ND (or others), what year is this Yates picture from? best back of all time!

[GMCtrk]

[JDK]

hm, ears are streamlined, left biceps is already torn, so it must be 95 or later, i bet on 95! i donīt think its 94 where he already competed with torn biceps. i think its right before the 1995 or 1996 olympia

[NarcissisticDeity]

I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia

[Hulkster]

That is a great shot of Yates - it looks much better than most of his shots because he is not flexing his arms in the traditional way, this hides the flaw.

Great detail in that shot too, never had that kind of detail in a back double bi onstage though..

Perhaps the stage lighting washes out the Yates Detail?

[GMCtrk]

That is a great shot of Yates - it looks much better than most of his shots because he is not flexing his arms in the traditional way, this hides the flaw.

Great detail in that shot too, never had that kind of detail in a back double bi onstage though..

Perhaps the stage lighting washes out the Yates Detail?

I think one thing we need to take in account is Yates always had this detail, but photography is nothing back then what it was today! THey didnt have digital cameras and basically all we have are the few shots that went into magazines. I have yet to see any pictures from any of Yates grand prix's that he did.

[Hulkster]

I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia

ND, I don't think that pic can possibly be from the 93 O. Look at the left biceps muscle - its short as hell - definitely post tear.

Probably from 1995.

[NarcissisticDeity]

That is a great shot of Yates - it looks much better than most of his shots because he is not flexing his arms in the traditional way, this hides the flaw.

Great detail in that shot too, never had that kind of detail in a back double bi onstage though..

Perhaps the stage lighting washes out the Yates Detail?

Combo of lighting and Yates has fair skin so it can be hard to see the detail .

[Hulkster]

Combo of lighting and Yates has fair skin so it can be hard to see the detail .

yup, that and all the water..

Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his  upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others.  In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups.  This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yup, that and all the water..

Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his  upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others.  In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups.  This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.

I'm pretty sure that pic is from 93 I have it in my 1993 folder and when I scan the pic go right into the appropriate folder , and " This hurts im onstage " ? not that I agree with that statement but he never placed lower than 2nd in a Pro contest and won 6 Olympias I don't think anything hurt him including a torn bicep .

[Hulkster]

I'm pretty sure that pic is from 93 I have it in my 1993 folder and when I scan the pic go right into the appropriate folder , and " This hurts im onstage " ? not that I agree with that statement but he never placed lower than 2nd in a Pro contest and won 6 Olympias I don't think anything hurt him including a torn bicep .

you're right - it didn't hurt him onstage. but it should have

[Hulkster]

 PS -It is definately post tear - the caption of the pic "I'm back" is a tounge in cheek reference to Yates returning after the horrendous 1994 injury fiasco.

[NarcissisticDeity]

PS -It is definately post tear - the caption of the pic "I'm back" is a tounge in cheek reference to Yates returning after the horrendous 1994 injury fiasco.

I'll have to find that pic in my magazines when I have the time to see when it was .

[delta9mda]

I scanned that picture its in the hotel room at the 1993 Mr Olympia

wrong nd, it is right before the 95 if i remember correctly and the title of the pic is something like "im back...."
meaning (correctly hulk) it is his return after the 94 problems.
as always, if im wrong i will own up to it but my yates collection says the pic is 95.

[delta9mda]

yup, that and all the water..

Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his  upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others.  In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups.  This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.

it hurt him onstage, funny hulkster

[Hulkster]

I'll have to find that pic in my magazines when I have the time to see when it was .

it'll be in the pages that are stuck together.

[GMCtrk]

yup, that and all the water..

Seriously though, Yates has TONS of muscle on his  upper back, but its not really "lumpy" like Ronnie, Flex or others.  In other words, it is super thick, but lacks the depth between the muscle groups.  This hurts him onstage since the lighting does not take kindly to these sorts of contours.

The reason his isn't "lumpy" is becuase he is so f*cking dry, like no one else has ever been, including coleman.

[NarcissisticDeity]

it'll be in the pages that are stuck together.

Yeah I think it is post 93 because this pic is from 93 and I just looked at it in the magazine

[Brutal_1]

95' 

[Hulkster]

The reason his isn't "lumpy" is becuase he is so f*cking dry, like no one else has ever been, including coleman.

ah, no.  lack of "lumpiness" is not  because of dryness.

If it were, holding water would equal more lumps:


Which, as you can see here with a water 94 Yates, clearly does not.

It is genetic - I will refrain from illustrating this difference by posting pics of Ronnie, flex and Shawn etc showing their lumpy backs, since I don't want to get flamed for making Yates look bad (yet again )

[GMCtrk]

ah, no.  lack of "lumpiness" is not  because of dryness.

If it were, holding water would equal more lumps:


Which, as you can see here with a water 94 Yates, clearly does not.

It is genetic - I will refrain from illustrating this difference by posting pics of Ronnie, flex and Shawn etc showing their lumpy backs, since I don't want to get flamed for making Yates look bad (yet again )

you lost all credit compared Flex's back to Dorians

[Hulkster]

you lost all credit compared Flex's back to Dorians

no I didn't

Lumps rock!

obviously, overall, Dorian's back kills Flex's since he had no lats.  but you have to admit, the detailed, lumpy appearance of his backdouble bi shots is really impressive.

Its just he has no lats to speak of.

[GMCtrk]

no I didn't

Lumps rock!

obviously, overall, Dorian's back kills Flex's since he had no lats.  but you have to admit, the detailed, lumpy appearance of his backdouble bi shots is really impressive.

Its just he has no lats to speak of.

I seriously have no idea what this "lumpy" you speak of is, I've never heard it used in a bodybuilding context before. Yates's back, as demonstrated in the picture above, was hard as nails, unlike any thing we have ever seen in bodybuilding

[Hulkster]

The problem is, that shot looks really impressive because it is half completed. When Dorian completed the pose the deliniation between the muscle groups (giving that "lumpy" apearance) is not nearly what is was when the arms are not in the traditional stance:


dorian's back double bi was always one of his worst poses.

[GMCtrk]

According to your terminology, Nasser's back is "lumpy".....Yates's back destroys his, the reason that back double bi doesnt look as good as the above is simply becuase of the lighting. Yates' back was hard as nails, not lumpy or any coleman bullshit like that. Looks like you just fucking too legos and stacked them up on his back

This is what happens when you put Yates under good lighting (or any other athete, see '99 grand prix)


Short of the biceps, this back double bi beats any other in the history of bodybuilding head to toe

[Hulkster]

nassers back may be lumpy but it is totally soft.