www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpHplDhKnWc (ftp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpHplDhKnWc)1996 is by far dorians best year conditioning wise.this dude was like in munzer condition.amazing as ever..he looked drier than a bone....lol.it seemed like he was on the verge of getting collapsed onstage.his conditioning was nuts at that show...freaky
Check out this video from the 1996 Olympia. After reviewing it, I changed my mind and think it was one of Dorian's best performances. Even if you don't like the structure and aesthetics of his physique, you guys need to admit that his conditioning was sick. Just sick. I'm actually a little scared. :o :-\
SUCKMYMUSCLE
1996 is by far dorians best year conditioning wise.this dude was like in munzer condition.amazing as ever..he looked drier than a bone....lol.it seemed like he was on the verge of getting collapsed onstage.his conditioning was nuts at that show...freaky
1996 is by far dorians best year conditioning wise.this dude was like in munzer condition.amazing as ever..he looked drier than a bone....lol.it seemed like he was on the verge of getting collapsed onstage.his conditioning was nuts at that show...freaky
1993 was Dorian's best, bar none.
Link says Video not available ????
1993 was Dorian's best, bar none.actually yates was 260lbs.he was 5lbs heavier than 1995..strange..he looked a bit lighter but when weighed on the scale he was 260lbs for the night show
Dorian himself said that he was superior in 95 to 96. 96 he came in flat and he was smaller than normal. About 250lbs.
actually yates was 260lbs.he was 5lbs heavier than 1995..strange..he looked a bit lighter but when weighed on the scale he was 260lbs for the night show
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpHplDhKnWcCount on SUCKY to come up with a non-existent thread.
Check out this video from the 1996 Olympia. After reviewing it, I changed my mind and think it was one of Dorian's best performances.
Count on SUCKY to come up with a non-existent thread.man you just cant take it ronnie lost? stop being a cock and give mr o his due.
Here is '96: he looks like a bricklaying powerlifter the way he trundles onto stage. hahahahaah ::) Very tight, but arms both bis n' tris are too small.
The first comment under the screen:
i dunno but am not a fan of this guy, kinda hate him cuz he aint deserve the title against flex wheeler, his symmetry sux. small arms,waist not small
'94: Impressive here, more than '96-drier and denser, a smaller, leaner and more athletic torso that balances better with the arms.
Yates especially bear-like:
hulkster and pumpster no where to be found.truth be told!!!!
dorian's size,dryness, and hardness is too much for anyone to handle.
others may come in bigger, but no one will come in that shape.
no one has 10 years later.
Stop being a cvnt and take the time to actually pay attention to the video evidence.. ;D
Coleman close on density but huge advantages on size, tapers, shape, aesthetics, flow, overall cuts, refinement, vascularity, etc. ;)
Count on SUCKY to come up with a non-existent thread.
Well, from the the review of the 1996 Olympia I have from FLEX, McGough is quoted as saying that Dorian weighed in at 255 lbs for pre-judging. This contest was unique in that there was an official weight-in at the start. Dorian was actually a little lighter than he was for the pre-judging of the 1993 Olympia, because, since the 1996 Olympia was tested for diuretics, he became obsessed with dryness and came in at his lightest and most depleted state in years. These pics are from the 1996 Olympia, as well. :)i think so even nasser said that how can yates weigh heavy when he is looking light..i do believe this fact that yates might be 255lbs for the pre-judging but got a bit heavier for the night show by 5lbs to 260lbs.remember yates was 265lbs at the pre-jdiging for mr olympia 1997 and ballooned to 274lbs for the night show..so anything is possible.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I won that show! >:(
Stop being a cvnt and take the time to actually pay attention to the video evidence.. ;D
Coleman close on density but huge advantages on size, tapers, shape, aesthetics, flow, overall cuts, refinement, vascularity, etc. ;)
Glad you enjoyed it-now the party's over..&mode=related&search=
I won that show! >:(
that was Shawns show.... it really was... Shawn deserves two sandows.. 1996 and 1998.
coleman had those advantages throughout dorian's career.Extremely weak. Zane beat Schwarzenegger-in 1968. For you apparently, time has no meaning. You should compare Grimek with Yates too. ::)
how did he do against dorian?
that clip.
hell, even his rear lat spread did not look that great because his taper was hurt by his wide waist in the vid.
