Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: ShipSekki on April 14, 2010, 07:12:53 PM
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
-
and you re a raging 120lbs geek
-
His new wifeage ain't lookin' too shabby...
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
please repost within this or past decade,due to dorian being out of the game a mere 13 yrs,,,,,
-
and you re a raging 120lbs geek
Actually I weigh a lot more then 120 pounds and every time I step on the scale a few more pounds are added.
You dirty asshole.
-
ugly as fuck
In Getbig, that condition is referred to as 'movie star good looks'.
-
please repost within this or past decade,due to dorian being out of the game a mere 13 yrs,,,,,
All the guys from the past decade are boring and lame. I'll stay in the 90's with my shit.
-
All the guys from the past decade are boring and lame. I'll stay in the 90's with my shit.
i meant as to say who cares at this point being he's out of the game,he's not like wine he hasn't improved with age.so be it,,,
-
i meant as to say who cares at this point being he's out of the game,he's not like wine he hasn't improved with age.so be it,,,
I know. I mean that when he was winning his Olympias in the 90s he looked like shit and didn't deserve them.
-
OP is an asshole but I agree. ;D
You just think i'm an asshole because I make fun of you for having gay drunken parties where you kiss other dudes, and feel up college bois thighs, and generally act gay.
It's your fault for posting those pics online....
-
why is a man concerned with another mans looks? are there things shippy?
-
and you re a raging 120lbs geek
-
why is a man concerned with another mans looks? are there things shippy?
Because I like to fuck men in the ass. And when they are ugly it makes me angry. When I spread those hairy asscheeks and shove it in the cornhole, it better look pretty.
-
Because I like to fuck men in the ass. And when they are ugly it makes me angry. When I spread those hairy asscheeks and shove it in the cornhole, it better look pretty.
Thats what I thought.
Sounds like Dorian turned someone down for teh buttsecks. :-\
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit. and Ronnie is much better.
amended.
-
Thats what I thought.
Sounds like Dorian turned someone down for teh buttsecks. :-\
That's what happened.
I walked up to Dorian at a fitness convention and said "Hey big guy. Can I fuck you in the ass please?" and he said "Of course, i've got a buttplug in there and i'm all loose for you bro. You can just slide it right in there no problem."
But then he left with another man..... :-\ Fuck you Dorian!
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
So you wouldn't date him :-\ :-X :-X
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
Yes, he was terrible.
-
Yes, he was terrible.
Yeah, he got all those Mr. Olympias because he was fucking somebody. ::)
-
Nah, Mariachi definately weighs more than 120lbs.
-
Yeah, he got all those Mr. Olympias because he was fucking somebody. ::)
Branch Warren got 2nd last year.
The judging is bullshit. Always has been.
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
he deserved to win mr. olympia 3 times at least and he won them!!..
-
In Getbig, that condition is referred to as 'movie star good looks'.
And *that* is my first laugh of the day. Nicely played, Sirrah. ;D
-
That's what happened.
I walked up to Dorian at a fitness convention and said "Hey big guy. Can I fuck you in the ass please?" and he said "Of course, i've got a buttplug in there and i'm all loose for you bro. You can just slide it right in there no problem."
But then he left with another man..... :-\ Fuck you Dorian!
-
Maybe "ShipSekki" can post his face so we can compare it with Dorian.
I mean, it's only fair, right?
-
When I said Dorian is ugly I wasn't taking about his face, I was talking about his physique. Supposedly it was the best in the world for a while there, but in my opinion he was an overhyped poster boy.
Thick ugly midsection, fucked up arms, ugly symmetry.
-
here's nasser a lucky guy... because he never won the O... he never could be voted the most ugly mr. olympia...
-
please repost within this or past decade,due to dorian being out of the game a mere 13 yrs,,,,,
x2. Is ShipSekki always this late to a party. ::)
-
His new wifeage ain't lookin' too shabby...
Yeah she's hot. Glauce Ferreira right?
-
-
who is this awful gimmick ?
-
When I said Dorian is ugly I wasn't taking about his face, I was talking about his physique. Supposedly it was the best in the world for a while there, but in my opinion he was an overhyped poster boy.
Thick ugly midsection, fucked up arms, ugly symmetry.
Yes, Dorian was overrated, but get over it.
-
Branch Warren got 2nd last year.
The judging is bullshit. Always has been.
branch deserved 2nd last year he was harder,bigger,better conditioned, just plain made dex look soft.
dorian deserved all his wins, if you dont agree learn how bodybuilding is judged.
-
people always defended his wins by saying 'he was grainy!"
maybe video/in person explain that... pics dont seem to.
Still, Shawn, flex and cormier could all disagree with their placings to him.
-
branch deserved 2nd last year he was harder,bigger,better conditioned, just plain made dex look soft.
dorian deserved all his wins, if you dont agree learn how bodybuilding is judged.
I started a thread a while ago asking about hw bodybuilding is judged and nobody seemed to know.
Care to explain?
-
I swear Dorian is the thickest bodybuilder from front to back ever.
-
x2. Is ShipSekki always this late to a party. ::)
Lol
-
I swear Dorian is the thickest bodybuilder from front to back ever.
watching that video.......it really becomes difficult to dignify any of the arguments made against dorian yates.
that video shows the MOST balanced, driest, bodybuilder of all time
he was so far ahead of the rest of the competition there (the competition being some of the greatest BBs of all time in their own right)............that is was not even fair
simply dominant...
-
watching that video.......it really becomes difficult to dignify any of the arguments made against dorian yates.
that video shows the MOST balanced, driest, bodybuilder of all time
he was so far ahead of the rest of the competition there (the competition being some of the greatest BBs of all time in their own right)............that is was not even fair
simply dominant...
Ronnie owneds him.. ;D
-
watching that video.......it really becomes difficult to dignify any of the arguments made against dorian yates.
that video shows the MOST balanced, driest, bodybuilder of all time
he was so far ahead of the rest of the competition there (the competition being some of the greatest BBs of all time in their own right)............that is was not even fair
simply dominant...
His left arm looks terrible and even his right arm looks small. His huge body overpowers his relatively small arms. That's not symettry. And that's Dorian Yates' major flaw, he's got a huge and wide torso, and his arms get dwarfed by it.
Also his abs look like shit.
Dryest of all time? I don't think so. I've seen lots of guys just as dry or dryer. It's impressive but nothing spectacular.
-
His left arm looks terrible and even his right arm looks small. His huge body overpowers his relatively small arms. That's not symettry. And that's Dorian Yates' major flaw, he's got a huge and wide torso, and his arms get dwarfed by it.
Also his abs look like shit.
Dryest of all time? I don't think so. I've seen lots of guys just as dry or dryer. It's impressive but nothing spectacular.
You're an idiot. Really, you are.
-
When I said Dorian is ugly I wasn't taking about his face, I was talking about his physique. Supposedly it was the best in the world for a while there, but in my opinion he was an overhyped poster boy.
Thick ugly midsection, fucked up arms, ugly symmetry.
That says just about all what there is to say, and that is true. On the other hand, his fans doesn't see it that way, they only see his greatness, not any faults of his physic. That is kind of funny, because he himself knows his weak points and talk about them in the interviews quite openly. Torn back and bicep, small forearms, wide waist, those are all visible in that video, but fans couldn't see them. In fact, he has one of the worst symmetry which has ever win the Mr. Olympia. If you stop the video at the 1.04, you see how good symmetry he did have in his back. At the point 1.54 and 2,08you can compare his biceps. 3.24 reveals that he was pregnant or something during that competition. Anyway, he was a winner with his overwhelming muscle mass and nobody can't deny that he was one of the greatest bodybuilders in his time. You also can not deny the fact, that there has been and will be better bb:s than he was in his best times.
-
"much" better midsection than ronnie ::)
-
watching that video.......it really becomes difficult to dignify any of the arguments made against dorian yates.
that video shows the MOST balanced, driest, bodybuilder of all time
he was so far ahead of the rest of the competition there (the competition being some of the greatest BBs of all time in their own right)............that is was not even fair
simply dominant...
In his time there was Dorian and then there was everybody else! (Dorian simply dominated) biggest and freakiest (grainy hardness that no one else had) one of the first guys to go up to 300 lbs (and his back/we had never seen a back like that!) times change (and people catch up/Ronnie) but then he ruled supreme
-
he himself knows his weak points ... small forearms
Dorian was known for his forearms. They were one of his best body parts. Easily better than Nasser's.
-
Dorian was known for his forearms. They were one of his best body parts. Easily better than Nasser's.
Don't try and educate these ignorant girls Kiwi, they're beyond help.
-
Don't try and educate these ignorant girls Kiwi, they're beyond help.
+1
And to the dude who said his abs look like shit,
Dorian had one of the better Ab/Thigh poses. I dont know what the fuck youre looking at.
And to the guy that said his fans wont admit his weak points, Ill be the first to say he had small biceps compared to the rest of his Torso. However, that was his ONLY weakness.
Those who argue his gut usually forget that Ronnie had a worse gut, and didnt control it onstage as well as Dorian did, so its a mute point. (Not to mention Ronnies abs suck dick too.)
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
How the hell are you able to post 23 times a day???? More importantly, WHY do you want to post 23 times a day? :-\ :-\
-
When I said Dorian is ugly I wasn't taking about his face, I was talking about his physique. Supposedly it was the best in the world for a while there, but in my opinion he was an overhyped poster boy.
Thick ugly midsection, fucked up arms, ugly symmetry.
Where in Canada are you from? Something about the way you wrote tells me you're from a French speaking province in Canada. You ended a sentence with the word "there". That is a very FRENCH thing to do. Are you a FRENCHY?
-
Where in Canada are you from? Something about the way you wrote tells me you're from a French speaking province in Canada. You ended a sentence with the word "there". That is a very FRENCH thing to do. Are you a FRENCHY?
no I think he lives over seas or something not even a quebec frenchy would go that low. ;D
-
How the hell are you able to post 23 times a day???? More importantly, WHY do you want to post 23 times a day? :-\ :-\
I work a job where I sit in front of a computer for about 5 hours per day with nothing to do. So this forum kills my time well.
-
Where in Canada are you from? Something about the way you wrote tells me you're from a French speaking province in Canada. You ended a sentence with the word "there". That is a very FRENCH thing to do. Are you a FRENCHY?
I was born and raised in California. Now I live in Asia. I'm an American.
-
:-X
-
You also can not deny the fact, that there has been and will be better bb:s than he was in his best times.
you can say that again: 8)
http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027
dorian never came close to this.
this is fact.
from the opening most muscular onwards, you can see that dorian lacked the shape, taper and detail (from the front) to compete at this level.
-
I'm not a fan of Ronnie Coleman, but Ronnie was definitely a beter bodybuilder than Dorian.
-
I work a job where I sit in front of a computer for about 5 hours per day with nothing to do. So this forum kills my time well.
I want your job.
-
you can say that again: 8)
http://www.truveo.com/Ronnie-Coleman-1999-Mr-Olympia-Part-Two/id/1160132027
dorian never came close to this.
this is fact.
from the opening most muscular onwards, you can see that dorian lacked the shape, taper and detail (from the front) to compete at this level.
Just right. And if BB:er has visible injuries which are ruin his symmetry, he should quit and fix them, not try to hide them like Dorian and later Ronnie try to do. We ain't blind you know, at least not all of us. If you look at the Mr. Olympia winner and you have to say "he looks good even if he has torn back and bicep", how it is possible that he has win? Even judges are blind some times, they look at the fame, not at the dude on stage.
-
I was born and raised in California. Now I live in Asia. I'm an American.
where in asia??.. dubai, india??..
-
where in asia??.. dubai, india??..
I live in East Asia, by the Pacific Ocean.
-
And if BB:er has visible injuries which are ruin his symmetry, he should quit and fix them, not try to hide them like Dorian and later Ronnie try to do. We ain't blind you know, at least not all of us
what about the IFBB judge that claimed that dorian's torn biceps 'made no difference'?
::)
sure it didn't:
::)
if I were dorian, I would have been pissed as hell at that kind of comment.
Because it showed how politically motivated the judges were. they looked the other way instead of judging properly, which undermines his later wins.
Dorian has great integrity no doubt, and he would not appreciate that kind of statement.
-
what about the IFBB judge that claimed that dorian's torn biceps 'made no difference'?
::)
sure it didn't:
::)
if I were dorian, I would have been pissed as hell at that kind of comment.
Because it showed how politically motivated the judges were. they looked the other way instead of judging properly, which undermines his later wins.
Dorian has great integrity no doubt, and he would not appreciate that kind of statement.
hulkster would you say that at dorians best he was top 2 greatest of all time??
-
hulkster would you say that at dorians best he was top 2 greatest of all time??
that depends on how you define greatest of all time.
if Ronnie, Jay, Dorian, Haney, Dex et all all stepped onstage today at their respective bests, I believe the results would pretty much follow the respective eras of the sport, with the exception of Jay/Dex and maybe Franco.
Ronnie at his best was better than dorian
dorian at his best was better than Haney
Haney at his best was better than Arnold..etc etc.
and on down.
thats pretty much been the natural progression of the sport (and drugs lol)
I do feel, like most others though, that Jay and Dex have been a step backwards for the sport relative to dorian and ronnie before them.
however, I do feel that dorian's post tear wins (which was most of his career unfortunately) really hurt him in terms of physique reputation. he was never the same after 93 even though he believes 95 was his best.
if 93 AC flex were to compete in this fantasy contest, he might even beat dorian. because he was much harder and better at the AC than he was at the olympia where dorian beat him.
so no, I am not so sure I would put him in top 2.
all I know is he was well below Ronnie. a distant second or third 8)
-
what about the IFBB judge that claimed that dorian's torn biceps 'made no difference'?
::)
sure it didn't:
::)
if I were dorian, I would have been pissed as hell at that kind of comment.
Because it showed how politically motivated the judges were. they looked the other way instead of judging properly, which undermines his later wins.
Dorian has great integrity no doubt, and he would not appreciate that kind of statement.
Moron the judge said the injury made no OVERALL difference , which it didn't just like Ronnie two missing and pathetic calves made no overall difference neither did one bicep shorter than the other
see that's your problem you make shit up and then comment on your own lies , you're retarded but we already know that
-
how predictable ND follows me into another thread to be embarassed yet again.. ::)
I make shit up?
you think I made these up?:
::)
run along little boy. we all know you run from me, just like you ran away in the truce thread.
-
Moron the judge said the injury made no OVERALL difference
and your point is?
he is wrong no matter how you look at it.
and you are clueless enough to defend this judge LOL ::)
-
Judge must've been blind or biased to say it made no difference.
Just look at the FDB pose, its a big difference. It also showed on the front relaxed, BDB, FLS, etc. Although not as clear as in the FDB.
If I'm not mistaken, I think there was a bodybuilder that was penalized for having a torn pec in the past. Does anybody know the story behind this?
Anyway, why wasn't Dorian penalized for having a torn muscle, but that other bodybuilder was?
-
and your point is?
he is wrong no matter how you look at it.
and you are clueless enough to defend this judge LOL ::)
It's wrong for Dorian to have a torn bicep but no problem for Ronnie to have NO calves what's so ever , gotcha ;)
hypocrite much
-
Judge must've been blind or biased to say it made no difference.
Just look at the FDB pose, its a big difference. It also showed on the front relaxed, BDB, FLS, etc. Although not as clear as in the FDB.
If I'm not mistaken, I think there was a bodybuilder that was penalized for having a torn pec in the past. Does anybody know the story behind this?
Anyway, why wasn't Dorian penalized for having a torn muscle, but that other bodybuilder was?
Spoken like a person who has no clue how contests are judged , the criteria calls for a examination of the calves as well in the front double biceps as well as every other pose but Ronnie's are MISSING in every pose don't be a hypocrite
and Levrone was never penalized for his torn pec ;)
-
Spoken like a person who has no clue how contests are judged , the criteria calls for a examination of the calves as well in the front double biceps as well as every other pose but Ronnie's are MISSING in every pose don't be a hypocrite
I think I have a clue on how contests are judged pal, you're not the only one who knows here. Why are you always talking down on everyone here as if you were the ultimate master on contest judging? ::)
Anyway, I know every single bodypart is judged in every pose and how they "flow" together. What I meant is why a torn, oddly shaped muscle is not marked down as a flaw in Dorian's case?
And yes, I know Ronnie's calves were small for his upper legs, they are a flaw too. But they weren't torn or unsymmetrical to each other, unlike Dorian's biceps.
and Levrone was never penalized for his torn pec ;)
So was it Levrone?
I read in another board that there was a bodybuilder that was penalized for having a torn pec before.
-
how predictable ND follows me into another thread to be embarassed yet again.. ::)
I make shit up?
you think I made these up?:
::)
run along little boy. we all know you run from me, just like you ran away in the truce thread.
I'm going to dismantle your post in two seconds and show everyone how fucking stupid you are.
point one - you're in yet another Dorian Yates thread , wow talk about predictability
point two - you're quoting someone and it's not even their words ( you have a long history of this )
point three - you can't spell for shit yet brag about how great the University you went is , it's embarrassed genius ;)
point four - you don't have a clue on how contests are judged ( again old news )
point five - you're a hypocrite ( surprise , surprise old news again ) Dorian's torn bicep make an overall difference according to you , yet Ronnie's two missing calves don't , or his very mediocre abdominals
point six - you're delusional , no one runs from you all I do is correct you and your dumb comrades
two seconds Hulkster is owned again
-
Why are you always talking down on everyone here as if you were the ultimate master on contest judging?
because he is an idiot.
-
Judge must've been blind or biased to say it made no difference.
Just look at the FDB pose, its a big difference. It also showed on the front relaxed, BDB, FLS, etc. Although not as clear as in the FDB.
no shit. but ND is in clueless land and agrees with the judge.. ::)
-
What I meant is why a torn, oddly shaped muscle is not marked down as a flaw in Dorian's case?
it should have been, thats the point.
but to ND, all is well LOL ::)
-
I think I have a clue on how contests are judged pal, you're not the only one who knows here. Why are you always talking down on everyone here as if you were the ultimate master on contest judging? ::)
Anyway, I know every single bodypart is judged in every pose and how they "flow" together. What I meant is why a torn, oddly shaped muscle is not marked down as a flaw in Dorian's case?
And yes, I know Ronnie's calves were small for his upper legs, they are a flaw too. But they weren't torn or unsymmetrical to each other, unlike Dorian's biceps.
So was it Levrone?
I read in another board that there was a bodybuilder that was penalized for having a torn pec before.
I think I have a clue on how contests are judged pal, you're not the only one who knows here. Why are you always talking down on everyone here as if you were the ultimate master on contest judging? ::)
no you don't , not for a moment you've already proven this. I'm not the only one who knows how contests are judged just one of the very few. I'm not the ultimate master on how contests are judged but unlike you and stupid Hulkster I know how they are judged and aren't drawing my own conclusions based on ignorance , preference all the while being a hypocrite
Anyway, I know every single bodypart is judged in every pose and how they "flow" together. What I meant is why a torn, oddly shaped muscle is not marked down as a flaw in Dorian's case?
And yes, I know Ronnie's calves were small for his upper legs, they are a flaw too. But they weren't torn or unsymmetrical to each other, unlike Dorian's biceps.
You just claimed you know how contests are judged yet you're asking questions on why or how Dorian was or wasn't marked down , if you really knew how contests are judged , then you'd know he could have very well been marked down . however Mr I know how contests are judged , the high & low scores are tossed out so Dorian could have technically been scored down for his torn bicep and still won with straight firsts ;) like I said you don't know how contests are judged
Ronnie's calves were much worse than Dorian's biceps and why? they're oddly shaped , insert high , and lack proportionate size in relation to his quads and lack detail and development and under NO circumstances are they symmetrical , NOTHING in nature is symmetrical and they don't even remotely resemble one another , so as usual WRONG on all points
So was it Levrone?
I read in another board that there was a bodybuilder that was penalized for having a torn pec before.
Lervone has the second most contests wins in the history of the IFBB and he tore his pec early on in his career so ask yourself did he suffer for it? ;)
-
no shit. but ND is in clueless land and agrees with the judge.. ::)
Yes, we've seen that before. As long as its a judges' decision or written in a bb magazine he agrees. ;D
-
no shit. but ND is in clueless land and agrees with the judge.. ::)
As usual you can NOT counter my point ;) I agree with the judges ALL the time not when it suits my purposes
and clueless land? Dorian lost the 1993 Mr Olympia LMFAO
I can come into any thread you're in and just utterly destroy you in two seconds , it presents NO challenge what so ever
I can post a quote from you agreeing that I'm smart , funny you can't do the same ;)
-
it should have been, thats the point.
but to ND, all is well LOL ::)
Exactly.
And its funny that I didn't even mention Ronnie in this thread and ND's first reply to my post was that I was a hypocrite for overlooking his calves.
-
because he is an idiot.
Irony alert , says the guy that claimed Dorian lost in 1993 , thanks for playing stupid ;)
-
Exactly.
And its funny that I didn't even mention Ronnie in this thread and ND's first reply to my post was that I was a hypocrite for overlooking his calves.
It doesn't matter the point stands , you're a Ronnie guy anyway so again the point stands again.
-
Yes, we've seen that before. As long as its a judges' decision or written in a bb magazine he agrees. ;D
I agree with the judges all the time NOT when it just suits my point , either all contests are correct or they're all fixed you can't have it both ways
-
no you don't , not for a moment you've already proven this. I'm not the only one who knows how contests are judged just one of the very few. I'm not the ultimate master on how contests are judged but unlike you and stupid Hulkster I know how they are judged and aren't drawing my own conclusions based on ignorance , preference all the while being a hypocrite
You surely think high of yourself don't you. ::)
You just claimed you know how contests are judged yet you're asking questions on why or how Dorian was or wasn't marked down , if you really knew how contests are judged , then you'd know he could have very well been marked down . however Mr I know how contests are judged , the high & low scores are tossed out so Dorian could have technically been scored down for his torn bicep and still won with straight firsts ;) like I said you don't know how contests are judged
I knew about the procedure of tossing out the scores, that is the only reason Dorian won in 97 with perfect scores. In my opinion it shouldn't be like that because it does not reflect reality.
You just said a few posts back that the judges didn't think the torn biceps made a difference, meaning not a flaw. But now you say it was marked down as a flaw?
Ronnie's calves were much worse than Dorian's biceps and why? they're oddly shaped , insert high , and lack proportionate size in relation to his quads and lack detail and development
As bad as Ronnie's calves might have been, so were Dorian's biceps.
Dorian's biceps were oddly shaped too, one of them torn. They lacked proportionate size in relation to his massive torso and back development. They definitively lacked detail and separations too.
As you see they were just as "bad" or worse than Ronnie's calves.
under NO circumstances are they symmetrical , NOTHING in nature is symmetrical and they don't even remotely resemble one another , so as usual WRONG on all points
Yes, nothing is truly symmetrical as there is no "perfect" bodybuilder. If Ronnie's calves have a symmetry flaw in them, Dorian's biceps had the exact same problem and with the injury it got worse.
Lervone has the second most contests wins in the history of the IFBB and he tore his pec early on in his career so ask yourself did he suffer for it? ;)
Interesting, I didn't know it was Levrone. He never suffered for it as you said, but I never saw a pic or video of Levrone having an oddly shaped pec or unsymmetrical pecs.
-
ND getting his ass handed to him by much smarter people in yet another thread.
just another normal day on getbig.. 8)
-
You surely think high of yourself don't you. ::)
I knew about the procedure of tossing out the scores, that is the only reason Dorian won in 97 with perfect scores. In my opinion it shouldn't be like that because it does not reflect reality.
You just said a few posts back that the judges didn't think the torn biceps made a difference, meaning not a flaw. But now you say it was marked down as a flaw?
As bad as Ronnie's calves might have been, so were Dorian's biceps.
Dorian's biceps were oddly shaped too, one of them torn. They lacked proportionate size in relation to his massive torso and back development. They definitively lacked detail and separations too.
As you see they were just as "bad" or worse than Ronnie's calves.
Yes, nothing is truly symmetrical as there is no "perfect" bodybuilder. If Ronnie's calves have a symmetry flaw in them, Dorian's biceps had the exact same problem and with the injury it got worse.
Interesting, I didn't know it was Levrone. He never suffered for it as you said, but I never saw a pic or video of Levrone having an oddly shaped pec or unsymmetrical pecs.
You surely think high of yourself don't you. ::)
NO you do ;) , out of the two of us , I know what I'm talking about , you don't
I knew about the procedure of tossing out the scores, that is the only reason Dorian won in 97 with perfect scores. In my opinion it shouldn't be like that because it does not reflect reality.
You just said a few posts back that the judges didn't think the torn biceps made a difference, meaning not a flaw. But now you say it was marked down as a flaw?
again YOU don't know how contests are judged which is why you keep coming to your own conclusions. it's like that FYI because it reduces the chances of blatant bias. And an IFBB said Dorian's injury made no OVERALL difference and you have poor comprehension skills as well I never said it was marked down as a flaw , I did say it could have technically been marked down and he could still have won with a perfect score , I don't know if it was either way so hence the ' technically ' comment
As bad as Ronnie's calves might have been, so were Dorian's biceps.
Dorian's biceps were oddly shaped too, one of them torn. They lacked proportionate size in relation to his massive torso and back development. They definitively lacked detail and separations too.
As you see they were just as "bad" or worse than Ronnie's calves.
Ronnie's calves are much worse ( as are his abdominals ) I could argue the point but it's moot anyway , even with the flaws they both were so good it made no overall difference in relation to whom they were competing with
Yes, nothing is truly symmetrical as there is no "perfect" bodybuilder. If Ronnie's calves have a symmetry flaw in them, Dorian's biceps had the exact same problem and with the injury it got worse.
Then if you agree with me nothing is truly symmetrical then don't bring the topic up because it can be thrown right back in your face. Ronnie's abdominals weren't symmetrical either but I don't bring that up as a negative by itself , and symmetry means a fuck of a lot more in the context of bodybuilding than right/left exactness but seeing you're so savy I'm sure you know this already ;D
Interesting, I didn't know it was Levrone. He never suffered for it as you said, but I never saw a pic or video of Levrone having an oddly shaped pec or unsymmetrical pecs.
Levrone's pec tear is visible albeit not to bad but it's apparent you need to open your eyes , a torn muscle doesn't mean the end of a career , Levrone tore his in early 1993 I believe and did very well for himself after that fact
-
ND getting his ass handed to him by much smarter people in yet another thread.
just another normal day on getbig.. 8)
Hahahahaha says the guy who claims I run from him all the time now I'm getting my ass handed to me like another normal day on Getbig , can't keep track of your bullshit huh kid ;)
Hulkster in another Dorian Yates thread bitching & moaning about me and Yates , just another normal day on GetBig
Hulkster typing ad hominem attacks in another Dorian Yates thread , just another normal day on GetBig
Hulkster getting exposed for the ignorant troll he is in yet another Dorian Yates thread , just another normal day on GetBig
Again keep proving me right with each post kid , we all can see how stupid you are with each one ;)
-
whats really sad is here you are claiming I am an ignorant troll, yet everyone on here is disagreeing with you and proving you wrong.
its everyone with a brain ganging up on Mr. Delusion.
and he says I am the troll LOL
::)
-
whats really sad is here you are claiming I am an ignorant troll, yet everyone on here is disagreeing with you and proving you wrong.
its everyone with a brain ganging up on Mr. Delusion.
and he says I am the troll LOL
::)
You're a troll because you're in the millionth Dorian Yates thread crying like the little bitch you are
WHO is everyone? WHO? you and the gimmicks? great proof ::) and I just got here and only the gimmick and you are disagreeing . how could ' everyone ' disagree with me and prove me wrong dumbass? epic backfire in your appeals to the masses
Hulkster = troll known fact
-
ND is calling all the people owning him besides me 'gimmicks'..
::)
what a loser.
-
ND is calling all the people owning him besides me 'gimmicks'..
::)
what a loser.
yes but not all of them because he never called me a "gimmick" :D
-
Obsessed with Dorian much? The dude has been retired for 11 years or so, let him shrink in peace
-
ND is calling all the people owning him besides me 'gimmicks'..
::)
what a loser.
Oh what happened to everyone? never addressed that point did you? again who is everyone? I just started posting in this thread the only idiots who disagree with me are you ( troll ) and the gimmick and both of you just got corrected
you're a troll and a stupid one at that , keep proving me right
-
Dorians left arm looked like it got caught in a meat grinder. His right arm must be like two inches bigger, and it's not even that big.
People just like Dorian because he's a white guy and he's a man's man. But his physique was shit for a top level bodybuilder.
-
Dorians left arm looked like it got caught in a meat grinder. His right arm must be like two inches bigger, and it's not even that big.
People just like Dorian because he's a white guy and he's a man's man. But his physique was shit for a top level bodybuilder.
Says the gimmick
-
Says the gimmick
Gimmick? What are you talking about you stupid cunnt? This is my only account here.
-
Gimmick? What are you talking about you stupid cunnt? This is my only account here.
Oh we're gonna act stupid? you registered in March of this year and already have 889 posts , you average 22 a day , you're a gimmick plain and simple , who cares if you can't come back under your old names it changes nothing you're in good company with Hulkster the troll
-
Oh we're gonna act stupid? you registered in March of this year and already have 889 posts , you average 22 a day , you're a gimmick plain and simple , who cares if you can't come back under your old names it changes nothing you're in good company with Hulkster the troll
No actually this is my only account here.
I had one account before this, but it only had like 100 posts so this is basically my first one. Besides that the last time I came to Getbig was about 10 years ago.
Posting on internet forums is a bad habit of mine these days, I do it too much.
Now run along and jack off to your Dorian Yates posters, you shmoe bitch.
-
No actually this is my only account here.
I had one account before this, but it only had like 100 posts so this is basically my first one. Besides that the last time I came to Getbig was about 10 years ago.
Posting on internet forums is a bad habit of mine these days, I do it too much.
Now run along and jack off to your Dorian Yates posters, you shmoe bitch.
Thanks for proving my point troll gimmick ;)
-
Thanks for proving my point troll gimmick ;)
You seem like you're a total bitch and a total shmoe.
Am I right on this people???
-
You seem like you're a total bitch and a total shmoe.
Am I right on this people???
wow an ad hominem attack and an appeal to the other trolls and gimmicks , boy you're really making ground here
-
wow an ad hominem attack and an appeal to the other trolls and gimmicks , boy you're really making ground here
Eh, suck my dick, bitch.
How was that? Did I make ground there?
-
ND getting owned. have fun working at your gay flowershop today.
-
The most dominating Mr. Olympia win EVER with perhaps the best lineup EVER. . .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5049884837576382067#
-
The most dominating Mr. Olympia win EVER with perhaps the best lineup EVER. . .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5049884837576382067#
The more I watch this 1995 Olympia prejudging clips, the more I see that this was not a dominant win at all.
I see Shawn beating Dorian in a lot of poses, but I know you'll never see that.
Its seems as Dorian was perfect for you guys.
-
The more I watch this 1995 Olympia prejudging clips, the more I see that this was not a dominant win at all.
I see Shawn beating Dorian in a lot of poses, but I know you'll never see that.
Its seems as Dorian was perfect for you guys.
lmfao it wasn't a dominate win at all , keep posting with every post like this one it proves how little you know about competitive bodybuilding
1993 and 1995 were the two most dominate wins of any Olympia winner in the history of the sport
-
NO you do ;) , out of the two of us , I know what I'm talking about , you don't
again YOU don't know how contests are judged which is why you keep coming to your own conclusions. it's like that FYI because it reduces the chances of blatant bias. And an IFBB said Dorian's injury made no OVERALL difference and you have poor comprehension skills as well I never said it was marked down as a flaw , I did say it could have technically been marked down and he could still have won with a perfect score , I don't know if it was either way so hence the ' technically ' comment
Ronnie's calves are much worse ( as are his abdominals ) I could argue the point but it's moot anyway , even with the flaws they both were so good it made no overall difference in relation to whom they were competing with
Then if you agree with me nothing is truly symmetrical then don't bring the topic up because it can be thrown right back in your face. Ronnie's abdominals weren't symmetrical either but I don't bring that up as a negative by itself , and symmetry means a fuck of a lot more in the context of bodybuilding than right/left exactness but seeing you're so savy I'm sure you know this already ;D
Levrone's pec tear is visible albeit not to bad but it's apparent you need to open your eyes , a torn muscle doesn't mean the end of a career , Levrone tore his in early 1993 I believe and did very well for himself after that fact
NO you do ;) , out of the two of us , I know what I'm talking about , you don't
I really don't want to continue arguing with you, as it is apparent you can never be wrong in your mind, but anyway......
again YOU don't know how contests are judged which is why you keep coming to your own conclusions. it's like that FYI because it reduces the chances of blatant bias. And an IFBB said Dorian's injury made no OVERALL difference and you have poor comprehension skills as well I never said it was marked down as a flaw , I did say it could have technically been marked down and he could still have won with a perfect score , I don't know if it was either way so hence the ' technically ' comment
I will be the first to admit that I don't know "everything" about how contests are judged (you should try it ;)), but I know enough to make up my own mind about some decisions. Unlike you, I don't fall in line with everything judges had to say.
The torn bicep could've been marked down as a flaw, but it wouldn't have made a difference because of the score tossing thing as you say. Which is exactly what I was trying to say before: Dorian's torn bicep made an apparent difference, it was a big flaw and the judging procedure of tossing out scores didn't reflect reality which was the whole point of Hulkster's and my comments on it.
Ronnie's calves are much worse ( as are his abdominals ) I could argue the point but it's moot anyway , even with the flaws they both were so good it made no overall difference in relation to whom they were competing with
Fair enough, we disagree here. I think Dorian's biceps were worse.
Its true, both (especially Ronnie) were good enough in comparison to the competiton that those flaws didn't matter much most of the time. Unfortunately, it didn't work that way for Dorian in some cases.
Then if you agree with me nothing is truly symmetrical then don't bring the topic up because it can be thrown right back in your face. Ronnie's abdominals weren't symmetrical either but I don't bring that up as a negative by itself , and symmetry means a fuck of a lot more in the context of bodybuilding than right/left exactness but seeing you're so savy I'm sure you know this already ;D
If you're bringing Ronnie's abs as not symmetrical it must be because of their odd shape and not having a complete development compared to the competiton. In that case Dorian's quads fall right in there too.
Levrone's pec tear is visible albeit not to bad but it's apparent you need to open your eyes , a torn muscle doesn't mean the end of a career , Levrone tore his in early 1993 I believe and did very well for himself after that fact
Again I say that Levrone's torn pec never made a difference afterwards, as I didn't notice it. Dorian's bicep on the other hand...........
-
lmfao it wasn't a dominate win at all , keep posting with every post like this one it proves how little you know about competitive bodybuilding
1993 and 1995 were the two most dominate wins of any Olympia winner in the history of the sport
Dorian's win in 1993 was truly dominant, but 1995 was not in my opinion. He deserves the win no doubt, but it wasn't dominant.
Sure, if you go by score cards and what your "experts" say it was dominant. But once again I say: unlike you I don't always fall in line with the decisions, I can think for myself too.
-
I really don't want to continue arguing with you, as it is apparent you can never be wrong in your mind, but anyway......
I will be the first to admit that I don't know "everything" about how contests are judged (you should try it ;)), but I know enough to make up my own mind about some decisions. Unlike you, I don't fall in line with everything judges had to say.
The torn bicep could've been marked down as a flaw, but it wouldn't have made a difference because of the score tossing thing as you say. Which is exactly what I was trying to say before: Dorian's torn bicep made an apparent difference, it was a big flaw and the judging procedure of tossing out scores didn't reflect reality which was the whole point of Hulkster's and my comments on it.
Fair enough, we disagree here. I think Dorian's biceps were worse.
Its true, both (especially Ronnie) were good enough in comparison to the competiton that those flaws didn't matter much most of the time. Unfortunately, it didn't work that way for Dorian in some cases.
If you're bringing Ronnie's abs as not symmetrical it must be because of their odd shape and not having a complete development compared to the competiton. In that case Dorian's quads fall right in there too.
Again I say that Levrone's torn pec never made a difference afterwards, as I didn't notice it. Dorian's bicep on the other hand...........
I really don't want to continue arguing with you, as it is apparent you can never be wrong in your mind, but anyway......
the very first paragraph is " I really don't want to continue arguing with you ' and then you follow up with more paragraphs doing just that , you're lying to yourself and to me ;) and there is NO argument , it's me correcting your ignorance and you getting frustrated by me point out how little you know.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know "everything" about how contests are judged (you should try it ;)), but I know enough to make up my own mind about some decisions. Unlike you, I don't fall in line with everything judges had to say.
It's blatantly obvious you don't know everything about contests are judged and just based on your comment about how 1995 wasn't a dominant win for Dorian proves you don't know much at all , combine that with the rest of your ignorant statements and it's crystal clear you're in way over your head
The torn bicep could've been marked down as a flaw, but it wouldn't have made a difference because of the score tossing thing as you say. Which is exactly what I was trying to say before: Dorian's torn bicep made an apparent difference, it was a big flaw and the judging procedure of tossing out scores didn't reflect reality which was the whole point of Hulkster's and my comments on it.
Again you and stupid ( Hulkster ) keep insisting it made an apparent difference and the judges thought otherwise , now this is the part where the ignorant ( you and Hulkster ) question the judges and the system and everything else because you can't look past your own biases , the bicep tear made no overall difference and if you say otherwise you're contradicting bodybuilding history and you're also working under assumption that A) it was a major flaw and B) he was marked down for it and seeing the highs and lows were tossed it didn't reflect this
Fair enough, we disagree here. I think Dorian's biceps were worse.
Its true, both (especially Ronnie) were good enough in comparison to the competiton that those flaws didn't matter much most of the time. Unfortunately, it didn't work that way for Dorian in some cases.
says you
If you're bringing Ronnie's abs as not symmetrical it must be because of their odd shape and not having a complete development compared to the competiton. In that case Dorian's quads fall right in there too.
says you again , you say a lot of things that contradict reality , oddly you're in good company with Hulkster , he thinks Ronnie dominated a contest he lost the whole prejudging in and Dorian lost one of the most dominate wins of ANY Olympia winner
Again I say that Levrone's torn pec never made a difference afterwards, as I didn't notice it. Dorian's bicep on the other hand...........
I agree Levrone's pec made no overall difference however that doesn't change the fact , just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's there and you see what you want anyway , like Dorian's 1995 win wasn't very dominating lol you see the opposite of reality
-
Dorian's win in 1993 was truly dominant, but 1995 was not in my opinion. He deserves the win no doubt, but it wasn't dominant.
Sure, if you go by score cards and what your "experts" say it was dominant. But once again I say: unlike you I don't always fall in line with the decisions, I can think for myself too.
You say it wasn't dominate this means what? it wasn't lmfao the thing with people like you who make claims that contradict reality and facts is your point can be given a chance and when you make statements like this you can't be taken seriously anymore and just ridiculed and laughed at , just like when Hulkster claimed Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex and Ronnie dominated the 01 Olympia and Ronnie has more detailed calves than Dorian , continue on though I always enjoy a good laugh ;D
-
The more I watch this 1995 Olympia prejudging clips, the more I see that this was not a dominant win at all.
I see Shawn beating Dorian in a lot of poses, but I know you'll never see that.
Its seems as Dorian was perfect for you guys.
LMFAO! Shawn, nor anyone else was even close.
