Dorian Yates - overrated!

[Shockwave]

ND, your posts are kind of ambiguous so I'm not sure I understand you. Who do you think would win between Dorian and Ronnie?

Rorian Yatesman.

[JP_RC]

he most certainly doesn't think he's better in terms of conditioning. maybe because Ronnie had bitch-tits in 98 who knows but almost anyone with any credibility says 2001 is his best

my point if proven , yours isn't

I can because McGough and Dorian himself have said so , do you have anything directly comparing the two in this area to the contrary? feel free to post it and I've always said for arguments sake that perhaps he did at his lightest. and was he larger because he carried more muscle more evenly distributed over his physique and we've seen it however have we ever seen Ronnie appear bigger than Dorian despite being lighter? NO they've competed against each other and Ronnie didn't appear bigger than Dorian and in if you're going by pics and videos DON'T they don't accurately portray reality , Dorian touches on in this article

Dorian Yates interview bodybuilding.com 2008
Everyone who sees my physique in person always comments on how much better I look in person than in pictures. That's because my physique is thick and developed from all angles. From the front, from the back, from the side, standing on my head: it doesn't matter. Everywhere is fully developed from every angle. And this might not show in one-dimensional photos. When you turn somebody to the side and they are twice as thick as everyone else, then that shows up.

Ronnie was greatly improved in terms of conditioning and in 98 he wasn't a bit bigger than 97 in fact he was lighter , albeit much harder & drier which gave the illusion of being bigger , 99 he did add a bit more size and fullness at the expense of prime conditioning though

absolutely if you're claiming they're not because of the shorter bicep you're mistaken and grasping at straws

at his best his arms were neither small of ' underdeveloped ' and what is that supposed to mean? elaborate on this one? and please type what you mean I can't go by anything other than what you type. And you don't know how Dorian's quads appear compared to Ronnie at their separate primes you're speculating and nothing more

and you don't agree with the experts that his balance & proportion were that great to begin , but it changes nothing as far as this issue is concerned I think I've showed and admitted neither are perfect but Dorian has less flaws AT HIS BEST in this department

he most certainly doesn't think he's better in terms of conditioning. maybe because Ronnie had bitch-tits in 98 who knows but almost anyone with any credibility says 2001 is his best

I agree. I'm beginning to think 98 could be Ronnie's best ever going by his conditioning, but 99 is pretty close.

my point if proven , yours isn't

How is your point proven? Beause of quotes or your own opinion?

I can because McGough and Dorian himself have said so , do you have anything directly comparing the two in this area to the contrary? feel free to post it and I've always said for arguments sake that perhaps he did at his lightest. and was he larger because he carried more muscle more evenly distributed over his physique and we've seen it however have we ever seen Ronnie appear bigger than Dorian despite being lighter? NO they've competed against each other and Ronnie didn't appear bigger than Dorian and in if you're going by pics and videos DON'T they don't accurately portray reality , Dorian touches on in this article

Ronnie didn't appear to be larger than Dorian when they competed against each other because he was not as greatly conditioned as in 98.

Ronnie was greatly improved in terms of conditioning and in 98 he wasn't a bit bigger than 97 in fact he was lighter , albeit much harder & drier which gave the illusion of being bigger , 99 he did add a bit more size and fullness at the expense of prime conditioning though

That is what I was refering to........giving the illusion of being bigger than Dorian.
Other than that, I agree with everything you posted here.

absolutely if you're claiming they're not because of the shorter bicep you're mistaken and grasping at straws

at his best his arms were neither small of ' underdeveloped ' and what is that supposed to mean? elaborate on this one? and please type what you mean I can't go by anything other than what you type. And you don't know how Dorian's quads appear compared to Ronnie at their separate primes you're speculating and nothing more

This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)

[JP_RC]

This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)

If you could find a FDB pose from this same year it shows the same thing.

[Norbert]

ND agrees that these two guys were only 3 points apart LOL

 

this is what we are dealing with lol

Again,

Flex should never have been in the top 3 for the fact that he had synthol/site injection in his delts arms and calves which were too blatant. Not to mention his conditioning was no where near his 1993 level

To be fare to flex, he did look just as good as Ronnie in the RDB, minus the lack of glute ham seperation

(No Homo)

[JP_RC]

  I don't believe I claimed you had anything against him 

I've yet to see any that say 1999 was his best , am I missing something? 

