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

[Hulkster]

I'm still waiting for this "noticable difference" in dryness from 98 to 99 to become, well, noticable...

[NarcissisticDeity]

yeah, it must be the "crappy scan"..

 

Why not use your usual? not all scans are crappy but the ones you usual post to confirm your point are not the best examples and you diliberately use bad pics because you're scared to use great ones , I do an excellent job scanning pics but they don't tell the whole story AND they don't do Yates justice I can quote all the people who say photos & video don't do Yates justice , but you get the point , then again you don't. taking that into consideration isn't it a bit unwise of you to make such hasty claims? to challenge eye witnesses accounts? lol its YOU who thinks you have it all figured out but like I've done countless times before I've exposed you for how little you really know  I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything , but I sure as fuck know a LOT more than you.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I'm still waiting for this "noticable difference" in dryness from 98 to 99 to become, well, noticable...

I posted two comparison photos , two video comparisons and two quotes , ontop of that I gave you specifics on where he is not as hard or dry , I've covered all my bases and your retort is " I don't see any difference " and " Peter McGough is just wrong " lol you can't counter this.

[Hulkster]

I posted two comparison photos , two video comparisons and two quotes , ontop of that I gave you specifics on where he is not as hard or dry , I've covered all my bases and your retort is " I don't see any difference " and " Peter McGough is just wrong " lol you can't counter this.

ND, no one else sees any difference in the comparisons I posted either...

Peter's quote/opinion is unsupported. plain and simple.

and where are the specific areas that ronnie was softer?

the upper back is the same, this has been proven.

the quads are even MORE dry in 99 than they were in 98.

same holds true for the arms, chest and delts (see any of the countless 99 most musculars).

the glutes and hams were the same if not more ripped in 99..

the ONLY area where he was softer was the midsection.

thats it.

so, he was softer in the midsection but much harder in the quads.

equal at least everywhere else.

so, its a tie.

there was no overall difference

[IceCold]

dorian dwarfing nasser with arms that are just as big.

remember in 98 and 99 when nasser drawfed coleman - despite ronnie weighing the same as dorian did.

[NeoSeminole]

dorian dwarfing nasser with arms that are just as big.

Dorian is standing closer to the camera. In person, Nasser is 1 inch taller than Dorian.

[pobrecito]

Dorian in 95 was untouchable by anyone at the time. A 99 Coleman vs. 95 Yates would have been a titanic clash ala Yates/Haney in 91.

[IceCold]

Dorian is standing closer to the camera. In person, Nasser is 1 inch taller than Dorian.

its a straight on shot. 

 

[Hulkster]

what is all this crap that keeps popping up now and then about Nasser NOT dwarfing dorian?

he dwarfed dorian just like he did Ronnie in 98:

 

he had bigger quads, bigger arms, bigger chest etc..etc..

[pobrecito]

Hulkster, you are a moron if you think Nasser ever "dwarfed" Dorian.

[NeoSeminole]

its a straight on shot.

How is that relevant?

[Hulkster]

nassers arms AND quads were both noticably bigger than Dorian's..just as they were bigger than Ronnie's in 98.

not sure if Nasser's arms and quads would have been bigger than Ronnie's in 99 because by that point his arms and quads were enormous, but definately 98.

[Hulkster]

in 98, Ronnie and Nasser had arm and quads that were almost identical in terms of size.

but check out how small their arms make Little Flex's look

[IceCold]

if you ever saw the video, you would see things totally different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DsxyqCkeuI



here's a reminder.

[IceCold]

How is that relevant?

you said dorian was closer the camera.

its a straight on shot; hence the camera is in front of them and they are standing side by side.

no one is closer than the other to the camera.

[IceCold]

in 98, Ronnie and Nasser had arm and quads that were almost identical in terms of size.

but check out how small their arms make Little Flex's look

could nasser be any further away from the camera.

you insist on using pics that only agree with what your saying - despite how wrong and incorrect it is.

that's why i keep referencing videos. 

there is no issue about shitty quality from the pics you scanned from magazines from 1998 or someone closer or further away from the camera.

