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

[nzmusclemonster]

Obviously you've never seen the video , you're just like the rest of Camp-Coleman cookie-cutter fans , the whole lot of you .

hes cracking....... victory is in sight!

[delta9mda]

But you have to consider how Dorian came up, took second to Momo, only lost once more.

Impressive.

The physique Dorian had back in 1993... Damn.

And his biceps in the pics by Horton, they look pretty fcuking swole.

YIP
Zack

a voice of reason, damn

[Praetor Fenix]

You're clueless , 2003 Ronnie doesn't beat anything you're in the minority in thinking this is the best example he's produced thus far , the general consensus of people in the know , is 2001 Arnold Classic is about the best Ronnie's looked overall since he turned pro , you're denile in accepting that either 98/99 Olympia or 01 Arnold Classic is his best overall peak package , so until you come to your senses I wont entertain your delusion on that comparsion

Once again, this is entirely off-track. It doesn't really matter if 2003 was truly Ronnie's best.
My point is 2003 Ronnie would beat Dorian Yates at his best, whatever year/form you consider that to be. The remaining details (Ronnie's best year, Dorian's best year) are a separate matter and they belong in another thread entirely.

Overdevloped is a nice term huh? and it applies , why do ( people with any sense )consider 2001 Arnold Classic his best condition ? because his body as a whole one looked much better from an aesthetics standpoint , two tied-together much better from a balance & proportion standpoint and three his crisp muscularity completed the package , 2003 287lbs , 2004 296lbs , he looks like gargabe , he looks like 6 pounds of sugar stuffed in a 5lb bag , his muscle quality has suffered greatly , he no longer looks like a bodybuilder , he looks like a powerlifter with low bodyfat , so while you may find this fantastic , it shows you're not a bodybuilding purist and could careless about anything but size & condition , so if you think Ronnie looks his best at the 2003 Mr Olympia compared to previous version you've exposed yourself as a massbuilding fan , not a bodybuilding fan

Now on the topic of Ronnie's calves , I haven't pointed out any real imbalance? have you been reading what I typed , at the 2003 Mr Olympia his calves were huge , probably bigger most pros , and they should be he weighs 287lbs , they're NOT in proportion with his quads , there is a serious lowerleg imbalance , ontop of lacking diamond shape , they are asymmetrical , they lack seperation between gastrocnemius caput mediale and the caput laterale , and the soleus which isn't bad , still lacks deep seperation and detail from the side , so if you find his calves acceptable , it wouldn't surprise me , because you tend to overlook a lot as long as it's huge

I've outlined several times already that his quadricep/calves imbalance was an exception. It is the only case that your imbalance argument is valid. You have stated that his entire physique is imbalanced, and surely this must hinge on more than just one bodypart. You tried to claim that his deltoids were too small for his arms, but this was promptly dismissed with ample visual evidence. Though your quadricep/calve balance assertion is correct, it is singular and does not constitute an imbalanced physique.

That said, his calves are still acceptable from behind. From the front, it is an evident weakness.
From the rear, they aren't ideal, but they are still sufficiently comparable to Jay Cutler.


Regardless though, Ronnie's weaknesses are limited. You opt to ignore the overwhelming number of weaknesses inherent with Dorian (chest, quadriceps, biceps, glutes, wide waist, distended abdomen) yet ceaselessly criticize Coleman's calves and abdomen. Your argument that his forearms are underdeveloped is stupid and it isn't documented or supported by anyone other than yourself.

And what relavence does that have? it gives you a idea of who you are dealing with , like the rest of Camp-Coleman , you're under this impression that Dorian is nothing more than a collection of weak parts that make up a weak whole , and you're mistaken , you all write Dorian off as some second string bodybuilder who would consider himself lucky to stand next to Ronnie Coleman , its laughable !! Dorian was unstopable he was a winning machine

Well ... this IS a comparison thread.
Statements should not be interpreted as absolutes. The bodyparts of Yates we label as weak are weak relative to Coleman. We do not intend to disrespect Dorian or his commendable achievements in the sport. However, we will speak out if/when he is falsely elevated beyond the level of a far superior bodybuilder (as in this case, with Ronnie).

he lost just twice as a Pro , thats unheard of his first contest he placed a close second and his first Olympia he placed second winning the musculairty round from Lee Haney of all people , he won the Olympia on his second try , he won 88% of the contests he entered , he beat some of the highest caliber competition the sport has ever seen , in 1993 he was so far ahead of the rest of the great feild , the judges didn't even need to include him in the muscularity round lol they only brought him out to please the audience , Samir Bannout after the 1993 Mr Olympia said Dorian , was first , second and third !! Paul Dillet after the 1995 Mr Olympia said " I've seen jesus christ and he looks like Dorian Yates . "  !! so while the lot of you may not think much of him , or his phsyique and write him off as no challenge , history begs to differ and so does his contemporaries , your underestimation of Dorian's domience & superiorty is your undoing , so continue to knitpick his weaknesses , continue to post pics where hes not at his prime continue make lame comments  

You've said this several times already. It is still completely irrelevant.
Different era, different competition, different standards.
An 88% win ratio would not change the fact that Coleman's peak development would utterly overwhelm him. You are truly living in the past. This sort of thing happens all the time with real sports: "would the 1992 champions ______ be able to defeat the 2006 _______ rendition?" With most sports, its an entirely subjective debate since neither team will be able to compete. This isn't the case with bodybuilding, since we can readily compare pictures, videos, and measurements in order to make an accurate assessment. Virtual football exhibitions are impossible, virtual bodybuilding posedowns are not, and the evidence is clearly in Coleman's favor.

I've already won this ' debate ' because I tried to call a truce and I'm more than willing to concede he may lose to Ronnie I don't know 100% for sure and neither do you , but my willingness to entertain that possibility and to want to put an end to these debates out of respect for fellow members puts me ahead of all of you , just like Dorian was ahead of everyone else  

Since when is requesting a truce a sign of a victory?  
If anything, it is a proud man's surrender.
You can't admit you're wrong, but you don't have the facts or evidence necessary to support your baseless and frequently absurd assertions. Hulkster's refusal to give in is a direct testament to his conviction, strength of argument/evidence, and understanding that you are wrong.

[LuciusFox]

Once again, this is entirely off-track. It doesn't really matter if 2003 was truly Ronnie's best.
My point is 2003 Ronnie would beat Dorian Yates at his best, whatever year/form you consider that to be. The remaining details (Ronnie's best year, Dorian's best year) are a separate matter and they belong in another thread entirely.



I've outlined several times already that his quadricep/calves imbalance was an exception. It is the only case that your imbalance argument is valid. You have stated that his entire physique is imbalanced, and surely this must hinge on more than just one bodypart. You tried to claim that his deltoids were too small for his arms, but this was promptly dismissed with ample visual evidence. Though your quadricep/calve balance assertion is correct, it is singular and does not constitute an imbalanced physique.

That said, his calves are still acceptable from behind. From the front, it is an evident weakness.
From the rear, they aren't ideal, but they are still sufficiently comparable to Jay Cutler.


Regardless though, Ronnie's weaknesses are limited. You opt to ignore the overwhelming number of weaknesses inherent with Dorian (chest, quadriceps, biceps, glutes, wide waist, distended abdomen) yet ceaselessly criticize Coleman's calves and abdomen. Your argument that his forearms are underdeveloped is stupid and it isn't documented or supported by anyone other than yourself.

Well ... this IS a comparison thread.
Statements should not be interpreted as absolutes. The bodyparts of Yates we label as weak are weak relative to Coleman. We do not intend to disrespect Dorian or his commendable achievements in the sport. However, we will speak out if/when he is falsely elevated beyond the level of a far superior bodybuilder (as in this case, with Ronnie).


