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

[IceCold]

its amazing how no one on the dorian side except for Suckmymuscle actually has a working knowledge of the english language and reading comprehension skills.

no offense, but is english not the first language of most of you?

because it sure doesn't look like it.

Dorian was a bit hesitant, for sure. Hence the 'I don't know" spoken immediately after..

but "Ronnie would probably beat me.." is about as clear as you can get.

what part of this statement do you not understand?

have you guys ever done the TOEFL test

(thats Test of English as a Foreign Language).

it might help you guys a lot with your english.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND CAN YOU READ ENGLISH.


BUT WHEN RONNIE SAYS SOMETHING EVEN MORE CLEAR THAN YATES, SUCH AS DORIAN HAVING THE BEST BACK, SIDE CHEST, ETC. YOU DONT RECOGNIZE HIS WORDS.


LIKE WHAT'S BEEN SAID FOR OVER A YEAR, THE ONLY THING MORE PATHETIC THAN YOUR NUTHUGGING IS YOUR HYPOCRISY.

[NarcissisticDeity]

its amazing how no one on the dorian side except for Suckmymuscle actually has a working knowledge of the english language and reading comprehension skills.

no offense, but is english not the first language of most of you?

because it sure doesn't look like it.

Dorian was a bit hesitant, for sure. Hence the 'I don't know" spoken immediately after..

but "Ronnie would probably beat me.." is about as clear as you can get.

what part of this statement do you not understand?

have you guys ever done the TOEFL test

(thats Test of English as a Foreign Language).

it might help you guys a lot with your english.

Whoa once again Mr Excuses pops in lol don't presume to speak for Yates kid , what part of I guess I don't know didn't you comprehend.

Oh and did you notice the part where he says he's better BALANCED and has better CONDITIONING? lol both of these crush your ignorance .

[NarcissisticDeity]

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND CAN YOU READ ENGLISH.


BUT WHEN RONNIE SAYS SOMETHING EVEN MORE CLEAR THAN YATES, SUCH AS DORIAN HAVING THE BEST BACK, SIDE CHEST, ETC. YOU DONT RECOGNIZE HIS WORDS.


LIKE WHAT'S BEEN SAID FOR OVER A YEAR, THE ONLY THING MORE PATHETIC THAN YOUR NUTHUGGING IS YOUR HYPOCRISY.

Great post !

Hulkster = hypocrite , textboook.

[dearth]

4th = gift

hope this helps

its amazing how no one on the dorian side except for Suckmymuscle actually has a working knowledge of the english language and reading comprehension skills.

no offense, but is english not the first language of most of you?

because it sure doesn't look like it.

Dorian was a bit hesitant, for sure. Hence the 'I don't know" spoken immediately after..

but "Ronnie would probably beat me.." is about as clear as you can get.

what part of this statement do you not understand?

have you guys ever done the TOEFL test

(thats Test of English as a Foreign Language).

it might help you guys a lot with your english.

[bizzy]

I wonder how many people have seen the 1999 Mr. Olympia
video/DVD? Although the lighting is supreme it can't produce
defintion, seperation and striations that aren't there. I sold videos
as a side income for three years from all the major distributors.
GMV was gracious enough to allow me to be a distributor for them
on ebay. Anyway, Out of all pics and videos I've ever seen,the video
of Ronnie in the 99 O at prejudjuging is the best bodybuilder I've ever
seen in pics, live or on vid/DVD. His shoulder to waist ratio was incredible
and he was peeled/skinless everywhere except a tad of water/fat/thick skin
on his back. His calves are not great but definately are not tiny and don't
look out of place at the weight he was at.
     Here are my thoughts on the Horton pics which is probably the best
thing we have of Dorian to compare. I bought the magazine and was blown away by his
size, thickness, density ect. BUT; one of my first thoughts was that he looked like a
mixture between a powerlifter and a bodybuilder. Very impressive but no work of art.
I think if he had walked onstage in that condition he would have looked hard but
semi-smooth under the harsh stage lighting. I don't want to hear all the expert opinions
and who said what because unless you have seen the videos/DVD's of the 98 O,
99 O and 2001 Arnold you can't say that Ronnie was in worse condition in 99.
Some will say I wasn't there at those shows which is true but once again good
lighting can't produce something that is not there. I have not seen a pic/vid or any evidence
that can prove Ronnie was not as conditioned in 99 than 98 or 2001only eyewitnesses
which can be swayed by crowd reaction, emotion and the level of competition
standing next to them at the time. In 99 Ronnie had a best ever Comier to his left
and a conditioned bigger than ever Flex on his right. Anyway, what I'm trying to say
is if you want to see the best of Ronnie buy the 1999 O DVD; watch the prejudging
part and judge for yourself.

