Author Topic: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman  (Read 34124 times)

Grape Ape

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24631
  • SC è un asino
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #150 on: February 12, 2012, 10:04:40 AM »
I have never had the opportunity to attend a pro show.

but I have been to a pro seminar at my local gym. pros are massive upclose.

nimrod king, who made the top 15 at the 1991 Mr. O, is from around my area.

and no, it does not change the fact that dorian was not as good as ronnie.

brutal failure at deflection :P


It wasn't an attempt at deflection.  It was an attempt at understanding the context around some of your posts.

I was a big Yates fan in the 90s when I followed all this stuff.  Saw pics from England before he made his debut, etc...saw him at the Olympia, NOC, a guest posing, when he sold books at the NOC, etc...attended almost all those NOC's in the 90s etc...

At the 96 O I saw Coleman for the first time live, and he became my second favorite BB after that show.  When he won the Olympia in 1998, I was psyched and though it was totally cool.

So what I'm saying is that I think both BB are awesome.  But you argue your points so incredibly poorly, that it makes me resent Coleman for some reason.   I asked if you attended any shows because it obvious you haven't and you just look at a bunch of random pics think you have all the answers.

But hey, it's your free time, so to each his own.

My statement on the matter is that we've never seen them on stage at their respective bests so it's impossible to know who would have one, especially with the inconsistent judging we've seen throughout the years.   I can see either winning.
Y

Palpatine Q

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24132
  • Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #151 on: February 12, 2012, 10:09:39 AM »
the reason i posted this vid up on youtube. this was Yates at his best. nothing touches this. ever.

Is the contrast and sharpness high enough in those videos  ::)

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 #152 on: February 12, 2012, 10:17:22 AM »
Coleman never came close to achieving this:

Metabolic

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Team I Fucked Her Face
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #153 on: February 12, 2012, 10:19:09 AM »
Coleman never came close to achieving this:

I dont care for this particular thread-debate, but you are delusional saying "never came close"...

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #154 on: February 12, 2012, 01:56:05 PM »
ronnie crushes it:
Flower Boy Ran Away

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #155 on: February 12, 2012, 01:59:26 PM »
ouch
Flower Boy Ran Away

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 #156 on: February 12, 2012, 02:36:26 PM »
ouch


I know, it has to smart when your hero keeps getting pwned by a "pasty white Brit".

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 #157 on: February 12, 2012, 02:59:13 PM »
Yates trap are twice the size of rons and rons left side that hulkster keeps ignoring is quite a bit smaller than the right side. Yates is owning ronnie.

sorry hulkster. open your eyes and see ronnies arms are too big for the rest of him. yeah i said it. even Yates 97 shape is in full ownership here.

doriancutlerman

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1397
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #158 on: February 12, 2012, 03:01:36 PM »
Great review of Dorian's 1993 Mr. Olympia win (which I consider his best). They mention his strengths and all of the things Dorian needed to improve like Outer Thigh Sweep, Ham/Glute Tie Ins, and Bigger Biceps. Dorian never did improve on these things. All of the things they mentioned for Dorian to improve on, a prime Ronnie already had. Plus, it's crazy,they predicted the future about him getting injured. Here is the whole quote:

Points To Refine: "Oh, puleeze. None really, though it wouldn't hurt to add slightly to outer-thigh sweep and ham/glute tie-ins. Training heavy all the time may predispose him to injury. Could use a tad more biceps to match the hugeness of his other body parts."

Open the attachment for larger pic.

You know what's really funny about that?

Second-place Wheeler had no such weaknesses, and yet his '93 Olympia form SHIT all over how he looked in 1998.

How close was the 1998 Olympia, again? :D


NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #159 on: February 12, 2012, 03:03:55 PM »
Yates trap are twice the size of rons and rons left side that hulkster keeps ignoring is quite a bit smaller than the right side. Yates is owning ronnie.

sorry hulkster. open your eyes and see ronnies arms are too big for the rest of him. yeah i said it. even Yates 97 shape is in full ownership here.

that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. If Ronnie's arms are "too big" than Dorian's calves are too big

brb, calves as wide as my quads ::)

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 #160 on: February 12, 2012, 03:16:15 PM »
that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. If Ronnie's arms are "too big" than Dorian's calves are too big

brb, calves as wide as my quads ::)
address the rhomboid and trap issue, dickface.

purenaturalstrength

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 3975
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #161 on: February 12, 2012, 03:43:22 PM »


