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

[IceCold]

um, retard, Peter contradicts himself famously.

eg. on one hand  he says Ronnie 99 advanced the sport the night he won.

where and when did peter say that?

like i've said before, there is NOTHING from any publication, someone in attendance, etc. that said anything about ronnie in 99 setting a new standard.

and dont bitch about "visual evidence", back it up with something concrete.

your interpretation of pictures is about as concrete as piss.

[Hulkster]

where and when did peter say that?

like i've said before, there is NOTHING from any publication, someone in attendance, etc. that said anything about ronnie in 99 setting a new standard.

and dont bitch about "visual evidence", back it up with something concrete.

your interpretation of pictures is about as concrete as piss.

right here you moron:

 

ronnie 1999 is at the END of the list:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614

Instead of choosing a best-ever Mr. Olympia, maybe all one can do is reflect on 40 years of Olympia history and highlight those instances where the winner advanced the sport on that particular day. With that in mind, I would nominate the following.

Ronnie Coleman | 1999

from Peter fucking McGough

LOL

owned, and notice: Ronnie advanced the sport that night, and he came AFTER dorian yates

LOL

double owned.

[RocketSwitch625]

right here you moron:

 

ronnie 1999 is at the END of the list:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614

from Peter fucking McGough

LOL

owned, and notice: Ronnie advanced the sport that night, and he came AFTER dorian yates

LOL

double owned.

But Dorian Yates presented a far better physique 6 years earlier in 1993. He was better in terms of hardness and overall condition.

[RocketSwitch625]

Yates is better, we've seen enough evidence to last us a lietime.

[Iceman1981]

Yates is better, we've seen enough evidence to last us a lietime.

Since when does yates have 40 inch arms? LOL

[NarcissisticDeity]

right here you moron:

 

ronnie 1999 is at the END of the list:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614

from Peter fucking McGough

LOL

owned, and notice: Ronnie advanced the sport that night, and he came AFTER dorian yates

LOL

double owned.

Again he listed that in chronological order , just because Zane was listed after Arnold you think he advanced the sport more than Arnold? LOL get the fuck out of here and you keep typing this as if it means he's better than Dorian when Peter McGough prefaced the article saying specifically he couldn't choose a best Mr Olympia , and you with your limited abilities and poor comprehensions skills made the leap that he was in better condition in 99 when NO WHERE does it say he's hard or drier in 99 than 98 and here is the kicker jack ass

 Ronnie Coleman | 1999

In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.

This just crushes your dumb ass opinion that Ronnie 99 Olympia was the best he's ever looked and the best physique there ever was lol if Ronnie according to you had identical conditioning in 99 while being at least 10 pounds heavier than 2001 , why is this not considered by the masses as his best ever? I'll tell your ignorant ass why , because he wasn't as hard or as dry

Shawn Perine Ironage Dec 11, 2004

As much as I love Haney and my IA champs, I think Ronnie circa '98 or at the 2001 Arnold is pretty much untouchable. Except by Dorian Yates 6 weeks out from the '93 O as photographed by our own KMH. Both men, on those specific occasions carried so much dry muscle mass in good proportion and with good lines that it's almost unfair to compare them to others.

Shawn Perine again saying what many think 1998 or 2001 ASC  , where is 1999 Mr Olympia? lol


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 2001 Arnold classic where is the 99 Olympia? and what would Yates at 269 pounds do to little Ronnie? we all know  oh and what about Ronnie 99 Olympia? well lets find out

Taken out of FLEX nov 1999, page 90.  interview by jim schmaltz with ronnie before the 99 Olympia.

Jim:  What would have happened last year if Dorian Yates (recently retired winner of 6 straight Mr. Olympias) had competed?



Ronnie:  Dorian would have won again.


Jim: You think so?


Ronnie:  I know so.  Dorian has a big physique - hard- and he's been the man to beat, and its hard to knock the champion off the block.  He's a big guy and has a lot going for him.  He overcame so many adversities, like his torn biceps, I couldnt see too much else stopping him.

he doesn't think so , he knows so lol whats that tell you? and lets recap with last Monday night with Special Ed lol

Special Ed : Ronnie of Dorian competed in 1998 would you have smoked him?

Ronnie Coleman : NO I think he would have kept on winning as long as he competed I don't think he would have lost.

and where is the 99 Olympia? lol

Peter McGough Ironage Agust 23, 2007

What was the best Olympia you saw? It's close between 1988 and 1993. So many competitors in great shape in both and so many storylines in both.

So your lies , your made up quotes and your photoshopped pics were all for nothing and the best part of this whole thread is you were owned by your hero and me 

[Hulkster]

But Dorian Yates presented a far better physique 6 years earlier in 1993. He was better in terms of hardness and overall condition.

LOL sure

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport

bullshit - see for yourself.

[NarcissisticDeity]

LOL sure

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Coleman/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport

bullshit - see for yourself.

