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

[suckmymuscle]

Suckymymuscle,
it pointless to continue to argue with these two clowns.

  I do it because it's good for my self-esteem. Bitch-slapping them around is great fun.

its one thing to say that ronnie would beat dorian, but another to call hm overrated and along with lee haney, tier b olympians.

  Yes, the "tier-B" Mr.Olympia who's opponents couldn't defeat him at even one of the six mandatories; the "tier-B" Mr.Olympia who's muscularity was so dominant that all of his competitors, including the 280+ lbs ones like Dillet, Fux and Nasser, knew that they were competing for second every time Dorian stepped onstage.

their constant claim about yates not having straitions and details in his bi's and front delts, having a decent taper, apparently overshadows the fact that yates was 260 and arguabably the best conditioned bber ever.

  While Dorian is not the best Mr.Olympia ever, he did bring the best package of all times to the 1995 Olympia: he was close to 260 lbs, with a flt stomach and separated abs and serratus, had almost perfect balance from head to toe and the hardest muscles and most extreme dryness and dehydration ever seen.

hulkster and pumpster refuse to acknowledge how dominant yates was bc of his overall package - that his strengths overcame his weakness.  their opinion is more valid than the fact that yates won 5 out of 6 Olympias with perfect scores against the greatest competition ever.  pumpster claiming that it is not relevant - how is it not when you call someone overrated.  what else would you go by - YOUR opinion?  Both of which pumpster and hulkster seem to think it matters more than the judges and the judges were wrong, blind, delusional, or involved in some conspiracy for 6 years in a row.

  Yes, "Pumpster" was so stupid on that one. I mean, it makes more sense, from a commercial perpective, to have a British, White Anglo-Saxon guy win the Olympia, instead of a Black American. That was, seriously, the nec plus ultra of stupidity.

pumpster is black and hates white people.

  I have my suspicions, too. in the past, he's denied being Black. However, the tone he uses when talking about Caucasian bodybuilders in general is that of someone who has a racial chip on his shoulder. I can't make that accusation, but I agree with you that there's a strong chance of him being Black, despite his affirmations to the contrary.

hulkster had a crush on a hot girl at the gym - then she starting dating the biggest guy in the gym who just happens to be black- now he's obsessed with ronnie coleman.

  Hey, you shouldn't talk like that about a holy man! Hulkster, you see, is the founder and ruler of the Coleman religion. I'm sure that, if he had enough supporters, he's convince them that Coleman is the galactic overlod and that they should commit suicide to ride his comet - or nuts -, just like those Heaven Gates kids did a few years back.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

don't worry sucky, I will respond..

dinner comes first though..

nice juicy pussy steak..mmmm..

[IceCold]

nice job sucky.

[Hulkster]

I mean, I write all of these very long and detailed posts, explaining why Dorian would defeat the 1998 and 1999 Ronnie. And for what? You and Hulkster never reply to any of them. You have completely ignored the 50+ pargraphs of explanations I wrote in the previous page, addressing why and how Dorian would win!

thats because 2340850 words don't mean jack shit if the pics and videos show otherwise much more clearly...







you and ND do this all the time, you go on and on and on and yet all the pics and videos show that your words:







do not hold up to reality..
See, if you used 23444550 words to explain using a set of comparison pics WHY dorian was better, it would not be so bad.

but you don't - your long winded posts never, ever have any pics that you use to form you posts.

You rant and rant and rant, without using pics or videos to form a basis for your rants...

and as a result, you tend to have gross inaccuracies in what you post..

[pumpster]

Where do you start amidst the babbling? I think this one covers all others:

it pointless to continue to argue with these two clowns.

  I do it because it's good for my self-esteem

SUCKY pins his self-esteem on those nonsensical posts?

[pumpster]

Gentlemen: all the BABBLING and SELF-CONGRATS in the world don't compensate for:

-Overwhelming pictorial and video evidence.

-Getbig poll: Coleman >> Yates


Thank you two numbskulls. Carry on. 

