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

[sculpture]

I'll tell you why its been used lol because Hulkster thought he accompliahed something by doing so but again what does it show bias 

Yet you still post that average MM shot time and time again.

It doesn't actually accomplish anything.

[pumpster]

I'll tell you why its been used lol because Hulkster thought he accompliahed something by doing so but again what does it show bias 

What a horrible example to use, one of bodybuilding's worst MMs against Coleman's, one of the best ever-unless the point is to confirm Coleman's dominance.

[pumpster]

LOL this is classic....ND going 1 on 5, yet owning everyone in sight hahaahahahaa

Man is pubes all over ND's nutsack or what LOL how embarassing. Owning in words only bwhahahahaha

[pumpster]

It's clear that ND's on the ropes, reminds me of Hatton say around the beginning of the 10th round LOL

[suckmymuscle]

  FLEX Magazine, October issue, 2004, page 84:

  Mr.Olympia preview on Ronnie, discussing his weaknesses:

  "Ronnie has never put together two sucessive years of pure domination."

  This clearly shows that Ronnie cannot possibly be the greatest Mr.Olympia ever. Out of his 8 Olympias, he won only 4 with striaght-firsts scores. Compare that to Dorian, who won 5 out of 6 with straight-firsts. That means that:

  Ronnie = 50% of his Olympias with straight-firsts scores

  Dorian = 85% his Olympias with straight-firsts scores.

  I believe that dominance is measured more accurately analysing number of straight-firsts victories than by number of titles. If the Ronnie side can claim that Ronnie is greater than Dorian because he won more Olympias, then I claim that Dorian is better because he had more dominating win.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

Ronnie himself said he was better conditioned in 1998 but I'm sure you guys know more than him lol sitting at home on your PCs lmfao

actually, I do believe I know more than Ronnie. Have you ever listened to the man speak? He may be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived but he's not exactly the greatest intellectual.

[England_1]

actually, I do believe I know more than Ronnie. Have you ever listened to the man speak? He may be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived but he's not exactly the greatest intellectual.

Are you claiming you know the man's body better than he does himself? 

[pumpster]

I would put Coleman's own knowledge as ok but nothing special, arguably as far down the food chain as ND's in fact. The difference is Ron actually lifts in lieu of ND's blather.

[pumpster]

Are you claiming you know the man's body better than he does himself? 

Consider the source, someone with lips permanently wrapped around Yates nutsack LOL

[England_1]

Consider the source, someone with lips permanently wrapped around Yates nutsack LOL

What's with all the homoerotic references?

Is that your boyfriend in your avatar? 

[bizzy]

he had a gut in 99 and 2001 is hailed as his best because , you guessed he had better fucking conditioning than 1999 , thanks for proving my point if 1999 he was just as hard and just as dry as 2001 his 1999 Mr Olympia appearance would be heralded as his best ever because he would be lacking nothing he would have had been 257 pounds instead of 245 pounds while being bone dry & rock hard , the difference is he wasn't bone dry & rock hard in 1999 hence why it's not his best showing , Ronnie himself said he was better conditioned in 1998 but I'm sure you guys know more than him lol sitting at home on your PCs lmfao

You sound angry and defensive and all the physical evidence contradicts
almost everything you just stated.
It's proven all through this thread in pictures and on video.
He may have been drier in 2001 but was less full and that lack of fullness
makes him look less impressive. 12 pounds less impressive... and on Coleman's
frame that makes all the difference. 

[pumpster]

What's with all the homoerotic references?

Is that your boyfriend in your avatar? 

England's idolatry of Yates has reached embarassing new lows. Unfortunately noticed by others:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=187852.0

[England_1]

noticable

spell check ya dweeb 

Pumpy: 14,000+ worthless posts and continuing LOL

[England_1]

A rear lat spread WITHOUT EQUAL:

[England_1]

Check the ripped, trim waist:

[England_1]

Pumpy likely waiting for the groupies to deny Coleman's lackluster frontside at the 98O LOL:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=188441.25

[Necrosis]

Are you claiming you know the man's body better than he does himself? 

YES you fucking moron, ronnie claimed nothing was wrong with his back or tricep, that he thought he looked his best before pre judgin in 06, the man is a moron.

[pumpster]

YES you fucking moron, ronnie claimed nothing was wrong with his back or tricep, that he thought he looked his best before pre judgin in 06, the man is a moron.

hahahahha pubes/england owned once again.

[pumpster]

A rear lat spread WITHOUT EQUAL:

Um, well maybe "right up there" but not quite LOL

England once again smitten, love googles in full effect.

[pumpster]

Check the ripped, trim waist:

Are you in love or what? His waist was nothing compared to Coleman, Wheeler, etc.

[Matt C]

A rear lat spread WITHOUT EQUAL:

I disagree, but talk about superb conditioning.

[NeoSeminole]

A rear lat spread WITHOUT EQUAL:

these are better.

[pumpster]

A rear lat spread WITHOUT EQUAL:

So much for "without equal".

[NarcissisticDeity]

actually, I do believe I know more than Ronnie. Have you ever listened to the man speak? He may be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived but he's not exactly the greatest intellectual.

Neo I hope you're not serious.

[NarcissisticDeity]

You sound angry and defensive and all the physical evidence contradicts
almost everything you just stated.
It's proven all through this thread in pictures and on video.
He may have been drier in 2001 but was less full and that lack of fullness
makes him look less impressive. 12 pounds less impressive... and on Coleman's
frame that makes all the difference. 

How does one sound ' angry and defensive ' on a message board? and again who are you to tell Ronnie when his best year was? and those pictures didn't prove anything you see what you want to see , McGough and Ronnie himself both reference he was better conditioned in 1998 and we've already established pictures aren't an accurate means to ascertain such things , you think you're going to tell two people on is the man in question if he's better conditioned one year or the next , despite never once seeing either of the contests in question? this makes sense to you? you're comfortable in typing this? LOL

my point stands 1999 is never quoted as his best showing , for a reason . some say 1998/2001/2003 never 1999 and the reason it's not is because his conditioning is lacking that extreme dryness & rock hardness he had in 1998 and 2001 . he was fuller in 1999 with very good conditioning just not as great as the other years he actually looks better fuller but make no mistake that fullness came at a cost.