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

[Royal Lion]

they forgot to paint on the detail. that is one of the smoothest lat spreads ever.

not even close to this:

Right, one of the smoothest ever, despite being consistently ranked as the 1st or 2nd best ever.  

[Royal Lion]

One of his worse years.. and he still looks rediculous.

Incredible.  His lats are just ridiculous there.  Quads look great too.

[Shockwave]

Anyone ever trying to argue Ray... well hes just to small. Sorry.

*Edit yes I know ray is turned slightly.. but thats still not gonna make up the 50 lbs and 6" difference.

[Royal Lion]

 

[NeoSeminole]

What scientific evidence?  The entire Dorian/Ronnie debate is based on each our subjective opinions...there is no scientific evidence as to who has a better physique.   My opinion is based on my own perceptions and preferences for a bodybuilding physique.  It has nothing to do with the opinion of others -- "official" or "unofficial."  It is simply my opinion that Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie at his best.  If this is somehow based on hearsay as you claim, how is your opinion that Ronnie > Dorian not based on hearsay?  Neither is hearsay as they are our own entitled opinions.

brah, we are talking about conditioning. Don't change the subject. Read any university level anatomy & physiology textbook for scientific evidence that confirms 01 ASC Ronnie had better conditioning than 95 Dorian.

if you still want to be stubborn and ignorant, then explain how Dorian can have better conditioning yet worse overall definition than Ronnie... and please don't tell me "genetics" if you wish to preserve any credibility you may have in this discussion. Genes account for a person's genotype. The  visual property you keep referring to is a person's phenotype.

What is your definition of graininess?  To me it is the combination of muscular development, low bodyfat, and water elimination.  A bodybuilder who has extreme levels of each of these simultaneously is grainy, as both Ronnie and Dorian were.  The more conditioned a bodybuilder is, the more grainy he is.  Condition and graininess are essentially analogous as the greater the condition, the greater the graininesss.

I don't use the term grainyness to describe conditioning b/c it's too vague and subjective. What objective, visual criteria are you using to determine grainyness? All you did was use a circular definition (i.e. grainyness = conditioning). This begs the question: what objective, visual criteria are you using to determine conditioning?

I understand your position that one must be lean to see muscle definition.  However, you lose me when (and if?) you claim that because Ronnie has better arm/delt separation he is grainier or leaner than Dorian.

my argument is that 01 ASC Ronnie had better conditioning b/c he simultaneously had better definition in his arms, delts, pecs, quads, hams, and glutes. They are tied in back. Honestly, where else does this leave for Ronnie to carry more fat and water? By logic, he MUST have better conditioning than Dorian. I could even throw in the fact that Dorian's skin is thinner than Ronnie's (which makes Ronnie's superior definition even more impressive) but that would be overkill.

I can't imagine Dorian getting any leaner than he was at his peak.  Yet he still admittedly didn't have Ronnie's delt/arm tie-ins (Ronnie's are especially impressive in the 01 ASC shot).  I see this as being a result of genetic muscular structure rather than conditioning.  Just my 2 cents.

Remember what I said about genetics determining fat and water distribution? The leanest a person can get without dying is 3% body fat. Everyone - even 01 ASC Ronnie and 95 Dorian - have to carry SOME body fat and water somewhere.

[Shockwave]

Rediculous conditioning.

[Fatpanda]

Rediculous conditioning.

nasser does look amazing in this shot 

[Royal Lion]

I disagree that Ronnie was more defined everywhere than Dorian with the exception of their backs.  Just because Ronnie has peaked bis and a more prominent delt tie-in does not mean he was leaner or more "defined."  

And yes, I studied both anatomy and physiology in college.  Yes, I learned about the musculoskeletal system and other systems of the body and how they function.  However, never did we discuss conditioning as it relates to bodybuilding.  Conditioning is more than simply muscle separation.  Every bodybuilder has different levels of muscular separation in different body parts as much of this is genetic and based on insertions, attachments and muscular shape (think "low" lats or calves vs. "high"; think about different ab shapes; biceps peaks, tricep shape, etc.)    

Of course a person dies if their bodyfat gets below a certain level.  However, to argue that Dorian was somehow not lean enough to display separation is incorrect.  Ronnie's biceps had a better genetic shape; Ronnie had a delt tie-in that was second to none (again genetic). He and Dorian were equally lean (bodyfat %) at their respective peaks as each was shredded.  

You define conditioning as simply being "definition."  I interpret the term "definition" as being quite broad, and in fact, circular as well if definition = conditioning and conditioning = definition.  By what objective criteria to you judge "definition"?  Is it striations, vascularity, thin skin, lack of water retention?  

