Shawn Ray on Dorian Yates...

[NarcissisticDeity]

oh please! I know what the judging criteria is. I've read it before. You act like it's complicated when it's not. Perhaps the most difficult part of judging is not letting your personal bias cloud your judgment. The difference between you and me is that I apply the criteria objectively whereas you place greater importance in certain areas when it suits you.

I will let this comment stand on its own so others can have a laugh at your expense.

you make it sound like judges need IQs above 120 and must past rigorous tests to select only the cream of the crop

anyone who has actually competed will tell you the judges (especially head judges) aren't exactly 'winners' in life.

oh please! I know what the judging criteria is. I've read it before. You act like it's complicated when it's not. Perhaps the most difficult part of judging is not letting your personal bias cloud your judgment. The difference between you and me is that I apply the criteria objectively whereas you place greater importance in certain areas when it suits you.

You read it before , after I fucking posted it  you're the idiot who thinks balance & proportion were the same thing and I was typing the same criteria to fluff up Dorian's advantages . The fucking difference between you and I is I know the fucking criteria and you don't , you don't know what it is and how to apply it. You can't be objective about something you don't even know.

I will let this comment stand on its own so others can have a laugh at your expense.

you make it sound like judges need IQs above 120 and must past rigorous tests to select only the cream of the crop

anyone who has actually competed will tell you the judges (especially head judges) aren't exactly 'winners' in life.

As usual you didn't know how judges are picked and groomed and how long it takes to become one especially at the highest level. I don't make it sound like anything I'm merely explaining to you ( as usual ) something you didn't know. and oh they're not winners in life so they don't know how to assess a physique   

You read the criteria doesn't mean you comprehend it and we all know your comprehension problems 

[Mr.1derful]

oh? And how am I a glutton for punishment? Would love to see some evidence to back up your words.

countdown before excuses 3... 2... 1...

Meltdown!

[NeoSeminole]

^^^ and you just proved me right. You have shit for brains.

[Mr.1derful]

^^^ and you just proved me right. You have shit for brains.

Meltdown x 2!

[Hulkster]

 

I love how the nuthuggers love to claim that any version of dorian would beat ronnie, when nothing could be further from the truth..

[suckmymuscle]

I love your hypocrisy especially when you're the dummy who tried to past this question off as proof Ronnie was the best ever , not comprehending it was posed as a question and not a declaration.

  I got to give Seminole the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it is a question and not a statement. Nevertheless, it is a question where the author is daring us to point out a bodybuilder who was harder, drier and more balanced than 2001 ASC Ronnie, obviously implying that he believes that Ronnie ASC 2001 was the hardest, driest and most balanced ever. It is a question that can be interpreted as a statement.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Shockwave]

I love how the nuthuggers love to claim that any version of dorian would beat ronnie, when nothing could be further from the truth..

You are a joke. No one takes your self proclaimed facts seriously.

[Hulkster]

Yes, it is a question and not a statement. Nevertheless, it is a question where the author is daring us to point out a bodybuilder who was harder, drier and more balanced than 2001 ASC Ronnie, obviously implying that he believes that Ronnie ASC 2001 was the hardest, driest and most balanced ever

exactly. in the english language,  it is a form of a rhetorical question (known as a rhetorical affirmation).

but ND has never had even an elementary grasp of the english language, so that fact that he missed this is no surprise.

add another  one to ND's long list of intellectual blunders..

[suckmymuscle]

exactly. in the english language,  it is a form of a rhetorical question (known as a rhetorical affirmation).

but ND has never had even an elementary grasp of the english language, so that fact that he missed this is no surprise.

add another  one to ND's long list of intellectual blunders..

