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

[NeoSeminole]

What the f**k are you talking about? Did you even read my post? I said that the 2003 Ronnie takes Dorian out in the front double biceps! Not only because his biceps are bigger and more peaked, but also because his anterior and medial trieps heads are more massive than Dorian's and visible in this pose.

That's not what you said earlier.

The problem is that, in front shots, the biceps are the focal point of attention, and the triceps bulge from below is not really that important.

Front double biceps - Ronnie's advantage in mass in the afrmentioned two heads do not mean a lot here, because the focal point is bicpes, and the medial head is only seen well from the back. Ronnie wins this mandatory do to biceps, but not triceps.

I read your post. Singing a different tune are we since I called you out? Earlier you claimed the triceps are not important in the front double biceps. You also suggested Ronnie's superior arm development is not due in part to triceps. Now you act like you have always agreed with me Ronnie's triceps are superior in the front double biceps. Nice try!

Double standards? No, the double standard here is assuming that Dorian should have lost in 1994 and 1997 due to a distended gut, but that Ronnie shouldn't be penalized for it, at the 2003 Olympia, because muscularity is al that matters. Double standard is saying that that somehow the biceps and the anterior head of the triceps - an almost irrelevant part of the triceps - represents this overwheming liability when it comes to every pose where the arms are involved, but that Ronnie's sub-par calves does not reresent a liability which is at least as great.

You claimed the triceps don't matter in the front double biceps. In reality, the triceps comprise almost 2/3 of the upper arm. This is significant in a pose meant to show off the arms. You cannot penalize Ronnie for his unbalanced calves and then claim Dorian's weak triceps aren't a liability. This is a double standard. If you say the triceps don't matter in a front double biceps, then calves aren't really important either.

You must be fuking kidding me, you biased, dishonest cun t! Ronnie had a gut distension even at the 1999 Olympia, when he was 257 lbs and at the 2001 Olympia, when he was 245 lbs! At the 2003 Olympia, Ronnie's gut would make him lose the symmetry round flat out, if the udges were unbiased! Posting evidence? Why should I do that, if Myself, ND and others have already posted such pics, oh, a gazillion times before? Actually, I've argued Ronnie 2003 en absurdum with PraetorFenix and it bores me.

Simply put, you cannot provide evidence where Dorian looks better during the symmetry round. I posted pics of Ronnie in 03 with no gut distension at 287 lbs. The fact is Ronnie kept his stomach under control when it counted. All you can do is post pics of Ronnie standing relaxed backstage or in the middle of transition. The last time I checked, these 'poses' aren't judged. I offer you proof once again that Ronnie didn't have a distended gut during the symmetry round.

The triceps are barely visible in this pose. As the name imply, it's called the abs-and-thighs mandatory. Ronnie 2003 might have better quads, but he can't touch Dorian on abdominal and serratus separations. Dorian has the best abs-and-thighs of any Mr.Olympia ever. Below is a pic of Dorian doing this mandatory at the 1996 Olympia, and in the pic below that, the 1997 rendition. Dorian was 255 lbs in the first and 270 lbs in the latter. you'll see that, even at his heaviest weight, Dorian's abs-and-thighs are still superior.

No shit. I even said Dorian wins the abs-and-thighs in my last post. Strictly speaking about triceps, Ronnie's look bigger and have better separation than Dorian's in this pose.

The analyses of a newbie. I cracked up when you said that Ronnie's lateral trieps head is longer than Dorian's. Bull-fucking-shit! Dorian's lateral triceps head is not only longer than Ronald's - because it attaches lower in the tendom, but it also has a superior triangulat shape. You lose...again...ad nauseum.

What do you call that thin band of tissue that connects Dorian's tricep to his elbow? I fail to see how I "lose" this argument. Dorian's lateral heads had better shape but they were shorter and lacked striations. Ronnie's lateral head's were longer and striated, but they were slightly thinner. It comes down to personal prefernce. I call it a tie.

[IceCold]

no, you are correct that lee is not clueless - he is just in the minority on his opinion on the subject of ronnie vs dorian.

fact is, there are VERY FEW past OR present pros that would likely say dorian was better.

after all, they, like most of us, can see the quality that Ronnie had that Dorian lacked...

prove it.  

oh wait.

you cant bc it just aint true.  

if you ever read any of the comments leading up to the Olympia, you would have seen flex, ronnie, nasser, jay, etc. all believe that they can beat ronnie.

however, if you read any of the comments from the same guys (take out jay and add shawn and paul) you would have read that [bNOT ONE OF THEM][/b] believed they could have beaten dorian.  

there only 2 people who ever beat dorian and only one of them is alive.  no one beat dorian or came very close (check scorecards, not biased opinions).  people beat ronnie before he was mr. o and thought they could do it again.  with dorian, they (the most competitive lineup that bbing has ever seen and probably will) knew they stood no chance against dorian.  

[IceCold]

Simply put, you cannot provide evidence where Dorian looks better during the symmetry round. I posted pics of Ronnie in 03 with no gut distension at 287 lbs. The fact is Ronnie kept his stomach under control when it counted. All you can do is post pics of Ronnie standing relaxed backstage or in the middle of transition. The last time I checked, these 'poses' aren't judged. I offer you proof once again that Ronnie didn't have a distended gut during the symmetry round.

no definition whatsover in that midsection.  who cares if the gut is distended or not. 

better to have some distention and a very defined and hard midsection (dorian) vs. having a gut and very little if any defintion in the midsection. 

[Hulkster]

(check scorecards, not biased opinions

 but the judges themselves were biased to award points to size over quality at all costs..

that was not proper application of traditional bodybuilding standards.

quality shape and detail




 cannot be ignored in favor of:


a blob of shapeless mass

[IceCold]

unlikely. Look at that back width and shoulder to waist differential.  Even when dorian was doing a lat spread he never had that kind of differential:


not very impressive thanks to the monster wide waist..

and if you want to talk about detail, turn dorian around!:



 

hulkster,

you thoroughly enjoy showing the 99 english grad prix pics, where do to the lighting and black background, jeff long and claude groulx looked amazing vs. the worst pics and angles of dorian.  

nice try.  

ronnie does not look like that, or anyone, in ANY other pics.  its due to the lighting and black background.  

this shot of dorian highlights his taper which will stand against any shot of coleman's.



  

[IceCold]

but the judges themselves were biased to award points to size over quality at all costs..

that was not proper application of traditional bodybuilding standards.

quality shape and detail




 cannot be ignored in favor of:


a blob of shapeless mass

that's your opinion.  obviously, not the judges, whose opinion matters.

even in that pic of dorian, you can see how much harder and dryer he is.  not to mention almost 60 lbs. bigger, in better shape with the best back ever.  shawn stood no chance.

however

based on your logic of shawn beating dorian, dexter should be beating ronnie. 

no what?

[IceCold]

thanks for using the pic of dorian's lat spread from the 94 Olympia where he tore his biceps and could barely train for the last 8 weeks.

 

[Hulkster]

ronnie does not look like that, or anyone, in ANY other pics.  its due to the lighting and black background. 

nice try:


but no. ronnie really did have that good of a taper back then. Now you are resorting to ND's old tired and incorrect argument that all of ronnie's 99 shape, detail and taper was due to lighting.

Just open your eyes and you will see that you are clearly wrong:





ronnie really was that good in 1999..

ps I don't think that lat spread of Dorians is from 94. I believe it is from 95.  check the background..

[Shockwave]

nice try:


but no. ronnie really did have that good of a taper back then. Now you are resorting to ND's old tired and incorrect argument that all of ronnie's 99 shape, detail and taper was due to lighting.

Just open your eyes and you will see that you are clearly wrong:





ronnie really was that good in 1999..

ps I don't think that lat spread of Dorians is from 94. I believe it is from 95.  check the background..

I think Ronnie Coleman sucks.
Go fuck yourself.

Try and arguing that (lack of) logic. 

