Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce (Read 3484503 times)

Iceman1981 · « **Reply #29375 on:** June 02, 2007, 10:46:49 PM »

As good as yates front latspread was, Ronnie just out sizes him big time. A 300 pound shredded freak is just insane. That alone will make Ronnie win. That's why yates thinks an 03 Ronnie would probably beat him because Ronnie is just too big and shredded. Take a look:

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #29376 on:** June 03, 2007, 02:45:26 AM »

No neck and horrible shape.

P.S. Both Yates and Haney had better front lat spreads.

Hulkster · « **Reply #29377 on:** June 03, 2007, 07:01:04 AM »

neither one of them had a lat spread this good top to bottom:

Hulkster · « **Reply #29378 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:28:40 AM »

Quote

yates lats have extremely low insertion points and make up for someone with a tiny waist.

no, ronnie's lat spread is like a cobra because of his tiny waist. dorian's is like, well, the letter H. Its wide, but lacks the same impressive taper. Its a lot like Jay's lat spread in this regard. Wide, but with a fridge waist, damening the effect to some extent.

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #29379 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:31:56 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 03, 2007, 07:01:04 AM

neither one of them had a lat spread this good top to bottom:

The picture I posted proves you wrong.

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #29380 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:36:18 AM »

I have a question for Hulkster.

If this is a good quality pic from 95:

Why does it look less impressive than pic from 94 (one of Yates' worst years)?:

The truth is it's a poor shot from arguably Yates' best showing and doesn't prove shit.

Hulkster · « **Reply #29381 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:36:25 AM »

how so? dorian's lat spread was smooth as hell from the front.

his only great attribute in the pose was great thick lats.

everything else is mediocre.

Hulkster · « **Reply #29382 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:38:52 AM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on June 03, 2007, 09:36:18 AM

I have a question for Hulkster.

If this pic is from 95:

Why does it look less impressive than this 94 pic?:

The answer is it's a poor shot and doesn't prove shit.

94 shot is dead on and its still not as good as Ronnie's..so what is your point?

and besides, how is that shot ANY different than Ronnie's?

both are taken at the same angle - its just that ronnie has a narrow waist and dorian has a wide waist.

its fair. just becaue dorian's waist was wide and his taper suffers compared to Ronnie does not mean its a 'bad shot" . It just means that Ronnie was better.

pobrecito · « **Reply #29383 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:41:11 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 03, 2007, 09:38:52 AM

94 shot is dead on and its still not as good as Ronnie's..so what is your point?

and besides, how is that shot ANY different than Ronnie's?

both are taken at the same angle - its just that ronnie has a narrow waist and dorian has a wide waist.

its fair. just becaue dorian's waist was wide and his taper suffers compared to Ronnie does not mean its a 'bad shot" . It just means that Ronnie was better.

Get real kid

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #29384 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:42:27 AM »

This:

Is better than this:

Plus Yates a full head of hair.

Hulkster · « **Reply #29385 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:43:50 AM »

Quote from: pobrecito on June 03, 2007, 09:41:11 AM

Get real kid

no, you get real:

pobrecito · « **Reply #29386 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:44:50 AM »

Dorian is still owning Ronnie here LOL

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #29387 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:45:40 AM »

Where are the vains in Coleman's back? Yates (not known for his vascularity) has vains all over his back plus more detail and thickness.

pobrecito · « **Reply #29388 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:47:34 AM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on June 03, 2007, 09:45:40 AM

Where are the vains in Coleman's back? Yates (not known for his vascularity) has vains all over his back plus more detail and thickness.

That's becuase Ronnie's back was a water resevoir.

Dorian was drier than a dead person:

Hulkster · « **Reply #29389 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:47:49 AM »

but I thought you nuthuggers think vascularity (along with everything else) doesn't matter?

monster hypocracy

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #29390 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:48:25 AM »

Coleman can't win.

Hulkster · « **Reply #29391 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:52:10 AM »

dorian looked dead in some shots his physique was so ugly $:-\$ :

Hulkster · « **Reply #29392 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:53:20 AM »

LOL here is your great taper in 93 just being raped by coleman:

Hulkster · « **Reply #29393 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:54:11 AM »

notice again, dorian has more rolls than an english bakery..and the nuthuggers conveniently igrone this massive flaw..

pobrecito · « **Reply #29394 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:54:56 AM »

God damn, could you get any more soft and puffy than Coleman is in this shot

Hulkster · « **Reply #29395 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:58:10 AM »

lol but the rolls of loose fat don't matter?

Hulkster · « **Reply #29396 on:** June 03, 2007, 09:59:15 AM »

and by the way, Ronnie doesn't look any more smooth in that shot than dorian did in 93. look at the pics again.

the difference is Ronnie has a better taper and no loose jay-cutler-rolls-of-fat.

pobrecito · « **Reply #29397 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:02:46 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 03, 2007, 09:58:10 AM

lol but the rolls of loose fat don't matter?

You dipshit.

Dorian did not have any fat or water on his back

If he did it would show up in all his back poses. The skin is a flexible tissue and is a result of how he pushes on the skin with his hands and leans back. Ronnie on the other hand leans forward.

Please tell me, where is the fat here?

Hulkster · « **Reply #29398 on:** June 03, 2007, 10:07:10 AM »

you moron, we are speaking about the REAR LAT SPREAD POSE.

you are just as dumb as ND was.

ignore the rolls of fat and then post other pictures of different poses to convince your delsional self that they CAN'T be there..

Iceman1981 · « **Reply #29399 on:** June 03, 2007, 12:20:52 PM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on June 03, 2007, 09:36:18 AM

I have a question for Hulkster.

If this is a good quality pic from 95:

Why does it look less impressive than pic from 94 (one of Yates' worst years)?:

The truth is it's a poor shot from arguably Yates' best showing and doesn't prove shit.

Now all of a sudden it's a "poor shot"? The yates fan club has been posting this shot ever since this thread started, but ever since I showed everyone yates lose skin on his lower back in the rear latspreadand compared it to a 99 Ronnie with a tighter lower back in the rear latspread, this 95' pic of yates hasn't even been posted at all by the yates fan club. Go figure.