no, definition is not synonymous with conditioning. One is the manifestation of the other - big difference. The judges don't measure competitors on stage using hydrostatic weighing. So they rely on visual markers instead such as definition and density to assess each individual's conditioning. And to use your own argument against you, when was the last time you've heard someone say "his density was off?"
Dorian doesn't specify which version of himself and Ronnie he's comparing. For all we know, he could be referring to his 93 version and Ronnie's 03 package. You cannot apply his quote to every year (e.g. 94 Dorian vs 01 ASC Ronnie).
Lee Priest doesn't mention which version of Ronnie he's comparing Dorian to.
poor analogy. Paul Dillet was missing a back. Ronnie has the best back of all-time.
Jim Schmaltz – Flex, April 2002
“The 37-year-old Coleman has what many of the sport's analysts feel is the best back ever.”
Peter McGough - Flex, December 2006
"The best back ever lacked its eye-popping detail and fullness."
yawn, I'm still waiting for the quote along with its source where Dorian says he has better balance than Ronnie.
no, definition is not synonymous with conditioning. One is the manifestation of the other - big difference. The judges don't measure competitors on stage using hydrostatic weighing. So they rely on visual markers instead such as definition and density to assess each individual's conditioning. And to use your own argument against you, when was the last time you've heard someone say "his density was off?"
I'm sure you believe its not synonymous with conditioning just like you believe Ronnie 2003 is better conditioned than Dorian but that doesn't change the fact it is , you're play with words again. again which part of the these quotes mentioned the specific use of the word conditioning did you miss?
4. A lot of people say that you are the only pro bodybuilder that could go head to head with Ronnie Coleman. Like him, you were the only other to be able to gain so much mass in one year. What are your thoughts on this?
Dorian Yates A. I get asked that question all the time, and I can’t really give an answer. I have actually beaten Ronnie, but then he wasn’t at the stage he is now. He is probably carrying more muscle than I did, but
I feel I had better conditioning than him. It would be close but that’s down to the judge’s decision as always. All the things that we have in common – Lee Haney, Ronnie Coleman and myself – is that we are all stable mentally, training hard, not messing around partying. You have to keep the focus and it’s usually the mind that is the deciding factor, over physical capabilities.
please note he didn't say " I feel I had better definition than him "
Peter McGough : While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.
On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.
again no reference to ' the subject of definition ' you're hyperfocusing on a word because it shows you don't have anything
Has the quality of physique seen on the pro stage these days changed much compared to when you were competing as a professional?
Dorian Yates : I don't think the physiques have changed radically. I think a lot of people are trying to go the size route. My sole goal when getting ready for a contest was not building a lot of size, although when I was coming up pure muscle size was still very important. I was always really concerned about coming in
very sharp conditioning wise.
I think that is lacking a little bit now, and it has occurred over the past few years. You go to a pro show now and you see a couple of guys who are in really good shape and the rest of the lineup is so-so, or not so good. Back when I was competing in the Olympia I think you saw a lot of guys who were in really good shape.
There was a greater emphasis on conditioning, but now you see guys going for size at the expense of
conditioning. It seems strange me saying that, as I was known for my muscle size, but it was not my priority in getting ready for a contest. Obviously I carried a lot of muscle but my main thing was to come in super-ripped
wow see a pattern here?
First of all, Dorian would bring to the stage a package so massive and
freakily conditioned that throughout his career as Mr. Olympia no one would come close to defeating him on size and hardness. His level of development set a new standard in bodybuilding excellence, one that is being favorably looked upon, and replicated by many in the sport, today.
damn that word just keeps popping up
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and
in better condition at his best.
again do I really need to continue? and your attempt to use my argument against me is going to fall flat on its face because why? have I ever heard anyone say ' his density was off ' actually yes I have and posted the quote many times you should remember lol density relates to muscle hardness and when someone is soft that means their density leaves a lot to be desired like like these quotes
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY
OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98. In comparison to 98, his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep and his front delts have improved; plus the pec anomaly (gyno) is no longer present.
Impressive split biceps. An awesome back double biceps on which muscle fights with muscle to hang onto his frame. A big, big lat spead promted Dorian "backman" yates to comment, "ronnie looks like a cartoon character". when doing back poses, ronnie would hitch up his trunks to expose ripped glutes.