[Hulkster]

  Oh, please don't hurt me, Mr.Poopster! Now seriously, it is you who are intimidated by me, evident in that you never reply to me, where I crush you and your biased and illogical(saying that Dorian was tier-B, even though he dominated the Olympia like no other bodybuilder before or since) posts.

  I mean, I write all of these very long and detailed posts, explaining why Dorian would defeat the 1998 and 1999 Ronnie. And for what? You and Hulkster never reply to any of them. You have completely ignored the 50+ pargraphs of explanations I wrote in the previous page, addressing why and how Dorian would win! And when you do reply, it's either to say that Dorian was a "brick-layer", "construction worker". Or you post pics of a 1997 Dorian and then compare them to pics of a 1998 Ronnie. Or you go on and on about how great Ronnie's arms are, and that this makes Dorian "tier-B" . Never mind that Dorian actually had the better triceps and forearms, and that Ronnie's superiority is restricted to biceps. You and Hulkster are pathetic. So, even though I know that you'll probably not reply to this post - like you failed to when it comes to my previous 10 posts -, I will ontinue to post very long, very detailed explanations of why Dorian was better, and I'll let the members judge who's doing the better job of defending his champion. Once again: you two are pathetic. Funny how Hulkster dared me and the other Dorian supporters to reply to the question he posted on page 340; well, I did, and now...absolute silence from him!

  "Muscle maturity" is not definable. If we define it as hardness then Dorian wins. You seem to be emulating PraetorFenix, who claimed that muscle maturity is part of a bodybuilding judging criteria and that Ronnie has the most muscle maturity ever. Wrong on both counts: muscle maturity is not, was not and won't ever be a part of a bodybuilding judging criteria, and Ronald Coleman certainly is not the ost endowed when it comes to this of all times.

  But Ronnie has terrible refinement on several areas. Take, as an example, Ronnie's midsection. Now, at the 1998 Olympia, Ronnie certainly had great taper. But look at shots from his midsection, and you'll see that, even at only 249 lbs, Ronnie still didn't have a six-pack or etched serratus. Dorian, conversely, at 257 lbs, had both things. And, even though Coleman's upper-back details are slightly better than Dorian's at that weight, Dorian takes him out in lower back and christmas-tree thickness. Oh, and Ronnie is also missing calves.

  Biceps are a small and relatively irrelevant bodypart. They are the arms' equivalent of calves, and Dorian takes Ronnie out at that.  Ronnie only surpassed Dorian, on chest thickness, at the 2003 Olympia. You're seriously deluded if you think Ronnie's chest was better than Dorian's when the former is around 250 lbs. Dorian's side hest andatory was one of the ost dominant of all times; even the 2003 Ronnie would have trouble beating it, so you can be damn sure that the 1998 Coleman would be destroyed by Dorian's side chest shot. Front delsts? Ronnie's overrall lateral head width was incredible, but he never had particularly strong front delts. Dorian did have striated delts at 257 lbs, though.

  Coleman is no aesthete! His torso is long, his quads are onstrous but short and his lats actually attach higher on the tendons' than Dorian's. Ronnie's structure is actually inferior to Dorian's, except for his very narrow hips - which definitively give him a better taper than that of the Big Diesel. All things considered, Dorian was extremely impressive at the front and rear lat spreads, the abs-and-thighs, the side triceps and the side chest. How are you judged to be good on these mandatories? Muscularity and symmetry. By "symmetry" it is also included the shape of the skeletal structure. So, Dorian's structure was not that bad.

  The 249 lbs Coleman does have a slightly better taper than the 257 lbs Dorian. But the difference is minimum. The 257 lbs Dorian actually has a superior taper than the 249 lbs Ronnie in the front lat spread, because his lats are so much wider. And speaking of taper, what's the point of having a slightly better taper if your midsection laks a six-pcck and etched serratus? "Quad to hip" ratio?! But Dorian's quads are longer and more aesthetic than Ronnie's!

  Considering his struture and muscle density, he had superb aesthetics. While his physique was not pleasing to the eyes, his balanced muscular development and at the mandatories was impeccable.

  And yet, Dorian still takes Ronnie out both in triceps mass/shape as well as in forearms development. The only thing Ronnie has on him are biceps. That's it. The 257 lbs Dorian has more triceps mass and with a better shape than Ronnie's; his triceps insert lower on the tendom, making them more shapely than Ronnie's.

  Vascularity is a minus in top level pro bodybuilding. Look at the effort Gunther went through, to remove his varicose veins...

  Ronnie: lower-body balance. Those calves...

  Striations are "cuts" and Dorian had tons of it in his chest. His front quads were never very cut, and this was one of the few lagging areas on Dorian's physique. Now, at leat Dorian had tons of cuts on his midsection, having separated abdominals and serratus. All "cuts" Ronnie lacked. Game over, Pumpster, to you and your pathetic attempt at calling out Dorian's shortcomings.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

The chest? Wrong. Dorian's chest was thicker and more striated than Coleman's when they're, respectively, 257 lbs and 249 lbs.

see, these are the sort of inaccuracies I was talking about - Dorian's chest was NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS more striated than THIS (ronnie at 249 pounds):



your posts are FULL of these sorts of blantant inaccuries because you do not use pics and videos when you makes these sorts of comments. If you did, you would see that you are wrong.

Same can be said for the serratus:



Same for you comments about Ronnie's front delts:



if I took the time to disect all of your superlong posts, you would be made to look like a fool.

This is but a small sampling of what I could do..

[nicorulez]

  Oh, please don't hurt me, Mr.Poopster! Now seriously, it is you who are intimidated by me, evident in that you never reply to me, where I crush you and your biased and illogical(saying that Dorian was tier-B, even though he dominated the Olympia like no other bodybuilder before or since) posts.

  I mean, I write all of these very long and detailed posts, explaining why Dorian would defeat the 1998 and 1999 Ronnie. And for what? You and Hulkster never reply to any of them. You have completely ignored the 50+ pargraphs of explanations I wrote in the previous page, addressing why and how Dorian would win! And when you do reply, it's either to say that Dorian was a "brick-layer", "construction worker". Or you post pics of a 1997 Dorian and then compare them to pics of a 1998 Ronnie. Or you go on and on about how great Ronnie's arms are, and that this makes Dorian "tier-B" . Never mind that Dorian actually had the better triceps and forearms, and that Ronnie's superiority is restricted to biceps. You and Hulkster are pathetic. So, even though I know that you'll probably not reply to this post - like you failed to when it comes to my previous 10 posts -, I will ontinue to post very long, very detailed explanations of why Dorian was better, and I'll let the members judge who's doing the better job of defending his champion. Once again: you two are pathetic. Funny how Hulkster dared me and the other Dorian supporters to reply to the question he posted on page 340; well, I did, and now...absolute silence from him!

  "Muscle maturity" is not definable. If we define it as hardness then Dorian wins. You seem to be emulating PraetorFenix, who claimed that muscle maturity is part of a bodybuilding judging criteria and that Ronnie has the most muscle maturity ever. Wrong on both counts: muscle maturity is not, was not and won't ever be a part of a bodybuilding judging criteria, and Ronald Coleman certainly is not the ost endowed when it comes to this of all times.

  But Ronnie has terrible refinement on several areas. Take, as an example, Ronnie's midsection. Now, at the 1998 Olympia, Ronnie certainly had great taper. But look at shots from his midsection, and you'll see that, even at only 249 lbs, Ronnie still didn't have a six-pack or etched serratus. Dorian, conversely, at 257 lbs, had both things. And, even though Coleman's upper-back details are slightly better than Dorian's at that weight, Dorian takes him out in lower back and christmas-tree thickness. Oh, and Ronnie is also missing calves.

  Biceps are a small and relatively irrelevant bodypart. They are the arms' equivalent of calves, and Dorian takes Ronnie out at that. The chest? Wrong. Dorian's chest was thicker and more striated than Coleman's when they're, respectively, 257 lbs and 249 lbs. Ronnie only surpassed Dorian, on chest thickness, at the 2003 Olympia. You're seriously deluded if you think Ronnie's chest was better than Dorian's when the former is around 250 lbs. Dorian's side hest andatory was one of the ost dominant of all times; even the 2003 Ronnie would have trouble beating it, so you can be damn sure that the 1998 Coleman would be destroyed by Dorian's side chest shot. Front delsts? Ronnie's overrall lateral head width was incredible, but he never had particularly strong front delts. Dorian did have striated delts at 257 lbs, though.

