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

[pobrecito]

you could say the same thing about all the dorian screencaps.

However, that is bullshit because screencaps do not make people look any better than a pic does.

Screencaps do NOT ADD DETAIL. 

only a bodybuilder hitting the gym and dieting can do that.

for example, compare pic and screencap:

they are exactly the same:

Fine, then quit bitching about my comparison. It's the same fucking thing. It wouldn't have mattered if I used the picture I did or your screencap. Neither changes the fact that Yates had superior rear delts, lats, lower back and thicker lower lats, and superior calves in the real lat spread mandatory.

[Hulkster]

It is clear to see that the screencap enhances Ronnie's look.

of course it is. but it is NOT the fact that it is a screencap that is doing it.

it is the super bright lighting in the pic, vs. the darker more subdued lighting of the screencap.

Look at the double bi shot I posted - Ronnie is so washed out in the pic he looks WHITE!

Here is another comparison - there are a whole set of Ronnie pics that are ruined from lighting from 99. Here is a pic compared to the prejuding, where angle of light is much better:

Please tell me you can see the obvious difference in lighting that I am referring to:

[Hulkster]

Fine, then quit bitching about my comparison. It's the same fucking thing. It wouldn't have mattered if I used the picture I did or your screencap. Neither changes the fact that Yates had superior rear delts, lats, lower back and thicker lower lats, and superior calves in the real lat spread mandatory.

meltdown.

[pobrecito]

meltdown.

Hulkster, we achieved something by bringing our level of maturity up lately, don't bring it down again, ok?

[NeoSeminole]

Is this what the meaning of the whole thread has come down to? Ronnie's brachialis?

Let it go dude..

you don't know the crap that suckmyasshole spews from his mouth, otherwise you would understand why I won't let it go. He threatens other members who disagree with him, sends abusive personal messages, wishes cancer upon them, and routinely claims to rape men. He also brings up old posts and calls you a bitch if you don't respond to him, yet he's too much of a pussy to draw a circle on a pic.

oh, and I've caught him lying before to weasel his fagg*t ass out of a situation.

[Hulkster]

Hulkster, we achieved something by bringing our level of maturity up lately, don't bring it down again, ok?

you mean you're a teenager now?!?

ps you must have missed the Pillsbury Doughboy posedown with dorian

[pobrecito]

you don't know the crap that suckmyasshole spews from his mouth, otherwise you would understand why I won't let it go. He threatens other members who disagree with him, sends abusive personal messages, wishes cancer upon them, and routinely claims to rape men. He also brings up old posts and calls you a bitch if you don't respond to him, yet he's too much of a pussy to draw a circle on a pic.

Neo, lay it to rest.

I am in agreement with you 100%.

I also think that Hulkster has a valid point that Sucky's main arguments in his long paragraph's are completely wrong, thus rendering his whole argument invalid.

That being said, let's just move on with the debate.

[NeoSeminole]

Neo, lay it to rest.

I am in agreement with you 100%.

I also think that Hulkster has a valid point that Sucky's main arguments in his long paragraph's are completely wrong, thus rendering his whole argument invalid.

That being said, let's just move on with the debate.

alright, I'll drop it. I don't want to detract from the main discussion. Sorry guys.

[Hulkster]

I also think that Hulkster has a valid point that Sucky's main arguments in his long paragraph's are completely wrong, thus rendering his whole argument invalid.

good stuff.

I see I am not the only one who can see through the bullshit that Sucky farts out every day

[logical?]

You really are losing some of your edge logical.

Your argument does not hold due to the fact that it is the same exact shot from the same contest. Not to mention Ronnie was much better in the prejudging (where the picture comes from) compared to that screencap which is from the nightshow. It is clear to see that the screencap enhances Ronnie's look.

I am sick and tired of you all bitching about every comparison, you want your own, do it yourself. I have checked pictures of Ronnie's rear lat from the 2001AC and it looks exactly the same as the picture I used in my rear lat comparison.

It never fails with Coleman followers, anytime a comparison goes in Yates' favor there is always some excuse

That's bullshit. Who are you to say which picture provides an accurate representation of what Ronnie presented? It could be as you say, or it could also be as Hulkster says- but either way it's just speculation. It's not clear that the screencap enahnces Ronnie's look- or more to the point, it's as clear as it is that the pics you present take away from Ronnie's look. Why are you rejecting this- do you fear something about the pics Hulkster posts?

