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

[suckmymuscle]

Any sane person would concede that 287lbs Ronnie defeats 257lbs Dorian.

  Why? Just because you say so? What about Wheeler, who regularly defeated guys who outweighed him by 50 lbs, because he had a better midsetion, crisper details and more balance. Ronnie did not haveeven acceptable proportions in 2003. I'm going to go even further and say that his midsection, by itself, would make him lose the symmetry round flat out. Ok; he wins the muscularity round. But Dorian would still hae enough of everything else to topple him.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

Dorian dominated Flex in 93 because he was HUGE standing beside him, alone with being in great condition. If you don't think that's the primary reason he won then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Flex looked like a light heavyweight standing next to Dorian and at the Olympia level that's exactly what they are looking for.

Ronnie vs Flex was close because they were roughly the same size, so it came down to condition and Ronnie won. Period. The Dorian that showed up in 93 was a bodybuilder that had never been seen before. It shocked everyone when he came out in 93 looking like that. The Ronnie that appeared in 98 didn't have the same wow factor that Dorian did in 93, but he looked great that day. He has nothing to be ashamed of since he only won by 3 points. He won, period. Only you remember how much he won by, and you only do that in defense of Dorian. Do you know how many points the Steelers won the Super Bowl by in 79. No, they won, period.  93 was a wastershed year in bodybuilding. Dorian pushed the limits of everything and it took several years before the other competitors caught up. But they did, and in 98 Ronnie combined the size of a Dorian, with shape, separation and a level of detail that Dorian never was able to display. Flex was a lot bigger when he faced Ronnie in 98 and that closed the point gap. Whether you like it or not, the olympia is a size game.

FLex may have been sharper in 93 but he was small compared to Dorian.

Yates at 257 is not noticeably bigger than Ronnie at 249. I disagree. He's not noticiably bigger at all. BUT for a moment if I agree that it is. Then what in the world would 30 pounds be? If we're going to say that an 8 pound bigger Yates is noticeably bigger than Ronnie, then Ronnie with a 30 pound advantage over Yates would be HUGE. Your own logic here ND says that there's no way in hell that 257 pound Yates could ever handle 287 pound Ronnie. No amount of great condition in the world would overcome that advantage. Ever.

In 98 vs 93 I  believe size would have been a draw. I give the edge in conditioning to Yates by a small margin. I believe Ronnie makes up Yates advantage in condition and pulls slightly ahead with much better shape, separation, and detail. 

An 03 vs 93 competition would be over quickly and by your own logic you've said as much yourself.

Ronnie is NOT roughly the same size as Flex . Ronnie 1998 Mr Olympia was 249lbs and Flex was 230lbs thats a 19lb size advantage thats not roughly the same not by a long shot . Ronnie beat Flex by being dryer & bigger period . and while Flex was heavier in 1998 vs 1993 thats not weight that served his overall package , 1993 he was much better than 1998 and Ronnie just barely beat him its very unrealstic to think Ronnie 1998 can beat a bigger , denser , dryer and more balanced Dorian Yates .

the 3 points shows that Ronnie had trouble beating Flex it was close and while Ronnie was picked the better man it could in all honesty went either way and that clearly shows that Dorian dominated a much sharper Flex Wheeler he would in all honesty beat Ronnie in 1998 , it may be close but seriously 1998 Ronnie isn't going to beat Dorian 1993

And how can you say Dorian at 5'10" 257lbs is NOT clearly biggr than a 5'11" 249lb is beyond rational thought , seriously . there is a clear difference between Ronnie at 249lbs compared to Ronnie at 257lbs in 1999 , so for you to try and negate this clear advantage , with your estimation of Flex & Ronnie are roughly he same size in 1998 despite being 19lbs lighter i think shows that your ability to estimate weight difference is impaired .

Now Yates 257lbs compared to Ronnie 2003 I've said Dorian might lose just based on the higher bodyweight but if you look at Ronnie's conditioning in 2003 its lacking especially compared to 1998 and he's no where near as dry as Dorian in 1993 , so while he has the advantage in muscular bulk and maybe density he doesn't in balanced development & conditioning , so while that 30lb weight advantage may be to great to overcome its not impossible I would say Dorian has a very good chance at beating Ronnie 2003 .