  Coleman is no aesthete! His torso is long, his quads are onstrous but short and his lats actually attach higher on the tendons' than Dorian's. Ronnie's structure is actually inferior to Dorian's, except for his very narrow hips - which definitively give him a better taper than that of the Big Diesel. All things considered, Dorian was extremely impressive at the front and rear lat spreads, the abs-and-thighs, the side triceps and the side chest. How are you judged to be good on these mandatories? Muscularity and symmetry. By "symmetry" it is also included the shape of the skeletal structure. So, Dorian's structure was not that bad.

  The 249 lbs Coleman does have a slightly better taper than the 257 lbs Dorian. But the difference is minimum. The 257 lbs Dorian actually has a superior taper than the 249 lbs Ronnie in the front lat spread, because his lats are so much wider. And speaking of taper, what's the point of having a slightly better taper if your midsection laks a six-pcck and etched serratus? "Quad to hip" ratio?! But Dorian's quads are longer and more aesthetic than Ronnie's!

  Considering his struture and muscle density, he had superb aesthetics. While his physique was not pleasing to the eyes, his balanced muscular development and at the mandatories was impeccable.

  And yet, Dorian still takes Ronnie out both in triceps mass/shape as well as in forearms development. The only thing Ronnie has on him are biceps. That's it. The 257 lbs Dorian has more triceps mass and with a better shape than Ronnie's; his triceps insert lower on the tendom, making them more shapely than Ronnie's.

  Vascularity is a minus in top level pro bodybuilding. Look at the effort Gunther went through, to remove his varicose veins...

  Ronnie: lower-body balance. Those calves...

  Striations are "cuts" and Dorian had tons of it in his chest. His front quads were never very cut, and this was one of the few lagging areas on Dorian's physique. Now, at leat Dorian had tons of cuts on his midsection, having separated abdominals and serratus. All "cuts" Ronnie lacked. Game over, Pumpster, to you and your pathetic attempt at calling out Dorian's shortcomings.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Sucky, I enjoyed our discussion about "great men" and kind of get your point.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do respect your opinion.  Now for Ronnie vs Dorian.  What I have tried to emphasize to you numerous times is that I agree in general about your assessment of Dorian in 1993 (maybe 1995, but the torn bicep ruins it for me).  The man was a damned stallion in 1993.  No question, he had it all.  Size, shape and density.  Now, if you had to be critical, he could have more separation and probably be more vascular.  Gunther was not too vascular; he had a varicosity that looked abnormal and disgusting; thus, he had it surgically removed.  Vascularity if not overly done is definitely a plus as it shows true conditioning.  Veins criss-crossing the arms and chest that are not unsightly are a plus.  I agree that varicosities are a negative and detrimental to the overall effect. 

Now, comparing Dorian 1993 to Ronnie 1999 would have been tough.  Ronnie had fuller muscle bellies with smaller joints and a smaller waist.  I agree that his waist and calves were lacking, but his overall shape was excellent.  Dorian had him in conditioning and density.  Was he bigger, that is debateable.  However, I believe the winner in that mythical battle could have gone either way.  If the IFBB judges were looking for conditioning and density, they may have gone with Dorian.  If they were looking for the bodybuilder with fuller muscles and more pop, they may have gone for Ronnie.  However, either way it would have been damn close.  Remember, this is a hypothetical battle assuming the judging panel was not biased (i.e. 1997 and 2001) and had no inherent predispositions to where each athlete deserved to place.  Thus, it would have been a very good contest.