  But the fact that the author is asking a question and not making a statement means that he is open to the possibility that there might be a better physique, although he finds it improbable. So the quote cannot be taken as a statement from the author that Ronnie's ASC 2001 physique was the best ever, but only that the author very strongly believes so.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

yes it can because that is the whole point of the rhetorical question posed- that the answer is obvious (in this case, no.)

its no different than when someone says to you (after you ask something obvious)

"does a bear shit in the woods?"

obviously, the answer is yes. its not a question open for debate. thats the whole point.

this is the same exact form of rhetorical question that McGough is stating.

there is no way around this one nuthuggers.

sorry.

you may not agree with McGough, but by posing a rhetorical affirmation like this, it is clear that McGough believes Ronnie's 2001 AC physique to be the most impressive ever.

hell, I don't even agree with him - he looked better with a little more fullness at the 99 Olympia and less of a gut IMO.


but irregardless, that is what he feels.

[suckmymuscle]

yes it can because that is the whole point of the rhetorical question posed- that the answer is obvious (in this case, no.)

its no different than when someone says to you (after you ask something obvious)

"does a bear shit in the woods?"

obviously, the answer is yes. its not a question open for debate. thats the whole point.

this is the same exact form of rhetorical question that McGough is stating.

there is no way around this one nuthuggers.

sorry.

you may not agree with McGough, but by posing a rhetorical affirmation like this, it is clear that McGough believes Ronnie's 2001 AC physique to be the most impressive ever.

hell, I don't even agree with him - he looked better with a little more fullness at the 99 Olympia and less of a gut IMO.


but irregardless, that is what he feels.

  You are confusing apples with oranges. The question of whether bears shit in the woods is asking something that everyone knows to be true. It is a question irony. On the other side, the question of whether Ronnie's 2001 ASC physique is the best ever is an opinion and is open to debate. Yes, McGough feels that Ronnie's 2001 ASC physique is the best ever, but he is open to the possibility that there might be other physique that is above it, or he wouldn't have phrased the question, and would have simply stated it as a fact or state that he feels Ronnie's 2001 ASC is the best ever with period and not question mark. I don't expect you to agree. One of the things I have learned about you is that you never concede anything at all

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

  I got to give Seminole the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it is a question and not a statement. Nevertheless, it is a question where the author is daring us to point out a bodybuilder who was harder, drier and more balanced than 2001 ASC Ronnie, obviously implying that he believes that Ronnie ASC 2001 was the hardest, driest and most balanced ever. It is a question that can be interpreted as a statement.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

It's a question still and not a declaration regardless of the implication. Even if it were a declaration it doesn't make it true which is what these guys can't comprehend because of the very subjective nature of the topic.

And the question is has been answered , yes Dorian in 1993 and 1995. 

[suckmymuscle]

It's a question still and not a declaration regardless of the implication. Even if it were a declaration it doesn't make it true which is what these guys can't comprehend because of the very subjective nature of the topic.

And the question is has been answered , yes Dorian in 1993 and 1995. 

  Yes, the fact that it's phrased as a question indicates that although he believes Ronnie 2001 ASC is the best ever that there is the possibility that there is some bodybuilder who was better although he thinks it's extremely unlikely. I give Seminole the benefit of the doubt because the author is indeed saying that in his opinion Ronnie 2001 ASC is the greatest ever, but that it's something subjective and thus others might no agree.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Immortal_Technique]

It's a question still and not a declaration regardless of the implication. Even if it were a declaration it doesn't make it true which is what these guys can't comprehend because of the very subjective nature of the topic.

And the question is has been answered , yes Dorian in 1993 and 1995. 

This is an interesting point. How come we have 2000 pages of debate on another thread if you don't feel there are certain objective and universal BB truths though? Also, presumably the judges are deemed to "know" stuff rather than just think it, if you see what I mean. Like you wouldn't keep posting the rules if they meant nothing. Clearly this is a subjective debate but the very foundation of competitive bodybuilding, rightly or wrongly, is built on the idea that physiques can be rationally and objectively graded etc.