[corinth]

 Well, Frank Zane became the standard-bearer beating much bigger guys, so I think your theory, about the Olympia being all about size, is wrong. Furthermore, Ruhl has come in at 285 lbs shredded and he's not Mr.Olympia. I do think that there has been a trend, in the last two decades, of rewarding size above everything else. Which is exactly the reason I concede that maybe, just maybe, the 280+ lbs Ronnie would defeat Dorian. But this is only because the fans want to see size above everything else; the judges are not following the official booklet when it comes to judging physiques. I do think a Dorian who's close to 260 lbs, with rock-hard conditioning and a washbord abs is better than a grossly distended Ronnie. Dorian simply had too much density and balance to be defeated by a guy who looks pregnant with an alien queen. I do think balance, taper and muscle quality(density, striations and dryness) matter as much as the sheer diameter of a competitor's muscles when it comes to evaluating a physique from a bodybuilding criteria, although I concede it's irrelevant from a massbuilding criteria.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

The Olympia is "primarily" about size, not only about size. Ronnie at 287 pounds was in good condition. He has striated glutes at that weight so his condition isn't bad. His condition isn't Dorian 93 condition but it's good enough with his unbelievable muscularity and size to beat anyone competing today or in years past. I like Ruhl, but he doesn't have the structure, shape and detail to ever beat Ronnie. Dorian at 257 was awesome, I've said that many times, but even at good as he is at that weight, he's simply never had the shape, separation and detail that Ronnie has.

[Hulkster]

Obviously I disagree and I'll explain in detail exactly why.

Ronnie in 1998 would NOT beat Dorian I'm sorry if Ronnie just barely beat Flex in 1998 he's NOT beating Dorian. Flex was much sharper when he faced Dorian in 1993 when he faced Ronnie in 1998. Dorian dominated Flex and the rest of the feild , he was so dominating in fact the judges didn't even need to call him out the in the muscularity round .

To anyone with the excuse Ronnie was ' overlooked ' at the 1998 Mr Olympia please spare me. Yes the general precontes consensus was it was Flex Wheelers show to win ( or lose ) but all that nonsense came to a dead halt when Ronnie showed up in remarkable shape , the judges deemed him the best man at the conclusion of the prejudging , he was NOT overlooked thats exactly why he won.

Now concerning the topic of Dorian's weight advantage which vs Ronnie in 1998 was eight pounds , now for you to write this off as no advantage is pure nonsense . now if we were talking 3 or 4 pounds I'd say Okay but we're talking about a solid eight pounds of dense muscle on a man 1 inch shorter to say it would make no difference is not being honest . case in point Ronnie 1998 vs Ronnie 1999 , guess what he just had an eight pound weight advantage from one year to the next and look how much of a diference it made . Yates at 257lbs dry is a noticably bigger than Ronnie thats just a plain fact .

Now you say the contest comes down to condition , balance & shape. Dorian equals Ronnie 1998 in terms of conditioning and surpasses Ronnie 1999 . balance no question Dorian has better balance of any year Ronnie. and shape. now granted Ronnie does have some better shaped muscles but so does Dorian. Dorian has better calves , abdominals , side head triceps , forearms , I would say lats , Ronnie has his edges in biceps , quads , and etc. from a shape prospective its a push Ronnie may have a more pleasing apperance due to his small waist but he's NOT in the same leauge as Cormier or Flex in terms of shape that would outright dominate.

Now this is a summary of the judging criteria

The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.

Ronnie 1998 cannot match Dorian in terms of muscular bulk , balanced development and muscle density or definition ( conditioning ) Ronnie 1999 while can match Dorian in terms of muscular bulk he still trails in terms of balanced development , muscular density and definition ( conditioning ) Dorian simply enjoys these advantages in most of the mandatory poses , this is exactly how he dominated everyone . he was the biggest , dryest , densest , and most balanced . and believe me when a contest is this close bitch-tits are going to come into play especially when one competitor has them and the other does't .

Ronnie beat Flex in 1998 because he was bigger ( muscular bulk ) and had ripped hams & glutes ( definition/conditioning )

2003 I think just based on a 30lb size advantage Ronnie would probably beat Dorian but you never know Nasser was 285 in 1998 and Ronnie beat him at 249lbs so you never know .

wow. this post illistrates how incredibly flawed ND's arguments really are.