Moving on to Ronnie 2003.  I absolutely agree that he lost some of his taper.  However, his overall size and conditioning was dazzling.  Nobody before or since has presented such a muscular package on stage.  Comparing Ronnie to Dorian in this case could be equated to comparing Dorian 1993 to Flex.  Ronnie was over 30 pounds heavier.  Now, Dorian did get heavier in latter shows, but he never presented a package that was a "shadow"  of his former self.   As far as the gut, I agree that in relaxed poses it was distended.  However, in the mandatory poses for which the athlete is judged, it was not a problem.  It was not Haney or Labrada, but then, neither was Dorian.  Thus, the debate is do you go with the smaller guy who is in incredible shape and conditioning or go for sheer size and muscle fullness.  Once again, I think it would be close (assuming Dorian brought his 1993 form).  Personally, I liked Ronnie as he was overpowering.  However, as I said before, I wouldn't bitch if Dorian won.  You got to admit, it would be a good and entertaining show.  Peace all.

[IceCold]

This is but a small sampling of what I could do..

please.  you proved nothing

show us what you "can" do.

[IceCold]

see, these are the sort of inaccuracies I was talking about - Dorian's chest was NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS more striated than THIS (ronnie at 249 pounds):

and ronnie was never this big AND in this kind of shape.

his triceps or midsection never looked like this either.

i think coleman has one of the best chest of all time (whe he doesnt have gyno) but you of dorian's chest like its fedorov's.  dorian's chest is damn good.  much harder than ronnies, but ronnie has more striations.  which is better?

[Hulkster]

and ronnie was never this big AND in this kind of shape.

yes he has:



 

[Hulkster]

  Ok, Huckster, I'll answer that. But before I do, let me just say that your's and Pumpster's tendency of posting he worst possible pics, of Dorian, and then comparing them to that of a 1998/9 Coleman is pathetic - with the exception of this comparison you posted, which is of the 1993 Dorian to the 1998 Ronnie.

  Now, who said Dorian's dryness didn't show anything? Of course it did! Dorian's back had clear separations between the latissimus, infra-spinatus, rhomboids, teres major and erectores. His upper-back details might not be as good as the 1998 Coleman's, but they were by no means not there! His chest was always clearly striated and had the appearance of two rocks just hanging there. His calves were striated at 257 lbs, something that Ronnie failed on having even at 249 lbs!

  Now, what you're forgetting is that "dryness", or conditioning, is a quality in itself. Being super-dry confers an overrall quality to the  whole musculature which is evident. For instance, Dorian's 257 lbs looks far more impressive than the 296 lbs Ronnie had at the 2004 Olympia, because Dorian's muscles just have a whole different quality of appearance to them than Ronnie's: he looks like an off-season bodybuilder when compared to Dorian. The Yates muscles have the appearance of having been sculpted in granite, whereas Ronnie's muscles look like, well, like muscle tissue - with water retention, in the case of 2004. Density and dryness adds quality to a competitor's overrall look. Which is the case with Dorian. This, combined with the fact that he had a flat stomach and separated abdominals and serratus, explains why the 257 lbs Dorian looks much better, to me, than the 280+ lbs Ronnie from both 2003 and 2004. Now, the 1998 Ronnie had a flat stomach and a better taper than Dorian, and perhaps slightly better upper-back details, but he lacked the latter's rock-solid appearance. And to me, that counts.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

see, you didn't answer the question. You used the 2004 Ronnie as a comparison to show how Dorian's dryness and conditioning is a virtue.

Problem, is, the 2004 Ronnie looks like this:



and the 1998 Ronnie looks like this:



big difference.

so, you didn't really answer the question at all.

No one is talking about the 2004 Ronnie.

We are talking about Ronnie at his best.

You are absolutely correct in saying that dryness and conditioning is certainly a muscular quality.

BUT in order for this to be a major advantage, this dryness and conditioning must facilitate the appearence of details that lie beneath the skin.

ie. cuts, striations, vascularity etc.

In Dorian, large parts of his body lacked these details in comparison to Ronnie.

Thus, the dryness he displayed would not be much of an advantage at all.

Striated muscle always looks better than smooth muscle for the most part.

