Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce

[NarcissisticDeity]

1. saying that arms hardly mean anything in bb competition is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

2. just goes to show you how bad the judging really was in 94 when a judge can say that a torn bi that affects one of the most important poses in bodybuilding THIS MUCH "doesn't really alter his physique at all"

Despite his bicep being shorter than the other that is a textbook front double bicep pose and what did one of the judges have to say about this contest in 1994? lol


Added Rockell: Dorian had a SLIGHT injury but as far as I'm concerned , it had NO bearing whatsoever. He was just so dense it made no overall difference. Paul's major deficiencies were in his back : not enough muscularity for his large frame. also basic stamina throughout was in question ; during call-outs , he was breathing heavy and bending over.



His torn bicep made NO OVERALL difference

[Hulkster]

lol the judge thinks that the crippled bi is a "slight" injury?

these guys are a little short in the mental capacity department.

[pumpster]

Arms mean hardly anything. Ronnie does have better arms overall than Yates due to supreme biceps,

Utter nonsense-in that case exclude back or chest, why stop at arms? Hilarious.

Coleman's right there with Yates on tris, because they're considerably bigger with good not great cuts. Anyone fixated on just biceps isn't paying attention.

[NarcissisticDeity]

lol the judge thinks that the crippled bi is a "slight" injury?

these guys are a little short in the mental capacity department.

The same judges who judged Ronnie  Hulkster you can't counter that you're back into a corner now lol

[NarcissisticDeity]

Utter nonsense-in that case exclude back or chest, why stop at arms? Hilarious.

Coleman's right there with Yates on tris, because they're considerably bigger with good cuts.

Ronnie's side tricep shot can't compete with Dorian's despite all of Ronnie's presumed advantages

[pobrecito]

Utter nonsense-in that case exclude back or chest, why stop at arms? Hilarious.

Coleman's right there with Yates on tris, because they're considerably bigger with good not great cuts. Anyone fixated on just biceps isn't paying attention.

tell that to the judge - not me.

[Hulkster]

You claimed the same nonsense about Ronnie's back its showed new level of development thats never been seen before lol

no, you misquoted me.

ronnie set a new standard in terms of development (ie QUALITY) in 99 for back development, but he didn't bring any newly developed muscles that had never been seen before (eg. like gaspari showing up with striated glutes for the first time on a bb stage).

ronnie took a page out of the yates book and made it even better in 99 thats all he did.

[Hulkster]

Utter nonsense-in that case exclude back or chest, why stop at arms? Hilarious

why not disregard the whole body?

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

no, you misquoted me.

ronnie set a new standard in terms of development (ie QUALITY) in 99 for back development, but he didn't bring any newly developed muscles that had never been seen before (eg. like gaspari showing up with striated glutes for the first time on a bb stage).

ronnie took a page out of the yates book and made it even better in 99 thats all he did.

NO backpeddling " I.E. Quality " thats another cop-out lame-ass excuse Dorian's back is unsurpassed by anyone in quality , detail , thickness , density , development , balance , latsweep , dryness .

you make stupid statements that defy logic , hisback wasn't even as dry as it was in 98 .

[pobrecito]

95 was more dominant than any of Coleman's victories.

Again, I have asked Hulkster numerous times to post WHY Dorian was so overrated and why he won, and yet Hulkster can't even formulate a response to that.

I will answer for him. Dorian won becuase he had every detail (and more) and equal (and even superior) condition to a 205lbs Shawn Ray with the perceived mass and density of a 285lb Sonbaty

[Hulkster]

you make stupid statements that defy logic , hisback wasn't even as dry as it was in 98 .

according to you.

not according to the pics and videos:

[NarcissisticDeity]

according to you.

not according to the pics and videos:

According to someone who was at both contests some with more knowledge of bodybuilding than you been alive. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

lmao @ Dorian has better arms.

And ND said that Christians are delusional?

Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmmmmm?" 

Matt Dorian has better triceps and forearms , better shaped and just as detailed and you're the genius who said Marky Mark and Bob Paris have simlar physiques 

[Hulkster]

Again, I have asked Hulkster numerous times to post WHY Dorian was so overrated and why he won, and yet Hulkster can't even formulate a response to that.

what do you mean i haven't formulated a response to that?

what do you think I have been doing for the last 640 pages?

Dorian was overrated because he had sub par arms, quads, chest, poor taper, poor quad shape, poor delt shape, poor pec shape.

BUT he won despite all of this because he was 60 pounds heavier than his closest rivals (flex and shawn) and did have a good back, which put him above Kevin who lacked a good back even compared to flex and shawn.

When he finally faced someone his size (and no, dillett might have been bigger but he looked horrible in so many poses) in Nasser the general consesus was that Nasser was better from the front.

Thats all it took for someone to own yates from the front - have some quality along with size.  Because Shawn and Flex were so small compared to Dorian, the judges did see them as being better from the front than yates.

but they and most people, saw nasser as being better.

Dorian was just lucky that someone with size and quality (and a back) did not show up during his reign.

The last time this happened (91) Dorian lost.

and it was no surprise as to why.

Facing Ronnie 99 would be no different.

[NarcissisticDeity]

what do you mean i haven't formulated a response to that?

what do you think I have been doing for the last 640 pages?

Dorian was overrated because he had sub par arms, quads, chest, poor taper, poor quad shape, poor delt shape, poor pec shape.

BUT he won despite all of this because he was 60 pounds heavier than his closest rivals (flex and shawn) and did have a good back, which put him above Kevin who lacked a good back even compared to flex and shawn.

When he finally faced someone his size (and no, dillett might have been bigger but he looked horrible in so many poses) in Nasser the general consesus was that Nasser was better from the front.

