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

[natural al]

ND SAID IT WHICH MEANS YOU AGREE DUFUS.
He has no opinions of his own, as ND's attack dog. hahahahahahahah

again, you're a moron.  I don't have content....read you're own stuff.

[pumpster]

More banality. Better than trying to defend this.

[natural al]

I made one small edit for fun and it was clear as day that it was MY revision. Relax  
It didn't interfere with the content of your message whatsoever, stop overreacting.

I'm not interested in debating this point until the current thread has resolved.
Ronnie did not struggle with abdominal distension until 2001. You are omitting 15 years man.

Stop whining. I didn't change any important content in your post and the part I did fix, which was entirely cosmetic, i highlighted so it was blatantly obvious that it was MY intentional edit.
I apologize, I won't do it again, but don't act as though I can't debate fairly.

Why should it matter that I entered the thread late? Since you want to know, I have been around for ~4 years, but I've been quite inactive. My schedule is considerably lighter this summer, so I have the time necessary to read, write, and debate. I simply didn't have the time beforehand, though as I said earlier, I regret that I wasn't here to support Hulkster from Page 1.

Now that I am here however, I promise you I will not be going anywhere until this is resolved.

This is a comparison thread. Emphasis on COMPARISON. Obviously Dorian is an awesome athlete.
All of our statements should be read as relatives, not absolutes. Anything we criticize or berate, we criticize or berate with Ronnie Coleman as the relevant template in mind.

my work day is over so I can only comment on one part of you're post.  You say I'm ignoring 15 years..ok.  What year did Ronnie turn pro, I think it was 1991 because he qualified for the O via his World championship.  What were his placings?  Not very good.  How did he place up until he won his first pro show in 95?  Not very good and really not well in the Olympia.  how did he place at the O until he won?  Not very good.  No he had no distention until, what 99 or 2000 but a big chunk of that time he was struggling as a middle of the packer.  His body didn't turn to shit until he decided he'd do an enormous amout of GH, probably at the advice of his guru.  Ronnie has had one awsome year since 2000, that's sad.  He's been off more than he's been on, that's sad.  Dorian was an instant pro success and he was off, as far as conditioning goes once, in 94.  he did not look good in 96, fine I can admit that.  Ronnie has been very dominant since he won his first O as far as wins and losses but nothing like Dorian.  Dorian was dominant from the time he stepped on stage as a pro.  You can take an amaglam of Ronnie, his conditioning from 99, his size from 2004 and you have an unbeatable guy but Ron does not have that conditioning anymore.  All I'm saying is both these guys were unbeatable at one time.  Is Ronnie the greatest of all time?  I don't know, he really had the potential to be.  If he could have maintained the look he had at the Arnold a few years ago I would never say a bad thing about him.  He has not looked like that except on one occasion in years.

gotta go home...have fun.

[Praetor Fenix]

You wanted proof I provided I backed up my claims with visual proof and you're not man enough to admit you may be wrong , thats okay typical Coleman fan , Natural Al was not recruited by me , he's basically stood out of this debate and to my knowlege hasn't claimed either to be better , so once again you're wrong do some more research

Those black & white pictures of Dorian are famous for a reason !! Peter MCGough said that phsyique was the best he ever seen uptil that point including personally seeing Sergio Oliva in 1972 , he's 269lbs and hard as nails while Coleman in 2003 may be 18lbs bigger most of the weight is redundant mass it didn't help his structure or balance and a good deal of it is in his gut his his conditioning is less than stella Dorian at 269lbs owns Coleman at any weight  

Lets get this straight...

He looks pretty dry, but his lat spread lacks any detail whatsoever.
That level of detail would be inexcusable for the contest.

His inadequate glutes and hamstrings are self-evident.

Ronnie and Dorian's lat width is very comparable in Dorian's preseason state.
Perhaps I could even give the nod to Dorian's lat thickness in his state displayed here.

However, you are overlooking one crucial element. He never showed up like that to a contest.
I'm not even entirely sure he could ... etching in the necessary detail would invariably sacrifice size and thickness, and he doesn't really have an appreciable advantage at all over Coleman in either width or thickness, so he couldn't afford to lose any.

The comparison is irrelevant since his back has no detail in the rear latspread.
Whether or not he could etch in detail and maintain that width/thickness is entirely hypothetical.
We could theorycraft with that all day, but it would lead nowhere.
Regardless though, that picture proves nothing other than he has the ability to get his back wide and thick in the rear lat spread. Its not as though he's actually competitive in that picture.

Lastly, Ronnie's back has been wider ... and thicker ... with more detail.

[pumpster]

you are overlooking one crucial element. He never showed up like that to a contest.
I'm not even entirely sure he could ... etching in the necessary detail would invariably sacrifice size and thickness, and he doesn't really have an appreciable advantage at all over Coleman in either width or thickness.

It's overlooked quite purposefully, as ND knows full well that he can't find pics of Yates in contest shape with size. It's very simply an EITHER/OR proposition-beefy shots that don't stack up with Coleman size-wise, or Yates looking "grainy" with minimal size. 

[Hulkster]

if you think his biceps/triceps/forearms as a whole have great balance in relation to each other your out of your mind

ND, if Ronnie's triceps, biceps and forearms are so out of proportion to one another, then WHY do his arms look practically perfect in almost every angle (when he is in shape)?







answer please.

this whole imbalancing thing is a figment of your biased imagination.

You are making the mistake of thinking that because Ronnie's forearms are of a classic, "bowling pin" type shape that they are too small for his bis, tris and delts.

This is not true.  Just because his forearms are not blocky and stubby like Dorians:


does NOT mean they are too small. It just means that they have a different shape.

[Hulkster]

funny how the 2004 pics of Ronnie keep popping up as fuel for the pro dorian trio.

Can't do that with 98, 99 olympia or 2001 AC pics can you?

My observation is validated yet again.

 

[Hulkster]

Ronnie in  1999:

Ronnie aged 42:


what desperation.

[Hulkster]

umm.. I know this has been gone over before, but I would like to post these shots (from Ronnie in great shape at the 98 O.) and then ask a question, becuase I am still not getting it:







Okay, the comment keeps being made by ND and suckmyasshole that Dorian would make ronnie "look soft".

Well, could someone please post a series of Dorian shots that make these "look soft", because as far as I can see, other than the lower back, these shots by virtue of their supreme striated detail, make DORIAN look soft, not the other way around.

Thank you.

Funny how every post that totally trashes the myths of this thread (eg. dorian would make Ronnie look soft) are competely ignored by the pro-dorian trio

I am not at all surprised..

[Hulkster]

Here are a few pics of Ronnie's triceps/biceps making his delts look petite

hold on. ND, in the past you have argued that Ronnie's delts overpowered his biceps and triceps.

Now you are arguing the exact opposite?

Man, you are insane.

[Hulkster]

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.

I would be interested in hearing comments about this post.

[pumpster]

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on Today at 12:27:36 PM
Here are a few pics of Ronnie's triceps/biceps making his delts look petite

"Petite"? Only a faggola would use that to describe Coleman's delts. Do you also revere Liberace? That's aside from being utterly wrong-do you have problems with your vision? Coleman's delts "petite"! That's a good one!

[NarcissisticDeity]

hold on. ND, in the past you have argued that Ronnie's delts overpowered his biceps and triceps.

Now you are arguing the exact opposite?

Man, you are insane.

find me saying that and then comment on it until you do kepp your mouth shut 

[Hulkster]

find me saying that and then comment on it until you do kepp your mouth shut 

I don't have the time to sort through thousands of posts of ronnie bashing, but I know you have argued this in the past because I recall doing what I do best on these boards - proving you wrong

[delta9mda]

STOP FUCKING STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! friends and foes, you are argueing about oiled up men in posing trunks.
dorian didnt beat haney(well he did win the muscularity round) and im sure there was lots of haney vs. yates blah blah blah and we wont ever know about peak vs. peak. now many years later and it is the same with yates and ronnie. we will never know. what we do know is that yates and haney met one time and were compared(shit, the show was yates and haney). what we also know is ronnie never was a threat to yates and they met many times and ronnie never scored a point on yates. granted yates was still a baby when haney and he met. same for ronnie and yates. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

HAHAHAHAHA


Dorian looks mediocre above dude. His traps are deliniated, that's about it.
His back looks flat as a pancake. His forearms are equivalent to Ronnie's in that picture.
Plenty of separation but he simply gets outclassed by sheer size. Nice arms too...  

As I've said before, condtioning is only 1/3 of bodybuilding.
Dorian CANNOT TOUCH Ronnie's muscularity OR symmetry, so this is a moot comparison.
Once again, I win you lose.



Equivalent separation, delineation, and conditioning with far superior size.
Ronnie > Dorian.

Your helpless you truely are , especially if you think either picture you've posted come anywhere near Dorian in terms of completeness from top to bottom , his back looks flat? WTF he had one of the thickest widest backs in the history of the sport and you've come to the conclusion its looks flat?

You've have to be shitting me you think that Coleman from 2004 comes anywhere near Dorian in that shot , its not even close , not by a country fucking mile , I honestly thought you posted the wrong picture lol what a fucking joke lol Ronnie was 296lbs in 2004 and he looked worse than 2003 just when you though he couldn't sink any lower , he did  

Dorian from top to bottom wastes 04 Ronnie on everything except redudant size , Ronnie isn't anywhere near as dry as Dorian he's clearly holding water and his back shot has about as much detail and seperation as 96 Nasser El Sonbaty , Dorian's thickness , detail through out his entire body just outclasses Ronnie by a country mile , Dorian has the perfect blend of density , hardness and detail , your statement that 2004 Ronnie outclasses Dorian in that back double biceps shot is just as retarded as your statement Ronnie's abdomin is flat in 2003

Ronnie compared much better from 1999 but he's still not as dry as Dorian and they weigh exactly the same , but your size advantage is zero  so how does he have superior size  , you keep insisting that I'm affraid to compare a 2003/04 Coleman to Yates , I'm not in the least Dorian beat pleanty of big me with medicore conditioning before , in fact he's beat bigger men with better conditioning like a 285 Nasser , a 285 Ian Harrison a 280lb Fux , Dorian at his best had size & hardness , Ronnie gets very soft 260+ he was never able to carry that ammount weight with Dorian's hardness , you stand 03/04 Ronnie next to a 93/95 Dorian and it would be very clear who was in shape and who is holding water , and you think with extra weight with less detail he'll beat Dorian not quite

So you have nothing new to offer , at least Hulkster has the sense to not want to compare Ronnie 03/04 to a peak Dorian , you're just lost on this one , Ronnie is severly lacking in detail & seperation and conditioning these years so your size advantage becomes a moot point at least to anyone with sense

[NarcissisticDeity]

I don't have the time to sort through thousands of posts of ronnie bashing, but I know you have argued this in the past because I recall doing what I do best on these boards - proving you wrong

Yawn excuses , excuses , oh yes you did prove that Dorian is the most overrated bodybuilder in the history of the sport  etc

[NarcissisticDeity]

Look-A-Likes 

[nicorulez]

ND, Praetor has been comparing Ronnie circa 2003 to Dorian repeatedly over the past fifty pages.  Ronnie ownz his ass good.  For Natural to say that Ronnie has been in shape once in five years is laughable.  Dorian never got back to 1992/1993 levels after that also.  He sucked in 1994 (gift), ok in 1995 (still bloated gut), average 1996, and 1997 (we won't even go there...let's just say that Ronnie circa 2001 looked a whole lot better).  Thus ND, what the hell is your point.  You defend Dorian to the death.  The vids clearly show that Ronnie destroys him.  In 2003, he may have had a gut but his muscle density and thickness blew any pro (not only Dorian) out of the fricking water.  I have both the DVD and PPV broadcast in HDTV on my DVR.  It is a joke that you don't appreciate that shape.  Yates looks like a little kid next that beast.  Everybody did.  Get over it ND...you prefer the 1998/1999 Ronnie but don't believe that conditioning would have toppled Yates....fine, we agree to disagree.  To state however that Ronnie looked like shit in 2003; that means that every bodybuilding scribe on the planet that proclaimed that an alltime best for the Mr. Olympia were idiots.  Hell, maybe even your boy McGough appreciated him then.  In my book, your blatant bias is appalling.  You matter very little on this board because of your skewed reasoning.  Bitch at me all you want, people are laughing at you.

