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

[pobrecito]

They show the judges incorrect obsession with mass/width over quality, shape and detail at the time.

Why then was Dillet not Mr. Olympia in 1993 (268lbs)? Why wasn't Nasser Mr. Olympia in 96 and 97? (285lbs) ....all more massive than Dorian.

I do think '99 Ronnie is the best presentation of all-times, but it's laughable that you don't give Dorian his due credit. The simple fact that Dorian was not even called out in '93 just shows how dominant and good he was that year. And that '93 Flex is much better than the '98 Flex that only lost to Ronnie by 3pts...

[pumpster]

Why then was Dillet not Mr. Olympia in 1993 (268lbs)? Why wasn't Nasser Mr. Olympia in 96 and 97? (285lbs) ....all more massive than Dorian.

Throw in the reasons why better BBs than Yates some years, like Wheeler & Lavrone, were never permitted to win even once, against this..

[Hulkster]

Why then was Dillet not Mr. Olympia in 1993 (268lbs)? Why wasn't Nasser Mr. Olympia in 96 and 97? (285lbs) ....all more massive than Dorian.

I do think '99 Ronnie is the best presentation of all-times, but it's laughable that you don't give Dorian his due credit. The simple fact that Dorian was not even called out in '93 just shows how dominant and good he was that year. And that '93 Flex is much better than the '98 Flex that only lost to Ronnie by 3pts...

Dillett was not Mr. O. because he had no back, and could not pose at all.

Nasser was very nearly Mr. O. over Dorian.

[pobrecito]

Dillett was not Mr. O. because he had no back, and could not pose at all.

Nasser was very nearly Mr. O. over Dorian.

That doesn't matter. You said Dorian was Mr. O becuase he was the widest and had the most mass, which is incorrect. Why wasn't Ferrigno Mr. Olympia then in 92 he was 318lbs, Dorian was a "scrawny" 242. Dorian was NEVER the biggest man on stage, so how did he win then? How did he win in '92? Your statement about Yates winning only becuase of his size is invalid. He may have not been as good as Ronnie, but give him his props.

[IceCold]

once again, hulkster and pumpster (the same person) proved wrong by pobrecito.

can you guys read?  whatever flaws you come up with its been proved irrelevant by dorian's record.  his mass, conditioning, hardness, and density overcame everything - even against some of the best bbers of all time.  that's why he was the most dominant ever - a guy with "so many flaws" but still manages to put a package together to DOMINATE anyone else whether they be some of the most aesethic and symmetrical bbers of all time (ray, wheeler) or some of the largest (sonbaty, dillet, ferrigno).  i didnt know how to describe kevin.

another example of mass, conditioning, and hardness overcoming flaws is when gunter beat ronnie at the 2002 GNC show.  gunter also has many flaws. 

same thing with nasser winning the 1999 AC.  he also has flaws, some which hulkster you claim dorian has - taper, smooth quads, and of course his back.

this is years after yates retired, are the judges still blind?

you 2 act like you are the authority on who should have won the Olympias and continually discredit the judges thinking your opinion is more valid than theirs. 


arms?  post me a pic of someone that would beat dorian in the side tricep pose?

[IceCold]

the pics and videos themselves are what show that Yates was overrated in the first place.

They show the judges incorrect obsession with mass/width over quality, shape and detail at the time.

oh, i understand now.

the judges told you this.   

idiot.

[IceCold]

He was inarguably the most dominant tier-B Olympian, along with Haney. He deserves a lot of credit for it.

haney and yates, with 14 combined sandows between them, are considered by YOU to be tier B bodybuilders.


 

[suckmymuscle]

Haha, I bet you actually believe some of this.
Ronnie was so much softer in 96 with much less refinement. His weight means nothing really, as you are happy to point out vis a vis Ronnie 2003/2004. Saying 'he was heavier and just as conditioned so therefor better' or whatever means nothing. Watch the videos, you are wrong. Use your eyes.

  Wrong. This is what the Coleman fans refuse to acknowledge: Ronnie made no dramatic improvements in either muscularity or proportions in the years from 1995 to 1998; the improvements were restricted to conditioning.