[Hulkster]

I wonder how many people have seen the 1999 Mr. Olympia
video/DVD? Although the lighting is supreme it can't produce
defintion, seperation and striations that aren't there. I sold videos
as a side income for three years from all the major distributors.
GMV was gracious enough to allow me to be a distributor for them
on ebay. Anyway, Out of all pics and videos I've ever seen,the video
of Ronnie in the 99 O at prejudjuging is the best bodybuilder I've ever
seen in pics, live or on vid/DVD. His shoulder to waist ratio was incredible
and he was peeled/skinless everywhere except a tad of water/fat/thick skin
on his back. His calves are not great but definately are not tiny and don't
look out of place at the weight he was at.      Here are my thoughts on the Horton pics which is probably the best
thing we have of Dorian to compare. I bought the magazine and was blown away by his
size, thickness, density ect. BUT; one of my first thoughts was that he looked like a
mixture between a powerlifter and a bodybuilder. Very impressive but no work of art.I think if he had walked onstage in that condition he would have looked hard but
semi-smooth under the harsh stage lighting. I don't want to hear all the expert opinions
and who said what because unless you have seen the videos/DVD's of the 98 O,
99 O and 2001 Arnold you can't say that Ronnie was in worse condition in 99.Some will say I wasn't there at those shows which is true but once again good
lighting can't produce something that is not there. I have not seen a pic/vid or any evidence
that can prove Ronnie was not as conditioned in 99 than 98 or 2001only eyewitnesses
which can be swayed by crowd reaction, emotion and the level of competition
standing next to them at the time. In 99 Ronnie had a best ever Comier to his left
and a conditioned bigger than ever Flex on his right. Anyway, what I'm trying to say
is if you want to see the best of Ronnie buy the 1999 O DVD; watch the prejudging
part and judge for yourself.

we have been saying these exact things for 1400+ pages now.

you echo exactly what has already been said and dismissed by the idiots on the dorian side

ie 99 Ronnie might be greatest ever

99 ronnie probably in just as good of condtion as 98/01 AC

dorian looks more like a powerlifter

etc.

the dorian side just doesn't get it..much like simple mastery of English hahaha

[IceCold]

I wonder how many people have seen the 1999 Mr. Olympia
video/DVD? Although the lighting is supreme it can't produce
defintion, seperation and striations that aren't there. I sold videos
as a side income for three years from all the major distributors.
GMV was gracious enough to allow me to be a distributor for them
on ebay. Anyway, Out of all pics and videos I've ever seen,the video
of Ronnie in the 99 O at prejudjuging is the best bodybuilder I've ever
seen in pics, live or on vid/DVD. His shoulder to waist ratio was incredible
and he was peeled/skinless everywhere except a tad of water/fat/thick skin
on his back. His calves are not great but definately are not tiny and don't
look out of place at the weight he was at.
     Here are my thoughts on the Horton pics which is probably the best
thing we have of Dorian to compare. I bought the magazine and was blown away by his
size, thickness, density ect. BUT; one of my first thoughts was that he looked like a
mixture between a powerlifter and a bodybuilder. Very impressive but no work of art.
I think if he had walked onstage in that condition he would have looked hard but
semi-smooth under the harsh stage lighting. I don't want to hear all the expert opinions
and who said what because unless you have seen the videos/DVD's of the 98 O,
99 O and 2001 Arnold you can't say that Ronnie was in worse condition in 99.
Some will say I wasn't there at those shows which is true but once again good
lighting can't produce something that is not there. I have not seen a pic/vid or any evidence
that can prove Ronnie was not as conditioned in 99 than 98 or 2001only eyewitnesses
which can be swayed by crowd reaction, emotion and the level of competition
standing next to them at the time. In 99 Ronnie had a best ever Comier to his left
and a conditioned bigger than ever Flex on his right. Anyway, what I'm trying to say
is if you want to see the best of Ronnie buy the 1999 O DVD; watch the prejudging
part and judge for yourself.

we've all watched.

yates beat better bbers - if ronnie only faced in an in prime levrone, flex, shawn, nasser, paul, etc. - he wouldnt have looked nearly as good as he did standing next to an oil filled 240 lb. flex.

also, ronnie, NEVER received the same reception or ovation yates received in ANY years.

the audience was there and have the most accurate description.

