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

[pobrecito]

I don't care about your comparisons, I'm just stating that you asserted that these pics of Ronnie were taken at his best. They aren't- 2005, 2001 O are far from it.

In these comparisons Ronnie was bigger and denser than at his best (265 in 2001 and 275 in 2005). If I had used 99 pictures (which if I could find any similar poses I would have) Ronnie simply would have looked smaller in comparison. So in reality, it was better for Coleman to use these pictures against Yates.

[logical?]

Not really. Ronnie in 2005 wasn't denser and bigger than Ronnie in 2003. In fact, he was a fair bit lighter. So, why did you post the most muscular from 2005 and not 2003 if you were doing such a service to him?

[NarcissisticDeity]

yeah, you missed the point of my post.

basically, when you say that dorian is better than ronnie, you say that relative to the IFBB criteria. However, you have nothing to substantiate that the IFBB criteria is actually a good set of judging criteria- or better than anyone else's.

further, the judges also are not objective- assuming that they are better at evaluating physiques than you, or Hulkster, because they are judges is simple argument from authority.

We're NOT dealing with the question ' is the IFBB criteria any good ? " we're dealing with the question of who would beat whom at their respective bests using the IFBB judging criteria why? because both men competed in the IFBB

Again the judges are more knowledgeable than the average fan and even us who know more than the average bear , again in the end its all we have .

[Hulkster]

In these comparisons Ronnie was bigger and denser than at his best (265 in 2001 and 275 in 2005). If I had used 99 pictures (which if I could find any similar poses I would have) Ronnie simply would have looked smaller in comparison. So in reality, it was better for Coleman to use these pictures against Yates.

I think that might be the dumbest post you have made on this thread.

99 Ronnie looked 50 times better than he did in 2001 or 2005 for that matter.

stop trolling and start making sense.

[pobrecito]

Not really. Ronnie in 2005 wasn't denser and bigger than Ronnie in 2003. In fact, he was a fair bit lighter. So, why did you post the most muscular from 2005 and not 2003 if you were doing such a service to him?

Becuase I simply couldn't find a most-muscular shot from that same angle. If you have those pictures, I would be glad to make a comparison. It's not a matter of picking and choosing which year, but rather simply finding pictures of Yates and Coleman in the same pose at the relatively same angle.

Regardless, I believe it's clear that Dorian would have looked bigger and denser than a 99 coleman. This may have been reversed in 2003, however, it would not be a large margin whatsoever. Yet Dorian would still have his superior conditioning, while Ronnie did not (relative to 99).

[pobrecito]

99 Ronnie looked 50 times better than he did in 2001 or 2005 for that matter.

You have an obvious lack of reading comprehension skills.

It's not a matter of "looking" better but rather a matter of perceived size and density. If Dorian is appearing bigger and denser than a 265 and 275lb version of Ronnie, he sure as hell wont look small next to a 257lb 99 version. In fact, he would be bigger and denser than a 99 Ronnie, irrefutably.

[Hulkster]

Again the judges are more knowledgeable than the average fan

why because they wear a patch that says "judge" on it?

Anyone with a brain can apply criteria and see how a physique measures up against the specific criteria.

there is nothing special about being a judge that makes them any better at it than you or I.

stop making the mistake that the judges are somehow better at apply criteria than anyone else with a brain.

they are not.

they are just more influenced by politics (ie Uncle Joe) than you or I.

that is the only diffference.

[logical?]

We're NOT dealing with the question ' is the IFBB criteria any good ? " we're dealing with the question of who would beat whom at their respective bests using the IFBB judging criteria why? because both men competed in the IFBB

Again the judges are more knowledgeable than the average fan and even us who know more than the average bear , again in the end its all we have .

Yeah, you could phrase it that way. However, I'm not sure if many people would agree. The thread seems basically to be devoted to debating who was the better bodybuilder, period. Otherwise I could equally say that Skip LaCour is better.

Just because the judges are more knowledgeable (assuming this is the case), doesn't logically imply that their opinions are more right, ND. It should mean, however, that they are better able to present an argument demonstrating why one is better than the other- supporting their view.

[pobrecito]

they are just more influenced by politics (ie Uncle Joe) than you or I.

This is speculation at best, and only becuase it suits your argument against Dorian. Every piece of empirical evidence I have seen about the judging points towards a fair and unbiased system. For some reason, you continue to confuse your personal preference with "politics". Quit it.

[Hulkster]

You have an obvious lack of reading comprehension skills.

It's not a matter of "looking" better but rather a matter of perceived size and density. If Dorian is appearing bigger and denser than a 265 and 275lb version of Ronnie, he sure as hell wont look small next to a 257lb 99 version. In fact, he would be bigger and denser than a 99 Ronnie, irrefutably.

but dorian was not 265 at his best shape (1993).

He was 257 just like Ronnie's best shape.

ps you don't get any denser than this unless you lose your skin:

[NarcissisticDeity]

You have an obvious lack of reading comprehension skills.

It's not a matter of "looking" better but rather a matter of perceived size and density. If Dorian is appearing bigger and denser than a 265 and 275lb version of Ronnie, he sure as hell wont look small next to a 257lb 99 version. In fact, he would be bigger and denser than a 99 Ronnie, irrefutably.

You bring up a great point a 275 pound Dillett and a 318 pound Lou Ferrigno couldn't make a 257 pound Dorian look small a Ronnie weighing the same certainly isn't.

.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab

Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.

[Hulkster]

Every piece of empirical evidence I have seen about the judging points towards a fair and unbiased system.

ahahahahahahaha

[logical?]

Becuase I simply couldn't find a most-muscular shot from that same angle. If you have those pictures, I would be glad to make a comparison. It's not a matter of picking and choosing which year, but rather simply finding pictures of Yates and Coleman in the same pose at the relatively same angle.

Regardless, I believe it's clear that Dorian would have looked bigger and denser than a 99 coleman. This may have been reversed in 2003, however, it would not be a large margin whatsoever. Yet Dorian would still have his superior conditioning, while Ronnie did not (relative to 99).

Fair enough, pobrecito. So if Hulkster posts a M-M from 2003 from thje same angle, you would gladly change the compilation of pictures?

[Hulkster]

Bear in mind ND is the same person who said Samir Bannout of 1983 should beat Ronnie of 2003.

hahahaha really?

[logical?]

hahahaha really?

Well I'm sure you could present a valid argument arguing this claim- it wouldn't be impossible.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yeah, you could phrase it that way. However, I'm not sure if many people would agree. The thread seems basically to be devoted to debating who was the better bodybuilder, period. Otherwise I could equally say that Skip LaCour is better.

Just because the judges are more knowledgeable (assuming this is the case), doesn't logically imply that their opinions are more right, ND. It should mean, however, that they are better able to present an argument demonstrating why one is better than the other- supporting their view.

My opinion doesn't matter and it means nothing , and so does yours and everyone else the ONLY opinions matter are those of the IFBB judges because in the end their pick gets the glory and the big check .

[Hulkster]

You bring up a great point a 275 pound Dillett and a 318 pound Lou Ferrigno couldn't make a 257 pound Dorian look small a Ronnie weighing the same certainly isn't.

pretty strange considering that a 295 pound lou made a 242 pound dorian look small...

[Hulkster]

[NarcissisticDeity]

Bear in mind ND is the same person who said Samir Bannout of 1983 should beat Ronnie of 2003.

Matt you're the one who claims Bob Paris and Marky mark have simlar physiques

[logical?]

My opinion doesn't matter and it means nothing , and so does yours and everyone else the ONLY opinions matter are those of the IFBB judges because in the end their pick gets the glory and the big check .

That's not the case, though, seeing that the judges never got to compare Ronnie and Dorian at their respective bests. This debate is about our opinions, since we do not know theirs.

Further, you still haven't demonstrated why your argument of referring to the judges' superiority isn't a blatant argument from authority. As an obviously bright guy, I'm sure you know what this is.

[NarcissisticDeity]

The quote is from 1993 

[Hulkster]

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yates looks leaps & bounds better

[pobrecito]

This back relaxed shot is simply outstanding, with no flaws. Dorian looked excellent in 1992. Now Hulkster, if you could post a back relaxed shot of Shawn Ray equalling this by Dorian your argument that he should have beaten Yates several times would hold more credence. Unfortunately, you cannot achieve this task.

[NarcissisticDeity]

That's not the case, though, seeing that the judges never got to compare Ronnie and Dorian at their respective bests. This debate is about our opinions, since we do not know theirs.

Further, you still haven't demonstrated why your argument of referring to the judges' superiority isn't a blatant argument from authority. As an obviously bright guy, I'm sure you know what this is.

I guess I'm not as bright as you give me credit for , please elaborate on the blatant argument from authority .