[pumpster]

could nasser be any further away from the camera.

you insist on using pics that only agree with what your saying - despite how wrong and incorrect it is.

that's why i keep referencing videos. 

there is no issue about shitty quality from the pics you scanned from magazines from 1998 or someone closer or further away from the camera.

What a pathetic argument-find a better shot and post it then, you whiny little bitch, or STFU. If you haven't figured it out yet, your "refrencing videos" were done by me and others about 500 pages ago, with the same sad losing outcome for losers like you. hahahahahahahaahahah

[NeoSeminole]

you said dorian was closer the camera.

its a straight on shot; hence the camera is in front of them and they are standing side by side.

no one is closer than the other to the camera.

gee, so I guess Nasser magically grew 4 inches. After all, it's a straight on shot. It's impossible for one person to be standing closer to the camera than the other.

[Hulkster]

go easy on Icehole.

he's a little slow.

I mean, how would you feel if the kids on the short school bus made fun of you everyday?

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND, no one else sees any difference in the comparisons I posted either...

Peter's quote/opinion is unsupported. plain and simple.

and where are the specific areas that ronnie was softer?

the upper back is the same, this has been proven.

the quads are even MORE dry in 99 than they were in 98.

same holds true for the arms, chest and delts (see any of the countless 99 most musculars).

the glutes and hams were the same if not more ripped in 99..

the ONLY area where he was softer was the midsection.

thats it.

so, he was softer in the midsection but much harder in the quads.

equal at least everywhere else.

so, its a tie.

there was no overall difference

I love you say that Peter has nothing to back up his claim , and your claim is backed up with pictures lol and he was there , thats hysterical !!  I posted two pictures , two videos and two quotes , but a lengthy explanation where and why he's not as hard and dry , you've been proven dead wrong and now you're playing dumb , Oh wait you're not playing  anyway go back and find it again .

[Hulkster]

I love you say that Peter has nothing to back up his claim , and your claim is backed up with pictures lol and he was there , thats hysterical !!  I posted two pictures , two videos and two quotes , but a lengthy explanation where and why he's not as hard and dry , you've been proven dead wrong and now you're playing dumb , Oh wait you're not playing  anyway go back and find it again .

what you fail to understand is all it takes is one set of good quality comparisons showing no real differnence in hardness in a few poses is all it takes.

remember: the best quality pic in the world cannot make a soft bodybuilder look ripped.

if he is ripped in the pic, he is ripped in real life.

BUT someone who is ripped can look soft, due to not completely flexing or really really bad lighting.

but it doesn't work the other way.

Showing ripped detail is the limiting factor.  If ronnie is ripped in even just a few photos, he was ripped in real life.

Observe ND: 99 vs 98 comparisons:

no real difference.  the detail is there. the camera did not put it in..

[Hulkster]

do you see what I am getting at?

you have some pics where Ronnie looks softer.

I have pics where Ronnie looks hard.

Now, which is the real truth?

the answer is clear: if you are soft, no matter how good the pic is, you will not look ripped. Period.


but, you can be ripped and still look soft, simply by not contracting fully at the time of the snapshot, or in extreme cases, really really bad lighting.

You really should take that class in bodybuilding 101. They have some remedial work that would be good for you to brush up on..

[Hulkster]

Dorian asked Father Christmas (thats Santa to the British) that he wants to look like ronnie for christmas:


 

but wait! dorian was better conditioned!!:

 

[Yorkie T]

Ronnie uses a bowflex.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Please watch the video of the 1999 Mr Olympia and stop it at exactly 02.28

and you will see this picture

you remember the one you said " he's not even done flexing yet " your usual excuse , as you can see its the exact same frame that is stopped in the above pic and guess what slick , he's fully flexing  so much for that excuse !! and WoW look at the difference between his hardness/dryness vs 1998 its night & day anyone with an ounce of knowledge can clearly see Ronnie 1998 is much sharper in 98 this can be clearly seen in the separation of the teres major & minor , the traps , and the lats as well as his lower back which is all much tighter , in 1998 his skin looks shrink wrapped around his muscles and 1999 it looks softer and fuller , and watch the 1998 footage again and pause it at 01.12 and then again at 03.25

and compare how dry his back is to 1999 a very noticeable difference , now combine that with these pics and quotes and you're out of luck !!

Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001

RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .