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

[Hulkster]

in showing the same pics from 1 single contest (94) over and over without discrimination

Camp Construction Worker should have NO PROBLEM with 1994 pics, because according to them, he dominated, it was not even close, and he easily beat this:




 

look at the pics and videos.

Camp Construction Worker obvious does not care one bit about quality (eg. their 1994 arguments or the whole ronnie vs dorian debate itself).

all they care about is size.

[NeoSeminole]

Ha ha ha ha

And when they do use a good picture of Dorian its scaled so he looks small next to Ronnie . the front double biceps comparision Dorian's waist is the same size and Ronnie's and Ronnie's calves are bigger than Dorians  and then they pat each other on the ass and say well done.

Some of ND's comparisons:









Some of mine:







Gee, I wonder who's comparisons are more accurate? 

[Hulkster]

Ha ha ha ha

Some of ND's comparisons:









Some of mine:







Gee, I wonder who's comparisons are more accurate? 

this is what I am talking about - look at the supreme difference in muscle quality that Ronnie diplays.

striated lower back, more detailed pecs, quads, glutes, better shape, better vascularity.

It just goes on and on.

Anyone who says Dorian is better is not adhering to normal bodybuilding conventions.

In bodybuilding, if you have better shape, better detail, better vascularity all with the same size, you are judged to have a better physique under normal conventions.

Thats the way it works.

You can say you like dorian better all you want, and that fine.

But don't say it is because he has a better physique.

Because according to normal bodybuilding conventions, he does not.

[pumpster]

Here are some positives about Yates: unlike a lot of American knucklehead BBs like Lavrone, most of the Europeans interviewed seem more grounded & articulate.

As I've noticed myself, he acknowledges that many of the American BBs (excluding Coleman and some others) seem to be going through the motions re: training intensity which is not what it's supposed to be about. Bob Chich & training partner being excellent examples.

&search=dorian%20yates

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ha ha ha ha

Some of ND's comparisons:


Gee, I wonder who's comparisons are more accurate? 

Hmm genius those aren't mine and you're clueless as to what accuracy is serious. the pictures you post Colemans waist is just as big as Dorians and his calves are bigger , get serious your comparisions reak of bias.

[NarcissisticDeity]

this is what I am talking about - look at the supreme difference in muscle quality that Ronnie diplays.

striated lower back, more detailed pecs, quads, glutes, better shape, better vascularity.

It just goes on and on.

Anyone who says Dorian is better is not adhering to normal bodybuilding conventions.

In bodybuilding, if you have better shape, better detail, better vascularity all with the same size, you are judged to have a better physique under normal conventions.

Thats the way it works.

You can say you like dorian better all you want, and that fine.

But don't say it is because he has a better physique.

Because according to normal bodybuilding conventions, he does not.

Hulkster you've made the claim that Dorian was " the most overrated bodybuilder ever "  " was nothing more than calves and a back " and " his conditioning was mothing more thna myth"  you also claimed " Ronnie would win due to his superior taper " and " much better x-frame " these statements spotlight your obvious bias and total and severe lacking on how the I.F.B.B. judge the professional mens bodybuilding contests . to simplify it you're clueless .

You didn't and still don't know the I.F.B.B. judging criteria I posted it and you gloss over all that you don't like and cling desperatly to the parts you feel fit Ronnie and claim and e-victory lol look in all honesty it would be close and I think Dorian would edge him out and I'm open to the idea he may not . for you to think it would be a walk in the park for Ronnie shows your ignorance and lack of objectivity .

You're just like a conservitive christian and that my friend is NOT a good thing .

[NeoSeminole]

Hmm genius those aren't mine and you're clueless as to what accuracy is serious. the pictures you post Colemans waist is just as big as Dorians and his calves are bigger , get serious your comparisions reak of bias.

Some of ND's comparisons:







Some of mine:







 

[nicorulez]

Guys, come on and make up.    Listen, I agree with ND that an in shape pre-tear Dorian circa 1993 would not get blown out of the water by any degree by whatever version of Ronnie you put him against.  I think the 1998/1999 Ronnie was better, but that is my opinion.  I certainly feel that a 1993 Dorian would beat 2002 Ronnie.  No question in my mind.  I then feel that 2003 Ronnie would overwhelm Dorian in the muscularity round, but he had lost some of the symmetry that made him so spectacular in 1998/1999.  Regardless, both guys are awesome.  Without a doubt, the two best bodybuilders in the last 15 years.  However, to compare them at their respective bests is getting moot as it will never happen.  When Dorian was dominating, Ronnie was just coming into his own.  I didn't see Ronnie's pics in 1997, but the video I posted on another thread makes me feel that he was definitely overlooked in the Mr. Olympia that year (no way Priest can ever beat him...never).  When Ronnie came into his own, Dorian retired because of all the injuries.  He was gifted 1997 on reputation and name alone; much like Ronnie was gifted 2002.  Regardless, at their primes, it would have been a hell of a show.  All I know is that I would own the DVD.    Peace all.  Now make up and lets start a new thread like "mass vs class" for the next Mr. Olypia.  Branch vs Heath.  Hell, that might be fun.