You've said this several times already. It is still completely irrelevant.
Different era, different competition, different standards.
An 88% win ratio would not change the fact that Coleman's peak development would utterly overwhelm him. You are truly living in the past. This sort of thing happens all the time with real sports: "would the 1992 champions ______ be able to defeat the 2006 _______ rendition?" With most sports, its an entirely subjective debate since neither team will be able to compete. This isn't the case with bodybuilding, since we can readily compare pictures, videos, and measurements in order to make an accurate assessment. Virtual football exhibitions are impossible, virtual bodybuilding posedowns are not, and the evidence is clearly in Coleman's favor.

Since when is requesting a truce a sign of a victory?  
If anything, it is a proud man's surrender.
You can't admit you're wrong, but you don't have the facts or evidence necessary to support your baseless and frequently absurd assertions. Hulkster's refusal to give in is a direct testament to his conviction, strength of argument/evidence, and understanding that you are wrong.

  Great post. A massive siphilis infection has robbed Narcissistic Deity of his sight

[LyricTenor]

*yawn

[Hulkster]

The bodyparts of Yates we label as weak are weak relative to Coleman. We do not intend to disrespect Dorian or his commendable achievements in the sport. However, we will speak out if/when he is falsely elevated beyond the level of a far superior bodybuilder (as in this case, with Ronnie).

excellent. My thoughts exactly. I have never intended to disprespect Dorian, although I find the construction worker stuff really, really funny , but I do find some of the stuff his supporters are saying relative to Ronnie (better arms, sliced quads, great taper etc) to be flat out wrong.

There is more than enough pics and videos in this thread to show that.

I have no problem with someone believing that dorian would take out Ronnie at his best.

But that opinion needs to be supported with actual, credible and obvious evidence (eg. we all can see that Dorian had better abs, calves and lower back than Ronnie).

However, most of this thread has had blatant falsehoods used as evidence in support of dorian.

For example, these are just a handfull of the outright false things that have been said by ND and/or Crew in order to support Dorian:

-Ronnie has better overall arms .
-Yates quads are shredded, (well, not from the front they aren't)
-Yates has a great taper when compared to Ronnie (ah, no)
-Yates hams and glutes are just as good as Ronnie's ( )
-Vascularity does not matter
-Ronnie's calves are full of oil and/or have implants in them (says who?)
-Dorian's most muscular is better than Ronnie's (sorry but Ronnie's mm is arguably the best ever, even over Ahhhnold)
-Having poor calves is worse in a back double biceps pose than having poor arms
-Ronnie in 1999 was the same as Ronnie in 1996 but just a little harder  (open your eyes and watch the videos again)
-Because Dorian beat Ronnie who placed last,  15th, 9th etc at the olympias, he would therefore beat a peak Ronnie (of course, if that argument made sense, 95% of the pros competing in the 90's would therefore be able to take out a peak ronnie - the argument is of course false because of the drastic improvements Ronnie made. But if you are ND and Crew, you refuse to acknowledge these improvments..)

-peak Ronnie has huge imbalances and has terrible proportions (I think ND is the only one who thinks this - see the pics)

-Dorian would make peak Ronnie look soft (remember my challenge that was ignored - well, that tells all right there - dorian would not make a peak striated Ronnie look soft)

-so and so was quoted as saying dorian was the best 12 years ago therefore he would win (facts and figures mean nothing when comparing two bodies)

To me, these are all bullshit, and are not good points to support the pro-dorian argument.

There are but a few valid pro-dorian points and a whole mountain of false ones or ones that make no sense or are not relevant at all.

[pumpster]

Obviously you've never seen the video , you're just like the rest of Camp-Coleman cookie-cutter fans , the whole lot of you .

Time to put that to rest.

Videos:

Yates, 1992, Coleman 2000.

The contrast is STRIKING. Yates in over his head; size differential's absurd, as are Coleman's advantages in shape & aesthetics.

Yates' arms: putrid. Bis & tris look even smaller on video. Thighs nothing special either.

Not a superstar.

