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

[natural al]

RONNIE WINS

well the title of the thread now says hulkster lost and since that's the official title I think you're a little off base with that comment. 

[pumpster]

yes we know hardness is a sign of conditioning of the skin, but so are striations and separation. u make it seem as though having all 4 quads separated (ronnie) and immense striations in his pecs (ronnie) are to be disregarded. if so, please shoot urself now as u have no right to judge a physique.

we all know ronnies skin didnt look as bone dry as dorian in most cases. but he more than made up for it with more striations and separation than dorian in the quads, arms and chest, from memory.

Agree with all of this, it's accurate. At their best, conditioning's about equal given that Coleman was clearly more shredded while Yates was drier.

[pumpster]

And don't forget Dorian's advantages in separations and striations as well not limited to, but including, calves, back, abdominals, chest, and triceps. 

Please carry on with your nose up Yates' ass with more one-sided assessments praise.

[Havenbull]

Where's ND ?

[natural al]

Where's ND ?

he's already won....the official title of the thread says that he won so that means he won.  The title of the thread wouldn't declare him the winner if he didn't really win.....

he's sweated it out for months and now he has the sweet satisfaction of winning....I mean the title of the thread has been changed to imply that he's won.....he's a trooper, never giving up...a ture inspiration to everyone on getbig.

[The_Schofeild_Kid]

haha... delusional white boys... dorian was great. but ronnie was ronnie.

[natural al]

haha... delusional white boys... dorian was great. but ronnie was ronnie.

I admire your "never give up attitude" but the game is over, hulkster has lost, that's what the title of the thread says.....man, just accept reality.  I mean you dont' go around argueing that "black" is really red do you?  It's just a known fact, just like this thread....hulkster lost...the thread wouldn't be named that if it wasn't true

[Havenbull]

he's already won....the official title of the thread says that he won so that means he won.  The title of the thread wouldn't declare him the winner if he didn't really win.....

he's sweated it out for months and now he has the sweet satisfaction of winning....I mean the title of the thread has been changed to imply that he's won.....he's a trooper, never giving up...a ture inspiration to everyone on getbig.

ND started the thread, which gives him the ability to change the title

[aussiepro]

this war is not over its just getting started... both were good but both recieved many gifts in there careers (ronnie in 2001 and dorian in 94).. this war will never be over.. but if i have to choose 1 i say.. RONNIE.. but i don't think he has the greatest physique of all time that belongs to flex

[pumpster]

he's already won....the official title of the thread says that he won so that means he won.  The title of the thread wouldn't declare him the winner if he didn't really win.....

Ridiculous assumption there.

[GoneAway]

  I never disregarded Ronnie's incredible separations and striations as signs of great conditioning; it is the Ronnie nuthuggers who completely disregard Dorian's hardness as meaningless. Their argument is that, since we can't measure it, it is not valid. The problem of course is that bodybuilding is a subjective and not objective sport, so just looking harder is perfectly valid.

  Read through my posts and you'll see that I have maintained that, at their respective bests, Dorian and Ronnie are equivalent in conditioning: Ronnie is more separated and striated, but Dorian is harder. The reason why the Ronnie nuthuggers want to disregard hardness and focus on separations and striations is because the latter two can be objectively assesed and they favor Ronnie. This would be fine if all the elements of conditioning could be mathematically measured, which they can't. Some can, like separations and striations, but others, like hardness, can't.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

they do favor ronnie, and personally, i think striations and separation are more important than being hard (though u have opened my eyes as far as striations and dryness being relatively equal), but it's less the striations than it is the separation that is important, if we're going to prioritise these qualities. see, with separation, comes a better view of the human body, which is what conditioning is all about. if dorian has less separation in his upper arms than ronnie, and therefore ronnie's brachialis is clearly visible to a slightly, if visible-at-all dorian, then ronnie has that extra muscle group advantage, even if dorian is harder.