No bull shit thats a fact , how did Ronnie 99 advance the sport? did he advance the sport in terms of muscular bulk in 1999? NO Dorian was 269 pounds six years before thats not an advancement , did he advance the sport in terms of size & conditioning? NO Dorian was 257 pounds in 1993 with BETTER conditioning , did he advance the sport in terms of being complete? NO

using the IFBB criteria tell me exactly how he advanced the sport?

[Necrosis]

No bull shit thats a fact , how did Ronnie 99 advance the sport? did he advance the sport in terms of muscular bulk in 1999? NO Dorian was 269 pounds six years before thats not an advancement , did he advance the sport in terms of size & conditioning? NO Dorian was 257 pounds in 1993 with BETTER conditioning , did he advance the sport in terms of being complete? NO

using the IFBB criteria tell me exactly how he advanced the sport?

better overall package, shape, size, fullness, detail, conditioning and muscular insertions which where superior to dorian. all that combined. never had better conditioning, thats untrue.

[NarcissisticDeity]

better overall package, shape, size, fullness, detail, conditioning and muscular insertions which where superior to dorian. all that combined. never had better conditioning, thats untrue.

Shut up already , seriously you're the jackass who made the claim I didn't know how to formulate an argument and I fucking utterly crushed your stupidity and what did you do? not even respond

he never had better conditioning  my ass stop typing blanket statements and back up your claims and again using the criteria how does was he more advanced? size? NO conditioning ? NO density? NO balance? NO yates was all that in 1993

[Necrosis]

Shut up already , seriously you're the jackass who made the claim I didn't know how to formulate an argument and I fucking utterly crushed your stupidity and what did you do? not even respond

he never had better conditioning  my ass stop typing blanket statements and back up your claims and again using the criteria how does was he more advanced? size? NO conditioning ? NO density? NO balance? NO yates was all that in 1993

you responded with a novel like response that i couldnt waste my time reading with quotes that are pointless as they have been contradicted and are less informative then one second look at the pictures.

[NarcissisticDeity]

you responded with a novel like response that i couldnt waste my time reading with quotes that are pointless as they have been contradicted and are less informative then one second look at the pictures.

Again thanks for proving my point ! I presented my argument I backed up all my points and what did you do? run and then have the balls to type a mass of blanket statements which nothing to back them up , no the quotes do not contradict each thats a lie and pictures are useless compared to firsthand eyewitnesses accounts , so do yourself a favor either put up or shut up.

[Hulkster]

No bull shit thats a fact , how did Ronnie 99 advance the sport? did he advance the sport in terms of muscular bulk in 1999? NO Dorian was 269 pounds six years before thats not an advancement , did he advance the sport in terms of size & conditioning? NO Dorian was 257 pounds in 1993 with BETTER conditioning , did he advance the sport in terms of being complete? NO

using the IFBB criteria tell me exactly how he advanced the sport?

you are seperating out all those attribues you moron which you can't do.

its the sum total of ALL those attributes into ONE package that cause Ronnie to advance the sport in 99.

eg. Dillett had more muscular bulk. but did he have the same shape, defition, freaky bodyparts, etc

no he didn't. but he beat Ronnie in terms of muscular bulk.

but didn't come close to the total package

HOW THE FUCK IS IT THAT YOU CAN BE A FAN FOR YEARS AND NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW THE JUDGING WORKS???

 

you break up the attributes by themselves and then ask how Ronnie advanced the sport looking at them seperately

it doesn't work that way you moron.

everything together is how it works.

NO ONE has had Ronnie's size (with that level of definition, that degree of shape, vascularity and taper).

some had more size (but lacked the shape detail etc.

some had better shape (eg Flex) but lacked the size, width etc.

some had better detail (eg. Renel Janvier) but lacked the size, vascularity shape.

etc

etc


etc.

WHY do you not understand this???

 

you are as dumb as a rock. go to school and learn to use that brain for a change..

[Hulkster]

you responded with a novel like response that i couldnt waste my time reading with quotes that are pointless as they have been contradicted and are less informative then one second look at the pictures.

very true.

ND is trying to respond to quotes simply by posting other quotes lol

he doesn't even use visuals anymore because they work AGAINST what he is claiming

lol

 

he is a beaten man.

[NeoSeminole]

[HTexan]

ronnie will always be the man!!!!

[Bear]

Yates is better, we've seen enough evidence to last us a lietime.

Freudian slip? Lie time, hahahahaha,


Coleman is 1.5 inches taller than Yates in reality so this comparison is stupid. Despite this, detail and lat-width-to-waist ratio clearly goes to Coleman, not to mention bis. It is rear-double biceps.

[England_1]

Dorian's back is so much harder and defined IN THE FUCKING OFFSEASON that Coleman at the 2003O LOL

[Necrosis]

Again thanks for proving my point ! I presented my argument I backed up all my points and what did you do? run and then have the balls to type a mass of blanket statements which nothing to back them up , no the quotes do not contradict each thats a lie and pictures are useless compared to firsthand eyewitnesses accounts , so do yourself a favor either put up or shut up.

eye witness testimony is often a lowly form of evidence, pictures however are factual while testimony is often skewed by context, emotions, etc... you truely are a moron if you think eye witness testimony trumps visual evidence, i assume you have never taken a law course in your life or have read any books concerning the matter to type something so erroneous.

