Dorian said "Ronnie would probably win, I don't know"

[Nirvana]

saying ronnie doesn't have back thickness, it's their only argument, and frankly it's false, all they can show is that picture,

funny enough there is no picture of dorian hitting that pose, even so he wouldn't look thicker anyway

[NeoSeminole]

why are you guys wasting time arguing over back thickness? Ronnie wins easily

Jim Schmaltz – Flex, April 2002

“The 37-year-old Coleman has what many of the sport's analysts feel is the best back ever.”

Peter McGough - Flex, December 2006

"The best back ever lacked its eye-popping detail and fullness." (in reference to Ronnie at the 06 Mr. Olympia)

1998 Mr. Olympia Contest Review by Max Muscle Sports and Fitness

Only Milos Sarcev, in his evaluation of Mr. Olympia contenders in the last issue of Max Muscle, saw Coleman as having a good chance: "At this time, Ron has the best back in the history of the sport," said Mishko, "even better than Bannout and Haney, or Dorian. Ron's thicker, wider, more pleasing.”

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=22&subcat=body_building

The 20 Best Backs of All Time - Flex, March 2008

4. Lee Haney
3. Joel Stubbs
2. Dorian Yates
1. Ronnie Coleman

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_1_26/ai_n24356572/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

“For much of the '90s, there was little dispute that Yates had the best back ever, and there are many who contend so today. Now, there is a debate, for during the first years of his Olympia reign, Coleman also displayed low-lying, ultrawide lats, but whereas Yates had more grainy ruggedness, Coleman had more feathered refinements. The moments just before he hit his rear lat spread and rear double biceps were contest highlights, as ridges and knots roamed and stripes and crevices emerged, morphing his back into a new and spectacular landscape each time he moved his arms. At his best, his back was like a great symphony orchestra, big and booming, sometimes overwhelming, and yet each finely tuned part played its role precisely.”

[StuartR]

why are you guys wasting time arguing over back thickness? Ronnie wins easily

Jim Schmaltz – Flex, April 2002

“The 37-year-old Coleman has what many of the sport's analysts feel is the best back ever.”

Peter McGough - Flex, December 2006

"The best back ever lacked its eye-popping detail and fullness." (in reference to Ronnie at the 06 Mr. Olympia)

1998 Mr. Olympia Contest Review by Max Muscle Sports and Fitness

Only Milos Sarcev, in his evaluation of Mr. Olympia contenders in the last issue of Max Muscle, saw Coleman as having a good chance: "At this time, Ron has the best back in the history of the sport," said Mishko, "even better than Bannout and Haney, or Dorian. Ron's thicker, wider, more pleasing.”

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=22&subcat=body_building

The 20 Best Backs of All Time - Flex, March 2008

4. Lee Haney
3. Joel Stubbs
2. Dorian Yates
1. Ronnie Coleman

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_1_26/ai_n24356572/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

“For much of the '90s, there was little dispute that Yates had the best back ever, and there are many who contend so today. Now, there is a debate, for during the first years of his Olympia reign, Coleman also displayed low-lying, ultrawide lats, but whereas Yates had more grainy ruggedness, Coleman had more feathered refinements. The moments just before he hit his rear lat spread and rear double biceps were contest highlights, as ridges and knots roamed and stripes and crevices emerged, morphing his back into a new and spectacular landscape each time he moved his arms. At his best, his back was like a great symphony orchestra, big and booming, sometimes overwhelming, and yet each finely tuned part played its role precisely.”

from an argumentation standpoint this is a pretty good post; it even includes a contrarian statement from the oft-quoted McGough
but seriously, how do you guys do this? the only regular poster in this thread that i understand is groink, who seems to be having fun taunting the ND guy
how can you guys take people who actually think yates had a more impressive physique than coleman so seriously? its mind blowing

[delta9mda]

yates was better, hope this helps.

[NarcissisticDeity]

why are you guys wasting time arguing over back thickness? Ronnie wins easily

Jim Schmaltz – Flex, April 2002

“The 37-year-old Coleman has what many of the sport's analysts feel is the best back ever.”

Peter McGough - Flex, December 2006

"The best back ever lacked its eye-popping detail and fullness." (in reference to Ronnie at the 06 Mr. Olympia)

1998 Mr. Olympia Contest Review by Max Muscle Sports and Fitness

Only Milos Sarcev, in his evaluation of Mr. Olympia contenders in the last issue of Max Muscle, saw Coleman as having a good chance: "At this time, Ron has the best back in the history of the sport," said Mishko, "even better than Bannout and Haney, or Dorian. Ron's thicker, wider, more pleasing.”

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=22&subcat=body_building

The 20 Best Backs of All Time - Flex, March 2008

4. Lee Haney
3. Joel Stubbs
2. Dorian Yates
1. Ronnie Coleman

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_1_26/ai_n24356572/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

“For much of the '90s, there was little dispute that Yates had the best back ever, and there are many who contend so today. Now, there is a debate, for during the first years of his Olympia reign, Coleman also displayed low-lying, ultrawide lats, but whereas Yates had more grainy ruggedness, Coleman had more feathered refinements. The moments just before he hit his rear lat spread and rear double biceps were contest highlights, as ridges and knots roamed and stripes and crevices emerged, morphing his back into a new and spectacular landscape each time he moved his arms. At his best, his back was like a great symphony orchestra, big and booming, sometimes overwhelming, and yet each finely tuned part played its role precisely.”

None of those are ' fit to judge contests ' 

[NarcissisticDeity]

And subjective quotes work both ways.

Flexonline September 15, 2009

REAR VIEW:
As great as Cutler is from behind, Yates at his best was untouchable from the rear because he had not just the thickest and widest lats but also details like a lumbar Christmas tree. Maybe only two men in history could beat Cutler at his best in both a rear lat spread and a rear double bi, but Yates was one of the two (Coleman being the other).




Ronnie Coleman : DESCRIBE DORIAN YATES: A close friend. Dorian is very intelligent, a great Mr. Olympia. He had the best side-chest pose and the thickest freakiest back I have ever seen.

Samir Bannout who had one of the best backs mind you on Cutler 2001

Jay Cutler blows the other bodybuilders away with the crisp detail of his muscularity from top to bottom. He has superior calves, hamstrings and glutes. His back is detailed and big, but it does not match up well against Ronnie, who has the second-best back in the history of bodybuilding behind the great Dorian Yates

Ronnie has the second best back behind the great Dorian Yates


Ellington Darden, Ph.D. " best back - Dorian Yates " http://www.baye.com/interviews/ellington_darden_interview1.html


FROM MARKUS RUHL

October 2000, FLEX page 166   (notice how it is post 1999)


"DORIAN YATES HAD THE BEST BACK IN THE HISTORY OF BODYBUILDING.  HIS LAT SPREAD WAS UNBELIEVABLE.  HIS SIZE, MASS, AND CONDITIONING WERE PERFECT,"

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/pro-bodybuilders-pictures/best-back-all-time-you-decide-39990-9.html

Guess who wins?  

“For much of the '90s, there was little dispute that Yates had the best back ever, and there are many who contend so today.

all of these quotes are AFTER Ronnie started winning BTW and to claim Ronnie at 247lbs has a thicker back than Dorian at 270lbs is laughable , Ronnie MAYBE at his heaviest had a thicker back than Dorian albeit not as hard or as dry and I'm not convinced of that either especially if you want to compare Dorian preconest 1995 at a similar weight to Ronnie ( 283lbs ) then I really doubt he had a wider , thicker or harder better detailed back

[theonlyone]

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

from an argumentation standpoint this is a pretty good post; it even includes a contrarian statement from the oft-quoted McGough
but seriously, how do you guys do this? the only regular poster in this thread that i understand is groink, who seems to be having fun taunting the ND guy
how can you guys take people who actually think yates had a more impressive physique than coleman so seriously? its mind blowing

It's not a matter of Yates had a more ' impressive physique ' than Ronnie that's a matter of preference , it's a matter of would Dorian beat Ronnie according to the IFBB judging criteria and I think it's pretty clear

but you bring up a good point , if what I'm saying is so absurd and so out of the realm of possibility , these guys would chalk me up as looney and the subject wouldn't even be open for debate , but as I said these guys follow me around and hang on my every word so in the end who is taunting whom? 