While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or
harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.
While I’m on record as saying that the best physique I ever saw was Ronnie’s at the 2001 Arnold, he was never drier or harder than Dorian. In fact now that – 14 years after it happened – I recently for the first time saw the video of Dorian posing before the 1993 Olympia I have cause to rethink. I’m now not sure that Ronnie at 245 pounds would beat Dorian at 269 pounds. At a bigger bodyweight I think Ronnie would look soft next to an in-shape rock-hard Dorian.
On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a
hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.
Peter Mcgough
"These words should not be taken lightly, because no bodybuilder has ever been as
hard and dry as the man who won six Sandows."
Flex Magazine October 2004 - Peter McGough’s commentary on the "voodoo" that has now reached ridiculous complexity when it comes to trying to "dry out" bodybuilders so they’re more ripped than any anatomy chart illustration on contest day. He quotes former Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates, who notes that despite the chemistry experiments with insulin and diuretics,
"I don’t see the guys getting any harder."Peter McGough
At 287 pounds on a 5'11" structure , Coleman presented an accumulation of muscle we have not seen before. Personally , I still feel his best-ever form was the
harder and more detailed 247 pounds with which he won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic .
Oh snap looks like someone is wrong again
Dorian doesn't specify which version of himself and Ronnie he's comparing. For all we know, he could be referring to his 93 version and Ronnie's 03 package. You cannot apply his quote to every year (e.g. 94 Dorian vs 01 ASC Ronnie).
I think this quote applies in general , but for arguments sake I'm sure he's referring to at his best and I disagree because Yates said just in general he has better conditioning than Ronnie without getting specific this coincides with McGough's quote that Ronnie was NEVER as hard or as dry as Yates in fact , no one was lol but I think Ronnie perhaps did match Yates for that bone dry & rock hard look at his lightest in 1998 & 2001 and anything over that Ronnie's conditioning went South , confirmed by himself ( which I know you hate lol ) and McGough see above for 2003 compared to 2001 and supplement that with this
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 .again old news , Ronnie's conditioning deteriorates the heavy he became , so I'm willing to entertain Ronnie's
conditioning was at least equal ( despite the contrary arguments ) only when he was at his lightest 1998/2001 , you're high if you think Ronnie 2003 is equal nevermind better conditioned than Yates any year
Lee Priest doesn't mention which version of Ronnie he's comparing Dorian to.
Well he does sort of because that quote was made in general and it was from 2000 so we can include any version of Ronnie up until then and see above how Ronnie's conditioning fell off the map at heavier bodyweights
poor analogy. Paul Dillet was missing a back. Ronnie has the best back of all-time.
No great analogy because its how a much lighter competitor can beat a heavier one and my point still stands and what a typical fan-boy delusion " Ronnie has a better back " lmfao look its arguable that he has the best back its NOT set in stone when the topic arises Dorian & Ronnie are always mentioned for a reason both have outstanding backs , here are a few quotes stating that
FROM MARKUS RUHL
October 2000, FLEX page 166
"DORIAN YATES HAD THE BEST BACK IN THE HISTORY OF BODYBUILDING. HIS LAT SPREAD WAS UNBELIEVABLE. HIS SIZE, MASS, AND
CONDITIONING WERE PERFECT,"
Samir Bannout who had one of the best backs mind you on Cutler 2001
Jay Cutler blows the other bodybuilders away with the crisp detail of his muscularity from top to bottom. He has superior calves, hamstrings and glutes. His back is detailed and big, but it does not match up well against Ronnie, who has the second-best back in the history of bodybuilding behind the great Dorian Yates
Ronnie has the second best back behind the great Dorian Yates
Ronnie Coleman : DESCRIBE DORIAN YATES: A close friend. Dorian is very intelligent, a great Mr. Olympia. He had the best side-chest pose and the thickest freakiest back I have ever seen.
Again it works both ways , its open for debate its not set on stone .
yawn, I'm still waiting for the quote along with its source where Dorian says he has better balance than Ronnie.
No you're not , you got the quote and the source you just don't like the message lol
Now go away you're boring me again , the novelty of
owning you is starting to wear off .