Thats all it took for someone to own yates from the front - have some quality along with size.  Because Shawn and Flex were so small compared to Dorian, the judges did see them as being better from the front than yates.

but they and most people, saw nasser as being better.

Dorian was just lucky that someone with size and quality (and a back) did not show up during his reign.

The last time this happened (91) Dorian lost.

and it was no surprise as to why.

Facing Ronnie 99 would be no different.

Well this is whats wrong with your logic is you're dumb its that simple

ub par arms, quads, chest, poor taper, poor quad shape, poor delt shape, poor pec shape.

this is just a dumb statement its pathetic and laughable at the same time and its not worth the effort you made up your mind his parts are ' sub-par " and no amount of logic and counter-argument will change that you're beyond rational debate with these statements

[pobrecito]

what do you mean i haven't formulated a response to that?

what do you think I have been doing for the last 640 pages?

Dorian was overrated because he had sub par arms, quads, chest, poor taper, poor quad shape, poor delt shape, poor pec shape.

BUT he won despite all of this because he was 60 pounds heavier than his closest rivals (flex and shawn) and did have a good back, which put him above Kevin who lacked a good back even compared to flex and shawn.

When he finally faced someone his size (and no, dillett might have been bigger but he looked horrible in so many poses) in Nasser the general consesus was that Nasser was better from the front.

Thats all it took for someone to own yates from the front - have some quality along with size.  Because Shawn and Flex were so small compared to Dorian, the judges did see them as being better from the front than yates.

but they and most people, saw nasser as being better.

Dorian was just lucky that someone with size and quality (and a back) did not show up during his reign.

The last time this happened (91) Dorian lost.

and it was no surprise as to why.

Facing Ronnie 99 would be no different.

Regarding your thought about Dorian losing to Haney. You act like he was blown away. The fact of the matter is that Yates beat Haney in muscularity at his best, but Dorian was still a baby in terms of muscularity. In fact, Delta from Getbig was at that show and has said that nobody would have complained if they had given the win to Yates. So to say that it was "no surprise as to why" Yates lost to Haney is a misnomer....Yates at his best would have annihilated Haney.

Secondly, your analysis is fine and dandy, except how do you respond to the pictures I posted? Those ruin your whole argument. Any version of Nasser would have never had a chance against a 95 Yates. A 99 Coleman would have faired better, but he still would have lost becuase 1) he was not as conditioned and 2) Yates was still more muscular. End of story. As ND and Co. have pointed out, that is a HUGE portion of the judging criteria in Yates' favor. Yet you chose to ignore that and keep posting a coleman most-muscular pose? Overall Coleman may have better shape in this pose, but by definition Yates is more muscular, so how could he lose the "most-muscular" pose? 

Finally, your assessment of why Yates won is pathetic: "BUT he won despite all of this because he was 60 pounds heavier than his closest rivals." Again, you claim the only reason Yates won was becuase of mass, and mass alone? I have said it before and will say it again, Yates won because he had the condition and detail of the small guys with the perceived mass of the big guys. It was the best combination of the two that won the show. You can ignore that all you want, but that is why Dorian won. Any other utterance from you concerning Yates being overrated will continue to be considered hogwash, garbage, etc.

[Hulkster]

Matt Dorian has better triceps and forearms , better shaped and just as detailed and you're the genius who said Marky Mark and Bob Paris have similar physiques 

ND did you not read my last post?

you cannot single out tris and forearms.

you have to look at the whole arm (and delts are important too):

[Hulkster]

I think you are one of the few who would say Dorian has better overall arms.

ND, Pubic, IceCold and Suckmyasshole are probably the only 4 people on the entire internet that would ever think that 93 dorian was better than 99 Ronnie period, nevermind just the arms.

go to some of the other boards and they will laugh at you for even suggesting that dorian was better than a prime time Ronnie.

[Hulkster]

A 99 Coleman would have faired better, but he still would have lost becuase 1) he was not as conditioned and 2) Yates was still more muscular.

who said he was not as conditioned?  Look at the 99 shots and tell me that Dorian was more conditioned than this:

he wasn't.

as disussed hundreds of pages ago: ronnie had more overall detail in the arms, quads, glutes hams and chest.

so dorian's "conditioning" would end up looking smooth in the end next to Ronnie.

[Hulkster]

2) Yates was still more muscular.

again, how?

Ronnie was the same size but had better muscular detail predominantly and better muscle shape in the arms quads chest etc etc.

so most would say that Ronnie is more muscular than dorian, not the other way around.

this is obvious in the mm pose, where both men show the same size, but only Ronnie shows the shape and detail to really maximize the upper body muscularity:

[pobrecito]

again, how?

Simple mathematics. Did you pass 1st grade? Dorian is roughly 1.5" shorter than Ronnie yet carried the same weight in better condition. This can only mean one thing: Dorian carried more lean mass.

[Hulkster]

so much for dorian being "better conditioned" and "more muscular" than an in shape ronnie :

this is what I am talking about:

words are words.

visuals tell a totally different story:

[Hulkster]

once again, Ronnie looking better than dorian, despite the endless paragraphs of "judging criteria" posted as if they some how change the reality that ronnie was better...

[pobrecito]

Dorian is flat out beating Coleman in that comparison.

Yates' back is harder and everything is more separated than Coleman's. Calves and Biceps likely cancel eachother out, yet Yates is more muscular and better conditioned, not to mention far denser.

[Hulkster]

Simple mathematics. Did you pass 1st grade? Dorian is roughly 1.5" shorter than Ronnie yet carried the same weight in better condition. This can only mean one thing: Dorian carried more lean mass.

ah. but carrying more mass is not an advantage if it lacks shape and refinement: