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

[logical?]

you are so used to seeing no/ small calves on competitors that of course yates look too big. yeah maybe his arms could be a little bigger but you are always comparing with ron who has super high peaked bis.
think of how much more powerful and balanced ron would look with a big real pair of calves.

Yeah, I agree. Ronnie has massive calves, but the rest of him is so huge they probably need to be bigger than they are. They obviously need to be more defined and better shaped- I guess it's just genetic. I'm sure when he sees himself in the pictures of the 2003 Olympia, crushing Jay from head to knee he is disappointed with knee-to-ankle.

[suckmymuscle]

blah blah blah, more sophomoric "chest thumping" from suckmyasshole.

  More sophomoric denials, on the part of NeoSperminole, about having been owned by SUCKMYMUSCLE.  When you have some content to citicize in my posts, then come back. I'm still waiting for you to prove that:

 1. Ronnie's lats were as wide as Dorian's in 1999. Interesting assertion, considering that every bodybuilding writer regarded Dorian's lats as the thickest&widest in bodybuilding history until Ronnie supassed him in 2003. My contention is that, since they weighted the same and yet Ronnie's quads were bigger, it is likely that what made they weight the same was Dorian's thicker&wider back.

 2. Ronnie's distended gut was "under control" in most rounds in 2003, this despite the enormous evidence otherwise that demonstrated that his abdominal distension was visible in all rounds.

 3. That the inner head of the triceps is visile, in it's entirety, in any other angle than from the front, while executing the front double biceps. In the rear lat spread and in the relaxed back round, only the back part of these two ticeps heads are visible. It is my contention that no bodyubuilder has ever won the rear lat spread o the relaxed back round by virtue of greater inner and medial triceps head thikness; it is insignificant.

  After you prove those points, you will have gaduated into something that is even on my level of debate. Until then, little boy, you can go...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

they competed against each other when Ronnie was so infantile he placed 9th through dead last at the Olympia contests.

then, he peaked, and took physiques to another level.

just compare these gallaries, and you will clearly see the difference:

http://www.ironman-israel.com/gallery/coleman.htm

http://www.ironman-israel.com/gallery/yates.htm

Ronnie had a quality to his physique that dorian lacked except in the abs and lower back..

once Ronnie's body filled out and he got razor sharp, it was game over.

  Well, I have been to the 1996 Olympia and seen videos of both the 1996 and 1997 Olympias, and I think that Ronnie's major shortcomings were that he was flat and soft. In terms of muscularity&symmetry, I'm being honest when I tell you that I didn't see many improvements in Ronnie from 1997 to 1998 and 1999.

  What I mean by this is that his muscles had roughly the same diameter in 1998 and 1999 than they did in 1997, and Ronnie's symmetrical flaws were the same as before. I do agree with you that made a dramatic difference in how Ronnie looked, but the bottom line is that Ronnie wouldn't be able to surpass Dorian in muscularity&symmetry from most angles and while contracting most muscles, and this is the bottom line of a contest.

  My contention here is that the 1999 Ronnie might prevail over Dorian, but it would be up to the judges. It is very rare for a bodybuilder who is surpassed in muscularity&symmetry by another to defeat him, but the judges have done this in some very special occasions. Wheeler is an example of a bodybuilder who regularly got defeated in muscularity, and yet won contests. The problem here is that Ronnie is not Wheeler. Unlike Ronnie, the latter has close to none symmetrical flaws, and his shape is far more dramatic than Ronnie's. By that I mean that Wheeler has round muscle bellies like Ronnie, but to a dramatically greater degree.

  Now, the 1999 Ronnie would defeat Doian in separations and striations, and that would definitely win him points against Dorian. But regardless, Dorian can counter that with his unsurpassed hardness, and judges do seem to love hard muscles. The thing is that Dorian would have greater muscularity overrall, and less symmetrical liabilites from most angles. I would say that would give Dorian 50% of the points. The other 50% would be up to the judges, and as many of them have shown that they prefer tight muscles as there are those that love incredibly separated and striated muscles. If Ronnie wins this other 50%, then they would be tied. The final decision would be completely arbitrary and dependent on the tastes of the judging panel. Trust me on this one: I have been to over one hundred shows, both amateur and pro, including the 1996 Olympia in Chicago, so I know how it would pan out in the end.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[logical?]

  Well, I have been to the 1996 Olympia and seen videos of both the 1996 and 1997 Olympias, and I think that Ronnie's major shortcomings were that he was flat and soft. In terms of muscularity&symmetry, I'm being honest when I tell you that I didn't see many improvements in Ronnie from 1997 to 1998 and 1999.

  What I mean by this is that his muscles had roughly the same diameter in 1998 and 1999 than they did in 1997, and Ronnie's symmetical flaws were the same as before. I do agree with you that made a dramatic difference in how Ronnie looked, but the bottom line is that Ronnie wouldn't be able to surpass Dorian in muscularity&symmetry from most angles and while contracting most muscles, and this is the ottom line of a contest.

  My contention here is that the 1999 Ronnie might prevail over Dorian, but it would be up to the judges. It is very rare for a bodybuilder who is surpassed in muscularity&symmetry by another to defeat him, but the judges have done this is some very special occasions. Wheeler is an example of a bodybuilder who regularly got defeated in muscularity, and yet won contests. The problem here is that Ronnie is not Wheeler. Unlike Ronnie, the latter has close to none symmetrical flaws, and his shape is far more dramatic than Ronnie's. By that I mean that Wheeler has round muscle bellies like Ronnie, ut to a dramatically greater degree.

  Now, the 1999 Ronnie would defeat Doian is separations and striations, and that would definitely win him points against Dorian. But regardless, Dorian can counter that with his unsurpassed hardness, and judges do seem to love hard muscles. The thing is that Dorian would have greater muscularity overral, and less symmetrical liabilites from most angles. I would say that would give Dorian 50% of the points. The other 50% would be up to the judges, and as many of them have shown that they prefer tight muscles as there are those that love incredily separated and striated muscles. If Ronnie wins this other 50%, then they would e ties. The final decision would be completely arbitrary and dependent of the tastes of the judging panel. Trust me on this one: I have been to over one hundred shows, both amateur and pro, including the 1996 Olympia in Chicago, so I know how it would pan out in the end.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

This is, without doubt, the best post of the thread. Balanced, unbiased and fair, pretty much sums the whole debate up right there.

[suckmymuscle]

exactly. A quck scan through those galleries will quickly show you that once he peaked, Ronnie's fantastic muscle shape, detail and vascularity put him in a class far above dorian, even at his best.

dorian's granite look is not enough to overcome the underwelming qualities (in comparison to Ronnie) of most of his body.

calves and lower back are not enough.


there's no getting around it..

  But Wheeler had far more dramatic muscle shape, with even rounder muscles, and a refinement and separation that Ronnie could never touch. Add to this that Wheeler's joints were smaller, which made his muscles appear to be even rounder and fuller than they were. And yet, Dorian still defeated Wheeler with straight-firsts scores from all judges in all rounds at the 1993 Olympia. Wheeler might not have been at his best, but let me tell you that his conditioning was no worse than the 1999 Ronnie - although 1998 Ronnie was drier.

  My contention is that if Ronnie would defeat Dorian hypothetically in virtue of shape, separations and taper, than he'd have to be better at these attributes than Wheeler, which anyone can agree is not the case by a long stretch. Even taper is a push, because while Wheeler undoubtedly had better taper than Dorian from practically any angle, when it comes to Ronnie, this is only true when standing relaxed from the front.

  Bodybuilding contests are all about evaluating muscularity&symmetry from diffeent angles while contracting different muscles; everything else is a push. I believe Dorian would prevail over Ronnie in virtue of greater thickness coupled with less symmetrical liabilites in the side and back relaxed rounds, and at five of the mandatories - the side triceps, front lat spread, back lat spread, abs-and-thighs and back double biceps.

  All of this, added to Dorian's superior hardness, makes me think Dorian would prevail. Let me tell you that Ronnie's advantage in separations and striations would have to be "Wheeleresque" to tip the scales in his favor. Which is not the case. As for vascularity, I personally see it as a liability, but some judges like it. Look as Gunther, who had surgery to remove his ugly varicose veins. Many judges regard excessive vascularity as the hallmark of the amateur competitive bodybuilder, and reject it strongly in the pros. Maybe Dorian's relative lack of vascularity was one of the things that made him Mr.Olympia in the judges eyes. After all, most of the guys he defeated had more vascularity than he had.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Dorian's back didn't look good for size or width so much as conditioning and hardness.  Size wise he simply cannot match up with Big Ron.

  You're so wrong about this. Dorian's back was the best of it's era because it was the widest&thickest, while still having a level of separations comparable to that of much smaller bodybuilders, like Shawn Ray; the hardness was merely a bonus. Dorian wouldn't have won the relaxed back round and the rear lat spread is he didn't have the widest and thickest back in the business; he wouldn't have the best back double biceps if he didn't have the separations to go with it. No bodybuilder wins a contest in virtue of merely being harder. This is bodybuilding 101 for you.

  As for Ronnie's back being bigger, this is true when it comes to 2003, but Dorian could still hold his own in width. Ronnie 1998 and 1999 might have an edge in back separations, but Dorian's has an edge in this over the 2003 Ronnie. "Better back" is a stretch: the 1999 Ronnie might have a better back in terms of separations, but Dorian trounces him in width&thikcness. Now Ronnie 2003 has an edge in thickness, but Dorian's is more separated and much harder. Consider yourself owned.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

impressive lower back shot, but I would not call that complete when your calves are as big as your arms....




monster imbalance...

Calves , neck and arms are all supposed to be the same size , its something you strive for its called balance , you ever hear of the Greek Ideal? apparently not ! I can teach you but its on you to pay attention. 

[NeoSeminole]

Calves , neck and arms are all supposed to be the same size , its something you strive for its called balance , you ever hear of the Greek Ideal? apparently not ! I can teach you but its on you to pay attention.

oh brother, bringing up the 'greek ideal.' I wonder what the greeks would say about Dorian's H-taper.

[Hulkster]

oh brother, bringing up the 'greek ideal.' I wonder what the greeks would say about Dorian's H-taper.

LOL

[Hulkster]

But Wheeler had far more dramatic muscle shape, with even rounder muscles, and a refinement and separation that Ronnie could never touch. Add to this that Wheeler's joints were smaller, which made his muscles appear to be even rounder and fuller than they were. And yet, Dorian still defeated Wheeler with straight-firsts scores from all judges in all rounds at the 1993 Olympia. Wheeler might not have been at his best, but let me tell you that his conditioning was no worse than the 1999 Ronnie - although 1998 Ronnie was drier.

once again, overlooking a crucial point that changes everything:

Dorian was 30 pounds heavier than Flex and much wider.

Dorian was 0 pounds heavier than Ronnie and not any wider.

[Hulkster]

Calves , neck and arms are all supposed to be the same size , its something you strive for its called balance , you ever hear of the Greek Ideal? apparently not ! I can teach you but its on you to pay attention. 

newflash for the clueless ND:

the IFBB judges don't give a flying fuck about the "greek ideal"

hope this helps .

[natural al]

impressive lower back shot, but I would not call that complete when your calves are as big as your arms....




monster imbalance...

technically....when mags used to talk about perfect proportions waaaaaaay back in the early 90's it was a rule of thumb that the upper arms, calfs and neck should all have just about the same measurements so if you're saying his arms and calves are about the same than he's in perfect proportion according to the old rule of thumb that is.

sorry, just ducking in and out, I really don't want to be involved in this thread at this point but I wanted to point that out.

