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

[Iceman1981]

The scale is wrong as usual.

Can you f*ucking do better?

It's not my fault yates has smaller arms, delts and chest than Coleman. Live with it.

[pobrecito]

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=69359.msg2135588#msg2135588

"You know. For a guy that " claims" Ronnie is his second favourite bodybuilder of all time, you keep bashing Ronnie. You keep putting down Ronnie, insulting him, making fun of him, you say he is ugly, you take chep shots at him, you mock him, you make fun of his physique. If you like someone, you like someone. You don't bash them like the way that you do. You show respect."

Answer the post bytch. Until then, shut the fuck up.

You shut the fuck up. I like Coleman's nonchalant, fun approach to bodybuilding. That doesn't mean that I can't point out that he at times acts like a moron. Are you denying that Ronnie made an absolute fool of himself on that video?

[pumpster]

  All of these quotes are made meaningless because Ronnie was defeated by Gunther and Jay, two blocky White guys. Invincible? Hardly.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

In that case you and others can never use quotes again to make the case, having again tried to change the subject when unable to refute the quotes provided.

[Hulkster]

he was dryer and harder overall everytime.

get it.

is this how you counter the overwhelming reality:

seriously, is that the best you can come up with to counter the FACTS:

LOL you type stuff that is not validated by anything:

dorian was harder in the abs and lower back.

THATS IT:

[Hulkster]

LOL and there we have the loose folds of skin appearing again, on someone who is supposedly "much harder overall"...

get real.

get some validating evidence or shut up with the hype.

sure, dorian may have been the hardest guy during the mid 90's, but peak ronnie had not yet arrived.

[pumpster]

dorian was harder in the abs and lower back.

THATS IT:

Not quite. Ice gets hard just thinking about this.

[IceCold]

is this how you counter the overwhelming reality:

seriously, is that the best you can come up with to counter the FACTS:

LOL you type stuff that is not validated by anything:

dorian was harder in the abs and lower back.

THATS IT:

disagree.

every video i've seen, yates is harder and dryer.  

[IceCold]

was the purpose of this pic show yates triceps and/or how small shawn is?

[D_1000]

Dorian is clearly superior. I don't see the need for all this discussion about it.

[IceCold]

In that case you and others can never use quotes again to make the case, having again tried to change the subject when unable to refute the quotes provided.

totally incorrect.

yates dominated, beat the best, and went out on top.

every quote about him reflects that. 

[pumpster]

was the purpose of this pic show yates triceps and/or how small shawn is?

I like the way ice completely ignores the huge bowling ball pot to go with the 17" arms LOL

[Hulkster]

was the purpose of this pic show yates triceps and/or how small shawn is?

actually, I think it was to show that dorian's arm complex is 98% triceps, 2% deltoids and 0% biceps..

[pumpster]

totally incorrect.

yates dominated, beat the best, and went out on top.

every quote about him reflects that. 

Again, nothing to refute the overwhelming proof provided in quotes as to Coleman's dominance. In which case keep changing the subject there's really no choice left.

[Hulkster]

disagree.

every video i've seen, yates is harder and dryer.  

please post a video showing dorian against a Ronnie 99 or Ronnie 2001 AC.

 

the facts are, dorian was really really hard.

but a few years after his reign, someone came along who had his overall hardess (actually, much much harder in most areas, esp from the front) and his size, but had a taper and lines dorian never ever had.

that man was ronnie coleman.

[IceCold]

Again, nothing to refute the overwhelming proof provided in quotes as to Coleman's dominance. In which case keep changing the subject there's really no choice left.

no one is changing the subject.

you cannot be this stupid.

sucky replied that the quotes are invalid bc ronnie lost to gunter and ronnie.

you said the samething about yates' quotes.

but yates never lost.

was that so difficult to understand?

talk about changing the subject - where still waiting for an explanation about the bowflex.  you have avoid that for about 800 pages now.

[Hulkster]

Perfect example right here (one of hundreds of comparisons, actually),

here we have dorian in his 92 shape, which was even harder (but not nearly as big) as his 93 form.

and yet, Ronnie 99 shows him what conditioning is really all about:

[Hulkster]

its not meant to take anything away from dorian.

its just progess.

the best the sport had seen up until Ronnie's reign was dorian 93.

Ronnie took it to the next level.

jay has dropped it back down a notch...

[IceCold]

please post a video showing dorian against a Ronnie 99 or Ronnie 2001 AC.

 

the facts are, dorian was really really hard.

but a few years after his reign, someone came along who had his overall hardess (actually, much much harder in most areas, esp from the front) and his size, but had a taper and lines dorian never ever had.

that man was ronnie coleman.

coleman was not known for his hardness.

and if i have to post every olympia review, where hardness is not even mentioned with his name, then i will.

for instance, mcgough sites priest as being the hardest in 98 and cormier in 99.

[D_1000]

please post a video showing dorian against a Ronnie 99 or Ronnie 2001 AC.

 

the facts are, dorian was really really hard.

but a few years after his reign, someone came along who had his overall hardess (actually, much much harder in most areas, esp from the front) and his size, but had a taper and lines dorian never ever had.

that man was ronnie coleman.

Please, wipe your chin.

[Hulkster]

coleman was not known for his hardness.

thats because he was known for his total package.

dorian was known for his back and size.

ronnie was known for his back, size, taper, hardness and detail.

and besides, the fact that ronnie 'was not known' for his hardness DOES NOT mean that ALL THE EVDIDENCE we are showing in this thread is NOT REAL..

[IceCold]

Perfect example right here (one of hundreds of comparisons, actually),

here we have dorian in his 92 shape, which was even harder (but not nearly as big) as his 93 form.

and yet, Ronnie 99 shows him what conditioning is really all about:

no way yates was better in 92.

ronnie was NEVER this hard.

[IceCold]

thats because he was known for his total package.

dorian was known for his back and size.

ronnie was known for his back, size, taper, hardness and detail.

and besides, the fact that ronnie 'was not known' for his hardness DOES NOT mean that ALL THE EVDIDENCE we are showing in this thread is NOT REAL..

wrong.

if it was known for him being hard, it would have been printed.

stop making excuses.

[phyxsius]

Ronnie was known for his massive size and detail.. Never about hardness.

 NEVER

[Hulkster]

wrong.

if it was known for him being hard, it would have been printed.

stop making excuses.

LOL so the fact that is was "not printed" makes all the real evidence presented in this thread wrong?

are you really that stupid?

 


LOL print this:

[Hulkster]

you guys are missing the whole point.

it doesn't matter what he was 'known for'.

all that matters is right here in front of you:

the fact is, dorian was not way harder overall.

open your eyes for a minute, don't worry about what was or was not printed in 8 years ago..