[pobrecito]

I want to be a white 1998 ronnie coleman (without gyno) ......I'm praying to the tooth fairy

[IceCold]

yes he has:



 

nah, its different.

like otherwise stated, they have different body types. 

an in shape ronnie is detailed and striated, while an in shape dorian is just hard and seperated (between muscle groups).

ronnie has never been as dry and as hard as dorian, but dorian has never been as detailed and striated as coleman.  again, which is better?  personal perference.

jay culter is similiar to dorain, for the fact that he doesnt have details and striations like ronnie, but he isnt nearly as hard and as dry as dorian.  actually, i think cutler is rather soft. 

[IceCold]

see, you didn't answer the question. You used the 2004 Ronnie as a comparison to show how Dorian's dryness and conditioning is a virtue.

Problem, is, the 2004 Ronnie looks like this:



and the 1998 Ronnie looks like this:



big difference.

so, you didn't really answer the question at all.

No one is talking about the 2004 Ronnie.

We are talking about Ronnie at his best.

You are absolutely correct in saying that dryness and conditioning is certainly a muscular quality.

BUT in order for this to be a major advantage, this dryness and conditioning must facilitate the appearence of details that lie beneath the skin.

ie. cuts, striations, vascularity etc.

In Dorian, large parts of his body lacked these details in comparison to Ronnie.

Thus, the dryness he displayed would not be much of an advantage at all.

Striated muscle always looks better than smooth muscle for the most part.

i have to disagree.  i posted earlier examples of when a large bber is extremely hard and dry and wins over competitors with much more details and striations.  it seems that the judges reward a mass monster for coming that big and well conditioned, hence dorian beating shawn, etc. - guys with more details and striations. 

anyone can come in smaller with more detail and striations, but coming in really big and hard is much harder.

would you rather be striated and soft or harder and smoother?


also, you refered to the 98 version of ronnie.  for one, he had gyno.

also, are you forgetting the quote i posted where ronnie himself said that dorian would beat him.  coming from ronnie himself, what more do you need?

being humble?  saying the only chance jay cutler has of beating ronnie is to be born again with better genetics is rather harsh and unprofessional. 

[pobrecito]

are you seriously insinuating that Ronnie was soft in 2003 Get fucking real. I am a big Yates fan, but Ronnie looked like a brick in 2003. Cutler is cut but soft

[Big N]

Jesus Christ who woke up this thread again? 

[NeoSeminole]

an in shape ronnie is detailed and striated, while an in shape dorian is just hard and seperated (between muscle groups).

Ronnie is more muscular, separated, and striated while Dorian was more dry. The only place Dorian had good separation was his back.

[IceCold]

are you seriously insinuating that Ronnie was soft in 2003 Get fucking real. I am a big Yates fan, but Ronnie looked like a brick in 2003. Cutler is cut but soft

no, i didnt mean to say that he was soft, just not nearly as hard as dorian ever was - regardless of what he weighed any year. 

personally, i think 03 was his best year.  maybe the only year that he could have beaten dorian's best. 

[pobrecito]

Ronnie's best was 1999. He was better conditioned than 2003.

Ronnie 99 vs. Dorian 93 would have been a titanic clash. Dorian would be more muscular and slighly better conditioned, but Ronnie would have better shape and overall striations and details. It could go either way depending on the judges that night. What isn't debatable though is 93 dorian vs. 2003 ronnie, Ronnie is just too muscular and too conditioned. Lights out yates.

If you watch BFTO 1996, in Yates' segment he reveals that his goal after 1993 was to only add 2-3 lbs of quality muscle each year and that anymore wouldn't be realistic, and would degrade his look. Ronnie basically took it to the next level becuase after his horrendus 2001 and 2002 he was much in the same place as Yates, but he defied everything and went to 287.

[IceCold]

Ronnie's best was 1999. He was better conditioned than 2003.

Ronnie 99 vs. Dorian 93 would have been a titanic clash. Dorian would be more muscular and slighly better conditioned, but Ronnie would have better shape and overall striations and details. It could go either way depending on the judges that night. What isn't debatable though is 93 dorian vs. 2003 ronnie, Ronnie is just too muscular and too conditioned. Lights out yates.