[Hulkster]

technically....when mags used to talk about perfect proportions waaaaaaay back in the early 90's it was a rule of thumb that the upper arms, calfs and neck should all have just about the same measurements so if you're saying his arms and calves are about the same than he's in perfect proportion according to the old rule of thumb that is.

sorry, just ducking in and out, I really don't want to be involved in this thread at this point but I wanted to point that out.

yes but in dorian's case, given the size of his upper body and quads, his arms are noticably undersized for his physique:


meeting the greek ideal is useless if your quads and upper body dwarf your arms.

I mean seriously - looks like twigs hanging off of a redwood tree.

[IceCold]

once again, overlooking a crucial point that changes everything:

Dorian was 30 pounds heavier than Flex and much wider.

Dorian was 0 pounds heavier than Ronnie and not any wider.

neither was ronnie.

however, yates was in better condition and didnt have gyno.

owned again, buddy.

[IceCold]

yes but in dorian's case, given the size of his upper body and quads, his arms are noticably undersized for his physique:


meeting the greek ideal is useless if your quads and upper body dwarf your arms.

I mean seriously - looks like twigs hanging off of a redwood tree.

great point.  you should be a judge.  are you?

[Bear]

It has been mentioned many many many times that ronnie's back makes dorian's look flat.

look at the THICKNESS of muscle on the lower back

Get in! Look at all those bumps ridges! Dorian don't got that kinda detail going on. His doesn't flare out in this insane way for sure, and Ronnie's arms and insane glutes just cap off the look. Unbelievable! 

[dearth]

impressive lower back shot, but I would not call that complete when your calves are as big as your arms....

Thank you for demonstrating to us all (yet again) how little you know about bodybuilding.
Calves and arms are SUPPOSED to measure equally, as that is one of many factors to be considered "balanced".
Try reading Arnolds encyclopedia sometime.

[kyomu]

Biggest problem of the body of yates is not arms but HIS THIN PECS!!

[IceCold]

Biggest problem of the body of yates is not arms but HIS THIN PECS!!

are you a judge/expert like hulkster as well?

[Iceman1981]

Quality? More like Quality Street. LOL

Quality? lol.

[Iceman1981]

Elaborate on your opinion.

Elaborate? The pics says it all that Coleman was, is and will forever be better. A pic is worth a thousand words.

[Iceman1981]

there is a whole lot more "upper back" than there is "lower back"

just like the biceps, delts, pecs, quads, glutes and hams are a whole lot more than just the calves and abs lol.

lol, that was a good one hulkster.
The only thing Yates has on Coleman are a lower back, calves and triceps. Everything else Coleman dominates. I still don't know why this blind nimrod can't see that. What a waste of a pair of eyes.

[IceCold]

lol, that was a good one hulkster.
The only thing Yates has on Coleman are a lower back, calves and triceps. Everything else Coleman dominates. I still don't know why this blind nimrod can't see that. What a waste of a pair of eyes.

chest - you mean when coleman doesnt have gyno?

glutes - who cares.  would you tell anyone if you were known for you glutes.

hams - equal. 

[Iceman1981]

Hulkster Ronnie can't match Yates in thickness and density of the traps , which is part of the upper back , as far as detail and development of the teres major , teres minor , and infraspinatus all again upper back , lats are probably a push in terms of sweep and Yates may have a slight edge in thickness , in terms of lower lack detail and development its absolutely not contest , in terms of detail and development and thickness of the erector spinae Yates is simply better than Ronnie , Yates has a more complete back.

These pics here and I mean these pics ends the discussion why Coleman has the better back. If you can't see it, then you never will. Coleman matches Yates in thickness, condition, seperation and beats him in both poses hands down.

[NeoSeminole]

daaaayum, Ronnie >>> Dorian.