-
LMFAO! Shawn, nor anyone else was even close.
You have to love these insanely stupid Coleman fans , they always contradict reality ! these are the morons who claim 1995 wasn't dominating and 2001 was lol
they're always good for a laugh
-
You have to love these insanely stupid Coleman fans , they always contradict reality ! these are the morons who claim 1995 wasn't dominating and 2001 was lol
they're always good for a laugh
Indeed, but that is all they are good for.
-
You say it wasn't dominate this means what? it wasn't lmfao the thing with people like you who make claims that contradict reality and facts is your point can be given a chance and when you make statements like this you can't be taken seriously anymore and just ridiculed and laughed at , just like when Hulkster claimed Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex and Ronnie dominated the 01 Olympia and Ronnie has more detailed calves than Dorian , continue on though I always enjoy a good laugh ;D
You say it wasn't dominate this means what?
My opinion.....
it wasn't lmfao the thing with people like you who make claims that contradict reality and facts is your point can be given a chance and when you make statements like this you can't be taken seriously anymore and just ridiculed and laughed at
::) Sure, you and the other Dorian fan can "laugh" all you want and comfort each other too.
What are these facts?
It is a reality that Dorian won, but it wasn't dominating to me.
Again, you can't see beyond what the judges say or what is printed in Flex magazine.
just like when Hulkster claimed Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex and Ronnie dominated the 01 Olympia and Ronnie has more detailed calves than Dorian , continue on though I always enjoy a good laugh ;D
I never said these things, if Hulkster did then that's his opinion.
-
My opinion.....
::) Sure, you and the other Dorian fan can "laugh" all you want and comfort each other too.
What are these facts?
It is a reality that Dorian won, but it wasn't dominating to me.
Again, you can't see beyond what the judges say or what is printed in Flex magazine.
I never said these things, if Hulkster did then that's his opinion.
I see one of the most dominant victories in history,as did the judges. I guess you can't see, period.
-
My opinion.....
::) Sure, you and the other Dorian fan can "laugh" all you want and comfort each other too.
What are these facts?
It is a reality that Dorian won, but it wasn't dominating to me.
Again, you can't see beyond what the judges say or what is printed in Flex magazine.
I never said these things, if Hulkster did then that's his opinion.
I never said these things, if Hulkster did then that's his opinion.
I never claimed you did , you're arguing a point no ones made
My opinion.....
and it contradicts reality
::) Sure, you and the other Dorian fan can "laugh" all you want and comfort each other too.
What are these facts?
It is a reality that Dorian won, but it wasn't dominating to me.
Again, you can't see beyond what the judges say or what is printed in Flex magazine.
you can't see beyond your own preferences and biases and your ignorance. you act like it's a bad thing to agree with facts if you're comfortable with your ignorance have at it , it doesn't change the facts
-
I see one of the most dominant victories in history,as did the judges. I guess you can't see, period.
Great post !
-
the very first paragraph is " I really don't want to continue arguing with you ' and then you follow up with more paragraphs doing just that , you're lying to yourself and to me ;) and there is NO argument , it's me correcting your ignorance and you getting frustrated by me point out how little you know.
It's blatantly obvious you don't know everything about contests are judged and just based on your comment about how 1995 wasn't a dominant win for Dorian proves you don't know much at all , combine that with the rest of your ignorant statements and it's crystal clear you're in way over your head
Again you and stupid ( Hulkster ) keep insisting it made an apparent difference and the judges thought otherwise , now this is the part where the ignorant ( you and Hulkster ) question the judges and the system and everything else because you can't look past your own biases , the bicep tear made no overall difference and if you say otherwise you're contradicting bodybuilding history and you're also working under assumption that A) it was a major flaw and B) he was marked down for it and seeing the highs and lows were tossed it didn't reflect this
says you
says you again , you say a lot of things that contradict reality , oddly you're in good company with Hulkster , he thinks Ronnie dominated a contest he lost the whole prejudging in and Dorian lost one of the most dominate wins of ANY Olympia winner
I agree Levrone's pec made no overall difference however that doesn't change the fact , just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's there and you see what you want anyway , like Dorian's 1995 win wasn't very dominating lol you see the opposite of reality
the very first paragraph is " I really don't want to continue arguing with you ' and then you follow up with more paragraphs doing just that , you're lying to yourself and to me ;) and there is NO argument , it's me correcting your ignorance and you getting frustrated by me point out how little you know.
::) I posted: but anyway.... meaning I wanted to continue doing so.
And you're saying I have comprehension problems?
It's blatantly obvious you don't know everything about contests are judged and just based on your comment about how 1995 wasn't a dominant win for Dorian proves you don't know much at all , combine that with the rest of your ignorant statements and it's crystal clear you're in way over your head
Sure, we all have to agree on how past contests turn out. We can't have our own opinion. ::)
ND, you have to be one of the cockiest guys here.
you can't look past your own biases , the bicep tear made no overall difference and if you say otherwise you're contradicting bodybuilding history and you're also working under assumption that A) it was a major flaw and B) he was marked down for it and seeing the highs and lows were tossed it didn't reflect this
I see....my opinions are biases to you. Whenever someone says something that goes against the judging results its a bias to you.
You have to be blind to say the tear didn't affect symmetry or proportion. And you say I'm biased. ???
Yes it was a flaw and yes it didn't matter because of the procedure of tossing out scores, which is why I posted that the procedure doesn't reflect reality.
I agree Levrone's pec made no overall difference however that doesn't change the fact , just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's there
What? So how would the judge know he had a torn pec if it didn't show?
Judging is based on visually evaluating physiques, if the pec tear didn't show it wouldn't affect at all.
-
I see one of the most dominant victories in history,as did the judges. I guess you can't see, period.
Sure, I respect your opinion.
It just seems some of you get offended or upset when someone else says something against Dorian.
-
you can't see beyond your own preferences and biases and your ignorance. you act like it's a bad thing to agree with facts if you're comfortable with your ignorance have at it , it doesn't change the facts
What are these facts?
The fact that he actually won in a "dominant" fashion according to score cards?Experts?
Bodybuilding is a subjective sport, I don't think some decision can be a "fact" that is set in stone and can't be argued.
Its not a bad thing to agree with these "facts", I just make up my own mind sometimes too. Unlike you.
-
::) I posted: but anyway.... meaning I wanted to continue doing so.
And you're saying I have comprehension problems?
Sure, we all have to agree on how past contests turn out. We can't have our own opinion. ::)
ND, you have to be one of the cockiest guys here.
I see....my opinions are biases to you. Whenever someone says something that goes against the judging results its a bias to you.
You have to be blind to say the tear didn't affect symmetry or proportion. And you say I'm biased. ???
Yes it was a flaw and yes it didn't matter because of the procedure of tossing out scores, which is why I posted that the procedure doesn't reflect reality.
What? So how would the judge know he had a torn pec if it didn't show?
Judging is based on visually evaluating physiques, if the pec tear didn't show it wouldn't affect at all.
::) I posted: but anyway.... meaning I wanted to continue doing so.
And you're saying I have comprehension problems?
No I understood well what you typed , I'm laughing at the declaration that you didn't
Sure, we all have to agree on how past contests turn out. We can't have our own opinion. ::)
ND, you have to be one of the cockiest guys here.
No you're entitled to your own opinion , just not you're own facts ;) feel free to post any opinion you'd like like I've said before it will give us all a good laugh
I see....my opinions are biases to you. Whenever someone says something that goes against the judging results its a bias to you.
You have to be blind to say the tear didn't affect symmetry or proportion. And you say I'm biased. ???
Yes it was a flaw and yes it didn't matter because of the procedure of tossing out scores, which is why I posted that the procedure doesn't reflect reality.
you are biased against Dorian's physique which is how you come to your conclusions like he didn't dominate. I said the tear made no overall difference which it didn't you can haggle all you want in the end , the facts are still facts
What? So how would the judge know he had a torn pec if it didn't show?
Judging is based on visually evaluating physiques, if the pec tear didn't show it wouldn't affect at all.
it's evident if you know what you're looking for , open your eyes his pecs aren't exactly the same
-
What are these facts?
The fact that he actually won in a "dominant" fashion according to score cards?Experts?
Bodybuilding is a subjective sport, I don't think some decision can be a "fact" that is set in stone and can't be argued.
Its not a bad thing to agree with these "facts", I just make up my own mind sometimes too. Unlike you.
What are your facts that he didn't? you're the one claiming the contrary. You can claim the opposite of reality all you want it doesn't change it.
-
What are your facts that he didn't? you're the one claiming the contrary. You can claim the opposite of reality all you want it doesn't change it.
I never said I have facts as to why Dorian did not win in a dominant fashion, just my opinion.
Which is, based on the video, wasn't as far ahead of Shawn or even Nasser.
His FDB is messed with the torn bicep, bad symmetry, bad proportions.
Shawn had an advantage on the ab&thigh pose based on how the quads were developed.
Those are some examples of why he wasn't dominant in my eyes.
Dorian did have the dryness/density advantage, plus he had that massive and wide back that impressed the judges so much. Overall he was probably more muscular than the rest.
In my eyes he won, but not dominantly.
-
I never said I have facts as to why Dorian did not win in a dominant fashion, just my opinion.
Which is, based on the video, wasn't as far ahead of Shawn or even Nasser.
His FDB is messed with the torn bicep, bad symmetry, bad proportions.
Shawn had an advantage on the ab&thigh pose based on how the quads were developed.
Those are some examples of why he wasn't dominant in my eyes.
Dorian did have the dryness/density advantage, plus he had that massive and wide back that impressed the judges so much. Overall he was probably more muscular than the rest.
In my eyes he won, but not dominantly.
Oh so I need to provide facts and you don't? gotcha
Shawn had an advantage in the ab-thigh because of how his quads were developed LMFAO another ignorant statement by you , let me explained to you how it works because you don't know.
All rounds are physique rounds and all poses are held to this standard as well , which means all of the judging criteria is assessed at once NOT individually , muscular bulk , balanced development , density & dryness , posing & presentation are all judged at the same time
Now how can Shawn have any advantage in the ab-thigh when he's down on muscular bulk? 205 pounds compared to 260 pounds even on a pound-for-pound scales he's still behind . balanced development? please , density & dryness? posing & presentation? the judging criteria calls for the calves in every pose you think Shawn's lack thereof renders an assumed advantage in quads moot? how about the fact he lats disappear in this pose? or he's dwarfed by Dorian ? all muscled are assessed in this pose you can't cherry pick what you think looks better and pass on the rest , NOT how it works
Dorian won in dominating fashion because of his overall package was so overwhelming great that there were no challengers to him to quote Samir in 1993 , " Dorian was first , second and third. " he was so dominating because he was so far ahead and beyond anyone in that contest it wasn't even funny.
-
Glad to see everything is flowing normal as usual.
:)
-
Oh so I need to provide facts and you don't? gotcha
Shawn had an advantage in the ab-thigh because of how his quads were developed LMFAO another ignorant statement by you , let me explained to you how it works because you don't know.
All rounds are physique rounds and all poses are held to this standard as well , which means all of the judging criteria is assessed at once NOT individually , muscular bulk , balanced development , density & dryness , posing & presentation are all judged at the same time
Now how can Shawn have any advantage in the ab-thigh when he's down on muscular bulk? 205 pounds compared to 260 pounds even on a pound-for-pound scales he's still behind . balanced development? please , density & dryness? posing & presentation? the judging criteria calls for the calves in every pose you think Shawn's lack thereof renders an assumed advantage in quads moot? how about the fact he lats disappear in this pose? or he's dwarfed by Dorian ? all muscled are assessed in this pose you can't cherry pick what you think looks better and pass on the rest , NOT how it works
Dorian won in dominating fashion because of his overall package was so overwhelming great that there were no challengers to him to quote Samir in 1993 , " Dorian was first , second and third. "
Oh so I need to provide facts and you don't? gotcha
You said you had facts, I did not. ;)
Shawn had an advantage in the ab-thigh because of how his quads were developed LMFAO another ignorant statement by you , let me explained to you how it works because you don't know.
All rounds are physique rounds and all poses are held to this standard as well , which means all of the judging criteria is assessed at once NOT individually , muscular bulk , balanced development , density & dryness , posing & presentation are all judged at the same time
Why don't you tell me something I don't know.
I know all rounds are physique rounds. Meaning symmetry, muscular development and posing are all taken into consideration in each round, plus the rest of the criteria.
I also know that if a pose is called side tricep, it doesn't mean only the tricep is getting analyzed, but the whole physique.
I just letting you know of this in case you try to "correct" me of not knowing. ;)
Now how can Shawn have any advantage in the ab-thigh when he's down on muscular bulk? 205 pounds compared to 260 pounds even on a pound-for-pound scales he's still behind . balanced development? please , density & dryness? posing & presentation? the judging criteria calls for the calves in every pose you think Shawn's lack thereof renders an assumed advantage in quads moot? how about the fact he lats disappear in this pose? or he's dwarfed by Dorian ? all muscled are assessed in this pose you can't cherry pick what you think looks better and pass on the rest , NOT how it works
Yes, I know this is how it all works. I said that Shawn's quads gave him an advantage in that particular pose since the rest of the muscle groups visible in that pose were pretty much even between the two.
I can see muscular bulk being an advantage for Dorian, but how about Shawn's arms, delts and legs being better developed despite his lighter weight.
Dorian had an advantage in density, but Shawn was greatly conditioned too. So he wasn't as far behind as you like to think.
Balance and proportion? I would say they were pretty equal, but Shawn had advantage in this criteria in some poses.
Shawn's posing was always better.
Shawn was not dwarfed by Dorian in this pose if you actually are careful to see it. Dorian's lats were wider, but Shawn's didn't disappear. How about Dorian's narrow looking quads? His lack of vastus lateralis?
Dorian had better calves, Shawn had better quads, which were more proportionate in the leg development?
All criteria taken into consideration and every muscle group assesed. Dorian wins, but not dominating.
-
Glad to see everything is flowing normal as usual.
:)
You guys must be bored to death of all this arguing don't you?
-
You guys must be bored to death of all this arguing don't you?
Whatever floats your boat, bro
-
You guys must be bored to death of all this arguing don't you?
if ND would have channeled all the time and energy over the years into the sheer quantity of words he has produced arguing the superiority of dorian yates.......he could have penned the great american novel
the same CANNOT be said of hulkster unfortunalty because his unquenchable lust for big black musclemen would cloud any possibly cogent or useful thoughts on any other subject. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
if ND would have channeled all the time and energy over the years into the sheer quantity of words he has produced arguing the superiority of dorian yates.......he could have penned the great american novel
Tell me about it, 4 years of arguing in the same thread he created. ???
I think he even used to sign in other boards that had the Ronnie vs Dorian topic just to defend his hero.
-
Sure, I respect your opinion.
It just seems some of you get offended or upset when someone else says something against Dorian.
Not at all. What I find amusing though, is when people such as yourself have the audacity to question what is overwhelmingly considered one of the most dominant victories ever, based on what? The victory was extremely dominant according to the judging guidelines by which contests are determined, which is what matters. That is what makes it dominant and a point of fact.
-
You said you had facts, I did not. ;)
Why don't you tell me something I don't know.
I know all rounds are physique rounds. Meaning symmetry, muscular development and posing are all taken into consideration in each round, plus the rest of the criteria.
I also know that if a pose is called side tricep, it doesn't mean only the tricep is getting analyzed, but the whole physique.
I just letting you know of this in case you try to "correct" me of not knowing. ;)
Yes, I know this is how it all works. I said that Shawn's quads gave him an advantage in that particular pose since the rest of the muscle groups visible in that pose were pretty much even between the two.
I can see muscular bulk being an advantage for Dorian, but how about Shawn's arms, delts and legs being better developed despite his lighter weight.
Dorian had an advantage in density, but Shawn was greatly conditioned too. So he wasn't as far behind as you like to think.
Balance and proportion? I would say they were pretty equal, but Shawn had advantage in this criteria in some poses.
Shawn's posing was always better.
Shawn was not dwarfed by Dorian in this pose if you actually are careful to see it. Dorian's lats were wider, but Shawn's didn't disappear. How about Dorian's narrow looking quads? His lack of vastus lateralis?
Dorian had better calves, Shawn had better quads, which were more proportionate in the leg development?
All criteria taken into consideration and every muscle group assesed. Dorian wins, but not dominating.
You said you had facts, I did not. ;)
I said it was a fact and if you disagree with the facts the onus is on you to prove them wrong ;)
Why don't you tell me something I don't know.
I know all rounds are physique rounds. Meaning symmetry, muscular development and posing are all taken into consideration in each round, plus the rest of the criteria.
bullshit you did if you did then you'd know Shawn couldn't beat Dorian because his quads were more developed
I also know that if a pose is called side tricep, it doesn't mean only the tricep is getting analyzed, but the whole physique.
I just letting you know of this in case you try to "correct" me of not knowing. ;)
again entertaining you'd did know this you'd know then Shawn doesn't beat Dorian in the ab-thigh in fact doesn't fucking come close
Yes, I know this is how it all works. I said that Shawn's quads gave him an advantage in that particular pose since the rest of the muscle groups visible in that pose were pretty much even between the two.
LMFAO pretty much even , their backs are pretty much even? their calves? their chests? you're delusional and your opinion is just flat out stupid
I can see muscular bulk being an advantage for Dorian, but how about Shawn's arms, delts and legs being better developed despite his lighter weight.
Dorian had an advantage in density, but Shawn was greatly conditioned too. So he wasn't as far behind as you like to think.
Balance and proportion? I would say they were pretty equal, but Shawn had advantage in this criteria in some poses.
Better? wow that was a blanket statement , not points , no elaboration we'll just take your word all those parts are better ::) and it's easy to be hard and dry when you're 205 pounds but next to impossible at 260 pounds , density & dryness don't mean much when you can't back it up with muscular bulk and Shawn couldn't , Shawn tried to compete at 215lbs one year and guess what his conditioning suffered for it
balance & proportion Dorian has the clear advantage even with the torn bicep ! and Shawn does meet part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian in certain poses but that's not how it's done , Dorian has meets more of the criteria better than Shawn in ALL of the criteria and that's how it works
Shawn's posing was always better.
Shawn was not dwarfed by Dorian in this pose if you actually are careful to see it. Dorian's lats were wider, but Shawn's didn't disappear. How about Dorian's narrow looking quads? His lack of vastus lateralis?
Dorian had better calves, Shawn had better quads, which were more proportionate in the leg development?
All criteria taken into consideration and every muscle group assesed. Dorian wins, but not dominating.
Another blanket statement Shawn's posing was always better ::) why? elaborate because he twirls around? and poses slow? ::) and once again I have to explain to you that even in the posing rounds ALL of the judging criteria is assessed , in the posing rounds the judges are looking for who has the superior muscular bulk , who is the densest , driest , who has better balance , you don't know how contests are judged especially with this dumb statement
Shawn was dwarfed by Dorian NOT even close , not even open for discussion anything to the contrary wont be entertained. and don't cherry-pick what you think wins a contest. You think Shawn wins because he has better quads , yet worse calves and worse proportion in his legs? Shawn had short legs , high calves this my friend isn't a greatly balanced and proportionate leg , much to learn you have
Dorian won in dominating fashion it's ironic you keep mentioning Shawn when in fact he was a very distant fourth , Dorian was so far ahead in all aspects of the judging criteria there was no one even close to him , Paul Dillett in fact said about Yates at the 1995 Mr Olympia that " I've seen Jesus Christ and he looks like Dorian Yates " this is coming from someone who rarely gives any compliments to fellow competitors , his combo in 1995 was just as dominate as it was in 1993 , there was NO contest Dorian won from the moment he stepped on-stage
-
Tell me about it, 4 years of arguing in the same thread he created. ???
I think he even used to sign in other boards that had the Ronnie vs Dorian topic just to defend his hero.
Hahahahaa says the gimmick who is acting like he's above arguing about this topic ;D and to prove you wrong again , Dorian isn't my hero not by a long shot ;)
-
The more I watch this 1995 Olympia prejudging clips, the more I see that this was not a dominant win at all
the pics show the same thing as the video.
dorian getting owned in many shots.
but these idiots will deny it all. ::)
-
You guys must be bored to death of all this arguing don't you?
no. publicly owning ND and Co. never gets old.
its so easy and fun.
its too bad they aren't smart enough for it to be a challenge though.
that would have been even better.
-
The most dominant Mr. O victory should go to Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1971.
-
Well, if you rip off Dorian's arms and liposuction his abs up he'll look alright.....
-
Yup yates was a disgusting pile of dog shit.
-
not sure if I would go quite that far, but ronnie was clearly much better at his best.
that much I do know 8)
-
the pics show the same thing as the video.
dorian getting owned in many shots.
but these idiots will deny it all. ::)
Oh brother...your selective pics certainly don't show what the video shows. Your denial continually reaches new heights. Btw...nice pic of the front relaxed you picked there ::)
-
95 wasn't even close...
-
You guys must be bored to death of all this arguing don't you?
Haven't checked this thread in a few days. I should have known it would deteriorate into this... Sad, just sad the amount of time INVESTED in trying to prove you are right with someone you hate as much as they hate each other. Been going on for half a decade now!! Incredible.
-
no. publicly owning ND and Co. never gets old.
its so easy and fun.
its too bad they aren't smart enough for it to be a challenge though.
that would have been even better.
Yup just like you owned us with your overwhelming visual proof , Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex and Ronnie ' dominated ' in 2001 and Ronnie has ' more detailed calves ' than Dorian did ;D ;)
the only thing you prove is how much of a troll you are.
-
Haven't checked this thread in a few days. I should have known it would deteriorate into this... Sad, just sad the amount of time INVESTED in trying to prove you are right with someone you hate as much as they hate each other. Been going on for half a decade now!! Incredible.
Not trying to prove a negative , only pointing out Hulkster's obsession with trolling , only pointing out the fact he's in yet another Yates thread crying like a little bitch and posting Ronnie pics. it's all he knows
-
Better calves Dorian
better arms ronnie
better back ronnie
better delts ronnie
better arms ronnie
petter pecs ronnie
better symetry ronnie
better muscle shape ronnie
better genetics ronnie
better vascularity ronnie
doesn't take a genius or a bbing judge to see this
-
Better calves Dorian
better arms ronnie
better back Dorian
better delts ronnie
better arms ronnie
petter pecs Dorian
better symetry Dorian
better muscle shape ronnie
better genetics ronnie
better conditioning Dorian
doesn't take a genius or a bbing judge to see this
-
Yeah but you forgot dorian has him on grainyness :-X :-X ::) ::) ??? ??? :-X :-X
hahaha Dorian should be compared to
j p fux both hAve similarly UGLY phsiques
I don't know why people compare peak Coleman to "peak" Dorian no comparision what soever
Dorian is the worst mr o bar chris Dickerson
segio
Arnold
Scott
Coleman
all had better builds
even though he is grainy ::)
-
Better calves Dorian
better arms ronnie
better back Dorian
better delts ronnie
better arms ronnie
petter pecs Dorian
better symetry Dorian
better muscle shape ronnie
better genetics ronnie
better conditioning Dorian
doesn't take a genius or a bbing judge to see this
you repeated "arms" twice!!..
-
you repeated "arms" twice!!..
I see no harm in that.
-
Better calves Dorian
better arms ronnie
better back Dorian
better delts ronnie
better arms ronnie
petter pecs Dorian
better symetry Dorian
better muscle shape ronnie
better genetics ronnie
better conditioning Dorian
doesn't take a genius or a bbing judge to see this
::)
-
I see no harm in that.
may be he meant the left arm then the right one :-X
-
I don't know why people compare peak Coleman to "peak" Dorian no comparision what soever
I agree 100% there is no point in trying to compare Dorian to Ronnie. As good as Dorian was, Ronnie took it to a next level and was just better.
This is like trying to compare Larry Scott to Arnold or Frank Zane to Lee Haney.
-
I said it was a fact and if you disagree with the facts the onus is on you to prove them wrong ;)
bullshit you did if you did then you'd know Shawn couldn't beat Dorian because his quads were more developed
again entertaining you'd did know this you'd know then Shawn doesn't beat Dorian in the ab-thigh in fact doesn't fucking come close
LMFAO pretty much even , their backs are pretty much even? their calves? their chests? you're delusional and your opinion is just flat out stupid
Better? wow that was a blanket statement , not points , no elaboration we'll just take your word all those parts are better ::) and it's easy to be hard and dry when you're 205 pounds but next to impossible at 260 pounds , density & dryness don't mean much when you can't back it up with muscular bulk and Shawn couldn't , Shawn tried to compete at 215lbs one year and guess what his conditioning suffered for it
balance & proportion Dorian has the clear advantage even with the torn bicep ! and Shawn does meet part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian in certain poses but that's not how it's done , Dorian has meets more of the criteria better than Shawn in ALL of the criteria and that's how it works
bullshit you did if you did then you'd know Shawn couldn't beat Dorian because his quads were more developed
I never said Shawn should've or could've beaten Dorian in 1995. I just said Dorian's win wasn't as dominant as some make it out to be.
I was just using Shawn as an example by the way, I don't care if he came in 4th. I could've used Nasser too as he was even closer to Dorian.
I just prefer Shawn's build, which is why I was using him to compare to Dorian.
again entertaining you'd did know this you'd know then Shawn doesn't beat Dorian in the ab-thigh in fact doesn't fucking come close
Because who think so?
LMFAO pretty much even , their backs are pretty much even? their calves? their chests? you're delusional and your opinion is just flat out stupid
Yes, stupid because you say so...... ::)
In that particular pose for me: Dorian's back is wider and better, his calves alone are better, their chests are even. Arms go to Shawn, quads go to Shawn.
Dorian had better density, but Shawn was greatly conditioned too. Both had flaws in proportion criteria.
This again proves what I was trying to say: Dorian won, but he didn't crush his competiton.
The same thing could be done if you compare him to Nasser, their ab&thigh pose is even closer.
Better? wow that was a blanket statement , not points , no elaboration we'll just take your word all those parts are better ::)
Isn't this what you're doing?
Anyway, I can say why I think Shawn's quads were better: they were completely developed and had much better separations.
Dorian had oddly shaped quads, his vastus lateralis muscle was not fully developed and his quads looked narrow from the front.
Shawn does meet part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian in certain poses but that's not how it's done , Dorian has meets more of the criteria better than Shawn in ALL of the criteria and that's how it works
Which is why I said: Dorian deserved to win without a doubt, but he didn't crush everyone else. ;)
-
Another blanket statement Shawn's posing was always better ::) why? elaborate because he twirls around? and poses slow? ::) and once again I have to explain to you that even in the posing rounds ALL of the judging criteria is assessed , in the posing rounds the judges are looking for who has the superior muscular bulk , who is the densest , driest , who has better balance , you don't know how contests are judged especially with this dumb statement
Shawn was dwarfed by Dorian NOT even close , not even open for discussion anything to the contrary wont be entertained. and don't cherry-pick what you think wins a contest. You think Shawn wins because he has better quads , yet worse calves and worse proportion in his legs? Shawn had short legs , high calves this my friend isn't a greatly balanced and proportionate leg , much to learn you have
Dorian won in dominating fashion it's ironic you keep mentioning Shawn when in fact he was a very distant fourth , Dorian was so far ahead in all aspects of the judging criteria there was no one even close to him , Paul Dillett in fact said about Yates at the 1995 Mr Olympia that " I've seen Jesus Christ and he looks like Dorian Yates " this is coming from someone who rarely gives any compliments to fellow competitors , his combo in 1995 was just as dominate as it was in 1993 , there was NO contest Dorian won from the moment he stepped on-stage
Another blanket statement Shawn's posing was always better ::) why? elaborate because he twirls around? and poses slow? ::) and once again I have to explain to you that even in the posing rounds ALL of the judging criteria is assessed , in the posing rounds the judges are looking for who has the superior muscular bulk , who is the densest , driest , who has better balance , you don't know how contests are judged especially with this dumb statement
Again I have to say: I know that in all posing rounds all criteria is assesed.
I was just mentioning ONE aspect of the criteria Shawn had an advantage on: posing. Dorian best met most of the criteria, which is why he won fairly. But again, he didn't dominate.
As far as why I think Shawn had better posing: I always say Dorian as a bad poser, he seemed as he was about to step on his own feet and stumble everytime he transitioned to a back pose from a front pose or viceversa.
Shawn is also regarded as one of the best posers in bodybuilding, I never read about anyone saying that about Dorian.
Shawn was dwarfed by Dorian NOT even close , not even open for discussion anything to the contrary wont be entertained. and don't cherry-pick what you think wins a contest. You think Shawn wins because he has better quads , yet worse calves and worse proportion in his legs? Shawn had short legs , high calves this my friend isn't a greatly balanced and proportionate leg , much to learn you have
For the 10th time, I never said Shawn should've won the 95 Olympia. :-\
I can see Dorian dwarfing Shawn because of his massively wide back, but when the rest of the bodyparts are taken into consideration.....
If you use Nasser to compare to Dorian, there is even less "dwarfing". Which proves that Dorian won, but not crushing everyone.
Shawn had short legs compared to Dorian, but his legs were not short for his height and torso length. Lee Priest is an example of short legs with a long torso.
Shawn's calves were high inserted, but Dorian had incomplete quads. His legs weren't perfectly balanced and proportionate either.
-
you repeated "arms" twice!!..
ronnie's arms are so good they deserved to be mentioned twice.
that and in 1995 the time of this supposedly dominant victory dorian only had one.
-
there was NO contest Dorian won from the moment he stepped on-stage
of course he was going to win with a panel of judges that were instructed to have him win.
I mean, when you have judges that state that a torn and horribly mangled arm "made no difference", you know you are not dealing with impartial judges.
this is fact.
this comment alone pretty much sums up how bad the judging really was during dorian's reign.
-
I agree 100% there is no point in trying to compare Dorian to Ronnie. As good as Dorian was, Ronnie took it to a next level and was just better.
This is like trying to compare Larry Scott to Arnold or Frank Zane to Lee Haney.
Spoken like a ignorant fan-boy
did Ronnie take density & dryness to the next level? NO
did Ronnie take balance & proportion to the next level? NO
did Ronnie take posing & presentation to the next level? NO
he wasn't better than Dorian in ANY of these areas , the only thing he took to the next level was competing at a heavier bodyweight , which Dorian could have done eons earlier he was 269 pounds in 1993 , it took Ronnie 7 years to compete at that weight and he wasn't nearly as hard or dry as Dorian was at that weight , Dorian was 282 pounds in 1995 ( pre-contest ) and in better condition than Ronnie when he competed at 287 7 years later , Ronnie took what to the next level? competing at the Olympia at heavier body weights with less than perfect conditioning?
Dorian been there done that
-
hahaha Dorian should be compared to
j p fux both hAve similarly UGLY phsiques
I don't know why people compare peak Coleman to "peak" Dorian no comparision what soever
Dorian is the worst mr o bar chris Dickerson
segio
Arnold
Scott
Coleman
all had better builds
even though he is grainy ::)
Got it you like men with PRETTY physiques
-
I never said Shawn should've or could've beaten Dorian in 1995. I just said Dorian's win wasn't as dominant as some make it out to be.
I was just using Shawn as an example by the way, I don't care if he came in 4th. I could've used Nasser too as he was even closer to Dorian.
I just prefer Shawn's build, which is why I was using him to compare to Dorian.
Because who think so?
Yes, stupid because you say so...... ::)
In that particular pose for me: Dorian's back is wider and better, his calves alone are better, their chests are even. Arms go to Shawn, quads go to Shawn.
Dorian had better density, but Shawn was greatly conditioned too. Both had flaws in proportion criteria.
This again proves what I was trying to say: Dorian won, but he didn't crush his competiton.
The same thing could be done if you compare him to Nasser, their ab&thigh pose is even closer.
Isn't this what you're doing?
Anyway, I can say why I think Shawn's quads were better: they were completely developed and had much better separations.
Dorian had oddly shaped quads, his vastus lateralis muscle was not fully developed and his quads looked narrow from the front.
Which is why I said: Dorian deserved to win without a doubt, but he didn't crush everyone else. ;)
I never said Shawn should've or could've beaten Dorian in 1995. I just said Dorian's win wasn't as dominant as some make it out to be.
I was just using Shawn as an example by the way, I don't care if he came in 4th. I could've used Nasser too as he was even closer to Dorian.
I just prefer Shawn's build, which is why I was using him to compare to Dorian.
I never claimed YOU claimed he should have beaten Dorian in 1995 , however YOU did claim Shawn wins the ab-thigh which is ignorant and delusional . You did claim Dorian's win wasn't as dominant as some make it out to be and it's in line with how little you know , and you keep proving it with the comment Nasser was closer to Dorian in 1995 lmfao sure he was
I'm glad you admit you're basing things off of your preference instead of how contests are judged , because it's obvious you don't even know how they are judged and it's not what YOU think looks better that wins contests , you're another guy who likes pretty physiques
Because who think so?
I'm assuming you meant ' Because you think so? ' not only because I think so but because the facts show this , again , does Shawn beat Dorian in muscular bulk in this pose? NO those be beat him in density & dryness in this pose? NO does he beat him in balance & proportion? NO doesn't he beat him in posing & presentation in this pose? NO
Does Shawn has some advantages in this pose? YES , does he beat Dorian in this pose overall when all of the criteria is assessed? NO just because YOU like the way Shawn's physique looks in this pose ( and others ) doesn't mean he wins them , he wins them in your eyes but then again we've already established contests aren't judged on your preferences
Yes, stupid because you say so...... ::)
In that particular pose for me: Dorian's back is wider and better, his calves alone are better, their chests are even. Arms go to Shawn, quads go to Shawn.
Dorian had better density, but Shawn was greatly conditioned too. Both had flaws in proportion criteria
stupid? someone is getting sensitive ;D kinda of ironic you're calling someone stupid when you don't even know how contests are judged. again contests are NOT judged on what looks good for you in a particular pose.
This again proves what I was trying to say: Dorian won, but he didn't crush his competiton.
The same thing could be done if you compare him to Nasser, their ab&thigh pose is even closer.
says you and we've already established a few things , you're ignorant on how contests are judged , base things on what you prefer , but I do agree Nasser come closer in the ab-thigh to Dorian than Shawn ever did , but at this particular contest close in one pose means very little in the grand scheme of things
Isn't this what you're doing?
Anyway, I can say why I think Shawn's quads were better: they were completely developed and had much better separations.
Dorian had oddly shaped quads, his vastus lateralis muscle was not fully developed and his quads looked narrow from the front.
NOPE I give a detailed explanation on the judging criteria and how Dorian meets it better than his contemporaries , I don't just say it's so. Shawn could have very well had better quads it doesn't mean much in the context of the entire criteria that is applicable
Which is why I said: Dorian deserved to win without a doubt, but he didn't crush everyone else. ;)
says you , Dorian destroyed everyone just like he did in 1993 to deny this is to deny his superiority in 1993 , you opinion contradicts reality & bodybuilding history , you're in good company with the other Ronnie fans ;)
-
Just right. And if BB:er has visible injuries which are ruin his symmetry, he should quit and fix them, not try to hide them like Dorian and later Ronnie try to do. We ain't blind you know, at least not all of us. If you look at the Mr. Olympia winner and you have to say "he looks good even if he has torn back and bicep", how it is possible that he has win? Even judges are blind some times, they look at the fame, not at the dude on stage.
what is this bullshit about Yates having a torn back? never happened. bicep yes and in 97 the triceps, same arm.
-
Again I have to say: I know that in all posing rounds all criteria is assesed.
I was just mentioning ONE aspect of the criteria Shawn had an advantage on: posing. Dorian best met most of the criteria, which is why he won fairly. But again, he didn't dominate.
As far as why I think Shawn had better posing: I always say Dorian as a bad poser, he seemed as he was about to step on his own feet and stumble everytime he transitioned to a back pose from a front pose or viceversa.
Shawn is also regarded as one of the best posers in bodybuilding, I never read about anyone saying that about Dorian.
For the 10th time, I never said Shawn should've won the 95 Olympia. :-\
I can see Dorian dwarfing Shawn because of his massively wide back, but when the rest of the bodyparts are taken into consideration.....
If you use Nasser to compare to Dorian, there is even less "dwarfing". Which proves that Dorian won, but not crushing everyone.
Shawn had short legs compared to Dorian, but his legs were not short for his height and torso length. Lee Priest is an example of short legs with a long torso.
Shawn's calves were high inserted, but Dorian had incomplete quads. His legs weren't perfectly balanced and proportionate either.
Again I have to say: I know that in all posing rounds all criteria is assesed.
I was just mentioning ONE aspect of the criteria Shawn had an advantage on: posing. Dorian best met most of the criteria, which is why he won fairly. But again, he didn't dominate.
As far as why I think Shawn had better posing: I always say Dorian as a bad poser, he seemed as he was about to step on his own feet and stumble everytime he transitioned to a back pose from a front pose or viceversa.
You absolutely did NOT know all the criteria is assessed nonsense . and again how times did Shawn beat Dorian in any posing rounds? NONE ever wonder why? because all rounds are physique rounds , so you think Shawn is a better poser? that means Dorian didn't dominate? when Shawn losing both the posing rounds to Dorian and in fact is in fourth place that means Dorian dominated him in grand fashion it's not close under any circumstances
You're proving yourself just another ignorant guy who doesn't get Dorian's physique and prefers more pretty ones , and make assumptions based just on that . Dorian was an outstanding poser and if you ever actually watched him you'd know this , is he in the same breathe of a poser as Lee Labrada? NO however Dorian poses to his physiques strengths , posing to slow and sultry music and doing lots of twists and turns wouldn't ever work with his physique
Dorian was a great poser for that reason and the fact he mastered the mandatory poses , he never looked like he was stumbling that's more delusional on your behalf , he always posed to his physiques best advantage , he always held his poses for the right amount of time , he transitioned well from pose-to-pose and and always presented an air of confidence and professionalism
Shawn is also regarded as one of the best posers in bodybuilding, I never read about anyone saying that about Dorian.
Shawn was a very good poser he always displayed his physique to it's best advantage however that doesn't mean shit in the context of the entire judging criteria , especially when you're down on the rest of the criteria , again Shawn never beat Dorian in ANY posing rounds , ever wonder why?
For the 10th time, I never said Shawn should've won the 95 Olympia. :-\
I can see Dorian dwarfing Shawn because of his massively wide back, but when the rest of the bodyparts are taken into consideration.....
If you use Nasser to compare to Dorian, there is even less "dwarfing". Which proves that Dorian won, but not crushing everyone.
AGAIN I never claimed YOU claimed Shawn should the whole contest , however YOU did claim Shawn wins the pose and you're be dead wrong again. please pay attention , Shawn doesn't beat Dorian in ANY pose in 1995 when all things are considered
Dorian dwarfed Shawn NO contest it's not open for discussion and anything to the contrary wont be entertained just laughed at , and Nasser was compared to Dorian and he was heavier than Yates and yet you'd never know it , Nasser didn't dwarf Yates despite this fact and when all things are considered he dominated the entire contest , again to deny his dominance in 1995 is to deny it in 1993 , there was no contest and anyone who disagree has an ignorant agenda.
Shawn had short legs compared to Dorian, but his legs were not short for his height and torso length. Lee Priest is an example of short legs with a long torso.
Shawn's calves were high inserted, but Dorian had incomplete quads. His legs weren't perfectly balanced and proportionate either.
Shawn has short legs compared to his contemporaries and Dorian was one of them and his legs are short for his torso ( which is long ) , same with Nasser and Levrone , however I digress because if everyone has short legs than it's not a flaw , but he was directly compared to someone who doesn't ( Dorian ) so it's a flaw in the judges eyes. incomplete quads? 1995 his quad was torn but not incomplete , and his legs were absolutely more balanced than Shawns , no question about it ! is Yates' perfect? NO better than Shawns? absolutely
Lets entertain Shawn has a clear advantage in quads over Dorian , this means what? he wins the pose? is Shawn carrying more muscular bulk than Dorian in this pose? NO does he have better conditioning? for the sake of argument lets say it's equal , does he have better density? NO , density and muscular bulk are highly desirable to the judges , one thing to be 205lbs and dense and a whole other to be 260lbs and hard as nails , does he beat Dorian in balance & proportion? NO does he beat Dorian in posing & presentation? NO ( recall all rounds are physique rounds ) he doesn't beat Dorian in this pose , he isn't even close to Dorian in this pose , he's way behind in fact
-
ronnie's arms are so good they deserved to be mentioned twice.
that and in 1995 the time of this supposedly dominant victory dorian only had one.
he had one arm? he had one bicep shorter than another , his triceps and forearms are still awesome , Ronnie never had ANY calves ( two of them ) his entire career but that's okay because you have an agenda and you're a hypocrite ;)
very easy to correct your bullshit and send you packing
-
Nd are you trying to suggest that ugly looking phsique of Dorianis balanced with 19 inch arms on a 250 lb guy
you're funny
I like phsyiques that have round muscle genetically good shape BIG ARMS small waiste and nit just o e good body part
in short everything Dorian is not...
-
One bicep shorter than the other is VERY BAD
but two missing and pathetic calves are good
hypocrites anyone who bitches about Yates arm and then rave about Ronnie's wins lol
not the most sophisticated people this guys
-
During his prime I felt Dorian was untouchable. After the injuries and getting the gut he was definitely given a gift. Levrone and Nasser should have won a Sandow during that era.
-
Nd are you trying to suggest that ugly looking phsique of Dorianis balanced with 19 inch arms on a 250 lb guy
you're funny
I like phsyiques that have round muscle genetically good shape BIG ARMS small waiste and nit just o e good body part
in short everything Dorian is not...
You're a funny guy for assuming contests are judged on what YOU think looks good. NOT how it works
and you keep bringing up aesthetics , which you obviously know nothing about the Greek Ideal which is to have the arms , calves and neck ALL exactly the same size , you think Ronnie meets this ideal? NO so much for pretty physiques , Another classic example of a textbook aesthetic physique are great calves , abdominals and delts , does Ronnie meet this ideal? NO he has awesome delts , shit calves and abs
You know nothing about aesthetics , don't type to me about aesthetics until you do some research on the topic , you like what you like and that doesn't meet the classic aesthetic ideal or what wins contests
-
Aesthetic Ideal LMMFAO Steve Reeves eat your heart out lmfao
-
Don't tell me what I don't know I'm a grown man with two eyes that work perfectly
I didn't ask you to try and tell me anything. I'm telling you what my eyes percieve and what a lot of other people see Dorian was a blocky small armed bber with a good back
bbing is about perception you DONT know anymore than anyone else about judging how a bber should looke because everyone including iffb judges have different perception get over yourself and stop trying to force feed your opinion on others in my eyes Dorian yates looked like jp fux
end of
-
ronnie 2003 may not be aesthetic but ronnie 1999 certainly was.
much much more so than dorian even though they were the same bodyweight:
advantage: ronnie by a landslide.
-
in my eyes Dorian yates looked like jp fux
in 1997 he looked a lot like Greg Kovacs.
but ND totally agrees with the scoring and outcome of all of dorian's contests LOL
::)
-
Don't tell me what I don't know I'm a grown man with two eyes that work perfectly
I didn't ask you to try and tell me anything. I'm telling you what my eyes percieve and what a lot of other people see Dorian was a blocky small armed bber with a good back
bbing is about perception you DONT know anymore than anyone else about judging how a bber should looke because everyone including iffb judges have different perception get over yourself and stop trying to force feed your opinion on others in my eyes Dorian yates looked like jp fux
end of
Don't tell me what I don't know I'm a grown man with two eyes that work perfectly
I didn't ask you to try and tell me anything. I'm telling you what my eyes percieve and what a lot of other people see Dorian was a blocky small armed bber with a good back
You're a grown man who is ignorant to what aesthetics are and I just schooled you . try doing some research on the subject before committing to an ignorant opinion and running the risk of looking stupid
AGAIN contests are NOT judged on what you percieve , or what others see.
bbing is about perception you DONT know anymore than anyone else about judging how a bber should looke because everyone including iffb judges have different perception get over yourself and stop trying to force feed your opinion on others in my eyes Dorian yates looked like jp fux
end of
it's NOT about perception NOT competitive bodybuilding it's not , it's about a set of criterion which all competitors are judged against each other on , the judges don't sit there and just wing it come contest day. I'm not force feeding my opinion on anyone just correcting ignorant people like you on yours.
In your eyes Dorian looked like Fux wow great assessment ::) in the judges eyes Dorian was the most dominate professional in the history of the IFBB and they have the final say , not fan-boys who don't know how contests are judged
-
it's about a set of criterion which all competitors are judged against each other on , the judges don't sit there and just wing it come contest day
well, "Mr. Dorian's tear made no difference" sure could have used some training on how to judge physiques properly.
honestly.
what an incompetent thing to say. ::)
classic example of just the sort of gifts dorian was given relative to the other competitors of his day..,
-
I swear, ND, if you're not one of those high-priced trial lawyers you're wasting your life. Forensic nightmare of postage. ;D
-
ronnie 2003 may not be aesthetic but ronnie 1999 certainly was.
much much more so than dorian even though they were the same bodyweight:
advantage: ronnie by a landslide.
Hahahahahaha he suddenly got better abs and calves in 1999? his aesthetic sucked and always have you can claim his aesthetics were better than Dorian but it's like saying a tank is better looking than a tracker , you gain nothing
-
well, "Mr. Dorian's tear made no difference" sure could have used some training on how to judge physiques properly.
honestly.
what an incompetent thing to say. ::)
classic example of just the sort of gifts dorian was given relative to the other competitors of his day..,
like Ronnie in 2000/2001/2002/2004? you mean those gifts?
-
I swear, ND, if you're not one of those high-priced trial lawyers you're wasting your life. Forensic nightmare of postage. ;D
;D
I enjoy teaching people it's a passion :)
-
he suddenly got better abs and calves in 1999?
there is more to aesthetics than abs and calves.
taper and muscle shape play a HUGE part.
if you knew something about the sport, you would know that:
ronnie 99 showing very good aesthetic appeal:
-
in 1997 he looked a lot like Greg Kovacs.
but ND totally agrees with the scoring and outcome of all of dorian's contests LOL
::)
says the dummy who claims Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex Wheeler lmfao , says the guy who claims Ronnie dominated in 2001 Olympia by losing the entire prejudging lmfao
you can NEVER EVER bitch about any contest you have absolutely NO fucking clue on how contests are judged with these statements , everything you type is based on ignorance , stupidity and bias , very typical of the Coleman fan ;)
-
LOL ND a lawyer?
sorry too dumb.
no one who ever made it through law school could ever think dorian was better than ronnie 8)
-
;D
I enjoy teaching people it's a passion :)
I use the word 'learnin,' so as not to sound high-falutin,' and all. :D
-
there is more to aesthetics than abs and calves.
taper and muscle shape play a HUGE part.
if you knew something about the sport, you would know that:
ronnie 99 showing very good aesthetic appeal:
I agree there are more to aesthetics than calves and abs , however when you're missing them it's not a good sign , Ronnie was never aesthetic not compared to really aesthetic guys
and shape? how about the shape of his calves? shape of his abs ? shape of his forearms? shape of his glutes sticking so far out they can be seen from the front? how about proportion? that's another trait of aesthetics , you're limited knowledge of what aesthetics is what brings you to this dumb conclusions , it's true about the majority of your conclusions like Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex , now what was that about knowing something about the sport? yeah I thought so ;)
-
LOL ND a lawyer?
sorry too dumb.
no one who ever made it through law school could ever think dorian was better than ronnie 8)
Says the guy who claims Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex and Ronnie dominated in 2001 by losing the whole prejudging and Ronnie has more detailed calves than Dorian ;)
sorry Hulkster here is you claiming that I'm smart and sorry I never could do the same for you because you're among the dumbest people on the internet and that's saying a LOT ;)
-
I use the word 'learnin,' so as not to sound high-falutin,' and all. :D
I always wanted to be a learned man ;D
-
I always wanted to be a learned man ;D
Ha! Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer gets the 'little brother' and pronounces it 'learned' and not 'learn-ed.' ;D
-
Ha! Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer gets the 'little brother' and pronounces it 'learned' and not 'learn-ed.' ;D
hahahaha classic episode with Pepe? and Bart's Big Brother beats up the drunken gambler Homer?
-
hahahaha classic episode with Peppy? and Bart's Big Brother beats up the drunken gambler Homer?
Yes! Back when it was funny. I think they were at Sea World, too.
-
Ha! Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer gets the 'little brother' and pronounces it 'learned' and not 'learn-ed.' ;D
I love you too, Pepsi.
-
I love you too, Pepsi.
lmao " it's pepe "
-
Don't you two lovebirds have your own thread? ;D
not anymore
ND pussied out of that long ago.
couldn't take the embarassment of losing so badly.
-
not anymore
ND pussied out of that long ago.
couldn't take the embarassment of losing so badly.
LOSING ::) ::) ::)
are there really any winners when two grown adult males devote large swaths of time debating the finer points of their beloved oiled up ebony mountains of muscle they lust after ::) ::)
lets face it, even if you win,,,,,,your still a fucking loser
-
not anymore
ND pussied out of that long ago.
couldn't take the embarassment of losing so badly.
yeah losing by Ronnie saying he wouldn't beat Dorian for the third time ;) I own you using your own hero and boo-hoo Hulkster in another Yates thread crying like a little bitch , you lost a long time ago which is exactly why you're here
and please Hulkster learn to spell embarrassment you're only missing one letter lol
-
look at this back shot, perhaps the freakiest i have ever seen
unrivaled thickness and development
(http://digilander.libero.it/gruppociak/dy99.jpg)
-
look at this back shot, perhaps the freakiest i have ever seen
unrivaled thickness and development
(http://digilander.libero.it/gruppociak/dy99.jpg)
Unrivalled thickness ???? Hahahha o...k
and while you're at it check out his "arm"
:-\
-
look at this back shot, perhaps the freakiest i have ever seen
unrivaled thickness and development
(http://digilander.libero.it/gruppociak/dy99.jpg)
Hardly unrivaled:
(http://www.bodybuilding-pics.com/42/images/Ronnie_Coleman_photo488.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuilding-pics.com/42/images/Ronnie_Coleman_photo220.jpg)
-
Hardly unrivaled:
(http://www.bodybuilding-pics.com/42/images/Ronnie_Coleman_photo488.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuilding-pics.com/42/images/Ronnie_Coleman_photo220.jpg)
I can't thank you enough for posting that comparison as Dorian Yates' granite like conditioning and muscle thickness is making Ronnie Coleman look like play-dogh. Thank you very much indeed.
Nice shot of RC at the 2001 Arnold Classic:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Play-Doh_Original_Canister.jpg)
-
I love how Hulkster throws a lot of the pro Dorian "talk" out of the window by just posting some great pictures. :D
Some of these guys say so many things about Dorian being the best ever and the such, but then Hulkster takes their whole argument to the ground with those pics.
Of course, most of the pro Dorian people will say those are "selective" pics. ::)
-
Spoken like a ignorant fan-boy
did Ronnie take density & dryness to the next level? NO
did Ronnie take balance & proportion to the next level? NO
did Ronnie take posing & presentation to the next level? NO
he wasn't better than Dorian in ANY of these areas , the only thing he took to the next level was competing at a heavier bodyweight , which Dorian could have done eons earlier he was 269 pounds in 1993 , it took Ronnie 7 years to compete at that weight and he wasn't nearly as hard or dry as Dorian was at that weight , Dorian was 282 pounds in 1995 ( pre-contest ) and in better condition than Ronnie when he competed at 287 7 years later , Ronnie took what to the next level? competing at the Olympia at heavier body weights with less than perfect conditioning?
Dorian been there done that
did Ronnie take density & dryness to the next level? NO
did Ronnie take balance & proportion to the next level? NO
did Ronnie take posing & presentation to the next level? NO
Dorian's balance & proportion wasn't that great after 1993 anyway in my eyes.
His posing was nothing special aswell.
I was talking about the mass monster trend Dorian started and many followed (Nasser, Fux, Ronnie, Cutler, etc.)
In this case, Ronnie took it to a next level. He was massive, but at the same time, at his best, had great shape, taper, aesthetics, conditioning that resembled him to an anatomy chart, etc. His tie-ins were insane too.
A lot of things that the previous mass monsters weren't able to do.
-
I love how Hulkster throws a lot of the pro Dorian "talk" out of the window by just posting some great pictures. :D
Some of these guys say so many things about Dorian being the best ever and the such, but then Hulkster takes their whole argument to the ground with those pics.
Of course, most of the pro Dorian people will say those are "selective" pics. ::)
Yeah I also like when Hulkster posts pics of Ronnie's calves and claim how they're more detailed than Dorians ever were , I also love when Hulkster posts pics of the 1993 Mr Olympia and then says Dorian lost to Flex Wheeler and I also love when he posts pics of 2001 where Ronnie lost the whole prejudging and claims Ronnie dominated the contests !! LMFAO yeah he really knows what he's talking about ;D
and you mean the pics of Hulkster posts of Dorian 1997 fully relaxed to photoshopped pics of Ronnie 1999 fully flexed those pics? ;)
-
I never claimed YOU claimed he should have beaten Dorian in 1995 , however YOU did claim Shawn wins the ab-thigh which is ignorant and delusional . You did claim Dorian's win wasn't as dominant as some make it out to be and it's in line with how little you know , and you keep proving it with the comment Nasser was closer to Dorian in 1995 lmfao sure he was
I'm glad you admit you're basing things off of your preference instead of how contests are judged , because it's obvious you don't even know how they are judged and it's not what YOU think looks better that wins contests , you're another guy who likes pretty physiques
I'm assuming you meant ' Because you think so? ' not only because I think so but because the facts show this , again , does Shawn beat Dorian in muscular bulk in this pose? NO those be beat him in density & dryness in this pose? NO does he beat him in balance & proportion? NO doesn't he beat him in posing & presentation in this pose? NO
Does Shawn has some advantages in this pose? YES , does he beat Dorian in this pose overall when all of the criteria is assessed? NO just because YOU like the way Shawn's physique looks in this pose ( and others ) doesn't mean he wins them , he wins them in your eyes but then again we've already established contests aren't judged on your preferences
stupid? someone is getting sensitive ;D kinda of ironic you're calling someone stupid when you don't even know how contests are judged. again contests are NOT judged on what looks good for you in a particular pose.
says you and we've already established a few things , you're ignorant on how contests are judged , base things on what you prefer , but I do agree Nasser come closer in the ab-thigh to Dorian than Shawn ever did , but at this particular contest close in one pose means very little in the grand scheme of things
NOPE I give a detailed explanation on the judging criteria and how Dorian meets it better than his contemporaries , I don't just say it's so. Shawn could have very well had better quads it doesn't mean much in the context of the entire criteria that is applicable
says you , Dorian destroyed everyone just like he did in 1993 to deny this is to deny his superiority in 1993 , you opinion contradicts reality & bodybuilding history , you're in good company with the other Ronnie fans ;)
Does Shawn has some advantages in this pose? YES , does he beat Dorian in this pose overall when all of the criteria is assessed? NO just because YOU like the way Shawn's physique looks in this pose ( and others ) doesn't mean he wins them , he wins them in your eyes but then again we've already established contests aren't judged on your preferences
When Shawn had some advantages in that pose just shows that he wasn't crushed, in my opinion. The same with the rest of the top competitors in that O.
stupid? someone is getting sensitive ;D kinda of ironic you're calling someone stupid when you don't even know how contests are judged. again contests are NOT judged on what looks good for you in a particular pose.
lol, you can't read ND. I was making fun of you calling me stupid, I was surprised of your arrogant and "know it all" mentality.
I wasn't calling you stupid at all.
says you , Dorian destroyed everyone just like he did in 1993 to deny this is to deny his superiority in 1993 , you opinion contradicts reality & bodybuilding history , you're in good company with the other Ronnie fans ;)
Dorian in 1995 was not similar to Dorian in 1993. His back, calves and overall torso were bigger, but his arms, delts and upper legs didn't match up. This, in my eyes, affected his proportions and balance negatively. He also had the bicep tear, Dorian in 95 was not equall to Dorian in 1993.
Shawn could have very well had better quads it doesn't mean much in the context of the entire criteria that is applicable
Dorian best met the entire criteria in this contest, which shows why he won fairly. Shawn had better quads and other advantages against Dorian too, which shows he wasn't crushed.
-
Dorian's balance & proportion wasn't that great after 1993 anyway in my eyes.
His posing was nothing special aswell.
I was talking about the mass monster trend Dorian started and many followed (Nasser, Fux, Ronnie, Cutler, etc.)
In this case, Ronnie took it to a next level. He was massive, but at the same time, at his best, had great shape, taper, aesthetics, conditioning that resembled him to an anatomy chart, etc. His tie-ins were insane too.
A lot of things that the previous mass monsters weren't able to do.
okay so the entire balance & proportion of his physique was ruined by having one bicep shorter than the other , gotcha lol
and Ronnie in fact got worse the heavier he became which is exactly why his lightest weights are considered his best , 2001 he was 245 pounds , 1998 249 pounds . He got worse the heavier he became because his balance & proportion got worse ( more exaggerated ) and his conditioning suffered as well , two areas mind you Dorian's physique stayed the same the heavier he became AT HIS BEST mind you not at the 1997 Mr Olympia
-
Yeah I also like when Hulkster posts pics of Ronnie's calves and claim how they're more detailed than Dorians ever were , I also love when Hulkster posts pics of the 1993 Mr Olympia and then says Dorian lost to Flex Wheeler and I also love when he posts pics of 2001 where Ronnie lost the whole prejudging and claims Ronnie dominated the contests !! LMFAO yeah he really knows what he's talking about ;D
and you mean the pics of Hulkster posts of Dorian 1997 fully relaxed to photoshopped pics of Ronnie 1999 fully flexed those pics? ;)
Hey, I was just having some fun.... ;D I knew one of you pro Dorian guys was going to respond to this.
You do get upset when someone mentions Hulkster though.
He is probably tired of trying to argue with you though and just puts everything to rest with some of his good comparison pics. (like the 1999 Ronnie vs 1995 Dorian FLS pose pic he posted some time ago)
-
Hey, I was just having some fun.... ;D I knew one of you pro Dorian guys was going to respond to this.
You do get upset when someone mentions Hulkster though.
He is probably tired of trying to argue with you though and just puts everything to rest with some of his good comparison pics. (like the 1999 Ronnie vs 1995 Dorian FLS pose pic he posted some time ago)
The old fun ploy huh? never saw that before ::)
who is upset? you're fond of making assumptions huh? projecting are we? Hulkster is a joke even to people who agree Ronnie is better ! you put that out there and I just exposed Hulkster's massive perception flaws and if you agree with him you're in good company
there is NO argument with Hulkster , he can't even get the basics right , what there is , is Hulkster trolling in a Yates thread getting his ignorance exposed and him melting down . nothing new
the ' argument ' ended when Ronnie said for the third time he couldn't beat Dorian and thus the meltdowns have ensued ;)
-
You absolutely did NOT know all the criteria is assessed nonsense . and again how times did Shawn beat Dorian in any posing rounds? NONE ever wonder why? because all rounds are physique rounds , so you think Shawn is a better poser? that means Dorian didn't dominate? when Shawn losing both the posing rounds to Dorian and in fact is in fourth place that means Dorian dominated him in grand fashion it's not close under any circumstances
You're proving yourself just another ignorant guy who doesn't get Dorian's physique and prefers more pretty ones , and make assumptions based just on that . Dorian was an outstanding poser and if you ever actually watched him you'd know this , is he in the same breathe of a poser as Lee Labrada? NO however Dorian poses to his physiques strengths , posing to slow and sultry music and doing lots of twists and turns wouldn't ever work with his physique
Dorian was a great poser for that reason and the fact he mastered the mandatory poses , he never looked like he was stumbling that's more delusional on your behalf , he always posed to his physiques best advantage , he always held his poses for the right amount of time , he transitioned well from pose-to-pose and and always presented an air of confidence and professionalism
Shawn was a very good poser he always displayed his physique to it's best advantage however that doesn't mean shit in the context of the entire judging criteria , especially when you're down on the rest of the criteria , again Shawn never beat Dorian in ANY posing rounds , ever wonder why?
AGAIN I never claimed YOU claimed Shawn should the whole contest , however YOU did claim Shawn wins the pose and you're be dead wrong again. please pay attention , Shawn doesn't beat Dorian in ANY pose in 1995 when all things are considered
Dorian dwarfed Shawn NO contest it's not open for discussion and anything to the contrary wont be entertained just laughed at , and Nasser was compared to Dorian and he was heavier than Yates and yet you'd never know it , Nasser didn't dwarf Yates despite this fact and when all things are considered he dominated the entire contest , again to deny his dominance in 1995 is to deny it in 1993 , there was no contest and anyone who disagree has an ignorant agenda.
Shawn has short legs compared to his contemporaries and Dorian was one of them and his legs are short for his torso ( which is long ) , same with Nasser and Levrone , however I digress because if everyone has short legs than it's not a flaw , but he was directly compared to someone who doesn't ( Dorian ) so it's a flaw in the judges eyes. incomplete quads? 1995 his quad was torn but not incomplete , and his legs were absolutely more balanced than Shawns , no question about it ! is Yates' perfect? NO better than Shawns? absolutely
Lets entertain Shawn has a clear advantage in quads over Dorian , this means what? he wins the pose? is Shawn carrying more muscular bulk than Dorian in this pose? NO does he have better conditioning? for the sake of argument lets say it's equal , does he have better density? NO , density and muscular bulk are highly desirable to the judges , one thing to be 205lbs and dense and a whole other to be 260lbs and hard as nails , does he beat Dorian in balance & proportion? NO does he beat Dorian in posing & presentation? NO ( recall all rounds are physique rounds ) he doesn't beat Dorian in this pose , he isn't even close to Dorian in this pose , he's way behind in fact
You absolutely did NOT know all the criteria is assessed nonsense . and again how times did Shawn beat Dorian in any posing rounds? NONE ever wonder why? because all rounds are physique rounds , so you think Shawn is a better poser? that means Dorian didn't dominate? when Shawn losing both the posing rounds to Dorian and in fact is in fourth place that means Dorian dominated him in grand fashion it's not close under any circumstances
I knew..........
It means Shawn had some advantages over Dorian, which shows he wasn't dominated. He still lost in the overall picture no doubt about it.
You're proving yourself just another ignorant guy who doesn't get Dorian's physique and prefers more pretty ones , and make assumptions based just on that . Dorian was an outstanding poser and if you ever actually watched him you'd know this , is he in the same breathe of a poser as Lee Labrada? NO however Dorian poses to his physiques strengths , posing to slow and sultry music and doing lots of twists and turns wouldn't ever work with his physique
I definitively prefer Shawn's physique over Dorian's.
I exaggerated a bit with the stumbling thing, but Shawn was better poser.
AGAIN I never claimed YOU claimed Shawn should the whole contest , however YOU did claim Shawn wins the pose and you're be dead wrong again. please pay attention , Shawn doesn't beat Dorian in ANY pose in 1995 when all things are considered
For you and the judges for sure. For me he wins that pose.
Shawn has short legs compared to his contemporaries and Dorian was one of them and his legs are short for his torso ( which is long ) , same with Nasser and Levrone , however I digress because if everyone has short legs than it's not a flaw , but he was directly compared to someone who doesn't ( Dorian ) so it's a flaw in the judges eyes. incomplete quads? 1995 his quad was torn but not incomplete , and his legs were absolutely more balanced than Shawns , no question about it ! is Yates' perfect? NO better than Shawns? absolutely
For his height his legs are not short, you're not looking at the bigger picture. If someone is taller, like Dorian, of course he is going to have longer legs.
When I can't see a nicely developed vastus lateralis muscle, I see incomplete quad development in Dorian. I see Shawn having better leg development than Dorian and better leg proportion too.
I know, Dorian met more of the criteria better than Shawn, which is why he won. There is no need for you to repeat that, I'm just saying Shawn wasn't too far behind.
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
You should not be commenting negatively on anyone's physique after posting your tiny tit pic from your mom's basement.
-
okay so the entire balance & proportion of his physique was ruined by having one bicep shorter than the other , gotcha lol
and Ronnie in fact got worse the heavier he became which is exactly why his lightest weights are considered his best , 2001 he was 245 pounds , 1998 249 pounds . He got worse the heavier he became because his balance & proportion got worse ( more exaggerated ) and his conditioning suffered as well , two areas mind you Dorian's physique stayed the same the heavier he became AT HIS BEST mind you not at the 1997 Mr Olympia
okay so the entire balance & proportion of his physique was ruined by having one bicep shorter than the other , gotcha lol
It wasn't only the torn bicep ND...........
and Ronnie in fact got worse the heavier he became which is exactly why his lightest weights are considered his best , 2001 he was 245 pounds , 1998 249 pounds . He got worse the heavier he became because his balance & proportion got worse ( more exaggerated ) and his conditioning suffered as well , two areas mind you Dorian's physique stayed the same the heavier he became AT HIS BEST mind you not at the 1997 Mr Olympia
First of, Dorian also got worse the heavier he got. His proportions suffered, his symmetry suffered.
Second of all, lets say Dorian was heavier than Ronnie at Ronnie's best. Does this mean he was better? Absolutely not. You were just argumenting that Flex Wheeler was better than Nasser despite being lighter in another thread, its the same in this case.
Ronnie was lighter, but more complete and impressive than Dorian.
-
The old fun ploy huh? never saw that before ::)
who is upset? you're fond of making assumptions huh? projecting are we? Hulkster is a joke even to people who agree Ronnie is better ! you put that out there and I just exposed Hulkster's massive perception flaws and if you agree with him you're in good company
there is NO argument with Hulkster , he can't even get the basics right , what there is , is Hulkster trolling in a Yates thread getting his ignorance exposed and him melting down . nothing new
the ' argument ' ended when Ronnie said for the third time he couldn't beat Dorian and thus the meltdowns have ensued ;)
My post wasn't even directed at you, but it definitively proved what I was trying to do: A pro Dorian guy got upset and replied. :D
You're taking everything too seriously here.......
Just for the sake of keeping this going though, let me say that YOU started arguing with Hulkster in this thread. His first post was not directed at you, he was just saying something negative about Dorian. You didn't like it and started posting back.
And you say Hulkster follows you into every thread ???
;D
-
I knew..........
It means Shawn had some advantages over Dorian, which shows he wasn't dominated. He still lost in the overall picture no doubt about it.
I definitively prefer Shawn's physique over Dorian's.
I exaggerated a bit with the stumbling thing, but Shawn was better poser.
For you and the judges for sure. For me he wins that pose.
For his height his legs are not short, you're not looking at the bigger picture. If someone is taller, like Dorian, of course he is going to have longer legs.
When I can't see a nicely developed vastus lateralis muscle, I see incomplete quad development in Dorian. I see Shawn having better leg development than Dorian and better leg proportion too.
I know, Dorian met more of the criteria better than Shawn, which is why he won. There is no need for you to repeat that, I'm just saying Shawn wasn't too far behind.
I knew..........
It means Shawn had some advantages over Dorian, which shows he wasn't dominated. He still lost in the overall picture no doubt about it.
You're getting lost now and are reduced to just repeating the same shit over and over. Shawn was dominated in every aspect of the judging criteria Shawn wasn't close on paper or in reality , Dorian was head & shoulders above everyone in 1995 especially the fourth place finisher Shawn Ray , you can keep typing the contrary it doesn't change the facts
I definitively prefer Shawn's physique over Dorian's.
I exaggerated a bit with the stumbling thing, but Shawn was better poser.
Contests aren't judged on your preferences , and no kidding you're exaggerating because you're not working with much , Shawn was a better poser ( according to you ) but all rounds are physique rounds so he wasn't in the judges eyes
For you and the judges for sure. For me he wins that pose.
and the judges are the only ones who matter , last time I checked Sandow was on the trophy and not JP_RC contests aren't judged according to your whims
For his height his legs are not short, you're not looking at the bigger picture. If someone is taller, like Dorian, of course he is going to have longer legs.
When I can't see a nicely developed vastus lateralis muscle, I see incomplete quad development in Dorian. I see Shawn having better leg development than Dorian and better leg proportion too.
I know, Dorian met more of the criteria better than Shawn, which is why he won. There is no need for you to repeat that, I'm just saying Shawn wasn't too far behind.
NO actually not true , Nasser is technically taller than Dorian let his legs are shorter and he has a longer torso. Dorian's quad was torn in 94 which is why the development is obscured doesn't mean it's incomplete just torn. but okay I'll entertain your point lets says his quads were better now what? it doesn't do much when you're behind everywhere else , but let me say it for you " for me Shawn has blah blah blah " NOT how it works
Shawn has better leg development than Dorian? another blanket statement , lets talk about muscles of the legs , leg biceps , satorious , rectus femoris , quads , calves and how they all relate to each other . Shawn lets say has an edge in quads , how about satorious? NO , calves? HELL NO , leg biceps? NO leg length? NO . low inserting calves ? NO
Shawn's quads are sitting ontop of high calves this alone ruins lower leg balance NO escaping this fact , Shawn's calves were pretty well developed but very high and lacked proportion you think better quads relegates this moot? I don't think so , but I digress contests aren't judged by what you see because we've already established you're not a judge
And no need to keep repeating myself? ironic you claim that ??? and you can continue to claim Dorian wasn't leaps & bounds ahead of Shawn in 1995 it changes nothing facts are facts , and no need to you to keep denying them ;D
-
My post wasn't even directed at you, but it definitively proved what I was trying to do: A pro Dorian guy got upset and replied. :D
You're taking everything too seriously here.......
Just for the sake of keeping this going though, let me say that YOU started arguing with Hulkster in this thread. His first post was not directed at you, he was just saying something negative about Dorian. You didn't like it and started posting back.
And you say Hulkster follows you into every thread ???
;D
My post wasn't even directed at you, but it definitively proved what I was trying to do: A pro Dorian guy got upset and replied. :D
You're taking everything too seriously here.......
You responded DIRECTLY to me how now is it not directed at me? ??? you're getting lost again
and I'm taking this to seriously? which one of us is hiding under a gimmick trying to invoke a reaction? ;) you type I correct pretty clear cut
Just for the sake of keeping this going though, let me say that YOU started arguing with Hulkster in this thread. His first post was not directed at you, he was just saying something negative about Dorian. You didn't like it and started posting back.
And you say Hulkster follows you into every thread ???
I absolutely did , like I've said I enjoy correcting him ( and you ;) ) and I like to point out the fact he keeps proving me right , he's in another Dorian Yates thread trolling , bitching & moaning and posting pics of Ronnie Coleman . And you think just because I responded to him in this single thread it doesn't change the fact I could post dozens and dozens of threads he's followed me into but it's not important to me everyone knows he's a troll it's old news and as I said before there is NO argument , Ronnie confirmed he couldn't touch Dorian it's just Hulkster trolling and proving me right in every thread
you're trying to play my game and like Hulkster falling flat on your face , keep vying with Hulkster for my attention like him you're proving me right
-
Here's something we can all agree on, Dorian 97 was a mess, and had Nasser had a back, he should and would have won that show.
-
Here's something we can all agree on, Dorian 97 was a mess, and had Nasser had a back, he should and would have won that show.
'97 was the year I finally respected Dorians physique and didn't throw a tantrum when he won
-
You do get upset when someone mentions Hulkster though.
He is probably tired of trying to argue with you though and just puts everything to rest with some of his good comparison pics. (like the 1999 Ronnie vs 1995 Dorian FLS pose pic he posted some time ago)
exactly.
but don't forget that according to the nuthuggers, they are 'selective' pics just because their man loses badly and can't measure up to Ronnie at 257 pounds in 1999..
::)
-
I also love when he posts pics of 2001 where Ronnie lost the whole prejudging and claims Ronnie dominated the contests !
sigh. ::)
you still don't understand that he never should have lost the prejudging in the first place, thats the whole fucking point.
he DID beat Jay in those two rounds, but because of bad judging it was not reflected in the scoring.
watch the contest.
-
exactly.
but don't forget that according to the nuthuggers, they are 'selective' pics just because their man loses badly and can't measure up to Ronnie at 257 pounds in 1999..
::)
why do you have such a pathological lust for ronnie's black cock??
what do you get out of defending his honor?
if you were on fire, ronnie coleman would not walk across the street to piss on you.....
big ron is sickened by your cocklust and lack of dignity :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Yates always blew away kev and flex etc and they looked outstanding at the english gp (ronnie too), dont you think in the same lighting as the english gp Yates would be just as dominant? that show would be between Yates and ronnie with Yates winning. ;D
-
I also like when Hulkster posts pics of Ronnie's calves and claim how they're more detailed than Dorians ever were
sigh yet again. ::)
you still posting this bullshit?
still don't understand the whole point of that exchange do you? ::)
to get you idiots to actually use some visual proof for once and you were so stupid it took you 10 pages of bullshit posts for one of you to finally post a pic to prove the point wrong.
God you are so dumb.
:-\
-
sigh. ::)
you still don't understand that he never should have lost the prejudging in the first place, thats the whole fucking point.
he DID beat Jay in those two rounds, but because of bad judging it was not reflected in the scoring.
watch the contest.
hahahahaha the same old tired Hulkster plea , " you don't under stand " I understand you're retarded full well , keep denying facts they don't change no matter how much you wish they could ;)
-
posting pics of ronnie in the best lit show ever and Yates in not so good lighting is typical, good going hulkster
-
dont you think in the same lighting as the english gp Yates would dominant?
hell no.
the best lighting in the world cant turn shit arms shit quad and a thick waist into something to top Ronnie:
observe again:
-
exactly.
but don't forget that according to the nuthuggers, they are 'selective' pics just because their man loses badly and can't measure up to Ronnie at 257 pounds in 1999..
::)
[/quote
that pic of Ronnie shows off his imbalances... Arms felts overpowering his chest, quads overpowering his calves, etc. I'll admit Dorian never looks amazing in a hands clasped mm. Ronnies other more traditional mm looks much better.
-
posting pics of ronnie in the best lit show ever and Yates in not so good lighting is typical, good going hulkster
typical bullshit excuses ::)
you think great lighting is going to magically reshape dorian's arms, add 3 inches in size to them, fix his torn biceps, shrink his waist, give his quads more sweep and cuts and add vascularity too?
LOL
::) ::) ::)
how stupid.
-
sigh yet again. ::)
you still posting this bullshit?
still don't understand the whole point of that exchange do you? ::)
to get you idiots to actually use some visual proof for once and you were so stupid it took you 10 pages of bullshit posts for one of you to finally post a pic to prove the point wrong.
God you are so dumb.
:-\
LMFAO epic bullshit spin on that retard statement. NO ONE would ever have to prove that wrong , NO ONE even tried we laughed at your insane stupidity
That's like you claiming a VW bug is faster around The Ring compared to a Viper ACR it doesn't need to be proved wrong it's so far beyond laughable it doesn't even warrant a honest response
the sad part is 1) you at the time actually believe it and 2) are reduced to trying to lie because I keep exposing how little you know based on the ' overwhelming visual evidence '
I'm still LOLing at Dorian having better calves than Ronnie needed to be proved ;D
-
typical bullshit excuses ::)
you think great lighting is going to magically reshape dorian's arms, add 3 inches in size to them, fix his torn biceps, shrink his waist, give his quads more sweep and cuts and add vascularity too?
LOL
::) ::) ::)
how stupid.
stupid? posting photoshopped pics of Ronnie compared to Dorian at his worse is stupid yet you're guilty ;)
-
hell no.
the best lighting in the world cant turn shit arms shit quad and a thick waist into something to top Ronnie:
observe again:
looking at that ggp pic, I'm honestly starting to think Dorian is wider than Ronnie. I know Ronnie widened out quite a bit in 3 years, but the difference in clavicle width is extraordinary. And yes I do realize ronnie is quite literally relaxed.
-
looking at that ggp pic, I'm honestly starting to think Dorian is wider than Ronnie. I know Ronnie widened out quite a bit in 3 years, but the difference in clavicle width is extraordinary. And yes I do realize ronnie is quite literally relaxed.
Funny you bring that up , ironically Ronnie is about pounds lighter than Dorian that year and looks noticeably smaller , the funny part is that's not even Dorian at his best imagine Dorian at 269 pounds next to Ronnie
these morons believe their own fanciful ' comparisons ' where Dorian is being dwarfed hahahahaha fan-boys look at the staggering difference is calve size
-
at his best imagine Dorian at 269 pounds next to Ronnie
he was only good at 269 several weeks out from a contest (93 black and whites). and he still loses badly to a contest shape ronnie.
at 270 onstage (1997) he looked like total dogshit. like Kovacs.
by imagining dorian standing onstage looking like he never did in real life you are showing your desperating here badly.
you know you are losing the argument, badly, so you have to create fantasy presentations for dorian to even stand a chance.
sad man sad.
-
Poor Kovacs
-
he was only good at 269 several weeks out from a contest (93 black and whites). and he still loses badly to a contest shape ronnie.
at 270 onstage (1997) he looked like total dogshit. like Kovacs.
by imagining dorian standing onstage looking like he never did in real life you are showing your desperating here badly.
you know you are losing the argument, badly, so you have to create fantasy presentations for dorian to even stand a chance.
sad man sad.
hahahahahahaha thanks for proving my point dumbass , pics of Ronnie with the same size calves as a 269 pound Dorian Yates HEHEHEHEHEHE
there is NO argument you're a fucking moron and all I'm doing is exposing you for it ;)
Ronnie's calves are more detailed than Dorians ever were LMMFAO
run along meltdown-boy
-
ND is getting more and more stupid with each passing post. :-\
he doesn't take anything in.
-
Funny you bring that up , ironically Ronnie is about pounds lighter than Dorian that year and looks noticeably smaller , the funny part is that's not even Dorian at his best imagine Dorian at 269 pounds next to Ronnie
these morons believe their own fanciful ' comparisons ' where Dorian is being dwarfed hahahahaha fan-boys look at the staggering difference is calve size
whats funny is that dorian was barely wider than Kevin Levrone, yet Ronnie was much wider than Kevin.
hence, Ronnie was wider than dorian..
-
ND is getting more and more stupid with each passing post. :-\
he doesn't take anything in.
No I took in Dorian lost inn 1993 to Flex and Ronnie has more detailed calves than Dorian did and Ronnie dominated in 2001 by losing the whole prejudging ;D your words kid NOT mine ;)
you're in another Dorian Yates thread getting exposed now what was that again about being stupid? ;)
-
ND is getting more and more stupid with each passing post. :-\
he doesn't take anything in.
I don't understand you. No one is arguing Dorian in 97 looked amazing. Good enough to win, debatable. If Nasser had more than half a back, I think he would have won.