  Like I've sid before, the whole buzz in the reviews of the 98 Olympia, by FLEX, MD, MuscleMag and Ironmen, was that he was showing better separations on his upper back, and that he had finally managed to lose the water retention he had in his glutes and lower back. There wasn't a single word about how dominant his muscularity was - which was the whole theme of the reviews of the 2003 Olympia -, or that he had a classically developed bodybuilding physique. Hell, Ronnie would never defeat Flex Wheeler when it came to classical proportions, so his edge did not come from this.

  Funny that Ronnie won the 1996 CPC, over Flex, with straight-firsts scores, but only edged out a victory over Flex by three points in 1998. This points to the obvious fact that Coleman's muscularity was more dominant at the 1996 CPC than it was at the 1998 Olympia. His symmetry was not better either, because Flex edged Ronnie out at this in both 1996 and 1998, yet Ronnie won by only three points in 1998.

  So, if Ronnie's improvement were not in muscularity and symmetry, what was it? Well, he simply presented what he already had with superior dryness than he previously had. That's it. Saying that Ronnie was more muscularly dominant, at the 1998 Olympia thn he was at the 1996 Canada Pro Cup is non-sensical, because he was actually 11 lbs heavier at the latter than at the former, with a similar level of bodyfat. Symmetry-wise, I'd say that his taper was actually slightly better at the 1996 CPC than at the 1998 Olympia.

  If you look at pics from the 1996 and 1997 Olympia, as well as the 1996 CPC, you'll see that Ronnie is actually thicker and wider on both the back double biceps and rear lat spread mandatories than he was at the 1998 Olympia. However, Ronnie looked more impressive on those two mandatories at the 98 Olympia than at the other two shows. Why? Well, because his upper back separations and the dryness of his lower back, glutes and hamstrings were so much improved! Ronnie lost in muscularity from the 1997 Olympia to the next year's Olympia; but he gained in quality.

  Now, there's no way the 1998 Ronnie would defeat either the 1993 or 1995 Dorian for several reasons: Dorian's muscularity was vastly superior, to the point where he would defeat Ronnie on all the mandatories except perhaps the back double biceps. Dorian's balance was superior from head to toe, because Dorian had calves to match his quads - unlike Ronnie -, and, even though Ronnie's taper at 249 lbs is better than Dorian's at 257 lbs, Dorian still has the superior midsection, with incredibly separated serratus and abdominal muscles. And even though Ronnie was very dry in 1998 and had superior upper back separations than Dorian, he was still no match for Dorian in overrall dryness, who was and remains, even today, the gold-standard for conditioning. Case closed.

P.S. Your posts are so long and boring it's unbelievable. It's a message board not a............thesis writing place of some kind?!?!

  Then don't read them, or reply to them: this will spare you from being humiliated.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Ronnie in 03 had a combination of muscularity, conditioning, and symmetry

  I have nothing to say to someone who believes that Ronnie had great "symmetry" in 2003; there's nothing to argue with a fanatic who refuses to admit that his hero has some flaws.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

The cliff notes version of Sucky's post: If you are decent looking and get tail, you are great.

  No, not to me. But to many guys, being a movie-star who's rich, handsome, famous and gets lots of tail is a more worthy goal to aspire to than to cure cancer or HIV. Personally, a man like Sabin, who saved million of children from infantile paralyses, is more valuable than any movie-star.

  I ask myself if you're being cynical on purpose or if you really failed to understand what I explained. Since you hold a M.D, I'm more inlclined to believe in the former option. That's sad: you want so badly for Humanity to agree that value should be bestowed upon those who do good, being a physician by profession, that you refuse to see the truth that, in the World we live in, greater glory will go to a Barry Bonds or Stalin than to the man who eventually cures AIDS.

Oh well, I strive to be good looking, smart, rich and a decent human being.  Does that count Sucky.  BTW, Bill Gates could pull more tail now if he wanted than Pitt, Cruise and Stallone combined.  Hell, the man could have a harem.   