Pumpster is right:
1999 Ronnie would have beat that particular version of Dorian quite easily.
Dorian almost looked too depleted in that vid - not nearly as full as in 1993.
Exactly. No one pointed out Dorian's muscularity in 1996, but everyone believed that he had set a standard for dryness that is just preter-human. Personally, I don't believe that 1993 was Dorian's best year; that might be the case for muscularity. But I think that, conditioning-wise, Dorian was much better in 1995 and 1996. As I see it, Dorian took the sport to an unattainable - for the time - level of muscularity, but then didn't really increase his muscular size anymore. 1994 was a flop: he came in as a poorer, heavier but less crisp version of himself. In 1995, though, !BAM!, he hit the stage with a "stony" appearance which, even today, almost a decade after his retirement, still represent the ne plus ultra of bodybuilding conditioning. 1996, as I see it, was an even drier and harder version of 1995, arguably the best shape any bodybuilder has ever stepped onstage, bar none. The problem is that Dorian was depleted and lost a lot of his muscle thickness - except for back.i would say the level of conditioning that yates attained at the olympia 1996 was the unreal..he was quite muscular too..his back and his trademark side triceps poses were amazing..considering the fact that yates was in that freaky drier than bone condition he still had his trademark poses stand out the best from the rest of the guys and yes his waist looked flat as a board..that was the most incredible package ever...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
i would say the level of conditioning that yates attained at the olympia 1996 was the unreal..he was quite muscular too..his back and his trademark side triceps poses were amazing..considering the fact that yates was in that freaky drier than bone condition he still had his trademark poses stand out the best from the rest of the guys and yes his waist looked flat as a board..that was the most incredible package ever...
98?
are you serious.
shawn was off that year and got 5th.
explain why he should have won.
96?
shawn was much, much smaller than dorian and dorian is in better shape.
how would shawn win?
personally, i would have had nasser 2nd.
coleman had those advantages throughout dorian's career.
I just uploaded this clip of Dorian at the '92 Olympia to YouTube:
More fuel for the fire ;)
cool vid. Thanks for putting it up!
unfortunately, the footage shows us what we already know about dorian from that time period:
poor arms and quads, great abs on top of a wide waist.
I know ND and co. orgasm about how "balanced" dorian was, when in reality, anyone with one good eye can see that his arms were undersized for his upper torso. Its evident in most pics and is clear on most videos, including that one.
the only shots where you can't tell are the superclose up ones.
and of course, whenever the topic of Dorian's arms comes up, thats all that is posted: superclose up shots ::)
misleading pic ND. It doesn't show his main flaw in the back poses: he is not flexing his arms.
if he was, they would disappear:
ND, what you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter whether it is 1991, 1993, 1992, 1996 or 1997:
Dorian's arms were undersized for his torso and looked bad compared to someone like Ronnie whether it was 1234 or 1997 it doesn't matter.
its like Ronnie's calves: they have always been too small for his quads and have always sucked.
piss poor in 94
gee, a superclose up shot.
what a surprise ::)
dorian's arms where always undersized, even at higher bodyweights.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=101370.0;attach=111868;image)
if you expect anyone to believe that Dorian's TORN bi looked like that when RELAXED, you are nuts.
morphed.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=101370.0;attach=111868;image)NOT morphed, we went over this before. i have all the flex, mm etc. soon i will have a scanner and this shit will end. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed.
if you expect anyone to believe that Dorian's TORN bi looked like that when RELAXED, you are nuts.
morphed.
NOT morphed, we went over this before. i have all the flex, mm etc. soon i will have a scanner and this shit will end. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed. the pic is not morphed. neither pic is morphed.
it would be better if if WAS morphed.
that way Dorian's arm would not look better relaxed than flexed.
but what exactly does posting that pic prove?
all it shows is that dorian's forearm is on a high enough angle that it blocks the enormous GAP between his forearm and his torn biceps muscle.
it does nothing to show that his arm is "good".