Well to be 100% honest with you seeing I never seen Dorian or Ronnie over the course of their entire careers , at their best and worse showing I couldn't in all honestly ascertain who was better conditioned than the other just based on pictures & videos because neither are as accurate as being there live & in person , so I prefer to rely on some experts who were and so far the consensus is Dorian's conditioning was better , if you can do better than that feel free

Okay we've established that you feel Ronnie meets all of the criteria you didn't even know better than Dorian , it's redundant to keep typing that because you've done a horrible job at presenting a case for your opinion

muscular bulk is NOT muscularity please learn the difference , it's amazing how you're so confident in your opinion yet it's not based on knowledge

you don't agree with a lot of established facts

wow they don't say he's a walking anatomy chart? that means what? all of those quotes establish two things , Dorian's conditioning is better than Ronnie's and the gold standard for bodybuilder that to this day they can't seem to match

we could brake it down part-by-part , does Ronnie have advantages in Dorian in separations? sure detail? sure , striations? maybe , Dorian's NO slouch like I've said before , Dorian's back is probably better in terms of separation , details and striations compared to Ronnie , he has striated triceps , glutes , traps , pecs , obliques , intercostals , delts , you're trying to argue Ronnie has more so he's better? laughable if so , Hulkster tried this and failed long ago

the old story is Ronnie does have some advantage(s) compared to Dorian , but at his best you factor in muscular bulk , density & dryness , balance & proportion , posing & presentation and completeness Dorian meets ALL of this criteria better than Ronnie at his best

I've yet to see any that say 1999 was his best , am I missing something? 

You posted that I have no one agreeing that 99 was better, meaning better than 98 I assumed. You didn't say I had no one agreeing that 99 was his best.
We already know what Mcgough feels about 99.............

muscular bulk is NOT muscularity please learn the difference , it's amazing how you're so confident in your opinion yet it's not based on knowledge

What is the difference? Is it bodyweight?
So again I ask: why would bodyweight be more important than how muscular a bodybuilder looks?
Plenty of examples of lighter guys beating heavier ones, that is why I was refering to it as muscularity or size other than "bulk".

wow they don't say he's a walking anatomy chart? that means what? all of those quotes establish two things , Dorian's conditioning is better than Ronnie's and the gold standard for bodybuilder that to this day they can't seem to match

You were arguing that Ronnie didn't have better muscle separations, detail and striations than Dorian. I said he did and used McGough's opinion of him resembling a walking anatomy chart to prove this.
You started posting quotes showing Dorian's amazing dryness and hardness that han nothing to do with the original argument on separations and details.
I was just showing another advantage Ronnie would have against Dorian.

we could brake it down part-by-part , does Ronnie have advantages in Dorian in separations? sure detail? sure , striations? maybe , Dorian's NO slouch like I've said before , Dorian's back is probably better in terms of separation , details and striations compared to Ronnie , he has striated triceps , glutes , traps , pecs , obliques , intercostals , delts , you're trying to argue Ronnie has more so he's better? laughable if so , Hulkster tried this and failed long ago

Ok, so you're agreeing Ronnie had an advantage in separations, detail and possibly striations?

the old story is Ronnie does have some advantage(s) compared to Dorian , but at his best you factor in muscular bulk , density & dryness , balance & proportion , posing & presentation and completeness Dorian meets ALL of this criteria better than Ronnie at his best

Well........we will never agree on this.

[JP_RC]

If you could find a FDB pose from this same year it shows the same thing.

