

but you can't tell this to ND and his flower friends. they are in complete denial..

Hulkster · « **Reply #66 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:23:17 PM »

Quote

Hulkster, if you are going to claim Dorian had poor conditioning, at least don't post pics that show the exact opposite

hahahaha

okay

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #67 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:31:49 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 04:23:17 PM

hahahaha

okay

Thanks for proving my point and conceding defeat , you always like to claim I run from you but yet here I am yet again OWNING the living fuck out of you

Danimal77 · « **Reply #68 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:43:43 PM »

Quote from: Antony77 on July 12, 2009, 03:26:06 PM

Seriously could you provide a link or source where Dorian says that he chose to lose muscle and come in lighter in 93 then he could have? Because I've never heard of a Bodybuilder going "Damn I've got too much muscle." before a contest ever, it's usually the exact opposite.

I seem to recall Dorian saying he had made mistakes in 93 and it wasn't a good example of his potential and he would be even bigger in 94.

But if I'm wrong does that mean he also "decided" to come in smaller in 96 then he had been in years? Or was that just a precontest screw up because he looked huge in his training video before the contest.

And I can't believe he would "choose" to look like this.

Dorian wasn't the only one who came in MUCH smaller than they were PRE-CONTEST. Levrone and Francois seemed to have both looked to be about 20 pounds lighter and FLAT. I believe that there was word of serious drug testing PRE-contest and so, losing size was the result of that. Dorian hit his peak in 1995 and it was only downhill from then onwards...

Antony77 · « **Reply #69 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:48:14 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on July 12, 2009, 04:20:25 PM

I'm not sure about 1996 he was flat particularly in the quads and maybe he tried to come in smaller to try and counterbalance his gut and appear more streamline who knows but he realized he was way to small in 1996 which is why he decided to compete at 270 in 1997

Makes sense. It seems like he never hit his true potential because the years when he didn't overdiet he injured himself.

His left tricep in 96 already seemed to have started atrophying, I guess his torn bicep was creating imbalances at that point. Also the left side of his back seems to have less detail.

Hulkster · « **Reply #70 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:48:30 PM »

most would say dorian was downhill from the tear onwards.

he was never the same after that. eg. even his good (untorn) arm looked bad post tear compared to how it looked pre tear.

his physique was never the same again from the moment that tear occured.

Hulkster · « **Reply #71 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:49:48 PM »

Quote

the left side of his back seems to have less detail but that could be the lighting.

hello? its the lack of conditioning compared to most years that I have been showing!

you think I made this stuff up?

Danimal77 · « **Reply #72 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:50:44 PM »

I remember having watched the 1993 Mr. Olympia on TSN here in Canada and the commentators were saying that Dorian was 275 pounds only a few weeks out and competing at that weight in Europe and they went on to say that he could have brought that physique to this stage and have been even more dominating than the 256-257 he chose to come in at...

Either way you look at it, he over-dieted AGAIN in 1993, by 12 to 19 pounds... Imagine what he would have looked like onstage at 270 pounds in 1993?

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #73 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:52:26 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 04:48:30 PM

most would say dorian was downhill from the tear onwards.

he was never the same after that. eg. even his good (untorn) arm looked bad post tear compared to how it looked pre tear.

his physique was never the same again from the moment that tear occured.

WRONG 1995 is considered his best contest showing besides 1993 he himself said he was better in 1995

keep striking out kid

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #74 on:** July 12, 2009, 04:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on July 12, 2009, 04:49:48 PM

hello? its the lack of conditioning compared to most years that I have been showing!

you think I made this stuff up?

lmfao lack of conditioning

now try and find the supplemental quote to back up that claims and good luck

oh wait you never once backed up any of your claims