« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman  (Read 31573 times)

Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372
Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« on: February 07, 2012, 11:41:59 PM »
The detail and hardness of his back over the bloofy looking muscles of Ronnie any day.
Logged

Metabolic

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Team I Fucked Her Face
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2012, 04:00:05 AM »
Which world do you live in?
Logged

Purge_WTF

  • Guest
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2012, 04:49:49 AM »
Quote from: Metabolic on February 08, 2012, 04:00:05 AM
Which world do you live in?

  The real one. Few could touch Dorian when it came to conditioning.
Logged

Pet shop boys

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11670
  • Getbig!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2012, 06:15:20 AM »
PLEASE say youre kidding .



WOOOSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Logged

purenaturalstrength

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 3975
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2012, 06:19:52 AM »
Yo getbig, I like dorian and ronnie, and Ima let you finish







BUT LEE HANEY WAS THE BEST BODYBUILDER OF ALL TIME












Logged

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2012, 06:30:56 AM »
lee haney and rich gaspari had small arms, judging historically.

today, with GH, they'd have huge arms... and bellies to match.
Logged

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2012, 01:39:38 PM »
ronnie's back shits all over dorian: even at his 95 hardest.

no contest here. but dorian did have the second greatest back ever
Logged
Flower Boy Ran Away

Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2012, 02:04:18 PM »
Great pic of Coleman from 1999.
Logged

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2012, 02:06:08 PM »
Quote from: Hulkster on February 08, 2012, 01:39:38 PM
ronnie's back shits all over dorian: even at his 95 hardest.

no contest here. but dorian did have the second greatest back ever
Moron

Logged

the trainer

  • Guest
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2012, 02:14:51 PM »
Quote from: Bad Boy Dazza on February 07, 2012, 11:41:59 PM
The detail and hardness of his back over the bloofy looking muscles of Ronnie any day.

how many times are we going to do this topic in a thread i must be stuck in ground hog day.
Logged

delta9mda

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • Team Pussy Claad/ ya know I'm sayin?
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2012, 03:00:08 PM »
Quote from: Shockwave on February 08, 2012, 02:06:08 PM
Moron


the reason i posted this vid up on youtube. this was Yates at his best. nothing touches this. ever.
Logged

NeilGM

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2012, 03:03:05 PM »
^^ This is MEGA!
Logged

POTA

  • Guest
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2012, 03:05:05 PM »




Logged

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2012, 03:19:02 PM »
Quote from: POTA on February 08, 2012, 03:05:05 PM





Awesome, too bad you have 2 shots of Dorian from the same year, and 2 shots of Ronnie from 2 different years, one from one of his better conditioned and the other from his widest/largest
Logged

Wiggs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40804
  • Child of Y'srael
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2012, 03:20:20 PM »
Great idea for a thread... ::)
Logged
7

POTA

  • Guest
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2012, 05:37:43 PM »
Quote from: Shockwave on February 08, 2012, 03:19:02 PM
Awesome, too bad you have 2 shots of Dorian from the same year, and 2 shots of Ronnie from 2 different years, one from one of his better conditioned and the other from his widest/largest
That's why I posted two different ones. Dorian was arguable at his most conditioned and widest/largest there, so I wanted to put him up against arguably Ronnie's best BDB and arguably Ronnie's best RLS. That is all.
Logged

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2012, 05:46:17 PM »
Quote from: POTA on February 08, 2012, 05:37:43 PM
That's why I posted two different ones. Dorian was arguable at his most conditioned and widest/largest there, so I wanted to put him up against arguably Ronnie's best BDB and arguably Ronnie's best RLS. That is all.
I wasnt complaining, just said it was a shame you didnt have 2 gifs from the same contest.
Logged

SF1900

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 48800
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2012, 05:55:28 PM »
Logged
X

POTA

  • Guest
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2012, 06:00:00 PM »
Quote from: Shockwave on February 08, 2012, 05:46:17 PM
I wasnt complaining, just said it was a shame you didnt have 2 gifs from the same contest.
I have plenty.










Logged

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22968
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2012, 07:33:49 PM »
Quote from: Iceman1981 on February 08, 2012, 02:04:18 PM
Great pic of Coleman from 1999.

insane. dorian's back never looked that thick in a rear double bi in a million years :o
Logged
Flower Boy Ran Away

el numero uno

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9405
  • Clean your room, bucko.
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2012, 07:39:26 PM »
Yates had a better back but Coleman was more impressive overall. End of the thread
Logged

Mussolini

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • riding shotgun on the team Nasser War wagon
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2012, 08:07:44 PM »
Quote from: POTA on February 08, 2012, 03:05:05 PM






This pic sequence really shows how much better Dorian was than Ronnie. Dorian is on another level. Sorry Hulkster but don't feel bad, Ronnie is the 2nd best!
Logged
shotgun on the team

AbrahamG

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18159
  • Team Pfizer
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2012, 08:24:55 PM »
Quote from: Mussolini on February 08, 2012, 08:07:44 PM
This pic sequence really shows how much better Dorian was than Ronnie. Dorian is on another level. Sorry Hulkster but don't feel bad, Ronnie is the 2nd best!

Two greatest Mr. Olympia's we'll probably ever see.  The Yates from the 96 German GP is the only version of Yates that beats or comes close to the best of Coleman.
Logged

T-rex

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2012, 09:33:44 PM »
Quote from: SF1900 on February 08, 2012, 05:55:28 PM



Now hold on there. I need a flux capacitor, 1.21 gigawatts of electricity, and a 1982 DeLorean and I can end this insanity once and for all. Someone PM when the necessary items are acquired. I may need a little weapons grade plutonium as well.
Logged

johnny1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2486
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2012, 01:07:00 AM »
Quote from: Hulkster on February 08, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
insane. dorian's back never looked that thick in a rear double bi in a million years :o
No no of course not ::) never oh heres a Pic comparison on a more NEUTRAL set of lighting with no SHADOWS, Dim overhead lighting, angles, Sharpened-Screen-caps etc etc etc your Hero @ his (or near) Best and Yates @ his worst....yip no where near Coleman's Thickness in the back Department good call.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »