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

[pumpster]

ND is a classic Iron Age turd boy as proven once again with more Schwarzenegger worship:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102714.0

Quote from: Matt C on Today at 08:57:24 PM
I got banned from ironage.us, but I don't think I would have been banned if I was an ironager.

Very typical if you don't adhere to the dogma like ND & Gord. In fact, they openly encourage those who disagree with their myopia to go to other boards like getbig.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Unfortunately yes. 

How do you feel about my being banned ND?

I feel its an OUTRAGE and using my Ironage connections I've have you reinstated post haste !!

[Hulkster]

I feel its an OUTRAGE and using my Ironage connections I've have you reinstated post haste !!

ironage connections = blowjob city

[Hulkster]

WOW the whole bodybuilding community agrees? except the judges lol Ronnie lost the whole prejudging they don't agree with you and guess what ? they're the only ones who matter 

Yes. ND, in case you haven't noticed, you will find VERY FEW people who believe that:

dorian should have won in 1994 or 1997

and

that Jay Cutler had a better back than Ronnie Coleman in 2001.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yes. ND, in case you haven't noticed, you will find VERY FEW people who believe that:

dorian should have won in 1994 or 1997

and

that Jay Cutler had a better back than Ronnie Coleman in 2001.

Hulkster just because a bunch of people all believe the same thing doesn't make it true , 87% of Americans believe in God I guess its true using Hulkster-Logic  I personally don't think Yates should have won in 1997 but the judges did and in the end thats all that matters.

[carvedoutofwood]

I personally don't think Yates should have won in 1997 but the judges did and in the end thats all that matters.

wow..... huge step.... huge

[RocketSwitch625]

Look at the guy with the best genetics in world...Mr. Chris Cormier.

Is this a joke or what?

[nicorulez]

Is this a joke or what?

Who has better genetics moron.  You really are annoying.  Zero contribution to this thread.  You can't be unbiased and post reasonable analysis.  Only you have even attempted to compare Yates biceps to Ronnies.  That is friggin laughable.  So Socketwrench, who has better bodybuilding genetics.  Gutler?  Ronnie? Yates    There is only one person out there close and his name is Mendenhall.  After that, it is Cormier.  I personally like Francois, but colitis took him out of the game.  Let's go genius...give me an intelligent cogent reply...Do you know what cogent is?

[pumpster]

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on October 23, 2006, 09:19:41 PM
I personally don't think Yates should have won in 1997 but the judges did and in the end thats all that matters.

wow..... huge step.... huge

hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahah

You really are annoying.  Zero contribution to this thread.  You can't be unbiased and post reasonable analysis.  Only you have even attempted to compare Yates biceps to Ronnies.  That is friggin laughable.

Rocketdweeb kindly find your way back under a rock.

[nicorulez]

Now I understand the Yates nuthuggin.  You are a friggin nationalistic Brit.  Give me a break.  Without the US, you guys would be speaking German.  Yates was great, no doubt.  However, your blind infatuation is ridiculous.  I prefer an all-time best Ronnie, but I give major props to Dorian.  Moreover, he was a decent fellow unlike you.  If the situation were reversed and Coleman were English, you would probably suck his arse also.  Pathetic.  Enjoy your blood pudding mate. 

[Hulkster]

Hulkster just because a bunch of people all believe the same thing doesn't make it true , 87% of Americans believe in God I guess its true using Hulkster-Logic  I personally don't think Yates should have won in 1997 but the judges did and in the end thats all that matters.

obviously, in some cases, numerical support means nothing. People will believe things based on faith alone. they don't need credible evidence.

but when there is TONS of credible evidence to substantiate the notion, that is a whole different story.

What you are saying amounts to arguing that 2+2=5, and you are trying to say that just because a bunch of people are saying 2+2=4 that they are all wrong and you are right.  And you are saying that your argument is correct, even though there is nothing to prove it.

it doesn't work that way.

[pumpster]

87% of Americans believe in God I guess its true using Hulkster-Logic   I personally don't think Yates should have won in 1997 but the judges did and in the end thats all that matters.

What a strange attempt at an analogy. The numbers in one have nothing to do with the other. The warped logic kicking in again. 

[nicorulez]

Hulkster just because a bunch of people all believe the same thing doesn't make it true , 87% of Americans believe in God I guess its true using Hulkster-Logic  I personally don't think Yates should have won in 1997 but the judges did and in the end thats all that matters.

ND, I am glad you can be objective.  I feel you have been so to some extent for most of the thread.  Yes, you prefer Yates; that is obvious.  However, for the most part, you have attempted some civility; although, you do not give Ronnie his due at times.  However, lately, the thread has degenerated into a discussion between total morons.  SocketWrench is the worst offender; he is truly stupid.  Pumpster, although entertaining, is too biased to be reasonable.  Pobrecito is the most even handed, although he has not posted in sometime.  Regardless, Yates and Coleman were incredible.  Whether you feel that Dorian should have won all six of his Sandows or four of six is moot.  The judges deemed him best.  Now, I don't always agree with the judges, and I definitely think there is a hidden agenda (ala 2006), but for the most part Dorian deserved his Sandows.  He was off in 1994 and small in 1996.  He could have lost either if a worthy competitor stepped up.  However, nobody had the back or balance from head to toe to beat him.  Ray is close, but he was outweighed dramatically.  Ronnie came in off in 2001. but he really did dominate Jay from the back.  Thus, although the night show is usually formality, he tightened up enough and Jay faded enough to allow him to win.  In fact, I feel if Ronnie would have shown up in the pre-judging this year in the condition he displayed Saturday night, we would have a nine time champ.  Alas, he looked like such shit on the day of pre-judging that the title was snatched away.  Overall, who is better.  Who really cares.  Ronnie or Dorian...pick a straw and you have your winner.  I bet you the decision could change from day to day depending on the judges.  PS...Dorian was utter garbage in 1997, but he was still good enough to take this years Gutler.  Ronnie was a shadow of his former self, and the worst I have ever seen him.  Too many cheeseburgers in the off-season.

[nicorulez]

If Benaziza were six inches taller and didn't off himself stupidly with diuretics, he would have been the greatest bodybuilder ever.  He was equal to Dorian in every way and had better taper and aesthetics.  Moreover, his abs were insane as was his back.  Dorian even admired his back.  Unfortunately, he was a short man in a taller mans game.  Sad as he was amazing; best short man ever IMO.

[Pecs]

If Benaziza were six inches taller and didn't off himself stupidly with diuretics, he would have been the greatest bodybuilder ever.  He was equal to Dorian in every way and had better taper and aesthetics.  Moreover, his abs were insane as was his back.  Dorian even admired his back.  Unfortunately, he was a short man in a taller mans game.  Sad as he was amazing; best short man ever IMO.

Yeah i think he actually looked better than lee priest. The great momo

[sculpture]

ND, I am glad you can be objective.  I feel you have been so to some extent for most of the thread.  Yes, you prefer Yates; that is obvious.  However, for the most part, you have attempted some civility; although, you do not give Ronnie his due at times.  However, lately, the thread has degenerated into a discussion between total morons.  SocketWrench is the worst offender; he is truly stupid.  Pumpster, although entertaining, is too biased to be reasonable.  Pobrecito is the most even handed, although he has not posted in sometime.  Regardless, Yates and Coleman were incredible.  Whether you feel that Dorian should have won all six of his Sandows or four of six is moot.  The judges deemed him best.  Now, I don't always agree with the judges, and I definitely think there is a hidden agenda (ala 2006), but for the most part Dorian deserved his Sandows.  He was off in 1994 and small in 1996.  He could have lost either if a worthy competitor stepped up.  However, nobody had the back or balance from head to toe to beat him.  Ray is close, but he was outweighed dramatically.  Ronnie came in off in 2001. but he really did dominate Jay from the back.  Thus, although the night show is usually formality, he tightened up enough and Jay faded enough to allow him to win.  In fact, I feel if Ronnie would have shown up in the pre-judging this year in the condition he displayed Saturday night, we would have a nine time champ.  Alas, he looked like such shit on the day of pre-judging that the title was snatched away.  Overall, who is better.  Who really cares.  Ronnie or Dorian...pick a straw and you have your winner.  I bet you the decision could change from day to day depending on the judges.  PS...Dorian was utter garbage in 1997, but he was still good enough to take this years Gutler.  Ronnie was a shadow of his former self, and the worst I have ever seen him.  Too many cheeseburgers in the off-season.

Bit in bold - definetly the truest statement in the entire thread. 

[Hulkster]

I think ND is the only person I have EVER heard say that Ronnie did not dominate Jay from the back in 2001.

totally bizarre.

almost on par with the dorian arms are better than ronnie argument.

Is there anything this guy won't say to discredit Ronnie?

I mean, at least my assessements of Dorian's arms and quads have proof.

ND's opinions come out of nowhere, and then he thinks it is strange that no one agrees with him. 

[suckmymuscle]

I posted the pics to show Ronnie in 99 was just as wide as Dorian. I do agree, however, that Dorian's teres major/minor are thicker than 99 Ronnie's.

  The fact is that the 1999 Ronnie is not as wide as Dorian. In fact, even the 2003 Ronnie had lats there were only slightly wider than Dorian's. This is mathematical: you get the tape and measure the width of both, and Dorian wins. You have no game here. If there's one bodypart that Dorian could hold his own with the 2003 Ronnie, it would be lats. Dorian simply destroys the 1999 Ronnie from the back: thicker and wider lats, thicker teres major and minor, denser and with comparable striations.

my god, you are a dumb f*cking idiot. ha ha. This is the second time you claimed I switch between 99 and 03 Ronnie. I was merely responding to your comment that Dorian was wider than 99 Ronnie. What did you expect me to do? Post pics of Ronnie in 03? Then you would insult my reading comprehension. Sorry, but either you are mentally retarded or you have amnesia b/c you forget what you say. Here is your post I responded to.

  Hey, retard, my criticism is that you selectively switch between the 1999 and the 2003 versions when it suits you. You pathetically tried to show that the 1999 Ronnie is comparable to Dorian in lat width, and failed. Seeing your post was idiotic, you immediately hereafter posted a pic of Ronnie in his 2003 version to emphasize width and thickness. I hate this dishonesty of swithching between the two versions, because they're completely different bodybuilders altogether. In the pic you posted, I pointed out that Dorian has wider lats, thicker teres major and minor and a superior overrall rear lat spread and back double biceps to the 1999 Ronnie. My criticism is that you should stick to one version, either the one where Ronnie is less muscular but has better symmetry, separations and midsection, or the one where he has greater overrall muscularity than Dorian but fails miserably at everything else. You are a retard if you think that Ronnie compared to Dorian at anything in the back department except for separations in his 1999 version. This is a wider and thicker back than any version of Ronnie except his 2003. Bodybuilding 101 for you, little boy.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

No amount of bizarre & desperate SUCKY logic changes the reality that Coleman's noticably bigger, more cut with better tapers and shape all-round. Yates beats him in calves, is otherwise dominated in the same way SUCKY is.

  To you, any logic is bizarre, moron. The point is that Ronnie was bigger overrall, and this gives an impression of his lats being wider than they really are. Lots of the weight Ronnie had in 2003 was quadriceps - which is visible from the back to a small extent -, glutes, abdomen and hamstrings. All these things give the impression of Ronnie being wider overrall, from the back, than he really is. Ronnie outweighed Dorian by 30 lbs, and if you consider just how much bigger his quads and midsection were than Dorian's, you realize that most of the weight difference came from there. If you got a tape measurer, you'll see that Ronnie's lats were not that much wider than Dorian's.

  Ronnie's taper is no better than Dorian's in this comparison, sport. And shape, as I have explained before, is entirely subjective and not evaluted as an objective part of a bodybuilding judging criteria. Look at this sport, and you'll see that physiques as different in shape as Wheeler's and Nasser's have win pro shows, so you point is mute. Teh things that are evaluated in a bodybuilding contests are muscularity, symmetry and conditioning. Ronnie in 2003 has Dorian beat overrall for muscularity, but Dorian has a vastly superior midsection and has better separations, hardness and a dry crispness that trhe 2003 does not have. Ronnie is bloated, has narely a cut when standing relaxed and his distended gut makes him lose the symmetry round flat out. I'll give a slight edge for Ronnie in latissimus width, but Dorian's are more separated and harder.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Entirely incorrect hypothesis. Here's one without the lower body to use as an excuse:

  Entirely incorrect is right...from your part! Ronnie in his 1999 version does have an edge in separations -although not as much as he had in 1998 -, but when it comes to width and thickness of the latissimus, teres major and minor muscles, Dorian destroys him. Ronnie in his 2003 version was a match for Dorian in lat width and thikness, but not in his 1999 version. In this pic, Ronnie has better taper from the back, so his lats appear wider due to contrast. Now, the fact is that Dorian's lats stretched further from the tendons than Ronnie's. Again, it is simply a mathematical fact which can't be disputed: you get the tape measurer and it's game over for Ronnie.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

They take the man with one of the widest waists in Mr. O. history and orgasm over a pic taken on an ANGLE that minimizes the adverse effect of his waist.

  What about the Coleman fans posting pics of the 2003 Ronnie from the front and back, but never from the sides - where his gut is visible and makes him lose the symmetry round flat out? And when they do post a single pic of Ronnie from the sides, it is when he's sucking his belly in na has no abdominal and serratus separations.

  And his waist is not nearly as bad in the rear lat spread, when you consider that his lats are wider, he has a smaller, more symmetrical glutes, etc. Dorian's advantage in lat width and dryness, itself, would be enough for him to defeat Ronnie at this mandatory. Teh waist is not even that visible from teh back anyway, because the abdominal muscles are attached in the front of the body and not the back.

  \Dorian's taper was never ever as good as peak Ronnie's in the rear lat spread.

  Taper and  waist are two very different things. Ronnie does have a smll advantage in taper from the back - which is irrelevant, since the waist is not that visible from the back anyway -, but Dorian's taper is just as good as Ronnie's, considering that his lats spread wider.

that is simply an effect of his much wider waist. That is why Ronnie at his peak had a better rear lat spread. Compare the youtube videos of Ronnie 99 to Dorian.  its obvious.

  The rear lat spread is composed of several elements. First and foremost, the primary muscle assessed for muscularity is the lats and Dorian has the most muscular lats seen by their width. Secondly, there are the other muscles which are visible in this shot, such as the teres major and minor, erectores, etc, and Dorian also takes that. Aesthetically, I think that Ronnie's huge glutes and ass ruins the pose for me.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

obviously, in some cases, numerical support means nothing. People will believe things based on faith alone. they don't need credible evidence.

but when there is TONS of credible evidence to substantiate the notion, that is a whole different story.

What you are saying amounts to arguing that 2+2=5, and you are trying to say that just because a bunch of people are saying 2+2=4 that they are all wrong and you are right.  And you are saying that your argument is correct, even though there is nothing to prove it.

it doesn't work that way.

This is where you're dead wrong and why you're in the same boat as the religious idiots , you don't believe the evidence ( judges scores ) and you have faith the judges  were wrong , no proof just a few crappy scans and a deep seeded bias , you own yourself with your poor logic.

[suckmymuscle]

Oh really? What argument would that be? I've been arguing that Ronnie in 03 would beat any version of Dorian. Most people agree with me including Sucky. The only real debate seems to be who would win between 99 Ronnie and Dorian.

  No, I said that the 2003 would probably win because the pro judges do not follow protocol. I think Dorian is superior to the 2003 Ronnie by a complete bodybuilding judging criteria. However, at the top of the pro ranks, judges are strongly biased in favor of muscle diameter, despite paying lip service to taper, proportions, separations, conditioning, etc. Going by the fact that judges reward muscularity above everyhting else, and that the 2003 Ronnie had greater overrall muscularity than Dorian, he would be gifted a victory.

  Yet, there's still s possibility that Dorian might win a gains the 2003 Ronnie. Odds are in Ronnie's favor, but Dorian could win. A 225 Wheeler defeated a 285 lbs Nasser, and a 205 Ray deferated a 250 lbs Levrone, so absolute muscle size is not all that the judges are always looking for. That's a difference of 80 lbs of muscular weight! The difference in bodyweight between the 2003 Ronnie and Dorian would be 30 lbs, much less than that. So, let's cut the crap that Dorian would have no chance agains the 2003 Ronnie, because that's simply not true. Dorian defeated with straight-firsts scores a 285 lbs Nasser and a 275 lbs Dillet. Sure, neither of them could compete with Dorian from the back, but at least they had flat stomachs, tiny waists and such at that weight. In other words, tehy had no symmetrical liabilities - unlike the 2003 Ronnie -, and outweiged Dorian by as much as a 2003 Ronnie would! And yet, Dorian defeated them flat out.

  If the 2003 Ronnie went against Dorian at his best, he would have the advantage that Nasser and Dillet lacked of having a great back; conversely, Ronnie would have the severe liability of a distended gut and terrible abdominal separations. So, who knows? Dorian might defeat him. A 260 lbs Dorian with a flat stomach, incredible abdominal and serratus separations, a back almost as big as Ronnie's and the best conditioned physique ever would have a definite chance of defeating the 2003 Coleman. The judges might take into consideration Dorian's superior hardness and great midsection,at a very large 260 lbs and give the nod to him. Or they might not. But it is totally reasonable to assume that Dorian would be able to defeat teh 2003 Ronnie, or, at trhe very least, provide his most formidable competition.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  

[suckmymuscle]

A great example is sucky's comment about ronnie 98 never looking "spectacularly hard and dry) (and insinuating that dorian usually was), meanwhile, in reality I can't think of someone who looks harder and dryer than this:
Dorian is used as the model for density and Ronnie even in 98/99 was always (by the ND and co side) viewed as soft and not nearly as dense.
as you can see, this is simply not true.

  You're right that, at least on one aspect of conditioning, Dorian was not superior to Ronnie. Both of them competed at around 3% bodyfat, and they bothj had little film of water under their skins. Dorian might have come with a little less sub-dermal water, but the difference was not nearly that great. You're also right that Ronnie in 1998 displayed as much or more separations that Dorian ever has, and in this regard they were equally conditioned.

  What you're not realizing, however, is that separations and having a low bodyfat level is only a part of conditioning. The fact is that, unlike in Ronnie's case, when Dorian lost bodyfat and dehydrated, his muscles acquired a "stony" look that Ronnie - or any other bodybuilder, for that matter - never had. He looked like a granite statue. Comper the 1995 Dorian to Ronnie, and you'll see that, even though Ronnie's muscles are as separated as Dorian's, the latter's muscles just look harder. Of course, this is a preference, and many people prefer the crazy cross-striations and separations that the 1998 Ronnie had over the not as separated but granite-like appearance of Dorian's muscles. I prefer the latter, even though I think Ronnie looked very good in 1998.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

The fact is that the 1999 Ronnie is not as wide as Dorian. In fact, even the 2003 Ronnie had lats there were only slightly wider than Dorian's. This is mathematical: you get the tape and measure the width of both, and Dorian wins. You have no game here. If there's one bodypart that Dorian could hold his own with the 2003 Ronnie, it would be lats. Dorian simply destroys the 1999 Ronnie from the back: thicker and wider lats, thicker teres major and minor, denser and with comparable striations.

I've already explained to you the concept of lat width being limited by the length of the clavicles. This is why Dorian's back is almost as wide as 03 Ronnie's and also the reason why 99 Ronnie's back would be comparable in width to Dorian's. Most of the increase in lat size occurs in the lower lats. Both Ronnie and Dorian appear to have nearly identical clavicle width. Unless you directly measured each guy, it's impossible to say who was wider.

Hey, retard, my criticism is that you selectively switch between the 1999 and the 2003 versions when it suits you. You pathetically tried to show that the 1999 Ronnie is comparable to Dorian in lat width, and failed. Seeing your post was idiotic, you immediately hereafter posted a pic of Ronnie in his 2003 version to emphasize width and thickness. I hate this dishonesty of swithching between the two versions, because they're completely different bodybuilders altogether.

ha ha ha, after I completely disgraced you in a previous post you call me a retard to try and make yourself feel better. I told you before I'm not switching between 99 and 03 Ronnie. I was merely responding to your comment that Dorian was wider than 99 Ronnie. Surely I'm allowed to defend him. What did you expect me to do? Post pics of Ronnie in 03? Then you would say I can't read. Sorry, but it's not my fault you are a dumbass.

SUCKMYDICK