If you watch BFTO 1996, in Yates' segment he reveals that his goal after 1993 was to only add 2-3 lbs of quality muscle each year and that anymore wouldn't be realistic, and would degrade his look. Ronnie basically took it to the next level becuase after his horrendus 2001 and 2002 he was much in the same place as Yates, but he defied everything and went to 287.

that's all i ever have said.  it would be a very good, tough battle between the best of yates and coleman.  that has been my whole contention for this thread.

but pumpster claims yates is tier b olympian and hulkster claiming yates was overrated bc he was smooth.


however, most people - writers from the mags, consider coleman's best year 2001 at the AC. 

[nicorulez]

Pobrecito, good point.  Ronnie 2003 was lights out for anybody.  Size, shape and conditioning.  The man was sick.  He was not as tapered as 1999, but man he had about 30 pounds more muscle.  Nobody has come close to his muscularity.  Only Ruhl and Nasser are even playing in the same ballpark.  Ronnie was a freak then.  In 2004, he was even bigger but softer.  In 2005, he was hard as nails.  IceCold, Ronnie could have taken Dorian in 1999.  It would have been a battle, but it could go either way.  Turn it around, the only year Yates could have conceivably taken out an on Ronnie is 1993.  1992/1994/1996 and 1997 are obvious no goes.  In 1995, he was cut, dry and in shape but his arm was torn.  He would have gotten slaughtered in the symmetry and muscularity rounds (if compared to Ronnie circa 2003).  In 1993 it would have been a very good battle; even Ronnie 2003 would not have walked in a romp.  I feel it could have gone Yate's way if the judges were looking for that look; however, I doubt it (IMO).  It would be hard to deny the sheer muscularity and shape of Ronnie that year.  Regardless, they are definitely the two top BB of the last 16 years (at least since Haney retired). Flex, Levrone and Ray are the next tier.

[pobrecito]

that's all i ever have said.  it would be a very good, tough battle between the best of yates and coleman.  that has been my whole contention for this thread.

but pumpster claims yates is tier b olympian and hulkster claiming yates was overrated bc he was smooth.


however, most people - writers from the mags, consider coleman's best year 2001 at the AC. 

It's only human nature to put down a rival when you are on one side. At times I know I have come off biased. But to me, in 1993 Dorian was unbelievable. I don't feel he gets his due props for that here. Conversely, if there is any bodybuilder I could look like it would be Ronnie, hands down. His 1999 shape is incredible. 2003 was just silly, took it to a new level that Yates admittedly was scared to try and approach. Both bodybuilders were great ambassadors to what bodybuilding is today, and Ronnie makes being a bodybuiling fan very enjoyable. His videos are awesome, easily the best ever made. Not only becuase of his huge weights and physique, but becuase of the attitude, the loud ass music in the hummer, and going to black eyed pea in a tank top covered in chalk

[suckmymuscle]

don't worry sucky, I will respond..

dinner comes first though..

nice juicy pussy steak..mmmm..

  Is it beef or is it fish? Are you trying to tell me that you swing both ways?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

thats because 2340850 words don't mean jack shit if the pics and videos show otherwise much more clearly...
See, if you used 23444550 words to explain using a set of comparison pics WHY dorian was better, it would not be so bad.

but you don't - your long winded posts never, ever have any pics that you use to form you posts.[/quote]

  But I've already posted all these pics one thousand times before! Furthermore, there's a ton of technical criteria envolved in judging a physique, which pics are irrelevant at elucidating. I post pics when I want to show some specific body strengh/weakness; I don't use pis as the basis of my posts because the main purpose of this board is to debate.

You rant and rant and rant, without using pics or videos to form a basis for your rants...

  What are you talking about? I've posted some 300 different pics throughout this thread...

and as a result, you tend to have gross inaccuracies in what you post..

  Such as...? Let's see...I really want to hear your erudite critique of my assesments of both Dorian's and Ronnie's physique, and how exactly I was innacurate in assessing them.


  Well, these pics you posted are from Dorian 1993. I think he was better in 1995, so this comparsison means nothing to me. in 1995, he brought the same density, balance and conditioning that the had in 1993, but with an added bonus: superior striations and separations from head to toe.

SUCKMYMUSCLE