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

[Hulkster]

How can someone whom many consider to have the greatest back of all time with mediocre arms be called more balanced?

because the pro-dorian camp has no clue what they are talking about.

It can be argued that arms have greater importance than calves in bodybuilding. There is a front double biceps and rear double biceps, but no pose with "calves" in the name. So quit saying Dorian is more balanced than Ronnie.

It can be argued quite easily that having arms is a lot better and more important in a bodybuilding contest than calves.

Only in ND's fantasy world do the judges put calves up on par with major parts like arms and quads.

He just uses this fallacy to try and justify dorian being better.

But anyone with a brain can see right through it.

[IceCold]

because the pro-dorian camp has no clue what they are talking about.

It can be argued quite easily that having arms is a lot better and more important in a bodybuilding contest than calves.

Only in ND's fantasy world do the judges put calves up on par with major parts like arms and quads.

He just uses this fallacy to try and justify dorian being better.

But anyone with a brain can see right through it.

amrs are more important than calves.  that's pretty obvious.  some guys like lee priest and matarrazo made a career out of having good arms. 

my whole is that you make comparing dorian and ronnie like comparing kamali and ronnie.  you think that ronnie would totally blow dorian offstage when that, of course, would never happen.  ronnie would probably beat dorian but it would be awful close and maybe dorian would win. 

also, you constantly post the best pics of ronnie vs. pics of dorian that arent his best trying to prove your point.

[Hulkster]

 

amrs are more important than calves.  that's pretty obvious.  some guys like lee priest and matarrazo made a career out of having good arms. 

my whole is that you make comparing dorian and ronnie like comparing kamali and ronnie.  you think that ronnie would totally blow dorian offstage when that, of course, would never happen.  ronnie would probably beat dorian but it would be awful close and maybe dorian would win. 

also, you constantly post the best pics of ronnie vs. pics of dorian that arent his best trying to prove your point.

you're right - I don't really think it would be so close.

Here is the reason why:

We can all see that according to the judges, dorian dominated in the 90's.

He beat smaller, narrower opponents ( namely, flex and shawn) mainly due the size and width differential - anyone who says otherwise has not pictured what a 255 pound Flex Wheeler or Shawn Ray comlete with wide lats would have done to Dorian

Even though Flex and Shawn arguably had better quality muscle, they lacked the size and width to beat dorian in the judges eyes.

He ran into trouble against Nasser, who was the same size (if not a little bigger) but won because he had a better back.

Nasser nearly beat dorian but had a crappy back. It was close but the judges gave the nod to Dorian.

NOW, in peak Ronnie, Dorian would have lost ALL of the advantages that caused him to dominate in the 90's.

He would have a virtually non-existant size advantage.

He would not have any advantage in the back, and in most people's eyes, his back double bi was not as good as Ronnie's.

In terms of quality/detail, anyone can see that as far as the arms, delts, pecs, glutes hams and quads Dorian was not up to Ronnie's level - look at all the pics and videos in this thread. Its not rocket science.

And on top of all that he would lose major points in the relaxed round due to the substantial taper differences.

Put all this together and no, I don't think it would be as close as you might think.

Dorian would face someone who had all of his former advantages, but with better quality muscle (arms, pecs, delts etc) to go with it.



Thus, all of dorian's strong points that caused him to dominate would be gone.

and he would be totally overwhelmed as a result.




 

[IceCold]

valid points. 


but you're forgetting one major thing.  the guys who dorian competed against vs. the guys coleman competes against.

yes dorian competed against smaller guys, like levrone and shawn, but they were much better than cutler, gustavo, jackson, gunter, etc.  you ever thought that who coleman competes against makes him look better than he actually would against nasser in his prime and also shawn, kevin, flex (who coleman never dominated), and paul.  dorian competed against these guys and totally dominated them.

i cant believe you're saying it wouldnt be close when guys like flex, cutler, and fucking gustavo, gunter have been closer to coleman than an in-prime kevin, shawn, nasser, flex (some of the best EVER) were ever closer to dorian. 