You bitch when someone posts a poor pic of Yates, so let the Colemaniacs do the same. Them presenting their case like yours is exactly why this thread has reached such a length.

[NarcissisticDeity]

That's bullshit. Who are you to say which picture provides an accurate representation of what Ronnie presented? It could be as you say, or it could also be as Hulkster says- but either way it's just speculation. It's not clear that the screencap enahnces Ronnie's look- or more to the point, it's as clear as it is that the pics you present take away from Ronnie's look. Why are you rejecting this- do you fear something about the pics Hulkster posts?

You bitch when someone posts a poor pic of Yates, so let the Colemaniacs do the same. Them presenting their case like yours is exactly why this thread has reached such a length.

The problem is they don't present their case , what they do is bash Dorian and say outlandish things and most of the this has been the more educated members correcting their numerous mistakes and out right lies , Camp-Coleman resorts to the most pathetic comparisons for a reason , they fear great shots of Dorian .

The lenghts they go to are just insane , Hulkster with his comments on Yates being the most overrated bodybuilder ever , and his conditioning is a myth and he should have lost the 1993 Mr Olympia to Flex and Shawn Ray is beating Yates in the back double biceps , Yates was overrated in 1995 ,  I mean seriously , this kid is ignorant of how competitive bodybuilding works and extremely biased against Dorian period.

[MikeThaMachine]

The problem is they don't present their case , what they do is bash Dorian and say outlandish things and most of the this has been the more educated members correcting their numerous mistakes and out right lies , Camp-Coleman resorts to the most pathetic comparisons for a reason , they fear great shots of Dorian .

The lenghts they go to are just insane , Hulkster with his comments on Yates being the most overrated bodybuilder ever , and his conditioning is a myth and he should have lost the 1993 Mr Olympia to Flex and Shawn Ray is beating Yates in the back double biceps , Yates was overrated in 1995 ,  I mean seriously , this kid is ignorant of how competitive bodybuilding works and extremely biased against Dorian period.

So true, they still have yet to acknowledge anything positive about Dorian. They (mostly pumpster) resort to posting the same few bad pics over and over for almost all comparisons. They (mostly pumpster) couldn't beat a 3yr old in a debate over a cookie and are truly sad sad little men.

[logical?]

The problem is they don't present their case , what they do is bash Dorian and say outlandish things and most of the this has been the more educated members correcting their numerous mistakes and out right lies , Camp-Coleman resorts to the most pathetic comparisons for a reason , they fear great shots of Dorian .

The lenghts they go to are just insane , Hulkster with his comments on Yates being the most overrated bodybuilder ever , and his conditioning is a myth and he should have lost the 1993 Mr Olympia to Flex and Shawn Ray is beating Yates in the back double biceps , Yates was overrated in 1995 ,  I mean seriously , this kid is ignorant of how competitive bodybuilding works and extremely biased against Dorian period.

I know, I know. But I don't bother criticising them because SUCKMYMUSCLE's done it all anyway 

[pobrecito]

That's bullshit. Who are you to say which picture provides an accurate representation of what Ronnie presented? It could be as you say, or it could also be as Hulkster says- but either way it's just speculation. It's not clear that the screencap enahnces Ronnie's look- or more to the point, it's as clear as it is that the pics you present take away from Ronnie's look. Why are you rejecting this- do you fear something about the pics Hulkster posts?

You bitch when someone posts a poor pic of Yates, so let the Colemaniacs do the same. Them presenting their case like yours is exactly why this thread has reached such a length.

I dare you to find one detail or separation present in the screencap that is not present in the photo I used.

Even if I had used the screencap for the comparison, that still wouldn't change the fact that Yates had a superior rear lat spread.

[Iceman1981]

You really are losing some of your edge logical.

Your argument does not hold due to the fact that it is the same exact shot from the same contest. Not to mention Ronnie was much better in the prejudging (where the picture comes from) compared to that screencap which is from the nightshow. It is clear to see that the screencap enhances Ronnie's look.

I am sick and tired of you all bitching about every comparison, you want your own, do it yourself. I have checked pictures of Ronnie's rear lat from the 2001AC and it looks exactly the same as the picture I used in my rear lat comparison.

It never fails with Coleman followers, anytime a comparison goes in Yates' favor there is always some excuse

2 versions of the pic.

[Iceman1981]

You really are losing some of your edge logical.

