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

[IceCold]

this is something that after 340 pages the Yates fans have STILL yet to ANSWER:

What good was dorian's "dryness" if he had smooth arms, legs and chest in comparison to Ronnie?



 


ANSWER PLEASE!!!

considering that every writer that has ever written a review of a mr. olympia when dorian competed, they marvel at his hardness.  with all other criticisms, they still talk about his hardness.

according to you he's soft.  that's a contradiction.  you claiming he's soft, while people who are paid to review bbing contests say how hard he is and that he's the hardest guy in the show. (the hardest of all time?).


in the 8 years that coleman has been mr. o and the 8 years that i've read reviews in FLEX, musclemag, or whatever else has a review of the Olympia, i HAVE NEVER seen a writer comment on ronnie's hardness. that is not why he wins- he is the biggest and most muscular guy with a balanced and pretty good proportional frame.  and certainly has no writer EVER written that coleman was harder than dorian.  not even close.   

yeah, your right and all the writers are wrong.   

[Oliver Klaushof]

Ronnie Coleman is "water logged mass" plain and simple.

He always looks like he has a layer of water under his skin. People are so easily impressed by sheer mass it's rediculous.

Dorian was the complete package.

[Oliver Klaushof]

Another thing to remember about Coleman ...

He's the only champion in history with a reverse taper.

Look at any recent front double biceps shot. He looks flat in the chest because his midsection is wider than his upper torso.

It just ruins the pose for me.

[MikeThaMachine]

considering that every writer that has ever written a review of a mr. olympia when dorian competed, they marvel at his hardness.  with all other criticisms, they still talk about his hardness.

according to you he's soft.  that's a contradiction.  you claiming he's soft, while people who are paid to review bbing contests say how hard he is and that he's the hardest guy in the show. (the hardest of all time?).


in the 8 years that coleman has been mr. o and the 8 years that i've read reviews in FLEX, musclemag, or whatever else has a review of the Olympia, i HAVE NEVER seen a writer comment on ronnie's hardness. that is not why he wins- he is the biggest and most muscular guy with a balanced and pretty good proportional frame.  and certainly has no writer EVER written that coleman was harder than dorian.  not even close.   

yeah, your right and all the writers are wrong.   

Why bother?...... Think about they have been using pictures of all different qualities and from different years for these comparisons, at this point in the thread why even bother to argue in any serious manner.

[NeoSeminole]

What good was dorian's "dryness" if he had smooth arms, legs and chest in comparison to Ronnie?

hmm, IceCold, I don't see where he said Dorian looked "soft." Hulkster referred to him as smooth b/c Dorian lacked separations and striations when compared to Ronnie.

[NeoSeminole]

Another thing to remember about Coleman ...

He's the only champion in history with a reverse taper.

Please show me an example of Ronnie's "reverse taper." He always had an x-frame.

[IceCold]

arent smooth and soft the same thing?

if not, please explain.

[IceCold]

Please show me an example of Ronnie's "reverse taper." He always had an x-frame.

the last pic you posted is an example of his reverse taper.  the other shots are when ronnie was below 260.

[NeoSeminole]

Look at any recent front double biceps shot. He looks flat in the chest because his midsection is wider than his upper torso.

It just ruins the pose for me.

A torn bicep ruins the front double biceps for me.

[NeoSeminole]

arent smooth and soft the same thing?

if not, please explain.

They are not the same. A bowling ball is smooth, but it's not soft.

[NeoSeminole]

the last pic you posted is an example of his reverse taper.  the other shots are when ronnie was below 260.

You must realize the pic is taken from below. So Ronnie's already enormous legs appear even larger b/c of the angle. Here is a better pic.

[IceCold]

They are not the same. A bowling ball is smooth, but it's not soft.

yes, but what about on a human?

you cant have hard legs, for example, and they will also be soft.

same thing with a stomach.  if its hard and if you touch it, it wont be soft.

[Oliver Klaushof]

the last pic you posted is an example of his reverse taper.  the other shots are when ronnie was below 260.

Notice how Cutter's chest projects itself outward. Ronnie Coleman is flat as a flapjack.

[NeoSeminole]

yes, but what about on a human?

you cant have hard legs, for example, and they will also be soft.

same thing with a stomach.  if its hard and if you touch it, it wont be soft.

