the point is this:
the dorian side has relyed on quotes more than anything else to get their point accross.
Wrong. My posts are composed mostly of analyses, not quotes. However, I did post several quotes at the beggning of the thread. How about these:
"I don't want to sound arrogant, but if everone else were to enter the Olympia in their best shapes and I came in beneath my best, not only would I still win, but there would be a fai distance between me and whoever finished second." - Dorian Yates, FLEX Magazine, September 1997, in interview to Peter McGough.
"Dorian Yates: the thickest, densest, most annealed bodybuilder in history. It's hard to imagine a man of his height who can carry 300 lbs off-season with pactically no bodyfat, and yet still look symmetirical." - Julian Schmidt, FLEX, August 1998.
"At over 270 lbs, Dorian wasn't as good as at a lighter bodyweight, but his combo of mass and density made all the other competitors seem like underdeveloped amateurs. This year, he even dwarfed Nasser from the front" - Greg Zulak, MuscleMag, in review of the 1997 Olympia.
"This year, Dorian was 266 lbs for pre-judging. By the night show, he ballooned to over 270 lbs. The added weight translated into greater fullness in his chest, delts, lats and quads. The minus was his midsection, of which more later. Despite receinving straight-firsy scores from all judges on both rounds, myself and others feel he should have been marked down fo his protruding stomach." - Peter McGough, in review of the 1997 Olympia, FLEX Magazine, January 1998.
they do this because the visual evidence overwhelmingly does NOT support all these glowing quotes and perfect scores.
The visual evidence dfoes not support that Dorian would win for those who consider striations and separations the ne plus ultra of what a bodybuilder should be. Unfortunately for you, Hulkster, the judges evaluate other things on a bodybuilder...things that Dorian is better at than Ronnie.
the coleman side does not rely on quotes, and its not because they are not there.
No, you ely on unfair picture comparison, showing Dorian at his worst against Ronnie at his best.
believe me - there has been just as much praise for Ronnie written over the years as there has been for Yates.
There has also been a lot of discussion about how Ronnie took gut distension to a level that makes Dorian's look like Francis Benfatto.
do you want me to quote dexter's comments following the 2003 Olympia? Or comments following the 2001 Arnold Classic? I don't have the 99 mags anymore, but I can tell you this: Ronnie was praised that year up and down for having an amazing combo of aesthetics and mass. Yes, according to Muscle and Fitness at the time, they used the word aesthetics to describe ronnie 99.
Dexter Jackson's opinion is no better than that of the dozens of champs who have paised Dorian.
but this is bodybuilding, not philosophy.
Agreed. If this were a philosophy course, the Coleman side would flunk the brach of philosophy known as Logic.
The coleman side does not need quotes and opinions to prove how good ronnie's physique was when he was ON.
Why? Because a few out of angle, out of focus and contest picture comparisons is all you need?
the visuals, given that this is a purely visual sport, speak for themselves:
Bodybilding is a visual sport, but one that is evaluated objectively. Just because Ronnie has a few more striations on his overdevelped ass and bigger biceps does not make him better than Dorian. A bodybuilding judgement is all abot muscularity&symmetry from different angles while contracting different mscles, and the bottom line is that odds are that Dorian wins. Ronnie's advantage in separations and striations might give him the nod in the judges eyes. Or they might not. The judges might prefer Dorian's stony quality. This is a push.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
