Dorian Yates - overrated!

[Shockwave]

OMG ND what is this? If Ronnie's superior quads and LATS-TO-WAIST ratio aren't enough in this sillhouette even at this warped scaling you still have to rely on no-one pointing out in real life Ronnie is about 1 - 1.5 inches TALLER than Yates, yet here he appears about the same margin SHORTER. What on earth did you think you were doing posting this? Interesting to note that the small-headed shrunken Ronnie silhouette still matches Dorian for arm measurements.

Good joke.

immortal I usuay don't defend someone else... But his point I'm pretty sure was so you simply look at their proportions, their flow as a whole . Something Dorian dominates ronnie on. I don't think nd even made that.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I'm assuming it based on all the visual proof I see.
Of course all of this "debating" is not 100% accurate since they were never on stage at thier personal bests, but that is why pics and videos give a good idea of how it could be.

If you haven't seen them on stage competing against each other at their respective best ever, how can you be so sure Dorian would win or meet the criteria better? You're going by pics and videos just as I am or Hulkster is.

Good quote that actually shows how Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.

See post above.

Ok, but comparing Ronnie vs Dorian: who had the advantage on overall muscle separations, detail, striations and tie-ins? Ronnie

Ronnie was also dry & hard in both 98-99, but drier in 98 obviously.  And he was also balanced and complete.

The scale doesn't tilt to Dorian's side as much as you portray it.

I'm assuming it based on all the visual proof I see.
Of course all of this "debating" is not 100% accurate since they were never on stage at thier personal bests, but that is why pics and videos give a good idea of how it could be.

hahahahaha you sound like Hulkster ' visual proof ' my ass , you looked at the visual proof and came to the conclusion Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 you see what you want. You're assuming many things based on nothing but bias

If you haven't seen them on stage competing against each other at their respective best ever, how can you be so sure Dorian would win or meet the criteria better? You're going by pics and videos just as I am or Hulkster is.

I'm going by first hand eye witness accounts that supplement what I say , you guys claim 99 was his best yet NO ONE with any credibility agrees , I posted quotes specific to the debate that Dorian has better conditioning than Ronnie and better balance , and my conclusions based on the pics and videos are NOT contradicting the experts who were there live and in person , you are Hulkster's are so which one of us is right?

Good quote that actually shows how Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.

sure it does   it shows NO ONE made Yates look small including men much heavier and taller than Yates

See post above.

heed your own advice


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. As well, Markus Ruhl stood toe to toe with the champ on the Front Lat Spread pose! From where I sat, in certain poses you would never know Dexter was giving up 70lbs to Ronnie

a 296lb Ronnie wasn't dwarfing a 225lb Dexter Jackson , yet a much lighter Ronnie is going to make Dorian look small? sure ya right

Ok, but comparing Ronnie vs Dorian: who had the advantage on overall muscle separations, detail, striations and tie-ins? Ronnie

Ronnie has an advantage in tie-ins , again I don't see Ronnie having an advantage in striations and separations? where is Ronnie better? you just type these blanket statements without elaborating on any points what so ever , are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Ronnie was also dry & hard in both 98-99, but drier in 98 obviously.  And he was also balanced and complete.

NOT compared to Dorian he wasn't and he wasn't as balanced and complete? he has NO fucking calves how is that complete?   his abdominals suck , his forearms aren't in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps

The scale doesn't tilt to Dorian's side as much as you portray it.

two areas Dorian has a clear advantage is conditioning & balance & proportion it's not close , it's not open for discussion , Ronnie depending on the year carries more muscular bulk but at the expense of outstanding conditioning , the heavier he became the worse his balance got , posing is another area where Dorian distances himself from Ronnie another clear advantage for Yates which really isn't open for discussion

Ronnie 1998/1999 would be very hard pressed to beat Dorian 1993/1995 , the only real challenge would be 2001 ASC and even then Dorian just has to many advantages

[Hulkster]

that sillhouette is several years old

ND only breaks it out when he is being owned really badly and he is getting desperate.

thus, why he dusted it off for this thread.

