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

[Hulkster]

Dorian in 93 had better conditioning than Ronnie in 03, but Ronnie had far more size.

but Ronnie 1999 had just as much size as dorian, but with more detail and better shape...

more detail, better shape and better vascularity (with the same size) = more impressive muscularity.



by far

[Shockwave]

but Ronnie 1999 had just as much size as dorian, but with more detail and better shape...

more detail, better shape and better vascularity (with the same size) = more impressive muscularity.



by far

I don't remember there being a "vascularity" round. Since when has being vascular ever helped a competitor place better? If by detail, you mean more genetic striations, then why wasn't Munzer Mr. Olympia?

[IceCold]

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

that why did you put him on your top ten list of all time bbers on the othre thread?

[NeoSeminole]

I don't remember there being a "vascularity" round. Since when has being vascular ever helped a competitor place better? If by detail, you mean more genetic striations, then why wasn't Munzer Mr. Olympia?

Well shit, if Dorian won b/c of his back then why wasn't Joe Stubbs Mr. Olympia? If Dorian won b/c he had the best conditioning then why wasn't Munzer Mr. Olympia? If Dorian won b/c he was more balanced then why wasn't Shawn Ray Mr. Olympia? If Dorian won b/c of his size then why wasn't Greg Kovacs Mr. Olympia? I'm tired of people recycling this stupid argument. The answer is simple: each of them were lacking in other areas the judges heavily favored. Ronnie doesn't have this problem.

[Shockwave]

Well shit, if Dorian won b/c of his back then why wasn't Joe Stubbs Mr. Olympia? If Dorian won b/c he had the best conditioning then why wasn't Munzer Mr. Olympia? If Dorian won b/c he was more balanced then why wasn't Shawn Ray Mr. Olympia? If Dorian won b/c of his size then why wasn't Greg Kovacs Mr. Olympia? I'm tired of people recycling this stupid argument. The answer is simple: each of them were lacking in other areas the judges heavily favored. Ronnie doesn't have this problem.

Ok, thanks for making my argument. Dorian had ALL those qualities. Those you listed, only had 1 or 2.

[NeoSeminole]

Ok, thanks for making my argument. Dorian had ALL those qualities. Those you listed, only had 1 or 2.

No problem. I never said Dorian didn't deserve to win any Mr. Olympias. However, I think Ronnie had the same strengths as Dorian with even less weaknesses.

[Shockwave]

No problem. I never said Dorian didn't deserve to win any Mr. Olympias. However, I think Ronnie had the same strengths as Dorian with even less weaknesses.

And I agree. I just get pissed when someone says that Dorian was nothing more than an overrated, monster, wided back.

[pumpster]

I just get pissed when someone says that Dorian was nothing more than an overrated, monster, wided back.

In that case, continue to be pissed-he had big-league flaws despite all the one-sided rhetoric/worship here. Which is exactly why there are various pics that show that clearly. Other pics that hide his serious weaknesses are misleading.

Mediocre arms once again on display-anything other than side-tri he gets killed. Torso overwhelming the arms is not greatness, nor is the wide waist. He's a more aesthetic version of Ruhl.

[Hulkster]

that why did you put him on your top ten list of all time bbers on the othre thread?

not putting a 6 time Mr. O. on such a list is stupid - even if he is overrated.

He may be overrated and won because of questionable emphasis of size over quality, but the fact remains that he still won the Mr. O. 6 times, like it or not.

I may not like his phyisque, nor agree with his placings, but I cannot discredit the fact that he won the O. 6 times, even if I have yet to see a conherent argument using pics and videos showing exactly why he deserved to win it so many times

despite what you think, I am fair in my assessments.

I have argued methodically why I don't think Dorian had the type of shapely, detailed and  quality physique that a Ronnie, Flex, Haney or Shawn had at their best, but Mr. O titles are Mr. O. titles whether I agree with the reasons for winning or not..

[IceCold]

not putting a 6 time Mr. O. on such a list is stupid - even if he is overrated.

He may be overrated and won because of questionable emphasis of size over quality, but the fact remains that he still won the Mr. O. 6 times, like it or not.

I may not like his phyisque, nor agree with his placings, but I cannot discredit the fact that he won the O. 6 times, even if I have yet to see a conherent argument using pics and videos showing exactly why he deserved to win it so many times

despite what you think, I am fair in my assessments.

I have argued methodically why I don't think Dorian had the type of shapely, detailed and  quality physique that a Ronnie, Flex, Haney or Shawn had at their best, but Mr. O titles are Mr. O. titles whether I agree with the reasons for winning or not..

you've seen plenty of pics and read many arguments abou why dorian won.

when will you comprehend that YOUR version of what constitues a great bber (or someon who isnt overrated) is different from why dorian won and why the judges picked him.  he had a combination of mass, hardness, and dryness no one before or since has possessed.  that's why he won.  it has nothing to do with shape or details. 

the pic is a perfect example of what i'm talking about.  dorian had a look that no one else had.  he was unique.






if you think that the winner should be shapely and detailed vs. big and hard, then that's your opinion and that is fine. 