Anyway, on this basis I feel 2003 Ronnie would make Dorian look like an exceptionally well conditioned little guy next to his softer but much bigger and more detailed (lets yee not forget the glutes of Coleman) 287lb adversary. Frankly weight means absolutely dick, and I don't care if a black and white studio shot or kitchen shot with overhead lighting or quotes from Dorians photographer mate (you say above these individual opinions mean dick anyway) disagree with me then it doesn't matter cos my opinion, like yours, means nothing either in the grand scheme of things. But for what it's worth I hypothesise that the judges of the present day would have a hard time separating these two great Mr Os. No big guys were as flawless as peak Ronnie in peak Dorian's day. Nasser came close to Dorian at one point but had no back, neither did Dillet. Flex was smaller, Shawn was smaller etc. Ronnie had none of these weaknesses. Blandly touting the importance of "balance and proportion" etc isn't the same as knowing what the judges would think, because clearly they thought Ronnie had great balance and proportion 8 years in a row.

Anyway as you say none of this means anything, but it's sure worth having your say.

[Tarantula157]

Congrats you know how to use Google's search feature I know exactly what contest it was. And you didn't specify if it had to be an IFBB contest and you prove to you wrong again that the criteria even in the IFBB hasn't always existed go see how the very first Olympia were judged and it isn't the same as it was in 1994   so your point that Shawn wasn't judged to the original standards that have always been is flat-out wrong and ignorant

You just did it again that's where Dorian's quads lacked separation like Franco's did in 1981 that's comparing his quads to Francos and it's absurd and flat-out wrong. they all had better rectus femoris separation than Dorian , go Google the rest of the muscles of the ' thigh ' watch the 1991 Mr Olympia where Lenda Murray comments on Dorian saying ( and I'm paraphrasing here ) " He looks like Haney with legs " implying the obvious Lee had NO legs so any advantage in rectus femoris separation is rendered moot by inferior everything else.

Here is an IFBB judge commenting on Dorian's torn muscle

Added Rockell: Dorian had a SLIGHT injury but as far as I'm concerned , it had NO bearing whatsoever. He was just so dense it made no overall difference. Paul's major deficiencies were in his back : not enough muscularity for his large frame. also basic stamina throughout was in question ; during call-outs , he was breathing heavy and bending over.

the distended abdomen ( not stomach   ) wasn't visible when held tight in poses and whenever the overall package is so dominating one bicep shorter than another makes no overall impact. It may to you and point taken but we deal with what happened and not what should have happened. Dorian's torn bicep would hurt one pose only and that's the front double biceps pose



And his structure is NOT the same as Dexter , Dexter has much wider clavicles and back width big difference there and Dexter's structure allows him to carry more size without ill effect to his structure.

When you know the history of the sport you don't need Google search,but maybe your experience tells you otherwise...And as I told you before,the actual procedure of judging the contests and the qualities that the winner's physique should consist of are 2 different things.As the first has been changed many times,the latter remained the same for a long time.
Dorian's torn biceps was visible not only in the FDB,but also in some side poses,when he exposed his left arm(rarely,but he did it!),as well as in the BDB pose as a lack of biceps peak.And his distended stomach(or abdomen if you prefer) was visible when he was relaxed and in his transitions,otherwise we would't talk about it!
What I said about Dexter is that his bone structure is similar to Shawn's not the shape of his muscles!Overall Dexter has his own flaws:if Shawn has lagging calves,Dexter has zero calves,he has high lats,his right upperarm is much bigger than his left one,and he has a distended abdomen,so his more size has an ill effect to his structure after all.
The pics below show that Dorian's torn biceps was naticable not only in the FDB,but also in other poses...

[Royal Lion]

I love how internet warriors such as Hulkster and Tarantula, who never saw Dorian in person, sit here and pick apart Dorian based on pics and somehow disbelieve what judges, fellow competitors, and industry experts--who actually saw Dorian--say.

Watch this video and tell me that Dorian's bicep should have kept him from winning...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5049884837576382067#

[Sherief Shalaby]

I love how internet warriors such as Hulkster and Tarantula, who never saw Dorian in person, sit here and pick apart Dorian based on pics and somehow disbelieve what judges, fellow competitors, and industry experts--who actually saw Dorian--say.

Watch this video and tell me that Dorian's bicep should have kept him from winning...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5049884837576382067#

dorian's right bicep is better than levrone's left bicep in this pic.!!.. i remember i made a thread long time ago about this!!..

[Sherief Shalaby]

here it's!!..

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=256786.0

[delta9mda]

peak is genetic and if you dont have it, it doesnt matter.

shawn and kev had no peaks.

[Sherief Shalaby]

peak is genetic and if you dont have it, it doesnt matter.

shawn and kev had no peaks.

yes and dorian too had no peaks especially in his left bicep (before being torn)!!..

[Mr Nobody]

peak is genetic and if you dont have it, it doesnt matter.

shawn and kev had no peaks.

On the money.

[NeoSeminole]

peak is genetic and if you dont have it, it doesnt matter.

oh right, but calves aren't? It's okay for the nuthuggers to penalize Ronnie for his genetic weakness but we're suppose to just ignore Dorian's genetic flaws? You Dorian fans crack me up!

[NarcissisticDeity]

When you know the history of the sport you don't need Google search,but maybe your experience tells you otherwise...And as I told you before,the actual procedure of judging the contests and the qualities that the winner's physique should consist of are 2 different things.As the first has been changed many times,the latter remained the same for a long time.
Dorian's torn biceps was visible not only in the FDB,but also in some side poses,when he exposed his left arm(rarely,but he did it!),as well as in the BDB pose as a lack of biceps peak.And his distended stomach(or abdomen if you prefer) was visible when he was relaxed and in his transitions,otherwise we would't talk about it!
What I said about Dexter is that his bone structure is similar to Shawn's not the shape of his muscles!Overall Dexter has his own flaws:if Shawn has lagging calves,Dexter has zero calves,he has high lats,his right upperarm is much bigger than his left one,and he has a distended abdomen,so his more size has an ill effect to his structure after all.
The pics below show that Dorian's torn biceps was naticable not only in the FDB,but also in other poses...

When you know the history of the sport you don't need Google search,but maybe your experience tells you otherwise...And as I told you before,the actual procedure of judging the contests and the qualities that the winner's physique should consist of are 2 different things.As the first has been changed many times,the latter remained the same for a long time.

Which is exactly my point you don't know the history of the sport. Again the first Olympias were NOT judged the same as the one in 1994 and the criteria has changed along with the physiques you don't know this and you don't know how contests are judged

Dorian's torn biceps was visible not only in the FDB,but also in some side poses,when he exposed his left arm(rarely,but he did it!),as well as in the BDB pose as a lack of biceps peak.And his distended stomach(or abdomen if you prefer) was visible when he was relaxed and in his transitions,otherwise we would't talk about it!

I'm talking about mandatory poses not relaxed shots or transition shots and the only pose his torn bicep hurts is the front double biceps pose when he's fully flexed

What I said about Dexter is that his bone structure is similar to Shawn's not the shape of his muscles!Overall Dexter has his own flaws:if Shawn has lagging calves,Dexter has zero calves,he has high lats,his right upperarm is much bigger than his left one,and he has a distended abdomen,so his more size has an ill effect to his structure after all.

I know what you typed and you're still wrong

[NarcissisticDeity]

exactly. in the english language,  it is a form of a rhetorical question (known as a rhetorical affirmation).

but ND has never had even an elementary grasp of the english language, so that fact that he missed this is no surprise.

add another  one to ND's long list of intellectual blunders..

Notice I never once called you smart and never will 

[NarcissisticDeity]

This is an interesting point. How come we have 2000 pages of debate on another thread if you don't feel there are certain objective and universal BB truths though? Also, presumably the judges are deemed to "know" stuff rather than just think it, if you see what I mean. Like you wouldn't keep posting the rules if they meant nothing. Clearly this is a subjective debate but the very foundation of competitive bodybuilding, rightly or wrongly, is built on the idea that physiques can be rationally and objectively graded etc.