[Hulkster]

Anyway, what I'm trying to say
is if you want to see the best of Ronnie buy the 1999 O DVD; watch the prejudging
part and judge for yourself.

the screenshots from the 99 prejudging was so damaging to the dorian side that to this day they still insist they are faked..

he was that much better than dorian ever was:

[bizzy]

Another point I failed to mention is:

1999 Ronnie @ 257 and equal conditioning is > than 98 or 2001 AC Ronnie 10 pounds lighter...
If you watch the vid/DVD and don't agree I will say fair enough;
but don't just go by someone else's opinion. Judge for yourself!

[bizzy]

And those screen shots (although great, don't do the vid/DVD justice. 

[Hulkster]

Another point I failed to mention is:

1999 Ronnie @ 257 and equal conditioning is > than 98 or 2001 AC Ronnie 10 pounds lighter...
If you watch the vid/DVD and don't agree I will say fair enough;
but don't just go by someone else's opinion. Judge for yourself!

this is another point we have been making for 1400+ pages:

look at the visuals and decide for yourself.

the dorian side does not do this - they rely on quotes and dismiss the visuals because they are so damaging to dorian compared to Ronnie.

you are quickly learning how stupid the dorian side (at least Icecold and ND) are.

Suckmymuscle has a brain, but he is misguided..

[IceCold]

i'm not denying that yates has a more "powerful" and less "artful" look than ronnie.

that really means nothing and the same would be said if it were vice versa.

in regards to 99, i still have not seen anything from 99-00 that states ronnie's version of that year is the best ever.

iv'e asked you for the last 6 months, humpster, to provide any documentation from 99  or any year that ronnie in 99 was the best ever.

if he was as good as you claim, then that would be have been the case in EVERY olympia review from 99  

even now, the ronnie from 99, is NEVER referenced ANYWHERE.

when people talk about ronnie being the best ever it was ONLY after 03 when he was 285.

in every poll from 99-03, ronnie always finished behind yates.

howeve,r the exact opposite is true for yates in 93 or 95.

as soon as yates walked onstage those years, it was seen and documented that it was the best ever.

even today, those years are still referenced.

the same cannot be said for 99.

if so, then prove it, humpster.

[IceCold]

Another point I failed to mention is:

1999 Ronnie @ 257 and equal conditioning is > than 98 or 2001 AC Ronnie 10 pounds lighter...
If you watch the vid/DVD and don't agree I will say fair enough;
but don't just go by someone else's opinion. Judge for yourself!

the thing is ronnie's conditioning in 99 is not equal to the 01 AC.

its easily apparent in the hams and back. 

just ask ronnie himself or peter mcgough.

what do you expect us to do?

rely on hulkster's words.


lmao.

[bizzy]

Ice Cold - Watch the vid/DVD yourself and come to your OWN
conclusions. You can probably find one for $20 somewhere
and still have a great DVD even if you disagree. I am surprised
99's not mentioned but you have to see it for yourself to understand
what we are talking about. There is NO way his hams or glutes
could be more detailed than 99 because they look skinless.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I wonder how many people have seen the 1999 Mr. Olympia
video/DVD? Although the lighting is supreme it can't produce
defintion, seperation and striations that aren't there. I sold videos
as a side income for three years from all the major distributors.
GMV was gracious enough to allow me to be a distributor for them
on ebay. Anyway, Out of all pics and videos I've ever seen,the video
of Ronnie in the 99 O at prejudjuging is the best bodybuilder I've ever
seen in pics, live or on vid/DVD. His shoulder to waist ratio was incredible
and he was peeled/skinless everywhere except a tad of water/fat/thick skin
on his back. His calves are not great but definately are not tiny and don't
look out of place at the weight he was at.
     Here are my thoughts on the Horton pics which is probably the best
thing we have of Dorian to compare. I bought the magazine and was blown away by his
size, thickness, density ect. BUT; one of my first thoughts was that he looked like a
mixture between a powerlifter and a bodybuilder. Very impressive but no work of art.
I think if he had walked onstage in that condition he would have looked hard but
semi-smooth under the harsh stage lighting. I don't want to hear all the expert opinions
and who said what because unless you have seen the videos/DVD's of the 98 O,
99 O and 2001 Arnold you can't say that Ronnie was in worse condition in 99.
Some will say I wasn't there at those shows which is true but once again good
lighting can't produce something that is not there. I have not seen a pic/vid or any evidence
that can prove Ronnie was not as conditioned in 99 than 98 or 2001only eyewitnesses
which can be swayed by crowd reaction, emotion and the level of competition
standing next to them at the time. In 99 Ronnie had a best ever Comier to his left
and a conditioned bigger than ever Flex on his right. Anyway, what I'm trying to say
is if you want to see the best of Ronnie buy the 1999 O DVD; watch the prejudging
part and judge for yourself.