-
whats funny is that dorian was barely wider than Kevin Levrone, yet Ronnie was much wider than Kevin.
hence, Ronnie was wider than dorian..
hate to break it to you, but ronni doesn't look wider than half of Kevin there, terrible pic to support your claim. But I guess you see what you want to, so :-X
-
whats funny is that dorian was barely wider than Kevin Levrone, yet Ronnie was much wider than Kevin.
hence, Ronnie was wider than dorian..
sure he was ;D Hulkster's bullshit dismissed in two seconds ;)
-
I don't understand you. No one is arguing Dorian in 97 looked amazing. Good enough to win, debatable. If Nasser had more than half a back, I think he would have won.
but your pal ND is so desperate he is saying things like "imagine ronnie standing next to dorian at 269 pounds" when dorian never ever looked good onstage at that bodyweight.
you seriously need to talk to him.
he is making the dorian side look really sad stupid and pathetic with this stuff.
he is going nuts.
-
but your pal ND is so desperate he is saying things like "imagine ronnie standing next to dorian at 269 pounds" when dorian never ever looked good onstage at that bodyweight.
you seriously need to talk to him.
he is making the dorian side look really sad stupid and pathetic with this stuff.
he is going nuts.
It doesn't matter if he stood on-stage with that body weight it doesn't change the fact that he was in outstanding condition at that weight and you hate it because you know it destroys your 99 Ronnie with ease
and your M.O. is pathetic you think if you bash me people will forget your stupid ass statements and they wont because in every thread you hi-jack I will remind people that you know shit especially when you claimed Ronnie's calves were more detailed than Dorian and Yates lost in 1993 to Flex and Ronnie dominated a contest he lost the whole prejudging in
one of us is looking very fucking stupid and it ain't me ;)
-
I don't think any version of Dorian could have beaten the '98-99 Ronnie. I liked some aspects of Dorian's physique better though and in some shots doesn't look as ugly as Ronnie's
-
Nobody but you two gives a shit.
Hope this helps.
Says the guy who just responded thanks for proving my point ;)
-
hate to break it to you, but ronni doesn't look wider than half of Kevin there, terrible pic to support your claim. But I guess you see what you want to, so :-X
BINGO ! dumb Hulkster with another backfire ;D
-
if he stood on-stage with that body weight it doesn't change the fact that he was in outstanding condition at that weight and you hate it because you know it destroys your 99 Ronnie with eas
LOL yeah sure:
::)
with ease. ::)
its funny how the visuals always cause your agument to fail miserably.
funny. but very compelling on how wrong you are.
-
Dorian has the ugliest phsiqu. Out of all the mr o's
his body looks like the thing
minus the arms
-
Dorian has the ugliest phsiqu. Out of all the mr o's
his body looks like the thing
minus the arms
Yes we've established you like your men with pretty physiques , no need to tell us again
aesthetic he says LMFAO
-
LOL yeah sure:
::)
with ease. ::)
its funny how the visuals always cause your agument to fail miserably.
funny. but very compelling on how wrong you are.
Sure which is exactly why you're crying he never looked like that onstage ;) because you know how great he is , to this day these pics are still talked about they're legendary
Dorian's bigger , harder , drier and better balanced than Ronnie 1999 be far
-
You're getting lost now and are reduced to just repeating the same shit over and over. Shawn was dominated in every aspect of the judging criteria Shawn wasn't close on paper or in reality , Dorian was head & shoulders above everyone in 1995 especially the fourth place finisher Shawn Ray , you can keep typing the contrary it doesn't change the facts
Contests aren't judged on your preferences , and no kidding you're exaggerating because you're not working with much , Shawn was a better poser ( according to you ) but all rounds are physique rounds so he wasn't in the judges eyes
and the judges are the only ones who matter , last time I checked Sandow was on the trophy and not JP_RC contests aren't judged according to your whims
NO actually not true , Nasser is technically taller than Dorian let his legs are shorter and he has a longer torso. Dorian's quad was torn in 94 which is why the development is obscured doesn't mean it's incomplete just torn. but okay I'll entertain your point lets says his quads were better now what? it doesn't do much when you're behind everywhere else , but let me say it for you " for me Shawn has blah blah blah " NOT how it works
Shawn has better leg development than Dorian? another blanket statement , lets talk about muscles of the legs , leg biceps , satorious , rectus femoris , quads , calves and how they all relate to each other . Shawn lets say has an edge in quads , how about satorious? NO , calves? HELL NO , leg biceps? NO leg length? NO . low inserting calves ? NO
Shawn's quads are sitting ontop of high calves this alone ruins lower leg balance NO escaping this fact , Shawn's calves were pretty well developed but very high and lacked proportion you think better quads relegates this moot? I don't think so , but I digress contests aren't judged by what you see because we've already established you're not a judge
And no need to keep repeating myself? ironic you claim that ??? and you can continue to claim Dorian wasn't leaps & bounds ahead of Shawn in 1995 it changes nothing facts are facts , and no need to you to keep denying them ;D
You're getting lost now and are reduced to just repeating the same shit over and over. Shawn was dominated in every aspect of the judging criteria Shawn wasn't close on paper or in reality , Dorian was head & shoulders above everyone in 1995 especially the fourth place finisher Shawn Ray , you can keep typing the contrary it doesn't change the facts
Contests aren't judged on your preferences , and no kidding you're exaggerating because you're not working with much , Shawn was a better poser ( according to you ) but all rounds are physique rounds so he wasn't in the judges eyes
and the judges are the only ones who matter , last time I checked Sandow was on the trophy and not JP_RC contests aren't judged according to your whims
We're getting nowhere here ND, you can't understand what I'm trying to say. You're a little bit close minded and guide yourself on what the judges had to say instead trying to see what constitutes a great complete physique.
Now I see why Hulkster got tired of arguing with you. Let's just say I think Dorian didn't dominate and you think he did.
NO actually not true , Nasser is technically taller than Dorian let his legs are shorter and he has a longer torso. Dorian's quad was torn in 94 which is why the development is obscured doesn't mean it's incomplete just torn.
Nasser has some structural flaws, his legs are a bit short for his long torso. Shawn's legs weren't.
I didn't mean that when someone is tall his legs have to be long. All I said is that Dorian had longer legs than Shawn because he was taller, but both men's legs were proportionate in length to their torsos.
Shawn has better leg development than Dorian? another blanket statement , lets talk about muscles of the legs , leg biceps , satorious , rectus femoris , quads , calves and how they all relate to each other . Shawn lets say has an edge in quads , how about satorious? NO , calves? HELL NO , leg biceps? NO leg length? NO . low inserting calves ? NO
Shawn's quads are sitting ontop of high calves this alone ruins lower leg balance NO escaping this fact , Shawn's calves were pretty well developed but very high and lacked proportion you think better quads relegates this moot? I don't think so , but I digress contests aren't judged by what you see because we've already established you're not a judge
Shawn's quads are better developed than Dorian's quads. No blanket statement, I already said Dorian quads lacked complete development of the vastus lateralis muscle and even the rectus femoris isn't fully developed compared to his top competiton. His quads also lacked separations and striations compared to his top competiton. I even think Shawn's hamstrings were proportionately developed to his quads in a better way than Dorian. Shawn's high calves did throw the proportions of his legs off a bit, but I don't see Dorian's legs being perfect either.
Just as Shawn's high, but well developed calves, harm his leg proportion; doesn't Dorian's underdeveloped, narrow looking quads harm his leg proportions too? Especially when he has those amazing calves? Did his upper leg development always match up his calves develpment?
Let's say it did and in 1995 his legs were proportionate in itself. How about the bigger picture, where his legs and arms proportionate to his massive back and torso? I think not, especially when compared to his top competiton.
Despite all of this, Dorian still won fairly. No dispute in that, but he had disadvantages that prevented him from dominating.
-
Yes we've established you like your men with pretty physiques , no need to tell us again
aesthetic he says LMFAO
and we've established you like men with ugly builds barrel torso with stick arms and your point is?
You act as if your opinion on phsiques is more valid than anyone elses.
Get over yourself ... Dorian = conditioned jp fux huuuge torso tiny arms wide waiste zero lines just a big mess a la branch warren ... Even jay is a more complete bber than Dorian no missing bodyparts
just thank heaven Dorian had a good back or we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now ...
-
and we've established you like men with ugly builds barrel torso with stick arms and your point is?
You act as if your opinion on phsiques is more valid than anyone elses.
Get over yourself ... Dorian = conditioned jp fux huuuge torso tiny arms wide waiste zero lines just a big mess a la branch warren ... Even jay is a more complete bber than Dorian no missing bodyparts
just thank heaven Dorian had a good back or we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now ...
and we've established you like men with ugly builds barrel torso with stick arms and your point is?
Wrong I'm a huge fan of Steve Reeves ;)
You act as if your opinion on phsiques is more valid than anyone elses.
Get over yourself ... Dorian = conditioned jp fux huuuge torso tiny arms wide waiste zero lines just a big mess a la branch warren ... Even jay is a more complete bber than Dorian no missing bodyparts
just thank heaven Dorian had a good back or we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now ...
I know at least what I'm talking about , you clearly don't. yes that's all Dorian had was a good back and calves and that made him win six Sandows ::) wonder why so many guys with good backs haven't managed that feat
-
You responded DIRECTLY to me how now is it not directed at me? ??? you're getting lost again
I responded to your reply of my post about Hulkster that wasn't directed at you.
and I'm taking this to seriously? which one of us is hiding under a gimmick trying to invoke a reaction? ;) you type I correct pretty clear cut
I meant my post about Hulkster, not the "arguments" we were having before.
I absolutely did , like I've said I enjoy correcting him ( and you ;) ) and I like to point out the fact he keeps proving me right , he's in another Dorian Yates thread trolling , bitching & moaning and posting pics of Ronnie Coleman . And you think just because I responded to him in this single thread it doesn't change the fact I could post dozens and dozens of threads he's followed me into but it's not important to me everyone knows he's a troll it's old news and as I said before there is NO argument , Ronnie confirmed he couldn't touch Dorian it's just Hulkster trolling and proving me right in every thread
Maybe, but he is definitively tired of arguing with you apparently. Which is why he posts the pics.
you're trying to play my game and like Hulkster falling flat on your face , keep vying with Hulkster for my attention like him you're proving me right
-
We're getting nowhere here ND, you can't understand what I'm trying to say. You're a little bit close minded and guide yourself on what the judges had to say instead trying to see what constitutes a great complete physique.
Now I see why Hulkster got tired of arguing with you. Let's just say I think Dorian didn't dominate and you think he did.
Nasser has some structural flaws, his legs are a bit short for his long torso. Shawn's legs weren't.
I didn't mean that when someone is tall his legs have to be long. All I said is that Dorian had longer legs than Shawn because he was taller, but both men's legs were proportionate in length to their torsos.
Shawn's quads are better developed than Dorian's quads. No blanket statement, I already said Dorian quads lacked complete development of the vastus lateralis muscle and even the rectus femoris isn't fully developed compared to his top competiton. His quads also lacked separations and striations compared to his top competiton. I even think Shawn's hamstrings were proportionately developed to his quads in a better way than Dorian. Shawn's high calves did throw the proportions of his legs off a bit, but I don't see Dorian's legs being perfect either.
Just as Shawn's high, but well developed calves, harm his leg proportion; doesn't Dorian's underdeveloped, narrow looking quads harm his leg proportions too? Especially when he has those amazing calves? Did his upper leg development always match up his calves develpment?
Let's say it did and in 1995 his legs were proportionate in itself. How about the bigger picture, where his legs and arms proportionate to his massive back and torso? I think not, especially when compared to his top competiton.
Despite all of this, Dorian still won fairly. No dispute in that, but he had disadvantages that prevented him from dominating.
We're getting nowhere here ND, you can't understand what I'm trying to say. You're a little bit close minded and guide yourself on what the judges had to say instead trying to see what constitutes a great complete physique.
We're getting no where because you're ignorant and insist on basing everything you know on what you prefer. NOT how it works.
Now I see why Hulkster got tired of arguing with you. Let's just say I think Dorian didn't dominate and you think he did.
Hulkster doesn't get tried of arguing with me he got tired of me exposing how little he knows. Again , you can think he didn't dominate all you'd like it doesn't change the fact he did.
Nasser has some structural flaws, his legs are a bit short for his long torso. Shawn's legs weren't.
I didn't mean that when someone is tall his legs have to be long. All I said is that Dorian had longer legs than Shawn because he was taller, but both men's legs were proportionate in length to their torsos.
Shawn's legs were short in relation to his torso , you see what you want and base everything you see on what you like.
Shawn's quads are better developed than Dorian's quads. No blanket statement, I already said Dorian quads lacked complete development of the vastus lateralis muscle and even the rectus femoris isn't fully developed compared to his top competiton. His quads also lacked separations and striations compared to his top competiton. I even think Shawn's hamstrings were proportionately developed to his quads in a better way than Dorian. Shawn's high calves did throw the proportions of his legs off a bit, but I don't see Dorian's legs being perfect either.
Now you're playing word games , you claimed Shawn had better ' leg development ' that's a blanket statement now you're reduced to amending your original statement. I've already addressed your comments before so no need to rehash
Just as Shawn's high, but well developed calves, harm his leg proportion; doesn't Dorian's underdeveloped, narrow looking quads harm his leg proportions too? Especially when he has those amazing calves? Did his upper leg development always match up his calves develpment?
Let's say it did and in 1995 his legs were proportionate in itself. How about the bigger picture, where his legs and arms proportionate to his massive back and torso? I think not, especially when compared to his top competiton.
Says you.... the judges thought otherwise , I can harp on Shawn's height which FYI is part & parcel of the whole package , his lack of clavicle width , his lack of back width , his long torso , short legs , high calves , Dorian has better balance & proportion than Shawn coupled with better density & dryness and muscular bulk which is why he dominated everyone , Shawn included
Despite all of this, Dorian still won fairly. No dispute in that, but he had disadvantages that prevented him from dominating.
says you , keep denying reality , in fact Dorian dominated bodybuilder unlike anyone before or since , 1993 and 1995 were prime examples as I've mentioned before you can deny this fact all you like it doesn't change it
-
It doesn't matter if he stood on-stage with that body weight it doesn't change the fact that he was in outstanding condition at that weight and you hate it because you know it destroys your 99 Ronnie with ease
Are you talking about Dorian in the 93 black & white pics?
If so, I have to disagree.
-
I responded to your reply of my post about Hulkster that wasn't directed at you.
yet you responded to me and you're scratching your head wondering why I responded ::)
I meant my post about Hulkster, not the "arguments" we were having before.
type what you mean , I can only respond to what you type , I can't read your mind.
Maybe, but he is definitively tired of arguing with you apparently. Which is why he posts the pics.
he's tired of getting proved dead wrong which is why all he does is post pics and say " SEE " he's in way over his head ..he committed to some very ignorant and insanely stupid posts and when he was quickly corrected he got stick of being embarrassed and just started posting pics and crying ' see '
The dumbass claimed Dorian lost in 1993 to Flex Wheeler and he really believed it too :-\ he claimed Dorian lost one of the most dominate wins in the history of the contest lmfao when everyone ridiculed him he gave up on that quick , there is NO argument with him , just me correcting every stupid thing he's ever committed to
-
Are you talking about Dorian in the 93 black & white pics?
If so, I have to disagree.
It's fine you disagree , but needless to say the scale of off on that ' comparison ' it was made by a Ronnie guy who has a fanciful idea of how Ronnie would make Dorian look , pics of Ronnie with the same size calves as Dorian and Dorian with a waist just as small lol
lots of people think Ronnie is better I have no problem with that it's a popular opinion it doesn't mean it's a right one.
-
lots of people think Ronnie is better I have no problem with that it's a popular opinion it doesn't mean it's a right one.
What makes the opinion of Dorian being better the right one? Isn't it just your opinion too?
-
It would of been an interesting Olympia had Dorian competed in 1998, if, after his steak and ice cream celebration, you could convince him to do one more season.
-
Are you talking about Dorian in the 93 black & white pics?
If so, I have to disagree.
its okay. so does everyone else.
ronnie 99 >> dorian 93 onstage OR offstage.
-
What makes the opinion of Dorian being better the right one? Isn't it just your opinion too?
Never said it was but my opinion at the least is based on the information on how contests are judged not ignorance and bias
-
its okay. so does everyone else.
ronnie 99 >> dorian 93 onstage OR offstage.
Ronnie Coleman DON'T ;)
more flawed logic from GetBig's resident moron , it's true because it's popular
Dorian's bigger . harder , drier and better balanced NO contest
-
oh but ronnie coleman does.
when asked who would win if he, dorian and arnold stepped onstage tomorrow at their respective bests, he said he would win. period.
forgot about that little gem, Narcasisstic Flowery, didn't you?
-
it's true because it's popular
no, its true and popular because its PROVEN:
there is no contest here:
none.
-
It would of been an interesting Olympia had Dorian competed in 1998,
thats for sure.
dorian would have been beaten easily, assuming he showed up looking like his 97 form.
-
oh but ronnie coleman does.
when asked who would win if he, dorian and arnold stepped onstage tomorrow at their respective bests, he said he would win. period.
forgot about that little gem, Narcasisstic Flowery, didn't you?
WRONG three times your own hero stated Dorian would kick his ass ;)
-
no, its true and popular because its PROVEN:
there is no contest here:
none.
hahahaha thanks for proving my point , posts pics and claim ' see ' lol
-
thats for sure.
dorian would have been beaten easily, assuming he showed up looking like his 97 form.
hahahahaha Ronnie 1997 and he was 9th , Dorian at his worse trampled Ronnie one year away from winning the whole contest , Dorian at his best would dispose of Ronnie with ease ;)
-
Bodybuilding is all politics (i mean cocksucking), even Kamali beat Dennis Wolf man ???. Stop mentioning "what the experts/judges" think, nobody gives a shit.
Oh it's Mr no one cares ::) don't you have pictures of you kissing men you need to take?
-
WRONG three times your own hero stated Dorian would kick his ass ;)
he also stated he was a cop when he wasn't
and that he never injured his back when he showed up with an obvious lat tear.
so you can't simply go by what ronnie says.
duh.
::)
man, you are really grabbing for straws with all this visual owning here.
you know it and we all know it that ronnie is much better, but still you have to come up with stuff like this that has nothing to do with their physiques as something to hang on by.
sad, man. sad.
-
hahahaha thanks for proving my point , posts pics and claim ' see ' lol
yup.
the pics prove it all.
if you know how to assess a physique properly (which you don't) they tell the whole story, along with the vids.
talk is cheap. but its all you cling to.. ::)
-
hahahahaha Ronnie 1997 and he was 9th , Dorian at his worse trampled Ronnie one year away from winning the whole contest , Dorian at his best would dispose of Ronnie with ease ;)
ronnie never looked like that onstage in 97.
so there goes your argument yet again.
man, you are getting crushed here tonight.
-
he also stated he was a cop when he wasn't
and that he never injured his back when he showed up with an obvious lat tear.
so you can't simply go by what ronnie says.
duh.
::)
man, you are really grabbing for straws with all this visual owning here.
you know it and we all know it that ronnie is much better, but still you have to come up with stuff like this that has nothing to do with their physiques as something to hang on by.
sad, man. sad.
NO we can go by what Ronnie says when it's back up by overwhelming visual proof ;)
-
ronnie never looked like that onstage in 97.
so there goes your argument yet again.
man, you are getting crushed here tonight.
That's Ronnie 1997 right before the Olympia he was NINTH !! hahahahaha Dorian crushed him at his worse showing , at his best? forget it
Same taper , same great arms , same quad sweep , same tiny waist , same awesome back and still fucking NINTH because his conditioning that particular year was off from the previous , but we all his conditioning was never on par with Yates anyway so you lose again like Ronnie did for years
-
That's Ronnie 1997 right before the Olympia he was NINTH !!
yes before.
not on stage.
lots of guys have had it all dialed in precontest, only to screw it up on contest day.
its common.
if you knew anything about the sport you would know that. :-\
-
yup.
the pics prove it all.
if you know how to assess a physique properly (which you don't) they tell the whole story, along with the vids.
talk is cheap. but its all you cling to.. ::)
yes pics do prove Dorian was harder , drier , better balanced and carried more muscular bulk depending on the year and the experts confirm this ;)
and please teach me how to assess a physique properly like you did when you said Dorian lost the most dominating win in Olympia history to Flex LMMFAO please teach us all , we're all waiting ;)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368067;image)
Either Dorian's calves are too big, or his thighs are too small. Take your pic.
They call Ronnie's calves small, but if given the choice I'd take the "smaller calves" over "smaller thighs" any day. Larger thighs helps hide a thick waist better (which both guys had), which takes precedence over "smaller calves", due to the overall presentation effect.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368067;image)
Either Dorian's calves are too big, or his thighs are too small. Take your pic.
They call Ronnie's calves small, but if given the choice I'd take the "smaller calves" over "smaller thighs" any day. Larger thighs helps hide a thick waist better (which both guys had), which takes precedence over "smaller calves", due to the overall presentation effect.
They're not , different poses
-
Dorian crushed him at his worse showing , at his best? forget it
sorry but real life says otherwise:
once again, you run from the visuals.
you are left with nothing. this sport is based on visuals
-
sorry but real life says otherwise:
once again, you run from the visuals.
you are left with nothing. this sport is based on visuals
real life visuals? the dozens of photoshopped pics you posted? the ones contests photographers exposed you for using? pics of an unflexed Dorian ? pics of Yates from 1997? hahahahaha you're the only one who believes your own bullshit
-
real life visuals? the dozens of photoshopped pics you posted? the ones contests photographers exposed you for using? pics of an unflexed Dorian ? pics of Yates from 1997? hahahahaha you're the only one who believes your own bullshit
what photoshopped pics? ::)
the 99 shots were not shopped.
the video was not faked.
oh, and if you want to talk about posting shopped pics, check this out everyone:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=230546.0
I busted ND for posting shopped dorian shots and everyone laughed at how hypocritical he was.
-
They're not , different poses
Ronnie's thighs were bigger, which was my point.
-
the ones contests photographers exposed you for using?
oh yeah, I remember that.
I proved that the contest photographer was wrong and that the 99 pics were legit and what happened?
he ran away.
I remember that very well.
please keep owning yourself ND.
we are all having fun at your own expense :P
-
such a gem from the link to ND's photoshopped dorian pics:
ive lost all respect for nd
what a scumbag
u expect us to back u up on yates the keg and then u touch up the picsnd-i hope u fail in all your goals in life and get kidney stones from your high protein diet
bwahahahahahahahahaa!!!! ;D
-
what photoshopped pics? ::)
the 99 shots were not shopped.
the video was not faked.
oh, and if you want to talk about posting shopped pics, check this out everyone:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=230546.0
I busted ND for posting shopped dorian shots and everyone laughed at how hypocritical he was.
hahahahah what photoshopped pics LMFAO enough said your worked pics are legendary ;)
-
oh yeah, I remember that.
I proved that the contest photographer was wrong and that the 99 pics were legit and what happened?
he ran away.
I remember that very well.
please keep owning yourself ND.
we are all having fun at your own expense :P
Yeah you remember that well how embarrassed you were being exposed by one of the best contest photographers in the business ;) how you melted down for ages , how everyone now knows your overwhelming visual proof have been worked hahahahahahaha dumbass
-
For a guy who started a 2000page long thread defending your man crush you sure are a homophobe. Btw if you're wondering, I'm not gay.
the thread stupid wasn't started to defend Yates and I'm not a homophobe in the least I think all gay people should have the same rights as anyone else
but notice you wont ever find pics of me embracing other men and kissing them like you :-X
and BTW I never said you were gay I just said you need to take more pics of you kissing other men , you're the one who declared he's not gay ;) and how can I be a homophobe if you're not gay? ;D
-
:'(
-
such a gem from the link to ND's photoshopped dorian pics:
bwahahahahahahahahaa!!!! ;D
Booooooooooooooooooooomm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm thanks for playing ;)
-
:'(
-
Booooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm thanks for playing ;)
funny how you leave out the posts where I proved him wrong and he knew it so he left.
::)
you always leave out the whole story to try and make it seem like you are right.
you are manipulative and sad.
thankfully, we all know better and can see right through your half truths.
-
ouch!
-
:o
-
:o
-
whats funny is that dorian was barely wider than Kevin Levrone, yet Ronnie was much wider than Kevin.
hence, Ronnie was wider than dorian..
Yes, he's barely wider than Kevin ::)
-
:o
Those are the thickest fucking traps I have ever seen.
Ronnie's are more rounded, due to a more round muscle belly.. but jesus christ..... He looks like hes 3-4 ft thick.
-
funny how you leave out the posts where I proved him wrong and he knew it so he left.
::)
you always leave out the whole story to try and make it seem like you are right.
you are manipulative and sad.
thankfully, we all know better and can see right through your half truths.
I dont understand. Where did you prove Kevin Horton wrong?
Oh, wait, you mean by stating that the person that made those vids swore they werent tappered with (cause that makes it credible, lol ::), but they dont match any other vids, and this is coming from a guy whose JOB it is to take photos of these pros? Sounds like another losing fight for Hulkster. I really wish I could live in delusional Hulkster land. lol.
-
Those are the thickest fucking traps I have ever seen.
Ronnie's are more rounded, due to a more round muscle belly.. but jesus christ..... He looks like hes 3-4 ft thick.
It's nothing, you should've seen him live in person to realise what a rhinoceros he was. As myself and so many others said before, pics didn't ever do Dorian much justice which is why the understandable debate on this matter is always happening. It's just such a shame that Trollster don't listen or try and comprehend when people with actual bodybuilding experience and real fans of it speaks. Then again, his affections for Ronnie has gone beyond defending him objectively. It's his 2 inch erection speaking when Ronnie's name is mentioned.
-
I dont understand. Where did you prove Kevin Horton wrong?
Oh, wait, you mean by stating that the person that made those vids swore they werent tappered with (cause that makes it credible, lol ::), but they dont match any other vids, and this is coming from a guy whose JOB it is to take photos of these pros? Sounds like another losing fight for Hulkster. I really wish I could live in delusional Hulkster land. lol.
He didn't prove Horton wrong and he knows it. This is typical Hulkster when he gets proven flat-out wrong and looks like a complete idiot instead of being a man and being honest he keeps denying and then outright claims the total opposite of reality
and those Bizzy pics aren't the only photoshopped ones he's used so even entertaining the Bizzy ones weren't fake he's still fucked hahahahahaha ultimately Hulkster is still a loser who believes his photoshopped pics
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
why so angry?
-
I dont understand. Where did you prove Kevin Horton wrong?
Oh, wait, you mean by stating that the person that made those vids swore they werent tappered with (cause that makes it credible, lol ::), but they dont match any other vids, and this is coming from a guy whose JOB it is to take photos of these pros? Sounds like another losing fight for Hulkster. I really wish I could live in delusional Hulkster land. lol.
no, I showed him quite clearly that all screencaps from the show look slightly different in terms of colour, so do all vids. different people doing them, different sources, different programs etc.
same is true of ANY contest. including all dorian screencaps/vids too. all of them.
does that mean they are all faked/enhanced/doctored?
no.
the physiques/detail etc look EXACTLY the same in all of them. including the dorian screencaps.
when faced with this, he ran. he was caught and knew it.
its very simple.
remember the owning ForcedReps gave all you morons about the same thing? that was beautiful.
we all own all of you with your bullshit about the ronnie 99 visuals.
-
point is, Bizzy said his shots were not enhanced, I proved this by comparing his shots to others.
enjoy the vid losers:
its not faked:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
as much as you wish it was.
then dorian might have a chance against Ronnie 99.
but sadly for you, he doesn't.
-
oh and one more thing:
:P :P :P
;)
-
point is, Bizzy said his shots were not enhanced, I proved this by comparing his shots to others.
enjoy the vid losers:
its not faked:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
as much as you wish it was.
then dorian might have a chance against Ronnie 99.
but sadly for you, he doesn't.
wow your fucking delusional. Buzzy himself admitted to sharpening th pics you fuckwad, and he was also the one who sharpened those pics of Dorian that you try and claimed ND photoshopped. You truely are a piece of trash hulkster. Wow.
-
no, its true and popular because its PROVEN:
there is no contest here:
none.
ronnie looks narrow and bunched, hope this helps. ;D
-
Damn, I really need to fall in love with a dude's body so I can devote my LIFE to defending it and arguing for its merits..
-
wow your fucking delusional. Buzzy himself admitted to sharpening th pics you fuckwad, and he was also the one who sharpened those pics of Dorian that you try and claimed ND photoshopped. You truely are a piece of trash hulkster. Wow.
holy shit where do I begin?
first of all, Bizzy clearly denied many many times about touching up the pics in question.
secondly, Bizzy was experimenting with touching up pics and told us what he was doing when he posted them. he did not try to hide anything. telling everyone you are going to touch up a dorian pic or a ronnie pic and then showing us the results is not hiding anything. the pics in question were not the ones he touched up as he stated many times and was proven by comparing his pics to others. slight colour differences, thats all. as is the same with all screenshots taken by different people from different sources ::)
thirdly Bizzy did NOT photoshop the dorian pic that ND posted.
where the fuck are you getting all this from?
this has to be the most far out and ridiculous post I have ever seen from you.
literally every sentence is flat out wrong.
congrats. :-\
-
holy shit where do I begin?
first of all, Bizzy clearly denied many many times about touching up the pics in question.
secondly, Bizzy was experimenting with touching up pics and told us what he was doing when he posted them. he did not try to hide anything. telling everyone you are going to touch up a dorian pic or a ronnie pic and then showing us the results is not hiding anything. the pics in question were not the ones he touched up as he stated many times and was proven by comparing his pics to others. slight colour differences, thats all. as is the same with all screenshots taken by different people from different sources ::)
thirdly Bizzy did NOT photoshop the dorian pic that ND posted.
where the fuck are you getting all this from?
this has to be the most far out and ridiculous post I have ever seen from you.
literally every sentence is flat out wrong.
congrats. :-\
meltdown ;D
Horton busted YOU and Bizzy and I busted Bizzy lying about doing it
and lets say Bizzy's pics weren't worked you still posted scores of photoshopped pics see above so you're fucked either way jackass ;)
-
and lets say Bizzy's pics weren't worked
notice the subtle admission that he was wrong just like I proved and the screenshots are as legit as they have always been...
nice.
-
notice the subtle admission that he was wrong just like I proved and the screenshots are as legit as they have always been...
nice.
No admission at ALL I'm saying for the sake of argument you're still fucked
I proved Bizzy worked pics period end of sentence. Kevin Horton busted you for using some of his worked pics and so did a professional graphic artist
You being the complete moron you are , are trying to claim we are claiming ALL of Bizzy's pics are worked which no one ever claimed to begin with but make no mistakes fanboy it's a proven fact YOU and him posted scores of worked pics ;)
-
can we add this thread to the original?
-
doubt it.
ND is scared to death of the truce thread.
the ownings and embarrassment were just way too much for him to handle.
he pussied out of that thread a long time ago.
-
doubt it.
ND is scared to death of the truce thread.
the ownings and embarrassment were just way too much for him to handle.
he pussied out of that thread a long time ago.
Hey he spelled embarrassment correctly for the first fucking time ;D yipp-eee
I own you in every thread you type in , you bitch up be running from you and where am I ? kicking your ass in yet another thread , you desperately tried to rally people to your delusional point of view that I'm scared to debate you and it failed NO ONE cares in fact I get people bitching just the opposite that it's the same old shit ;)
Look at happened in this thread you got bitch-slapped left-and-right again it's old news , Ronnie admitted he couldn't ever beat Dorian and he admitted three times , check-mate
all we have now is a bitter fanboy who got his ass kicked getting slapped around ever since ;)
run along until the next time I feel like exposing you for the dumbest person on the internet
-
As usual Hulkster types things that contradict reality , 13 pages later and I'm running LMFAO
so easy to prove this dummy wrong
Keep running from Yates domination ;)
-
They're not , different poses
That first pic just proved how his quads/upper legs were a bit overpowered by his calves.
Dorian's calves on Ronnie's upper leg development would be a perfect match, not so much on his own.
-
sorry but real life says otherwise:
once again, you run from the visuals.
you are left with nothing. this sport is based on visuals
Those two first pics on the FLS comparison between Ronnie 99 and Dorian 93 are a great example of how much better Ronnie was.
Of course people can claim they are "selective" because they show them at different angles, distances, lighting, etc. But they definitively give a good idea of both physiques.
Still think they are selective? Just watch the videos and its the same.
-
That first pic just proved how his quads/upper legs were a bit overpowered by his calves.
Dorian's calves on Ronnie's upper leg development would be a perfect match, not so much on his own.
Sure it did ::) you're to used to looking at Ronnie's underwhelming calves and think that's how it's supposed to look
Ronnie's calves are way undersized for his quads , Dorian's aren't it's closer to perfect than both Shawn & Ronnie
-
ouch!
You see ND, this is how completely developed quads (Ronnie's) should look like. Compare them to Dorian's and the difference is clear.
And please don't mention calves or any other thing, I'm just talking about quads. I'm not saying who had the most complete leg development or who the judges would prefer. I'm just showing you why Dorian's quads were not complete.
-
You see ND, this is how completely developed quads (Ronnie's) should look like. Compare them to Dorian's and the difference is clear.
And please don't mention calves or any other thing, I'm just talking about quads. I'm not saying who had the most complete leg development or who the judges would prefer. I'm just showing you why Dorian's quads were not complete.
NO ONE is claiming Dorian had better quads than Ronnie ??? Dorian's quads are completely developed his only real issue if you want to haggle on points is his rectus femoris and this is at his best not post-tear
-
Sure it did ::) you're to used to looking at Ronnie's underwhelming calves and think that's how it's supposed to look
Ronnie's calves are way undersized for his quads , Dorian's aren't it's closer to perfect than both Shawn & Ronnie
I'm not used to just looking at Ronnie's calves, but actually every single pro bodybuilder I ever saw. You see, Mike Matarazzo is a guy with excellent calves that are paired with great quad development and that is just one example. Dorian's quads were not developed enough to match his calve development and I'm not talking about just size.
I agree Ronnie's calves are undersized for his quads, I never said they weren't. That is why I said that the perfect match would be Ronnie's upper legs with Dorian's calves.
The only problem Shawn had was that his calves had a high insertion, but they were completely developed to match his excellent quad development to some degree. Of course his proportions were not perfect either, with the main problem being his high insertions.
-
Those two first pics on the FLS comparison between Ronnie 99 and Dorian 93 are a great example of how much better Ronnie was.
Of course people can claim they are "selective" because they show them at different angles, distances, lighting, etc. But they definitively give a good idea of both physiques.
Still think they are selective? Just watch the videos and its the same.
dont forget that many of the nuthuggers have claimed that the 99 ronnie prejudging video has been faked/enhanced ::).
this is the kind of sad pathetic-ness we are dealing with here.
they make up "Weekly World News" stories to save their hero..
::)
-
lyle alzado preferred ronnie
-
its no surprise why 8)
-
dont forget that many of the nuthuggers have claimed that the 99 ronnie prejudging video has been faked ::).
this is the kind of sad pathetic-ness we are dealing with here.
they make up "Weekly World News" stories to save their hero..
::)
NO one said fake ;) just enhanced and Bizzy's screencaps are proven to be fucked with and the link you keep posting is from Bizzy hahahahaha more brutal self-ownage by our resident moron Hulkster
this coming from the guy who claimed Yates pics are morphed until Kevin Horton shut your dumbass down again on that point remember this dummy? ;)
-
its no surprise why 8)
Boom bigger , harder , drier better balanced
Ronnie sucks compared to Dorian in side poses old news
-
NO ONE is claiming Dorian had better quads than Ronnie ??? Dorian's quads are completely developed his only real issue if you want to haggle on points is his rectus femoris and this is at his best not post-tear
I wasn't trying to say you or anyone else was claiming Dorian had better quads than Ronnie especifically, I got a little misunderstood here.
I was actually responding to your previous comments on Dorian's quads on the arguments we were having about the 95 Olympia, when you said his quads were completely developed compared to Shawn Ray.
Shawn's quads are developed in a similar way to Ronnie's, by that I mean a complete development of all heads and clear separation between them.
I see Dorian not having complete development of his vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, at least not complete separation between them when you compare them to Ronnie or Shawn.
-
I wasn't trying to say you or anyone else was claiming Dorian had better quads than Ronnie especifically, I got a little misunderstood here.
I was actually responding to your previous comments on Dorian's quads on the arguments we were having about the 95 Olympia, when you said his quads were completely developed compared to Shawn Ray.
Shawn's quads are developed in a similar way to Ronnie's, by that I mean a complete development of all heads and clear separation between them.
I see Dorian not having complete development of his vastus lateralis and rectus femoris, at least not complete separation between them when you compare them to Ronnie or Shawn.
We've already established this and FYI he did tear his quad in 94 hence why it doesn't look as good as before , the ONLY problem with Yates quads is separation of the rectus femoris NOT even the size of it just that great separation
the rest of the muscles are great and certainly good enough to beat his contemporaries
-
dont forget that many of the nuthuggers have claimed that the 99 ronnie prejudging video has been faked/enhanced ::).
this is the kind of sad pathetic-ness we are dealing with here.
they make up "Weekly World News" stories to save their hero..
::)
Really? They even said the video was faked/enhanced?
-
Really? They even said the video was faked/enhanced?
yes. many many times over the last few years ::)
from the very instant the video and screencaps were first posted years ago, nuthuggers were claiming it was enhanced.
and here, for your reading enjoyment is a post from the first person to post the 99 screencaps (ForcedReps).
read his words carefully. its fucking hilarious:
Ok, one more time I give away 5 minutes of my life and step down to the retarded level of internet fanboy bodybuilding.
Time to *own* you skinny little bitch again
Here you go skinny little nerd
The quality of the youtube clips from muscledvd are taken from a VHS tape jackass.
How can you say stuff like ***HERE IS THE ENTIRE ROUTINE AND IN NO WAY DO THEY MATCH THE PICS HULKSTER HAS BEEN POSTING SINCE PAGE 18***
Are you blind ?
BTW caps lock is for retards, your BS will still look not more important you nerd
Sure the quality of the youtube videos are not the same like the DVD or a good DVD rip cause youtube vids are always very strong compressed but hell, even a idiot like you should be able to see that coleman still looks nearly the same like on my pics.
Here is the source that I've used to make my pics, Like I said all is legit even if a few yates hardcore nut-huggers have a hard time to believe that.
OK DVD rip.
http://rapidshare.de/files/34357800/1999_olymp.part1.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/34362584/1999_olymp.part2.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/34364476/1999_olymp.part3.rar.html
Password = www.fittimpo.cz
DL it, take pics with bs player like I have done and if your pics look like mine then you are retarded but most of the ppl here already know that
Here is one of the so called DVD clips from muscledvd on youtube.
If you would have opened your eyes before you have talked BS then you would have noticed the Hi-Fi at the start in the right upper corner you little retarded internet bodybuilder.
DVD's/DVD players don't do that, only retarded VHS recorders so the source of the youtube clip is crapy VHS but how could you know that ?
You must live under a stone, I bet you have never seen a DVD player or a VHS recorder in your entire life so you have a good excuse this time
IceCold you are just a retard if you think that a VHS rip is more legit than a ok DVD rip.
Yeah the nick of the guy from your youtube link is muscledvd so the clip must be from a DVD LOL!!!!!