nicorulez

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Getbig!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #162 on: February 12, 2012, 04:42:43 PM »
Delta, a thought for you my friend. Ronnie at his best was the biggest bodybuilder ever that was conditioned. Yates was probably the biggest bodybuilder of his era 1992-1997, until Nasser and Fux came along. However, he was by far the best conditioned. Who was better, it is a matter of opinion. Ronnie never competed against Dorian at his alltime best. Dorian lost to Haney and Momo. Now, I surmise that Yates would have been second again in 1992 as he was not much different from his 1991 form (assuming Lee Haney competed), but he was a beast in 1993. I think if you take Dorian 1993 vs Ronnie 2001 Arnold/Olympia 2003/Olympia 1999 then you would see a war. I bet you the judging panel would differ show to show. I happen to like Coleman. However, I am not a judge. I would bet ten dollars that you are not either. To be honest, I have a good friend John H who is an ex-Olympia competitor and overall awesome guy. He likes Yates. Imagine that. Thus, it would be arrogant for me to claim that a certified all-time bodybuilder is wrong (he is also an IFBB judge). However, opinions are just that. To be 100% honest, I can completely see Dorian winning a hypothetical head to head match up. He was shredded and granite like. We have yet to see a bodybuilder with his "density."  However, we have never seen a freak like Ronnie. No bodybuilder has ever come onto to stage at 290 pounds hard and vascular. Ronnie had vascularity. Dorian was more grainy. Take your pick. Regardless, these threads on GETBIG are awesome as you can see the passion of both sides. Honestly, agree with me on this. Regardless who is your guy, let's name them 1 and 1a  ;D

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #163 on: February 12, 2012, 05:17:01 PM »
address the rhomboid and trap issue, dickface.

what rhomboids? They are hidden under the traps. So you can't see them

and what about the traps? Dorian's are asymmetrical

now address Dorian's twig arms and zero quad sweep

nicorulez

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Getbig!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #164 on: February 12, 2012, 06:13:13 PM »
I happen to agree with NeoSeminole but hell I am biased  ;D

PJim

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3951
  • Strike another match, go start anew
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #165 on: February 12, 2012, 06:15:11 PM »
what rhomboids? They are hidden under the traps. So you can't see them

and what about the traps? Dorian's are asymmetrical

now address Dorian's twig arms and zero quad sweep

Look at Dorian standing from the side in videos. His sweep is quite apparent.

The_Hammer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4423
  • President Barack Obama -- 2 Term U.S. President
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #166 on: February 12, 2012, 06:54:15 PM »
Look at Dorian standing from the side in videos. His sweep is quite apparent.

Yates definitely lacked quad sweep at least from contest photos.

His legs were huge, especially front to back (quads & hams), but weren't a standout bodypart from the front.  The cuts in his legs weren't deep either.

Ronnie had some of the biggest quads ever and possibly the best hamstrings ever.  However, I dislike the cuts in his quads compared to guys like Platz, Demayo, or Warren.



ARNIE1947

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1713
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #167 on: February 13, 2012, 09:31:19 AM »

Metabolic

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Team I Fucked Her Face
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #168 on: February 13, 2012, 09:34:49 AM »

This video has the whole Korean Horror movie appearance.  Next scene, Coleman turns into a an alien octopus and rapes the cameraman.

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 #169 on: February 14, 2012, 10:11:33 AM »


Is that meant to be impressive? His posing sucks and I used to see more impressive looking amateurs competing at the EFBB British Championships in the early 90s.

Dorian Yates showing how impressive an amateur can look with proper training, preparation and posing.



Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #170 on: February 14, 2012, 10:19:52 AM »
Bottom line is its impossible to know who would win. Its just depends on which judges show up, since the Judges have been all over the place in the past.
Judges that favor the set judging criteria would pick Dorian, or the ones that favor size and freakiness over everything else would pick Ronnie.

Someone please nuke this thread now.

nicorulez

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Getbig!
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #171 on: February 14, 2012, 12:22:35 PM »
Dorian 2005? I guess you mean 1995.

Lol, sorry yes I meant 1995. To be honest, isn't it kind of funny that the two best bodybuilders of alltime were at their best almost 15-20 years ago. I think the 2003 version of Ronnie was massive and ripped, but I agree that his conditioning and even waist in 1998-2001 was probably most impressive.

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 #172 on: February 14, 2012, 12:50:30 PM »
Yates trap are twice the size of rons and rons left side that hulkster keeps ignoring is quite a bit smaller than the right side. Yates is owning ronnie.

sorry hulkster. open your eyes and see ronnies arms are too big for the rest of him. yeah i said it. even Yates 97 shape is in full ownership here.

Yeah and Arnold's arms were too big for everything else then  ::)

ND always says Ronnie's delts were too big for his arms. So clearly they were both pretty big.

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 #173 on: February 14, 2012, 12:58:51 PM »
Is that meant to be impressive? His posing sucks and I used to see more impressive looking amateurs competing at the EFBB British Championships in the early 90s.

Dorian Yates showing how impressive an amateur can look with proper training, preparation and posing.





ND this is your partner in arms, sorry mate.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Yes Yates was smaller, but so much more impressive looking than Coleman
« Reply #174 on: February 14, 2012, 01:39:45 PM »
refer to the truce thread for many people commenting that his back was thin relative to ronnie's ;D
sure, its thick compared to Lee Labrada's

but Lee Labrada is not ronnie, even if he has better arms than dorian 8):

  Ronnie had a thicker back than Dorian in 2003. In his 1999 form? No.

  What happens is that Dorian's lats attach lower, so the fibers bundle up together less when doing a back double biceps compared to Ronnie's since the muscle fibers of his lats all move into a smaller area thus bundling up more giving a greater illusion of thickness.

SUCKMYMUSCLE