Bottom line is that we can disagree until we're blue in the face (we probably already have); however, I don't appreciate being called stubborn and ignorant when disagreeing over a subjective topic.  I am trying to keep a level of respect and civility despite our disagreement.

I think these pics illustrate that Dorian was about as lean as humanly possible.  Ronnie's superior bicep peak and delt tie-in are genetic characteristics unique to him rather than a product of superior conditioning.  Again, this is my opinion.  

[Shockwave]

I disagree that Ronnie was more defined everywhere than Dorian with the exception of their backs.  Just because Ronnie has peaked bis and a more prominent delt tie-in does not mean he was leaner or more "defined."  

And yes, I studied both anatomy and physiology in college.  Yes, I learned about the musculoskeletal system and other systems of the body and how they function.  However, never did we discuss conditioning as it relates to bodybuilding.  Conditioning is more than simply muscle separation.  Every bodybuilder has different levels of muscular separation in different body parts as much of this is genetic and based on insertions, attachments and muscular shape (think "low" lats or calves vs. "high"; think about different ab shapes; biceps peaks, tricep shape, etc.)    

Of course a person dies if their bodyfat gets below a certain level.  However, to argue that Dorian was somehow not lean enough to display separation is incorrect.  Ronnie's biceps had a better genetic shape; Ronnie had a delt tie-in that was second to none (again genetic). He and Dorian were equally lean (bodyfat %) at their respective peaks as each was shredded.  

You define conditioning as simply being "definition."  I interpret the term "definition" as being quite broad, and in fact, circular as well if definition = conditioning and conditioning = definition.  By what objective criteria to you judge "definition"?  Is it striations, vascularity, thin skin, lack of water retention?  

Bottom line is that we can disagree until we're blue in the face (we probably already have); however, I don't appreciate being called stubborn and ignorant when disagreeing over a subjective topic.  I am trying to keep a level of respect and civility despite our disagreement.

I think these pics illustrate that Dorian was about as lean as humanly possible.  Ronnie's superior bicep peak and delt tie-in are genetic characteristics unique to him rather than a product of superior conditioning.  Again, this is my opinion.  

+1 Some people simply illustrate deep muscle seperation as being Conditioning, quite the oposite, if you have deep muscle seperations your going to see them even at a higher bodyfat percentage, There just going to show more. Thats what I see in Ronnie. (dont get me wrong he is still lean as fuck)

[NeoSeminole]

I disagree that Ronnie was more defined everywhere than Dorian with the exception of their backs.  Just because Ronnie has peaked bis and a more prominent delt tie-in does not mean he was leaner or more "defined."

rather than stating you disagree (which gets us nowhere), why don't you explain how come? And no I'm not talking about muscle shape. Stop interjecting irrelevant points. I will even help make it easier for you.

does Ronnie have more defined arms? Yes
does Ronnie have more defined delts? Yes
does Ronnie have more defined pecs? Yes
does Ronnie have more defined glutes? Yes
does Ronnie have more defined quads? Yes
does Ronnie have more defined hamstrings? Yes

according to you, 01 ASC Ronnie wasn't more conditioned than Dorian. So where did he carry the extra fat and water?

And yes, I studied both anatomy and physiology in college.  Yes, I learned about the musculoskeletal system and other systems of the body and how they function.  However, never did we discuss conditioning as it relates to bodybuilding.  Conditioning is more than simply muscle separation.  Every bodybuilder has different levels of muscular separation in different body parts as much of this is genetic and based on insertions, attachments and muscular shape (think "low" lats or calves vs. "high"; think about different ab shapes; biceps peaks, tricep shape, etc.)

there's no need to study bodybuilding in a college level A&P course. All you need to know is human anatomy and how it relates to physiology. What factors are responsible for obscuring muscle definition? What happens when we minimize these barriers? How much can we remove before a person dies?

you keep mentioning "genetics" as some kind of explanation but your lack of knowledge on the matter is evident in your gap theory. "Definition is influenced by chromosomes. I have no idea how to get from genotype to phenotype or even how this relates to conditioning, but it sounds good. So I'm going to go along with it." Explain how genotype relates to definition via body fat and water levels.

Of course a person dies if their bodyfat gets below a certain level.  However, to argue that Dorian was somehow not lean enough to display separation is incorrect.  Ronnie's biceps had a better genetic shape; Ronnie had a delt tie-in that was second to none (again genetic). He and Dorian were equally lean (bodyfat %) at their respective peaks as each was shredded.

do you have the hydrostatic weighing results of 95 Dorian? If not, then what evidence do you have that Dorian was lean as possible?

