Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce (Read 3524892 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #2800 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:34:44 PM »

even though that is a physically revolting pic of Ronnie's ass, those hamstrings are from another planet - one that dorian does not hail from

Hulkster · « **Reply #2801 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:35:50 PM »

out of curiousity, do you have the TOP part of the pic? Or are the camera men gay

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2802 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:36:07 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 04:34:44 PM

even though that is a physically revolting pic of Ronnie's ass, those hamstrings are from another planet - one that dorian does not hail from

Nothing wrong with Yates hams

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2803 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:37:06 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 04:35:50 PM

out of curiousity, do you have the TOP part of the pic? Or are the camera men gay

Thats not a pic I scanned thats a pic I ran across online and thats about it !!

pumpster · « **Reply #2804 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:37:40 PM »

ND has a lot of closeup crotch-shots of Coleman, for some reason...

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2805 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:39:26 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 01, 2006, 04:37:40 PM

ND has a lot of closeup crotch-shots of Coleman, for some reason...

This comming from the loser who has tons of nudes of Chris Dickerson lol keep quiet !!

Hulkster · « **Reply #2806 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:40:08 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 01, 2006, 04:36:07 PM

Nothing wrong with Yates hams

only because he is not standing beside someone like Ronnie..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2807 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:42:29 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 04:40:08 PM

only because he is not standing beside someone like Ronnie..

How about now?

Hulkster · « **Reply #2808 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:48:21 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 01, 2006, 04:42:29 PM

How about now?

again, yet more obvious proof that Ronnie improved by leaps and bounds from the time he faced dorian to the time he hit his peak.

How much more proof do you need??

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2809 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:50:07 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 04:48:21 PM

again, yet more obvious proof that Ronnie improved by leaps and bounds from the time he faced dorian to the time he hit his peak.

How much more proof do you need??

He certainly did improve but it wasn't as dramatic as you make it seem , it wasn't like Dorian from 1992 to 1993

pumpster · « **Reply #2810 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:50:53 PM »

Henceforth referred to as the Yates "no bis" shot..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2811 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:55:39 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 01, 2006, 04:50:53 PM

Henceforth referred to as the Yates "no bis" shot..

Oh he has bis unlike Coleman who has no visble calves

Hulkster · « **Reply #2812 on:** June 01, 2006, 04:59:32 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 01, 2006, 04:50:07 PM

He certainly did improve but it wasn't as dramatic as you make it seem , it wasn't like Dorian from 1992 to 1993

even you have to admit that Ronnie's transformation from 2002 to 2003 was even more dramatic - I mean, almost 40 pounds difference and still ripped!

40>>15 puny pounds

Hulkster · « **Reply #2813 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:00:09 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 01, 2006, 04:50:53 PM

Henceforth referred to as the Yates "no bis" shot..

dorian's back would look great if he had his arms amputated..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2814 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:00:56 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 04:59:32 PM

even you have to admit that Ronnie's transformation from 2002 to 2003 was even more dramatic - I mean, almost 40 pounds difference and still ripped!

40>>15 puny pounds

Ronnie was 264lbs in 2002 if I'm not mistaken and how much of that weight gain was quality lean muscle?

Hulkster · « **Reply #2815 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:02:54 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 01, 2006, 05:00:56 PM

Ronnie was 264lbs in 2002 if I'm not mistaken and how much of that weight gain was quality lean muscle?

actually in 2002 he was only around 247 (according to your friend Peter M.) That was the year he came in super depleted and flat.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2816 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:05:19 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 05:02:54 PM

actually in 2002 he was only around 247 (according to your friend Peter M.) That was the year he came in super depleted and flat.

You sure? in the 2001 Olympia he was 264lbs so 2002 he had to be bigger , I have the magazine somewhere .

Hulkster · « **Reply #2817 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:06:00 PM »

ps and a lot of it was quality muscle.

His arms, legs, ~~ass~~, back etc all got noticably bigger

insane difference.

Hulkster · « **Reply #2818 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:06:58 PM »

In 2002 Ronnie was small and depleted. That is why the judges creamed their collective pants over a 300 pound gunter.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2819 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:08:24 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 05:06:00 PM

ps and a lot of it was quality muscle.

His arms, legs, ~~ass~~, back etc all got noticably bigger

insane difference.

So was his gut !!

Hulkster · « **Reply #2820 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:10:42 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on June 01, 2006, 05:08:24 PM

So was his gut !!

yet Ronnie's abs were better in 2003 than they were in 2000, 2001 OR 2002..

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2821 on:** June 01, 2006, 05:12:18 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 01, 2006, 05:10:42 PM

yet Ronnie's abs were better in 2003 than they were in 2000, 2001 OR 2002..

They had no choice but to expand lol

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #2822 on:** June 01, 2006, 09:39:22 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on June 01, 2006, 06:01:38 AM

This is the crux of the matter; those with flawed rationales and suspect eye sight are not going to have the veils of self-delusion suddenly lifted-the pictures and plenty of evidence are already there. At this point it's akin to dealing with parrots repeating the same phrases over and over again: "Dorian's not tier-B, Dorian's not tier-B".

What an arroggant turd! It makes his physique all the uglier to see this lack of humility in the face of the good fortune that was accorded him by the IFBB. At least have the humility to acknowledge the reality that it was unquestionably close over guys who often looked better! Lavrone, Dillet and Wheeler; Yates looked like SHIT at some shows and was still allowed to win. Apparently he never acknowledged the "arrangement" and could have at least STFU and been gracious rergarding uncle Joe's gifts.

In reality, he was put out to pasture rather than run the risk of a debacle.

Hmmm...but the thing is that he did come in, for the 97 O, beneath his best and still...got a sraight-first victory, from ALL judges!

Girl, you have been creamed up the pooper, by myself and ND, for so long that I just don't understand why you and Huckster just don't conced defeat... $:-\$

SUCKMYMUSCLE

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #2823 on:** June 02, 2006, 05:32:05 AM »

Quote from: suckmymuscle on June 01, 2006, 09:39:22 PM

Hmmm...but the thing is that he did come in, for the 97 O, beneath his best and still...got a sraight-first victory, from ALL judges!

Girl, you have been creamed up the pooper, by myself and ND, for so long that I just don't understand why you and Huckster just don't conced defeat... $:-\$

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Once again you make a great point !! and here is an interesting tidbit , Ronnie Coleman at the 1997 Mr Olympia was 255lbs so when then say he was no where near the same size he was in 97 as 99 they're wrong , he wasn't as sharp either but size wise he was almost exatlly the same !!

sculpture · « **Reply #2824 on:** June 02, 2006, 05:49:42 AM »

When will you understand numbers mean nothing. Its how you look that counts.

And you say its only camp coleman who are impressed by size.