Anyway, on this basis I feel 2003 Ronnie would make Dorian look like an exceptionally well conditioned little guy next to his softer but much bigger and more detailed (lets yee not forget the glutes of Coleman) 287lb adversary. Frankly weight means absolutely dick, and I don't care if a black and white studio shot or kitchen shot with overhead lighting or quotes from Dorians photographer mate (you say above these individual opinions mean dick anyway) disagree with me then it doesn't matter cos my opinion, like yours, means nothing either in the grand scheme of things. But for what it's worth I hypothesise that the judges of the present day would have a hard time separating these two great Mr Os. No big guys were as flawless as peak Ronnie in peak Dorian's day. Nasser came close to Dorian at one point but had no back, neither did Dillet. Flex was smaller, Shawn was smaller etc. Ronnie had none of these weaknesses. Blandly touting the importance of "balance and proportion" etc isn't the same as knowing what the judges would think, because clearly they thought Ronnie had great balance and proportion 8 years in a row.

Anyway as you say none of this means anything, but it's sure worth having your say.

This is an interesting point. How come we have 2000 pages of debate on another thread if you don't feel there are certain objective and universal BB truths though? Also, presumably the judges are deemed to "know" stuff rather than just think it, if you see what I mean. Like you wouldn't keep posting the rules if they meant nothing. Clearly this is a subjective debate but the very foundation of competitive bodybuilding, rightly or wrongly, is built on the idea that physiques can be rationally and objectively graded etc.

There are certain objective and universal truths in bodybuilding , either a guy is in shape or he's not , either a guys calves match his quads or they don't. the subjective part is comparing guys from one era to another

Anyway, on this basis I feel 2003 Ronnie would make Dorian look like an exceptionally well conditioned little guy next to his softer but much bigger and more detailed (lets yee not forget the glutes of Coleman) 287lb adversary. Frankly weight means absolutely dick, and I don't care if a black and white studio shot or kitchen shot with overhead lighting or quotes from Dorians photographer mate (you say above these individual opinions mean dick anyway) disagree with me then it doesn't matter cos my opinion, like yours, means nothing either in the grand scheme of things. But for what it's worth I hypothesise that the judges of the present day would have a hard time separating these two great Mr Os. No big guys were as flawless as peak Ronnie in peak Dorian's day. Nasser came close to Dorian at one point but had no back, neither did Dillet. Flex was smaller, Shawn was smaller etc. Ronnie had none of these weaknesses. Blandly touting the importance of "balance and proportion" etc isn't the same as knowing what the judges would think, because clearly they thought Ronnie had great balance and proportion 8 years in a row.

Anyway as you say none of this means anything, but it's sure worth having your say.

No one made Dorian look small and Ronnie wouldn't either considered these points

Quote from John Balik, commenting on the 96 O:

  "Dorian Yates looked absolutely fantastic. He was so freaking dense and so freaking ripped and dry, that he actually looked bigger than all the 280 lbs competitors, even though he tipped the scales at 255 lbs."



Quote from Lou Ferrigno, after the 1993 O:

  "Dorian won. He is as big as I am, but with a better overall frame. I knew I was competing for second place the minute he stepped onstage."

ronman Magazine Jan 1994

I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab

Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.


No one made Dorian look small and we're talking about Dorian on the stage and not the one at 269 pounds who I feel would beat Ronnie. Another point to ponder

Shawn ray Ronnie’s side chest leaves a lot to be desired when compared to people who can actually hit it right like Dexter and Jay. His side triceps shot is not one of the best in the business and he got exposed because of it

Shawn Ray  in certain poses you would never know Dexter was giving up 70lbs to Ronnie



A 296 pound Ronnie couldn't dwarf a 225 pound Dexter he's most certainly not going to make any version of Dorian look ' little '

I agree it would be close and in events like where contests are close usually the better conditioned buy wins and Dorian would have a clear advantage here and the judges may have thought that Ronnie's balance & proportion was great for eights years but that's all relevant to who you're competing with. If everyone has high calves than high calves aren't a flaw

Ronnie never faced anyone like Dorian Yates which brings me to McGough's point

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.


I think Dorian would indeed my a 287 pound Ronnie look soft and unbalanced and would make a 247 pound one looks small and stringy which leads me back to what I've always maintained it would be close but Dorian has advantages in depending on the year muscular bulk , conditioning and balance and these would push him over the edge.