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

[suckmymuscle]

SUCKMYDIK not comprehending that Yates "good" & "bad" shots aren't easy to tell apart. hahahhahahaah

  No problem, Poop. I am going to help you get some good Dorian shots. Here's Dorian annihilating Ronnie on the exact same comparison you posted...

SUCKMYDICK

[suckmymuscle]

Suckmydick, now you are contradicting yourself.

So which is it? I posted a comparison btw 93 Dorian vs. 98/99 Ronnie and 97 Dorian vs. 03 Ronnie.

I like how you ignored this part of my last post:

  First of all, Suckmysemen, I don't even think Dorian was at this best in 1993, but rather in 1995. Secondly, my point was that you posted shots of Dorian at 274 lbs, from the 1997 Olympia, and then compared him to a 249 lbs Ronnie and then said:"Oh, look at his horrible midsetion". Yeah, wow, what an incredibly fair comparison! So, what I did was compare the 296 lbs Roonie from the 2004 Olympia, when he was at his worst, to the 1997 Dorian and !bingo!, Dorian destroyed him. To give you an idea what I mean, you retarded f**k, here's a comparison between the abs-and-shot of Dorian from the 1996 Olympia, when Dorian was 255 lbs, to Ronnie at 296 lbs, where Dorian is destroying Ronnie as if he were an amateur!. Note how it is pointless to compare midsetion when the difference in weight is too great, because obviously the heaviest one will have the thicker waist. Duh!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

He conveniently overlooks the fact that they're at different angles, making back double-bi comparisons from that shot close to useless. The only sure thing that doesn't depend on angle, is the massive ownage of Yates' twigs arms, with Coleman's bis & tris looking about twice the size, along with far better taper to a smaller waist from bigger upper and lower body.

Nice job SUCKMYDIK, keep posting those good Coleman shots.

Here's a more accurate comparison, head-on unlike SUCKY's desperate shot..

[NarcissisticDeity]

He conveniently overlooks the fact that they're at different angles, making back comparisons close to useless. The only sure thing that doesn't depend on angle, is the massive ownage of Yates' twigs arms, with Coleman's bis & tris looking about twice the size, along with far better taper to a smaller waist from bigger upper and lower body.
Nice job SUCKMYDIK, keep posting those good Coleman shots.

Here's a more accurate comparison, head-on unlike SUCKY's desperate shot..

You can't possibly get any more insane !! more accurate than the two standing side-by-side in person lol look at your version of the ' more accurate ' comparision . Ronnie at 249lbs calves are BIGGER than Dorian's at 262lbs lol kid go away , look for your senses and return when you find them .

[pumpster]

more accurate than the two standing side-by-side in person lol look at your version of the ' more accurate ' comparision . Ronnie at 249lbs calves are BIGGER than Dorian's at 262lbs lol kid go away

Endless fascination with bodyweights-guess what the judges don't care!

Here's the best comparison, both at the same angle. Yates looking the part of a big-time loser here, embarassing..

[NeoSeminole]

First of all, Suckmysemen, I don't even think Dorian was at this best in 1993, but rather in 1995. Secondly, my point was that you posted shots of Dorian at 274 lbs, from the 1997 Olympia, and then compared him to a 249 lbs Ronnie and then said:"Oh, look at his horrible midsetion". Yeah, wow, what an incredibly fair comparison!

Please show me where I compared 97 Dorian to 98/99 Ronnie. So far I have only compred 93 Dorian to 98/99 Ronnie, and 97 Dorian to 03 Ronnie. I could honestly care less about your tirade on 04 Ronnie. Nobody is arguing that's his best year. The fact you can only attack him at his worst is testament of how much better Ronnie is than Dorian.

Again, I like how you ignored this part of my other post:

By way, these pics are from Dorian in 1997 and he still has a si-pack, a striated lower back and an incredible front lat spread. Too bad Ronnie doesen't look this good at over 270 lbs.)

[pumpster]

This guy's the poster-boy for mediocrity! Totally uninspiring.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Endless fascination with bodyweights-guess what the judges don't care!

Here's the best comparison, both at the same angle. Yates looking the part of a big-time loser here, embarassing..

Endless fascination with fantasy you are lol Coleman's calves are bigger than Dorian's and you claim ' more accurate ' comparision lol what a tool .

[Hulkster]

Dorian can afford to lost a couple of mandatories he has enough to beat Ronnie.

you mean calves, lower back and abs?

Hardly enough to beat Ronnie.

[Hulkster]

[NarcissisticDeity]

you mean calves, lower back and abs?

Hardly enough to beat Ronnie.

Wow its amazing he ever beat him at all in fact with just that I can't believe he ever won a single contest  

these are set in stone my friend

Dorian would NEVER ever lose these poses to Ronnie Coleman

Front Latspread

Ab-thigh

Side Chest

Side Triceps

Rear latspread

The others are debateable

[Hulkster]

this is a horrible shot of yates - poorly defined abs, wide as hell waist. And yet Suckdorian'sasshole keeps posting it as if it were good

[NeoSeminole]

This guy's the poster-boy for mediocrity! Totally uninspiring.

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

 

About as fair as your other comparisions 

[Hulkster]

Wow its amazing he ever beat him at all in fact with just that I can't believe he ever won a single contest  

these are set in stone my friend

Dorian would NEVER ever lose these poses to Ronnie Coleman

Front Latspread

Ab-thigh

Side Chest

Side Triceps

Rear latspread

The others are debateable

you are an idiot:

front lat spread - already demonstrated that Ronnie's pose is way more complete with great lats to boot. Dorian had smooth arms, chest and quads in the pose. He would lose.

Side chest-again - look at the 1999 video and 1998/9 olympia pics. Dorian did not have a better side chest.

Rear lat spread- ronnie was just as wide, more detailed with a better taper and better glutes and hams. Just how is dorian going to beat him? because his calves are better?


no way

[Hulkster]

check out his hams!!

[corinth]

I think Ronnie might win this pose. I hope the lighting and camera angles are ok.

[NarcissisticDeity]

you are an idiot:

front lat spread - already demonstrated that Ronnie's pose is way more complete with great lats to boot. Dorian had smooth arms, chest and quads in the pose. He would lose.

Side chest-again - look at the 1999 video and 1998/9 olympia pics. Dorian did not have a better side chest.

Rear lat spread- ronnie was just as wide, more detailed with a better taper and better glutes and hams. Just how is dorian going to beat him? because his calves are better?


no way

LMFAO more complete , oh boy   he his lacking in balance & proportion , you will never ever be able to escape that , this is ( among other things ) exactly why despite not having as many ' great ' parts as Ronnie does he beat him outright in these poses . Dorian's overall shot in those I mentioned are textbook and Ronnie's are not .

[Hulkster]

I love how the rear lat spread comparison is staring ND right in the fucking face and he still thinks dorian would the pose.

RONNIE HAS A FUCKING CHRISTMAS TREE FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

Dorian NEVER EVER displayed that sort of detail in the rear lats spread.

EVER.

ronnie would win the pose easily.

[Hulkster]

he his lacking in balance & proportion

bullshit.

you keep clinging to meaningless phrases like this as "proof" but no one else but you believes this.

[Hulkster]

How can a front lat spread be "textbook" with smooth chest arms and quads??



 


ND, you have really, really pitiful standards as to what looks good in a pose.



100 times better.

[NeoSeminole]

About as fair as your other comparisions

There is no need for me to scale those pics. Ronnie's superiority is clearly evident.

[Hulkster]

ND seems to think that by having the pics scaled correctly it will impart shape, detail vascularity and striations to dorian that do not show up the way the pics are scaled now..

As I have argued from the begining, size has never really been a factor in this debate as they were both around 250-257 pounds give or take at their best at about the same height.

but taper, detail, vascularity etc have been.

and that is where ronnie outclasses dorian by far



 even when dorian is at his very best (pictured here in 1993) its still not even close

[suckmymuscle]

Please show me where I compared 97 Dorian to 98/99 Ronnie. So far I have only compred 93 Dorian to 98/99 Ronnie, and 97 Dorian to 03 Ronnie.

Again, I like how you ignored this part of my other post:

  Well, you dimwitted newbie, since the bottom pic you posted is of Dorian at the 1997 Olympia and since that was his worst performance ever, I don't accept any comparison with any of Ronnie's versions other than 2001/4. It is as simple as that. Furthermore, I have already posted several multi-paragraph posts explaining why Ronnie wasn't that great in 2003; if you weren't such a shitty little newbie, both to this thread and to this board as well, you'd know that. I must have written at least 100 paragraphs about this topic and won't do it again, just for your convenience. I compared Dorian's worst(1997) against one of Ronnie's worst(2004), where Dorian is destroying Ronnie, so I have nothing to prove. I have already posted, pages ago, the 1996 Dorian destroying the 1998 Ronnie in the abs-and-thighs mandatory. Again, you're lost. But then, what can we expect from a newbo? Ronnie in 2003 was great muscularity-wise, but he was not great overrall because his midsection was unacceptable and his body was completely unbalanced, especially the lower one. I'll math Dorian in his 1995 Olympia version against any version of Ronnie. Of ourse, except his 2001 and 2004 versions, which are too amateurish to even be worthy of being on the Olympia stage, let alone being compared to Dorian in 1995, arguably te best pakage any Mr.Olympia ever brought onstage.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

He conveniently overlooks the fact that they're at different angles, making back double-bi comparisons from that shot close to useless. The only sure thing that doesn't depend on angle, is the massive ownage of Yates' twigs arms, with Coleman's bis & tris looking about twice the size, along with far better taper to a smaller waist from bigger upper and lower body.

Nice job SUCKMYDIK, keep posting those good Coleman shots.

Here's a more accurate comparison, head-on unlike SUCKY's desperate shot..

  Picking at straws, because you have nothing to counter-argue with at the brutal raping Dozer is giving Ronnie in the shot I posted. They are not on the same angle? What's next? Their foots are positioned not on the exact same milimeter than the other, so that invalidates everything? And yet, funnily enough, then, after making tis bizarre, downright odd complaint, Poop posts a pic where they are even more out of te same angle than on mine! Go figure!

SUCKMYMUSCLE