Here it is:

[JP_RC]

yes Flex was VERY close to Ronnie in 98 much closer to Ronnie than he ever was to Dorian

you're claims are moving past the point of being honestly entertained when you make comments like 98 was as close as 93 , in all honesty there is you responding to such contradictory and off-the-wall remarks , this ranks up there with Hulkster's claim of Ronnie having more detailed calves than Dorian

he was noticeably behind Ronnie 98 in 99 and that wasn't close to Yates , see above your points are either blatantly contrary or you honestly believe the nonsense you're typing either way you're just reiterating the same things YOU believe and again contests aren't judge on what you believe which clearly contradicts bodybuilding history

98/99 wouldn't be a close call and even if it were the bitch-tits in 98 would swing it Dorian's way and that's entertaining it's close and the lack of conditioning in 99 would

he was noticeably behind Ronnie 98 in 99 and that wasn't close to Yates , see above your points are either blatantly contrary or you honestly believe the nonsense you're typing either way you're just reiterating the same things YOU believe and again contests aren't judge on what you believe which clearly contradicts bodybuilding history

98/99 wouldn't be a close call and even if it were the bitch-tits in 98 would swing it Dorian's way and that's entertaining it's close and the lack of conditioning in 99 would

Would Ronnie's "bitch-tits" swing it Dorian's way, but Dorian's torn bicep wouldn't? How about how his quads look?

you're claims are moving past the point of being honestly entertained when you make comments like 98 was as close as 93 , in all honesty there is you responding to such contradictory and off-the-wall remarks , this ranks up there with Hulkster's claim of Ronnie having more detailed calves than Dorian

Why is it contradictory or "off-the-wall"?
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you. Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?

yes Flex was VERY close to Ronnie in 98 much closer to Ronnie than he ever was to Dorian

Stop going by the score card so much and actually look at the pics. I don't understand how you can say 98 was close  :

[Hulkster]

Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?

this is common knowledge that Flex was the odds on favorite to win going in.

ronnie was not even called out in the first call out yet still went on to win the contest.

the last time this happened was something like 1984 when Lee Haney came out of nowhere to win his first olympia

of course, idiot ND will deny all of this and post a bunch of quotes that are disproven by all the visuals again..

[Hulkster]

My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you

welcome to the bizzaro world of ND..

he will argue to death that 98 was super close because of what the scorecard said even though Ronnie dominated flex from every angle as everyone keeps verifying by posting contest visuals..

yet

argue that the 1994 olympia was not close even though shawn owned dorian in many poses..

fucking retarded.

[JP_RC]

welcome to the bizzaro world of ND..

he will argue to death that 98 was super close because of what the scorecard said even though Ronnie dominated flex from every angle as everyone keeps verifying by posting contest visuals..

Its certainly bizarro........

I mean, its clear Ronnie dominated based off the pics and videos, but ND says he didn't because of a score card.......

I understand its his opinion and I could respect it, but he likes to "mock" things you say or whenever I say Dorian didn't dominate in 95 and then comes up with this......

[Hulkster]

the thing is, the judges realized their mistake after round one and the average score ronnie received after this was a perfect '5' in every round there after.

had the judges not made this error, ronnie would have probably been given a perfect 5 in that round as well, and the scoresheets then would have shown what the onstage contest showed:

ronnie was far far ahead. not barely scraping by.

[Hulkster]

I mean, its clear Ronnie dominated based off the pics and videos, but ND says he didn't because of a score card.......

ND says a lot of things that make no sense and are so far out of touch with reality it is scary.

look no further than his insistance that ronnie's 99 gut was the same size as his 2001 AC gut LOL

I think ND might be legally blind.

or maybe just brain dead?

[JP_RC]

the thing is, the judges realized their mistake after round one and the average score ronnie received after this was a perfect '5' in every round there after.

had the judges not made this error, ronnie would have probably been given a perfect 5 in that round as well, and the scoresheets then would have shown what the onstage contest showed:

ronnie was far far ahead. not barely scraping by.

Yes, I agree.

But ND probably thinks judges never make mistakes. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

I agree. I'm beginning to think 98 could be Ronnie's best ever going by his conditioning, but 99 is pretty close.

How is your point proven? Beause of quotes or your own opinion?

Ronnie didn't appear to be larger than Dorian when they competed against each other because he was not as greatly conditioned as in 98.

That is what I was refering to........giving the illusion of being bigger than Dorian.
Other than that, I agree with everything you posted here.

This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)

I agree. I'm beginning to think 98 could be Ronnie's best ever going by his conditioning, but 99 is pretty close.

01 was his best ever because he had equal or better conditioning with no bitch tits , 99 isn't close because of that fact

How is your point proven? Beause of quotes or your own opinion?

both

Ronnie didn't appear to be larger than Dorian when they competed against each other because he was not as greatly conditioned as in 98.

or as big

That is what I was refering to........giving the illusion of being bigger than Dorian.
Other than that, I agree with everything you posted here.

you're speculating he would , if you're only basing this assumption on the fact he wasn't as conditioned then it's so no advantage because Dorian is ( being kind ) equally conditioned and still carrying more muscular bulk

This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)

You're basing this off of one pose? how about others? Dorian's arms don't look big when viewed directly dead on , from the side you can get a glimpse of how big they are ( see pics ) needless to say I disagree

all of these pics are from 1995 Olympia

[NarcissisticDeity]

You posted that I have no one agreeing that 99 was better, meaning better than 98 I assumed. You didn't say I had no one agreeing that 99 was his best.
We already know what Mcgough feels about 99.............

What is the difference? Is it bodyweight?
So again I ask: why would bodyweight be more important than how muscular a bodybuilder looks?
Plenty of examples of lighter guys beating heavier ones, that is why I was refering to it as muscularity or size other than "bulk".

You were arguing that Ronnie didn't have better muscle separations, detail and striations than Dorian. I said he did and used McGough's opinion of him resembling a walking anatomy chart to prove this.
You started posting quotes showing Dorian's amazing dryness and hardness that han nothing to do with the original argument on separations and details.
I was just showing another advantage Ronnie would have against Dorian.

Ok, so you're agreeing Ronnie had an advantage in separations, detail and possibly striations?

Well........we will never agree on this.

You posted that I have no one agreeing that 99 was better, meaning better than 98 I assumed. You didn't say I had no one agreeing that 99 was his best.
We already know what Mcgough feels about 99.............

better than 98 or better than 01 of his best in general. McGough never said he was better in fact than 98 in fact he said his conditioning was not on par with 98 and in fact he said his best is 2001

my point still stands a LOT of people have opinions on Ronnie's best and no one who has any credibility says 1999 , 98/01 even 03 but no 1999 sorry I know it doesn't coincide with what you feel but it doesn't change this fact

What is the difference? Is it bodyweight?
So again I ask: why would bodyweight be more important than how muscular a bodybuilder looks?
Plenty of examples of lighter guys beating heavier ones, that is why I was refering to it as muscularity or size other than "bulk".

muscular bodyweight is not muscularity , a guy can have outstanding muscularity and not carry much muscle see    Hamdullah Aykutlu , Dorian has outstanding muscularity and muscular bulk

yes plenty of lighter guys beating heavier ones whose muscularity sucked in comparison , Dorian doesn't have this problem , he has outstanding muscularity , muscular bulk and balance & proportion

muscularity by it's self doesn't get you no where , muscular bulk by itself gets you no where , great balance & proportion by it's self gets you no where , great posing by it's self gets you no where , it's the combo of ALL of this that does

You were arguing that Ronnie didn't have better muscle separations, detail and striations than Dorian. I said he did and used McGough's opinion of him resembling a walking anatomy chart to prove this.
You started posting quotes showing Dorian's amazing dryness and hardness that han nothing to do with the original argument on separations and details.
I was just showing another advantage Ronnie would have against Dorian.

Ronnie doesn't in certain PARTS in certain ones he does , does Ronnie have better muscle separations in his calves compared to Dorian? NO how about his abdominals? NO how about his back? NO how about his intercostals? NO how about his obliques? NO does Ronnie have an advantage in other places? YES stop making gross overstatements and claiming a hallow victory

Ok, so you're agreeing Ronnie had an advantage in separations, detail and possibly striations?

see above in certain parts sure overall? NO

Well........we will never agree on this.

obviously

[Hulkster]

McGough never said he was better in fact than 98 in fact he said his conditioning was not on par with 98

yes, Mcgough DID say he felt 99 was better than 98.

thats why he included 99 on his list of best Mr. O physiques and left off 98 for good reason.

do you not understand this?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Would Ronnie's "bitch-tits" swing it Dorian's way, but Dorian's torn bicep wouldn't? How about how his quads look?

Why is it contradictory or "off-the-wall"?
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you. Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?