Great work Dr.Watson
Holy fucking christ, you must be the king of the retards here LOL!!!!
BTW, why have you still not downloaded this DVD rip ?
http://rapidshare.de/files/34357800/1999_olymp.part1.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/34362584/1999_olymp.part2.rar.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/34364476/1999_olymp.part3.rar.html
Password = www.fittimpo.cz
Too stupid to dl from rapidshare, LMAO!!!!!!!!!
DL it take pics and STFU you skinny assclown
That was the source for my screenshots, yeah I know GMV ( producers of the olympia tapes/DVD's ) have faked the olympia video too that all the yates fanboys like you and NarcissisticDeity etc.... have something to bitch
Sorry ND, first I thought you can use facts to defend your idol but after I have seen your line ***Countdown to the excues........5........4 .........3...... *** I can only say you are just another irritated yates fanboy that cannot accept evidences in form of legit pics/videos.
I thought your idol yates looks so much better than coleman in 1999 so why do you come up with crap like faked vids now ?
Hahahahahaha, I bet you were shocked as hell after you have seen my pics the first time.
If you guys still need more evidence how coleman has looked at the 1999 Mr.O no problem.
Next week I'll take a few HQ screencaps 720x480 (NTSC) directly from the 1999 Mr.O DVD.
If that's still not enough evidence for you and for the mentally retarded skinny internet bodybuilder IceCold to show you guys that my pics were never faked then I'll upload the DVD VOB of the 1999 MR.O that shows the Pre-Judging round to shut the mouth of all the shit talkers here.
If you guys were shocked from my pics then I can promise you will hate those HQ DVD screencaps and the VOB file
I bet even this will not change the mind of IceCold and the other hardcore yates fanboys but hey it's worth a try.
Here is a little tip from me for all the nut-huggers.
If you want show how great your idol is/was use facts and don't come up with stupid excuses about faked vids/pics etc...., this let you guys just look like retarded internet fanboys
-
these quotes are just the best:
classic owning of stupid nuthuggers:
Here is a little tip from me for all the nut-huggers.
If you want show how great your idol is/was use facts and don't come up with stupid excuses about faked vids/pics etc...., this let you guys just look like retarded internet fanboys
I thought your idol yates looks so much better than coleman in 1999 so why do you come up with crap like faked vids now ?
wait wait! I can answer that one~! because he was nowhere near the level ronnie set in 99 and they know it!!
-
that classic owning of the nuthuggers by ForcedReps is several years old now, but its impact is still just as strong and compelling (and embarrassing for the nuthuggers) as the day it was posted...
-
holy shit where do I begin?
first of all, Bizzy clearly denied many many times about touching up the pics in question.
secondly, Bizzy was experimenting with touching up pics and told us what he was doing when he posted them. he did not try to hide anything. telling everyone you are going to touch up a dorian pic or a ronnie pic and then showing us the results is not hiding anything. the pics in question were not the ones he touched up as he stated many times and was proven by comparing his pics to others. slight colour differences, thats all. as is the same with all screenshots taken by different people from different sources ::)
thirdly Bizzy did NOT photoshop the dorian pic that ND posted.
where the fuck are you getting all this from?
this has to be the most far out and ridiculous post I have ever seen from you.
literally every sentence is flat out wrong.
congrats. :-\
Bizzy said, he look I can do the same thing to Dorian, and "sharpened" (his words, mind you) several Dorian pics, you fucktwit.
-
We've already established this and FYI he did tear his quad in 94 hence why it doesn't look as good as before , the ONLY problem with Yates quads is separation of the rectus femoris NOT even the size of it just that great separation
the rest of the muscles are great and certainly good enough to beat his contemporaries
I didn't know he tore his quad in 94, that explains why it looked so bad at the 94 Olympia. I agree with you in that his main problem is the separation, which is why they gave the impression of being underdeveloped. They definitively had the muscular size, but that alone is not a complete quad for me, it needs complete separation too. I understand that judges were probably not looking for that and just looked for muscular bulk and dryness.
Now I can undestand why Dorian won so many Olympias even though I disagree, I don't think it would be enough to beat Ronnie's best though.
And I do think Shawn should've beaten Dorian in 1994, but lets just leave this as my opinion. We don't want this thread to go on for another 5 pages now do we? ;D
-
yes. many many times over the last few years ::)
from the very instant the video and screencaps were first posted years ago, nuthuggers were claiming it was enhanced.
and here, for your reading enjoyment is a post from the first person to post the 99 screencaps (ForcedReps).
read his words carefully. its fucking hilarious:
You are a fucking Douchebag. Dude shows up for like 3 posts, and his vids dont match ANY others of Ronnie 99 on the net, and he's credible?
Oh wait, only in Hulkster land. lol.
-
Bizzy said, he look I can do the same thing to Dorian, and "sharpened" (his words, mind you) several Dorian pics, you fucktwit.
yes, he told us what he was doing.
but he never enhanced the pics in question as he stated and was proven.
the colour is slightly different, but that is the case with all screencaps from different people with different sources etc. I have shown this so many times to you idiots I have lost count.. :-\
understand now? finally?
jesus christ. :-\
-
You are a fucking Douchebag. Dude shows up for like 3 posts, and his vids dont match ANY others of Ronnie 99 on the net, and he's credible?
Oh wait, only in Hulkster land. lol.
^
even to this day, the denial continues... ::)
I guess thats the only chance dorian has..
-
heres the Credible video, you fuckwad. ::)
You know, the one without such rediculous contrast.
Oh wait, Kevin Horton already busted your ass on that one, didnt he, retard?
Yup, and Im the one in denial.
Bwahahahahaha. :-\
-
oh yeah, the famous blurry youtube vid of his posing routine that is so bad it looks like someone filmed their tv and put it on youtube ::).
yes, that means all the prejudging videos that were properly done from dvd sources are enhanced LOL
::)
you are digging the hole much deeper. please continue. its amusing.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
-
yes, he told us what he was doing.
but he never enhanced the pics in question as he stated and was proven.
the colour is slightly different, but that is the case with all screencaps from different people with different sources etc. I have shown this so many times to you idiots I have lost count.. :-\
understand now? finally?
jesus christ. :-\
No, because your so fucking desperate because your entire arguement revolves around that video. Whats funny is even Ronnie Coleman himself said 98 was his best shape 3 fucking times (oh, and after the night he won, btw).
Not to mention your vaunted vids and screencaps are, GASP, not matching up to the other 99 vids of ronnie!
Oh noeeeessss Hulkster! you lose!
-
you really should have learned something for ForcedReps.
he said you are better off trying to argue that dorian had a better physique rather than trying to argue that all the 99 prejudging videos are enhanced..
he is still right to this day.
-
yes. many many times over the last few years ::)
from the very instant the video and screencaps were first posted years ago, nuthuggers were claiming it was enhanced.
and here, for your reading enjoyment is a post from the first person to post the 99 screencaps (ForcedReps).
read his words carefully. its fucking hilarious:
Interesting information.... ;D
I think this just settles the arguments of the vids being faked, at least it should've done so years ago.
They're probably going to say "ForcedReps" is not a credible source now.........wait, someone already did. ::)
-
oh yeah, the famous blurry youtube vid of his posing routine that is so bad it looks like someone filmed their tv and put it on youtube ::).
yes, that means all the prejudging videos that were properly done from dvd sources are enhanced LOL
::)
you are digging the hole much deeper. please continue. its amusing.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
Hahaha.
Yeah, one looks like real life, and the other looks like rediculous contrast. Guess which one, oh yeah, the one that Kevin Horton said had the contrast changed, oh wait, he was there! HAHAHAH!!!!!!
Hulkster your a toolbag. You try and argue fucking everyone, cause Hulkster knows best, Hulkster knows better than Ronnie, better than the judges, and better than eyewitness that state his vids are sharpened, all because he proclaims Forcedreps vids are teh realz!!! oh noeeeesssss!!!!!
-
Interesting information.... ;D
I think this just settles the arguments of the vids begin faked, at least it should've done so years ago.
They're probably going to say "ForcedReps" is not a credible source now.........wait, someone already did. ::)
now do you see the kind of people we are dealing with?
its sad.
even his own fans know he was not as good, but rather than admit it, they try and make up this bullshit to save him in their own eyes
-
Interesting information.... ;D
I think this just settles the arguments of the vids begin faked, at least it should've done so years ago.
They're probably going to say "ForcedReps" is not a credible source now.........wait, someone already did. ::)
Yeah, you know why?
Because Kevin Horton, (who was there mind you) blatantly stated the video had the contrast changed.
only Hulkster continually attempts to say hes a credible source. Dude showed up for like 10 posts and left. Yeah, real credible. ::)
Cause we know, no one ever lies on teh internetz. lol
-
heres the Credible video, you fuckwad. ::)
You know, the one without such rediculous contrast.
Oh wait, Kevin Horton already busted your ass on that one, didnt he, retard?
Yup, and Im the one in denial.
Bwahahahahaha. :-\
Totally gay music. Could he not find something cool like Marvin, or Curtis!?
/and someone kill the guy with the airhorn already. >:(
-
now do you see the kind of people we are dealing with?
its sad.
even his own fans know he was not as good, but rather than admit it, they try and make up this bullshit to save him in their own eyes
BAHAHAHAH!!!!
Were not the one attempting to fly in the face of the eyewitness who blatantly stated those vids have had been massaged. lol.
Not to mention, trying to argue with Ronnie Coleman. Lol.
But i know how you operate Hulkster, as long as you have 1 person who buys into your bullshit, you'll continue to talk to him and try and proclaim how right you are. Hahahahah.
-
what about all the other 99 prejudging vids on the net? there are tons of them.
oh yeah, they are all in the global IFBB conspiracy.. ::)
hell, even my old VHS copy looked just like the vids on the net now.
I guess the VHS copy was one of the faked ones too.. ::)
-
heres the Credible video, you fuckwad. ::)
You know, the one without such rediculous contrast.
Oh wait, Kevin Horton already busted your ass on that one, didnt he, retard?
Yup, and Im the one in denial.
Bwahahahahaha. :-\
The quality of that vid is pretty bad.
Here is the 99 prejudging from youtube:
Is this faked/enhanced? ::)
-
The quality of that vid is pretty bad.
Here is the 99 prejudging from youtube:
Is this faked/enhanced? ::)
Those are the ones that Kevin Horton blatantly stated had enhanced contrast. And he was there.
-
what about all the other 99 prejudging vids on the net? there are tons of them.
oh yeah, they are all in the global IFBB conspiracy.. ::)
hell, even my old VHS copy looked just like the vids on the net now.
I guess the VHS copy was one of the faked ones too.. ::)
Theyre all reposted off the same ones you fuckwad.
-
the conspiracy is on!!:
::)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
-
Theyre all reposted off the same ones you fuckwad.
sure they are.. ::)
-
What about this video of the 99 british grand prix? Is it enhanced too because it shows how great and unbeatable Ronnie was?
-
What about this video of the 99 british grand prix? Is it enhanced too because it shows how great and unbeatable Ronnie was?
Fuck no its not enhanced. That show had the most amazing lighting evar.
-
sure they are.. ::)
Notice how all the filenames are almost the same? Uh oh, self ownage Hulkster. Lol
BTW, Ill go with the guy that was there and took the pics, thanks. Bwahahah.
-
This one is probably enhanced too....... ::)
Or it isn't because its not Ronnie?
-
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9793/snapshot2t.jpg)
Flex and Kevin just can't quite match up.
-
insane width and thickness
-
Those are the ones that Kevin Horton blatantly stated had enhanced contrast. And he was there.
What about this one?
Notice that the quality of Ronnie's physique is the same as in the prejudging video accused of being enhanced.
Notice the big difference with the video you posted. ;)
-
What about this one?
Notice that the quality of Ronnie's physique is the same as in the prejudging video accused of being enhanced.
Notice the big difference with the video you posted. ;)
He DOES NOT look like he does in the screencaps Hulkster posts nonstop.
That video is Legit.
-
He DOES NOT look like he does in the screencaps Hulkster posts nonstop.
That video is Legit.
I'm not talking about the screencaps, I'm talking about the video off youtube.
Watch the video past the first minute or two, when Ronnie changes of photo setting. The quality of his physique is the same as in the other video.
Of course the camera is much closer and the lighting might be a bit different, but the conditioning, detail and separations are the same.
-
These are the ones Hulkster is defending. ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=364123;image)
-
Of course the camera is much closer and the lighting might be a bit different, but the conditioning, detail and separations are the same.
this is what I have been proving to them since day 1, but they insist the detail and sharpness of ronnie's physique is digitially enhanced because they say the contrast has been turned way up..
::) ::) ::)
-
Another Hulkster gem.
Lol. Yup, that vid that these were taken from werent messed with. ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363971;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363972;image)
-
This one is probably enhanced too....... ::)
Or it isn't because its not Ronnie?
bingo.
these guys should just hide away in shame after all this bullshit..
-
this is what I have been proving to them since day 1, but they insist the detail and sharpness of ronnie's physique is digitially enhanced because they say the contrast has been turned way up..
::) ::) ::)
Stop quoting him and reply to my posts you assclown.
Directly above your post are the pics you try and pass off from your vids, and then a REAL pic fromt he O.
Yeah, looks like the same person, right? ::)
-
Another Hulkster gem.
Lol. Yup, that vid that these were taken from werent messed with. ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363971;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363972;image)
here we go. glad you posted this you moron.
a screencap and a pic (with camera flash) will ALWAYS look quite different. this has been shown a billion times before.
I can do the same with dorian retard:
::)
god, I can't believe you are so dumb you just posted this..
-
here we go. glad you posted this you moron.
a screencap and a pic (with camera flash) will ALWAYS look quite different. this has been shown a billion times before.
I can do the same with dorian retard:
::)
god, I can't believe you are so dumb you just posted this..
Except one crucial difference, those pics that you always try and pass of as "valid" have been flat out proven to be massaged, coming from the mouth of KEVIN HORTON himself. (He was there, btw, in case you didnt know.)
Oh, thats not even mentioning the fact that Ronnie point blank said 98 was his best shape, not 99. Lol.
BTW, the difference in Dorian isnt nearly so dramatic, you loser. Ronnie literally looks like a different person. ::)
-
Stop quoting him and reply to my posts you assclown.
Directly above your post are the pics you try and pass off from your vids, and then a REAL pic fromt he O.
Yeah, looks like the same person, right? ::)
see above post for yet another owning of you morons by me and reality.
look, I can see you are reallly getting frustrated by all this and I can see why.
post after post you are being made to look stupid. I suggest you just drop the whole 'enhanced' argument and start over again. listen to what ForcedReps taught you: argue for dorian's physique, not that the ronnie stuff is faked.
its not working. in fact, its failing miserably just like it always has, year after year..
-
Except one crucial difference, those pics that you always try and pass of as "valid" have been flat out proven to be massaged, coming from the mouth of KEVIN HORTON himself. (He was there, btw, in case you didnt know.)
no I proved them to be legit just as we are in this thread. the contrast that he claimed was enhanced is the same in all the videos. I proved it long ago and he stopped arguing after he was proven wrong.
sorry. but you fail again.
-
this is what I have been proving to them since day 1, but they insist the detail and sharpness of ronnie's physique is digitially enhanced because they say the contrast has been turned way up..
::) ::) ::)
Just have them look at that 1999 photoshoot video and have them pay close attention from 0:26 up to the end. The detail and sharpness is absolutely the same.
And there are many things that may change the detail and sharpness a bit from video to video or from pic to pic. Such as quality of video or pic taken, lighting, distance of camera, etc. But the quality of his conditioning, detail and separations is the same if you pay close attention.
-
There is no point arguing that the 1999 videos and pictures are faked/enhanced.
There are enough videos posted from Ronnie in 1999 and even of other bodybuilders (Shawn Ray) that proof the videos/pics are valid.
You guys should drop this argument.
-
right. but they are not paying close attention.
as you can see, they are panicing out of frustration..
frustration of coming to terms with the fact that dorian at his best was just not as good as Ronnie at his best.
its just progress. thats all.
-
There is no point arguing that the 1999 videos and pictures are faked/enhanced.
There are enough videos posted from Ronnie in 1999 and even of other bodybuilders (Shawn Ray) that proof the videos/pics are valid.
You guys should drop this argument.
I have been saying this for 2 years now.
they won't drop it.
they have no choice but to argue it. because admiting the reality that the stuff is real is the same as admiting dorian was not as good. and they won't do that..
-
There is no point arguing that the 1999 videos and pictures are faked/enhanced.
There are enough videos posted from Ronnie in 1999 and even of other bodybuilders (Shawn Ray) that proof the videos/pics are valid.
You guys should drop this argument.
\
And you call me blind. Hulkster you never proved him wrong. Its your word against his, and guess what, hes the guy that saw that shit in person.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363971;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363972;image)
::)
-
yes. many many times over the last few years ::)
from the very instant the video and screencaps were first posted years ago, nuthuggers were claiming it was enhanced.
and here, for your reading enjoyment is a post from the first person to post the 99 screencaps (ForcedReps).
read his words carefully. its fucking hilarious:
That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Bizzy's screencaps which in fact Kevin Horton said didn't look like the ones from Forcedreps LMFAO
you're trying to use Forcedreps for a defense of Bizzy's worked screencaps
chew on this fag it's old news , you're BUSTED ;D
-
I have been saying this for 2 years now.
they won't drop it.
they have no choice but to argue it. because admiting the reality that the stuff is real is the same as admiting dorian was not as good. and they won't do that..
Fucking LOL.
Eyewitness says Hulkster is using photoshopped pics. Hulkster says his source is more credible.
Ronnie himself says that 98 was his best showing, Hulkster still believes his opinion (crafted 99% from a video that an industry photographer called out for being massaged) is more valid than the competitors.
Hulkster continually posts screencaps that dont match up to the actual pics. But cries "I proved him wrong" but never did, and says his screencaps are perfectely viable.
Delussssionaaallllllllll l.
Hulkster Teh intenet fan boy strikes again. Bwahahaha.
Hulkster your screencaps dont even match up to the high quality shit Jp_rc posted. What say you? Oh wait, your gonna say Forcereps said its legit so it is. ::)
-
There is no point arguing that the 1999 videos and pictures are faked/enhanced.
There are enough videos posted from Ronnie in 1999 and even of other bodybuilders (Shawn Ray) that proof the videos/pics are valid.
You guys should drop this argument.
There is NO argument Hulkster has been proving dead wrong a LONG time ago for knowingly using worked screencaps and morphed pictures as usual there is NO debate just Hulkster looking fucking stupid as usual
-
LOL so now someone sitting live at a contest is going to know how the contrast is going to look on DVD or VHS footage of the show?
LMAO!
this keeps getting better and better and better!
thanks for the laugh.
oh, and it wasn't my word vs his.
it was his word vs the proof. and the proof won.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363969;image)
Pause at 3:45.
Yup, sure looks like the same guy to me, lol. Slightly blurry or not. ::)
-
Fucking LOL.
Eyewitness says Hulkster is using photoshopped pics. Hulkster says his source is more credible.
Ronnie himself says that 98 was his best showing, Hulkster still believes his opinion (crafted 99% from a video that an industry photographer called out for being massaged) is more valid than the competitors.
Hulkster continually posts screencaps that dont match up to the actual pics. But cries "I proved him wrong" but never did, and says his screencaps are perfectely viable.
Delussssionaaallllllllll l.
Hulkster Teh intenet fan boy strikes again. Bwahahaha.
Hulkster your screencaps dont even match up to the high quality shit Jp_rc posted. What say you? Oh wait, your gonna say Forcereps said its legit so it is. ::)
Hulkster is been proven wrong for year now and he looks like a complete moron for denying but he thinks he wont look as foolish if he sticks to the same bullshit story but he looks even more dumb lol
A professional graphic artist first called out Hulkster on his worked screencaps then Kevin Horton confirmed a lot of them he were using were in fact worked , he called them both liars and he said he owned them LMFAO
Hulkster is the dumbest person on GetBig
-
\
And you call me blind. Hulkster you never proved him wrong. Its your word against his, and guess what, hes the guy that saw that shit in person.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363971;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69359.0;attach=363972;image)
::)
Things as screencaps vs pic taken with a camera, distance, angle etc. can change the ability to see the detail and sharpness fully in photos. As you know some pics come out well, others don't.
To prevent the pic problem, just look at the videos.
Just watch the 1999 photoshoot video from 0:26 up to the end and compare it with the 1999 prejudging video, Ronnie's conditioning, detail and separations are the same quality.
Watch Shawn Ray's video from 1999 Olympia, its the same quality.
-
LOL so now someone sitting live at a contest is going to know how the contrast is going to look on DVD or VHS footage of the show?
LMAO!
this keeps getting better and better and better!
thanks for the laugh.
oh, and it wasn't my word vs his.
it was his word vs the proof. and the proof won.
The proof won is right and that's how we found out you and Bizzy were trying to make Ronnie look better than reality
-
LOL so now someone sitting live at a contest is going to know how the contrast is going to look on DVD or VHS footage of the show?
LMAO!
this keeps getting better and better and better!
thanks for the laugh.
oh, and it wasn't my word vs his.
it was his word vs the proof. and the proof won.
Your "proof" is your opinion, and you try and seek comfort in numbers. Lol. even if its just one other person defeding you.. You have no proof of anything. Quite frankly, ima go with the guy that knows wtf the competiors looked like on the day of the comp, and not the guy masterbating furiously and crying in the corner while imagining being fucked by Ronnie. lol
-
Things as screencaps vs pic taken with a camera, distance, angle etc. can change the ability to see the detail and sharpness fully in photos. As you know some pics come out well, others don't.
To prevent the pic problem, just look at the videos.
Just watch the 1999 photoshoot video from 0:26 up to the end and compare it with the 1999 prejudging video, Ronnie's conditioning, detail and separations are the same quality.
Watch Shawn Ray's video from 1999 Olympia, its the same quality.
NONE of them look like that screencap. :-\
-
You guys apparently just don't like Hulkster and for that reason are denying Ronnie looked as good as he did in 1999.
Two great quality videos (1999 photoshoot and prejudging) have been posted that show how good Ronnie's conditioning, detail and separations were in 1999 and you still argue just because you don't like Hulkster.
-
I don't think they are arguing because they don't like me, they are arguing because, as I said, to admit the 99 stuff is unenhanced would be admitting dorian was not as good.
because anyone can see that he was not up to that level.
that 99 photoshoot vid just adds more evidence to the mountain.
great vid.
-
NONE of them look like that screencap. :-\
Ok, lets pretend that screencap was actually "enhanced". Still doesn't change how great Ronnie was in 1999 as opposed to that video you posted first.
-
I don't think they are arguing because they don't like me, they are arguing because, as I said, to admit the 99 stuff is unenhanced would be admitting dorian was not as good.
because anyone can see that he was not up to that level.
that 99 photoshoot vid just adds more evidence to the mountain.
great vid.
Yes, that is probably the true reason. As all of the people saying those vids/pics are enhanced are Dorian fans......(with the exception of that photographer maybe)
And that video is indeed great. 8)
-
Ok, lets pretend that screencap was actually "enhanced". Still doesn't change how great Ronnie was in 1999 as opposed to that video you posted first.
I never argued he didnt look great. He was still off from 98. He was fuller but slightly less conditioned.
This started because Hulkster tried to crucify ND for posting shopped pics, when it was Bizzy that shopped that Dorian pic, and it was HULKSTER who was constantly posting the shopped pics from Bizzy. This has nothing to do with me arguing about how good Ronnie was in 99. Its about Hulkster being a fucking delusional hypocrite, so stop trying to defend him when you dont even know wtf the conversation is about.
Oh, and after Kevin Horton embarrassed Hulkster about those pics, Hulkster suddenly said "Yeah, I know they were contrasted, see bizzy said so" ::)
-
Yes, that is probably the true reason. As all of the people saying those vids/pics are enhanced are Dorian fans......(with the exception of that photographer maybe)
And that video is indeed great. 8)
You don't even know wtf im arguing with Hulkster about, yet you jump in and try and defend him. Lol. And you call us nut huggers. ::)
-
Hulkster suddenly said "Yeah, I know they were contrasted, see bizzy said so"
I have posted links in the past to the very posts where bizzy talked about this before...
so don't even go there..
the proof will own you yet again
-
You don't even know wtf im arguing with Hulkster about, yet you jump in and try and defend him. Lol. And you call us nut huggers. ::)
he is not defending me.
he is refuting the ridiculous notion that the Ronnie 99 vids and screenshots floating around out there are faked.
big difference.
-
You guys apparently just don't like Hulkster and for that reason are denying Ronnie looked as good as he did in 1999.
Two great quality videos (1999 photoshoot and prejudging) have been posted that show how good Ronnie's conditioning, detail and separations were in 1999 and you still argue just because you don't like Hulkster.
Hahahahaha you're a funny gimmick ;D Ronnie looked awesome in 1999 , it's not his best by a long shot and still not on par with Yates
-
I don't think they are arguing because they don't like me, they are arguing because, as I said, to admit the 99 stuff is unenhanced would be admitting dorian was not as good.
because anyone can see that he was not up to that level.
that 99 photoshoot vid just adds more evidence to the mountain.
great vid.
There is NO argument , there is US showing everyone you're wrong on all your points ;)
you've posted worked pics of a very long time now , morphed and sharpened there is NO argument it's a fact and you're denying it
-
You don't even know wtf im arguing with Hulkster about, yet you jump in and try and defend him. Lol. And you call us nut huggers. ::)
He's a gimmick he's posted in the Truce thread and knows they whole ' argument ' the best part is he's defending Hulkster and the 99 screencaps it's probably Bizzy LMFAO he disappeared after Kevin Horton exposed him lol poor Hulkster was forced to take all the embarrassment himself
-
I have posted links in the past to the very posts where bizzy talked about this before...
so don't even go there..
the proof will own you yet again
What proof? You never told anyone that the pics you posted were shopped, until you got called on it.
-
What proof? You never told anyone that the pics you posted were shopped, until you got called on it.
thats because they were never shopped in the first place.
how can I get called for posting photoshopped pics when the pics I posted (from Bizzy) were not even shopped? ::)
also, where did you come up with the fact that Bizzy photoshopped that dorian pic?
-
Ronnie looked awesome in 1999 , it's not his best by a long shot
not his best by a long shot?
you obviously have not watched any of the videos posted in this thread.. ::)
oh wait, you have but you are in total denial as usual. :-\
-
It's official, Ronnie wins! The judge has spoken......
-
thats because they were never shopped in the first place.
how can I get called for posting photoshopped pics when the pics I posted (from Bizzy) were not even shopped? ::)
also, where did you come up with the fact that Bizzy photoshopped that dorian pic? he never did that one.
Yes, he did.
He sharpened those Ronnie pics you repeatedly posted, then once Horton called you on it, you backtracked. Your memory is fucking astounding. Bizzy was sharpening pics, and he said something to the effect of, here ill do a few of Dorian to show what sharpening does to his pics. Selective memory, Hulkster.
-
Yes, he did.
He sharpened those Ronnie pics you repeatedly posted, then once Horton called you on it, you backtracked. Your memory is fucking astounding. Bizzy was sharpening pics, and he said something to the effect of, here ill do a few of Dorian to show what sharpening does to his pics. Selective memory, Hulkster.
no, my memory is correct
you are wrong. he did play around with dorian shots, but they were screenshots from the 93 vid.
the shot ND posted that was photoshopped was a pic, not a screenshot, from the 95 or 96 olympia.
you should know by now that I am never wrong. :P
-
not his best by a long shot?
you obviously have not watched any of the videos posted in this thread.. ::)
oh wait, you have but you are in total denial as usual. :-\
Youre the one in denial, you ruckin fetard.
Ronnie Coleman HIMSELF has stated that 98 was his best several times. (Oh, and hint, its not the night he won the show, cause hes gonna say he was better last year. Lol)
Btw, Ronnie is fuller in 99 but not as dry.
Mass+conditioning+Balance=win 98 Ronnie would beat 99 Ronnie everytime. He was DRYER.
But I guess you know better than Ronnie himself, right Hulkster?
-
as stated you think because ronnie said it it has to be true even though all the pics and videos show he was clearly better in 1999?
::)
how stupid.
I guess you believed ronnie when he said he never tore his lat or his quad, and also believed him when he said he was still an active police officer when he wasn't...the list goes on..
::)
-
as stated you think because ronnie said it it has to be true even though all the pics and videos show he was clearly better in 1999?
::)
how stupid.
I guess you believed ronnie when he said he never tore his lat or his quad, and also believed him when he said he was still an active police officer when he wasn't...the list goes on..
::)
No, someone speaking on what their best is vs them not wanting to know theyre injured is a fucking pathetic analogy Hulkster. What possible motivation would he have for lying? That has to be in the top 10 dumbest things you have ever said in your long Getbig History.
As far as the pics and video, another top 10 idiocy award right there. Newflash genius, Judging isnt done via pics and videos, and when I see the video of 98, I see the drier, more conditioned Ronnie. Just because you think he looks better doesnt make it proof you pompous prick (not to mention your obsession blinds you to reality). Last time I checked no one in the BB industry claimed you as an expert. Lol.
But I guess, you know, your opinion is better than Ronnie's cause you were there to see him, right? No, wait, you must actually be Ronnie! Thats it huh? Thats why you dont think his opinion matters! Thats why youre always trying to tell everyone what he "really" meant when he said Dorian would probably win right (if he competedi in 98)? That must be why you try and argue with an industry photographer and think you "proved him wrong", with absolutley no proof to your name, right? Hot damn it all makes sense now! Bahahaha. Your a tool Hulkster, a pathetic tool. Maybe youll get lucky and Ronnie will finally accept your invitation to enter your anal cavity, and you can finally end this sick obsession. :-\
-
That pretty much sums it up ;D
-
As far as the pics and video, another top 10 idiocy award right there. Newflash genius, Judging isnt done via pics and videos, and when I see the video of 98, I see the drier, more conditioned Ronnie. Just because you think he looks better doesnt make it proof you pompous prick (not to mention your obsession blinds you to reality). Last time I checked no one in the BB industry claimed you as an expert. Lol
what is so funny is that you talk about experts, well, Peter McGough (guy hero) believes Ronnie was better in 99 than in 98 (as per his article about the best ever Mr. O's)
and he was there.
what do you say to that? LOL
fucking owned.
-
what is so funny is that you talk about experts, well, Peter McGough (guy hero) believes Ronnie was better in 99 than in 98 (as per his article about the best ever Mr. O's)
and he was there.
what do you say to that? LOL
fucking owned.
what is so funny is that you talk about experts , well, Peter McGough ( corrector of fanboys ) believes Ronnie was harder & drier in 98 than in 99 ( as per many times he's gone on recored )
in his article about the best ever Mr. O's he states 2001 is his best showing hands down
what do you say to that? LOL
fucking owned.
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.
He also said this but you dismissed him as wrong LMFAO now he's right HYPOCRITE
you're owned as usual dumbass
Ronnie 1999 = fail
-
as stated you think because ronnie said it it has to be true even though all the pics and videos show he was clearly better in 1999?
::)
how stupid.
I guess you believed ronnie when he said he never tore his lat or his quad, and also believed him when he said he was still an active police officer when he wasn't...the list goes on..
::)
The old Ronnie is a liar bit huh? Ronnie is a liar according to you every single time except when he said right after the 1999 Olympia he was better than last year but then he got it all right lmao HYPOCRITE
facts are Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 and his best showing was 2001 ASC , keep denying them it's all you have left ;)
-
No, someone speaking on what their best is vs them not wanting to know theyre injured is a fucking pathetic analogy Hulkster. What possible motivation would he have for lying? That has to be in the top 10 dumbest things you have ever said in your long Getbig History.
As far as the pics and video, another top 10 idiocy award right there. Newflash genius, Judging isnt done via pics and videos, and when I see the video of 98, I see the drier, more conditioned Ronnie. Just because you think he looks better doesnt make it proof you pompous prick (not to mention your obsession blinds you to reality). Last time I checked no one in the BB industry claimed you as an expert. Lol.
But I guess, you know, your opinion is better than Ronnie's cause you were there to see him, right? No, wait, you must actually be Ronnie! Thats it huh? Thats why you dont think his opinion matters! Thats why youre always trying to tell everyone what he "really" meant when he said Dorian would probably win right (if he competedi in 98)? That must be why you try and argue with an industry photographer and think you "proved him wrong", with absolutley no proof to your name, right? Hot damn it all makes sense now! Bahahaha. Your a tool Hulkster, a pathetic tool. Maybe youll get lucky and Ronnie will finally accept your invitation to enter your anal cavity, and you can finally end this sick obsession. :-\
Great post !
damn Hulkster is getting battered over the head with the club of logic ;D
-
Dorian went out on top, knew when to quit. Ronnie got beat by a fridge then even worse got what, 4th the next year. Ronnie as dry as Yates? Dont make me laugh, he had great muscle separation and was ripped but never grainy like Yates. Not a huge fan of either but Ronnie's pregnant look is an abomination to everything bb is about.
-
Youre the one in denial, you ruckin fetard.
Ronnie Coleman HIMSELF has stated that 98 was his best several times. (Oh, and hint, its not the night he won the show, cause hes gonna say he was better last year. Lol)
Btw, Ronnie is fuller in 99 but not as dry.
Mass+conditioning+Balance=win 98 Ronnie would beat 99 Ronnie everytime. He was DRYER.
But I guess you know better than Ronnie himself, right Hulkster?
No matter how many times you tell Sulkster he's not going to listen. His mind is already made up. Someone needs to tell him that opinions are like aresholes.
-
You just think i'm an asshole because I make fun of you for having gay drunken parties where you kiss other dudes, and feel up college bois thighs, and generally act gay.
It's your fault for posting those pics online....
Thats hilarious
-
::)
-
Don't be playin' the oversharpend card now.
-
He's a gimmick he's posted in the Truce thread and knows they whole ' argument ' the best part is he's defending Hulkster and the 99 screencaps it's probably Bizzy LMFAO he disappeared after Kevin Horton exposed him lol poor Hulkster was forced to take all the embarrassment himself
lol, you're funnier than I am. ;D
I'm not a gimmick and I'm not this "Bizzy" character you're referring to.
And I did post in the truce thread though, he probably knows this. I'm not trying to defend Hulkster, just showing how good Ronnie looked in 1999 as opposed to what this pro Dorian guy posted in a video first.
-
lol, you're funnier than I am. ;D
I'm not a gimmick and I'm not this "Bizzy" character you're referring to.
And I did post in the truce thread though, he probably knows this. I'm not trying to defend Hulkster, just showing how good Ronnie looked in 1999 as opposed to what this pro Dorian guy posted in a video first.
You're a gimmick don't bother wasting your time. and Ronnie looked awesome in 1999 NOT his best specifically because his density & dryness was lacking from the previous year and compared to 2001
I think Ronnie looks better fuller however it doesn't change the fact he wasn't as hard or as dry
-
You don't even know wtf im arguing with Hulkster about, yet you jump in and try and defend him. Lol. And you call us nut huggers. ::)
I wasn't trying to defend him, I'm just standing on what I see and I see Ronnie with amazing conditioning in 1999.
Plus, I didn't mind much about your "argument" with Hulkster. I was just refuting your original bad quality video posted of Ronnie in 1999, to show how he actually looked better as in the accused prejudging video.
I never called any of you a "guy" by the way.
-
Hahahahaha you're a funny gimmick ;D Ronnie looked awesome in 1999 , it's not his best by a long shot and still not on par with Yates
Ronnie looked awesome in 1999
Agreed 100%
it's not his best by a long shot and still not on par with Yates
I can't agree with you here, especially on the Yates comparison.
-
I wasn't trying to defend him, I'm just standing on what I see and I see Ronnie with amazing conditioning in 1999.
Plus, I didn't mind much about your "argument" with Hulkster. I was just refuting your original bad quality video posted of Ronnie in 1999, to show how he actually looked better as in the accused prejudging video.
I never called any of you a "guy" by the way.
You were defending him stop being contrary
-
You're a gimmick don't bother wasting your time. and Ronnie looked awesome in 1999 NOT his best specifically because his density & dryness was lacking from the previous year and compared to 2001
I think Ronnie looks better fuller however it doesn't change the fact he wasn't as hard or as dry
You were saying I'm this Bizzy guy, but I'm not.
I agree Ronnie wasn't as dry as 1998, but he was bigger, fuller and greatly conditioned too. I see Ronnie being sharper in 99 compared to 98, his detail and separations were much more pronounced and the striations were crazy. Those things as important in my eyes as far as conditioning goes, not only dryness.
Overall I think his best was 1999. I know you're basing the statement of 1998 being his best on the fact that he was drier and I know all judges look for are muscular bulk and dryness/density. The question is was it enough to top his 99 form? I don't think so.
-
You were saying I'm this Bizzy guy, but I'm not.
I agree Ronnie wasn't as dry as 1998, but he was bigger, fuller and greatly conditioned too. I see Ronnie being sharper in 99 compared to 98, his detail and separations were much more pronounced and the striations were crazy. Those things as important in my eyes as far as conditioning goes, not only dryness.
Overall I think his best was 1999. I know you're basing the statement of 1998 being his best on the fact that he was drier and I know all judges look for are muscular bulk and dryness/density. The question is was it enough to top his 99 form? I don't think so.
You're contradicting yourself you're agreeing he wasn't as dry in 98 then say he was sharper in 99 with better detail and separations and crazy striations
you need to learn what conditioning is because you're flat-out saying he's better conditioned in 99 but admitting he's not
-
You were defending him stop being contrary
If that's what you want to think, I'm fine with that. ;)
-
You're contradicting yourself you're agreeing he wasn't as dry in 98 then say he was sharper in 99 with better detail and separations and crazy striations
you need to learn what conditioning is because you're flat-out saying he's better conditioned in 99 but admitting he's not
So when someone is drier it means he automatically has to have better separations and detail?
As an example of what I was trying to say is this: Dorian was probably the driest competitor back in the 90's, but did he have the best separations and details? No, Shawn Ray had much better separations and detail despite not being as dry.
-
So when someone is drier it means he automatically has to have better separations and detail?
As an example of what I was trying to say is this: Dorian was probably the driest competitor back in the 90's, but did he have the best separations and details? No, Shawn Ray had much better separations and detail despite not being as dry.
NO separations and striations and detail are all genetic , obviously someone needs to be devoid of bodyfat and water to see them but in the end genetics
It's exactly the reason why Munzer as was Hamdullah Aykutlu were unmatched in this area
And Shawn was probably just as dry as Dorian the difference between Shawn and Dorian was density , it's one thing to be 205 pounds and dry and hard and next to impossible to be the same being 260 , which is why Ronnie's density & dryness suffered with just a 8 pound size advantage from 98-to-99
The combo of size , hardness and dryness is highly prized by the judges
-
NO separations and striations and detail are all genetic , obviously someone needs to be devoid of bodyfat and water to see them but in the end genetics
It's exactly the reason why Munzer as was Hamdullah Aykutlu were unmatched in this area
And Shawn was probably just as dry as Dorian the difference between Shawn and Dorian was density , it's one thing to be 205 pounds and dry and hard and next to impossible to be the same being 260 , which is why Ronnie's density & dryness suffered with just a 8 pound size advantage from 98-to-99
The combo of size , hardness and dryness is highly prized by the judges
Ok, I can understand your point.