[pumpster]

amrs are more important than calves.  that's pretty obvious.  some guys like lee priest and matarrazo made a career out of having good arms.

ND claims otherwise. His calves are just as important argument is used when he's tired of canned arguments involving bad lighting, lighter skin and other assorted excuses.

[pumpster]

yes dorian competed against smaller guys, like levrone and shawn, but they were much better than cutler, gustavo, jackson, gunter, etc.  you ever thought that who coleman competes against makes him look better than he actually would against nasser in his prime and also shawn, kevin, flex (who coleman never dominated), and paul.  dorian competed against these guys and totally dominated them.

The quality of their opponents is irrelevant to direct comparisons of the two of them.

Their relative physical size IS relevant; Yates would've been in the unfamiliar position of being physically overshadowed and dominated. 

[IceCold]

The quality of their opponents is irrelevant to direct comparisons of the two of them.

Their relative physical size IS relevant; Yates would've been in the unfamiliar position of being physically overshadowed and dominated. 

says you. 

[pumpster]

says you. 

Common sense...ya buddy!

[IceCold]

Common sense...ya buddy!

well maybe not if 8 years after yates retired people still think he could well against ronnie.  hence, the number of pages for this thread.

[Hulkster]

well maybe not if 8 years after yates retired people still think he could well against ronnie.  hence, the number of pages for this thread.

yes but how many people on this entire board think that Dorian would win?

three? four?

Its those few people that have made this thread what it is.

it is not the opinion of the majority, who can plainly view the pics and videos and easily see that Ronnie would win for the points I stated above.

[pumpster]

yes but how many people on this entire board think that Dorian would win?

three? four?

Coincidentally that's about the same number who are wasting time with world trade center conspiracies along with faked moon landing scenarios..

Just remember...this thread thrives on the absence of common sense. Nonsensical jibberish is SUCKY's oxygen.

[suckmymuscle]

ND claims otherwise. His calves are just as important argument is used when he's tired of canned arguments involving bad lighting, lighter skin and other assorted excuses.

  Calves are as much a part of a bodybuilding criteria as any other muscle, you idiot. Arms are more important? Well, it depends. Dorian actually has better triceps and forearms than Ronnie; this has been established. Ronnie takes Dorian flat out on biceps, though. In any case, Dorian has thicker forearms. Ronnie's triceps only surpass Dorian when the former is over 280 lbs. And even then, only in size - his shape is still inferior to Dorian's.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

Quote from: pumpster on Today at 12:08:16 AM
ND claims otherwise. His calves are just as important argument is used when he's tired of canned arguments involving bad lighting, lighter skin and other assorted excuses.


  Calves are as much a part of a bodybuilding criteria as any other muscle, you idiot.

Only if you're lying on the floor trying to look up their posing trunks you tool.

[suckmymuscle]

the problem i have with this argument, especially with fags like hulkster and pumpster (seriously guys, you like ronnie a bit too much) is that you guys totally shit on dorian.

i've said that coleman may have beaten yates.  he's a great bber, and probably the best of all time based on his Mr. O wins (he'll get 9 this year) and the other shows he's won. 

my whole point is that dorian would be extremely competitive next to coleman, and could maybe beat him.  but you talk about dorian like he is kamaili, ken jones, or any other shitty bber.