it is done using a 2003 preconest ronnie, when his proportions were actually shitty compared to his 98/99 and 2001 AC forms..and done with dorian's 93 precontest pics, the best pics of him in existance..and dorian STILL LOSES

lol

his proportions were even freakier in 99 before his obliques were bulging, like in this gym shot:

[NarcissisticDeity]

OMG ND what is this? If Ronnie's superior quads and LATS-TO-WAIST ratio aren't enough in this sillhouette even at this warped scaling you still have to rely on no-one pointing out in real life Ronnie is about 1 - 1.5 inches TALLER than Yates, yet here he appears about the same margin SHORTER. What on earth did you think you were doing posting this? Interesting to note that the small-headed shrunken Ronnie silhouette still matches Dorian for arm measurements.

Good joke.

the height scale doesn't change the proportions , it doesn't effect them one bit. and Dorian is 5'10" 1/2 and Ronnie is 5'11" and Dorian has hair and Ronnie is bald , points to ponder

it clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians

[NarcissisticDeity]

that sillhouette is several years old

ND only breaks it out when he is being owned really badly and he is getting desperate.

thus, why he dusted it off for this thread.

it is done using a 2003 preconest ronnie, when his proportions were actually shitty compared to his 98/99 and 2001 AC forms..and done with dorian's 93 precontest pics, the best pics of him in existance..and dorian STILL LOSES

lol

his proportions were even freakier in 99, like in this gym shot:

You always hated that comparison because it showed in two seconds how Ronnie looks like a bunch of parts just tossed together compared to Dorian , I recall you guys crying when it was first posted and still are   

99% of Ronnie pics are from the knees up why is that" LMFAO

[Immortal_Technique]

immortal I usuay don't defend someone else... But his point I'm pretty sure was so you simply look at their proportions, their flow as a whole . Something Dorian dominates ronnie on. I don't think nd even made that.

Hmm, well in that case once you've stripped Ronnie of his completely dominating size and detail an argument can be made for Dorian's tighter midsection, but only when Ronnie was bigger like 2003, at which point without the size it's a completely biased comparison, otherwise why did the person make it?

Similarly you could blow up Shawn Ray until he's 1 inch taller than Yates and watch his size and proportions blow him away, proving...absolutely nothing.

[Hulkster]

no, ronnie back then had amazing proprotions:

much better than Mr. twigs on a barrell.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Seriously ND, are you saying Ronnie's gut in 99 was equally distended as in 2001?

Just watch the videos (whether the photoshoot or contest) of each year and you will see his gut was not even close as distended in 99 as in 2001.

BULLSHIT all 99 his gut is as big as 01 if NOT bigger

these are ALL from 1999 thanks for playing

[Hulkster]

see what ND is doing here?

he is posting gut pics of 99 without comparing them to 2001 AC

 

if he did as I have been showing, he would realize that as we have been showing, his gut was much smaller in 99...

watch the videos too. its fucking obvious..

but ND HAS to say that the 99 gut was the same, otherwise he has no argument that 2001 was better physically. after all, if he admits the 99 gut was smaller, that he was bigger and we can all see he was just as ripped, well, then he has nothing to go on to argue that 2001 was better..

he knows it was smaller as everyone on the planet does.

but he can't state this otherwise he shoots himself in the foot.

its all an act.

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Even fully flexed Ronnie's gut sticks out in 1999 

the difference in midsections is staggering , Ronnie on paper should win this pose , narrower waist , smaller hips , his distension , pathetic abdominals and lack of Yatesesque conditioning doesn't compare , and his advantage in quads becomes moot withe they're sitting ontop of twig calves

[JP_RC]

Even fully flexed Ronnie's gut sticks out in 1999 

the difference in midsections is staggering , Ronnie on paper should win this pose , narrower waist , smaller hips , his distension , pathetic abdominals and lack of Yatesesque conditioning doesn't compare , and his advantage in quads becomes moot withe they're sitting ontop of twig calves

Ronnie COULD be just as hard and greatly conditioned as Dorian in this comparison, look at the side detail & striations.........don't forget Dorian's pic is black & white which enhances the grainy & dry look.