You are confusing smooth with soft. The two can exist independently as I demontrated with the example of a bowling ball. Obviously something that is hard cannot simulatenously be soft, but it can be smooth.

[Hulkster]

hmm, IceCold, I don't see where he said Dorian looked "soft." Hulkster referred to him as smooth b/c Dorian lacked separations and striations when compared to Ronnie.

exactly. He completely missed the whole point of the question.

No one is saying that dorian was not rock hard.

But the unanswered question still remains:

what good would all the hardess do against Ronnie if his arms, chest and legs lack the level of Ronnie's detail?





Answer please.

[IceCold]

You are confusing smooth with soft. The two can exist independently as I demontrated with the example of a bowling ball. Obviously something that is hard cannot simulatenously be soft, but it can be smooth.

an object (like a rock), yes, but on a person, no.

if you ran your finger across the skin laterally, the skin would be soft and smooth, but if you push downward, the muscle will either be hard or soft.

please, not another 340 page thread on this topic.

[IceCold]

exactly. He completely missed the whole point of the question.

No one is saying that dorian was not rock hard.

But the unanswered question still remains:

what good would all the hardess do against Ronnie if his arms, chest and legs lack the level of Ronnie's detail?





Answer please.

well, some bbers have more detail and striations than others.  and some are just hard and seperated. is one better than the other?  i dont know, i guess a personal preference.  although, the judges prefered yates' hardness and seperation vs. others who had more detail within muscle groups (like shawn and flex).

like cutler, he doenst a large amount of striations or details, but goes for seperation of muscle groups and hardness.  eventhough, he aint really all that hard.

ruhl is another example. 

[NeoSeminole]

well, some bbers have more detail and striations than others.  and some are just hard and seperated. is one better than the other?  i dont know, i guess a personal preference.  although, the judges prefered yates' hardness and seperation vs. others who had more detail within muscle groups (like shawn and flex).

What separations did Dorian have? The only place where he had very good separation was his back. Dorian's arms, shoulders, and legs looked smooth. Ronnie is not only bigger, but he possesses far more separations and detail from head to toe.

[DK II]

and Ronnie can do the splits!

Dorian can't.

[Hulkster]

smooth chest. smooth arms. smooth quads.

and people rag on me for saying that the man was overrated

I am not saying that the man wasn't great - 1993 he looked good.

But I am saying that against someone as big and detailed as Ronnie (with lats!) he would not stand a chance.

[Hulkster]

although, the judges prefered yates' hardness and seperation vs. others who had more detail within muscle groups (like shawn and flex).

yes. and do you know why? becuase dorian was significantly bigger and wider than shawn and flex..

Would he be significantly larger and wider than Ronnie?

No.

[pumpster]

Great work SMM. Every post you make is like a small work of art. You are clearly one of the smartest people here.

If you don't agree with SMM, you should at least recognise his genius.

Nice way to completely discredit your other account SUCKY Olly.

[pumpster]

Ronnie Coleman is "water logged mass" plain and simple.

He always looks like he has a layer of water under his skin. People are so easily impressed by sheer mass it's rediculous.

Dorian was the complete package.

I've ALWAYS said that Yates was denser and drier; on the other hand while these were not Coleman's strengths he wasn't "water logged" at his best either, that's flat out inaccurate.

Yaters was NEVER CLOSE to being the complete package-all his evident strengths in density & dryness didn't compensate for equally obvious, huge FLAWS elsewhere-ignore them all you want they're still there. Density & dryness aren't nearly as impressive on a flawed physique.

Yates simply couldn't match up in terms of size, cuts, vascularity, refinement, shape, aesthetics, taper, balance and definition in certain areas like the front of the arms, chest and delts. That's a huge list of striking inadequacies, all glaringly on display here:

[pumpster]

Another thing to remember about Coleman ...

He's the only champion in history with a reverse taper.

Garbage-already well established here that it was Yates with the obvious "H" taper-wide waist plus signigicantly less shoulder and lat width than Coleman = very little taper. Lack of taper was one of Yates' biggest problems, that is why he does in fact resemble a brick layer.

[pobrecito]

smooth as a baby's ass