Your argument does not hold due to the fact that it is the same exact shot from the same contest. Not to mention Ronnie was much better in the prejudging (where the picture comes from) compared to that screencap which is from the nightshow. It is clear to see that the screencap enhances Ronnie's look.

I am sick and tired of you all bitching about every comparison, you want your own, do it yourself. I have checked pictures of Ronnie's rear lat from the 2001AC and it looks exactly the same as the picture I used in my rear lat comparison.

It never fails with Coleman followers, anytime a comparison goes in Yates' favor there is always some excuse

[pobrecito]

Thanks for proving my point Iceman.

Those pictures are exactly the same, despite being darker.

[Iceman1981]

Thanks for proving my point Iceman.

Those pictures are exactly the same, despite being darker.

Yes and you actually have proven hulksters point. More lighting on a pic makes a bodybuilder not look that impressive. The pics showing Yates and Coleman side by side are 2 totally different pics whith different lighting. Yates pic has less light which will show his cuts more and make him look more detailed. Where as the Coleman pic is washed out by light making him look smooth. So when I posted the 2 version of the pics, I actually proved that the comparison pics used for Yates and Coleman side by side shouldn't even have been used. Just to remind you, this is the pic that was used.

[pobrecito]

Yes and you actually have proven hulksters point. More lighting on a pic makes a bodybuilder not look that impressive. The pics showing Yates and Coleman side by side are 2 totally different pics whith different lighting. Yates pic has less light which will show his cuts more and make him look more detailed. Where as the Coleman pic is washed out by light making him look smooth. So when I posted the 2 version of the pics, I actually proved that the comparison pics used for Yates and Coleman side by side shouldn't even have been used. Just to remind you, this is the pic that was used.

ahh...no. You posted pictures above both light and dark and there is absolutely no difference in detail or separation. For example, take any rear lat picture of Coleman you would like. There still will be inferior rear delts, calves, and lower back thickness.

Oh, and Coleman looks smooth in that picture becuase he was smooth compared to Yates

[Iceman1981]

ahh...no. You posted pictures above both light and dark and there is absolutely no difference in detail or separation. For example, take any rear lat picture of Coleman you would like. There still will be inferior rear delts, calves, and lower back thickness.

Oh, and Coleman looks smooth in that picture becuase he was smooth compared to Yates

I seriously don't think you are understanding what is being said. More light on a bodybuilder will obviously make him look smoother. The Coleman pic is washed out with light making him look smooth. All of those Yates pics you posted have significantly less light makinging him look more hard, detailed and cut, where as the more light in Coleman pic is doing the opposite.

[pobrecito]

I seriously don't think you are understanding what is being said. More light on a bodybuilder will obviously make him look smoother. The Coleman pic is washed out with light making him look smooth. All of those Yates pics you posted have significantly less light makinging him look more hard, detailed and cut, where as the more light in Coleman pic is doing the opposite.

In that case, post a picture of Ronnie in "good" light to prove your point.

*edit- I also want to point out, I know you all think I use certain pictures of Coleman in comparisons to make Yates look better but this is simply not the case. At the time, that 99 rear lat was the best one I could find of Ronnie. That being said, I checked other years (2001AC, 2003O) and his lat spread looked the same.

[Iceman1981]

Here is a better pic of Coleman with less light making him look harder, more detailed, and cut than Yates than the other pic and there's still more light on Coleman than Yates.

[pobrecito]

2001 AC rear lat

[pobrecito]

Even in this comparison Yates is still superior. Superior lower back thickness and detail in the lats (teres major and minor far more defined than with Coleman) as well as superior rear delts. Yates also always had superior separation between his lower trapezius/lower lats/erector spinae. The calves that are cut off would be icing on the cake. Glutes and hams are a wash.

[Iceman1981]

Even in this comparison Yates is still superior. Superior lower back thickness and detail in the lats as well as superior rear delts. The calves that are cut off would be icing on the cake. Glutes and hams are a wash.

I give you that Yates has a thicker lower back, but you're actally telling me that Yates look more detailed especially in the lats in that pic than Coleman? Give me a break. Coleman is more detailed, seperated and ripped in the lats and upper back than Yates is there in the pic. Plus Colemans traps look bigger and thicker. I'm just not even going to debate on these 2 comparison pics anymore. I made my point which clearly was prooved.

P.S. I must be blind. I'm making an appointment to go and see the eye doctor tomorrow.