&search=dorian%20yates

&search=dorian%20yates

&search=ronnie%20coleman


The truth? You can't handle the truth.. 

[Sculpter]

I must admit that I was a fan of Yates at the time period that he competed & am not a fan or ever was of Coleman.That being said anyone that says Yates arms (pre injuries) beats Coleman's doesn't know what they speak of.Coleman sports a pair of the best arms in the history of the sport imo.

[The Ugly]

Give the fucker his truce already!

[pumpster]

I think he enjoys the humiliation. The Marv Albert of getbig.

[The Ugly]

You're no better, guy. And if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Manager-types say this a lot.

[pumpster]

Empty rhetoric.

[The Ugly]

Redundantly repetitive.

[Rottmag]

Has anyone posted those [black and white] comparison photos of Dorian and Ronnie that Ironage did, on this thread yet?

What page?

[suckmymuscle]

  Ok, this is for the Sarcraft nerd, who said that the 280+ lbs version of Coleman defeats the 250+ lbs version of Dorian. Anyone who has even a basic understanding, of how a bodybuilding contest is judged, can see that the "mighty templar"  is a 16 year-old fan-boy who was in second grade the last time Dorian won an O. Coleman's humiliation, Part I

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Part II :

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Superb definition? Dorian has no quadricep detail whatsoever.
I already posted an exhaustive analysis and Ronnie's quadriceps are superior in every sense.
Even at their absolute biggest, they were riddled with striations, separation, and vascularity.

Dorian's quadriceps are smooth, inferior in size, poor separation between the rectus femoris and the vastus lateralis, poor balance (the vastus medialis is overpowering), absolutely no vascularity. Striations anyone? Nope.

AHAHA and this is the picture you use in his defense!?

Ronnie's quadriceps are 100% better. Case closed.

  "Case close"? I agree: case closed that Ronnie can't deliver a single abs-and-highs that comes even close to Dorian's. So this is your version of a good abs-and-thighs shot? Terrible taper, none to nil etchiness, a lower boy that overpowers his upper one, little definition in the serratus. You are hopeless. Follow my advice: go watch "The World's Strongest Man"; you'll love their physiques...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

SUCKMYASSHOLE emerges from his basement late at night to post unchallenged..absolutely *no* confidence at this point..

[pumpster]

The Ugly's more than skin deep. This troll has absolutely *no* content.

In lieu of content, have a conversation with SUCKMYASSHOLE tonight..

[suckmymuscle]

SUCKMYASSHOLE'S responsible for this shot.. 

There is no refinement or detail anywhere..only the wrong kind of "graininess". Supposed "good balance" only goes so far! The arms are cartoonish in their simplisticity, bereft of detail, size, separation, quality.. Those are good thighs? What quality?

  Moron. you obviously didn't read my post. I used this shot as an example of the WORST of Dorian and then compared it to the worst of Coleman. And the wors of Dorian still has far more density and balance&proportion than the worst of Coleman. Get it, retard?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Ron looking good close to 290. Yates at a much lower bodyweight..

  "Looking good" . Yeah agood pile of turd! Compare to Dorian.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

SUCKMYASSHOLE emerges from his basement late at night to post unchallenged..absolutely *no* confidence at this point..

  Actually, poop, I posted this morning and am posting now again. Unlike you, I have a life outside this board and don't hang around here 24/7. Loser.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

SUCKMYASSHOLE emerges from his basement late at night to post unchallenged..absolutely *no* confidence at this point..

  Oh, and by the way, i am posting unchallenged; after all, you're here now! You just can't hod your own, without huckster

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The Ugly]

The Ugly's more than skin deep. This troll has absolutely *no* content.

Correct, but this troll is eagerly awaiting further insight from the experts. I'm convinced you'll turn a corner here soon, tap into something epic. Provin' shit like Matlock. Another hundred or so pages, maybe.

Have you addressed how Ronnie's good yet, and how Dorian's bad?  

[delta9mda]

the only way to really end this is to have the two of them on stage side by side and see what happens. oh, wait, that already happened.