  No, he couldn't. The guy is butt-ugly and is the living incarnation of the computer-nerd stereotype. Women are gold-diggers and love money. Ok. But they also put an immense amount of importance in things like charm, handsomeness and social graces. All things Gates lacks. If you don't believe me, just consider that there was an edition of a program called "Who Wants To Marry A Multi-millionaire?". This program was about a bunch of women, all beauty-queens and models, who were open about their desire to marry with a rich man for nothing other than to have the good life. Well, do you know what was the single demand that all of those women made, unanimouslly? That none of the programs' millionaire participants would have made their fortunes in the computer industry. Look at Melissa Gates: is she beautiful? Well, she's ok looking, but far, far from a beauty-queen. Most women wouldn't give a computer geek the time of day, even if he's rich. Women go for Pitt and Stallone type of guys; the same ones you disparage. And finally, I would much rather be Brad Pitt than Gates, even though I think the latter is more valuable to the World than the former.

You're wrong about Yates 1997 vs 2003 Coleman.  Coleman would have eaten that genetic monstrosity for lunch.  Only a 1993 Yates could hold muster.  Oh well, it is pointless debating someone who never admits error. 

  Well, the greatest monstrosity, ever seen on Planet Earth, was the 2003 Coleman. His muscularity was spectacular, and I am the first to concede, that the judges, would give him the nod over Dorian on that alone, despite the fact that Ronnie looked like a monstrosity symmetry-wise. And why did you use the word "genetic", there? Genes don't change. You once praised Dorian's genetics and now condemns it? It doesen't make any sense.

PS...on an ethical scale, teachers deserve far more praise than MD's or anyone else.  My two cents. 

  Once again, that's your opinion: a value-judgment, and nothing more. Obviously, society doesen't agree with you: otherwise they'd pay teachers and not Tiger Woods or Federer, millions of dollars in salary.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

this is something that after 340 pages the Yates fans have STILL yet to ANSWER:

What good was dorian's "dryness" if he had smooth arms, legs and chest in comparison to Ronnie?



 


ANSWER PLEASE!!!

  Ok, Huckster, I'll answer that. But before I do, let me just say that your's and Pumpster's tendency of posting he worst possible pics, of Dorian, and then comparing them to that of a 1998/9 Coleman is pathetic - with the exception of this comparison you posted, which is of the 1993 Dorian to the 1998 Ronnie.

  Now, who said Dorian's dryness didn't show anything? Of course it did! Dorian's back had clear separations between the latissimus, infra-spinatus, rhomboids, teres major and erectores. His upper-back details might not be as good as the 1998 Coleman's, but they were by no means not there! His chest was always clearly striated and had the appearance of two rocks just hanging there. His calves were striated at 257 lbs, something that Ronnie failed on having even at 249 lbs!

  Now, what you're forgetting is that "dryness", or conditioning, is a quality in itself. Being super-dry confers an overrall quality to the  whole musculature which is evident. For instance, Dorian's 257 lbs looks far more impressive than the 296 lbs Ronnie had at the 2004 Olympia, because Dorian's muscles just have a whole different quality of appearance to them than Ronnie's: he looks like an off-season bodybuilder when compared to Dorian. The Yates muscles have the appearance of having been sculpted in granite, whereas Ronnie's muscles look like, well, like muscle tissue - with water retention, in the case of 2004. Density and dryness adds quality to a competitor's overrall look. Which is the case with Dorian. This, combined with the fact that he had a flat stomach and separated abdominals and serratus, explains why the 257 lbs Dorian looks much better, to me, than the 280+ lbs Ronnie from both 2003 and 2004. Now, the 1998 Ronnie had a flat stomach and a better taper than Dorian, and perhaps slightly better upper-back details, but he lacked the latter's rock-solid appearance. And to me, that counts.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

Intimidated, SUCKY resurfaces only in the middle of the night.

can you guys read?  whatever flaws you come up with its been proved irrelevant by dorian's record.  his mass, conditioning, hardness, and density overcame everything

Seriously there is something wrong with this guy's cognitive abilities-Yates' record is irrelevant to this conversation you friggin moron.

He goes on like a parrot about conditioning and hardness while ignoring the other criterion that Yates loses miserably on. Conditioning and hardness are two of many criterion, are NOT worth more than those other things just because they serve your bias. Flaws are flaws, and Yates has plenty of those to soil the excellent density & conditioning you continue to obsess on.