[NarcissisticDeity]

see what ND is doing here?

he is posting gut pics of 99 without comparing them to 2001 AC

 

if he did as I have been showing, he would realize that as we have been showing, his gut was much smaller in 99...

watch the videos too. its fucking obvious..

but ND HAS to say that the 99 gut was the same, otherwise he has no argument that 2001 was better physically. after all, if he admits the 99 gut was smaller, that he was bigger and we can all see he was just as ripped, well, then he has nothing to go on to argue that 2001 was better..

he knows it was smaller as everyone on the planet does.

but he can't state this otherwise he shoots himself in the foot.

its all an act.

 

See what Hulkster is doing here? DENYING , denying , denying old news , when proven flat-out wrong just deny

the whole gut issue is a diversionary tactic and that failed too , somehow Ronnie's not as good if his gut is sticking out more in 2001? even entertaining it's true NO ONE says 1999 is better than 2001 NO ONE

you have NOTHING

http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson

Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998


where is 1999?

Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder

"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."

where is 1999?

Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer

"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"

where is 1999?


Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49

"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."

where is 1999?

Tales from Columbus

2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.


where is 1999?

Flex Magazine March 2008

2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.


where is 1999?

Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot

  Ronnie Coleman :    Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.

      I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.


where is 1999?

Flex Magazine August 2003


Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row

if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.



where is 1999?


Shawn Perine Ironage Dec 11, 2004

As much as I love Haney and my IA champs, I think Ronnie circa '98 or at the 2001 Arnold is pretty much untouchable. Except by Dorian Yates 6 weeks out from the '93 O as photographed by our own KMH. Both men, on those specific occasions carried so much dry muscle mass in good proportion and with good lines that it's almost unfair to compare them to others.

where is 1999?

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.

where is 1999?


review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page  90:

257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.


where is 1999?

Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001

RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .


where is 1999?

Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005

Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.

where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right.  Grin


you have NOTHING let's say his gut was bigger in 01 it's still his best fucking showing of all time and NO is claiming 1999 is , you're fucked as usual 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ronnie COULD be just as hard and greatly conditioned as Dorian in this comparison, look at the side detail & striations.........don't forget Dorian's pic is black & white which enhances the grainy & dry look.

I could remove the color from that Ronnie pic and it ain't coming close , and Ronnie is NOT as hard and greatly conditioning as Dorian especially not in 1999

[JP_RC]

BULLSHIT all 99 his gut is as big as 01 if NOT bigger

these are ALL from 1999 thanks for playing

Seriously, just take a good and honest look at the videos available of both years and you'll see the difference.

By the way, you're are not comparing these pics with a 2001 version.

Are you just joking around and trying to mess with Hulkster? Its the only explanation I can come up with for your idea that Ronnie's gut was bigger in 99 than 2001.

[NarcissisticDeity]

no, ronnie back then had amazing proprotions:

much better than Mr. twigs on a barrell.

twigs? you say? this is 1999 dumbass   

Vickie Gates had bigger and better calves 

[Immortal_Technique]

the height scale doesn't change the proportions , it doesn't effect them one bit. and Dorian is 5'10" 1/2 and Ronnie is 5'11" and Dorian has hair and Ronnie is bald , points to ponder

it clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians

If you take 2003 Ronnie I agree. But if it's awesome lines you want why take that year? If it's unparalleled size in every bodypart then 2003 is your year, but then he's been shrunk down so it becomes pointless. Otherwise take 1998 or 99 otherwise there's no point. I know you may not have created the image yourself but I'm just pointing out that like much of your evidence it is inadmissable, and as an intelligent man I'd expect you to realise this.

It's like comparing Arnie to Franco after Arnie's been made to look 5'6, he will look stringier with worse lines than Franco side by side in a couple of poses, despite clearly being superior in reality. Height is an aesthetic advantage as well. Ronnie also visibly still has the more impressive lat-waist ratio even when manipulated.

Also to say that one pose "clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians" is to expose your incomplete comprehension of how it all works.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Seriously, just take a good and honest look at the videos available of both years and you'll see the difference.

By the way, you're are not comparing these pics with a 2001 version.

Are you just joking around and trying to mess with Hulkster? Its the only explanation I can come up with for your idea that Ronnie's gut was bigger in 99 than 2001.