 You argue that Ronnie and dorian are close in shape because while Ronnie has better shaped arms, quads, body taper,  Yates has better shaped side head triceps and forearms? What the Fuck?

absolutely retarded.

ND- Ronnie's shape advantages are HUGE - see any most muscular, rear lat spread, or any relaxed pose.

its not just about minor stuff like "side head triceps", forearms or abs.

We are talking about major parts of the body here.

Secondly, again, you completely miss the fact that whether dorian was better conditioned is completely irrelevant because he LACKED THE DETAIL head to toe that Ronnie had. Again, see any most muscular, side chest, rear double bi, etc.

again, very weak argument that ignores all the proof exhibited in this thread.

Third, just because THE JUDGES thought it was close between Ronnie and Flex in 1998 HAS NO RELEVANCE to how they would judge Ronnie vs. Dorian.

Why?
Dorian beat Flex because of size.
Ronnie beat Flex because of conditioning, width and to a lesser extent, size.

In ronnie, dorian would face someone with near his size (equal if you choose 1999 over 1998) with a back, better shape etc.

Third, you say that dorian "simply enjoys these advantages in the mandtatory poses"

well, why is it that in all of these comparisons that keep getting posted, dorian comes up short?

answer: "muscular balance" (that does not really exist except in your mind) doesn't help if you have inferior bodyparts combined together on top of a wide waist and blocky structure.



how you cannot see the unbelievable difference in overall shape is unreal
Notice: the dramatic taper that ronnie has. the arms etc. Yes, this is dorian post tear - but his taper didn't change much post tear.  The natural body shape remained the same.

[pobrecito]

wow. this post illistrates how incredibly flawed ND's arguments really are.

 You argue that Ronnie and dorian are close in shape because while Ronnie has better shaped arms, quads, body taper,  Yates has better shaped side head triceps and forearms? What the f**k?

absolutely retarded.

ND- Ronnie's shape advantages are HUGE - see any most muscular, rear lat spread, or any relaxed pose.

its not just about minor stuff like "side head triceps", forearms or abs.

We are talking about major parts of the body here.

Secondly, again, you completely miss the fact that whether dorian was better conditioned is completely irrelevant because he LACKED THE DETAIL head to toe that Ronnie had. Again, see any most muscular, side chest, rear double bi, etc.

again, very weak argument that ignores all the proof exhibited in this thread.

Third, just because THE JUDGES thought it was close between Ronnie and Flex in 1998 HAS NO RELEVANCE to how they would judge Ronnie vs. Dorian.

Why?
Dorian beat Flex because of size.
Ronnie beat Flex because of conditioning, width and to a lesser extent, size.

In ronnie, dorian would face someone with near his size (equal if you choose 1999 over 1998) with a back, better shape etc.

Third, you say that dorian "simply enjoys these advantages in the mandtatory poses"

well, why is it that in all of these comparisons that keep getting posted, dorian comes up short?

answer: "muscular balance" (that does not really exist except in your mind) doesn't help if you have inferior bodyparts combined together on top of a wide waist and blocky structure.



how you cannot see the unbelievable difference in overall shape is unreal
Notice: the dramatic taper that ronnie has. the arms etc. Yes, this is dorian post tear - but his taper didn't change much post tear.  The natural body shape remained the same.

Ronnie is only 242lbs in that picture. A 93 257lbs Yates would tear him up.

[corinth]

Ronnie is NOT roughly the same size as Flex . Ronnie 1998 Mr Olympia was 249lbs and Flex was 230lbs thats a 19lb size advantage thats not roughly the same not by a long shot . Ronnie beat Flex by being dryer & bigger period . and while Flex was heavier in 1998 vs 1993 thats not weight that served his overall package , 1993 he was much better than 1998 and Ronnie just barely beat him its very unrealstic to think Ronnie 1998 can beat a bigger , denser , dryer and more balanced Dorian Yates .

the 3 points shows that Ronnie had trouble beating Flex it was close and while Ronnie was picked the better man it could in all honesty went either way and that clearly shows that Dorian dominated a much sharper Flex Wheeler he would in all honesty beat Ronnie in 1998 , it may be close but seriously 1998 Ronnie isn't going to beat Dorian 1993

And how can you say Dorian at 5'10" 257lbs is NOT clearly biggr than a 5'11" 249lb is beyond rational thought , seriously . there is a clear difference between Ronnie at 249lbs compared to Ronnie at 257lbs in 1999 , so for you to try and negate this clear advantage , with your estimation of Flex & Ronnie are roughly he same size in 1998 despite being 19lbs lighter i think shows that your ability to estimate weight difference is impaired .