[IceCold]

no, of course not. i dont believe its all due to that lighting.  

i meant that the pics from the 99 englsih grand prix show are not fair.  everyone looks great in that show, when on a normal stage they dont look nearly as good.  like jeff long, etc.  

even kenny jones looked decent due to that lighting and background.  

my point of that taper shot of dorian is that dorian's taper is very competitive with coleman's.  

Code: [Select]

http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy4.jpg

[Hulkster]

unfortunately, "very competitive" does NOT mean "better"

[Shockwave]

unfortunately, "very competitive" does NOT mean "better"

Where the fuck did he say better?

[NeoSeminole]

thanks for using the pic of dorian's lat spread from the 94 Olympia where he tore his biceps and could barely train for the last 8 weeks.

That pic is not from the 94 Mr. Olympia. Here is how the background looked that year.



Here is what the background looked like in 95.

[Hulkster]

Where the f**k did he say better?

he didn't.

but it is just one more peice of "evidence" showing that there are very, very few areas that Yates would best a 1999 Ronnie in...

abs

calves.

lower back.

thats it.

[Shockwave]

Hahahahahaha.

[Hulkster]

Hold on:

I thought many have claimed that 95 was, other than the torn bi, Dorian's best condition..



AND HE LOOKED LIKE THIS?!!??

 

[NeoSeminole]

tell me about it.

[IceCold]

yep, that's what is all about.

the biggest and in the best condition.

[IceCold]

That pic is not from the 94 Mr. Olympia. Here is how the background looked that year.



Here is what the background looked like in 95.

pretty obvious in those pics why dorian won.

no one has density like him. 

[Hulkster]

yep, that's what is all about.

the biggest and in the best condition.

how can someone who is in the best condition have such little detail and shape?



 

The Yates fans have got some explaining to do..

you guys go on about how "conditioned" he is yet he shows barely a striation or cut in the entire front side of his body..just look at that lat spread - thats supposed to be his BEST pose!

smooth muscle does not look "conditioned".



this does.

[IceCold]

the judges seem to favor dryness and hardness over a few cuts and striations.

i think it has something to do with genetics, particularily the big white guys.

dorian, ruhl, jay, and francois, all were much less striated then their competition, but yet they still won.  they were big, hard, and dry.  it seems the judges reward that over being 'ripped'.

anyone can be ripped.  not everyone can be big, hard and dry. case in point - ronnie coleman.  in 98, he was dry and had good seperations.  as he got bigger, he smoothed out a bit and started holding more water. 

i already made you a list of bbers who won shows, who in the process beat guys that had more shape, asethetics, and striations. 

[IceCold]

this pic is a perfect example.

flex has more striations than dorian.  however, dorian is harder, thicker, and denser.  that's much more impressive than merely having striations. its a unique look that really no one has had before or after dorian.  that's the main thing with dorian. 

[pumpster]

flex has more striations than dorian.  however, dorian is harder, thicker, and denser.  that's much more impressive than merely having striations. its a unique look that really no one has had before or after dorian.  that's the main thing with dorian. 

I've always given Yates a special advantage in those areas, but in a much greater number of other criterion he just falls apart.

It's purely speculative, biased and presumptious of Yates groupies to repeatedly & arbitrarily decide that his advantages in a few areas trumps all those other failures/train wrecks:

[Hulkster]

that's the main thing with dorian

no, thats the ONLY thing with Dorian...



if you guys still don't believe he was at the very least overrated, there is no hope for you...

[NeoSeminole]

I don't understand why this debate still continues. Dorian and Ronnie had their strengths and weakness. It basically comes down to who had the greatest strengths with minimal weaknesses. Both men had symmetry problems. Dorian's arms were too small for his body and Ronnie's calves were overpowered by his quads. This leaves muscularity and conditioning. Dorian in 93 had better conditioning than Ronnie in 03, but Ronnie had far more size. Is the difference in conditoning between the two greater than the difference in muscularity? Keep in mind Dorian would look even smaller if he were in contest condition.