I never said it was bigger , just as big? sure maybe a tad smaller in 99 maybe he was just letting it out more in 01

it's a NON-ISSUE it's a diversionary tactic to get away from the point that 01 kicks 99 ass , Hulkster thinks by claiming his gut is bigger this somehow means he's not as good LMFAO it's contradictory to the general consensus Hulkster knows this

ALL 1999 and his gut appears just as big in 01 if not bigger

[Immortal_Technique]

Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right?

[NarcissisticDeity]

If you take 2003 Ronnie I agree. But if it's awesome lines you want why take that year? If it's unparalleled size in every bodypart then 2003 is your year, but then he's been shrunk down so it becomes pointless. Otherwise take 1998 or 99 otherwise there's no point. I know you may not have created the image yourself but I'm just pointing out that like much of your evidence it is inadmissable, and as an intelligent man I'd expect you to realise this.

It's like comparing Arnie to Franco after Arnie's been made to look 5'6, he will look stringier with worse lines than Franco side by side in a couple of poses, despite clearly being superior in reality. Height is an aesthetic advantage as well. Ronnie also visibly still has the more impressive lat-waist ratio even when manipulated.

Also to say that one pose "clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians" is to expose your incomplete comprehension of how it all works.

If you take 2003 Ronnie I agree. But if it's awesome lines you want why take that year? If it's unparalleled size in every bodypart then 2003 is your year, but then he's been shrunk down so it becomes pointless. Otherwise take 1998 or 99 otherwise there's no point. I know you may not have created the image yourself but I'm just pointing out that like much of your evidence it is inadmissable, and as an intelligent man I'd expect you to realise this.

I didn't create it someone else did the point still stands overall you can see the discrepancy in balance & proportion , the heavier Ronnie became the worse it got

It's like comparing Arnie to Franco after Arnie's been made to look 5'6, he will look stringier with worse lines than Franco side by side in a couple of poses, despite clearly being superior in reality. Height is an aesthetic advantage as well. Ronnie also visibly still has the more impressive lat-waist ratio even when manipulated.

Ronnie is ONE half inch taller than Dorian it's nothing like it and Ronnie is bald and Dorian has hair and it does show Dorian's calves mate-up better with his quads as does his forearms and biceps-triceps and leg length and torso length etc

[NarcissisticDeity]

Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right?

That Silhouette is an exaggeration , this is an actual picture and it's clear who has the better balance & proportion 

[Hulkster]

Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right?

that vid blow away anything dorian ever presented by a good margin.

and yes, that front double bi shot has already been pointed out to ND as being 1000x better than his hero could ever do.

[Hulkster]

ND, keep telling yourself that ronnie's 99 gut was even close to the 2001 AC.

its amusing to see someone so stupid and delusional at the same time..

[NeoSeminole]

I never ignore subjective quotes , I take them for what they're worth. there is a very good reason why many feel 2001 is his best and it's based on something that's not subjective , his conditioning.... in 2001 is probably the best it ever was sans 1998

there's more to the judging criteria than just conditioning. The subjective opinion comes in when someone says "so and so looks better at a lighter weight" or "his mass blew away all the other competitors." What Ronnie gives up in conditioning at a heavier weight, he makes up for in size. There is no objective criteria that says "for every 1% body fat over the limit, add 1 pt to their total score"

[NeoSeminole]

Similarly you could blow up Shawn Ray until he's 1 inch taller than Yates and watch his size and proportions blow him away, proving...absolutely nothing.

^^^ this. Stripping a bodybuilder of his advantages and then adding strengths that don't even exist to the other guy proves nothing

[NarcissisticDeity]

there's more to the judging criteria than just conditioning. The subjective opinion comes in when someone says "so and so looks better at a lighter weight" or "his mass blew away all the competitors." What Ronnie gives up in conditioning at a lighter weight, he makes up for in size. There is no objective criteria that says "for every 1% body fat over the limit, add 1 pt to their total score"

I agree there is more to judging than conditioning , however with all things be equal it's what separates a winner from a loser

Dorian has an edge in balance & proportion , density & dryness and depending on the year bulk now add in better posing and Dorian would win