Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce (Read 3512753 times)

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40175 on:** February 06, 2008, 12:58:34 PM »

Quote from: Iceman1981 on January 30, 2008, 10:08:00 PM

An eye witness states that yates had bad skin (Acne):

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=6912661

Are there any Pros which have really bad acne?

"I Remember Seeing Yates When I Was Younger In Our Gym And His Skin Was Rough To Look At."

Stating the obvious, his acne contributed to his grainy appearence.

Then why was Dorian regarded as grainy even in bodyparts where he had no visible acne, like in the hams and quads? Riddle me that..

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40176 on:** February 06, 2008, 01:08:50 PM »

Wow, first of all let me say great thread!

I am not going to take sides because I'm a huge fan of both guys. I will only comment from experience. I was at both the 1996 and 2000 Olympias, and here si the difference between them. Ronnie had the best combo of mass with taper I've ever seen. His lats flared like crazy and he was massive, massive, massive! The negative was the gut which kept hanging out evne though he was sucking it in all the time and that he looked kinda soft especially when standing relaxed. Dorian as I recall from the 1996 Olympia he caused a major colective gasp when he entered stage. His skin looked like it was hanging on bones and he looked like he was 65 year old. His muscles had a look that I've never seen in any bodybuilder before, and I've been to dozens of pro contests. It looked like polished stone. This is not a joke guys. You had to see this dude in person to understand. It was solid, mature, "packed" muscle. the major handicap was the general lack of fillness and roundness to his muscles when compared to Ron. Overral, two superb champions.

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40177 on:** February 07, 2008, 04:40:26 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on January 30, 2008, 03:20:47 PM

99 Ronnie would blow 93 dorian off the stage

The thing is that Dorian probably carried more muscle than Ronnie in the way he looked at the 1999 Olympia and here is why: Ronnie's muscles are incredibly full and round. That fullness comes from high intamuscular retention of water. Ronnie has advantages over Dorian, but Dorian also has advantages over Ronnie. I am convinced that Dorian would win the muscularity round over Ronnie in his 1999 Olympias shape. Why not? Droain could defeat 280 lbs guys in muscularity, so that isn't a stetch. I was at the 1996 Olympia and Dorian's muscles are "stacked", so thick and hard you had to see it to believe it. Symmetry could be a tie, because Dorian has less muscle missing, but Ronnie has better taper both fro the front as well as from the back. Two outstanding bodybuilder overral, and it would be hard to choose.

IceCold · « **Reply #40178 on:** February 07, 2008, 08:06:04 PM »

Quote from: Iceman1981 on February 04, 2008, 10:18:41 PM

Also, noticed that so far no one has disagreed with Ronnie being number 1

i prefer dorian's back bc i think it looks better in the lat spread and the pose with the hands back exposing the xmas tree.

i'll give ronnie the edge in the back double biceps.

however, jay at #6?

wouldnt put jay even in the top 10.

aussiepro · « **Reply #40179 on:** February 07, 2008, 08:43:24 PM »

Quote from: Iceman1981 on February 04, 2008, 08:22:13 PM

Found this today. I saw the ad for an upcoming Flex issue. Here is a thread with the results:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=7061121

FLEX MAGAZINE TOP 20 BACKS OF ALL TIME:

20. albert beckles
19. melvin anthony
18. thierry pastel
17. tony pearson
16. sergio oliva
15. orville burke
14. art atwood
13. flex wheeler
12. robby robinson
11. mohamed benaziza
10. victor martinez
9. michael francois
8. samir bannout
7. jean-pierre fux
6. jay cutler
5. franco columbu
4. lee haney
3. joel stubbs
2. dorian yates
1. ronnie coleman

how the fuck is flex 13 and jay cutler 6th... that fucks the whole thing up just there, now way is this thing correct

James Blunt · « **Reply #40180 on:** February 07, 2008, 10:48:09 PM »

HTexan · « **Reply #40181 on:** February 08, 2008, 01:16:29 PM »

Quote from: James Blunt on February 07, 2008, 10:48:09 PM

Is that you???

Arkadius · « **Reply #40182 on:** February 08, 2008, 01:44:45 PM »

pumpster · « **Reply #40183 on:** February 08, 2008, 01:46:28 PM »

The keg looks better there, yet still can't plug the leaks when it comes to comparisons.

HTexan · « **Reply #40184 on:** February 08, 2008, 01:49:06 PM »

ronnie all the way, from side chest.

m8 · « **Reply #40185 on:** February 08, 2008, 01:52:57 PM »

Quote from: Arkadius on February 08, 2008, 01:44:45 PM

Damn, he doesn't look too healthy there.

Arkadius · « **Reply #40186 on:** February 10, 2008, 04:47:01 AM »

No biceps u say?

sculpture · « **Reply #40187 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:22:24 AM »

Quote from: Arkadius on February 10, 2008, 04:47:01 AM

No biceps u say?