[MORTALCOIL]

Well ,beyond the fact that none of you will change their minds no matter which pic or quote is posted here, the thing is that Dorian changed the name of the game, set new standards. Ronnie IMHO for most parts improved on them but he didn't have the same impact that Dorian did nor did he face the same competition. People should just remember that a guy like Dillett never placed higher than 4th in the 'O, Vince Taylor comes in 5th in '95 (may be the most competitive field ever) etc...Does anyone believe that a guy like Muntzer wouldn't place higher than 9th at the 'O today or during Ronnie's best years (he never fared better)? Labrada, Nasser, Priest, Michael Francois, Clairmonte, Baker, Fux, Matarazzo,...Flex '98 was a shitty oil bag already (he was better at the AC that year) and was nothing compared to his '93 showing for which is lost without the smallest doubt to Dorian. And Levrone: finished second twice against Ronnie just on the basis of his upper body (guy could have shown up in a wheelchair that it wouldn't have made a difference) and twice against Dorian (but in his two best showings ever). Seriously, Ronnie's competition has been guys like Badell, DJ, Orvlle Burke, Titus, Gunter...Not exactly the same.

[Hulkster]

how can you guys take people who actually think yates had a more impressive physique than coleman so seriously? its mind blowing

because its fun pointing out how clueless some people are.

especially about bodybuilding

[Hulkster]

None of those are ' fit to judge contests ' 

"those pics don't count"
" I don't care about 97"
"you had to see dorian in person"
"those people are not fit to judge contests"

...

 

your list of excuses keeps growing. how pathetic.

[johnny1]

Dorian 270lbs 1997 v Ronnie 284-287Lbs 2003...........Ronnie more Size, Dorian better Condition.

[MORTALCOIL]

Dorian 270lbs 1997 v Ronnie 284-287Lbs 2003...........Ronnie more Size, Dorian better Condition.

Good thing for Dorian he still had his back and conditioning that year. Bis really are lacking. I never liked the 2003 Ronnie. He's soft but considering his weight I don't see how could have done better but the proportions are really weird. Hamstrings/ Quads totally unbalanced, bis and tris ratio started to be disconnected also.

[delta9mda]

because its fun pointing out how clueless some people are.

especially about bodybuilding

like you know? you still have not been to a pro show and seen them "battle" onstage. shut up already. we get it you love ronnie.

[Nirvana]

ND actually thinks the judges are some well educated group of experts.

he doesn't realize that they are "crooked as a politician"

[NarcissisticDeity]

"those pics don't count"
" I don't care about 97"
"you had to see dorian in person"
"those people are not fit to judge contests"

...

 

your list of excuses keeps growing. how pathetic.

Oh boy   stupid I was using his LOGIC against him dumbass

this is exactly what makes you a complete idiot ,did you see that was in quotations? retard? Neo claimed that , yet another example of your long history of comprehension problems 

Hulkster owned again

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND actually thinks the judges are some well educated group of experts.

he doesn't realize that they are "crooked as a politician"

yeah I realized they were ' crooked as a politician ' in 2000/2001/2002 Mr Olympias

continue the mantra contests are only fixed when Dorian wins

[Grape Ape]

ND actually thinks the judges are some well educated group of experts.

he doesn't realize that they are "crooked as a politician"

What do they have to gain by Dorian Yates winning?

[JP_RC]

Meltdown of biblical proportions.


weight, smeight....it's all about what they look like. Ronnie looks like he's from another planet because of the way he is put together, far superior to the keg.

And also a pro BBers weight claim is utter bullshit 99.9999999% of the time.....but you keep pulling your facts and quotes from your favorite BBing comicbooks mags....we'll keep laughing at you 

I agree with this, that is why many times before a lighter guys has beaten a heavier one because he had better muscularity, symmetry, conditioning, etc.