  Excellent post! Saying that Dorian was "tier-B", and shit like that, is just pathetic. We all know that even turning pro is a terrific accomplishment, and that there are many superb top amateurs who never made it. Edgar Fletcher would be an example. And we also know, that most of the pros, will never even qualify for the Olympia, let alone win it! Now, Dorian not only turned pro and qualified for the Olympia, but he actually won it! Not once, twice or even three times, but six times! Six fucking times! And with straight first scores, from all judges, at all his Olympias except in 1992! So, saying that Dorian was "tier-B', as Poop keeps saying, is so idiotic as to not even being worthy of a reply. It goes to show the respect that these guys give him by the way they call him "construction worker" and other spiteful remarks. They are simply too in love with Ronald Coleman to give credit to the guy. Now, you could argue that Dorian only deserved to win in 1993, and that all his other wins were "gifts". Ok. I don't agree with this opinion, but I respect others who feel this way. But even in this case, Dorian would still be a Sandow-bearer. They call themselves bodybuilding fans, yet refuse to give credit to a guy who won the Super Bowl of bodybuilding several times. Poopster's ridiculous theories, that Dorian won due to Joe Weider's racicism, when we all know that most Mr.Olympias have been Black, is appalling. Then, he argues that a British guy is more "marketable" than having an American be the standard-bearer. Oh God, the guy truly is dumb...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Platz]

  Excellent post! Saying that Dorian was "tier-B", and shit like that, is just pathetic. We all know that even turning pro is a terrific accomplishment, and that there are many superb top amateurs who never made it. Edgar Fletcher would be an example. And we also know, that most of the pros, will never even qualify for the Olympia, let alone win it! Now, Dorian not only turned pro and qualified for the Olympia, but he actually won it! Not once, twice or even three times, but six times! Six fucking times! And with straight first scores, from all judges, at all his Olympias except in 1992! So, saying that Dorian was "tier-B', as Poop keeps saying, is so idiotic as to not even being worthy of a reply. It goes to show the respect that these guys give him by the way they call him "construction worker" and other spiteful remarks. They are simply too in love with Ronald Coleman to give credit to the guy. Now, you could argue that Dorian only deserved to win in 1993, and that all his other wins were "gifts". Ok. I don't agree with this opinion, but I respect others who feel this way. But even in this case, Dorian would still be a Sandow-bearer. They call themselves bodybuilding fans, yet refuse to give credit to a guy who won the Super Bowl of bodybuilding several times. Poopster's ridiculous theories, that Dorian won due to Joe Weider's racicism, when we all know that most Mr.Olympias have been Black, is appalling. Then, he argues that a British guy is more "marketable" than having an American be the standard-bearer. Oh God, the guy truly is dumb...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

50% facts / 50 % meltdown

[suckmymuscle]

50% facts / 50 % meltdown

  You don't get to criticize, newbie. You don't even know what that word means. Newbs with nothing positive to contribute: a getbig tradition.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Platz]

  You don't get to criticize, newbie. You don't even know what that word means. Newbs with nothing positive to contribute: a getbig tradition.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Ok "suckmymuscle" hahah oh brother

Click on my username and see when i registered.

ooopps, looks like i registered before ya

 

[Praetor Fenix]

I remember you from the steroid board Platz...
... that was nearly 4 years ago!

Our post count isn't nearly as high as these "veterans" since we don't post-whore in the same thread for 300 pages posting the same arguments with minor variations.

Seriously. I can't believe this shit. suckmymuscle is still debating triceps:

1) Shape is a subjective value judgement.
Not all judges will consider Dorian's shape "superior" simply because he has a kink in his lateral head. Obviously you do, but not all judges would. Most likely, the majority would be entirely indifferent to it.

The difference in shape is minor, yet you elavate its importance to be on par with the actual size and conditioning of the muscle, which is ridiculous. Ronnie's triceps do not have poor shape, its merely different. Not everything in bodybuilding is automatically good or bad, right or wrong, there are perfectly neutral differences, and triceps shape in this case is one of those differences. You'll never hear a judge complain about poor tricep shape ( unless its really f*cking weird or abnormal ) only lack of development or poor conditioning.

NOWHERE IS IT STATED, VERBALLY OR IN WRITING, THAT THE LATERAL HEAD OF THE TRICEPS BRACHII IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A BREAK, OR KINK, IN THE LATERAL HEAD.

