Author Topic: 1997 Mr. Olympia.....Dorian wins? (Read 56058 times)

nicorulez · « **on:** June 23, 2006, 09:38:27 PM »

Well, I have read about as much of the 190 plus gossip column that is now on sale at your local 7-11 (The ND and Hulkster hour). One interesting point is that ND himself doesn't think Dorian looked very good at the 1997 Mr. Olympia, but he defends the judging that crowned him king. Well, since it is almost ten years later and I have forgotten about the show, I wanted to see the fuss. Remember a certain Dorian fan claims he was on stage at 275 lbs at 2% bodyfat...

Wow, wonder who could possibly make such a claim. Well, here are links to some old pics. Now if this is 275 pounds at 2% BF, then the Ronnie Coleman of 2003 (gut and all) was 286 pounds at about a 1/2%.

Just thought you guys would like to kick it old school.

http://www.getbig.com/pics/olympia/1997/mro-p30.htm

Here is a link to the 2003 Mr. Olympia. These are comparisons of Dorian at his highest competitive weight (grainy isn't he

) against Coleman at near his high weight (I know, he looks very soft...ND says so):

http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_men_bb/index.html

Hulkster · « **Reply #1 on:** June 23, 2006, 09:41:05 PM »

he has an incredibly wide waist at that show.

nicorulez · « **Reply #2 on:** June 23, 2006, 09:42:50 PM »

Yates kind of reminds me of Kovacs in this pic.....tremendous.

http://www.sfd.pl/1/images2005/20050125103842.JPG

Some more Yates...I am sure these are beloved photographic evidence of his superiority that ND brings out in every other thread.

http://www.getbig.com/pics/olympia/1997/mro-p96.htm

body88 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 23, 2006, 10:15:46 PM »

Annnnnnnd you start another thread bitching about the 190 page thread debating Ronnie and Dorien. Which is just another debate thread.

weird?

O brother post it in the original.

nicorulez · « **Reply #4 on:** June 23, 2006, 10:30:25 PM »

No, I don't want this to be another Ronnie versus Dorian thread. What I wanted to point out very clearly is that Dorian was not the overwhelmingly conditioned athlete that ND and Sucky were talking about. Numerous times they brought up the fact that he was 270+ and at 2% BF in 1997. Obviously, by looking at the pics, that is utter BS. Coleman, who ND states was out of condition for 2003, is obviously not in bad shape. In fact, he set a new standard for muscularity for any Mr. Olympia to that point. So no, this is not Ronnie vs Dorian because if you wanted to be just, you would only post pics of Dorian at his alltime best (1993) vs Coleman (1998/1999 if you like old Ronnie or 2003 if you like large Ronnie). This is just a thread to debunk some crap that was spewed by a poster (you all know who....sucky...cough) about how Peter McGough said such and such. Well, unless I am totolly naive (which I am not), Yates did not look particularly good that year. Now in 1993, he was awesome and I concur that he had one of the alltime great physiques.

benchthis · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:00:13 PM »

to bad so sad its 10 years later we should worry about ronnie winning another

bigbalddaddy · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:12:24 PM »

Phil Heath blows Dorian totally away and he's not even "ranked" as a top tier guy yet! I did say yet!!! This is what a chest should look like with a real bicep!

Hulkster · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:14:45 PM »

Quote

Numerous times they brought up the fact that he was 270+ and at 2% BF in 1997. Obviously, by looking at the pics, that is utter BS.

most of what they say is utter bullshit - eg. Dorian's arms better than Ronnie's?

Please.

bigbalddaddy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:38:34 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 23, 2006, 11:14:45 PM

most of what they say is utter bullshit - eg. Dorian's arms better than Ronnie's?

Please.

Ronnie clowns Dorian from any angle! "Please" is right!

Bast175 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:42:24 PM »

Dorian was awesome except for his narrow back.

bigbalddaddy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2006, 11:49:06 PM »

Quote from: Bast175 on June 23, 2006, 11:42:24 PM

Dorian was awesome except for his narrow back.

And his narrow quads from the front looked like they were about 23"!

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #11 on:** June 24, 2006, 01:32:15 AM »

Quote from: nicorulez on June 23, 2006, 10:30:25 PM

No, I don't want this to be another Ronnie versus Dorian thread. What I wanted to point out very clearly is that Dorian was not the overwhelmingly conditioned athlete that ND and Sucky were talking about. Numerous times they brought up the fact that he was 270+ and at 2% BF in 1997. Obviously, by looking at the pics, that is utter BS. Coleman, who ND states was out of condition for 2003, is obviously not in bad shape. In fact, he set a new standard for muscularity for any Mr. Olympia to that point. So no, this is not Ronnie vs Dorian because if you wanted to be just, you would only post pics of Dorian at his alltime best (1993) vs Coleman (1998/1999 if you like old Ronnie or 2003 if you like large Ronnie). This is just a thread to debunk some crap that was spewed by a poster (you all know who....sucky...cough) about how Peter McGough said such and such. Well, unless I am totolly naive (which I am not), Yates did not look particularly good that year. Now in 1993, he was awesome and I concur that he had one of the alltime great physiques.