I've seen most of the Olympia on tape with the exception of 1974 and down ! Okay you think Ronnie 99 looks spectacular and yet admit he's holding water

Here are my thoughts on the Horton pics which is probably the best
thing we have of Dorian to compare. I bought the magazine and was blown away by his
size, thickness, density ect. BUT; one of my first thoughts was that he looked like a
mixture between a powerlifter and a bodybuilder. Very impressive but no work of art.

Okay you don't thing Yates is aesthetic NO argument from me , but Ronnie 1999 in fact any year doesn't look a work of art lol not by a long shot . more  ' aesthetic ' than Dorian sure but Flex Wheeler or Bob Paris lol I mean seriously

Very impressive but no work of art.
I think if he had walked onstage in that condition he would have looked hard but
semi-smooth under the harsh stage lighting.

semi-smooth? Dorian's conditioning even at 269 pounds is outstanding his look would only improve by leaps & bounds under right lighting , to quote the man who took the photograph his conditioning at that weight would be in the top three best conditioned guys at the 1993 Mr Olympia

I don't want to hear all the expert opinions
and who said what because unless you have seen the videos/DVD's of the 98 O,
99 O and 2001 Arnold you can't say that Ronnie was in worse condition in 99.
Some will say I wasn't there at those shows which is true but once again good
lighting can't produce something that is not there. I have not seen a pic/vid or any evidence
that can prove Ronnie was not as conditioned in 99 than 98 or 2001only eyewitnesses
which can be swayed by crowd reaction, emotion and the level of competition
standing next to them at the time.

I mean the fuck should I begin with this nonsense? lol you don't want to hear the expert opinions yet go right ahead and give your ' expert ' opinion based on less than ideal means. I've seen the videos in question and there is a noticeable difference in his conditioning and thats just based on pictures & videos now seeing I wasn't there I rely on the authority of an eyewitness who was and what do they have to say about the situation

Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001

RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .


and to couple that with Ronnie Coleman himself who said that 1998 was his best Olympia because his conditioning was spot on

Now you're saying we should dismiss these two eyewitness accounts because according to you

eyewitnesses
which can be swayed by crowd reaction, emotion and the level of competition
standing next to them at the time.

I mean what the fuck were you thinking when you typed this bullshit? I mean you're on Hulkster's level here , a crowd reaction and emotional level is going to sway someone's ability to determine if someone is dry or not , yet you can ascertain his level of conditioning while sitting at home? lol and to top it all off you admit he's holding water in 1999 lmfao do you presume to have the audacity to tell Ronnie Coleman when his conditioning was spot on and when it wasn't? lol

In 99 Ronnie had a best ever Comier to his left
and a conditioned bigger than ever Flex on his right. Anyway, what I'm trying to say
is if you want to see the best of Ronnie buy the 1999 O DVD; watch the prejudging
part and judge for yourself.

A best ever Cormier and a ' conditioned bigger Flex ' you mean the smoother oil-filled Flex who's conditioning was no where near the level it was in 1993 and Cormier another hit or miss guy when it comes to conditioning hence why he was the bridesmaid at the Arnold for so long , Ronnie looked great at the 1999 Mr Olympia but to say he's just as dry & hard as 1998 or 2001 isn't true and its fine that you think thats his best showing but he still lags behind Dorian in to many areas , and his calves blew in 99 they still lacked proportion in relation to his quads not to mention detail & development .

[Hulkster]

Ice Cold - Watch the vid/DVD yourself and come to your OWN
conclusions. You can probably find one for $20 somewhere
and still have a great DVD even if you disagree. I am surprised
99's not mentioned but you have to see it for yourself to understand
what we are talking about. There is NO way his hams or glutes
could be more detailed than 99 because they look skinless.

you do realize you are trying to reason with an idiot..

you are fast finding out how dumb these guys really are.

welcome to the club!

[NarcissisticDeity]

we have been saying these exact things for 1400+ pages now.

you echo exactly what has already been said and dismissed by the idiots on the dorian side

ie 99 Ronnie might be greatest ever

99 ronnie probably in just as good of condtion as 98/01 AC

dorian looks more like a powerlifter

etc.

the dorian side just doesn't get it..much like simple mastery of English hahaha

Ronnie himself said 1998 was his best specifically because his conditioning was spot on ! I mean you've been saying this for ' 1400+ pages ' now and for 1400+ pages you've been wrong .

[Hulkster]

ND is in serious defense mode because yet another educated and knowledable fan echos everything we have been saying...

LOL

deal with ND.

you and Icehole are incorrect.

[NarcissisticDeity]

the screenshots from the 99 prejudging was so damaging to the dorian side that to this day they still insist they are faked..

he was that much better than dorian ever was:

Oh yeah so damaging lol  its NOT like we were posting pictures and magazine scans from 1999 for MONTHS and MONTHS before the screencaps , the statement stands Ronnie 99 who cares? you and you're ' new ' buddy are the only ones who think 99 is his best .

[Hulkster]

Ronnie himself said 1998 was his best specifically because his conditioning was spot on ! I mean you've been saying this for ' 1400+ pages ' now and for 1400+ pages you've been wrong .

1. ronnie stated during the 99 show that it was the best shape he had ever been in.

I am going to find someone with that mag to prove you wrong. its going to be great.

2. the visual evidence shows they are very close, and ronnie 99 was certainly more full:

3. 99 Ronnie had much better quad cuts. Just ask Lonnie Teper in his ironman review.

I will see if I can get someone to scan that stuff too if someone still has the mag..

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND is in serious defense mode because yet another educated and knowledable fan echos everything we have been saying...

LOL

deal with ND.

you and Icehole are incorrect.

More knowledgeable than Ronnie Coleman? lol you're always trapped by your ignorance ! Ronnie said 1998 was his best showing because his conditioning was spot-on that means it was better than 1999/2000/2001/2002/2003/2004/2005/2006/2007 get it?

you're the one who has to defend your comment its 1999 NOT I 

[IceCold]

1. ronnie stated during the 99 show that it was the best shape he had ever been in.

I am going to find someone with that mag to prove you wrong. its going to be great.

2. the visual evidence shows they are very close, and ronnie 99 was certainly more full:

3. 99 Ronnie had much better quad cuts. Just ask Lonnie Teper in his ironman review.

I will see if I can get someone to scan that stuff too if someone still has the mag..

1.  ronnie said?  so, now, all of a sudden you are stating what he says bc it matches your opinion.  but, completely ignore him when he says yates has the best back.

2. ronnie may have been more full in 99, but yates was thicker, denser, harder, and dryer.

3. ronnie did have better quads cuts, yates had better midsection and low back cuts.  not to mention better balance.

i have all the mags and reviews from 99 (and every year since) and I dont recall any reference to 99 (maybe other when he showed up too heavy in 04).


if you find it, post it. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

1. ronnie stated during the 99 show that it was the best shape he had ever been in.

I am going to find someone with that mag to prove you wrong. its going to be great.

2. the visual evidence shows they are very close, and ronnie 99 was certainly more full:

3. 99 Ronnie had much better quad cuts. Just ask Lonnie Teper in his ironman review.

I will see if I can get someone to scan that stuff too if someone still has the mag..

I don't trust a word you say anymore I gave that shot and you fucking lie about a Shawn Ray quote and it doesn't matter if Ronnie said he was in his best shape ever in 99 why? because in 2007 he said 1998 was and why? because his conditioning was spot-on and this resonates with McGough's statement that Ronnie was off from 98

This crushes your little opinion.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Another point I failed to mention is:

1999 Ronnie @ 257 and equal conditioning is > than 98 or 2001 AC Ronnie 10 pounds lighter...
If you watch the vid/DVD and don't agree I will say fair enough;
but don't just go by someone else's opinion. Judge for yourself!

I did watch the videos I did make my OWN opinion that he was better in 98/01 and guess what Ronnie and McGough , two people mind you who were at all of the contests confirm by opinion

[NarcissisticDeity]

i'm not denying that yates has a more "powerful" and less "artful" look than ronnie.

that really means nothing and the same would be said if it were vice versa.

in regards to 99, i still have not seen anything from 99-00 that states ronnie's version of that year is the best ever.

iv'e asked you for the last 6 months, humpster, to provide any documentation from 99  or any year that ronnie in 99 was the best ever.

if he was as good as you claim, then that would be have been the case in EVERY olympia review from 99 



even now, the ronnie from 99, is NEVER referenced ANYWHERE.

when people talk about ronnie being the best ever it was ONLY after 03 when he was 285.

in every poll from 99-03, ronnie always finished behind yates.

howeve,r the exact opposite is true for yates in 93 or 95.

as soon as yates walked onstage those years, it was seen and documented that it was the best ever.

even today, those years are still referenced.

the same cannot be said for 99.

if so, then prove it, humpster.

This is from the 1993 Mr Olympia lol to my knowledge this has NEVER been done before or since lol

Peter McGough

Given his stunning superiority, the judges saw no need to include him in a muscularity comparison, so Wayne DeMilia called out Yates, Flex Wheeler and Shawn Ray just for the audience.

I mean seriously they didn't even need to include him in the muscularity round lol stunning superiority to a much higher caliber of competitor than Ronnie ever faced .