You define conditioning as simply being "definition."  I interpret the term "definition" as being quite broad, and in fact, circular as well if definition = conditioning and conditioning = definition.  By what objective criteria to you judge "definition"?  Is it striations, vascularity, thin skin, lack of water retention?

I define conditioning to mean the presence of definition (e.g. separations, striations, vascularity, and bone). The more clearly you can see overall definition, the more conditioned that person is.

Bottom line is that we can disagree until we're blue in the face (we probably already have); however, I don't appreciate being called stubborn and ignorant when disagreeing over a subjective topic.  I am trying to keep a level of respect and civility despite our disagreement.

there is nothing subjective about anatomy. I'm using scientific facts. You're the one who is using subjective criteria like "grainyness." lol

[NeoSeminole]

if you have deep muscle seperations your going to see them even at a higher bodyfat percentage

so you concede that Ronnie had bigger muscles? B/c the separation between them is only so deep. lol

[NeoSeminole]

I think these pics illustrate that Dorian was about as lean as humanly possible.  Ronnie's superior bicep peak and delt tie-in are genetic characteristics unique to him rather than a product of superior conditioning.  Again, this is my opinion.

good pics but 01 ASC Ronnie had better conditioning. Notice he has all the traits you reference and then some.

[StuartR]

lol how an objective observer could think that these two are on the same level is beyond me

calves: dorian
abs: dorian (i guess? if so not by much, neither has great aesthetics in that area)
back: could go either way
forearms: could go either way
tris: ronnie
delts/chest: ronnie, by far
bis/quads/hamstrings/glutes: ronnie in a different league

conditioning: to me ronnie to have better conditioning when comparing peak shots of both. he displays more separation and striations. what is graininess? is it just some effect created by dorian's skin tone? less liberal use of posing oil?  

[beefcakeblake]

lol how an objective observer could think that these two are on the same level is beyond me

calves: dorian
abs: dorian (i guess? if so not by much, neither has great aesthetics in that area)
back: could go either way
forearms: could go either way
tris: ronnie
delts/chest: ronnie, by far
bis/quads/hamstrings/glutes: ronnie in a different league

conditioning: to me ronnie to have better conditioning when comparing peak shots of both. he displays more separation and striations. what is graininess? is it just some effect created by dorian's skin tone? less liberal use of posing oil?  

tris??? i think Dorian had better tris it had a lot more detail.

chest?? yeah Ronnie's sagging chest was really that good. Dorian's high placed straited chest, I think looked way better.
Dorian's hams were amazing, thats highly subjective.

doz: ab &thigh, side tri, front lat, side chest.

go either way: front doub bis, lat spread.

Ronnie: most mus, back doub bi.
thats how i see it.
 

[delta9mda]

you are tripping if you think that ronnie had a better front lat (much less rear) than Yates.

in the end it is pretty close but Yates did have a more aesthetic physique than ronnie. i have seen them both live over the years and Yates was just more impressive. sorry hulkster.

[JP_RC]

you are tripping if you think that ronnie had a better front lat (much less rear) than Yates.

in the end it is pretty close but Yates did have a more aesthetic physique than ronnie. i have seen them both live over the years and Yates was just more impressive. sorry hulkster.

Dorian had a more aesthetic physique than Ronnie? Are you serious?
I don't know how you can call a physique like Dorian's aesthetic. First of all, I see Dorian having almost no taper in most poses (compared to Ronnie). Secondly, how can a torn bicep contribute to an aesthetic physique? Is a massive torso overshadowing the arms aesthetic? Are oddly shaped quads aesthetic?
Dorian was aesthetic until probably 1993 and Ronnie was aesthetic until 2001. Going by aesthetics only, 1998-2000 Ronnie>1991-1993 Dorian.
And if you try to say that Dorian's best was in 1994-1997 because of his muscular bulk, then the whole argument of Dorian having better aesthetics is thrown out of the window.

[delta9mda]

as i have said, i have seen them both and Yates wins.

[Royal Lion]

rather than stating you disagree (which gets us nowhere), why don't you explain how come? And no I'm not talking about muscle shape. Stop interjecting irrelevant points. I will even help make it easier for you.

does Ronnie have more defined arms? Yes bicep peak, yes (genetic); triceps, no way.
does Ronnie have more defined delts? Yes no—arguably equal.
does Ronnie have more defined pecs? Yes no—very close.  Both very striated.
does Ronnie have more defined glutes? Yes bigger, not more defined.
does Ronnie have more defined quads? Yes –hard to compare given the difference in shape.  Arguable.
does Ronnie have more defined hamstrings? Yes no. Dorian had ridiculous hams as did Ronnie.