2) Ronnie has the advantage in absolute size.
Ronnie's triceps ARE larger and they LOOK larger. This IS an objective element of bodybuilding criteria, unlike your ever-elusive shape BS. I have just as much right to claim that Dorian's triceps have poor shape as you have right to claim that Ronnie's do. There isn't an objective answer to that question, but there IS an objective answer to size: Ronnie's are clearly larger.

You & ND like to claim that Ronnie's lateral head is "thin".
It is clearly as "thick" than Dorian's in diameter, so I don't see your point.
You & ND are too obsessed with that meandering lateral head to actually sit down, assess the photographs, and come to the realization that Dorian's lateral head is not thicker, its simply bent.

Under no circumstances does Dorian's lateral head exceed this diameter across: (attachment)

3) Ronnie has the advantage in detail / vascularity / condition.
His triceps are stacked with striations, particularly the side-triceps.
The borders of Dorian's triceps are beautifully etched (but so are Ronnie's), however, the muscle belly itself simply DOES NOT have comparable detail to Coleman.
Muscle detail, particularly striations, IS an objective bodybuilding measure where anybody with eyes can clearly attest to better detail, as well as larger size.

You have no basis to claim that Dorian has better triceps suckmymuscle.
Your cry of "bad shape" is about as elusive as ND's claim of "imbalance".
Its most likely imagined, but even if it isn't, it goes well beyond the realm of objective bodybuilding assessment, and you are crazy if you believe that the judges would nitpick such small facets like that.

Let me sum this up for you:
A NEUTRAL difference in shape in no way compensates for Ronnie's superior size / condition.

[suckmymuscle]

Ok "suckmymuscle" hahah oh brother

Click on my username and see when i registered.

ooopps, looks like i registered before ya

 

  And reading your posts, I have to say that the only good thing about this is that you post little. Yeah, you registered here a ouple months before me. Too bad this is my third username here, and that I have been posting here since 2002. Oh damn, you didn't expect this one, did you?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

I remember you from the steroid board Platz...
... that was nearly 4 years ago!

Our post count isn't nearly as high as these "veterans" since we don't post-whore in the same thread for 300 pages posting the same arguments with minor variations.

Seriously. I can't believe this shit. suckmymuscle is still debating triceps:

1) Shape is a subjective value judgement.
Not all judges will consider Dorian's shape "superior" simply because he has a kink in his lateral head. Obviously you do, but not all judges would. Most likely, the majority would be entirely indifferent to it.

The difference in shape is minor, yet you elavate its importance to be on par with the actual size and conditioning of the muscle, which is ridiculous. Ronnie's triceps do not have poor shape, its merely different. Not everything in bodybuilding is automatically good or bad, right or wrong, there are perfectly neutral differences, and triceps shape in this case is one of those differences. You'll never hear a judge complain about poor tricep shape ( unless its really f*cking weird or abnormal ) only lack of development or poor conditioning.

NOWHERE IS IT STATED, VERBALLY OR IN WRITING, THAT THE LATERAL HEAD OF THE TRICEPS BRACHII IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A BREAK, OR KINK, IN THE LATERAL HEAD.

2) Ronnie has the advantage in absolute size.
Ronnie's triceps ARE larger and they LOOK larger. This IS an objective element of bodybuilding criteria, unlike your ever-elusive shape BS. I have just as much right to claim that Dorian's triceps have poor shape as you have right to claim that Ronnie's do. There isn't an objective answer to that question, but there IS an objective answer to size: Ronnie's are clearly larger.

You & ND like to claim that Ronnie's lateral head is "thin".
It is clearly as "thick" than Dorian's in diameter, so I don't see your point.
You & ND are too obsessed with that meandering lateral head to actually sit down, assess the photographs, and come to the realization that Dorian's lateral head is not thicker, its simply bent.

Under no circumstances does Dorian's lateral head exceed this diameter across: (attachment)

3) Ronnie has the advantage in detail / vascularity / condition.
His triceps are stacked with striations, particularly the side-triceps.
The borders of Dorian's triceps are beautifully etched (but so are Ronnie's), however, the muscle belly itself simply DOES NOT have comparable detail to Coleman.
Muscle detail, particularly striations, IS an objective bodybuilding measure where anybody with eyes can clearly attest to better detail, as well as larger size.