[nicorulez]

PS...I would take Ronnie 2004 over Dorian 1994/1997 anyday.  Oh well, peace.  That pic of Ronnie above was from 2004 if I am not mistaken...I know I am not mistaken. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND, Praetor has been comparing Ronnie circa 2003 to Dorian repeatedly over the past fifty pages.  Ronnie ownz his ass good.  For Natural to say that Ronnie has been in shape once in five years is laughable.  Dorian never got back to 1992/1993 levels after that also.  He sucked in 1994 (gift), ok in 1995 (still bloated gut), average 1996, and 1997 (we won't even go there...let's just say that Ronnie circa 2001 looked a whole lot better).  Thus ND, what the hell is your point.  You defend Dorian to the death.  The vids clearly show that Ronnie destroys him.  In 2003, he may have had a gut but his muscle density and thickness blew any pro (not only Dorian) out of the fricking water.  I have both the DVD and PPV broadcast in HDTV on my DVR.  It is a joke that you don't appreciate that shape.  Yates looks like a little kid next that beast.  Everybody did.  Get over it ND...you prefer the 1998/1999 Ronnie but don't believe that conditioning would have toppled Yates....fine, we agree to disagree.  To state however that Ronnie looked like shit in 2003; that means that every bodybuilding scribe on the planet that proclaimed that an alltime best for the Mr. Olympia were idiots.  Hell, maybe even your boy McGough appreciated him then.  In my book, your blatant bias is appalling.  You matter very little on this board because of your skewed reasoning.  Bitch at me all you want, people are laughing at you.

The fact you think Ronnie looked his best in 2003 is laughable a common theme with you obsessed Coleman fans is his size , size and more size you think thats the end all be all its not , he was pleanty massive , his gut was the luaghing stock of the bodybuilding community , he was no where near in shape as he was previously , his detail & conditioning is is M.I.A Fenix is posting pics of his quads and saying look at the striations and there are none lol he hasn't owned anything , he's just another size obsessed fan-boy just like you , so pat each other on the backs that Ronnie 2003 is the best ever and anyone with any degree of bodybuilding knowlege can clearly see thats not even close to his personal best never mind the best ever , Dorian could conceievably lose to Coleman 98/99 but 2003 or 2004? get the fuck out of here , if anyone thinks Ronnie is the best bodybuilder ever from either 03/04 you've exposed yourself as cluless to what bodybuilding is because it sure isn't this

[NarcissisticDeity]

Fenix all of your analysis is rendered moot compared to this , I'll take it from someone who stood side by side with both men , his opinion carries more weight than yours does 

Lee Preist

HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?

I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.

[Hulkster]

psst: ND, that is a damn impressive shot. try to pick a bad one next time!

[Hulkster]

Personally, I think Ronnie looked pretty damn good in most shots in 2003, but I do not believe it was his best ever form due to the wide obliques, large gut, and not-as-detailed-as-it-used-to-be upper back.

That being said, I think he still displays many finer details that Dorian lacked, even at his best, such as:

-biceps
-great quads
-super ripped glutes, hams, triceps

and his back was far and above the widest in the history of bodybuilding at that show.

Personally, even though I think 99 Ronnie looked better, Ronnie version 2003 would still easily take out yates.










Sorry, but I don't think that even dorian 93 could handle this.

Ronnie does not have to be at his "best ever career form" to win against Yates in my opinion.

[Hulkster]

Fenix all of your analysis is rendered moot compared to this , I'll take it from someone who stood side by side with both men , his opinion carries more weight than yours does 

Lee Preist

Then you should also listen to Paul Dillet and Flex Wheeler, who have both claimed that Ronnie is the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time...