 

[Hulkster]

However, I think Ronnie had the same strengths as Dorian with even less weaknesses.

exactly,

I have been arguing that the very reasons why dorian beat Shawn and Flex (ie size, back width, not necessarily shape, quality and detail) were his main strengths.

the ONLY reason they were Dorian's strengths were because he faced people with narrow backs and less overall size.

Neither attribute applies to Ronnie, which is why I believe Ronnie in 1999 shape (not 1995 or 1996 shape!) would win easily..

yes, easily.

Put another way, let me ask this question:

What attributes would Dorian have over Ronnie that he ALSO had over Kevin, Flex, Shawn and Nasser?

he wouldn't be wider, like he was with shawn, kevin and flex.

he wouldn't have more detail (like he was with nasser).

he wouldn't have a better back (like he was with nasser, with more width than shawn or flex)


Ronnie would take away all of dorian's momentum because all the reasons that the judges awarded him the titles over kevin, shawn etc would be gone as soon as a 257 pound in shape ronnie stepped on the stage with him.

advantages are only advantages relative to your competiton.

change the competition (ie put a 257 pound ripped Ronnie onstage with wide lats and a small waist) and you change everything.



 Dorian's dominance disappears.

Its sort of like what happened in 1991:

Dorian DESTROYED  the feild at the 1991 NOC...

he was wider, he was bigger, he faced less than superb compeition (only sonny and gier borgen paulsen were threats)

And then, he faced someone who was just as big, BUT with a  wide back too, plus a smaller waist and better shape in Lee Haney...

and what happened?

he lost.

How would this be any different?

[Hulkster]

he had a combination of mass, hardness, and dryness no one before or since has possessed.  that's why he won.  it has nothing to do with shape or details.

and now you see why I say the judging standards were wrong.

you said it yourself: "it has nothing to do with shape or details"

If you can't see why I have a problem with this philosophy then you don't know how bodybuilding is traditionally judged.

what kind of standard emphasizes size over everything else?

screw vascularity.

screw detail.

screw taper.

screw shape.

only size matters.

This is NOT how bodybuilding should be judged!

[IceCold]

you always forget about nasser and paul.  both were slightly bigger than dorian from the front.

i see what your saying about coleman and his strength's vs. the strength's of other that dorian competed against.  that's why i say it would be close.  there is no way ronnie would easily beat dorian.  

how can you say it wont when he DOES NOT beat jay, dexter, gunter, or gustavo that easily??


dorian did beat haney.  but dorian beat haney in the muscularity round which before no one came close to beating haney, let alone beating him in arguably the most important round in the show.  


dorian's main advantage over coleman - and everyone else- is his conditioning, dryness, and hardness.  

coleman certainly wont beat dorian on those areas.  so what if ronnie has better shape to his muscles, slightly better taper,  and a few more striations in his thighs.  dorian's overall conditioning is better.  

[IceCold]

and now you see why I say the judging standards were wrong.

you said it yourself: "it has nothing to do with shape or details"

If you can't see why I have a problem with this philosophy then you don't know how bodybuilding is traditionally judged.

what kind of standard emphasizes size over everything else?

screw vascularity.

screw detail.

screw taper.

screw shape.

only size matters.

This is NOT how bodybuilding should be judged!

i dont think size is the only factor.

however, the qualities you metioned, dorian has everyone of them.  they may not be the best on the show, but he still has them.  that and his size, and conditioning, well, that's why he won.

the biggest guys who also possess SOME shape, details, etc. with size always win.   goes back to haney, and even arnold. 

[Hulkster]

how can you say it wont when he DOES NOT beat jay, dexter, gunter, or gustavo that easily??

of course he does not beat jay dexter gunter easily  - he competes at 300 pounds and looks like this!:



I think most would agree that a 1999 Ronnie would beat today's line up very very easily



without question..

[IceCold]

easily?

lost the challenge round 2 years in a row to gustavo.

in 04, it came down to the very last pose between he and cutler - "light out, game over, rear lat spread".

he won by like 3 points. 

[Shockwave]

In that case, continue to be pissed-he had big-league flaws despite all the one-sided rhetoric/worship here. Which is exactly why there are various pics that show that clearly. Other pics that hide his serious weaknesses are misleading.

Mediocre arms once again on display-anything other than side-tri he gets killed. Torso overwhelming the arms is not greatness, nor is the wide waist. He's a more aesthetic version of Ruhl.

Where did I ever say he wasn't flawed?
He is more than a monster back. He had size. He had conditioning. He had a monster back. He was fairly balanced (not outstanding). It's the combination of these that made him Mr. Olympia. The same with Ronnie. You cannot point out his arms, and say, well, he should not have been Mr. Olympia because of his arms. There is more to it than individual body parts.

[Hulkster]

easily?

lost the challenge round 2 years in a row to gustavo.

in 04, it came down to the very last pose between he and cutler - "light out, game over, rear lat spread".

he won by like 3 points. 

yes, a 1999 ronnie would crush Jay, gustavo et al.

