-
NO separations and striations and detail are all genetic , obviously someone needs to be devoid of bodyfat and water to see them but in the end genetics
It's exactly the reason why Munzer as was Hamdullah Aykutlu were unmatched in this area
And Shawn was probably just as dry as Dorian the difference between Shawn and Dorian was density , it's one thing to be 205 pounds and dry and hard and next to impossible to be the same being 260 , which is why Ronnie's density & dryness suffered with just a 8 pound size advantage from 98-to-99
The combo of size , hardness and dryness is highly prized by the judges
qft
I noticed a lot of people on here like to explain why the judges would pick Ronnie over Dorian, or say things like taper striations, etc, when throughout BB history it's almost always the guy that has the best combo of size, hardness, and dryness while still being complete. Regardless of how you feel like bb should be judged, that is how it is.
Size, density (hardness), and dryness it's that simple.
-
qft
I noticed a lot of people on here like to explain why the judges would pick Ronnie over Dorian, or say things like taper striations, etc, when throughout BB history it's almost always the guy that has the best combo of size, hardness, and dryness while still being complete. Regardless of how you feel like bb should be judged, that is how it is.
Size, density (hardness), and dryness it's that simple.
Great post ! you sir get exactly how it works. It ain't whose physique is ' prettier ' or who has the smaller waist and joints it's who has the best combo of size , density , dryness , balance & proportion and posing & presentation and that was Dorian
The combo of size , density & dryness can't be understated it's what carried Yates to victory in 1997
-
qft
I noticed a lot of people on here like to explain why the judges would pick Ronnie over Dorian, or say things like taper striations, etc, when throughout BB history it's almost always the guy that has the best combo of size, hardness, and dryness while still being complete. Regardless of how you feel like bb should be judged, that is how it is.
Size, density (hardness), and dryness it's that simple.
I don't think size is related 100% to bodyweight though. There are many other things that determine how much a person weighs, its the visual impact of muscle mass that seems more important to me. Whether the competitor is a bit lighter or heavier.
One of the most important things you mentioned here is: "while still being complete", Dorian wasn't always complete in my eyes. He had the muscular bulk, he had the density and dryness, but he wasn't complete all the time.
-
Not a huge fan of either but Ronnie's pregnant look is an abomination to everything bb is about.
agreed about the gut but realize that dorian yates himself started this trend way back when ronnie was getting beat by people with names like Alq and Porter 8)
-
Great post ! you sir get exactly how it works. It ain't whose physique is ' prettier ' or who has the smaller waist and joints it's who has the best combo of size , density , dryness , balance & proportion and posing & presentation and that was Dorian
The combo of size , density & dryness can't be understated it's what carried Yates to victory in 1997
I've been realizing that what the judges looked for back then was just that: Size, density & dryness and who had the biggest-widest back.
Its the only explanation I can understand of why Dorian won six straight Olympias.
I'm not pretty sure if judges were taking balance & proportion and symmetry into consideration though, at the 1992, 1994 and 1997 Olympias.
And they definitively didn't care about things like muscle separation, striations, details, tie-ins, muscle shape, taper, etc.
I've realized judging was much simpler than I thought. :-\
-
I don't size is related 100% to weight though. There are many other things that determine how much a person weighs, its the visual impact of muscle mass that seems more important to me. Whether the competitor is a bit lighter or heavier.
One of the most important things you mentioned here is: "while still being complete", Dorian wasn't always complete in my eyes. He had the muscular bulk, he had the density and dryness, but he wasn't complete all the time.
I don't size is related 100% to weight though. There are many other things that determine how much a person weighs, its the visual impact of muscle mass that seems more important to me. Whether the competitor is a bit lighter or heavier.
the visual impact of muscle? all muscle isn't muscle per sa , there is a vast difference between 257 pounds and hard as nails and dry as hell , than 257 pounds and lacking in these areas . hence why the judges clearly favor density , size and dryness
One of the most important things you mentioned here is: "while still being complete", Dorian wasn't always complete in my eyes. He had the muscular bulk, he had the density and dryness, but he wasn't complete all the time.
he was always ' complete ' albeit had torn muscles , at his best he was the most complete , balanced , dry , hard and massive bodybuilder to this day
-
I see Ronnie being sharper in 99 compared to 98, his detail and separations were much more pronounced and the striations were crazy. Those things as important in my eyes as far as conditioning goes, not only dryness.
Overall I think his best was 1999. I know you're basing the statement of 1998 being his best on the fact that he was drier and I know all judges look for are muscular bulk and dryness/density. The question is was it enough to top his 99 form? I don't think so.
well said. and every word is corroborated by the pics and videos.
much to the dismay of the nuthuggers on this thread. ::)
-
the visual impact of muscle? all muscle isn't muscle per sa , there is a vast difference between 257 pounds and hard as nails and dry as hell , than 257 pounds and lacking in these areas . hence why the judges clearly favor density , size and dryness
he was always ' complete ' albeit had torn muscles , at his best he was the most complete , balanced , dry , hard and massive bodybuilder to this day
the visual impact of muscle? all muscle isn't muscle per sa , there is a vast difference between 257 pounds and hard as nails and dry as hell , than 257 pounds and lacking in these areas . hence why the judges clearly favor density , size and dryness
You can have a bodybuilder weighing more than another, but the latter "looking" or giving the impression of being bigger because of things like small joints, better muscle insertions, better shape, etc. Its the same reason you were saying how Flex beat Nasser despite being lighter.
he was always ' complete ' albeit had torn muscles , at his best he was the most complete , balanced , dry , hard and massive bodybuilder to this day
I'm going to have to disagree. I didn't see Dorian being complete everytime as far as balance & proportions and symmetry compared to his top competition back then.
-
OP is an asshole but I agree. ;D
That's the best avatar I've seen in a while.
-
The old Ronnie is a liar bit huh? Ronnie is a liar according to you every single time except when he said right after the 1999 Olympia he was better than last year but then he got it all right lmao HYPOCRITE
facts are Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 and his best showing was 2001 ASC , keep denying them it's all you have left ;)
you STILL don't understand the definition of the word "liar" do you?
you are not using the word correctly at all. ::)
-
I think its fucking hilarious that with all the amazing visuals of ronnie 99 posted on this thread, that ND can actually type its not his best "BY A LONG SHOT"
LOL
::)
as if he looked bad relative to 98 or to the 2001 AC when in reality, he had a much smaller gut in 98/99 than at the AC and his quads were way more seperated in 99 than in 98..
there is growing opinion among the bb community that Ronnie 99 WAS his best ever presentation.
I have posted many links to many forum threads verifying this from several different bb boards (all of which ND tried to discredit as usual.. ::)), and even the article from McGough states that he feels 99 was better than 98 but that he happens to prefer his smaller and more pregnant AC form which might have been a touch harder than either 98 or 99..
-
99>either 98 or the 2001 AC.
-
I've been realizing that what the judges looked for back then was just that: Size, density & dryness and who had the biggest-widest back.
Its the only explanation I can understand of why Dorian won six straight Olympias.
I'm not pretty sure if judges were taking balance & proportion and symmetry into consideration though, at the 1992, 1994 and 1997 Olympias.
And they definitively didn't care about things like muscle separation, striations, details, tie-ins, muscle shape, taper, etc.
I've realized judging was much simpler than I thought. :-\
I've been realizing that what the judges looked for back then was just that: Size, density & dryness and who had the biggest-widest back.
Its the only explanation I can understand of why Dorian won six straight Olympias.
You'd have to grasp how contests are judged before you can come to the conclusion on why he won six Olympias and clearly you don't
I'm not pretty sure if judges were taking balance & proportion and symmetry into consideration though, at the 1992, 1994 and 1997 Olympias.
And they definitively didn't care about things like muscle separation, striations, details, tie-ins, muscle shape, taper, etc.
I've realized judging was much simpler than I thought. :-\
the judges take into consideration ALL of the criteria at every contest , your blanket statements grown tiresome
and judging is simple it's who meets ALL of the criteria the best as a whole is declared the winner
-
-
I think its fucking hilarious that with all the amazing visuals of ronnie 99 posted on this thread, that ND can actually type its not his best "BY A LONG SHOT"
LOL
::)
as if he looked bad relative to 98 or to the 2001 AC when in reality, he had a much smaller gut in 98/99 than at the AC and his quads were way more seperated in 99 than in 98..
there is growing opinion among the bb community that Ronnie 99 WAS his best ever presentation.
I have posted many links to many forum threads verifying this from several different bb boards (all of which ND tried to discredit as usual.. ::)), and even the article from McGough states that he feels 99 was better than 98 but that he happens to prefer his smaller and more pregnant AC form which might have been a touch harder than either 98 or 99..
I think its fucking hilarious that with all the amazing visuals of ronnie 99 posted on this thread, that ND can actually type its not his best "BY A LONG SHOT"
LOL
::)
yes because I know what I'm looking at you don't ;)
as if he looked bad relative to 98 or to the 2001 AC when in reality, he had a much smaller gut in 98/99 than at the AC and his quads were way more seperated in 99 than in 98..
he really didn't look bad just not as good you're drawing your own conclusions. NO he did not have a smaller gut in 99 that's nonsense. and let's entertain his quads were more separated in 99 AND? his density & dryness weren't on par with either which is exactly why the general consensus among the experts is 1998 is his best Olympia showing and 2001 is his best overall showing , a career defining appearance
I've said many times I think Ronnie looks better fuller , however he's not on par with 01 in 99 it's a fact.
there is growing opinion among the bb community that Ronnie 99 WAS his best ever presentation.
I have posted many links to many forum threads verifying this from several different bb boards (all of which ND tried to discredit as usual.. ::)), and even the article from McGough states that he feels 99 was better than 98 but that he happens to prefer his smaller and more pregnant AC form which might have been a touch harder than either 98 or 99..
the bb community? you mean internet fanboys who never attended a single show? oh somehow they've become the yardstick in which reality is judged , gotcha and the actual guys who were at every single one of Ronnie's contests live and in person are wrong , right up your alley in insane stupidity
McGough has stated many , many times 2001 is his best , it's a fact NO ONE cares about 1999 except ignorant fan-boys NO ONE , Hulkster you will never escape this no matter how hard you try and the McGough quote you're trying to use as proof states he was better in 2001
He wasn't a ' touch ' harder in 01 he was noticeably harder and drier ( still NOT on par with Yates ;) ) you don't know what you're looking for which is why you come to your stupid conclusions , I'll ask again because every time I post this YOU never have a cognizant reply ;)
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. ;D
Hulkster run along you can't counter this. ;)
-
You can have a bodybuilder weighing more than another, but the latter "looking" or giving the impression of being bigger because of things like small joints, better muscle insertions, better shape, etc. Its the same reason you were saying how Flex beat Nasser despite being lighter.
I'm going to have to disagree. I didn't see Dorian being complete everytime as far as balance & proportions and symmetry compared to his top competition back then.
You can have a bodybuilder weighing more than another, but the latter "looking" or giving the impression of being bigger because of things like small joints, better muscle insertions, better shape, etc. Its the same reason you were saying how Flex beat Nasser despite being lighter.
you're preaching to the choir , tell me something I don't know , but density & dryness is the exact same reason why Dorian beat Flex in 1993 ;) despite Flex's clear advantage in shape , symmetry and aesthetics.
I'm going to have to disagree. I didn't see Dorian being complete everytime as far as balance & proportions and symmetry compared to his top competition back then.
You can disagree all you'd like it doesn't change history. Either the judges got it right or they didn't and you figured it all out on GetBig via pictures 18 years later , which one is the more logical position?
some of his competitors met part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian did but none of them meet ALL of them as good as he did.
-
the link isn't working but just the still is fucking CLASSIC lmmfao
great job. ;D
-
the link isn't working but just the still is fucking CLASSIC lmmfao
great job. ;D
;D
Why is it not working? Does it say blocked or is it just not loading?
Try the link instead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IpSuNCQqWk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IpSuNCQqWk)
-
;D
Why is it not working? Does it say blocked or is it just not loading?
Try the link instead http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IpSuNCQqWk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IpSuNCQqWk)
nope :-\
This video contains content from Constantin Film, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
-
nope :-\
This video contains content from Constantin Film, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
Oh man fucking assholes.
Strange though, it works just fine for me. I'll upload it again!
-
Ok try this one instead, I've made some minor adjustments ;D
-
Ok try this one instead, I've made some minor adjustments ;D
Laughing my motherfucking ass off !!! ! ;D
you sir are brilliant !! great job. ;D
-
Legendary (and accurate) video there! Lol.
And btw, Hulkster, Dorian may have had stomach distention, but Ronnie took that to another level.
-
NO he did not have a smaller gut in 99 that's nonsense.
why the fuck do you state stuff that we all know isn't true? ::)
ronnie's gut balloned up at the 2000 olympia and was prominent from that point on.
fuck, watch the 99 clips and the compare to the 2000 clips or the 20001 AC videos.
its fucking obvious how much bigger his gut was at the AC vs the 99 olympia...
-
...
-
Some big oiled up musclemen in this thread.
-
hahaha very funny youtube vid. its just too bad the subtitles are not accurate..but much like typical nuthuggers posts, bullshit looks good on screen..
Downfall was a great movie though.
there are endless downfall parodies on youtube. its quite a fad these days.
oh, and here are some movies for dumb nuthuggers who claim Ronnie's gut at the AC was the same as it was at the 99 olympia:
:P
-
why the fuck do you state stuff that we all know isn't true? ::)
ronnie's gut balloned up at the 2000 olympia and was prominent from that point on.
fuck, watch the 99 clips and the compare to the 2000 clips or the 20001 AC videos.
its fucking obvious how much bigger his gut was at the AC vs the 99 olympia...
yeah , yeah , sure , sure all 99 BTW
-
...
;D
it's so easy to own him
-
yeah , yeah , sure , sure all 99 BTW
thanks for posting those shots.
you just fucking owned yourself!
::)
keep up the good work. only a blind person who is also dumb as a rock would say ronnie's AC gut was the same as his MUCH SMALLER 99 gut:
-
^
look at the fucking stupidity of ND. itsn't it unreal?
he says those guts are the same LOL ::)
-
thanks for posting those shots.
you just fucking owned yourself!
::)
keep up the good work. only a blind person who is also dumb as a rock would say ronnie's AC gut was the same as his MUCH SMALLER 99 gut:
LMFAO much smaller see above dumbass see below . old news Ronnie's gut wasn't smaller in 99
-
Watch this at :43-:55...that has got to be the worst ab shot of any Mr. O ever, and his distention was definitely present in 99 (not as bad as 01 imo though, but close). Btw, 01 Ronnie looks way, way drier than 99 in the FLS comparison pics posted by Hulkster.
This is how an ab shot is supposed to look. :)
-
hahaha very funny youtube vid. its just too bad the subtitles are not accurate..but much like typical nuthuggers posts, bullshit looks good on screen..
Downfall was a great movie though.
there are endless downfall parodies on youtube. its quite a fad these days.
oh, and here are some movies for dumb nuthuggers who claim Ronnie's gut at the AC was the same as it was at the 99 olympia:
:P
It's so funny precisely because the subtitles are spot-on ;)
-
Watch this at :43-:55...that has got to be the worst ab shot of any Mr. O ever, and his distention was definitely present in 99 (not as bad as 01 imo though, but close). Btw, 01 Ronnie looks way, way drier than 99 in the FLS comparison pics posted by Hulkster.
This is how an ab shot is supposed to look. :)
His ab-thigh shot always sucked these morons harp about his small waist & hips and his taper and it does absolutely dick for this shot , the difference between conditioning compared to Yates is staggering , Dorian is eons better in density & dryness
-
I agree. As I have stated all along, Ronnie wasn't able to maintain the size AND conditioning to hang with Dorian. If Ronnie went over 260, he would be out-conditioned by Yates; and a conditioned Coleman--around 250--would simply be outsized by Yates. Coleman has a better MM and better biceps, but that is it.
-
^
look at the fucking stupidity of ND. itsn't it unreal?
he says those guts are the same LOL ::)
not the same ...............99 is worse ;D
-
Watch this at :43-:55...that has got to be the worst ab shot of any Mr. O ever, and his distention was definitely present in 99 (not as bad as 01 imo though, but close). Btw, 01 Ronnie looks way, way drier than 99 in the FLS comparison pics posted by Hulkster.
This is how an ab shot is supposed to look. :)
why didnt you post some abs shots of dorian in 1997? :-X
-
why didnt you post some abs shots of dorian in 1997? :-X
Here you go , Dorian the same weights as Nasser making him look small ;)
-
I agree. As I have stated all along, Ronnie wasn't able to maintain the size AND conditioning to hang with Dorian. If Ronnie went over 260, he would be out-conditioned by Yates; and a conditioned Coleman--around 250--would simply be outsized by Yates. Coleman has a better MM and better biceps, but that is it.
Great points ! Dorian has to many advantages
-
Here you go , Dorian the same weights as Nasser making him look small ;)
i knew you were going to post this pic.!!.. you are very predictable and boring :-\
-
i knew you were going to post this pic.!!.. you are very predictable and boring :-\
you wanted it there it is ! you don't like the result don't bitch , you're predictable crying about Nasser in yet another Yates thread wanna project anymore? ;)
I'm never boring ;D
-
not the same ...............99 is worse ;D
uh no.
::)
-
uh no.
::)
next
-
Here you go , Dorian the same weights as Nasser making him look small ;)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368394;image)
Game, set and match. ;D
-
next
you know, I actually don't believe for one second that you are actually arguing that Ronnie's post 2000 gut at any contest was the same or worse than his pre 2000 gut.
I mean, you have nothing to argue it with.
you are posting pics from 99 and I am posting pics from the 2001 AC with a much bigger gut.
and the videos are even more clear than the pics.
you are just trolling.
even you can't be this stupid.
notice the gut hanging over the trunks at the AC, not so in 99. you can't even see ronnie's left top of his trunks his obliques are so huge at the AC. not in 99..
next!
your trolling is not working Flowerboy.
-
I think no matter what I say, you must argue the opposite, even if your own pics/vids to prove it actually totally disprove yourself.
you still argue the opposite.
thats why you take such an issue with obvious facts like ronnie 99 being better than 98, or ronnie's 99 and 98 gut was smaller and less prominent than his post 2000 gut.
you are just trolling.
and you call me a troll. ::)
oh yeah, thats why we call you HypocriticDeity..
-
you know, I actually don't believe for one second that you are actually arguing that Ronnie's post 2000 gut at any contest was the same or worse than his pre 2000 gut.
I mean, you have nothing to argue it with.
you are posting pics from 99 and I am posting pics from the 2001 AC with a much bigger gut.
and the videos are even more clear than the pics.
you are just trolling.
even you can't be this stupid.
notice the gut hanging over the trunks at the AC, not so in 99. you can't even see ronnie's left top of his trunks his obliques are so huge at the AC. not in 99..
next!
your trolling is not working Flowerboy.
Next
-
I think no matter what I say, you must argue the opposite, even if your own pics/vids to prove it actually totally disprove yourself.
you still argue the opposite.
thats why you take such an issue with obvious facts like ronnie 99 being better than 98, or ronnie's 99 and 98 gut was smaller and less prominent than his post 2000 gut.
you are just trolling.
and you call me a troll. ::)
oh yeah, thats why we call you HypocriticDeity..
keep avoiding the facts like the plague , you're scared shit of these dumbass ;)
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
Hulkster run along you can't counter this. Wink
-
and you keep avoiding all the pics and videos like the plauge.
gee, I wonder why?
could it be that they disprove all your bullshit and all your incorrect opinions that you give in your quotes?
yes, its pretty clear thats what they do.
visuals>> ND's bullshit.
talk is cheap. mountains of visual proof is far more compelling.
-
Next ;)
-
and you keep avoiding all the pics and videos like the plauge.
gee, I wonder why?
could it be that they disprove all your bullshit and all your incorrect opinions that you give in your quotes?
yes, its pretty clear thats what they do.
visuals>> ND's bullshit.
talk is cheap. mountains of visual proof is far more compelling.
translation " I can't counter that " lol don't worry stupid I know you can't ;)
I'm still LOLing at the growing movement in the bb community is that 99 was Ronnie's best LMMFAO a bunch of morons gawking at oversharpened pics who never been to ANY of Ronnie's contests ever hehehehehehehehe
I enjoy bitch-slapping you ;D
-
thanks for posting that one too.
its still not as bad as this:
you really need to avoid all visuals ND.
every time you post them, you end up proving yourself wrong.
its really pathetic, you know.
-
I can't counter that
my words on a post don't have to counter it.
the visuals do it perfectly fine without typing anything.
thats the point.
you type things, my visuals show them to be wrong.
end of story.
-
my words on a post don't have to counter it.
the visuals do it perfectly fine without typing anything.
thats the point.
you type things, my visuals show them to be wrong.
end of story.
no, subjective sport.
End of story. Opinions are like assholes hulkster, everyones got one. Just caus you're louder than most doesn't mean your opinion is any more valid than anyone else. So GTFO with your visual crap, 2 people can look at the same thing and see two different things.
Oh, and btw, Judges don't pick winners based on bids and pcs you fuckin retard! It's been well explained by people in the industry that pics and vies can be decieving. This is why your opinion holds no weight against ronnies. Cause you weren't there. You have no idea. Bottom line is hulkster, you don't know shit, and trying to claim the visuals proven it based on watching a 10 yr old video while having absolutley 0 experience in BB, not to mention you didn't even see the show your arguing for, kinda says one thing... You are talking out of your ass, you have no idea what you're talking about, and the only way you can justify it is by blindly hoping other people see what you see when you watch those vids. Your fuckin pathetic.
*Edited for 2am Incoherentness.
-
thanks for posting that one too.
its still not as bad as this:
you really need to avoid all visuals ND.
every time you post them, you end up proving yourself wrong.
its really pathetic, you know.
Oh the one of him totally relaxed and the one of him flexed? gotcha ;D
-
my words on a post don't have to counter it.
the visuals do it perfectly fine without typing anything.
thats the point.
you type things, my visuals show them to be wrong.
end of story.
What else are you gonna say? that you can't counter the experts? that you're wrong? you know you wrong which is exactly why you try so hard , I know it sucks to be proven wrong all the time but facts are facts and all effort will never change them.
-
hahaha very funny youtube vid. its just too bad the subtitles are not accurate..but much like typical nuthuggers posts, bullshit looks good on screen..
Downfall was a great movie though.
there are endless downfall parodies on youtube. its quite a fad these days.
oh, and here are some movies for dumb nuthuggers who claim Ronnie's gut at the AC was the same as it was at the 99 olympia:
:P
He looks aesthetic as fuck in that second video.
-
no, subjective sport.
End of story. Opinions are like assholes hulkster, just caus you're louder doesn't mean your opinion is any more valid than anyone else. So GTFO with your visual crap, 2 people can look at the same thing and see two different things.
Oh, and btw, Judges don't pick winners based on bids and pcs you fuckin retard! It's been well explained by people in the industry that pics and vies can be decieving. This is why your opinion holds no weight against ronnies. Cause you weren't there. You have no idea. Bottom line is hulkster, you don't know shit, and trying to claim the visuals proven it based on watching a 10 yr old video while having absolutley 0 experience in BB, not to mention you didn't even see the show your arguing for, kinda says one thing... You are talking out of your ass, you have no idea what you're talking about, and the only way you can justify it is by blindly hoping other people see what you see when you watch those vids. Your fuckin pathetic.
Hulkster has a loud asshole?
-
He looks aesthetic as fuck in that second video.
Yeah for a moment I mistook him for Bob Paris ::)
-
Hulkster has a loud asshole?
Lol. I wrote that at 2AM when I woke up and couldnt sleep.
I should probably have waited until I was coherent to type that. lol.
But close, he is a loud asshole. And he tries to pass off his opinion as fact, which makes me lol.
I mean really, he complains about ND trying to tell people how BB contests are judged, but then he tries when he has absolutley NO clue how contests are judged, he just bases his opinions on what HE wants to see.
-
Lol. I wrote that at 2AM when I woke up and couldnt sleep.
I should probably have waited until I was coherent to type that. lol.
But close, he is a loud asshole. And he tries to pass off his opinion as fact, which makes me lol.
I mean really, he complains about ND trying to tell people how BB contests are judged, but then he tries when he has absolutley NO clue how contests are judged, he just bases his opinions on what HE wants to see.
Great post ! how are you gonna comment on whose better when you don't even know how the game is played? I like the way Ronnie looks better so he'd win lol
he can't even get the basic right and I like how all of the experts I showed clearly feel 2001 is his best are wrong and the growing movement among the ' bb community ' is 99 is his best lmfao the masses of ignorant fanboys who are starring at sharpened pics are all right lol
There is NO argument with him , just people bashing him over the head with facts and exposing his ignorance & hypocrisy and you're doing a great job too keep up the good work !! ;D
-
Hulkster has a loud asshole?
that depends on what I ate last :-X :)
-
He looks aesthetic as fuck in that second video.
yup. but to someone who has no clue what they are talking about like ND and Co, they will maintain he isn't.. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
what idiots. :-\
-
he just bases his opinions on what HE wants to see.
no, I base my opinion on what everyone sees.
you people see what everyone else sees and then deny it is there, or deny that it is even real in the first place.. ::)
you base your opinion on the denial of the visuals, rather than the acceptance of them.
that is the crucial difference between the ronnie fans and the nuthuggers like you.
-
yup. but to someone who has no clue what they are talking about like ND and Co, they will maintain he isn't.. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
what idiots. :-\
wow the old ' yeah I know you are but what am I " routine ::)
Like I said reminds me of a Young Bob Paris ::)
-
no, I base my opinion on what everyone sees.
you people see what everyone else sees and then deny it is there, or deny that it is even real in the first place.. ::)
you base your opinion on the denial of the visuals, rather than the acceptance of them.
that is the crucial difference between the ronnie fans and the nuthuggers like you.
what everyone sees huh? thanks for playing dumbass
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
Hulkster run along you can't counter this. Wink
-
Back in the late 80's I saw Dorian out in a club and threw a banana at him.
cracked him on the noggin and exploded into a shower of mush
-
that depends on what I ate last :-X :)
depends on the size of the guy that was in there last :-X
-
Back in the late 80's I saw Dorian out in a club and threw a banana at him.
cracked him on the noggin and exploded into a shower of mush
ND throws his banana at dorian all the time.. :-X
-
where is 1999?
its right here:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=4268
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=9710
ND owned for the 4 billionth time. this is getting old already.
-
its right here:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=4268
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=9710
ND owned for the 4 billionth time. this is getting old already.
LMMFAO come back when you have something for me dumbass ;)
NO fan-boys allowed ;)
-
ND throws his banana at dorian all the time.. :-X
stop projecting , the difference between you and I is I don't have to make shit up ;)
-
its right here:
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=4268
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=9710
ND owned for the 4 billionth time. this is getting old already.
Haha, yeah cuase theyre somehow different than you, basing an opinion on an internet Video ten years afterwards.
Where are the IFBB judges? Where are the fellow competitors, where is the competitors pesonal opinion?
Oh yeah, everyone with a shred of credibiility disagrees with you!
The only people who agree with you are Interne BB fans! HahahA!
Youre fucking sad.
Hulkster what you do is equivalent to arguing with a superbowl quarterback on what game he felt he performed best at, when you werent even there, nor had you ever played football, but you watched the highlights on ESPN. lol.
-
no, I base my opinion on what everyone sees.
you people see what everyone else sees and then deny it is there, or deny that it is even real in the first place.. ::)
you base your opinion on the denial of the visuals, rather than the acceptance of them.
that is the crucial difference between the ronnie fans and the nuthuggers like you.
Hahah!
you are the definition of denial.
So it works for you but not against you?
Lol.
And your "proof" is a thread made by a bunch of nobodies online. Hardly proof.
-
Haha, yeah cuase theyre somehow different than you, basing an opinion on an internet Video ten years afterwards.
Where are the IFBB judges? Where are the fellow competitors, where is the competitors pesonal opinion?
Oh yeah, everyone with a shred of credibiility disagrees with you!
The only people who agree with you are Interne BB fans! HahahA!
Youre fucking sad.
Hulkster what you do is equivalent to arguing with a superbowl quarterback on what game he felt he performed best at, when you werent even there, nor had you ever played football, but you watched the highlights on ESPN. lol.
He's posting links to people from here ( iceman ) lmfao
Hulkster is the dumbest person on the internet
-
Hahah!
you are the definition of denial.
So it works for you but not against you?
Lol.
And your "proof" is a thread made by a bunch of nobodies online. Hardly proof.
That's why no one takes him seriously we all just laugh at him and ridicule him. ;D
-
yates 1994
-
yates 1994
Ronnie 1994 :-\
-
He's posting links to people from here ( iceman ) lmfao
Hulkster is the dumbest person on the internet
huh? there are a million comments in those threads and they aren't from iceman..
yes, he posted the original topic, but thats it.
::)
man, you do your best to deny everything real, don't you?
its so sad. :-\
-
So it works for you but not against you?
yes, because the visuals corroborate the trugh of what I am saying -eg. the fact that ronnie's gut in 99 was much smaller than at the 2001 AC.
they disprove and refute what and ND you are saying - eg. see above about the gut, as an example of many.
understand?
::)
man, these nuthuggers have no brains whatsoever :-\
-
yates 1994
yates 94 and ronnie 99
what a mismatch. ronnie is 10x better.
his arms make it look like dorian's are not even trained, dorian's massive midsection ruins his taper, his back is not nearly as good etc., quad comparison like night and day, horrible torn arm etc.
and Ronnie is in a lot better condition too. ripped and striated everywhere. dorian looks like he stayed out in sun for 1000 years. awful and ugly. :-\
-
man, its clear to me why people say dorian's physique was so ugly.
that 94 clip tells it all.
how awful.
shawn got scammed big time.
and no nuthuggers, its not true as you love to say that any year version of dorian was harder/better than ronnie.
thats for damn sure after that clip ..
-
(http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9793/snapshot2t.jpg)
-
Any time a Levrone or Wheeler fan bitches on why they never won a sandow you show them that picture.
-
yates 94 and ronnie 99
what a mismatch. ronnie is 10x better.
his arms make it look like dorian's are not even trained, dorian's massive midsection ruins his taper, his back is not nearly as good etc., quad comparison like night and day, horrible torn arm etc.
and Ronnie is in a lot better condition too. ripped and striated everywhere. dorian looks like he stayed out in sun for 1000 years. awful and ugly. :-\
One of Dorians worst vs One of Ronnie's better o's huh? Yup, typical Hulkster.
BTW, too bad Ronnie thinks youre a retard, and 98 was his best shape.
That water he was carrying in 99 sucks.
-
One of Dorians worst vs One of Ronnie's better o's huh?
yup. nuthuggers like ND often claim that dorian was better conditioned any year than ronnie was at his best.
as I always do, I proved that wrong.
I always prove nuthuggers wrong. always.
remember that.
-
yup. nuthuggers like ND often claim that dorian was better conditioned any year than ronnie was at his best.
as I always do, I proved that wrong.
I always prove nuthuggers wrong. always.
remember that.
Lol. My ass.
Still waiting for that proof that 99 is his best. So far all you have is a couple opinions of nobodies on the internet.
Seems like every official, judge, fellow competition, and competitor, (you know, people that were there or no something) seems to think its 98 or 01.
Yup. Nobody claiming 99 but you and some random people that youve flooded pics with. lol. Oh wait, you have the victory speech, the night he won. Lol. Yeah, cause someone is gonna say they were better last year. What a joke.
So, no, you dont prove us wrong. You just prove how sick in the head you are.
-
Still waiting for that proof that 99 is his best
you have the proof. its called a million pics and videos.
what, do you want a quote in order you to believe its his best?.
oh yeah, I gave you a quote directly from ronnie fucking coleman saying he was better in 99 than in 98 when you claim 98 was his best.. ::)
oh yeah, thats right.
you have the proof but once again, you are trying to get around it as always.
why you care, who knows.
all we know is that there is so much proof out there that 99 was his best it is not even funny.
but you hide your head in the sand and when faced with it or quotes/opinions about it, you deny them.
classic fallicious argument right there. textbook.
you could be published for this shit. thats how bad it is. :-\
-
huh? there are a million comments in those threads and they aren't from iceman..
yes, he posted the original topic, but thats it.
::)
man, you do your best to deny everything real, don't you?
its so sad. :-\
NO fanboys allowed ;)
keep trying though when you come back with the avalanche of quotes from the experts I'll be the first to apologize ;D until then eat a bowl of dicks ;)
-
yes, because the visuals corroborate the trugh of what I am saying -eg. the fact that ronnie's gut in 99 was much smaller than at the 2001 AC.
they disprove and refute what and ND you are saying - eg. see above about the gut, as an example of many.
understand?
::)
man, these nuthuggers have no brains whatsoever :-\
in all honesty who gives a flying fuck about his gut? that's a diversionary tactic on your behalf to try and escape the fact EVERYONE agrees 01 is his best and more specifically because he's conditioning kicks 1999's ASS ;)
you still lose !! ;)
-
you have the proof. its called a million pics and videos.
what, do you want a quote in order you to believe its his best?.
oh yeah, I gave you a quote directly from ronnie fucking coleman saying he was better in 99 than in 98 when you claim 98 was his best.. ::)
oh yeah, thats right.
you have the proof but once again, you are trying to get around it as always.
why you care, who knows.
all we know is that there is so much proof out there that 99 was his best it is not even funny.
but you hide your head in the sand and when faced with it or quotes/opinions about it, you deny them.
classic fallicious argument right there. textbook.
you could be published for this shit. thats how bad it is. :-\
Ronnie is right when you want him to be HYPOCRITE you called Ronnie a liar when he stated he was better in 1998 THREE times ;) now Ronnie is right when it serves your purpose lol
you are the dumbest person on GetBig congrats
-
Lol. My ass.
Still waiting for that proof that 99 is his best. So far all you have is a couple opinions of nobodies on the internet.
Seems like every official, judge, fellow competition, and competitor, (you know, people that were there or no something) seems to think its 98 or 01.
Yup. Nobody claiming 99 but you and some random people that youve flooded pics with. lol. Oh wait, you have the victory speech, the night he won. Lol. Yeah, cause someone is gonna say they were better last year. What a joke.
So, no, you dont prove us wrong. You just prove how sick in the head you are.
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show.
everything was just spot-on for that show ;D
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
Ronnie again stating 1998 was his best along with Phil Heath and Troy Alves
Special Ed : Ronnie what was your best Olympia and why? Ronnie : I would have to say my first because everything was spot-on for that show.
Three times Hulkster hates facts ;D
-
you have the proof. its called a million pics and videos.
what, do you want a quote in order you to believe its his best?.
oh yeah, I gave you a quote directly from ronnie fucking coleman saying he was better in 99 than in 98 when you claim 98 was his best.. ::)
oh yeah, thats right.
you have the proof but once again, you are trying to get around it as always.
why you care, who knows.
all we know is that there is so much proof out there that 99 was his best it is not even funny.
but you hide your head in the sand and when faced with it or quotes/opinions about it, you deny them.
classic fallicious argument right there. textbook.
you could be published for this shit. thats how bad it is. :-\
Hahah!!! Still clinging to that are we? Your quote would be credible, if Ronnie hadnt disputed it not once, not twice, but three times.
To bad Ronnie amended that statement on 3 seperate occasions, all saying 98 was his best.
But the one time he agreed with you, was the victory speech where he won.
Lol. Im not gonna put words in his mouth (like you do) But no one is going to say hey were better last year. Hell half of people say "Im my best ever!" every single time they compete, so your whole argument on that point is void.
3 Separate occasions Ronnie stated that he believe 98 was his best. Ronnie, 1, Hulkster, 0
And fucking lol at hiding my head in the sand, Youre the one that is reduced to trying to explain why the statements Ronnie made AFTER his victory speech were incorrect (thereby nullifying his previous statement), but the one he made directly after WINNING AN OLYMPIA is more valid. (Not like hes riding a wave of emotions due to winning or anything).
Not to mention that is your ENTIRE argument. Pics are not proof when youre not an IFBB judge. If you were a judge, and you told me, 99 wins, Id accept that. Unfortunatley, you have no proof so you point to the pics and say "See! See!"
Thats like me showing you a pic of my car amd a friends car and saying "look, look its nicer than his car!"
You cannot tell shit from pics. And you werent there. And youre nobody in the industry. So, sounds like you fail Hulkster.
-
Thats like me showing you a pic of my car amd a friends car and saying "look, look its nicer than his car!"
You cannot tell shit from pics.
1. absolutely wrong. for example, ND's gut ran above, you can tell very easily that his gut was smaller in 98/99 than it was in 2001.
its like showing a pic of a honda civic and a full size hummer and asking which is bigger? its obvious.
so your analogy fails miserably.
You cannot tell shit from pics.[/
spoken like someone who truly knows they are wrong and knows it after seeing the visuals, but cannot bring themselves to admit it.
you deny the proof as always.
how you can argue given that all the visuals prove you wrong and you know it enough that you have to outright deny them, I will never know.. ::)
-
Your quote would be credible, if Ronnie hadnt disputed it not once, not twice, but three times.
no, the quote is credible because the visuals corroborate it.
end of story.
what ronnie said after that does not change this.
you can't get out of this one.
-
no, the quote is credible because the visuals corroborate it.
end of story.
what ronnie said after that does not change this.
you can't get out of this one.
Ok I usually don't bother with these debates but this right here is pathetic. What fuckin kind of argument is that?
-
ND you certainly love your quotes don't you?
You'll love what the great Sergio Oliva had to say about Dorian Yates on an interview sometime ago:
"Then there’s Dorian Yates. He has a belly like a cow and no arms. That is not a complete physique. That is not proportional or symmetrical."
;D
Taken from here in case some of you guys think its made up:
http://muscleandbrawn.com/sergio-oliva-interview/
-
1. absolutely wrong. for example, ND's gut ran above, you can tell very easily that his gut was smaller in 98/99 than it was in 2001.
its like showing a pic of a honda civic and a full size hummer and asking which is bigger? its obvious.
so your analogy fails miserably.
spoken like someone who truly knows they are wrong and knows it after seeing the visuals, but cannot bring themselves to admit it.
you deny the proof as always.
how you can argue given that all the visuals prove you wrong and you know it enough that you have to outright deny them, I will never know.. ::)
Wow Hulkster... I cant even begin to tell you how pathetic this is.
In the case of Ronnie, youre car analogy is stupid. 98 to 99 is like comparing a civic to a Hummer!? Wow... Its like taking a pic of 2 hummers and comparing them. You cant tell anything but the kind of car and the color. You cant get the sublteties. Self Ownage #1
Ill be the first to admit he looks amazing. But to think youre going to see everthing from those pics and vids is DENIAL at its finest. lol.
You truely think that youre 10 year old video is proof enough to claim someones best bodybuilding showing?
Sad sad sad. :-[
Lets clear this up Hulkster. Youre trying to pass your opinion off as fact, but
#1 Youve never been to a Pro Show.
#2 You have never been a BB judge.
#3 You have never been a competitor
#4 You ignore Ronnie Colemans opinion (3x) on his best showing, but you use the 1x during his victory speech where he said it was his best shape. (Which was contradicted 3 times.<----LOL)
#5 The only people who support your claims, are internet fans on a BB chat board
#6 Youre basing everthing off a 10 year old video uploaded to the internet. You havent even seen the REAL DVD.
#7 You constantly ignore the opinons of Industry Experts.
#8 The only proof you can muster is by posting pics, and saying "See!?"