Did I say the 270+ lbs Dorian, from 97, was great? When? Where? My contention was that the 97 O Dorian, while at his all-time worse, was stil a deserving winner of that contest. His distended midsection was a liability, sure, and he lost many points for it. But STILL, his superiority was so oerwhelming that he got straight firsts from all judges. Now, you may not like this fact, Dr.Pepper, but you not liking it does not change that basic fact. Personally, I do think the 98 Olympia Ronnie is better than the 97 O Dorian and, were I a judge on a contest between the two, I would give the nod to Ronnie. Yet, Dorian WAS the fullest, dryest and densest bodybuilder on that contest, despite his distended midsection. The figure of 2% bodyfat was given by Jim Schmaltz, who was at the athlete's weight-in before the contest. Is it true? I don't know, but striations were clearly visible on his gastrocnemius muscle: you don't display striations there by having much more than 4% bodyfat - at the most! And yes, Dorian was 266 lbs for pre-judging and 274 lbs for the night show. Deal with it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

P.S: If Dorian's distended midsection as a liability seere enough for him to lose the 97 O, then Ronnie should have lost in 2003/04 too. It goes both ways, buddy!

Miss Demeanor · « **Reply #12 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:25:59 AM »

How about finding some higher-quality pics from the '97 O? Those shots' resolution is PATHETIC.

nicorulez · « **Reply #13 on:** June 24, 2006, 05:50:15 AM »

Those shots my friend are from GetBig.com themselves. Regardless the resolution, his condition was definitely not "Dorian-like." Thus, I feel the statement that he was 2% is coming totally out of someone's ass. If anything, 1994 and 1997 Dorian are bigger travesties than Ronnie 2001. At least Coleman had a semblance of taper and shape. I have always maintained that the 1993 Dorian was out of this world; he truly took it to another level that year. However, because of his overwhelming dominance that year, I feel he got the nod from the judges in latter years, as they stll remembered what he could look like. I feel that the two years that Coleman won the Mr. Olympia in less than stellar shape (2001, 2002), he got similar props from the judges. Sucky, I could care less that Dorian got straight firsts. You as well as everybody on this board knows that the best man does not always win...cough...Arnold circa 1980.....Rusty Jeffers this year. There have been many contests where the judging has been duplicitous. I can gurantee you that even if Ronnie showed up with love handles and a droopy pectorals, he would be one of the first three call-outs.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #14 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:34:08 AM »

Quote from: nicorulez on June 23, 2006, 09:38:27 PM

Well, I have read about as much of the 190 plus gossip column that is now on sale at your local 7-11 (The ND and Hulkster hour). One interesting point is that ND himself doesn't think Dorian looked very good at the 1997 Mr. Olympia, but he defends the judging that crowned him king. Well, since it is almost ten years later and I have forgotten about the show, I wanted to see the fuss. Remember a certain Dorian fan claims he was on stage at 275 lbs at 2% bodyfat... Wow, wonder who could possibly make such a claim. Well, here are links to some old pics. Now if this is 275 pounds at 2% BF, then the Ronnie Coleman of 2003 (gut and all) was 286 pounds at about a 1/2%. Just thought you guys would like to kick it old school.

http://www.getbig.com/pics/olympia/1997/mro-p30.htm

Here is a link to the 2003 Mr. Olympia. These are comparisons of Dorian at his highest competitive weight (grainy isn't he ) against Coleman at near his high weight (I know, he looks very soft...ND says so):

http://www.flexonline.com/mro/final_men_bb/index.html

How could I defend the judging that crowned him Mr Olympia in 1997 and say he should have lost? I personally don't think he should have won in 1997 but what do I know ? I'm only basing this on pictures & video and the fact some many of his muscles were torn. I wasn't there and seen what the judges seen and obviously they thought he was good enough he recieved straight firsts . Whats ironic is not one single person at the time had a problem with Dorian's 1997 win , no one knew he tore is tricep until after the fact and I don't recall anyone complaining that he should have lost.

In 1997 Dorian was 266lbs at the preduging and 270+ lbs at the nightshow this was reported in the magazines as far as his bodyfat percentage is concerned I don't know it wasn't reported in the magazines I had anyway conditioning was NOT a problem for Dorian in 1997 it was the torn muscles that I had an issue with and his gut was at his all time worse thats why I feel he should have lost.

The pics you posted suck very low quality here is a few from that contest and you can clearly see conditioning was not an issue for him in 97 look at this pic you can see striated glutes , his christmass tree is still sharp as ever and his lowerlats are ripped.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:36:00 AM »

His conditioning was business as usual in 97 here he is with a 270lb Nasser making him look small in this pic .

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:38:06 AM »

1997 again

Scimowser · « **Reply #17 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:41:28 AM »

how does it make him look small? Nasser had much wider shoulders and bigger arms but thats it. Legs, lats, abs - all the same to me

Scimowser · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:42:38 AM »

infact, dorians lats basically dwarf nassers, but the shoulder width give them an illusion

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2006, 06:48:17 AM »

Quote from: Scimowser on June 24, 2006, 06:41:28 AM

how does it make him look small? Nasser had much wider shoulders and bigger arms but thats it. Legs, lats, abs - all the same to me

In that particular shot he's making Nasser look small despite weighing the same .

Scimowser · « **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2006, 07:00:24 AM »

i thought you meant nasser made him look small, it was the way you worded it

nicorulez · « **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2006, 07:26:35 AM »

He lacked detail in his quads, hams and glutes. His back was large, but nowhere as shredded as when he was 250 pounds. His waist was distended in the relaxed poses and his arms suck. He may beat Nasser in his best abs/thighs pose, but everywhere Nasser killed him from the front. Overall, though, the 1997 show was relatively weak. However, I disagree that people did not debate Dorian's win. His wins were controversial for three out of his last four years. People may have loved his mass, but alas in 1997 the internet was nowhere what it is today. Thus, to claim his wins were without controversy is fallacy. In fact, a lot of scribes were chomping at the bit for an in shape Flex to snatch the title. Regardless, my "low rez" pics clearly show that his striations from the back compared to his alltime best were not present. Moreover, his waist was blocky and his obliques not very aesthetic.

Hulkster · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2006, 07:38:24 AM »

dorian was so lucky this man had a mediocre back..

dorian displaying his fantastic taper and quad detail..

the man's biceps were out of this world...no, seriously, they were gone.

ps- Dorian's rear double bi is mediocre especially for someone who basically won shows based on his back.. When your back is your ace in the hole, it should look a lot better than this..

(luckily for him, Nasser's was even MORE mediocre)

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2006, 08:02:51 AM »

Quote from: nicorulez on June 24, 2006, 07:26:35 AM

He lacked detail in his quads, hams and glutes. His back was large, but nowhere as shredded as when he was 250 pounds. His waist was distended in the relaxed poses and his arms suck. He may beat Nasser in his best abs/thighs pose, but everywhere Nasser killed him from the front. Overall, though, the 1997 show was relatively weak. However, I disagree that people did not debate Dorian's win. His wins were controversial for three out of his last four years. People may have loved his mass, but alas in 1997 the internet was nowhere what it is today. Thus, to claim his wins were without controversy is fallacy. In fact, a lot of scribes were chomping at the bit for an in shape Flex to snatch the title. Regardless, my "low rez" pics clearly show that his striations from the back compared to his alltime best were not present. Moreover, his waist was blocky and his obliques not very aesthetic.

Lacked detail in his quads no kidding they were both torn at this point , his hams & glutes wern't a problem , his back was just as shredded & detailed as 93 , his waist was distended and his arms did suck at this point he had a torn bicep & tricep.

He won with straight firsts so he techinically beat Nasser everywhere , but I thnk Nasser had Dorian beat in the front double bicep shot but Dorian had him in the ab-thigh , front latspread and edged him out from the sides and left him for dead from the back

Maybe some of his wins were ' controversial ' from your personal opinion but not according to the judges who gave him straight firsts . 1997 I personally felt he should have lost , 1996 this is a figment of your imagination , some people say " oh that was Shawns contest " and my response was no it wasn't , remember before Nasser failed the diuretics test Shawn was on 3rd place and he only got bumped up to 2ns when Nasser's test came back dirty , 1995 are you shitting me? Dorian absolutely obliterated everyone in the same grand dominating fashion he did in 1993 , in 1994 there was some controversy and it WAS NOT over first it was over 2nd and 3rd , the corwds were pissed that Shawn placed 2nd over Levrone and going into the nightshow Shawn was actually trailing Kevin by I believe 3 points and neither were close to Dorian

No kidding his waist was blocky & his obliques were not aesthetic lol Dorian was never aesthetic so it strikes me odd you would use that term anyway the pictures you used were laughable the ones I posted clearly show while Yates had a lot of problems in 1997 conditioning was NOT one of them.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2006, 08:14:30 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on June 24, 2006, 07:38:24 AM

dorian was so lucky this man had a mediocre back..

dorian displaying his fantastic taper and quad detail..

the man's biceps were out of this world...no, seriously, they were gone.

ps- Dorian's rear double bi is mediocre especially for someone who basically won shows based on his back.. When your back is your ace in the hole, it should look a lot better than this..

(luckily for him, Nasser's was even MORE mediocre)

I laugh when I read some of the posts your make " dorian displaying fantastic taper and quad detail " genius at this point both his quads were torn no kidding he's no displaying fantastic quad detail and his taper in the standing relaxed pose from the front he may be medicore but the same shot from the back was mindblowing and his back double bicep shot in 1997 sucked but at his peak his was fantastic , again you keep insiting that Dorian must conform to an aesthetic ideal in order to win , he doesn't , Dorian never won because he had a small waist & hips and great quad sweap and the best V-taper , Dorian won because of his strenghts and not anyone elses.

Author Topic: 1997 Mr. Olympia.....Dorian wins? (Read 56058 times)

body88

Bast175

suckmymuscle