You have no basis to claim that Dorian has better triceps suckmymuscle.
Your cry of "bad shape" is about as elusive as ND's claim of "imbalance".
Its most likely imagined, but even if it isn't, it goes well beyond the realm of objective bodybuilding assessment, and you are crazy if you believe that the judges would nitpick such small facets like that.

Let me sum this up for you:
A NEUTRAL difference in shape in no way compensates for Ronnie's superior size / condition.

  Well, I guess the truce is off... Anyways, Ronnie's triceps suck, because his lateral triceps head is short. Oh, and by the way...

  NO WHERE IS IT STATED OR IMPLIED THAT "MUSCLE MATURITY" IS AN OFFICIAL JUDGING CRITERIA, OR THAT SYMMETRY REFERS TO PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES OF THE BODY. Dumbass...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[sculpture]

  Well, I guess the truce is off... Anyways, Ronnie's triceps suck, because his lateral triceps head is short. Oh, and by the way...

  NO WHERE IS IT STATED OR IMPLIED THAT "MUSCLE MATURITY" IS AN OFFICIAL JUDGING CRITERIA, OR THAT SYMMETRY REFERS TO PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES OF THE BODY. Dumbass...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Quite easily the dumbest post of the last 100 pages maybe the entire thread.

Suckmydick spouts non sensical bullshit in bold large font as if to get his message across (is there actually one?),

and then proceeds to post another great shot of ronnie, probably the best example of his side tricep pose.

Bizarre

[suckmymuscle]

Quite easily the dumbest post of the last 100 pages maybe the entire thread.

Suckmydick spouts non sensical bullshit in bold large font as if to get his message across (is there actually one?),

and then proceeds to post another great shot of ronnie, probably the best example of his side tricep pose.

Bizarre

  You still haven't developed cancer and died? Too bad; I'll keep hoping. And it shows that you're a bodybuilding nebie that you actually think Ronnie's lateral triceps head is great. No: this is hat a great side trieps shot looks like.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Platz]

  No: this is hat a great side trieps shot looks like.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Have you noticed that his GUT is sticking out further than his chest? How is that supposed to be a good triceps "shot"? A side triceps pose is not all about the triceps, it's much about the overall look, including chest, biceps, legs, and abs.

[Praetor Fenix]

Well, I guess the truce is off...

Ok, lets set this straight:

1) Initially, we had agreed to continue the debate, but not address one another directly.
However, you continued to address MY EXACT POINTS directly .. you merely left my name out.
It was as clear as day to anybody who has been following the thread that you were still arguing with me.

2) Once we determined our paths would have to cross eventually if we both continued to post in the same thread, we merely agreed to cut out the immature name-calling, minimize the aggravation and debate civily, no? I acknowledged that you had a busy schedule and better things to do with your time then respond to each and every one of my posts, so we set more realistic expectations and I promised not to call you out as I did before for ignoring posts.
Keep in mind you initially did the same thing to me so I merely returned the favor in that regard.

3) You have been slowly, but steadily, responding to old posts I made 50+ pages ago.
So evidently you're entitled to reply at will to any/all posts, including mine - but the moment I decide to comment (first time in nearly 50 pages, mind you), I've violated the truce?  
What sort of truce is that to begin with??

4) Might I remind you that it was YOU who offered the truce to ME, not vice versa.
Subsequently, you failed to offer any terms. I had to provide the terms and even then it took you a very long time to approve them. Only days later, you broke the initial terms by typing out several posts that were CLEARLY REPLIES yet addressed to absolutely nobody, sticking out like a sore thumb, but oddly enough, following the exact same sequence of topics in the exact same order that my previous posts displayed.

So basically, this "truce" turned out to nothing more then me giving you permission to leave several of my previous replies alone. It didn't change anything .. but thats your fault not mine.