Sad, sad, sad, :-[
-
ND you certainly love your quotes don't you?
You'll love what the great Sergio Oliva had to say about Dorian Yates on an interview sometime ago:
"Then there’s Dorian Yates. He has a belly like a cow and no arms. That is not a complete physique. That is not proportional or symmetrical."
;D
Taken from here in case some of you guys think its made up:
http://muscleandbrawn.com/sergio-oliva-interview/
Hi pumpster. ;D We havent missed you.
-
You'd have to grasp how contests are judged before you can come to the conclusion on why he won six Olympias and clearly you don't
the judges take into consideration ALL of the criteria at every contest , your blanket statements grown tiresome
and judging is simple it's who meets ALL of the criteria the best as a whole is declared the winner
You and your friend clearly said it before: the winner is picked based on size, density & dryness, balance & proportions and posing.
I didn't see Dorian having good proportions and symmetry, so I think judges just cared about muscle mass, dryness and who had the biggest/widest back.
Are things like separations, details, taper, etc. part of the criteria? Apparently they were not.
One of your friends here even told me sometime ago those things aren't judged. :-\
-
no, the quote is credible because the visuals corroborate it.
end of story.
what ronnie said after that does not change this.
you can't get out of this one.
Bwahahah. Ahhh, is Hulkster gonna take his ball and go home?
You sound like a 3 year old.
Nuh uh, no he didnt, cause I said so! Wah!
Ronnie said something that I dont agree with! Wahhh!!!! He cant change what he said!!! Wahhh!!!!
Lol.
Keep showing everyone how pathetic you are. lol.
BTW, get out of this? Stop projecting. Youre the one trying to rewrite history.
Ronnie says "Its my best showing ever!" Directly after winning, adrenaline running cause he won, hes not thinking of past shows, hes thinking how he kicked ass. Not only that, hes not gonna say, yeah, well I won, but I was better last year.
Say whatever you like, but youre the one thats stuck.
Ronnie 3 times AFTER his victory speech, says, "Yeah, 98 was the best".
Look at it however you want, obviously the mans opinion is 98 was the best. not 99.
Sorry Hulkster, looks like its YOU that cant get out of this one. ;D
-
You and your friend clearly said it before: the winner is picked based on size, density & dryness, balance & proportions and posing.
I didn't see Dorian having good proportions and symmetry, so I think judges just cared about muscle mass, dryness and who had the biggest/widest back.
Are things like separations, details, taper, etc. part of the criteria? Apparently they were not.
One of your friends here even told me sometime ago those things aren't judged. :-\
That was me. And it is.
Symmetry is factored in, but in the case of Dorian, his 1 shorter bicep was not enough of a flaw in the poses to knock him off.
Balance, you can say you don't see it all you want, but Dorians Calves were better balanced to his legs than Ronnies, Dorians forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnies, and Dorian had a better midsection. (As far as BB is concerned, in BB you want to have large calves - In fact the greek ideal that BB is based on is having Calves, arms, and I think its neck all the same size.)
Dorians Biceps were his weak part, and they really only were a problem in 2 poses, BDB, and FDB.
You can claim you think Dorians Calves and Forearms were to large for his legs and arms if you want, but remember, Dorian was the benchmark that Ronnie would be measured against. Not the other way around. Therefore, Ronnies calves would be too small in the eyes of the judges, not the other way around. See what Im saying?
-
you're preaching to the choir , tell me something I don't know , but density & dryness is the exact same reason why Dorian beat Flex in 1993 ;) despite Flex's clear advantage in shape , symmetry and aesthetics.
You can disagree all you'd like it doesn't change history. Either the judges got it right or they didn't and you figured it all out on GetBig via pictures 18 years later , which one is the more logical position?
some of his competitors met part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian did but none of them meet ALL of them as good as he did.
you're preaching to the choir , tell me something I don't know , but density & dryness is the exact same reason why Dorian beat Flex in 1993 ;) despite Flex's clear advantage in shape , symmetry and aesthetics.
Well Dorian in 1993 also had muscular bulk and balance & proportions going for him that year.
I just wanted to show you how overall bodyweight or muscular bulk can sometimes not be a decisive factor in who wins a show. There are so many examples of this:
Shawn Ray constantly beating guys heavier than him, like Paul Dillet, Nasser, Levrone, Fux, etc. Even when he won the overall title at the 1987 Nationals, he beat a guy that was heavier than him.
Another example might be Flex beating Nasser, Dexter Jackson constantly beating heavier guys, what about Lee Labrada, the list can go on.
This shows that bodyweight (who's the heaviest) is not all that important when other things are taken into consideration.
This shows how Ronnie despite being lighter, would beat Dorian if they met at their bests.
You can disagree all you'd like it doesn't change history. Either the judges got it right or they didn't and you figured it all out on GetBig via pictures 18 years later , which one is the more logical position?
some of his competitors met part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian did but none of them meet ALL of them as good as he did.
I agree, but I'm just stating my opinion.
-
Youre the one trying to rewrite history.
no, I am preserving history by posting visuals that show how exactly how it was.
you and ND are denying history by spending pages and pages trying to deny how Ronnie looked on contest day..
think about it.
one group posts visuals
the other group says they are wrong OR EVEN FAKED ( ::)) and tries to deny what they show.
now, who is rewriting history again?
::)
-
Hi pumpster. ;D We havent missed you.
Who is pumpster?
Hell, first I was hulkster to you and now I'm pumpster? ???
I love it when you guys accuse me of being someone I'm not. I've been called hulkster, bizzy and pumpster so far, let's see what you guys come up with next.
-
not surprising.
this is a group of guys who maintain that there is a global IFBB conspiracy to fake the 1999 Olympia tapes and dvds out there.
nothing they come up with can surprise anyone after this gem of stupidity.
::)
-
no, I am preserving history by posting visuals that show how exactly how it was.
you and ND are denying history by spending pages and pages trying to deny how Ronnie looked on contest day..
think about it.
one group posts visuals
the other group says they are wrong OR EVEN FAKED ( ::)) and tries to deny what they show.
now, who is rewriting history again?
::)
Hahaha.
Again with youre pathetic attempts.
Nothing is going to change the fact that Ronnie's opinion, (and everyone but yours and a few Internet fans), is that 98 was better than 99.
Technically I could post the vid of 98 and say the same fucking thing you do. Lol.
Sorry, but since youre only "proof" is to post pics, from a 10 year old video and ignore everything anyone has to say, well Ill have to stick with the experts.
Sad, sad, sad Hulkster. :-[
-
not surprising.
this is a group of guys who maintain that there is a global IFBB conspiracy to fake the 1999 Olympia tapes and dvds out there.
nothing they come up with can surprise anyone after this gem of stupidity.
::)
Oh, sad sad little Hulkster, are you mad that you cant prove anything, and no one else with a shred of credibility agrees with you?
Oh wait, it must be that Ronnie himself thinks you are incorrect, and that 98 was in fact his best showing.
Oh, maybe its that youre only source of "proof" is a 10 Year old vid being reviewed by someone who's entire bodybuilding credentials are having seen a 3rd tier pro "At a gustposing once"
But I guess that makes you capable of arguing Ronnie's opinion right? Having seen a 3rd tier pro standing by himself?
Or maybe that makes it acceptable for you to argue with IFBB officials and experts right?
Or maybe since you saw Nimrod King, that you know enough to judge between 2 contests WITHOUT actually seeing either of them!
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
-
Who is pumpster?
Hell, first I was hulkster to you and now I'm pumpster? ???
I love it when you guys accuse me of being someone I'm not. I've been called hulkster, bizzy and pumpster so far, let's see what you guys come up with next.
You quoted one of Pumpsters old quotes. Obviously you havent been around getbig long enough to understand the "Hello, *insert name*" jokes.
Pumpster was outed as a fat, gay, slob who used to be Hulksters Ronnie loving Dorian hating sidekick. And he was a moderator of the training forum.
You posted the same thing he used to repeatedley, so I called you pumpster.
-
That was me. And it is.
Symmetry is factored in, but in the case of Dorian, his 1 shorter bicep was not enough of a flaw in the poses to knock him off.
Balance, you can say you don't see it all you want, but Dorians Calves were better balanced to his legs than Ronnies, Dorians forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnies, and Dorian had a better midsection. (As far as BB is concerned, in BB you want to have large calves - In fact the greek ideal that BB is based on is having Calves, arms, and I think its neck all the same size.)
Dorians Biceps were his weak part, and they really only were a problem in 2 poses, BDB, and FDB.
You can claim you think Dorians Calves and Forearms were to large for his legs and arms if you want, but remember, Dorian was the benchmark that Ronnie would be measured against. Not the other way around. Therefore, Ronnies calves would be too small in the eyes of the judges, not the other way around. See what Im saying?
Symmetry is factored in, but in the case of Dorian, his 1 shorter bicep was not enough of a flaw in the poses to knock him off.
I think it was ND that said symmetry is not only related to how well the right side matches the left side, its only a part of it. I agree that it also has to do with aesthetics, muscle shape, etc.
If these things are truly taken into consideration, then Dorian is way down in symmetry than just the torn biceps.
Balance, you can say you don't see it all you want, but Dorians Calves were better balanced to his legs than Ronnies, Dorians forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnies, and Dorian had a better midsection. (As far as BB is concerned, in BB you want to have large calves - In fact the greek ideal that BB is based on is having Calves, arms, and I think its neck all the same size.)
I could see Dorian's calves being better balanced to his upper legs than Ronnie, but still his balance isn't great.
There is no way his forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnie. Both have good balance in this area in my eyes.
Now, what about proportions? Did Dorian have good proportions after 1993 to you?
He didn't for me, I always saw his massive back/torso overpowering his arms and even his quads. Even his chest looked flat in 94 and 97.
You can claim you think Dorians Calves and Forearms were to large for his legs and arms if you want, but remember, Dorian was the benchmark that Ronnie would be measured against. Not the other way around. Therefore, Ronnies calves would be too small in the eyes of the judges, not the other way around. See what Im saying?
I see your point here, in the eye of the judges that could be the case.
-
its funny how you guys insist that what ronnie said about 98 being his best is correct simply because he stated it three times as opposed to stating 99 was once..even though all visuals show 99 was better..
and yet you also don't seem to take issue with Peter McGough who feels 99 was better than 98 but does prefer 2001 over either of them.
you make no sense.
you should be stating that Peter McGough is fucked in the head for stating that 2001 AC was his best because you guys are insistant that because Ronnie said 98 was his best that it is true.
see how you don't make any fucking sense?
::)
but then again, it takes brains to realize this.
-
You quoted one of Pumpsters old quotes. Obviously you havent been around getbig long enough to understand the "Hello, *insert name*" jokes.
Pumpster was outed as a fat, gay, slob who used to be Hulksters Ronnie loving Dorian hating sidekick. And he was a moderator of the training forum.
You posted the same thing he used to repeatedley, so I called you pumpster.
I've probably a lot to learn about getbig yet, but I'm catching on. ;D
Maybe you were just joking aroound, but ND insists I'm a gimmick.
I posted that quote to show how subjective opinions of others/quotes can vary so much and how these quotes are not the end of it all to prove a point.
ND constantly posts up quotes of people saying Dorian was the best or Ronnie's best was "x" year, etc. I just wanted to post a quote of a recognized person in bb saying the opposite of what he believes and try to have some fun too with it too. ;D
-
Lets say Ronnie was drier in 98, but his conditioning in 99 was amazing too. You guys are talking like 99 Ronnie was totally off or bad. C'mon, Ronnie in 2000, 2002 or 2006 are examples of an off Ronnie, but 1999 was outstanding as far as conditioning, size, symmetry, etc.
The fact that he was drier in 98 automatically makes that year his best?
Opinions are different, some people say 98 was his best and others say 99 was his best. Its the same as some people think Dorian's best was 93, while others say it was 95.
In the end, we can all agree that a top Ronnie (1998 or 1999) is better and would beat Dorian at any year. ;)
-
Well Dorian in 1993 also had muscular bulk and balance & proportions going for him that year.
I just wanted to show you how overall bodyweight or muscular bulk can sometimes not be a decisive factor in who wins a show. There are so many examples of this:
Shawn Ray constantly beating guys heavier than him, like Paul Dillet, Nasser, Levrone, Fux, etc. Even when he won the overall title at the 1987 Nationals, he beat a guy that was heavier than him.
Another example might be Flex beating Nasser, Dexter Jackson constantly beating heavier guys, what about Lee Labrada, the list can go on.
This shows that bodyweight (who's the heaviest) is not all that important when other things are taken into consideration.
This shows how Ronnie despite being lighter, would beat Dorian if they met at their bests.
I agree, but I'm just stating my opinion.
You're missing the point of all those lighter guys who beat the heavier ones , they were ALL in better condition than their counterparts , when contests are close 99.9% of the time the deciding factor is who is harder & drier
Ronnie lighter is still NOT as hard or as dry as a heavier Dorian or as balanced , Dorian simply meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie
Dorian at his best is harder & drier than Ronnie at his all the while carrying more muscular bulk and being better balanced now factor in posing & presentation and it's Dorian for the W
for the sake of argument lets say Ronnie at his best equaled Dorian in conditioning it would be at a lighter weight and worse balance & proportion and posing & presentation , so again Dorian for the W
-
I think it was ND that said symmetry is not only related to how well the right side matches the left side, its only a part of it. I agree that it also has to do with aesthetics, muscle shape, etc.
If these things are truly taken into consideration, then Dorian is way down in symmetry than just the torn biceps.
I could see Dorian's calves being better balanced to his upper legs than Ronnie, but still his balance isn't great.
There is no way his forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnie. Both have good balance in this area in my eyes.
Now, what about proportions? Did Dorian have good proportions after 1993 to you?
He didn't for me, I always saw his massive back/torso overpowering his arms and even his quads. Even his chest looked flat in 94 and 97.
I see your point here, in the eye of the judges that could be the case.
I think it was ND that said symmetry is not only related to how well the right side matches the left side, its only a part of it. I agree that it also has to do with aesthetics, muscle shape, etc.
If these things are truly taken into consideration, then Dorian is way down in symmetry than just the torn biceps.
NO symmetry in the bodybuilding context is a LOT more than it seems and different people have different meanings for the whole of symmetry , perfect example
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.
Lee Priest saying Dorian might not be as ' symmetrical ' as Ronnie and under this context he means , small waist , small hips , small joints which is part of the reason why Flex was known as " The Sultan of Symmetry "
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
And here is Bev Francis raving about Dorian's symmetry being almost perfect , in her context she means , everything in proportion , his great balance and no weak bodyparts , they both have great ' symmetry ' but it depends on what context you're talking
And symmetry in the bodybuilding context doesn't mean left/right exactness because NOTHING in nature is symmetrical , people have strong arms so they'll always be bigger than the right or left depending how which you are , you can taper Coleman's arms and both will NOT measure exactly the same or be exactly the same shape
And even with one bicep shorter than another this does not negate his other advantages in torso length , arm length in relation to the torso , leg length , leg length in relation to the torso , proportions between the muscles , calves to quads , hams to quads , glutes ( which Ronnie's are grossly oversized and can be seen from the front NOT symmetrical or proportionate ) forearms in proportion to biceps & triceps it's the entire package to say Dorian's shorter bicep compromises the entirety is foolish
I could see Dorian's calves being better balanced to his upper legs than Ronnie, but still his balance isn't great.
There is no way his forearms are better balanced to his upper arms than Ronnie. Both have good balance in this area in my eyes.
Dorian's leg balance in better it's really not open for discussion , his calves match his quads better than Ronnie's and his glutes don't stick out so far they can be seen from the front and the hamstrings which Dorian's mate better to his quads , this is especially noticeable in profile and the heavier Ronnie became the worse this issue because for him , his quads dominated the calves and hams
I disagree again MIND YOU AT HIS BEST Dorian's arm balance is better , Ronnie's biceps & triceps are leaps & bounds ahead of his forearms , which are shaped like bowling pins and aren't in proportion with the overwhelming size of his upper arms , again the heavier Ronnie became the worse this issue became old news
Now, what about proportions? Did Dorian have good proportions after 1993 to you?
He didn't for me, I always saw his massive back/torso overpowering his arms and even his quads. Even his chest looked flat in 94 and 97.
see above more to proportions than a shorter bicep than the other , and yes after 1993 Dorian had ' good proportions ' the sole exception to this was 1997 where his physique was probably at it's worse and I disagree about his pecs , they never looked flat any year ???
-
All I know, is that Dorian from the '96 German Grand Prix would make Ronnie shit himself.
-
Lets say Ronnie was drier in 98, but his conditioning in 99 was amazing too. You guys are talking like 99 Ronnie was totally off or bad. C'mon, Ronnie in 2000, 2002 or 2006 are examples of an off Ronnie, but 1999 was outstanding as far as conditioning, size, symmetry, etc.
The fact that he was drier in 98 automatically makes that year his best?
Opinions are different, some people say 98 was his best and others say 99 was his best. Its the same as some people think Dorian's best was 93, while others say it was 95.
In the end, we can all agree that a top Ronnie (1998 or 1999) is better and would beat Dorian at any year. ;)
Lets say Ronnie was drier in 98, but his conditioning in 99 was amazing too. You guys are talking like 99 Ronnie was totally off or bad. C'mon, Ronnie in 2000, 2002 or 2006 are examples of an off Ronnie, but 1999 was outstanding as far as conditioning, size, symmetry, etc.
I've said his conditioning in 99 was very good , but not great like 1998/2001 it was not a case of being a tad better it was a case of being noticeably better
and it's not just a matter of being drier it's harder which is a step beyond just being dry which Ronnie was in 99 but he wasn't dense and dry
The fact that he was drier in 98 automatically makes that year his best?
Opinions are different, some people say 98 was his best and others say 99 was his best. Its the same as some people think Dorian's best was 93, while others say it was 95.
You have NO clue on what you're talking about it isn't because he was drier in 1998 it was because he was drier and harder , hardness refers to muscle density which is the total elimination of even intramuscular fat and all that is left is the maximum amount of pure muscle , it really is the pinnacle of conditioning , to carry a lot of muscular bulk while being arid dry and dense as stone which Dorian was the master of
This is where you get lost , the experts aren't saying Ronnie's best is 1999 it's ignorant fanboys. Ronnie's prime showings are 1998 and 2001 ASC and why? because his mass and density & dryness are at their zenith. like Dorian it's a toss-up between 93 & 95 even though his conditioning in 96 was outstanding his fullness wasn't that particular year
the vast majority of bodybuilding experts agree 1998/2001 are his best and often mentioned in 2003 NO WHERE is 1999 , it's such a none issue only stupid people claim otherwise
In the end, we can all agree that a top Ronnie (1998 or 1999) is better and would beat Dorian at any year. ;)
actually extremely doubtful Ronnie 1998 would beat Dorian , just based on the fact he just barely by the skin of his teeth beat Flex in 98 , by just 3 points one of the closest Mr Olympia contests ever , and Dorian at one of his best showings in 93 was miles ahead of Flex who was at his peak year in 1993 , and 99 Ronnie is NO WHERE near as dense or dry as 98 never mind as dense or dry and big and balanced as Yates
-
ND you certainly love your quotes don't you?
You'll love what the great Sergio Oliva had to say about Dorian Yates on an interview sometime ago:
"Then there’s Dorian Yates. He has a belly like a cow and no arms. That is not a complete physique. That is not proportional or symmetrical."
;D
Taken from here in case some of you guys think its made up:
http://muscleandbrawn.com/sergio-oliva-interview/
Wow how 5 years ago ::)
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
She's an IFBB judge whose opinion you think carries more weight? how about these remarks from people on Ronnie?
Vic Richards on Romano & Palumbo radio show 2010.
" To say Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder is an insult , he doesn't even come in the top 12 "
Q ] When people talk of the greatest Olympian's Ronnie's name is usually high on the list. In fact, he is widely regarded as the best bodybuilder of all time.
[ A ] I hate to say this but they are blind. People that don't approve of what we are talking about right now are blind. You have to understand. Look, Ronnie Coleman is probably the most muscular bodybuilder ever. If he could have drawn a better picture of himself on the stage he would have had more appeal, but he did not. He makes himself look worse. I
they work both ways ;) I can post more if you'd like?
-
All I know, is that Dorian from the '96 German Grand Prix would make Ronnie shit himself.
This is Dorian from that contest and Ronnie at what's considered his absolute best and the difference is pretty staggering . Dorian is blowing him out of the water in terms of thickness , density and dryness it's crazy
-
You have NO clue on what you're talking about it isn't because he was drier in 1998 it was because he was drier and harder , hardness refers to muscle density which is the total elimination of even intramuscular fat and all that is left is the maximum amount of pure muscle , it really is the pinnacle of conditioning , to carry a lot of muscular bulk while being arid dry and dense as stone which Dorian was the master of
I don't know about that, ND. It's mostly near elimination of subcutaneous fat and water. It's what's visible on the surface. Intramuscular fat, if present, is embedded and hidden.
I've heard the testimonials of the density look being responsible from heavy powerlifting (myofibrillar hypertrophy). Me thinks it's genetics.
-
its funny how you guys insist that what ronnie said about 98 being his best is correct simply because he stated it three times as opposed to stating 99 was once..even though all visuals show 99 was better..
and yet you also don't seem to take issue with Peter McGough who feels 99 was better than 98 but does prefer 2001 over either of them.
you make no sense.
you should be stating that Peter McGough is fucked in the head for stating that 2001 AC was his best because you guys are insistant that because Ronnie said 98 was his best that it is true.
see how you don't make any fucking sense?
::)
but then again, it takes brains to realize this.
Haha! Mcgough, I love it. No Hulkster, you don't make fucking sense. You have no one to back up your claims, nothing but 10 year old pics and vid, and now youre trying to use someone's opinion who you did nothing but talk shit about for the last 4 years. Hahahah!!!! Pathetic!
Youre the guy that trys to talk shit about Mcough all the time! You try and say hes not a valid source of information.
Well what is it Hulkster? Agree with Mcough and you pretty much admit youve been talking out of your ass about him the whole time. Go ahead, please agree with him. That will make everything you ever said about Mcough wrong.
Looks like you finally come to grips with the fact that you have NO proof.
Just admit that the only reason you think 99 is his best becuase you like his look that year. Just fucking admit it. Cause you have 0 proof to support your claim.
-
This is Dorian from that contest and Ronnie at what's considered his absolute best and the difference is pretty staggering . Dorian is blowing him out of the water in terms of thickness , density and dryness it's crazy
The glossy oil shine in Ronnie's pic doesn't help. That skews things. Look at contest pics of Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes (no homo), they are arid.
-
I don't know about that, ND. It's mostly near elimination of subcutaneous fat and water. It's what's visible on the surface. Intramuscular fat, if present, is embedded and hidden.
I've heard the testimonials of the density look being responsible from heavy powerlifting (myofibrillar hypertrophy). Me thinks it's genetics.
Im not sure.
Look at the above pic of Dorian and Ronnie.
Dorians muscles look drier, and harder. Ronnies look rounder, and smoother, but Ronnie has deeper separations between muscle groups... Like the muscle starts, and fills up like a marshmellow, whereas Dorians muscle starts thicker and doesnt round as much across the belly. I think thats why Dorian looks so much thicker than Ronnie, but his separations are not nearly as deep.
-
Wow how 5 years ago ::)
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
She's an IFBB judge whose opinion you think carries more weight? how about these remarks from people on Ronnie?
Vic Richards on Romano & Palumbo radio show 2010.
" To say Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder is an insult , he doesn't even come in the top 12 "
Q ] When people talk of the greatest Olympian's Ronnie's name is usually high on the list. In fact, he is widely regarded as the best bodybuilder of all time.
[ A ] I hate to say this but they are blind. People that don't approve of what we are talking about right now are blind. You have to understand. Look, Ronnie Coleman is probably the most muscular bodybuilder ever. If he could have drawn a better picture of himself on the stage he would have had more appeal, but he did not. He makes himself look worse. I
they work both ways ;) I can post more if you'd like?
when was vic richards on RX radio shows?
-
I don't know about that, ND. It's mostly near elimination of subcutaneous fat and water. It's what's visible on the surface. Intramuscular fat, if present, is embedded and hidden.
I've heard the testimonials of the density look being responsible from heavy powerlifting (myofibrillar hypertrophy). Me thinks it's genetics.
Density - Muscle hardness, which is also related to muscu-lar definition. A bodybuilder can be well-defined and still have excess fat within each major muscle complex. But when he has muscle density, even this intramuscular fat has been eliminated. A combination of muscle mass and muscle density is highly prized among all competitive bodybuilders.
ultimately it comes down to genetics , like striations , separation obviously you need to be in top condition to see the results
-
when was vic richards on RX radio shows?
not to long ago , interesting guy covered a lot of topics.
-
The glossy oil shine in Ronnie's pic doesn't help. That skews things. Look at contest pics of Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes (no homo), they are arid.
I disagree about the glossy shine the difference is pretty dramatic and I agree his hams and glutes were insane , different back shots and still the same result
-
All I know, is that Dorian from the '96 German Grand Prix would make Ronnie shit himself.
no, it would make him laugh and wonder why a nationals level competitor is onstage with the pros:
:P
-
Haha! Mcgough, I love it. No Hulkster, you don't make fucking sense. You have no one to back up your claims, nothing but 10 year old pics and vid, and now youre trying to use someone's opinion who you did nothing but talk shit about for the last 4 years. Hahahah!!!! Pathetic!
Youre the guy that trys to talk shit about Mcough all the time! You try and say hes not a valid source of information.
Well what is it Hulkster? Agree with Mcough and you pretty much admit youve been talking out of your ass about him the whole time. Go ahead, please agree with him. That will make everything you ever said about Mcough wrong.
Looks like you finally come to grips with the fact that you have NO proof.
Just admit that the only reason you think 99 is his best becuase you like his look that year. Just fucking admit it. Cause you have 0 proof to support your claim.
you completely missed the whole point of my post. re-read it. and try and use your head this time. :-\
I am sick of explaining things to people that are not smart enough to understand it the first time around..
-
no, it would make him laugh and wonder why a nationals level competitor is onstage with the pros:
:P
sure he would ;) epic backfire a 250 pound Ronnie getting pwned by Yates who is 7 lbs heavier and looks a LOT bigger , imagine Yates at 270lbs? ;D
-
you completely missed the whole point of my post. re-read it. and try and use your head this time. :-\
I am sick of explaining things to people that are not smart enough to understand it the first time around..
Funny is that everyone is always wrong except you lol I believe they call that projection
-
okay, since none of you nuthuggers are intelligent enough to understand my post, I will make it simple for you and do it at a grade 3 level for you:
1. you claim that because ronnie says 98 is his best that it is automatically true.
2. Peter McGough disagrees with this.
3. You all love to quote McGough as proof
4. but you don't seem to care that he is in direct contradiction of your own claim about Ronnie 98..
::)
understand now?
::)
feels like I am fucking baby sitting dealing with people that are just not too bright.. :-\
-
Funny is that everyone is always wrong except you lol I believe they call that projection
you nuthuggers have clearly demonstrated a tendency to be stupid. :P
-
Bigger , harder , drier , better balanced and more complete ;)
-
Well what is it Hulkster? Agree with Mcough and you pretty much admit youve been talking out of your ass about him the whole time. Go ahead, please agree with him. That will make everything you ever said about Mcough wrong.
actually it wouldn't.
because some things McGough said are corroborated (do you guys even know what that word means ???) by the pics and videos. these points I agree with as they are supported by evidence.
some things he says I do not agree with because they are, well, silly, and totally disproven by all pics and videos. an example of this was his infamous gem about how dorian weeks out from a contest was 'much harder than ronnie ever was'.
that is just plain stupid .
so no, anyone can agree with some things he has said and disagree with others.
it doesn't have to be all or nothing like you seem to claim.
and why the hell would it? LOL
not sure where you came up with this gem. lol
-
okay, since none of you nuthuggers are intelligent enough to understand my post, I will make it simple for you and do it at a grade 3 level for you:
1. you claim that because ronnie says 98 is his best that it is automatically true.
2. Peter McGough disagrees with this.
3. You all love to quote McGough as proof
4. but you don't seem to care that he is in direct contradiction of your own claim about Ronnie 98..
::)
understand now?
::)
feels like I am fucking baby sitting dealing with people that are just not too bright.. :-\
1) it's not only Ronnie said it once it's the fact that he's said it repeatedly
2) McGough doesn't agree with this in fact he said he was harder & drier in 1998
3) McGough said multiple occasions 1999 is NOT his best , 2001 was
4) McGough plus the slew of others along with pics and video confirm this
5) you're hopelessly lost and in way over your head
6) the experts all agree 98 and 01 are his best showings , you have NO no room for argument
you're stupid , among the dumbest people on this sight and probably on the internet
-
actually it wouldn't.
because some things McGough said are corroborated (do you guys even know what that word means ???) by the pics and videos. these points I agree with as they are supported by evidence.
some things he says I do not agree with because they are, well, silly, and totally disproven by all pics and videos. an example of this was his infamous gem about how dorian weeks out from a contest was 'much harder than ronnie ever was'.
that is just plain stupid .
so no, anyone can agree with some things he has said and disagree with others.
it doesn't have to be all or nothing like you seem to claim.
and why the hell would it? LOL
not sure where you came up with this gem. lol
the old he's right when I need him and wrong when I don't plea ::)
can always count on you to be wrong and a hypocrite
default position pics and videos don't lie and after looking at them you claimed Yates lost in 93 to Flex , you know what again? ;)
-
McGough doesn't agree with this in fact he said he was harder & drier in 1998
but he said in his article about the best Mr. O's that ronnie's 99 olympia physique was the best he has ever looked on an olympia stage.
1998 no where to be found.
he does prefer the AC look over 99, but as far as 98 vs 99 goes, McGough is ALL 99.
much to your dismay as usual. and you hang on every word this guy says, whether it is backed up by visuals or not.
you never have been able to think for yourself, have you?
if McGough said that Jocelyn Pelletier was better than Ronnie Coleman 99, well, you would believe that too and probably try and argue for 200 pages about it, denying that the pics are valid etc etc
::)
-
but he said in his article about the best Mr. O's that ronnie's 99 olympia physique was the best he has ever looked on an olympia stage.
1998 no where to be found.
he does prefer the AC look over 99, but as far as 98 vs 99 goes, McGough is ALL 99.
much to your dismay as usual. and you hang on every word this guy says, whether it is backed up by visuals or not.
you never have been able to think for yourself, have you?
if McGough said that Jocelyn Pelletier was better than Ronnie Coleman 99, well, you would believe that too and probably try and argue for 200 pages about it, denying that the pics are valid etc etc
::)
but he said in his article about the best Mr. O's that ronnie's 99 olympia physique was the best he has ever looked on an olympia stage.
1998 no where to be found.
he does prefer the AC look over 99, but as far as 98 vs 99 goes, McGough is ALL 99.
has absolutely NOTHING to due with the fact he's not as hard or as dry as he was in 99 compared to 98 , which he's gone on record as saying multiple times , he may have liked 99 better has nothing to do with if he was harder or drier , and in fact he outright says 2001 is his best but you claim he's wrong , hypocrite
ALL the experts agree his best was 2001 and NOT 1999 so you're fucked either way , stupid ;)
-
but he said in his article about the best Mr. O's that ronnie's 99 olympia physique was the best he has ever looked on an olympia stage.
1998 no where to be found.
he does prefer the AC look over 99, but as far as 98 vs 99 goes, McGough is ALL 99.
much to your dismay as usual. and you hang on every word this guy says, whether it is backed up by visuals or not.
you never have been able to think for yourself, have you?
if McGough said that Jocelyn Pelletier was better than Ronnie Coleman 99, well, you would believe that too and probably try and argue for 200 pages about it, denying that the pics are valid etc etc
::)
Hahaha, Youre so fucking sad.
A. I NEVER quote Mcough. Thats just something you wish.
B. Youre grasping at straws because youre backed into a corner, Visuals ARE NOT proof. Its a video. Its not quality. No one that has seen the O's call 99 the best. No one. 98, and 01. Not 99. You are trying to rewrite history to fit your opinion, and its sad. You have straight up said the dumbest shit Ive ever heard come out of your mouth in this thread. lol.
C. Get it through your head. PICS AND VIDEOS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Yes, they can confirm things like "ronnie looked awesome that year" But you cannot judge a contest by them. Thats retarded. Otherwise judges wouldnt even bother to show up. You know this. You just are backed into a corner.
D. Dont be mad no one agrees with you but some internet fan boys. You are after all, an internet fanboy. Its in your nature.
-
Hahaha, Youre so fucking sad.
A. I NEVER quote Mcough. Thats just something you wish.
B. Youre grasping at straws because youre backed into a corner, Visuals ARE NOT proof. Its a video. Its not quality. No one that has seen the O's call 99 the best. No one. 98, and 01. Not 99. You are trying to rewrite history to fit your opinion, and its sad. You have straight up said the dumbest shit Ive ever heard come out of your mouth in this thread. lol.
C. Get it through your head. PICS AND VIDEOS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. Yes, they can confirm things like "ronnie looked awesome that year" But you cannot judge a contest by them. Thats retarded. Otherwise judges wouldnt even bother to show up. You know this. You just are backed into a corner.
D. Dont be mad no one agrees with you but some internet fan boys. You are after all, an internet fanboy. Its in your nature.
Another monumentally retarded Hulksterism , he stated he's just as qualified to judge an entire contest sitting on home using pics & video as the judges are live and in person lol
he's trapped and knows it. he'll cling to this notion the masses of ignorant fans on a message board who never saw any contests are right and the scores of experts who were actually live and in attendance and who know exactly what they are looking for and at are wrong
Hulkster knows he's fucked and he thinks by clinging to the story he wont look as dumb lol fat chance
-
Hulkster is constantly and consistently wrong it's mind boggling how wrong he is and how often
1.) he's wrong stating 1999 was Ronnie's best showing
2.) he's wrong stating he was harder in drier in 99 than 98 and 01
3.) he's wrong stating Ronnie 99 was more grainy than Dorian ever was
4.) he's wrong stating Ronnie's calves were more detailed than Dorians
5.) he's wrong stating 1998 wasn't a close contest
6.) he's wrong stating 1994 was
7.) he's wrong stating Ronnie dominated in 2001 by losing the whole prejudging
8.) he's wrong stating Ronnie was aesthetic
9.) he's wrong stating 2001 wasn't controversial but 1994 was
10.) he's wrong stating Ronnie had better balance than Dorian
11.) he's wrong stating Dorian was the most overrated bodybuilder ever
12.) he's wrong stating all the experts are wrong and he is right
13.) he's wrong stating you can judge contests via pics & video just as good as the pros in person
14.) he's wrong stating Dorian's arm sucked after he only tore the bicep
15.) he's wrong stating Ronnie was harder & drier than Dorian ever was
16.) he's wrong stating Dorian pics are morphed
17.) he's wrong stating some of Bizzy's screencaps weren't sharpened
18.) he's wrong stating I run from him ( page 21 on this thread ;D )
19.) he's wrong stating Kevin Horton ran from him
20.) he's wrong stating he knows how contests are judged
21.) he's wrong stating only a few people think Dorian is better
22.) he's wrong stating pics and video don't lie
23.) he's wrong stating Ronnie dominated more than Dorian did
24.) he's wrong stating Dorian only won against smaller guys
25.) he's wrong stating Dorian only had a good back and calves
26.) he's wrong stating Dorian only looked standing alone
27.) he's wrong stating Dorian shouldn't have won post-tear
28.) he's wrong stating Shawn beats Dorian in a back pose
29.) he's wrong stating the judging was fixed for Dorian but not Ronnie
30.) he's wrong stating Ronnie's gut was smaller than Dorians
I mean I can honestly continue for a while but I digress , he knows nothing and he's wrong constantly it's insane how wrong he is and how often.
-
Hulkster is constantly and consistently wrong it's mind boggling how wrong he is and how often
1.) he's wrong stating 1999 was Ronnie's best showing
2.) he's wrong stating he was harder in drier in 99 than 98 and 01
3.) he's wrong stating Ronnie 99 was more grainy than Dorian ever was
4.) he's wrong stating Ronnie's calves were more detailed than Dorians
5.) he's wrong stating 1998 wasn't a close contest
6.) he's wrong stating 1994 was
7.) he's wrong stating Ronnie dominated in 2001 by losing the whole prejudging
8.) he's wrong stating Ronnie was aesthetic
9.) he's wrong stating 2001 wasn't controversial but 1994 was
10.) he's wrong stating Ronnie had better balance than Dorian
11.) he's wrong stating Dorian was the most overrated bodybuilder ever
12.) he's wrong stating all the experts are wrong and he is right
13.) he's wrong stating you can judge contests via pics & video just as good as the pros in person
14.) he's wrong stating Dorian's arm sucked after he only tore the bicep
15.) he's wrong stating Ronnie was harder & drier than Dorian ever was
16.) he's wrong stating Dorian pics are morphed
17.) he's wrong stating some of Bizzy's screencaps weren't sharpened
18.) he's wrong stating I run from him ( page 21 on this thread ;D )
19.) he's wrong stating Kevin Horton ran from him
20.) he's wrong stating he knows how contests are judged
21.) he's wrong stating only a few people think Dorian is better
22.) he's wrong stating pics and video don't lie
23.) he's wrong stating Ronnie dominated more than Dorian did
24.) he's wrong stating Dorian only won against smaller guys
25.) he's wrong stating Dorian only had a good back and calves
26.) he's wrong stating Dorian only looked standing alone
27.) he's wrong stating Dorian shouldn't have won post-tear
28.) he's wrong stating Shawn beats Dorian in a back pose
29.) he's wrong stating the judging was fixed for Dorian but not Ronnie
30.) he's wrong stating Ronnie's gut was smaller than Dorians
I mean I can honestly continue for a while but I digress , he knows nothing and he's wrong constantly it's insane how wrong he is and how often.
Hes right about 1 thing, Ronnie did look amazing and was a great bodybuilder.
-
LOL ND is completely melting down.
holy pyscho Jack Torrence style post.. :-\
-
LOL ND is completely melting down.
holy pyscho Jack Torrence style post.. :-\
In typical Hulkster fashion when you can't counter this , don't even try , for all the empty claims you make that I run from you all you're doing is projecting and in fact it's you who runs from me and the facts , just because you respond doesn't mean you're not running ;)
lets add to that post about about the pathetic tactics you supplement your ignorance with , fallacious arguments , such as argumentum ad populum , ad hominem attacks , argument by emotive language , argument by generalization , argument by half truth , argument by laziness , argument by pigheadedness , argument by repetition , argument by selective observation , argument by vehemence , all of the fallacious arguments YOU have use repeatedly , I know you don't know what many of them are , go look them up ;)
now lets add in your proven sharpened screencaps from 1999 and your morphed pictures and we have textbook Hulkster ;) repetition isn't working for you kid and neither are your fallacious arguments. ;D
-
Hes right about 1 thing, Ronnie did look amazing and was a great bodybuilder.
I agree , Ronnie at his best is fucking amazing.
-
This is crazy. I never thought this thread would go this long. I never knew there was this Dorian and Coleman war going on.
Ronnie Coleman is much better than Dorian. You're crazy if you think Dorian is better.
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/Gazelle.gif)
-
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/Gazelle.gif)
as predicted ;)
never expected to see you in another Yates thread lol the same cast of characters thanks for proving me right troll number 2
-
LOL ND is completely melting down.
holy pyscho Jack Torrence style post.. :-\
Uh oh, poor Hulksters backed into a corner and is starting to see his whole arguement is based on nothing but the fact he likes 99's look better.