[JP_RC]

Who said conditioning was more important? I've been stressing the point that NONE of the criteria alone trumps any other part , it's the whole package that determines the winner. however with all things being ' equal ' the determining factor is who is the better conditioned athlete

Gaspari had the conditioning he didn't have the structure of size to compete with Haney , Dorian had all that and beat Haney in the muscularity round in his third pro show ever and his first Olympia despite being 10lbs lighter

fast forward to Ronnie and Dorian , Dorian has the size , structure and conditioning in his favor as well as balance and posing

1998 wouldn't be nearly enough to topple Yates it really wouldn't especially not with bitch-tits

Who said conditioning was more important? I've been stressing the point that NONE of the criteria alone trumps any other part , it's the whole package that determines the winner. however with all things being ' equal ' the determining factor is who is the better conditioned athlete

True, but Ronnie and Dorian wouldn't be equal. Ronnie in 2003 would have more size, Ronnie in 1999 would have better muscularity and possibly symmetry, so they wouldn't be equal as for Dorian's dryness to be the determining factor.

Gaspari had the conditioning he didn't have the structure of size to compete with Haney , Dorian had all that and beat Haney in the muscularity round in his third pro show ever and his first Olympia despite being 10lbs lighter

I can see that, Gaspari's biggest flaw was his structure. Dorian had a good structure.

fast forward to Ronnie and Dorian , Dorian has the size , structure and conditioning in his favor as well as balance and posing

1998 wouldn't be nearly enough to topple Yates it really wouldn't especially not with bitch-tits

Well, we can agree to disagree in the outcome of a 1998 Ronnie vs a 93-95 Dorian. I think we went on this subject in a past thread, so let's just leave it at that.

[Palpatine Q]

yeah I realized they were ' crooked as a politician ' in 2000/2001/2002 Mr Olympias

continue the mantra contests are only fixed when Dorian wins

The only person saying that is you...

The rest of us are saying that there have been political decisions involving many, many BBers..not just Yates...which is universally acknowledged.

But I get it.....Yates is above it all 

[NarcissisticDeity]

True, but Ronnie and Dorian wouldn't be equal. Ronnie in 2003 would have more size, Ronnie in 1999 would have better muscularity and possibly symmetry, so they wouldn't be equal as for Dorian's dryness to be the determining factor.

I can see that, Gaspari's biggest flaw was his structure. Dorian had a good structure.

Well, we can agree to disagree in the outcome of a 1998 Ronnie vs a 93-95 Dorian. I think we went on this subject in a past thread, so let's just leave it at that.

True, but Ronnie and Dorian wouldn't be equal. Ronnie in 2003 would have more size, Ronnie in 1999 would have better muscularity and possibly symmetry, so they wouldn't be equal as for Dorian's dryness to be the determining factor.

Ronnie 03 would have more ' size ' and that's it , it's his worse year for conditioning and balance & proportion , 99 has better muscularity? elaborate on that don't just type it , symmetry? define symmetry as well , at least your understanding of it , in terms of balance & proportion and density & dryness , Dorian wins couple that with being a better poser as well , 99 isn't his best year not according to the experts of himself

[NarcissisticDeity]

The only person saying that is you...

The rest of us are saying that there have been political decisions involving many, many BBers..not just Yates...which is universally acknowledged.

But I get it.....Yates is above it all 

no don't speak for the rest of them , because Hulkster has in fact said not only did Ronnie win without incident ( 2001 ) he in fact ' dominated ' a contest he lost the entire prejudging in by 6 points !

and define ' political decisions '

[NarcissisticDeity]

What do they have to gain by Dorian Yates winning?

exactly , what?

[MORTALCOIL]

Dorian's only questionable win is 1997. Others will say 94 and 96 but that's bullshit considering that it may have been close to the eye of some, but nonetheless Yates was not "given" the title like say Cutler in 2007, Columbu in 1981 and a few others. Same thing with Ronnie in 2001. But from 2002 to 2005, what kind of competition did he have? Those years were probably the less competitive years in Bbing since Lee Haney's first sandows.