Author Topic: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman  (Read 34275 times)

Gab

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 113
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2012, 09:58:21 AM »
Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder of all time.
I cant understand how ppl think that Dorian looks better in any way.

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24632
  • SC è un asino
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2012, 10:25:33 AM »
Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder of all time.
I cant understand how ppl think that Dorian looks better in any way.

The debate is not who looks better, it's how the IFBB judging criteria would be applied to them.

It's also about taking the worst photos of one and putting them next to the best of the other.

Oh, and name calling.  Lots of name calling.

Anyway, looking at those gifs side by side you can see how Yates could, in theory, make coleman look soft during certain years.   
Y

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2012, 10:55:25 AM »
lmao, no contest. Ronnie > Dorian


NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2012, 10:59:58 AM »
Even Flex magazine says Ronnie has the better back 8)




purenaturalstrength

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 3975
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2012, 11:01:14 AM »
yates has better calves

French

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Solana @ 2000$
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2012, 01:03:00 PM »
Coleman had no calves, zero hamstring and falling pecs ..

indeed Yates is much more complete with better density and conditioning

$

purenaturalstrength

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 3975
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2012, 01:09:54 PM »
Coleman had no calves, zero hamstring and falling pecs ..

indeed Yates is much more complete with better density and conditioning




Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com

Immortal_Technique

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2196
  • "It's all a bunch of shit, I say fuck it" - DF
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2012, 02:01:15 PM »
The left side of Yates' back is very impressive.

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32167
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2012, 06:13:56 PM »
those b/w yates shots stand the test of time,,if he rolled on stage like that it could have been one of the greatest on stage builds ever,,,,

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2012, 07:53:27 PM »
ronnie's zero hamstrings LOL ::)
Flower Boy Ran Away

ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2012, 09:19:30 PM »

johnny1

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2493
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2012, 01:53:19 AM »
yates has better calves
Yip and better abs, Triceps, skeletal structure, back 50/50 ether way Yates the edge on Consistent Total back conditioning, Coleman Quad SIZE, Hamstrings debatable both had advantages in size or condition, Forearms Debatable 50/50, and both @ their peaks Yates for the all round balance IMO, Forget the fact that Coleman was Bigger the Conditioning factor would always IMO be the edge Yates would have on a prime Coleman, 1998 Coleman Vs Yates in 93 would be a Very close call a contest between the 2 @ their best would be alot closer than alot here think imo....Depends just what the hell the Judges are going for....Outrageous size, full blown muscle bellys etc, or the Complete Balance of the physique with unbelievable Conditioning

ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2012, 02:37:42 AM »
 8)

Tito24

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20638
  • I'm a large man but.. one with a plan
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2012, 02:43:21 AM »

ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2012, 02:45:13 AM »
..

Bad Boy Dazza

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3372

Tito24

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20638
  • I'm a large man but.. one with a plan
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2012, 02:48:59 AM »
oh really?? who gives a ratass retard

ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2012, 03:05:10 AM »
..

ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #44 on: February 10, 2012, 03:27:29 AM »
.

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #45 on: February 10, 2012, 05:44:52 AM »
Ronnie would destroy Dorian

wes

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 71215
  • What Dire Mishap Has Befallen Thee
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #46 on: February 10, 2012, 05:53:07 AM »
Deja fucking vu!!  :(

RocketSwitch625

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2420
  • Women fall all over me and Pumpster is FUGLY.
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #47 on: February 10, 2012, 10:30:10 AM »
Ronnie would destroy Dorian

That comparison proves the opposite.

purenaturalstrength

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 3975
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #48 on: February 10, 2012, 10:45:53 AM »
one should print out these comparison pics to actual size and put them upright against a wall to really appreciate the size difference

these pics are so small that it seems the difference is not very substantial

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2012, 11:02:00 AM »
That comparison proves the opposite.

you realize Ronnie is bigger, more separated and striated, and doesn't have a torn biceps like Dorian?