Now Yates 257lbs compared to Ronnie 2003 I've said Dorian might lose just based on the higher bodyweight but if you look at Ronnie's conditioning in 2003 its lacking especially compared to 1998 and he's no where near as dry as Dorian in 1993 , so while he has the advantage in muscular bulk and maybe density he doesn't in balanced development & conditioning , so while that 30lb weight advantage may be to great to overcome its not impossible I would say Dorian has a very good chance at beating Ronnie 2003 .

I was comparing 98 Ronnie and 98 FLex. Flex did not weigh 230 in 98. 98 Ronnie would crush 93 Wheeler much the way Dorian did. And that's my point ND. 98 Ronnie would be much too big for 93 Flex, just like 93 Dorian was too big for 93 Flex. If 98 Ronnie showed up at the 93 Olympia the contest would be between two men, Dorian and Ronnie, with a small FLex in a distant third.  A 230 pound 93 version of Flex was never going to make up the 30 pounds he would give up to 93 Dorian or 98 Ronnie. No amount of condition would make up that amount of weight. By adding some weight when he competed against Ronnie in 98 I believe he closed the gap that would have otherwise been there. I agree his condition did suffer some, but I believe he did close what would have been a bigger point gap by closing the size gap.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on how much bigger you believe 93 Yates was than 98 Ronnie. We'll never see them standing side by side in that condition but I just don't believe the size advantage you believe to exist would be nearly as evident as you believe.
93 Dorian wouln't stand a chance against 03 Ronnie. He could never overcome 30 pounds, not on an Olympia stage. Ronnie's condition in 03 wasn't the best, but he did have striated glutes, so it wasn't bad either. He'd have enough condition plus too much size to be beaten.
 

[pobrecito]

Regardless, the new standard was set 18 days out of the 2002 olympia. Everyone thinks the new standard was 2003, it was 2002. Ronnie was 275 and in the same condition as the '99 olympia. If you watch the BFTO from 2003 where Ronnie is 290 you can see how inferior he is to his 2002 275lbs form.

[Hulkster]

Ronnie was 247 at the Arnold Classic according to Flex.

According to ironman, he was just shy of 250.

either way, he was not 242

[NarcissisticDeity]

wow. this post illistrates how incredibly flawed ND's arguments really are.

 You argue that Ronnie and dorian are close in shape because while Ronnie has better shaped arms, quads, body taper,  Yates has better shaped side head triceps and forearms? What the f**k?

absolutely retarded.

ND- Ronnie's shape advantages are HUGE - see any most muscular, rear lat spread, or any relaxed pose.

its not just about minor stuff like "side head triceps", forearms or abs.

We are talking about major parts of the body here.

Secondly, again, you completely miss the fact that whether dorian was better conditioned is completely irrelevant because he LACKED THE DETAIL head to toe that Ronnie had. Again, see any most muscular, side chest, rear double bi, etc.

again, very weak argument that ignores all the proof exhibited in this thread.

Third, just because THE JUDGES thought it was close between Ronnie and Flex in 1998 HAS NO RELEVANCE to how they would judge Ronnie vs. Dorian.

Why?
Dorian beat Flex because of size.
Ronnie beat Flex because of conditioning, width and to a lesser extent, size.

In ronnie, dorian would face someone with near his size (equal if you choose 1999 over 1998) with a back, better shape etc.

Third, you say that dorian "simply enjoys these advantages in the mandtatory poses"

well, why is it that in all of these comparisons that keep getting posted, dorian comes up short?

answer: "muscular balance" (that does not really exist except in your mind) doesn't help if you have inferior bodyparts combined together on top of a wide waist and blocky structure.


how you cannot see the unbelievable difference in overall shape is unreal
Notice: the dramatic taper that ronnie has. the arms etc. Yes, this is dorian post tear - but his taper didn't change much post tear.  The natural body shape remained the same.

