Why do you persist in using a back shot of Ronnie next to Dorian's from before Ronnie's back was at its best? You also ignore Hulkster's argument that Ronnie vastly improved his legs and back when he became Mr. Olympia. You site his weight as the indicator of how little he changed from one year to the other. Typical overuse of data and dismissing what the eye can clearly see.
Bodybuilding is about how you look on stage, not on paper. Thats' how a 220 lbs Wheeler could beat a 270 lbs NAsser at the NOC. Ronnie Coleman's best is lightyears ahead of Yates' best. Using pictures of Ronnie before his peak ads nothing to your argument. Why not just compare Ronnie as a teenager to Dorian at the 96 Olympia?
Ronnie Coleman > Yates
Great post!
In all seriousness, that is the issue:
ND and suckmyasshole seem to think that because Ronnie's weight was similar in 1996 to his peak form in his later years, that his physique must have therefore also been similar.
however, video after video and pic after pic show otherwise.
the difference in percieved arm, leg, back and chest mass from the video from 1997 compared to the 1999 Olympia clip is astounding. I guess when you are dealing with low bodyfat percentages, 7 or 8 pounds of solid muscle is all it takes for a dramatic improvement. And his hardness and taper actually improved from the 1997 clip to the 1999 one. He may have been harder in the upper back in 1998, but as far as arms, quads and everything else goes, Ronnie was harder in 1999 than in 1998.
As I said before:
The Pro Yates argument centers on the fact that ronnie didn't improve much from the time when he met Yates onstage to the time that Ronnie hit his overall peak. Therefore Yates would still win.
However, anyone with a brain can see that this premise is clearly wrong.