[Mussolini]

Suckmymusle's arguments are based on pure fact as he backs up all his claims with literature and photos.


Hulksters argument is the same regurgitation over and over again with no substance to back his claims.

[Necrosis]

Suckmymusle's arguments are based on pure fact as he backs up all his claims with literature and photos.


Hulksters argument is the same regurgitation over and over again with no substance to back his claims.

you must of missed where he claimed that taper was a result of waist and clavicle width and not lats.

[NarcissisticDeity]

eye witness testimony is often a lowly form of evidence, pictures however are factual while testimony is often skewed by context, emotions, etc... you truely are a moron if you think eye witness testimony trumps visual evidence, i assume you have never taken a law course in your life or have read any books concerning the matter to type something so erroneous.

I love when you type , in fact I look forward to it so I can tear what nonsense you type into pieces , your analogy is retarded ( go figure ) pictures are useless for a reason because they only give a moments peek into a long event and again pictures are subject to quality , angle , lighting , timing , and other intangibles like some bodybuilders don't photograph as well as others ( all cases I proved ) and stop acting like this eyewitnesses testimony isn't valid because of the criteria you mentioned for the simple fact is a lot of the time people's recollection isn't as sharp because the end result happened unexpectedly and thus details are lost in the process there BIG difference ( pay attention ) is these aren't lay-people caught by surprise these are PAID PROFESSIONALS who's job is to attend contests are report how it unfolds

This isn't Ronnie Coleman running by and then asking the writers to recall how he looked , this is a process and a long one. in case you didn't know pre-judging can last up to THREE HOURS ( depending on the number of contestants )  all the while the photographers and writers are right there watching , taking notes with the writers they carry a small recorder which they report all about the contest . its their JOB to attend contests and report on them.

And its a matter of experience , these aren't lay-people commenting on something that is not their expertise  , these are seasoned writers who get paid to report on professional bodybuilding contests period so your analogy is retarded this isn't the court of law its a bodybuilding contest

and your comment that I'm a moron if I think eyewitness testimony trumps ' visual evidence ' shows only how fucking stupid you are , the eyewitness testimony in question is the end result of visual evidence you know the people who were actually there live & in person not sitting at home looking at pictures ! and stop projecting your stupidity on me , you're the moron who thinks they can ascertain a persons level of conditioning despite NOT EVER seeing the said people live and in the flesh and to have the audacity to claim the people who contradict you are wrong , you know the people who get paid to do this , the people who were actually there lol

I don't expect a cognizant response from you simply based on the stupidity of this post , but at least you're learning you only misspelled one word this time lol

[NarcissisticDeity]

Suckmymusle's arguments are based on pure fact as he backs up all his claims with literature and photos.


Hulksters argument is the same regurgitation over and over again with no substance to back his claims.

Great post !

[Hulkster]

yeah if you call 1600 pages of clear visual evidence in the form of pics, videos and screencaps, as well as tons of quotes and articles from respected writers like Peter McGough as "no substance"

LOL

 

how was McDonald's today, ND?

sell lots of fries?

lol

[Necrosis]

I love when you type , in fact I look forward to it so I can tear what nonsense you type into pieces , your analogy is retarded ( go figure ) pictures are useless for a reason because they only give a moments peek into a long event and again pictures are subject to quality , angle , lighting , timing , and other intangibles like some bodybuilders don't photograph as well as others ( all cases I proved ) and stop acting like this eyewitnesses testimony isn't valid because of the criteria you mentioned for the simple fact is a lot of the time people's recollection isn't as sharp because the end result happened unexpectedly and thus details are lost in the process there BIG difference ( pay attention ) is these aren't lay-people caught by surprise these are PAID PROFESSIONALS who's job is to attend contests are report how it unfolds

This isn't Ronnie Coleman running by and then asking the writers to recall how he looked , this is a process and a long one. in case you didn't know pre-judging can last up to THREE HOURS ( depending on the number of contestants )  all the while the photographers and writers are right there watching , taking notes with the writers they carry a small recorder which they report all about the contest . its their JOB to attend contests and report on them.

And its a matter of experience , these aren't lay-people commenting on something that is not their expertise  , these are seasoned writers who get paid to report on professional bodybuilding contests period so your analogy is retarded this isn't the court of law its a bodybuilding contest

and your comment that I'm a moron if I think eyewitness testimony trumps ' visual evidence ' shows only how fucking stupid you are , the eyewitness testimony in question is the end result of visual evidence you know the people who were actually there live & in person not sitting at home looking at pictures ! and stop projecting your stupidity on me , you're the moron who thinks they can ascertain a persons level of conditioning despite NOT EVER seeing the said people live and in the flesh and to have the audacity to claim the people who contradict you are wrong , you know the people who get paid to do this , the people who were actually there lol

I don't expect a cognizant response from you simply based on the stupidity of this post , but at least you're learning you only misspelled one word this time lol

they are not experts as there is no set criteria for one, so use that term loosely. also could you keep your responses smaller, im not reading all this shit. paraphrase your points.