You cannot pick and choose what is more important than the other the judges SERVY ALL MUSCLES so while Ronnie has the edge in some so does Dorian and for you to claims only Ronnies better shapped muscles count once again shows your irnorance .

in all the mandatory shots they take into account every part and gauge it in terms of muscular bulk , muscle density , muscular balance and definition , so while its apparent Ronnie has the better biceps in the front double biceps pose , its also apparent his forearms aren't better and neither is his balance and they would take into account the bitch-tits and how his chest goes flat and lacks muscle density in this pose . Hulkster you're absolutely dreadfull at comprehending the judging criteria .

Secondly, again, you completely miss the fact that whether dorian was better conditioned is completely irrelevant because he LACKED THE DETAIL head to toe that Ronnie had. Again, see any most muscular, side chest, rear double bi, etc.

again, very weak argument that ignores all the proof exhibited in this thread.

Again no he didn't lack detail this is your fantasy edge which you cling to for dear life , Dorian's serattus/intercostals/obliques/abdominals were all more detailed than Ronnie you just gloss past that . Dorian doesn't quite have as many striations as Ronnie on his chest so again just by virtue of more striations you make a baseless claims that Dorian has no detail in his chest bull. how detailed are Ronnies calves in comparision to Dorians? Oh lets gloss over that . how about Dorian's x-mass tree and lats from the rear? Dorian's are more detailed than Ronnies but you neglect to mention that how ironic   Ronnie has more detail in his upper quads & biceps so don't act like Ronnie is Andreas Muzer seriously , this ploy is old. Ronnie can't hold a candle to Dorian in dryness .

Third, just because THE JUDGES thought it was close between Ronnie and Flex in 1998 HAS NO RELEVANCE to how they would judge Ronnie vs. Dorian.

Why?
Dorian beat Flex because of size.
Ronnie beat Flex because of conditioning, width and to a lesser extent, size.

In ronnie, dorian would face someone with near his size (equal if you choose 1999 over 1998) with a back, better shape etc.

Wrong once again , as usualy with you stop trying to reduce Dorian to fit your criteria and NOT the judges . Dorian beat everyone simply because he was the biggest , the dryest , the densest and the most balances in all the mandatory poses .

Dorian easily beat a much sharper Flex and Ronnie beat Flex in 1998 because he was 19lbs heavier and be had better conditioning , Dorian would be 8lbs heavier than Ronnie one inch shorter and have the outright edge in conditioning , density & balance , Ronnie's good in 1998 but he's not going to overcome that combo.

It may be closer in 1999 but he's still got gyno and while he matches Dorian in muscular bulk , he doesn't in density , balance and conditioning , again this one may be closer , but Dorian has all bases covered .

Third, you say that dorian "simply enjoys these advantages in the mandtatory poses"

well, why is it that in all of these comparisons that keep getting posted, dorian comes up short?

answer: "muscular balance" (that does not really exist except in your mind) doesn't help if you have inferior bodyparts combined together on top of a wide waist and blocky structure.


how you cannot see the unbelievable difference in overall shape is unreal
Notice: the dramatic taper that ronnie has. the arms etc. Yes, this is dorian post tear - but his taper didn't change much post tear.  The natural body shape remained the same.

Again you're clueless as to what muscular balance is Dorian was born with and Ronnie wasn't , because Ronnie has smaller waist & hips he has better overall shape? lol says you and again Dorian doesn't need to conform to your ideal phsyique to beat anyone he never did , he never had fantastic aesthetic shape ( neither did Ronnie ) all he needs to be is Dorian , which is massive , dense , dry and balanced that beat almost ever person he ever faced , from the most aesthetic physiques to fellow mass monsters .

[pobrecito]

Ronnie's best conditioning was either in '96 or the '01 ASC

here's a question to you hulkster:

Ronnie rarely displays quad striations. Why is it that he had striations everywhere in his quads in '96 yet displayed none at the '99 olympia? Would this not indicate inferior conditioning?