[benchthis]

bump 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Some of ND's comparisons:



Some of mine:




 

I love yours  Ronnie is standing with his legs about a foot apart from Dorian and he's still taller lol kid get back to work.

and FYI those aren't mine .

[NeoSeminole]

Fixed

Hmm genius those aren't mine and you're clueless as to what accuracy is serious. the pictures you post Colemans waist is just as big as Dorians and his calves are bigger , get serious your comparisions reak of bias.

Some of ND's comparisons:







Some of mine:

and FYI those aren't mine .

No shit, I know they aren't yours. You are too dumb to figure out how to put two pics side-by-side. That's still no excuse for you to use them. You are just as dishonest for posting those comparisons as the guy who made them. Ronnie is an inch taller than Dorian in real life yet in the pics you posted he's 2-3 inches taller than Ronnie. You even have the audacity to attack my comparisons saying they "reak of bias" you pathetic hypocrite.

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Fixed

Some of ND's comparisons:


No shit, I know they aren't yours. You are too dumb to figure out how to put two pics side-by-side. That's still no excuse for you to use them. You are just as dishonest for posting those comparisons as the guy who made them. Ronnie is an inch taller than Dorian in real life yet in the pics you posted he's 2-3 inches taller than Ronnie. You even have the audacity to attack my comparisons saying they "reak of bias" you pathetic hypocrite.



 

    

I wish I knew how to do it on Adobe Photoshop its a tad more complex than the junk you're using .

[pobrecito]

Yates looks so much better here

[pobrecito]

lights out for ronnie in the side tri

[pobrecito]

Lights out for Yates in the MM

[pumpster]

lights out for ronnie in the side tri

You haven't been paying attention to any of the previous pages in that case..

[nicorulez]

Unfortunately, in color Yates in 2003 was not as impressive in the front lat spread.  Do not get me wrong, he was tight and big as hell.  He looked amazing.  I just feel those pre-contest shots in B&W with perfect lighting and taken with traditional 35mm and not digital defintely gave him a look that is not captured on today's digital cameras.  In contest photos, Ronnie is definitely bigger; who is better is a personal opinion.  I like Ronnie as he has a smaller waist, better arms and chest.  However, yates has more flare to his lats, I think.

[pumpster]

Coleman with a big edge in refinement & detail as well as taper, even in a better shot of Yates, a shot Yates is supposed to own but doesn't.

Those B/W shots are really needed to try to bring out the detail Yates lacks in color shots from the front..even with the B/Ws he has nowhere near Coleman's detail and is in fact smooth in the usual areas like arms.

[pobrecito]

You haven't been paying attention to any of the previous pages in that case..

umm, ronnie's side tri isn't even close....his horribly shaped triceps, not to mention Yates would force Coleman to stick out his pathetic back calf....Yates would expose coleman to the max on this pose just as he did with the competition in the 90s.

[pobrecito]

Unfortunately, in color Yates in 2003 was not as impressive in the front lat spread.  Do not get me wrong, he was tight and big as hell.  He looked amazing.  I just feel those pre-contest shots in B&W with perfect lighting and taken with traditional 35mm and not digital defintely gave him a look that is not captured on today's digital cameras.  In contest photos, Ronnie is definitely bigger; who is better is a personal opinion.  I like Ronnie as he has a smaller waist, better arms and chest.  However, yates has more flare to his lats, I think.

perfect lighting WTF? these were just shots for Yates reference after a workout...hardly perfect lighting. More like one of the best conditioned and most complete physiques of all time.

[pumpster]

ronnie's side tri isn't even close....his horribly shaped triceps

Ummm, coincidentally only people favoring Yates notice any problem with shape, and coincidentally there's never a balanced assessment that mentions Coleman's HUGE triceps size advantage. Yates actually has mediocre size in tris from certain angles, which is why he only looks good in side tri shots that mask it.

[pobrecito]

Ummm, coincidentally only people favoring Yates notice any problem with shape, and coincidentally never mention the HUGE triceps size advantage. Yates actually has mediocre size in tris from certain angles.

how the fuck are you coming up that Ronnie has bigger triceps than Yates Ronnie is 248lbs in that picture compared to Yates 255 in the flex mag scan...top to bottom Yates beats coleman in the side tri.

[pumpster]

how the f**k are you coming up that Ronnie has bigger triceps than Yates

Why the f**k are you so lazy that you can't read the preceeding pages that cover all the issues you've brought up many times over? Get to it, you're shooting blanks.

[pobrecito]

Why the f**k are you so lazy that you can't read the preceeding pages that cover all the issues you've brought up many times over? Get to it.

I don't need to. I can see the pictures. Yates is clearly more balanced and complete in the side tri.

[NarcissisticDeity]

You haven't been paying attention to any of the previous pages in that case..

Not by a long shot .