[suckmymuscle]

they do favor ronnie, and personally, i think striations and separation are more important than being hard (though u have opened my eyes as far as all 3 being relatively equal), but it's less the striations than it is the separation that is important, if we're going to prioritise these qualities. see, with separation, comes a better view of the human body, which is what conditioning is all about. if dorian has less separation in his upper arms than ronnie, and therefore ronnie's brachialis is clearly visible to a slightly, if visible-at-all dorian, then ronnie has that extra muscle group advantage, even if dorian is harder. for quads, it's a tough call, as yes, u can see ronnie's quads more clearly, but dorian's were obviously still hard, and u can still know how big they were without all the separation. in the end, who knows. maybe it's nitpicky... i guess this is why this thread has gone on for so long.

  The evidence suggests that hardness is at least as important if not more than separations. The evidence? Branch Warren winning the New York Pro due to his incredible hardness over competitors who were far more separated than him. Dorian prevailing over Shawn Ray and Wheeler despite these two havin gfar more separations overral than him. Incredibly separated competitors being marked down at contests, etc, because they look soft, etc.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[GoneAway]

good point, but i dont want to look at this from an ifbb judges perspective. im seeing it from my own judging eyes, on who id pick as winner, as we all are, which is why weve come to different decisions. ray and wheeler were smaller than dorian where it mattered, and dorian owned them on the key poses. do u have a site where i can view the new york pro comparisons?

[natural al]

ND started the thread, which gives him the ability to change the title

Ridiculous assumption there.

ridiculous not knowing when a guy is totally kidding

[BEAST 8692]

good point, but i dont want to look at this from an ifbb judges perspective. im seeing it from my own judging eyes, on who id pick as winner, as we all are, which is why weve come to different decisions. ray and wheeler were smaller than dorian where it mattered, and dorian owned them on the key poses. do u have a site where i can view the new york pro comparisons?

how can this debate possibly draw to a conclusion if it comes down to subjective opinion

there has to be a set cirteria and suckmymuscle has provided the best criteria of all, the actual rules of competitive bbing.

based on the cirteria set down by the ifbb (anyone got any better suggestion - stfu Bay) select the competition pics that show the best of each competitor and vote on the winner along with some explanation for your choice.

[Necrosis]

  No, it is not pointless because bodybuilding is a subjective and not objective sport. "Looking harder" is a perfectly valid argument. Judges don't sit there looking for a scale to determine who is harder, and then count how many points each bodybuilder marks on it; they just look at it and know.


  First of all, while it's true that you can see who has more separations and striations by looking at the bodybuilders, I have never seen judges stepping onstage and counting which bodybuilder has more of it and then giving him conditioning based on that. Secondly, most things in bodybuilding are subjective. Fro instance, both Nasser and Wheeler have won pro shows, despite radically different shapes. Who's to say who's best? Dorian looked harder because his muscles looked subjectively harder to most people who've seen pics of Dorian and Ronnie,. and that's good enough.

  Wrong. Dorian's lower back appears more shredded because it is separated and striated, in the same way that Ronnie looks more shredded in his arms than Dorian. Being defined and hard are two different things. You can be ripped and still look soft, and you can be hard and be less ripped. Branch Warren is an example of a bodybuilder who is very hard but never had the incredible muscle separations of a Flex Wheeler or Ronnie Coleman.

  They were not as ripped as Ronnie's, but they were granite hard

  Ronnie's arms had more cuts than Dorian, but they did not look harder

  Actually, this is what McGough had to say about Dorian's conditoning:

  "No man has ever been as hard and dry as the man who won six Sandows."

SUCKMYMUSCLE

first off, subjective sports are useless, and judging is as standardized as possible hence objectivity. if it wasnt it would come down to preference.

i agree with your second reply.


show me a picture where dorians arms looks harder then this. if so explain your reasoning.

[suckmymuscle]

first off, subjective sports are useless, and judging is as standardized as possible hence objectivity. if it wasnt it would come down to preference.
.

  Bodybuilding judging is partially objective, but there is lots of subjectivity too. As an example, both Jay Cutler and Dexter Jackson have won the ASC, and they have radically different physiques. So how is judging "standardized"?

  There are things that can be evaluated mathematically, such as muscle mass, structure, symmetry, muscular separations, etc. But then, there are other things that are entirely subjective and cannot be evaluated in terms of degrees. Muscle hardness and shape are two examples.

  For instance, adding to the examples of Jay Cutler and Dexter Jackson, both Nasser and Wheeler have won pro shows, and their shapes are completley different. Subjectivity. Another example is vascularity: some judges score it up while others score it down.

  My point is that bodybuilding judging is not a completely mathematical sport like sprinting or swimming, in which the guy who crosses the line in one milisecond faster than the oither wins, or like powerlifting where the guy who benches 1 lbs more than the other wins the competition. It is both objective and subjective.

  Now, judges do evaluate physiques objectively to some degree when they look at bodybuilders to detemine who is bigger, has more separations, better proportions between muscles etc. But this still leaves a lot of room for subjecvity. For instance, Shawn Ray defeated many guys who objectively defeated him in the muscle mass category because the judges subjectively determine that his beautiful lines were more valuable than the objective superiority of his competitors over him in terms of mass.

  In conclusion, there are subjective aspects to bodybuilding and to conditioning. Muscle hardness is one of these. Now, I actually believe that hardness is objective, except that we don't know how to measure it, so it is up to opinion. You can look at Ronnie and consider him harder than Dorian in the same way that I consider Dorian harder than Ronnie, but most people regard Dorian as being harder, including arguably the most seasoned bodybuilding journalist alive, Peter McGough.

  "No bodybuilder has ever been as hard and dry as the man who won six Sandows."

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

ridiculous not knowing when a guy is totally kidding

Oh sure, you're quite the jokester.

[Hulkster]

the thing that I really find so stupid is that after 1500 pages of Ronnie 99 dominating dorian to the point where the dorian fans have:

1. avoided all visual evidence as best they can in favor of quotes because reality does not favor them
2. claimed 99 Ronnie shots are fake because they are so much better than dorian 93
3. claimed that dorian has 'special properties' that make him and only him look better in person, but no one else including ronnie..

 

is that now, a pre contest 270 pound bloated dorian video is posted, showing even worse quads, arms, smooth upper back, chest etc. than usual.. (but showing better calves) and ND freaks out as if dorian looks better precontest bloated than he did in contest in 93 where the evidence shows he would lose to 99 Ronnie.

does this make any sense?

hell no:

 

[Hulkster]

look at that.

ronnie is not even hitting the pose completely yet and his arms, delts, traps, quads etc.

destroy the bricklayers..

it makes no sense.

if this was some new footage of 93 olympia or something, I could maybe understand the reaction.

but the fact is that dorian looks FAR WORSE in that video than he did in contest shape in 93, with the exception of calves.

so, someone please explain this stupidity for me.

because it makes no sense at all..

[Hulkster]

like bloated precontest dorian could even come close to contest ronnie's quads..

 

like I said, someone better show me with some intelligence why the reaction from ND and Co.

becuase it borders on hysteria and delusion..

[Iceman1981]

Oh man, and they thought yates was big? Ronnie, 287 pounds 5 weeks out. Out masses yates by 18 pounds. Ronnie would just dwarf yates plus with better seperation, striations, drier, V taper, smaller waist, rounder muscle bellies etc.

[England_1]

Ronnie looks soft as shit there. Back is flat as a board too.

Big Yates crushes him on condition @ 269. Ronnie can only match @ 245.

[Matt C]

Ronnie looks soft as shit there. Back is flat as a board too.

Big Yates crushes him on condition @ 269. Ronnie can only match @ 245.

I give it to Ronnie with the 2000 shots VS. the 1993 shots.

[Andre Nickatina]

RONNIE SMOKES DORIAN