-Muscle maturity
-Refinement-very poor in some areas
-Detail-Yates is bereft of detail in several areas including biceps, chest and front delts.
-Shape-Yates has some of the worst shape ever to grace an Olympia stage
-Tapers - lat/shoulder to waist (front/back), arm to wrist ratio, Quad to hip/knee ratio
-Aesthetics-no one thinks Yates is aesthetic
-Size-Yates' arms have always been a huge liability as they're nowhere near the size they should be in relation to that huge torso
-Vascularity-Yates lacks it almost entirely on arms
-Upper body balance-those arms..
-Cuts - Yates had virtually nothing in some areas including arms, chest and front delts.

[LyricTenor]

Man I bet you wish these shots didnt exist.

[pumpster]

Man I bet you wish these shots didnt exist.

I wish Yates didn't exist. Can't tell the "good" shots from the bad ones sometimes.

[IceCold]

I wish Yates didn't exist. Can't tell the "good" shots from the bad ones sometimes.

affirmative action has been over with for a long time.

[IceCold]

the flaws were always there, the judges knew about them, but did not CARE because he was larger and wider than his main competition, Shawn and Flex.

shawn and flex were not only his main competition.  paul, nasser, kevin, flex, and shawn all practically switched places year after year.

everyone in the line -up was larger and wider than shawn and flex.  so if that's what you claim, then why did  shawn and flex beat paul, nasser, kevin, francois, fux, etc.

practically all of those guys had less flaws that what you claim a "smooth" yates had.

paul and nasser had no back, but they had better arms than dorian.  paul had a better taper and his legs and arms werent "smooth".  nasser and fux were bigger than dorian.  kevin had a good taper, arms, chest, and legs. 

so if the judges were obsessed with just mass, then flex and shawn would have finished behind all the mass monsters - so answer this:

Why did shawn and flex beat guys bigger than dorian with less flaws than dorian has but failed to ever come close to beating dorian?  and dont claim you know what the judges were thinking unless you can prove what a judge told you.




nice try. 

[IceCold]

Suckymymuscle,

it pointless to continue to argue with these two clowns.  its one thing to say that ronnie would beat dorian, but another to call hm overrated and along with lee haney, tier b olympians.

their constant claim about yates not having straitions and details in his bi's and front delts, having a decent taper, apparently overshadows the fact that yates was 260 and arguabably the best conditioned bber ever.

hulkster and pumpster refuse to acknowledge how dominant yates was bc of his overall package - that his strengths overcame his weakness.  their opinion is more valid than the fact that yates won 5 out of 6 Olympias with perfect scores against the greatest competition ever.  pumpster claiming that it is not relevant - how is it not when you call someone overrated.  what else would you go by - YOUR opinion?  Both of which pumpster and hulkster seem to think it matters more than the judges and the judges were wrong, blind, delusional, or involved in some conspiracy for 6 years in a row.


pumpster is black and hates white people.

hulkster had a crush on a hot girl at the gym - then she starting dating the biggest guy in the gym who just happens to be black- now he's obsessed with ronnie coleman.

[pumpster]

pumpster is black and hates white people.

Pumpster is black ROFL This fool knows dick about anything BB or anything else apparently-notice he never answers anything related to Yates' many flaws. Thanks for confirming the idiocy. hahahaahahah

their constant claim about yates not having straitions and details in his bi's and front delts, having a decent taper, apparently overshadows the fact that yates was 260 and arguabably the best conditioned bber ever.

Like a parrot, repeating conditioning and density over and over, leaving out Yates' huge failures re:

-Muscle maturity
-Refinement-very poor in some areas
-Detail-Yates is bereft of detail in several areas including biceps, chest and front delts.
-Shape-Yates has some of the worst shape ever to grace an Olympia stage
-Tapers - lat/shoulder to waist (front/back), arm to wrist ratio, Quad to hip/knee ratio
-Aesthetics-no one thinks Yates is aesthetic
-Size-Yates' arms have always been a huge liability as they're nowhere near the size they should be in relation to that huge torso
-Vascularity-Yates lacks it almost entirely on arms
-Upper body balance-those arms..
-Cuts - Yates had virtually nothing in some areas including arms, chest and front delts.