You poor poor man. In the face of hundreds of pics showing yates mediocre biceps you post ONE declaring otherwise.

Think for a minute will you about the hundreds of pics of yates biceps where they look shoddy compared to the sparse few where they don't look half bad.

Think then what could the possible reason be behind the overwhelming outnumbering of the former over the latter, bad angles, poor lighting, a conspiracy perhaps?

When you realise the true answer you'll never post another pic again.

Heres a hint: its because they SUCK!

pumpster · « **Reply #40188 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:38:38 AM »

Biceps look better there-his arms look to be at least 17.5" there lol

Arkadius · « **Reply #40189 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:36:03 AM »

Quote

You poor poor man. In the face of hundreds of pics showing yates mediocre biceps you post ONE declaring otherwise.

Think for a minute will you about the hundreds of pics of yates biceps where they look shoddy compared to the sparse few where they don't look half bad.

Think then what could the possible reason be behind the overwhelming outnumbering of the former over the latter, bad angles, poor lighting, a conspiracy perhaps?

When you realise the true answer you'll never post another pic again.

Heres a hint: its because they SUCK!

If i am interested in your opinion i will ask it, if you don't have a sense of humour and my message was meant ironic, then go and hang yourself pizdabol

Arkadius · « **Reply #40190 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:39:51 AM »

Quote

Biceps look better there-his arms look to be at least 17.5" there lol

No you are wrong, mine are 19inches and they seem far and far away from his guns

pumpster · « **Reply #40191 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:51:42 AM »

Quote from: Arkadius on February 10, 2008, 11:39:51 AM

No you are wrong, mine are 19inches and they seem far and far away from his guns

Um, that says more about you i'm afraid.

Arkadius · « **Reply #40192 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:15:35 PM »

Quote

Um, that says more about you i'm afraid. Cheesy

I'll take it as a compliment

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40193 on:** February 10, 2008, 02:03:30 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 10, 2008, 10:38:38 AM

Biceps look better there-his arms look to be at least 17.5" there lol

The picture of Yates you posted is from 1991, while Ronnie's pic is from 2000. Dorian appears to be around 230 lbs in that pic while Ronnie is obviously much bigger. So why did you post this biased and innacurate comparison

pumpster · « **Reply #40194 on:** February 10, 2008, 02:08:46 PM »

Quote from: CigaretteMan on February 10, 2008, 02:03:30 PM

The picture of Yates you posted is from 1991, while Ronnie's pic is from 2000. Dorian appears to be around 230 lbs in that pic while Ronnie is obviously much bigger. So why did you post this biased and innacurate comparison

Because easy-reader, that was supposed to be our rare "good" shot of Yates' biceps lol

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40195 on:** February 10, 2008, 02:34:25 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 10, 2008, 02:08:46 PM

Because easy-reader, that was supposed to be our rare "good" shot of Yates' biceps lol

First of all, insults are no way to win an argument. You just make yourself look stupid. Secondly, Yates' biceps were certainly bigger in 1993, so why not use a biceps picture from that year to compare them to those of a prime Ronnie?

Hulkster · « **Reply #40196 on:** February 10, 2008, 06:04:36 PM »

Quote from: CigaretteMan on February 10, 2008, 02:34:25 PM

First of all, insults are no way to win an argument. You just make yourself look stupid. Secondly, Yates' biceps were certainly bigger in 1993, so why not use a biceps picture from that year to compare them to those of a prime Ronnie?

you mean like this?

LOL

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40197 on:** February 10, 2008, 06:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 10, 2008, 06:04:36 PM

you mean like this?

LOL

I never calimed that Yates' biceps were as good as Ronnie's, so I don't understand your point. What I was trying to say is that it is ridiculous to compare Dorian's biceps at 230 lbs with Ronnie's biceps in a picture where he's 270 lbs. That is called bias. For the record, Ronnie's arms are incomparably superior to Dorian's, but play fair and don't make biased comparisons.

Hulkster · « **Reply #40198 on:** February 10, 2008, 06:17:22 PM »

the point is that in visual comparisons ronnie totally dominates yates, with the possible exception of one or two shots..

that is why the dorian side choses to base their arguments on irrelevant quotes, because reality works against them

.

CigaretteMan · « **Reply #40199 on:** February 10, 2008, 06:20:26 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 10, 2008, 06:17:22 PM

the point is that in visual comparisons ronnie totally dominates yates, with the possible exception of one or two shots..

It''s easy for that to happen when you post comparisons of a prime Ronnie to a neophyte Dorian.

Quote

that is why the dorian side choses to base their arguments on irrelevant quotes, because reality works against them .

Well, I've read over one hundred pages of the thread and I think the Yates side posted more pictures overral.