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

[IceCold]

the best back double bi shots i've seen







if really examine both, its hard to pick a winner.

ronnie's back is shorter and therefore look thicker (cue any short thick bber - priest, branch, etc.)

ronnie has the edge in arms, but yates has better calves and a better xmas tree (loose skin 

tough call.

[pumpster]

Back double-bi means that biceps should be prominent. Not so with the Yates, they're hiding, barely there.. Arm size in general doesn't stack up to torso.

[pumpster]

Yates has great back density and dryness, but when it comes to width & taper, no contest even when Coleman was smaller..

[IceCold]

Back double-bi means that biceps should be prominent. Not so with the Yates, they're hiding, barely there.. Arm size in general doesn't stack up to torso.

true, but at the same time there have been plenty of guys who've had outstanding arms in the back double bi -

priest, nasser, dillet, matarrazo, etc. who have been marked down bc their back isnt up to par.

so, its fair to say that the biceps in that pose are no where near the importance of having a good/great back. 

[Necrosis]

true, but at the same time there have been plenty of guys who've had outstanding arms in the back double bi -

priest, nasser, dillet, matarrazo, etc. who have been marked down bc their back isnt up to par.

so, its fair to say that the biceps in that pose are no where near the importance of having a good/great back. 

exactly, but ronnie does have a great back, hams, glutes, tris and bis in that pose. the others never had arms as good as ronnie, nor a back close to ronnies. the hams and glutes are easily his compared to anyone.

[IceCold]

exactly, but ronnie does have a great back, hams, glutes, tris and bis in that pose. the others never had arms as good as ronnie, nor a back close to ronnies. the hams and glutes are easily his compared to anyone.

true.

i was refering more to a general point, especially when people reference arms in the back double bi pose.

[Iceman1981]

Great shots here....

[Iceman1981]

.....

[Matt C]

Guys, can we get some of this discussion over on my board? 

http://forum.bodybuildingpro.com/showthread.php?t=3363

Would be much appreciated!  Thanks. 

[Hulkster]

the more I see of Ronnie 99, the more I believe that he would have had no trouble with dorian.

seriously.

other than the abs and calves, its really no contest.

[RocketSwitch625]

This is supposedly one of Coleman's strongest poses but I don't see too much happening in this particular shot. His arms are huge and detailed but what about the rest of the upper body? Doesn't look too impressive to me. Sorry nuthuggers.

[RocketSwitch625]

Smooth.

Owned.

[Jake_W]

1990 yates

http://ironage.us/yabbse/index.php?topic=15745.0

[IceCold]

This is supposedly one of Coleman's strongest poses but I don't see too much happening in this particular shot. His arms are huge and detailed but what about the rest of the upper body? Doesn't look too impressive to me. Sorry nuthuggers.

very true.

some of the best arms ever in that pose, but a torso that is pretty average.

total opposite of yates - best torso, but very average arms. 

[IceCold]

When Ronnie was 285 or higher it would have been no contest.  All this stuff about 2001 being his best ever is silly though - Dorian would definitely give smaller Ronnie a run for his money.  Ronnie in 1998-2001 might have a chance at his best, but a much greater chance at 285.

Hulkster - post on my board. 

i've said from the beginning that 2003 ronnie was his best ever.

[Hulkster]

When Ronnie was 285 or higher it would have been no contest.  All this stuff about 2001 being his best ever is silly though - Dorian would definitely give smaller Ronnie a run for his money.  Ronnie in 1998-2001 might have a chance at his best, but a much greater chance at 285.

Hulkster - post on my board. 

I disagree 100%.

Ronnie 2003 lost a lot of the advantages over a 1993 Dorian that the "smaller" 257 pound ronnie would have.

namely:

the supreme detail and quality that Ronnie 98/9 was known for (other than his abs) and fantastic taper (due to a tiny waist) were gone.  The quality was just not there in 2003 compared to his smaller forms. All it was was bloated mass. Certianly not his best ever presentation. not by a long shot.

I mean look at this:

[Hulkster]

notice: the 257 pound Ronnie has far better quality in the delts, arms and upper back, not to mention the tiny waist.

Ronnie at 287 is just puffy mass.  Huge mass yes, but there is a lot more to bodybuilding than just mass.

you need quality too:

and look at the massive drop in quality of Ronnie of 287 pound Ronnie compared to the Ronnie of old:

[Hulkster]

I think the only part of Ronnie that retained his former quality in 2003 was his glutes/hams, and arms in certain angles. from the front and side, his 2003 arms looked just as good as in 99. However, from the back in the rear double bi, they did not look as good.

[Hulkster]

screencap back comparison:

1999 vs 2003 Mr. Olympia

[Hulkster]

as we can see, 1999 Ronnie would kick 2003 ronnie's ass, even with the size differential

[RocketSwitch625]

Stupid legs.

[Bear]

Stupid legs.

Haha, yes they are ridiculous, and certainly not underwhelming. No squatting injury for Coleman.

Do you think this would beat them on stage in real life knowing what you know about IFBB judges?!

[Bear]

Similarly, do you think this:


Would really beat this?:



LMFAO

[Hulkster]

this is even scarier. the most impressive shots of dorian's entire career, and he gets owned by Ronnie.

[Hulkster]

Stupid legs.

no, these are stupid legs.