[NarcissisticDeity]

I was comparing 98 Ronnie and 98 FLex. Flex did not weigh 230 in 98. 98 Ronnie would crush 93 Wheeler much the way Dorian did. And that's my point ND. 98 Ronnie would be much too big for 93 Flex, just like 93 Dorian was too big for 93 Flex. If 98 Ronnie showed up at the 93 Olympia the contest would be between two men, Dorian and Ronnie, with a small FLex in a distant third.  A 230 pound 93 version of Flex was never going to make up the 30 pounds he would give up to 93 Dorian or 98 Ronnie. No amount of condition would make up that amount of weight. By adding some weight when he competed against Ronnie in 98 I believe he closed the gap that would have otherwise been there. I agree his condition did suffer some, but I believe he did close what would have been a bigger point gap by closing the size gap.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on how much bigger you believe 93 Yates was than 98 Ronnie. We'll never see them standing side by side in that condition but I just don't believe the size advantage you believe to exist would be nearly as evident as you believe.
93 Dorian wouln't stand a chance against 03 Ronnie. He could never overcome 30 pounds, not on an Olympia stage. Ronnie's condition in 03 wasn't the best, but he did have striated glutes, so it wasn't bad either. He'd have enough condition plus too much size to be beaten.
 

I have the Flex magazine with the Olympia coverage for 1998 it clearly states Ronnie being 249lbs and Flex being 230lbs .

And Flex Wheeler 1993 ASC was lucky if he was 220lbs and despite the size difference he would beat Yates any year and Coleman any year , his combo in this show is just that overwhelming . he's just that good.

And there is a possiblity of a 257lb Dorian beating Ronnie 2003 its not unheard of Hell Ronnie beat Nasser at 249lbs and he was 285lbs , the possibility exists maybe not a high probability but its not unheard of .

[Hulkster]

Ronnie is only 242lbs in that picture. A 93 257lbs Yates would tear him up.

no he would not.

you will have to re-read the last 305 pages to find out why.

Ronnie would beat dorian by outclassing him with QUALITY:



a few pounds of weight differential won't help you if your taper is this much worse than your opponent:



remember- a lot of times, its about the illusion of size.

Someone who is 247 pounds but with a dramatic taper is going to look better onstage than someone who is 257 pounds without a dramatic taper (wide waist, not so great quad sweep)

[pobrecito]

no he would not.

you will have to re-read the last 305 pages to find out why.

Ronnie would beat dorian by outclassing him with QUALITY:



a few pounds of weight differential won't help you if your taper is this much worse than your opponent:



remember- a lot of times, its about the illusion of size.

Someone who is 247 pounds but with a dramatic taper is going to look better onstage than someone who is 257 pounds without a dramatic taper (wide waist, not so great quad sweep)

Dorian is not set in that pose.....if you want to see what Ronnie in '99 relaxed looks like I'm sure ND can post the picture up again

[NarcissisticDeity]

no he would not.

you will have to re-read the last 305 pages to find out why.

Ronnie would beat dorian by outclassing him with QUALITY:


a few pounds of weight differential won't help you if your taper is this much worse than your opponent:


remember- a lot of times, its about the illusion of size.

Someone who is 247 pounds but with a dramatic taper is going to look better onstage than someone who is 257 pounds without a dramatic taper (wide waist, not so great quad sweep)

Again blanket statement with total disregaurd for the IFBB rules . now Dorian doesn't have quality muscle   keep changing your story until it seems logical. stop trying to make Dorian conform to what you consider the winning ideal , he doesn't have to be Ronnie Coleman to beat him. Dorian at 257lbs dry , dense , balanced and huge would make Ronnie 2001 ASC look small period .

[JamieX4200]

damn you guys are fags

[Hulkster]

And Flex Wheeler 1993 ASC was lucky if he was 220lbs and despite the size difference he would beat Yates any year and Coleman any year , his combo in this show is just that overwhelming . he's just that good.

I think ronnie would stand a good chance of even beating the 93 AC flex.

Why?

well, you remember those shots I posted earlier of Flex and ronnie being extremely close? Hell, even you, the most devout ronnie hater of them all, agreed that they were very very close.

well, there is one crucial difference that the judges would probably favor: Ronnie has wide lats. *(and ripped glutes and hams).

the judges might look at these advantages in an otherwise neck and neck battle and give the nod to Ronnie..

People see all these amazing pics of Flex from 1993 and they are blown away.

But part of the reason for this is they are not seeing any rear lat spread or standing relaxed pics from the same contest showing how very narrow Flex was, even in 1993..

[NarcissisticDeity]

Dorian is not set in that pose.....if you want to see what Ronnie in '99 relaxed looks like I'm sure ND can post the picture up again

 

[pumpster]

Quote from: pobrecito on Today at 09:51:29 PM
Dorian is not set in that pose.....if you want to see what Ronnie in '99 relaxed looks like I'm sure ND can post the picture up again

H-taper baby!

[pobrecito]

you've already been owned several times.....I told you son go sit in your corner

[corinth]

I have the Flex magazine with the Olympia coverage for 1998 it clearly states Ronnie being 249lbs and Flex being 230lbs .

And Flex Wheeler 1993 ASC was lucky if he was 220lbs and despite the size difference he would beat Yates any year and Coleman any year , his combo in this show is just that overwhelming . he's just that good.

And there is a possiblity of a 257lb Dorian beating Ronnie 2003 its not unheard of Hell Ronnie beat Nasser at 249lbs and he was 285lbs , the possibility exists maybe not a high probability but its not unheard of .

I hate to disagree with such a wonderful magazine as Flex, but if Wheeler was 230 in 93 then he definitely wasn't 230 in 98. He was a lot bigger in 98.

I diagree with Flex 93 beating Dorian 93 or Ronnie 98. Flex was just too small and narrow shoulder to shoulder to beat those guys. His few flaws were most evident standing next to guys with wide shoulders.  And how come you give Flex a pass on his calves when you bring bash Ronnie so much for his? Flex's calves were always a topic of conversation. Just ask Shawn Ray about Flex's magical calves..lol

There is a possibility of a 257 Dorian beating 287 Ronnie, but it wouldn't happen on an Olympia stage where size matters so much.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I think ronnie would stand a good chance of even beating the 93 AC flex.

Why?

well, you remember those shots I posted earlier of Flex and ronnie being extremely close? Hell, even you, the most devout ronnie hater of them all, agreed that they were very very close.

well, there is one crucial difference that the judges would probably favor: Ronnie has wide lats. *(and ripped glutes and hams).

the judges might look at these advantages in an otherwise neck and neck battle and give the nod to Ronnie..

People see all these amazing pics of Flex from 1993 and they are blown away.

But part of the reason for this is they are not seeing any rear lat spread or standing relaxed pics from the same contest showing how very narrow Flex was, even in 1993..

I disagree lol this is the next 300 page debate lol  

[Hulkster]

Dorian at 257lbs dry , dense , balanced and huge would make Ronnie 2001 ASC look small period .

alright guys, I am about to OWN ND.


You ready?

Here goes:

Chris Cormier is listed in Flex magazine that has the AC 2001 coverage as being 257 pounds (he states it in the Flex sidebar and it is also listed elsewhere).

Now, that means that Chris would be the same weight as Dorian in 1993.

And here is how he looks compared to Ronnie:



not much difference is there?

Bingo. ND's theory about dorian looking way bigger just goes out the window.

 

[pobrecito]

I disagree lol this is the next 300 page debate lol  

Ronnie's back has never been that dry....but my admission, that is the best back double bi ever

[pobrecito]

alright guys, I am about to OWN ND.


You ready?

Here goes:

Chris Cormier is listed in Flex magazine that has the AC 2001 coverage as being 257 pounds (he states it in the Flex sidebar and it is also listed elsewhere).

Now, that means that Chris would be the same weight as Dorian in 1993.

And here is how he looks compared to Ronnie:



not much difference is there?

Bingo. ND's theory about dorian looking way bigger just goes out the window.

 

umm, no

Cormier is softer than a baby's ass....Dorian in that shape is offseason at 275lbs

[pumpster]

Chris Cormier is listed in Flex magazine that has the AC 2001 coverage as being 257 pounds (he states it in the Flex sidebar and it is also listed elsewhere).

Now, that means that Chris would be the same weight as Dorian in 1993.

Cormier looks solidly TIER-B next to Coleman, and is the same weight as Yates..