His torn bi looked horribe, with a huge gap that is hidden in that particular photo
you can see here just how bad it is.
so no, I would say ND is owned for being so dumb as to post such a pic.
Glad you enjoyed it-now the party's over..&mode=related&search=
Don't you two fags have a 400+ page thread elsewhere that you debate this over and over again?
Why go at it here, again after countless thread hi-jackings over the years? You have your thread, now shut up and let this one get back on track. >:(
no he didn't.
Ronnie got beat by everyone and his uncle before he peaked.
everyone knows that.
That title is Haney's first, Doz second and Arnold. None of them ever lost.but they all should have at one time or another, so you have to go by who has the ultimate physique.
Sucky, I agree that Dorian's conditioning is sick in this video. However, I think he looked far superior in 1993. His muscle bellys are far fuller that year. Yes, he is more ripped, but he lost something that was oh so apparent in 1993.
Then again, he would have smoked this years Mr. O Jay Gutler over and over again. Even off, Dorian always was in condtion. This is not even debateable.
Unfortunately, Ronnie may have hit an incredible high a couple of years, but his lows was were far more often and lower than Doz's. Thus, although I prefer the superhuman condition of Coleman, he brought it to the table only a few times.
but they all should have at one time or another, so you have to go by who has the ultimate physique.
and besides, did any of them compete at age 43?
His conditioning(hardness + dryness) was never spectacular, not even in 1998 when I believe he was at his best
paul had a lightweights back on a super heavy frame, no way he was going to win. yates did say the only bodybuilder he was concerned with was paul is he got it all together.Given that he was superior to Yates from the front and sides, a weak back's not a big deal. Especially given that the video confirms that his back looks better than the perception-superior taper to Yates and superior rear delt, tri and trap tie-ins. Not that far from great save for the absence of detail. That's a minor downside when Yates' flaws are considered as well as the fact that Dillet destroyed him from other angles.
kev told me himself, yates was too tough mentally and did whatever it took to win (training and prep). "you are just not going to beat him".
Given that he was superior to Yates from the front and sides, a weak back's not a big deal.
a lot of that's just being good sports as well as accepting how the politics work IMO.
First of all, he's most definitely not superior to Dorian from the front and sides. His chest is pathetic in both width and thickness. His defective latissimus makes him lose the front lat spread flat out despite his advantage in taper. His delts are a complete joke when compared to his great bis&tris.If you say the earth is flat without proof, that must be true too. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
His delts are a complete joke when compared to his great bis&tris.
maybe the dumbest thing ever said...hahahahahahahaahh Just check some of his other comments. ;D
If you say the earth is flat without proof, that must be true too. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Utter domination of Yates from most angles, with very few weaknesses relative to Yates. His only negatives are back detail and posing.
He's known for delts, you idiot, the exact opposite of another of your unproven claimsTake a look for a change-Yates by comparison looks like he doesn't have delts let alone traps or arms.
maybe the dumbest thing ever said...
Shut up, newb - and f**k off my thread.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
ummmmm ok.... ::)....haha, even yates looking his best vs. pauls post workout pic gets owned... dillets not even in a side tri and his tricep dworfs dy's!.... now imagine them standing next to one another.... game over
To bad contests aren't judged post-work out.
coming from ND, I think this has to be the most ironic thing I have EVER READ, for this reason:
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Yates06.jpg)
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy12.jpg)
::)
coming from ND, I think this has to be the most ironic thing I have EVER READ, for this reason:
::)
You know whats funny is everyone said Yates could enter the Olympia just like that socks and all and still beat the worlds best ;)
You know whats funny is everyone said Yates could enter the Olympia just like that socks and all and still beat the worlds best ;)
brilliant post
Dillet had better aesthetics and size than dorian except for the back. However where Dorian beat him was on his conditioning.Dillet's only flaws were back definition and posing-fewer flaws than Yates. Conditioning looks very comparable, except for a back that was as smooth as Yates arms & delts.
except for a back that was as smooth as Yates arms & delts.
he couldnt
do you know how many times they have said the same thing about Ronnie?
