Dorian "The GOAT" Yates - the mind blowing aesthetics

[canyon]

hang on now.

ronnie had great aesthetics when he was smaller too.

but the catch is that he KEPT great aesthetics all the way up to 260 pounds or so, whereas dorian at that weight looked terrible.

  Hulkster are you a blackman? I sure hope so.

[Hulkster]

no I am a pasty white canadian

[WOOO]

Who could imagine The GOAT went from perfect aesthetics to greatest mass monster in history.  Every year the physique just got better and better.  Untouchable from start to end.

 

not quite... went downhill due to a series of injuries... but he was a game changer for a while

[Hulkster]

Every year the physique just got better and better.

its one thing to sing the praises of dorian pre biceps tear. he looked great.

not as good as ronnie, but still great.

but you are claiming he got better and better every year which is stupid.

this is not better:

[jakesonyou]

You are an amateur my young friend.  You can attempt all you like posting low quality pictures of The GOAT, but he beat Ron Coleman.

I can post a hundred bad pictures of Ronald too!  The difference is that Ronald only had 3 quality showings in his entire career.  After that he could not control his gut, conditioning, and speech.

hope this helps
 

[Hulkster]

LOL the pics you claim are "low quality" are great pics from the very years you say dorian would have beat ronnie

here's another: dorian self proclaimed best ever shape in 95 and he gets crushed.

low quality my ass

hint: the fact that dorian was not as good as a peak ronnie does not make the pics low quality.

you can take the best pics ever of him and they still don't compare

the quality is not the issue. its dorian's physique that is the problem.

[NeoSeminole]

You are an amateur my young friend.  You can attempt all you like posting low quality pictures of The GOAT, but he beat Ron Coleman.

I can post a hundred bad pictures of Ronald too!  The difference is that Ronald only had 3 quality showings in his entire career.  After that he could not control his gut, conditioning, and speech.

what is with your infatuation with Dorian? Ronnie never beat him b/c Dorian retired before Ronnie reached his prime. Following your logic, Lee Haney is better than your crush since he never lost to Dorian. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many bad showings Ronnie had. What matters is how good he looked at his best. An analogy would be Usain Bolt setting the world record in the 100 m sprint, then finishing last the next year (disqualification). He still holds the record for the fastest time. Likewise, Ronnie at his prime set the bar higher than Dorian

[closeline]

i personally like ronnie more than yates

but by a judges standpoint

THIS kind of physique is almost unbeatable and clearly unbeatable by any other ifbb pro since arnold

[jakesonyou]

The GOAT 

[johnny1]

LOL the pics you claim are "low quality" are great pics from the very years you say dorian would have beat ronnie

here's another: dorian self proclaimed best ever shape in 95 and he gets crushed.

low quality my ass

hint: the fact that dorian was not as good as a peak ronnie does not make the pics low quality.

you can take the best pics ever of him and they still don't compare

the quality is not the issue. its dorian's physique that is the problem.

And here's a Picture under STAGE LIGHTING in 1999... not the Controlled STUDIO lighting of Coleman in the 2001 studio shot. YOU have claimed countless Times Ronnie's best was @ the 1999 O....up against a Picture Of Yates @ his WORST in 1997 also under stage lighting.

Big Difference between the 1999 SCREEN CAPS as well as the Studio lighting of that shot of Coleman's BDB in 2001 isnt it? so no the Quality of Lighting of Pictures, Screen-caps, Video etc etc DOES make a big Difference and you know it.

If we are to entertain your rational with your usual selective pic posting then the 2nd shot below of the 96 SCREEN CAP of Yates Back-shot is Far "Superior" than Coleman's "best" of 1999 BDB isnt it....so he must be better.... well his arms are .

[Game Time]

And here's a Picture under STAGE LIGHTING in 1999 not the Controlled STUDIO lighting of Coleman in the 2001 studio shot. YOU have claimed countless Times Ronnie's best was @ the 1999 O.... against a Picture Of Yates @ his WORST in 1997 also under stage lighting, big Difference between the 1999 SCREEN CAPS and Studio lighting of that shot of Coleman's BDB in 2001 isnt it? so no the Quality of Lighting of Pictures, Screen-caps, Video etc etc DOES make a big Difference and you know it, if we are to entertain your rational with your usual selective pic posting then the 2nd pic below of the 96 SCREEN CAP of Yates Back-shot is Far "Superior" than Coleman's "best" of 1999 BDB isnt it....so he must be better.... well his arms are .

Great pic of Dorian....If I had a dollar for every pixel I would have $2

[Hulkster]

lol no, on stage 99 shots still beats his self proclaimed best ever onstage 95:

you can try and put any spin you want to it, but the facts are (and is corroborated by the pics and vids) that dorian didn't measure up to the standard ronnie set.

[Hulkster]

^
well, dorian does have better calves.

I guess that counts for something? 

LOL

[#1 Klaus fan]

^
well, dorian does have better calves.

I guess that counts for something? 

LOL

Do better conditioning, better definition and better v-taper count for something too?

[Hulkster]

they would if dorian did, but he doesn't.

[johnny1]

Nothing to do ...with "Body-parts"....Better arms....Better back or your Fav pics with Ron's "Glutes", lost count of all the Guys that had "better arms" and better Quads and better Taper than Yates over the years who he competed against....Facts were they never beat him onstage with all those so called advantages, your guy isnt Conditioned like he was in 1998........Forget it he would more than likey lose to Yates again...and again his "arm size" Taper and Quads would not mean a thing without the Paper-thin skin and Ridiculous Condition he had in 1998 and he would need all of it to have a chance, Superior conditioning and all round balance would be the tie breaker between those to @ their respective bests on THE DAY not who had the better "Body-parts".  

[MB]

No one was born to be a bodybuilder more than Yates.  Unmatched structure, density, graininess, and bodybuilding intelligence. 

[johnny1]

I think the most intelligent thing Yates done in terms of Legacy was Leave after 1997 his Conditioning was as Normal Great however his Body was shot, as for while he competed as the Champion in terms of Preparation well 6 wins out of 7 attempts @ the O speaks volumes there perhaps one of the most Driven champs of them all, considering the Obvious physical and mental obsticals he had to overcome with severe injury's etc while still competing, i dont think anyone thats prepared to be unbiased would deny Ron had Superior Genetics for BB in terms of Shape, Taper, Muscles bellys etc than Yates however as has been Mentioned there was Plenty of others with Superior Genes than Yates and they all came up short....again and again.....Bar Haney.  

[Hulkster]

No one was born to be a bodybuilder more than Yates.  Unmatched structure, density, graininess, and bodybuilding intelligence.  

um no.

his body building 'intelligence' got him a major injury caused by training way too heavy precontest in 94 only two wins into his olympia dynasty.

yes, his blood and guts training was great.

but it also caused major injuries early on in his career, so maybe it wasn't so great after all.

[Royalty]

um no.

his body building 'intelligence' got him a major injury caused by training way too heavy precontest in 94 only two wins into his olympia dynasty.

yes, his blood and guts training was great.

but it also caused major injuries early on in his career, so maybe it wasn't so great after all.

I like Ronnie. Great champion. But your 2012 post did not age well.

[Taffin]

I like Ronnie. Great champion. But your 2012 post did not age well.

Nor did Ronnie