Anyways, Ronnie's triceps suck, because his lateral triceps head is short. Oh, and by the way...

First off, you do know that the lateral head is the outer, exterior head, right?
Secondly, what do you mean by "short"? Can you be a bit more specific?

Ronnie's lateral head extends to his elbow. It can't possibly be any "longer", if that is what you are referring to. I'll be honest though, I'm so lost with your assessment in this regard I don't really have the foggiest clue what I am even countering, since your comment is so vague and elusive (dare I say imaginary).

If by "short", you mean "thin", that simply isn't the case.
His lateral head is just as thick as Dorian's. The only difference is the shape.
Ronnie's lateral head is one solid band of striated muscle, whereas Dorian's has more of a contour accentuated by a dramatic kink at the bottom. Its apples & oranges. Both have merits.
Its simply preference. Bodybuilding criteria will not, nor has it ever, had any grounds to penalize the shape of Ronnie's, or for that matter Dorian's, lateral head.

Your argument, in this regard, is silly and nonexistent suckmymuscle.
You & ND have so little to work with, you are perfectly willing to delve into the intangible, theoretical, and/or subjective elements that standard assessment criteria simply cannot address.

ND's last resort is "balance". In your case, it seems to be "shape".

  NO WHERE IS IT STATED OR IMPLIED THAT "MUSCLE MATURITY" IS AN OFFICIAL JUDGING CRITERIA, OR THAT SYMMETRY REFERS TO PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES OF THE BODY. Dumbass...

Way to change the subject. Admit it, your "shape" argument is nonexistent.

Symmetry has ALWAYS referred to the opposite side along a dividing plane.
In this case, that is left to right, since humans are bilaterally, and not radially, symmetrical.
The IFBB doesn't need to spell that out since its simple english vocabulary every high school graduate should know.

Once again, muscle maturity is merely a term that encompasses a wide variety of criterium.
Condition, muscle detail, muscle density are all constituents of muscle maturity.
Pretty straightforward stuff.

YOU prefer the shape of Dorian's lateral head. That's fine.
Stop pretending its some sort of universal trait that everyone would prefer.
Some of the bodybuilding purists prefer simplicity, and Dorian's kink is a bit too "abstract".
I'm sure some of the judges would prefer Dorian's shape, whereas others would prefer Colemans.
Realistically, none of the judges would consider the shape at all in their assessment.
There are simply too many other variables of greater importance to focus on something so small.


Either way ... shape never has and never will compensate for overall development and detail.
Case closed.

[Praetor Fenix]

You still haven't developed cancer and died? Too bad; I'll keep hoping.

That's pretty f*cked up.
Especially over a debate as stupid as this one.

Ronnie & Dorian could care less about this debate, with several Sandows over their mantles and fat investments sitting in the bank earning interest. I can't believe you would stoop to saying something so tasteless over such a trivial difference in opinion. Even if purely in jest, terminal illness isn't a joke and you demonstrate a lack of class and character by making it out to be.

And it shows that you're a bodybuilding nebie that you actually think Ronnie's lateral triceps head is great. No: this is hat a great side trieps shot looks like.

Ronnie's triceps are larger with better detail (namely - stacked striations!).
That is where it begins and ends. There isn't another variable - THAT IS THE CRITERIA!

There is a difference in shape. We've established that. You have yet to provide any sort of tangible evidence, proof, or even a compelling testimony as to why Dorian's lateral head shape is inherently better.

Even if Dorian's lateral head shape was considered to be better BY ALL, which it is not, it simply wouldn't negate Coleman's significant advantage in size and detail.

Seriously ... listen to how ridiculous you sound suckmymuscle!
You're arguing that Dorian's triceps brachii (a 3 muscle complex) is entirely better since YOU prefer the shape of 1 HEAD ... THE SHAPE OF ONE OF THE HEADS ... and you completely ignore Ronnie's visually distinct, objective advantage in size, detail, and condition.