according to you, 01 ASC Ronnie wasn't more conditioned than Dorian. So where did he carry the extra fat and water?

there's no need to study bodybuilding in a college level A&P course. All you need to know is human anatomy and how it relates to physiology. What factors are responsible for obscuring muscle definition? What happens when we minimize these barriers? How much can we remove before a person dies?

you keep mentioning "genetics" as some kind of explanation but your lack of knowledge on the matter is evident in your gap theory. "Definition is influenced by chromosomes. I have no idea how to get from genotype to phenotype or even how this relates to conditioning, but it sounds good. So I'm going to go along with it." Explain how genotype relates to definition via body fat and water levels.

do you have the hydrostatic weighing results of 95 Dorian? If not, then what evidence do you have that Dorian was lean as possible?

I define conditioning to mean the presence of definition (e.g. separations, striations, vascularity, and bone). The more clearly you can see overall definition, the more conditioned that person is.

there is nothing subjective about anatomy. I'm using scientific facts. You're the one who is using subjective criteria like "grainyness." lol

Neo,

So genetics have nothing to do with how conditioned a person can get?  How then to some people lose bodyfat easier/faster than others?  How then, do some people lose water and dry out easier than others?  How then do some people build mass quicker than others?  I understand that anatomically and physiologically the same scientific principles apply to every human.  However, we each have genetic variations with respect to muscular mass, shape, and yes, definition.  Moreover, muscular genetics play a definite role in how conditioned a bodybuilder can become.  Take Dexter versus Jay for example.  Genetically, Dexter has an easier time getting conditioned than Jay.  I would also venture that both Ronnie and Dorian had a unique ability to dry out and therefore appear more conditioned than their competitors while simultaneously maintaining more muscle mass.  Afterall, both men were able to get shredded and dry at well over 260 lbs.  Some people are genetically able to achieve levels of conditioning that others simply cannot.

Here is where it gets subjective:  I don’t agree that Ronnie was more defined than Dorian as you mentioned above.  We both agree that 01 was Ronnie’s best condition.  For Dorian it is probably 93 (maybe 95).  Neither one of us can say with “scientific certainty” as you like to say who is more conditioned.  Especially based on pics.  We may, and apparently do, perceive their physiques differently—clearly subjective.

I agree that Ronnie was fantastic in 01 (notwithstanding stomach distention).  He was absolutely bone dry.  However, from the pics I have seen, Dorian appears every bit as conditioned, and in my opinion, more so.  And yet, Dorian was 10 lbs heavier and didn’t have as evident of stomach distention.  Of course it would be close between the two of them—could go either way.  I have never state otherwise.  However, in my opinion, a peak Dorian would prevail over a 98, 99, or 01 Ronnie.    

[Hulkster]

its easy to see how the ronnie AC physique surpassed dorian in the conditioning department.

this series of shots is insane.

[Hulkster]

ronnie's triceps in 99 were amazing, striated, ripped and huge:

[Hulkster]

you are tripping if you think that ronnie had a better front lat (much less rear) than Yates

not tripping. just aware of reality:

its the same old story: dorian had great thick lats, but everything else in the pose was terrible.

I mean, just compare those quads..those arms..

its not even close.

[Hulkster]

according to you, 01 ASC Ronnie wasn't more conditioned than Dorian. So where did he carry the extra fat and water?

well, dorian had some nice rolls of skin and fat on his lower back.

but the nuthuggers pretend these are not there LMAO..

[delta9mda]

for every bad pic you put up i got a good one for you. these quads dont look as bad as what you preach.

[JP_RC]

not tripping. just aware of reality:

its the same old story: dorian had great thick lats, but everything else in the pose was terrible.

I mean, just compare those quads..those arms..

its not even close.

And yet another excellent comparison pic showing how Ronnie would beat Dorian. In this case Ronnie's FLS>Dorian's FLS.

And don't try to say these are selective pics or something like that, since these show both of them right in front of the camera and almost in the same distance and angle.

Plus, its a picture from 1995, Dorian's best year according to some of his fans vs a pic of Ronnie from 1999, one of his best years.

[Hulkster]

And yet another excellent comparison pic showing how Ronnie would beat Dorian. In this case Ronnie's FLS>Dorian's FLS.

And don't try to say these are selective pics or something like that, since these show both of them right in front of the camera and almost in the same distance and angle.

Plus, its a picture from 1995, Dorian's best year according to some of his fans vs a pic of Ronnie from 1999, one of his best years.

exactly. but you know the dumb nuthuggers will come up with an excuse anyway or claim its a 'selective pic'..

yeah, its selective alright - showing ronnie and dorian at their bests in an excellent comparison.

just because dorian couldn't measure up is beside the point..