Dorian Yates - overrated!

[JP_RC]

That was me. And it is.
Symmetry is factored in, but in the case of Dorian, his 1 shorter bicep was not enough of a flaw in the poses to knock him off.
Balance, you can say you don't see it all you want, but Dorians Calves were better balanced to his legs than Ronnies, Dorians forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnies, and Dorian had a better midsection.  (As far as BB is concerned, in BB you want to have large calves - In fact the greek ideal that BB is based on is having Calves, arms, and I think its neck all the same size.)
Dorians Biceps were his weak part, and they really only were a problem in 2 poses, BDB, and FDB.
You can claim you think Dorians Calves and Forearms were to large for his legs and arms if you want, but remember, Dorian was the benchmark that Ronnie would be measured against. Not the other way around. Therefore, Ronnies calves would be too small in the eyes of the judges, not the other way around. See what Im saying?

Symmetry is factored in, but in the case of Dorian, his 1 shorter bicep was not enough of a flaw in the poses to knock him off.

I think it was ND that said symmetry is not only related to how well the right side matches the left side, its only a part of it. I agree that it also has to do with aesthetics, muscle shape, etc.
If these things are truly taken into consideration, then Dorian is way down in symmetry than just the torn biceps.

Balance, you can say you don't see it all you want, but Dorians Calves were better balanced to his legs than Ronnies, Dorians forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnies, and Dorian had a better midsection.  (As far as BB is concerned, in BB you want to have large calves - In fact the greek ideal that BB is based on is having Calves, arms, and I think its neck all the same size.)

I could see Dorian's calves being better balanced to his upper legs than Ronnie, but still his balance isn't great.
There is no way his forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnie. Both have good balance in this area in my eyes.

Now, what about proportions? Did Dorian have good proportions after 1993 to you?
He didn't for me, I always saw his massive back/torso overpowering his arms and even his quads. Even his chest looked flat in 94 and 97.

You can claim you think Dorians Calves and Forearms were to large for his legs and arms if you want, but remember, Dorian was the benchmark that Ronnie would be measured against. Not the other way around. Therefore, Ronnies calves would be too small in the eyes of the judges, not the other way around. See what Im saying?

I see your point here, in the eye of the judges that could be the case.

[Hulkster]

its funny how you guys insist that what ronnie said about 98 being his best is correct simply because he stated it three times as opposed to stating 99 was once..even though all visuals show 99 was better..

 and yet you also don't seem to take issue with Peter McGough who feels 99 was better than 98 but does prefer 2001 over either of them.

you make no sense.

you should be stating that Peter McGough is fucked in the head for stating that 2001 AC was his best because you guys are insistant that because Ronnie said 98 was his best that it is true.

see how you don't make any fucking sense?

 

but then again, it takes brains to realize this.

[JP_RC]

You quoted one of Pumpsters old quotes. Obviously you havent been around getbig long enough to understand the "Hello, *insert name*" jokes.
Pumpster was outed as a fat, gay, slob who used to be Hulksters Ronnie loving Dorian hating sidekick. And he was a moderator of the training forum.
You posted the same thing he used to repeatedley, so I called you pumpster.

I've probably a lot to learn about getbig yet, but I'm catching on.
Maybe you were just joking aroound, but ND insists I'm a gimmick.

I posted that quote to show how subjective opinions of others/quotes can vary so much and how these quotes are not the end of it all to prove a point.

ND constantly posts up quotes of people saying Dorian was the best or Ronnie's best was "x" year, etc. I just wanted to post a quote of a recognized person in bb saying the opposite of what he believes and try to have some fun too with it too.

[JP_RC]

Lets say Ronnie was drier in 98, but his conditioning in 99 was amazing too. You guys are talking like 99 Ronnie was totally off or bad. C'mon, Ronnie in 2000, 2002 or 2006 are examples of an off Ronnie, but 1999 was outstanding as far as conditioning, size, symmetry, etc.

The fact that he was drier in 98 automatically makes that year his best?
Opinions are different, some people say 98 was his best and others say 99 was his best. Its the same as some people think Dorian's best was 93, while others say it was 95.

In the end, we can all agree that a top Ronnie (1998 or 1999) is better and would beat Dorian at any year.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Well Dorian in 1993 also had muscular bulk and balance & proportions going for him that year.
I just wanted to show you how overall bodyweight or muscular bulk can sometimes not be a decisive factor in who wins a show. There are so many examples of this:

Shawn Ray constantly beating guys heavier than him, like Paul Dillet, Nasser, Levrone, Fux, etc. Even when he won the overall title at the 1987 Nationals, he beat a guy that was heavier than him.

Another example might be Flex beating Nasser, Dexter Jackson constantly beating heavier guys, what about Lee Labrada, the list can go on.

This shows that bodyweight (who's the heaviest) is not all that important when other things are taken into consideration.
This shows how Ronnie despite being lighter, would beat Dorian if they met at their bests.

I agree, but I'm just stating my opinion.

You're missing the point of all those lighter guys who beat the heavier ones , they were ALL in better condition than their counterparts , when contests are close 99.9% of the time the deciding factor is who is harder & drier

Ronnie lighter is still NOT as hard or as dry as a heavier Dorian or as balanced , Dorian simply meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie

Dorian at his best is harder & drier than Ronnie at his all the while carrying more muscular bulk and being better balanced now factor in posing & presentation and it's Dorian for the W

for the sake of argument lets say Ronnie at his best equaled Dorian in conditioning it would be at a lighter weight and worse balance & proportion and posing & presentation , so again Dorian for the W

[NarcissisticDeity]

I think it was ND that said symmetry is not only related to how well the right side matches the left side, its only a part of it. I agree that it also has to do with aesthetics, muscle shape, etc.
If these things are truly taken into consideration, then Dorian is way down in symmetry than just the torn biceps.

I could see Dorian's calves being better balanced to his upper legs than Ronnie, but still his balance isn't great.
There is no way his forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnie. Both have good balance in this area in my eyes.

Now, what about proportions? Did Dorian have good proportions after 1993 to you?
He didn't for me, I always saw his massive back/torso overpowering his arms and even his quads. Even his chest looked flat in 94 and 97.

I see your point here, in the eye of the judges that could be the case.

I think it was ND that said symmetry is not only related to how well the right side matches the left side, its only a part of it. I agree that it also has to do with aesthetics, muscle shape, etc.
If these things are truly taken into consideration, then Dorian is way down in symmetry than just the torn biceps.

NO symmetry in the bodybuilding context is a LOT more than it seems and different people have different meanings for the whole of symmetry , perfect example

Lee Priest

HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?

I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.

Lee Priest saying Dorian might not be as ' symmetrical ' as Ronnie and under this context he means , small waist , small hips , small joints which is part of the reason why Flex was known as " The Sultan of Symmetry "

Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?

The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .

And here is Bev Francis raving about Dorian's symmetry being almost perfect , in her context she means , everything in proportion , his great balance and no weak bodyparts , they both have great ' symmetry ' but it depends on what context you're talking

And symmetry in the bodybuilding context doesn't mean left/right exactness because NOTHING in nature is symmetrical , people have strong arms so they'll always be bigger than the right or left depending how which you are , you can taper Coleman's arms and both will NOT measure exactly the same or be exactly the same shape

And even with one bicep shorter than another this does not negate his other advantages in torso length , arm length in relation to the torso , leg length , leg length in relation to the torso , proportions between the muscles , calves to quads , hams to quads , glutes ( which Ronnie's are grossly oversized and can be seen from the front NOT symmetrical or proportionate ) forearms in proportion to biceps & triceps it's the entire package to say Dorian's shorter bicep compromises the entirety is foolish

I could see Dorian's calves being better balanced to his upper legs than Ronnie, but still his balance isn't great.
There is no way his forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnie. Both have good balance in this area in my eyes.

Dorian's leg balance in better it's really not open for discussion , his calves match his quads better than Ronnie's and his glutes don't stick out so far they can be seen from the front and the hamstrings which Dorian's mate better to his quads , this is especially noticeable in profile and the heavier Ronnie became the worse this issue because for him , his quads dominated the calves and hams

I disagree again MIND YOU AT HIS BEST Dorian's arm balance is better , Ronnie's biceps & triceps are leaps & bounds ahead of his forearms , which are shaped like bowling pins and aren't in proportion with the overwhelming size of his upper arms , again the heavier Ronnie became the worse this issue became old news

Now, what about proportions? Did Dorian have good proportions after 1993 to you?
He didn't for me, I always saw his massive back/torso overpowering his arms and even his quads. Even his chest looked flat in 94 and 97.

see above more to proportions than a shorter bicep than the other , and yes after 1993 Dorian had ' good proportions ' the sole exception to this was 1997 where his physique was probably at it's worse and I disagree about his pecs , they never looked flat any year  

[Mr.1derful]

All I know, is that Dorian from the '96 German Grand Prix would make Ronnie shit himself.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Lets say Ronnie was drier in 98, but his conditioning in 99 was amazing too. You guys are talking like 99 Ronnie was totally off or bad. C'mon, Ronnie in 2000, 2002 or 2006 are examples of an off Ronnie, but 1999 was outstanding as far as conditioning, size, symmetry, etc.

The fact that he was drier in 98 automatically makes that year his best?
Opinions are different, some people say 98 was his best and others say 99 was his best. Its the same as some people think Dorian's best was 93, while others say it was 95.

In the end, we can all agree that a top Ronnie (1998 or 1999) is better and would beat Dorian at any year.

Lets say Ronnie was drier in 98, but his conditioning in 99 was amazing too. You guys are talking like 99 Ronnie was totally off or bad. C'mon, Ronnie in 2000, 2002 or 2006 are examples of an off Ronnie, but 1999 was outstanding as far as conditioning, size, symmetry, etc.

I've said his conditioning in 99 was very good , but not great like 1998/2001 it was not a case of being a tad better it was a case of being noticeably better

and it's not just a matter of being drier it's harder which is a step beyond just being dry which Ronnie was in 99 but he wasn't dense and dry

The fact that he was drier in 98 automatically makes that year his best?
Opinions are different, some people say 98 was his best and others say 99 was his best. Its the same as some people think Dorian's best was 93, while others say it was 95.

You have NO clue on what you're talking about it isn't because he was drier in 1998 it was because he was drier and harder , hardness refers to muscle density which is the total elimination of even intramuscular fat and all that is left is the maximum amount of pure muscle , it really is the pinnacle of conditioning , to carry a lot of muscular bulk while being arid dry and dense as stone which Dorian was the master of

This is where you get lost , the experts aren't saying Ronnie's best is 1999 it's ignorant fanboys. Ronnie's prime showings are 1998 and 2001 ASC and why? because his mass and density & dryness are at their zenith. like Dorian it's a toss-up between 93 & 95 even though his conditioning in 96 was outstanding his fullness wasn't that particular year

the vast majority of bodybuilding experts agree 1998/2001 are his best and often mentioned in 2003 NO WHERE is 1999 , it's such a none issue only stupid people claim otherwise

In the end, we can all agree that a top Ronnie (1998 or 1999) is better and would beat Dorian at any year.

actually extremely doubtful Ronnie 1998 would beat Dorian , just based on the fact he just barely by the skin of his teeth beat Flex in 98 , by just 3 points one of the closest Mr Olympia contests ever , and Dorian at one of his best showings in 93 was miles ahead of Flex who was at his peak year in 1993 , and 99 Ronnie is NO WHERE near as dense or dry as 98 never mind as dense or dry and big and balanced as Yates

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND you certainly love your quotes don't you?

You'll love what the great Sergio Oliva had to say about Dorian Yates on an interview sometime ago:

"Then there’s Dorian Yates. He has a belly like a cow and no arms. That is not a complete physique. That is not proportional or symmetrical."

 

Taken from here in case some of you guys think its made up:
http://muscleandbrawn.com/sergio-oliva-interview/

Wow how 5 years ago 

Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?

The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .

She's an IFBB judge whose opinion you think carries more weight? how about these remarks from people on Ronnie?

Vic Richards on Romano & Palumbo radio show 2010.

" To say Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder is an insult , he doesn't even come in the top 12 "

Q ] When people talk of the greatest Olympian's Ronnie's name is usually high on the list. In fact, he is widely regarded as the best bodybuilder of all time.


[ A ] I hate to say this but they are blind. People that don't approve of what we are talking about right now are blind. You have to understand. Look, Ronnie Coleman is probably the most muscular bodybuilder ever. If he could have drawn a better picture of himself on the stage he would have had more appeal, but he did not. He makes himself look worse. I


they work both ways  I can post more if you'd like?

[NarcissisticDeity]

All I know, is that Dorian from the '96 German Grand Prix would make Ronnie shit himself.

This is Dorian from that contest and Ronnie at what's considered his absolute best and the difference is pretty staggering . Dorian is blowing him out of the water in terms of thickness , density and dryness it's crazy

[FREAKgeek]

You have NO clue on what you're talking about it isn't because he was drier in 1998 it was because he was drier and harder , hardness refers to muscle density which is the total elimination of even intramuscular fat and all that is left is the maximum amount of pure muscle , it really is the pinnacle of conditioning , to carry a lot of muscular bulk while being arid dry and dense as stone which Dorian was the master of

I don't know about that, ND. It's mostly near elimination of subcutaneous fat and water. It's what's visible on the surface. Intramuscular fat, if present, is embedded and hidden.

I've heard the testimonials of the density look being responsible from heavy powerlifting (myofibrillar hypertrophy). Me thinks it's genetics.

[Shockwave]

its funny how you guys insist that what ronnie said about 98 being his best is correct simply because he stated it three times as opposed to stating 99 was once..even though all visuals show 99 was better..

 and yet you also don't seem to take issue with Peter McGough who feels 99 was better than 98 but does prefer 2001 over either of them.

you make no sense.

you should be stating that Peter McGough is fucked in the head for stating that 2001 AC was his best because you guys are insistant that because Ronnie said 98 was his best that it is true.

see how you don't make any fucking sense?

 

but then again, it takes brains to realize this.

Haha! Mcgough, I love it. No Hulkster, you don't make fucking sense. You have no one to back up your claims, nothing but 10 year old pics and vid, and now youre trying to use someone's opinion who you did nothing but talk shit about for the last 4 years. Hahahah!!!! Pathetic!
Youre the guy that trys to talk shit about Mcough all the time! You try and say hes not a valid source of information.

Well what is it Hulkster? Agree with Mcough and you pretty much admit youve been talking out of your ass about him the whole time. Go ahead, please agree with him. That will make everything you ever said about Mcough wrong.

Looks like you finally come to grips with the fact that you have NO proof.
Just admit that the only reason you think 99 is his best becuase you like his look that year. Just fucking admit it. Cause you have 0 proof to support your claim.

[FREAKgeek]

This is Dorian from that contest and Ronnie at what's considered his absolute best and the difference is pretty staggering . Dorian is blowing him out of the water in terms of thickness , density and dryness it's crazy

The glossy oil shine in Ronnie's pic doesn't help. That skews things.  Look at contest pics of Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes (no homo), they are arid.

[Shockwave]

I don't know about that, ND. It's mostly near elimination of subcutaneous fat and water. It's what's visible on the surface. Intramuscular fat, if present, is embedded and hidden.

I've heard the testimonials of the density look being responsible from heavy powerlifting (myofibrillar hypertrophy). Me thinks it's genetics.

Im not sure.
Look at the above pic of Dorian and Ronnie.
Dorians muscles look drier, and harder. Ronnies look rounder, and smoother, but Ronnie has deeper separations between muscle groups... Like the muscle starts, and fills up like a marshmellow, whereas Dorians muscle starts thicker and doesnt round as much across the belly. I think thats why Dorian looks so much thicker than Ronnie, but his separations are not nearly as deep.

[~UN_$ung~]

Wow how 5 years ago 

Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?

The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .

She's an IFBB judge whose opinion you think carries more weight? how about these remarks from people on Ronnie?