In my opinion, a 1999 ronnie would beat a 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005 Ronnie too..

Compare:




ps check out ronnie's face!

[NarcissisticDeity]

not putting a 6 time Mr. O. on such a list is stupid - even if he is overrated.

He may be overrated and won because of questionable emphasis of size over quality, but the fact remains that he still won the Mr. O. 6 times, like it or not.

I may not like his phyisque, nor agree with his placings, but I cannot discredit the fact that he won the O. 6 times, even if I have yet to see a conherent argument using pics and videos showing exactly why he deserved to win it so many times

despite what you think, I am fair in my assessments.

I have argued methodically why I don't think Dorian had the type of shapely, detailed and  quality physique that a Ronnie, Flex, Haney or Shawn had at their best, but Mr. O titles are Mr. O. titles whether I agree with the reasons for winning or not..

I laughed out loud when I read you said you were ' fair ' in your assesments . what a complete joke . you're anything but fair , you can't claim a 6 time Mr Olympia winner and a guy who lost just twice as a professional and both those loses were seconds as ' overrated ' There is nonthing fair or honest about that statement. it reaks of bias and outright stupidty.


And I notice you keep trying to use the argumentum ad populum , which means because your opinion is widely held that it's therefore true and thats poor logic . you've demonstrated quite vividly that you really don't know much about how bodybuilding contests are judged and you were actually clueless to the judging criteria until I posted it , and even after I posted it you cherry picked what you like and what you thought Ronnie's advantages were and tossed out the rest

Its plainly obvious that you just don't like Dorian ( for whatever reason ) and thats okay but the lenghts you and pumpster have gone to discredit Yates over the course of the thread ranged from mildly funny to outright pathetic and sad. in the end you're just to biased to look objectively because it would lead you to the conclusion that if it did take place it would be close and both have a legitimate chance of beating each other at their respective bests.

[Hulkster]

what a complete joke . you're anything but fair , you can't claim a 6 time Mr Olympia winner and a guy who lost just twice as a professional and both those loses were seconds as ' overrated '

why not?

he looks like this, doesn't he?:





in 1995 no less - supposedly one of his "best ever" showings

the fact that he was so successful yet looked like this SHOWS that he was overrated, not the opposite as you seem to think.

that is why you have lost this debate so badly - you think that because the numbers say he was amazing means that he actually was that good..

problem is, the pics and videos do not match up with these "amazing scorecards"

what you don't understand was the flawed judging standard (size over quality) that was in place that CREATED the fantastic numbers in the first place.

Under better judging standards, Dorian's numbers would not have been as good as they were.

The Ronnie side on the other hand, has never cared about scorecards and numbers - we look at ACTUAL COMPARSIONS WITH OTHER BODYBUILDERS which is the essence of bodybuilding competition itself.

[Hulkster]

but the lenghts you and pumpster have gone to discredit Yates over the course of the thread ranged from mildly funny to outright pathetic and sad.

this coming from someone who argued that Yates has better overall arms than Ronnie Coleman .

give me a break.

[Hulkster]

Its plainly obvious that you just don't like Dorian ( for whatever reason )

no, I do not dislike Dorian.

I dislike his physique

because I prefer bodybuilders that have better shape to their arms, quads, chest, delts and overall taper.

Notice the difference:





see? its obvious which bodybuilder lacks the shapely and detailed qualities of the other three. After 370 pages, you should know why  I prefer phyisques like this to dorian.

It has nothing to do with the man himself. I am sure dorian is a great guy.

However, bodybuilding is not based on personalities. It is only based on superficial physiques.

[IceCold]

yes, a 1999 ronnie would crush Jay, gustavo et al.

yes he would very easily.

would he CRUSH dorian.  absolutely not. 

[IceCold]

Where did I ever say he wasn't flawed?
He is more than a monster back. He had size. He had conditioning. He had a monster back. He was fairly balanced (not outstanding). It's the combination of these that made him Mr. Olympia. The same with Ronnie. You cannot point out his arms, and say, well, he should not have been Mr. Olympia because of his arms. There is more to it than individual body parts.

you deserve an award for that analysis. 

its the whole package.  not if someone's tricpes look better in the BACK double bicpes pose. - by the way, calves are MUCH  more important in that pose than triceps. 

[IceCold]

why not?


that is why you have lost this debate so badly - you think that because the numbers say he was amazing means that he actually was that good..

problem is, the pics and videos do not match up with these "amazing scorecards"

what you don't understand was the flawed judging standard (size over quality) that was in place that CREATED the fantastic numbers in the first place.

Under better judging standards, Dorian's numbers would not have been as good as they were.

The Ronnie side on the other hand, has never cared about scorecards and numbers - we look at ACTUAL COMPARSIONS WITH OTHER BODYBUILDERS which is the essence of bodybuilding competition itself.

you ignoring the scorecards of dorian's shows is no different that watching a game of football, having a winning team win all of there games 41-14 and say how that team is overrated and didnt deserve to win. (and yes, i know there is more to football than bbing) but a score involves numbers and numbers are not subjective.