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/10days3441-q_8.jpg)
To bad Ronnie didn't show up that year looking like that lol
Actually that shot is from BFTO 2003 and yes he did show up looking like that ;) But he looked better in 2002 BFTO @ 275
not saying that dillet should ever have beaten yates... i was just saying he had a superior physique.... but when u cant display it to its fullest.... what good is it... dorian was a great poser... and even better at hiding his many flaws ;), notice how few front double bic's (pretty much the premier pose in BB) uve ever seen him do
Dillett had superior genetics and structue ( with the exception of his back ) no one will deny that , but Bob Paris had better structure and genetics than most of his contemporaries and he never won a single contest , it takes more than having the best base to be the best man .dillet's back was so pathetic he basically ruled himself out of every contest as soon as he turned around...
dillet's back was so pathetic he basically ruled himself out of every contest as soon as he turned around...
yates may not have had the BEST arms or quads but he hardly had the WORST...
]his delts, for example, even back before the days of synthol, were huge and enormous, but had little cuts
dorian was far better in 93 AND 9494?
94?yates was tops in 93 followed by 95, 96, 92, 97 and 94
No, no, no, no!!! Total disagreement! ::)
yates was tops in 93 followed by 95, 96, 92, 97 and 94Swap 94 and 97. He was horrid in 97... 94 he really didn't look that bad, other than his fucked up tan.
Swap 94 and 97. He was horrid in 97... 94 he really didn't look that bad, other than his fucked up tan.well that is the toss up isn't it... he didn't look great either year but who did he have to beat really? a shrimpy shawn ray and a no back nasser... hardly a stretch for him...
well that is the toss up isn't it... he didn't look great either year but who did he have to beat really? a shrimpy shawn ray and a no back nasser... hardly a stretch for him...To summarize, he was able to get away with being mediocre. ;D
I have never really be than impressed with Dillett in most poses.Given that no one's perfect, Dillet had less flaws than either Yates or Coleman. At similar sizes, Coleman never had Dillet's waist nor his lower body aesthetics & balance. Coleman should've spent the 4-5 years bringing up the calves while refining and bringing down thigh size, which he clearly didn't.
he had great shape, but lacked good detail esp. in his back.
his delts, for example, even back before the days of synthol, were huge and enormous, but had little cuts
well that is the toss up isn't it... he didn't look great either year but who did he have to beat really? a shrimpy shawn ray and a no back nasser... hardly a stretch for him...Haha, no shit.... I'd definatley say 94 though. He still had that 93 shape, just with a bad tan, and recovering from the torn bi.
recovering from the torn bi.Which is the "bad" arm?
To summarize, he was able to get away with being mediocre. ;D
Given that no one's perfect, Dillet had less flaws than either Yates or Coleman. At similar sizes, Coleman never had Dillet's waist nor his lower body aesthetics & balance. Coleman should've spent the 4-5 years bringing up the calves while refining and bringing down thigh size, which he clearly didn't.
SUCKY still furiously backpeddling. ;)
Coleman at one time did have dillet's waist. Coleman has more leg size than dillet had and equal aesthetic e.g. more sweep. Calves on the other hand, dillet wins clearly.Did not have Dillet's waist when bigger, and it had nothing to do with structural issues. Coleman's leg size was a negative IMO-too big for both the rest of the physique and for the calves. He could've done a lot more to address that while improving calves. Dillet beats him in lower body thanks to much better balance in both areas.
SUCKY still furiously backpeddling. ;)
Dillet's deltoids sucked overrall because they lacked balance between the three heads and overpowered his entire physique from the front.If your silliness were at all true rather than more babbling, it would mean that your hero has zero delts, traps or arms - in all areas Dillet had more striations, size and refinement you bozo- the pic doesn't lie like you do. ::)
If your silliness were at all true rather than more babbling, it would mean that your hero has zero delts, traps or arms - in all areas Dillet had more striations, size and refinement you bozo- the pic doesn't lie like you do. ::)
I have never really be than impressed with Dillett in most poses.
he had great shape, but lacked good detail esp. in his back.
his delts, for example, even back before the days of synthol, were huge and enormous, but had little cuts
I won that show! >:(