Vic Richards on Romano & Palumbo radio show 2010.

" To say Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder is an insult , he doesn't even come in the top 12 "

Q ] When people talk of the greatest Olympian's Ronnie's name is usually high on the list. In fact, he is widely regarded as the best bodybuilder of all time.


[ A ] I hate to say this but they are blind. People that don't approve of what we are talking about right now are blind. You have to understand. Look, Ronnie Coleman is probably the most muscular bodybuilder ever. If he could have drawn a better picture of himself on the stage he would have had more appeal, but he did not. He makes himself look worse. I


they work both ways  I can post more if you'd like?

when was vic richards on RX radio shows?

[NarcissisticDeity]

I don't know about that, ND. It's mostly near elimination of subcutaneous fat and water. It's what's visible on the surface. Intramuscular fat, if present, is embedded and hidden.

I've heard the testimonials of the density look being responsible from heavy powerlifting (myofibrillar hypertrophy). Me thinks it's genetics.

Density - Muscle hardness, which is also related to muscu-lar definition. A bodybuilder can be well-defined and still have excess fat within each major muscle complex. But when he has muscle density, even this intramuscular fat has been eliminated. A combination of muscle mass and muscle density is highly prized among all competitive bodybuilders.

ultimately it comes down to genetics , like striations , separation obviously you need to be in top condition to see the results

[NarcissisticDeity]

when was vic richards on RX radio shows?

not to long ago , interesting guy covered a lot of topics.

[NarcissisticDeity]

The glossy oil shine in Ronnie's pic doesn't help. That skews things.  Look at contest pics of Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes (no homo), they are arid.

I disagree about the glossy shine the difference is pretty dramatic and I agree his hams and glutes were insane , different back shots and still the same result

[Hulkster]

All I know, is that Dorian from the '96 German Grand Prix would make Ronnie shit himself.

no, it would make him laugh and wonder why a nationals level competitor is onstage with the pros:

 

[Hulkster]

Haha! Mcgough, I love it. No Hulkster, you don't make fucking sense. You have no one to back up your claims, nothing but 10 year old pics and vid, and now youre trying to use someone's opinion who you did nothing but talk shit about for the last 4 years. Hahahah!!!! Pathetic!
Youre the guy that trys to talk shit about Mcough all the time! You try and say hes not a valid source of information.

Well what is it Hulkster? Agree with Mcough and you pretty much admit youve been talking out of your ass about him the whole time. Go ahead, please agree with him. That will make everything you ever said about Mcough wrong.

Looks like you finally come to grips with the fact that you have NO proof.
Just admit that the only reason you think 99 is his best becuase you like his look that year. Just fucking admit it. Cause you have 0 proof to support your claim.

you completely missed the whole point of my post. re-read it. and try and use your head this time.

I am sick of explaining things to people that are not smart enough to understand it the first time around..

[NarcissisticDeity]

no, it would make him laugh and wonder why a nationals level competitor is onstage with the pros:

 

sure he would  epic backfire a 250 pound Ronnie getting pwned by Yates who is 7 lbs heavier and looks a LOT bigger , imagine Yates at 270lbs? 

[NarcissisticDeity]

you completely missed the whole point of my post. re-read it. and try and use your head this time.

I am sick of explaining things to people that are not smart enough to understand it the first time around..

Funny is that everyone is always wrong except you lol I believe they call that projection

[Hulkster]

okay, since none of you nuthuggers are intelligent enough to understand my post, I will make it simple for you and do it at a grade 3 level for you:

1. you claim that because ronnie says 98 is his best that it is automatically true.
2. Peter McGough disagrees with this.
3. You all love to quote McGough as proof
4. but you don't seem to care that he is in direct contradiction of your own claim about Ronnie 98..

 

understand now?

 

feels like I am fucking baby sitting dealing with people that are just not too bright..

[Hulkster]

Funny is that everyone is always wrong except you lol I believe they call that projection

you nuthuggers have clearly demonstrated a tendency to be stupid.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Bigger , harder , drier , better balanced and more complete