[NeoSeminole]

I have nothing to say to someone who believes that Ronnie had great "symmetry" in 2003; there's nothing to argue with a fanatic who refuses to admit that his hero has some flaws.

Way to take my comment out of context. I said Ronnie in 03 had a combination of muscularity, conditioning, and symmetry that has never been seen before. Obviously, he is not the best in each category. There are some guys who are bigger like Gunter Schlierkamp or Quincy Talor. However, they have worse conditioning and symmetry than Ronnie. Dexter Jackson has better conditioning but gets dwarfed by Ronnie.

[pumpster]

Quote from: suckmymuscle on Today at 04:10:07 AM
I have nothing to say to someone who believes that Ronnie had great "symmetry"  in 2003; there's nothing to argue with a fanatic who refuses to admit that his hero has some flaws.

Way to take my comment out of context.

These two are cognitively-challenged; probably easier than to actually accept the reality about Yates and his huge liabilities. 

[IceCold]

Like a parrot, repeating conditioning and density over and over, leaving out Yates' huge failures re:

-Muscle maturity
-Refinement-very poor in some areas
-Detail-Yates is bereft of detail in several areas including biceps, chest and front delts.
-Shape-Yates has some of the worst shape ever to grace an Olympia stage
-Tapers - lat/shoulder to waist (front/back), arm to wrist ratio, Quad to hip/knee ratio
-Aesthetics-no one thinks Yates is aesthetic
-Size-Yates' arms have always been a huge liability as they're nowhere near the size they should be in relation to that huge torso
-Vascularity-Yates lacks it almost entirely on arms
-Upper body balance-those arms..
-Cuts - Yates had virtually nothing in some areas including arms, chest and front delts.

i've already acknowledged his flaws - everyone has flaws.  my point is that yates strengths overcame any of his weaknesses.  this is the 3rd time i've told you that. why cant you read?

[IceCold]

Pumpster is black ROFL This fool knows dick about anything BB or anything else apparently-notice he never answers anything related to Yates' many flaws. Thanks for confirming the idiocy. hahahaahahah

i dont know anything?  YOU are the one who refered to dorian and lee haney being tier B Olympians.  They only have 14 Olympia wins and some of the best competitive records. 

[pumpster]

i've already acknowledged his flaws - everyone has flaws.  my point is that yates strengths overcame any of his weaknesses. 

Mentioning them in passing is hardly acknowledging that he loses by most measures; it's not close. You're in a dreamworld of selective comprehension.

[IceCold]

Mentioning them in passing is hardly acknowledging that he loses by most measures; it's not close. You're in a dreamworld of selective comprehension.

the results speak themselves - NOT YOUR OPINION. 

[suckmymuscle]

Intimidated, SUCKY resurfaces only in the middle of the night.

  Oh, please don't hurt me, Mr.Poopster! Now seriously, it is you who are intimidated by me, evident in that you never reply to me, where I crush you and your biased and illogical(saying that Dorian was tier-B, even though he dominated the Olympia like no other bodybuilder before or since) posts.

  I mean, I write all of these very long and detailed posts, explaining why Dorian would defeat the 1998 and 1999 Ronnie. And for what? You and Hulkster never reply to any of them. You have completely ignored the 50+ pargraphs of explanations I wrote in the previous page, addressing why and how Dorian would win! And when you do reply, it's either to say that Dorian was a "brick-layer", "construction worker". Or you post pics of a 1997 Dorian and then compare them to pics of a 1998 Ronnie. Or you go on and on about how great Ronnie's arms are, and that this makes Dorian "tier-B" . Never mind that Dorian actually had the better triceps and forearms, and that Ronnie's superiority is restricted to biceps. You and Hulkster are pathetic. So, even though I know that you'll probably not reply to this post - like you failed to when it comes to my previous 10 posts -, I will ontinue to post very long, very detailed explanations of why Dorian was better, and I'll let the members judge who's doing the better job of defending his champion. Once again: you two are pathetic. Funny how Hulkster dared me and the other Dorian supporters to reply to the question he posted on page 340; well, I did, and now...absolute silence from him!