Stop going by the score card so much and actually look at the pics. I don't understand how you can say 98 was close  :

Would Ronnie's "bitch-tits" swing it Dorian's way, but Dorian's torn bicep wouldn't? How about how his quads look?

Was his bicep torn in 1993? his quads are fine only ignorant people think otherwise

Why is it contradictory or "off-the-wall"?
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you. Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?

It's contradictory because it's the opposite of reality and it's off-the-wall because it's way out there , he wasn't overlooked he won , and FYI Nasser was the favorite because he was the runner-up in 1997 Flex was the heir apparent as well

Stop going by the score card so much and actually look at the pics. I don't understand how you can say 98 was close  :

Did you miss the part where I posted on numerous occasions I have 1998/1999 Olympia on video? and stop assuming I'm only going based on the scorecard , I've watched both videos numerous times and that's how I came to my conclusions which happen to coincide with history and the facts .

I see 1998 as a very close contest Flex lost fair & square and Ronnie was a deserving winner , Ronnie was dead-on and Flex was off but it was dead close you can deny it all you'd like it doesn't change the facts

[StuartR]

his lats are just comparatively way too big, they look ridiculous

[Hulkster]

his lats are just comparatively way too big, they look ridiculous

thats because his arms were WAY too small.

he would have needed arms as big as ronnie's to balance out his huge torso.

ronnie, on the other hand, has great proportions.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes, Mcgough DID say he felt 99 was better than 98.

thats why he included 99 on his list of best Mr. O physiques and left off 98 for good reason.

do you not understand this?

No in fact as far as conditioning is concerned he said outright on many occasions it wasn't

and you're comprehension problems are still apparent , here's why he picked 1999

Instead of choosing a best-ever Mr. Olympia, maybe all one can do is reflect on 40 years of Olympia history and highlight those instances where the winner advanced the sport on that particular day. With that in mind, I would nominate the following.

NO WHERE does it say 99 was better than 1998 , you being the complete moron you are mistakenly claimed Ronnie was the best because he was listed in chronological order  you know nothing

Ronnie may have advanced the sport on that day but it doesn't mean he was better than 1998 and in fact says 2001 is better so you lose

[NarcissisticDeity]

welcome to the bizzaro world of ND..

he will argue to death that 98 was super close because of what the scorecard said even though Ronnie dominated flex from every angle as everyone keeps verifying by posting contest visuals..

yet

argue that the 1994 olympia was not close even though shawn owned dorian in many poses..

fucking retarded.

This shows exactly how fucking retarded you are and how far off the beaten path your ' opinions ' are , you just posted a picture of Shawn in a front latspread and claiming Shawn is owning Dorian LMMFAO another fantastic Hulksterism to add to my list

as usual your claims ALL contradict reality & facts , 1994 was close and 1998 wasn't BWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA

" Hulkster claims Shawn Ray owns Dorian in a front latspread "

saved for future reference LMFAO

[NarcissisticDeity]

Its certainly bizarro........

I mean, its clear Ronnie dominated based off the pics and videos, but ND says he didn't because of a score card.......

I understand its his opinion and I could respect it, but he likes to "mock" things you say or whenever I say Dorian didn't dominate in 95 and then comes up with this......

Now you're reduced to lying , I never just based my opinion off of the scorecard , if you're going to claim something make sure it's accurate. I have the 1993/1995/1998/1999/2003 Olympias ALL on video and have watched them ALL numerous times.

My opinion coincides with the experts , as usual yours does NOT and you're claiming I'm bizzaro?  1998 wasn't close and Yates didn't dominate in 1995 Gotcha 


you're in good company with Hulkster he likes to think the opposite of reality & facts almost ALL the time .

[NarcissisticDeity]

thats because his arms were WAY too small.

he would have needed arms as big as ronnie's to balance out his huge torso.

ronnie, on the other hand, has great proportions.

yeah real great LMFAO you can see his ass from the front real Steve Reeves like proportions there

[NarcissisticDeity]

thats because his arms were WAY too small.

he would have needed arms as big as ronnie's to balance out his huge torso.

ronnie, on the other hand, has great proportions.

Small arms huh? yeah thanks for playing because you're a winner on " I'm a fucking moron "

[NarcissisticDeity]

Reminds me of a Young Bob Paris LMFAO