-Muscle maturity

  "Muscle maturity" is not definable. If we define it as hardness then Dorian wins. You seem to be emulating PraetorFenix, who claimed that muscle maturity is part of a bodybuilding judging criteria and that Ronnie has the most muscle maturity ever. Wrong on both counts: muscle maturity is not, was not and won't ever be a part of a bodybuilding judging criteria, and Ronald Coleman certainly is not the ost endowed when it comes to this of all times.

-Refinement-very poor in some areas

  But Ronnie has terrible refinement on several areas. Take, as an example, Ronnie's midsection. Now, at the 1998 Olympia, Ronnie certainly had great taper. But look at shots from his midsection, and you'll see that, even at only 249 lbs, Ronnie still didn't have a six-pack or etched serratus. Dorian, conversely, at 257 lbs, had both things. And, even though Coleman's upper-back details are slightly better than Dorian's at that weight, Dorian takes him out in lower back and christmas-tree thickness. Oh, and Ronnie is also missing calves.

-Detail-Yates is bereft of detail in several areas including biceps, chest and front delts.

  Biceps are a small and relatively irrelevant bodypart. They are the arms' equivalent of calves, and Dorian takes Ronnie out at that. The chest? Wrong. Dorian's chest was thicker and more striated than Coleman's when they're, respectively, 257 lbs and 249 lbs. Ronnie only surpassed Dorian, on chest thickness, at the 2003 Olympia. You're seriously deluded if you think Ronnie's chest was better than Dorian's when the former is around 250 lbs. Dorian's side hest andatory was one of the ost dominant of all times; even the 2003 Ronnie would have trouble beating it, so you can be damn sure that the 1998 Coleman would be destroyed by Dorian's side chest shot. Front delsts? Ronnie's overrall lateral head width was incredible, but he never had particularly strong front delts. Dorian did have striated delts at 257 lbs, though.

-Shape-Yates has some of the worst shape ever to grace an Olympia stage

  Coleman is no aesthete! His torso is long, his quads are onstrous but short and his lats actually attach higher on the tendons' than Dorian's. Ronnie's structure is actually inferior to Dorian's, except for his very narrow hips - which definitively give him a better taper than that of the Big Diesel. All things considered, Dorian was extremely impressive at the front and rear lat spreads, the abs-and-thighs, the side triceps and the side chest. How are you judged to be good on these mandatories? Muscularity and symmetry. By "symmetry" it is also included the shape of the skeletal structure. So, Dorian's structure was not that bad.

-Tapers - lat/shoulder to waist (front/back), arm to wrist ratio, Quad to hip/knee ratio

  The 249 lbs Coleman does have a slightly better taper than the 257 lbs Dorian. But the difference is minimum. The 257 lbs Dorian actually has a superior taper than the 249 lbs Ronnie in the front lat spread, because his lats are so much wider. And speaking of taper, what's the point of having a slightly better taper if your midsection laks a six-pcck and etched serratus? "Quad to hip" ratio?! But Dorian's quads are longer and more aesthetic than Ronnie's!

-Aesthetics-no one thinks Yates is aesthetic

  Considering his struture and muscle density, he had superb aesthetics. While his physique was not pleasing to the eyes, his balanced muscular development and at the mandatories was impeccable.

-Size-Yates' arms have always been a huge liability as they're nowhere near the size they should be in relation to that huge torso

  And yet, Dorian still takes Ronnie out both in triceps mass/shape as well as in forearms development. The only thing Ronnie has on him are biceps. That's it. The 257 lbs Dorian has more triceps mass and with a better shape than Ronnie's; his triceps insert lower on the tendom, making them more shapely than Ronnie's.

-Vascularity-Yates lacks it almost entirely on arms

  Vascularity is a minus in top level pro bodybuilding. Look at the effort Gunther went through, to remove his varicose veins...

-Upper body balance-those arms..

  Ronnie: lower-body balance. Those calves...

-Cuts - Yates had virtually nothing in some areas including arms, chest and front delts.

  Striations are "cuts" and Dorian had tons of it in his chest. His front quads were never very cut, and this was one of the few lagging areas on Dorian's physique. Now, at leat Dorian had tons of cuts on his midsection, having separated abdominals and serratus. All "cuts" Ronnie lacked. Game over, Pumpster, to you and your pathetic attempt at calling out Dorian's shortcomings.

SUCKMYMUSCLE