No competitors think 99 was his best.
No judges think 99 was his best.
Ronnie himself doesnt think 99 was his best.
Hulkster is judging a contest based on some 10 year old vid and screencaps from that vid.
Lol.
BTW, I just watched a shitton of Ronnie 99 vids and pics. None of them looke like the 99 vids you use. The white guys in your vids look orange for fucks sake.
Yeah really matches up to your vids.
Same. Lol. Doesnt match up to your vids. ::)
98 Ronnie. Look at his dryness. Best hes ever been.
-
as predicted
never expected to see you in another Yates thread lol the same cast of characters thanks for proving me right troll number 2
.....
wait for it.....
.....
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/KeyboardCat.gif)
-
.....
wait for it.....
.....
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/KeyboardCat.gif)
Yes!
-
Ronnie Coleman is much better than Dorian. You're crazy if you think Dorian is better.
and stupid.
if you don't know bodybuilding, you would think dorian is better.
if you do, you realize its not even close.
-
BTW, I just watched a shitton of Ronnie 99 vids and pics. None of them looke like the 99 vids you use. The white guys in your vids look orange for fucks sake.
bullshit:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
the prejudging video is not faked. fuck, I used to have the VHS version and it looked the same.
just drop it. you are looking more and more stupid the more you keep up this fantasy global conspiracy bullshit ::).
-
bullshit:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
the prejudging video is not faked. fuck, I used to have the VHS version and it looked the same.
just drop it. you are looking more and more stupid the more you keep up this fantasy bullshit.
You like the moron you are post a link to the guy who is in question LMFAO here the screencaps in question from Bizzy aren't fake here follow this linke to Bizzy's video LMMFAO
you in all honesty are among the dumbest people I've ever encountered
-
I posted three different clips, are you going to argue they are all three are from Bizzy?
LOL
::)
go back to your flowershop loser.
bizzys vid matches the other two independent vids, thus verifying the authenticity of the clip.
which we really should not have to do in the first place, because you two idiots are the only people on the whole fucking planet that insist it is faked.. ::)
-
.....
wait for it.....
.....
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/KeyboardCat.gif)
troll on it's expected ;)
-
you in all honesty are among the dumbest people I've ever encountered
say what you want, but the fact is you work for a flower company and are probably gay, so that makes me far above you no matter what. :P
hahahahhahahaaha
-
I posted three different clips, are you going to argue they are all from Bizzy?
LOL
::)
go back to your flowershop loser.
I know they are.
getting frustrated huh Hulkster? as usual you're in way over your head and looking for a way out.
funny thing is before Bizzy ever posted his screencaps , forcedreps posted a ton of unworked 99 screencaps which you could have posted but NO you liked Bizzy's better
in fact Kevin Horton used forcedreps screencaps as a gauge to show you there was an obvious difference from Bizzy's lol you liked the sharpened ones better and it came back to haunt you lol
I'm still laughing at here's a link to show Bizzy's screencaps aren't worked , it's a link to Bizzy's video LMMFAO
-
say what you want, but the fact is you work for a flower company and are probably gay, so that makes me far above you no matter what. :P
hahahahhahahaaha
Let's say I do work at a flower shop and I were gay , you're still among the dumbest people I've ever encountered ;)
it changes nothing you're still wrong constantly regardless of my orientation , you think your ad homenim attack changes that? I don't need to stoop to your level to own you ;) it's a last ditch effort of a frustrated man
-
I'm still laughing at here's a link to show Bizzy's screencaps aren't worked , it's a link to Bizzy's video
along with two other independent sources, thus verifying his clip.
understand? retard?
I am getting frustrated because you lack the mental capacity to see that the clip has been verified as legit.
there is nothing I can do if you still don't get it.
just continue in your world of ignorance.
and the rest of us will continue to laugh at your guy anti Ronnie 99 global conspiracy theories.. ::)
-
Let's say I do work at a flower shop and I were gay
in other words, I do.. :P
-
bullshit:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3w9ak_ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part_sport
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ronnie-coleman-1999-mr-olympia-part-two/1160132027
the prejudging video is not faked. fuck, I used to have the VHS version and it looked the same.
just drop it. you are looking more and more stupid the more you keep up this fantasy global conspiracy bullshit ::).
Fuck your bullshit!
Explain why those vids don't match up to any of the pics, or any of the other vids out there?
Huh?
You cant! You're whole "Video proof" doesnt mean shit when it doesnt match up to any pics or other vids.
Mr Corroborating evidence my fucking ass. lol ::)
Oh btw, who agrees with youu that 99 was his best showing? Oh wait, no one!
Looks like youre full of shit again Hulkster.
Another vid that doesnt match up with your "Proof"
Lol. And trying to argue you "used to have the VHS vid". Lol. Cause, since you dont have it means you can compare the two. You are PATHETIC hulkster! Pathetic!
-
along with two other independent sources, thus verifying his clip.
understand? retard?
I am getting frustrated because you lack the mental capacity to see that the clip has been verified as legit.
there is nothing I can do if you don't get it.
just continue in your world of ignorance.
No, not verified, becuase ALL of the 1999 O clips you post are the same length, same everything, meaning they were just uploaded different places, you dolt. Nothing matches up to the other vids, so your "proof" is again just bullshit. So GTFO with your bullshit. lol.
-
troll on it's expected
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/WhiteBeards.gif)
-
hahaha Flowerboy and Cockwave are melting down because their anti ronnie conspiracy theories have been proven wrong for the 4 billionth time!
oh wait, they have been getting proven wrong since they day this stuff first showed up on the web.
forcedreps owned your stupid asses years ago.
I own your stupid asses more recently about the same shit.
and you continue to deny LOL
::)
-
24 pages!? I wonder if ND and Hulkster have dreams about being unable to find the 'reply' button the way the rest of us have those dreams where we're unprepared for an exam? ;D
-
used to have the VHS vid
only because I threw out my VCR.
this is the 2000's. its not the 1970's anymore.
VHS tapes are extinct.
DVD is the way to go. oh wait, you nuthuggers claimed forcedreps DVD stuff was fake also.
thats right. I should post his classic owning of you all once again.
you might want to read it again. it still true to this day.
as sad and hard as that is to believe.
its incredible that a group of people could STILL think the 99 stuff is faked.
oh wait, you have to. thats right. your acceptance is your admission of defeat because anyone can see dorian was not up to that level.
-
24 pages!? I wonder if ND and Hulkster have dreams about being unable to find the 'reply' button the way the rest of us have those dreams where we're unprepared for an exam? ;D
ND's dreams involve a bouquet of roses from his place of work, some lube and dorian's asshole.. :-X
-
hahaha Flowerboy and Cockwave are melting down because their anti ronnie conspiracy theories have been proven wrong for the 4 billionth time!
oh wait, they have been getting proven wrong since they day this stuff first showed up on the web.
forcedreps owned your stupid asses years ago.
I own your stupid asses more recently about the same shit.
and you continue to deny LOL
::)
Hahah!
Why dont you try and actually answer rather than attempting to proclaim victory or claiming meltdown?
Oh yeah, because you cant.
Experts dont agree with you.
Competitors dont agree with you.
RONNIE FUCKING COLEMAN doesnt agree with you,
And now, even the videos dont agree with you. LOL.
Maybe rather than trying to appeal to the reading asking for justification (Thats what youre doing, "please everyone come tell me how right I am") you should actually try and defend yourself? Oh wait, you CANT. hahahah. Your sad, sad, sad hulkster. just sad. Oh, yeah forcedreps, good thing he came on here for 2 secs and disappeared, he really "Proved" something. hahaha. Especially cause NO other videos look like the one he put up. lol.
-
only because I threw out my VCR.
this is the 2000's. its not the 1970's anymore.
VHS tapes are extinct.
DVD is the way to go. oh wait, you nuthuggers claimed forcedreps DVD stuff was fake also.
thats right. I should post his classic owning of you all once again.
you might want to read it again. it still true to this day.
as sad and hard as that is to believe.
its incredible that a group of people could STILL think the 99 stuff is faked.
oh wait, you have to. thats right. your acceptance is your admission of defeat because anyone can see dorian was not up to that level.
Oh wait, your "hero" forcedreps shit doesnt match up to ANY other medium out there. No pics, no vids, no nothing match up to his vids.
Therefore, YOU are the odd man out Hulkster. So go fuck your sister. ;D
-
Still waiting on your explanation, Hulkster.... ::)
Your "real" Vid.
Lol.
Other vids
- LOL. Yep, matches up great.
Sure looks the same to me. ::)
Yup, flex sure looks the same as in your vid. ::)
Again, looks the same to me! ::)
Misc Pics from 99 O
Conclusion - Again Hulkster, your "video proof" doesnt match up to reality. Looks like your the one full of shit.
-
along with two other independent sources, thus verifying his clip.
understand? retard?
I am getting frustrated because you lack the mental capacity to see that the clip has been verified as legit.
there is nothing I can do if you still don't get it.
just continue in your world of ignorance.
and the rest of us will continue to laugh at your guy anti Ronnie 99 global conspiracy theories.. ::)
They're not independent , they're from the man in question. you're to stupid to check your sources because you were frantically trying to find anything that helps your falling case
watch & learn stupid
first link you provided read the read the text added
Parts of the 1999 Mr. Olympia prejudging that include Ronnie Coleman.1999 is often overlooked as being Coleman's best physique. He was 10-12 pounds heavier than the 1998 Mr. O and 2001 Arnold Classic and more aesthetic, proportioned and defined than when he dominated in 2003. One well respected writer described his condition in 1999 as a walking anatomy chart.
second link you provided ( dailymotion which clearly shows it's a video from Bizzy dumbass ) read the text added
Parts of the 1999 Mr. Olympia prejudging that include Ronnie Coleman.
1999 is often overlooked as being Coleman's best physique. He was 10-12 pounds heavier than the 1998 Mr. O and 2001 Arnold Classic and more aesthetic, proportioned and defined than when he dominated in 2003. One well respected writer described his condition in 1999 as a walking anatomy chart.
wow same text from the same guy , so much for being independent when it clearly states it's from Bizzy you moron and here's another screencap to your ' independent ' source you moron
Here's the best part I'm not saying the video is fake what I'm saying is , it doesn't look like others that have been posted and ANYTHING from Bizzy can't be trusted , you're fucked as usual and again among the dumbest people on here and on the internet
Here's a link to an independent source LMMFAO and it says Bizzy03 LMFFAO epci backfire stupid
-
;)
-
24 pages!? I wonder if ND and Hulkster have dreams about being unable to find the 'reply' button the way the rest of us have those dreams where we're unprepared for an exam? ;D
According to the dumbest person on GetBig I always rin from him , now you know why his title fits ;D
-
They're not independent , they're from the man in question. you're to stupid to check your sources because you were frantically trying to find anything that helps your falling case
watch & learn stupid
first link you provided read the read the text added
Parts of the 1999 Mr. Olympia prejudging that include Ronnie Coleman.1999 is often overlooked as being Coleman's best physique. He was 10-12 pounds heavier than the 1998 Mr. O and 2001 Arnold Classic and more aesthetic, proportioned and defined than when he dominated in 2003. One well respected writer described his condition in 1999 as a walking anatomy chart.
second link you provided ( dailymotion which clearly shows it's a video from Bizzy dumbass ) read the text added
Parts of the 1999 Mr. Olympia prejudging that include Ronnie Coleman.
1999 is often overlooked as being Coleman's best physique. He was 10-12 pounds heavier than the 1998 Mr. O and 2001 Arnold Classic and more aesthetic, proportioned and defined than when he dominated in 2003. One well respected writer described his condition in 1999 as a walking anatomy chart.
wow same text from the same guy , so much for being independent when it clearly states it's from Bizzy you moron and here's another screencap to your ' independent ' source you moron
Here's the best part I'm not saying the video is fake what I'm saying is , it doesn't look like others that have been posted and ANYTHING from Bizzy can't be trusted , you're fucked as usual and again among the dumbest people on here and on the internet
Here's a link to an independent source LMMFAO and it says Bizzy03 LMFFAO epci backfire stupid
BAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Oh man hulkster, youre done. Put a fork in ya.
-
BAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
Oh man hulkster, youre done. Put a fork in ya.
;D
He posts a fucking link to Bizzy's work and then says it's ' independent ' I mean how fucking stupid can one human be?
and his partner Bizzy is another genius hosting the video under different names and using the exact same description . these two = dumb & dumber
Hulkster should learn his lesson , stay the fuck out of Yates threads it always ends badly for him.
-
;D
He posts a fucking like to Bizzy's work and then says it's ' independent ' I mean how fucking stupid can one human be?
and his partner Bizzy is another genius hosting the video under different names and using the exact same description . these two = dumb & dumber
Hulkster should learn his lesson , stay the fuck out of Yates threads it always ends badly for him.
The best is I posted half a dozen vids that look nothing like Bizzy's vids, and Hulkster was try to appeal to the masses. lol.
One of these things is not like the other...... ;D
-
The best is I posted half a dozen vids that look nothing like Bizzy's vids, and Hulkster was try to appeal to the masses. lol.
One of these things is not like the other...... ;D
yeah it's the last ditch effort of someone who has nothing else to offer.
-
lmao, Hulkster laying the smackdown on the nuthuggers. Go Hulkster! Go!
Skaaaadooooossshhh ;D
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/GettheFuckOut2.gif)
-
You're missing the point of all those lighter guys who beat the heavier ones , they were ALL in better condition than their counterparts , when contests are close 99.9% of the time the deciding factor is who is harder & drier
Ronnie lighter is still NOT as hard or as dry as a heavier Dorian or as balanced , Dorian simply meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie
Dorian at his best is harder & drier than Ronnie at his all the while carrying more muscular bulk and being better balanced now factor in posing & presentation and it's Dorian for the W
for the sake of argument lets say Ronnie at his best equaled Dorian in conditioning it would be at a lighter weight and worse balance & proportion and posing & presentation , so again Dorian for the W
You're missing the point of all those lighter guys who beat the heavier ones , they were ALL in better condition than their counterparts , when contests are close 99.9% of the time the deciding factor is who is harder & drier
Ok, I get your point here and agree. I was the fact that they were better conditioned and were better in balance & proportion and symmetry too.
Wouldn't you say that in the 94 Olympia Shawn had all these things over Dorian except muscular bulk?
Ronnie lighter is still NOT as hard or as dry as a heavier Dorian or as balanced , Dorian simply meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie
Dorian at his best is harder & drier than Ronnie at his all the while carrying more muscular bulk and being better balanced now factor in posing & presentation and it's Dorian for the W
for the sake of argument lets say Ronnie at his best equaled Dorian in conditioning it would be at a lighter weight and worse balance & proportion and posing & presentation , so again Dorian for the W
I could see a 98 or 99 Ronnie equalling Dorian in conditioning. I don't think Dorian had better balance & proportions than Ronnie. Ronnie's weren't perfect, but still better than a 1995 Dorian (since you guys say this was his best).
Both of them were good as far as maintaining the mandatory poses and neither were very good as far as posing routines go. Posing is equal in my mind.
I see conditioning and posing being equal.
Let's say Dorian has an advantage on muscular bulk.
Ronnie has an advantage on balance & proportions and symmetry.
And if things as muscle shape, muscle development and separations are taken into account, then Ronnie would win.
-
NO symmetry in the bodybuilding context is a LOT more than it seems and different people have different meanings for the whole of symmetry , perfect example
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.
Lee Priest saying Dorian might not be as ' symmetrical ' as Ronnie and under this context he means , small waist , small hips , small joints which is part of the reason why Flex was known as " The Sultan of Symmetry "
And here is Bev Francis raving about Dorian's symmetry being almost perfect , in her context she means , everything in proportion , his great balance and no weak bodyparts , they both have great ' symmetry ' but it depends on what context you're talking
And symmetry in the bodybuilding context doesn't mean left/right exactness because NOTHING in nature is symmetrical , people have strong arms so they'll always be bigger than the right or left depending how which you are , you can taper Coleman's arms and both will NOT measure exactly the same or be exactly the same shape
And even with one bicep shorter than another this does not negate his other advantages in torso length , arm length in relation to the torso , leg length , leg length in relation to the torso , proportions between the muscles , calves to quads , hams to quads , glutes ( which Ronnie's are grossly oversized and can be seen from the front NOT symmetrical or proportionate ) forearms in proportion to biceps & triceps it's the entire package to say Dorian's shorter bicep compromises the entirety is foolish
Dorian's leg balance in better it's really not open for discussion , his calves match his quads better than Ronnie's and his glutes don't stick out so far they can be seen from the front and the hamstrings which Dorian's mate better to his quads , this is especially noticeable in profile and the heavier Ronnie became the worse this issue because for him , his quads dominated the calves and hams
I disagree again MIND YOU AT HIS BEST Dorian's arm balance is better , Ronnie's biceps & triceps are leaps & bounds ahead of his forearms , which are shaped like bowling pins and aren't in proportion with the overwhelming size of his upper arms , again the heavier Ronnie became the worse this issue became old news
see above more to proportions than a shorter bicep than the other , and yes after 1993 Dorian had ' good proportions ' the sole exception to this was 1997 where his physique was probably at it's worse and I disagree about his pecs , they never looked flat any year ???
NO symmetry in the bodybuilding context is a LOT more than it seems and different people have different meanings for the whole of symmetry , perfect example
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.
Lee Priest saying Dorian might not be as ' symmetrical ' as Ronnie and under this context he means , small waist , small hips , small joints which is part of the reason why Flex was known as " The Sultan of Symmetry "
And here is Bev Francis raving about Dorian's symmetry being almost perfect , in her context she means , everything in proportion , his great balance and no weak bodyparts , they both have great ' symmetry ' but it depends on what context you're talking
And symmetry in the bodybuilding context doesn't mean left/right exactness because NOTHING in nature is symmetrical , people have strong arms so they'll always be bigger than the right or left depending how which you are , you can taper Coleman's arms and both will NOT measure exactly the same or be exactly the same shape
Its interesting to see how subjective symmetry actually is.
Bodybuilding is subjective, that's why so many people sometimes disagree with judging decisions and "controversial" contests exist.
I think you're the only person I've ever heard that thinks there is no such thing.
see above more to proportions than a shorter bicep than the other , and yes after 1993 Dorian had ' good proportions ' the sole exception to this was 1997 where his physique was probably at it's worse and I disagree about his pecs , they never looked flat any year ???
I don't think the torn biceps alone hurt his proportions. After 1993 I always saw his back/torso overpower his whole arms, quads and sometimes even delts. These "flaws" were even more pronounced on years like 1994 and 1997. I always saw his back as his best muscle group, but I didn't see the rest match up. This is why I think his proportions were not good.
In 94 and 97, I saw his chest being a little flat and narrow compared to his massive and extremely wide back.
-
Wow how 5 years ago ::)
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
She's an IFBB judge whose opinion you think carries more weight? how about these remarks from people on Ronnie?
Vic Richards on Romano & Palumbo radio show 2010.
" To say Ronnie Coleman is the best bodybuilder is an insult , he doesn't even come in the top 12 "
Q ] When people talk of the greatest Olympian's Ronnie's name is usually high on the list. In fact, he is widely regarded as the best bodybuilder of all time.
[ A ] I hate to say this but they are blind. People that don't approve of what we are talking about right now are blind. You have to understand. Look, Ronnie Coleman is probably the most muscular bodybuilder ever. If he could have drawn a better picture of himself on the stage he would have had more appeal, but he did not. He makes himself look worse. I
they work both ways ;) I can post more if you'd like?
Wow how 5 years ago ::)
lol, you constantly post quotes that are older than this one.
they work both ways ;) I can post more if you'd like?
Exactly what I was trying to show you. You're the one that loves quotes not me.
-
Ok, I get your point here and agree. I was the fact that they were better conditioned and were better in balance & proportion and symmetry too.
Wouldn't you say that in the 94 Olympia Shawn had all these things over Dorian except muscular bulk?
I could see a 98 or 99 Ronnie equalling Dorian in conditioning. I don't think Dorian had better balance & proportions than Ronnie. Ronnie's weren't perfect, but still better than a 1995 Dorian (since you guys say this was his best).
Both of them were good as far as maintaining the mandatory poses and neither were very good as far as posing routines go. Posing is equal in my mind.
I see conditioning and posing being equal.
Let's say Dorian has an advantage on muscular bulk.
Ronnie has an advantage on balance & proportions and symmetry.
And if things as muscle shape, muscle development and separations are taken into account, then Ronnie would win.
Ok, I get your point here and agree. I was the fact that they were better conditioned and were better in balance & proportion and symmetry too.
Wouldn't you say that in the 94 Olympia Shawn had all these things over Dorian except muscular bulk?
No I wouldn't say any of that and in fact I've already elaborated to the contrary on exactly why
I could see a 98 or 99 Ronnie equalling Dorian in conditioning. I don't think Dorian had better balance & proportions than Ronnie. Ronnie's weren't perfect, but still better than a 1995 Dorian (since you guys say this was his best).
Both of them were good as far as maintaining the mandatory poses and neither were very good as far as posing routines go. Posing is equal in my mind.
Ronnie 99 doesn't touch Dorian's conditioning in 95 , he maybe came close in 98 but 99 sorry. I've already explained why Dorian has better balance & proportion and why Dorian was a better poser
I see conditioning and posing being equal.
Let's say Dorian has an advantage on muscular bulk.
Ronnie has an advantage on balance & proportions and symmetry.
And if things as muscle shape, muscle development and separations are taken into account, then Ronnie would win.
conditioning isn't equal and neither is posing , Dorian would have an advantage in bulk and balance & proportion , and things like muscle shape? again Ronnie has some clear advantages and so does Dorian , how about calf shape? ab shape? lat shape? forearm shape? I mean it works both ways , development? see what I just typed , separations again see what I just typed
all of that assumed criteria you just typed can be applied to Flex Wheeler who lost to Dorian who has far superior shape than Dorian and Ronnie it's whole meets ALL of the criteria the best would win and you've already tried to minimize Dorian's advantages to claim a Ronnie victory based on what you see not on what the judges would see
-
Bigger , harder , drier , better balanced and more complete ;)
I agree he is drier in these pics, but there are pleny of Ronnie precontest pics that show he is pretty close to this dryness, if not equally as dry.
Bigger? Just because he is heavier? His back is probably wider and his calves are bigger, but when you look at the arms, quads, hams, delts, chest its another story.
Better balanced and more complete? Maybe on these pics since they are 1993 and prior, but since you guys say his best was 1995, then I don't see him being more balanced or complete.
-
Still waiting on your explanation, Hulkster.... ::)
Your "real" Vid.
Lol.
Other vids
- LOL. Yep, matches up great.
Sure looks the same to me. ::)
Yup, flex sure looks the same as in your vid. ::)
Again, looks the same to me! ::)
Misc Pics from 99 O
Conclusion - Again Hulkster, your "video proof" doesnt match up to reality. Looks like your the one full of shit.
You forgot about this one:
-
You forgot about this one:
Yup. Still a long way off from what Hulkster posted.
Especially, (ironically) because he said they were 2 "independant" sources, and it wound up being the same guy "bizzy" who sharpened the pics. Lol.
-
You forgot about this one:
That is one detailed, separated, aesthetic physique!
-
No I wouldn't say any of that and in fact I've already elaborated to the contrary on exactly why
Ronnie 99 doesn't touch Dorian's conditioning in 95 , he maybe came close in 98 but 99 sorry. I've already explained why Dorian has better balance & proportion and why Dorian was a better poser
conditioning isn't equal and neither is posing , Dorian would have an advantage in bulk and balance & proportion , and things like muscle shape? again Ronnie has some clear advantages and so does Dorian , how about calf shape? ab shape? lat shape? forearm shape? I mean it works both ways , development? see what I just typed , separations again see what I just typed
all of that assumed criteria you just typed can be applied to Flex Wheeler who lost to Dorian who has far superior shape than Dorian and Ronnie it's whole meets ALL of the criteria the best would win and you've already tried to minimize Dorian's advantages to claim a Ronnie victory based on what you see not on what the judges would see
conditioning isn't equal and neither is posing , Dorian would have an advantage in bulk and balance & proportion , and things like muscle shape? again Ronnie has some clear advantages and so does Dorian , how about calf shape? ab shape? lat shape? forearm shape? I mean it works both ways , development? see what I just typed , separations again see what I just typed
Since dryness and density are the only important factors in conditioning according to you, lets use a 98 Ronnie for a comparison. A 98 Ronnie would equal a 93 or 95 Dorian as far as dryness is concerned.
Why would Dorian be a better poser? I don't see it.
I still can't understand why Dorian would have an advantage in balance & proportions.
Both had flaws as far as proportions are concerned, but I see Dorian having more. I see Ronnie having an advantage in balance & proportions because, with the exception of his calves, every single muscle is proportionately developed to match the rest.
Again, I always saw Dorian with an overpowering back/torso and great calves.
If muscle shape, separations, etc. are taken into consideration, then lets take a look:
Dorian: calves, back, abs
Ronnie: chest, delts, biceps, triceps, quads
Hams and forearms might be equal. I don't see how you can "evaluate" a forearm's shape though. :-\
-
Yup. Still a long way off from what Hulkster posted.
Especially, (ironically) because he said they were 2 "independant" sources, and it wound up being the same guy "bizzy" who sharpened the pics. Lol.
Its actually closer to Hulkster's vids and pics than the videos you posted.
Its a video with actually excellent image quality as opposed to the 3 one you posted.
Do you see how a bad quality video can change a physique's detailed appareance do much. Especially if a video makes a black guy's skin appear orange. :-\
-
Yup. Still a long way off from what Hulkster posted.
Especially, (ironically) because he said they were 2 "independant" sources, and it wound up being the same guy "bizzy" who sharpened the pics. Lol.
hahahahahaha
independent means the same guy , reminds me of Hulkster's dumb comrade Neo who claims verbatim means to change everything around , these guys who defend Ronnie are among the dumbest people
-
That is one detailed, separated, aesthetic physique!
you got two parts about that right ;) you're learning
-
Its actually closer to Hulkster's vids and pics than the videos you posted.
Its a video with actually excellent image quality as opposed to the 3 one you posted.
Do you see how a bad quality video can change a physique's detailed appareance do much. Especially if a video makes a black guy's skin appear orange. :-\
I can, but youre just as delusional as Hulkster. I know you want to see it be real as much as I want to see it be totally fake, but to be fair its not a accurate representation of the show.
Just look at the pic compilation video. The point im getting at, is that the contrast on that vid has been messed with, as Kevin Horton called him out. Its rediculous enough that the vid looks nothing like the pics or any other vid. increasing contrast causes the shadows to take on a much more 3d quality, which is why that video looks so rediculous. You can tell right off the bat something doesnt look right, just by looking at the lighting and shadows on the competitors. Its rediculous.
Especially when the guy that put those vids up was busted and admitted to massaging his media. ::)
Ronnie looked amazing, no doubt, but theyre is a reason no expert, no competitor, and no one involved in BB mentions 99 as being so "rediculous", and its because the show didnt look like the one in Hulksters vid's.
Ever notice the only people that freak out about 99 are the people that have watched that vid?
But the people that were there, that competed, and are respected in the BB world dont share that opinion. Hmm.. wonder why?
Must be cause thats not how they looked. ::)
-
Since dryness and density are the only important factors in conditioning according to you, lets use a 98 Ronnie for a comparison. A 98 Ronnie would equal a 93 or 95 Dorian as far as dryness is concerned.
Why would Dorian be a better poser? I don't see it.
I still can't understand why Dorian would have an advantage in balance & proportions.
Both had flaws as far as proportions are concerned, but I see Dorian having more. I see Ronnie having an advantage in balance & proportions because, with the exception of his calves, every single muscle is proportionately developed to match the rest.
Again, I always saw Dorian with an overpowering back/torso and great calves.
If muscle shape, separations, etc. are taken into consideration, then lets take a look:
Dorian: calves, back, abs
Ronnie: chest, delts, biceps, triceps, quads
Hams and forearms might be equal. I don't see how you can "evaluate" a forearm's shape though. :-\
Since dryness and density are the only important factors in conditioning according to you, lets use a 98 Ronnie for a comparison. A 98 Ronnie would equal a 93 or 95 Dorian as far as dryness is concerned.
not the only important factor but a major one. being dry is half the equation being carrying more muscular bulk is another and being dense all at the same time is the pinnacle
Why would Dorian be a better poser? I don't see it.
then either you're being contrary or you never seen any videos of the two posing. neither are Lee Labrada but I think it's apparent Yates is a better pose especially in the mandatories , go look at Yates at the 94 and Ronnie in 94 and maybe you'll see it
I still can't understand why Dorian would have an advantage in balance & proportions.
Both had flaws as far as proportions are concerned, but I see Dorian having more. I see Ronnie having an advantage in balance & proportions because, with the exception of his calves, every single muscle is proportionately developed to match the rest.
Again, I always saw Dorian with an overpowering back/torso and great calves.
Again there is a lot you can't seem to understand and you think by asking the same question again the answer will change? every muscle is proportionately developed to the rest LMFAO calves , hams both in relation to the quads , glutes so grossly overdeveloped they can be seen from the front and they stick way out in the back , biceps/triceps that dominate his forearms , at his best Dorian has less flaws than this by far
If muscle shape, separations, etc. are taken into consideration, then lets take a look:
Dorian: calves, back, abs
Ronnie: chest, delts, biceps, triceps, quads
Hams and forearms might be equal. I don't see how you can "evaluate" a forearm's shape though. :-\
Hulkster and his comrades tried this angle eons ago , trying to accumulate parts in the hopes that makes the better whole NOT how it works , entertaining it's true why doesn't he have a better side triceps? or ab-thigh? front latspread despite all of his advantages?
and forearm shape? Ronnie's are shaped like a bowling pin and Dorian's aren't it's like having short high calves like Ronnie has
-
you got two parts about that right ;) you're learning
Superior aesthetics to Dorian by your own admission. You can't patronise me old chap ;)
-
Superior aesthetics to Dorian by your own admission. You can't patronise me old chap ;)
Like I said it's like saying a Tank is better looking than a dump-truck when neither is a Ferrari
it's a very shallow victory ;D
-
Victory is sweet.
-
Victory is sweet.
For Dorian who beat Ronnie every time they met ;) and even after Ronnie started winning he still conceded he couldn't touch Dorian ;D
Victory is sweet especially when I used your own hero to get it. ;)
-
it's a very shallow victory ;D
You wrote these words just now, I am happy. ;D
-
You wrote these words just now, I am happy. ;D
old news stop acting like it's break news
it's the only ' victory ' Ronnie can manage over Yates ;D
-
My bad, you did post it a full 5 minutes ago.
Victory is sweet.
-
My bad, you did post it a full 5 minutes ago.
Victory is sweet.
Nah an eternity ago , it's old news
-
Forgive the Ronnie spam in a Dorian thread, but for context and comparison given the title of the thread here goes.
You've just conceded on aesthetics. Clearly size, separation and detail are all advantage Ronnie.
Presumably you'll claim 'balance and proportion' is lacking despite previously mentioned superior aesthetics.
Maybe not granite like the shadow but superior ham and glute separation.
Imagine this video in black and white and it would look even more classic and epic and grainy etc...
-
Forgive the Ronnie spam in a Dorian thread, but for context and comparison given the title of the thread here goes.
You've just conceded on aesthetics. Clearly size, separation and detail are all advantage Ronnie.
Presumably you'll claim 'balance and proportion' is lacking despite previously mentioned superior aesthetics.
Maybe not granite like the shadow but superior ham and glute separation.
Imagine this video in black and white and it would look even more classic and epic and grainy etc...
Forgive the Ronnie spam in a Dorian thread, but for context and comparison given the title of the thread here goes.
You've just conceded on aesthetics. Clearly size, separation and detail are all advantage Ronnie.
I've conceded ' aesthetics ' eons ago again it's NO victory when you're arguing a tank looks better than a dump-truck. size is NO advantage when it's at the expense of density & dryness , separation again both have advantages over one another in this area and same with detail , you can't cherry-pick which ones are more important to you while ignoring the others , it's not how it works
and a Coleman fan spamming in a Yates thread lol it goes hand-in-hand at least you're apologizing
Presumably you'll claim 'balance and proportion' is lacking despite previously mentioned superior aesthetics.
Maybe not granite like the shadow but superior ham and glute separation.
Imagine this video in black and white and it would look even more classic and epic and grainy etc...
Even entertaining his hams and glutes are superior his conditioning else were is vastly inferior again it's no advantage
03 isn't the best example of Ronnie even though you like it so much , like Hulkster and 99 it's not his best specifically because of the above mentioned issues
Dorian 282 pounds better balance & proportion and conditioning , what advantage does Ronnie hold now?
-
I've conceded ' aesthetics ' eons ago again it's NO victory when you're arguing a tank looks better than a dump-truck. size is NO advantage when it's at the expense of density & dryness , separation again both have advantages over one another in this area and same with detail , you can't cherry-pick which ones are more important to you while ignoring the others , it's not how it works
and a Coleman fan spamming in a Yates thread lol it goes hand-in-hand at least you're apologizing
Even entertaining his hams and glutes are superior his conditioning else were is vastly inferior again it's no advantage
03 isn't the best example of Ronnie even though you like it so much , like Hulkster and 99 it's not his best specifically because of the above mentioned issues
Dorian 282 pounds better balance & proportion and conditioning , what advantage does Ronnie hold now?
Ronnie's proved he can bring it on a stage in front of a crowd, or witnesses if you like ;)
-
Ronnie's proved he can bring it on a stage in front of a crowd, or witnesses if you like ;)
So could Dorian he was just a lot more concerned about bring hard and dry than Ronnie was , because his competition was a lot more fierce when he competed , there was a higher standard of conditioning too ;)
-
I've conceded ' aesthetics ' eons ago again it's NO victory when you're arguing a tank looks better than a dump-truck. size is NO advantage when it's at the expense of density & dryness , separation again both have advantages over one another in this area and same with detail , you can't cherry-pick which ones are more important to you while ignoring the others , it's not how it works
and a Coleman fan spamming in a Yates thread lol it goes hand-in-hand at least you're apologizing
Even entertaining his hams and glutes are superior his conditioning else were is vastly inferior again it's no advantage
03 isn't the best example of Ronnie even though you like it so much , like Hulkster and 99 it's not his best specifically because of the above mentioned issues
Dorian 282 pounds better balance & proportion and conditioning , what advantage does Ronnie hold now?
Yates was good at the time but hasn't held the test of the time. He had a edge in size and conditioning over everyone else. He's a gimmick, he just looks like a freak even compared to Ronnie or Gutler. Ronnie always looks good even when his size isn't the greatest, Yates just looks like an over glazed turkey.
-
If this is true why do you never post contest pics of Dorian?
-
If this is true why do you never post contest pics of Dorian?
I do , I have , even in this thread and I personally think the best he's ever looked was that precontest footage from 1993
-
Yates was good at the time but hasn't held the test of the time. He had a edge in size and conditioning over everyone else. He's a gimmick, he just looks like a freak even compared to Ronnie or Gutler. Ronnie always looks good even when his size isn't the greatest, Yates just looks like an over glazed turkey.
Sure he does which is the same reason why Ronnie insists he wouldn't ever beat the Turkey ;D which is why his era is lauded as the pinnacle of conditioned mass and high quality competition to this day
-
You say the precontest footage as if it's from a contest bwahaha. Epic difference in lighting in a changing room. You know it, I know it.
-
Sure he does which is the same reason why Ronnie insists he wouldn't ever beat the Turkey ;D which is why his era is lauded as the pinnacle of conditioned mass and high quality competition to this day
It was a better era because there weren't so many gh guts. Of course ronnie's gonna say it. How else can he explain loosing to him. Do you think he'd admit to upping the dosage?
-
You say the precontest footage as if it's from a contest bwahaha. Epic difference in lighting in a changing room. You know it, I know it.
How you can't make the difference between pre and contest is beyond me ??? I said it was PRE-contest never implying it was from a contest , and epic lighting in a changing room? it was in a gym and he wasn't under contest lights , had no tan or oil and still looked outstanding
-
It was a better era because there weren't so many gh guts. Of course ronnie's gonna say it. How else can he explain loosing to him. Do you think he'd admit to upping the dosage?
loosing to him? ??? ??? it was better specifically because of the conditioning
-
LOL at Cockwave.
you post two blurry youtube videos, a 'video' that is nothing but a series of still pics, and some photage of the final decision as your 'proof' that the prejudging video is faked. oh, and that other video of the prejudging only helps the ronnie side because he looks FANTASTIC in those poses and blows dorian away. not sure who shot that vid, it doesn't appear to be the IFBB.
are you an idiot?
::)
none of those videos show that the prejudging vid in question is faked. because none of them show the prejudging clip looking any different than the three vids I posted. you posted all different clips.
still don't get it do you?
you can't show a clip is fake by posting entirely different clips and saying the other one is fake.
in the words of Forced Reps:
If you want show how great your idol is/was use facts and don't come up with stupid excuses about faked vids/pics etc...., this let you guys just look like retarded internet fanboys
take his advice buddy.
-
Yup. Still a long way off from what Hulkster posted.
Especially, (ironically) because he said they were 2 "independant" sources, and it wound up being the same guy "bizzy" who sharpened the pics. Lol.
LOL its a fucking backstage photoshoot!! not an onstage contest clip!
what do you expect? LOL
holy shit you are desperate. :o ::)
you are getting owned here left right and center. its fun to watch though.
desperate men do stupid things. that much is obvious.
-
desperate men do stupid things. that much is obvious.
yeah like post links to the fucking guy you're claiming isn't the one in question
-
LOL its a fucking backstage photoshoot!! not an onstage contest clip!
what do you expect? LOL
holy shit you are desperate. :o ::)
you are getting owned here left right and center. its fun to watch though.
desperate men do stupid things. that much is obvious.
Me? Youre the one claiming its from 2 independant sources, when the videos dont match up to ANY other vids on the web, and low and behold, its from the same guy, and even funnier, its from BIZZY!!!! Hahahah!!! Sounds like youre the one desperate to me.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesnt belong. lol.
Me getting owned? stop projecting you worthless POS. By fun to watch, you mean, I cant say anything because I just got proven wrong all over the place and now the only thing I can do is try and shift the attention away from me, than yes. lol.
Hell you cant even put together a logical response anymore. Lol.
Good work on your 2 "independant sources" btw, definatley NOT bizzy the sharpener. HAHAHAHAH!!!!
-
LOL at Cockwave.
you post two blurry youtube videos, a 'video' that is nothing but a series of still pics, and some photage of the final decision as your 'proof' that the prejudging video is faked. oh, and that other video of the prejudging only helps the ronnie side because he looks FANTASTIC in those poses and blows dorian away. not sure who shot that vid, it doesn't appear to be the IFBB.
are you an idiot?
::)
none of those videos show that the prejudging vid in question is faked. because none of them show the prejudging clip looking any different than the three vids I posted. you posted all different clips.
still don't get it do you?
you can't show a clip is fake by posting entirely different clips and saying the other one is fake.
in the words of Forced Reps:
take his advice buddy.
HAHAAH! You and forcereps. Little desperate now, arent you?
Yeah, the vid I posted of the prejudging looks absolutley NOTHING like Bizzys (<---LOL!!!) vids, not to mention if you look at the pic compilation video, its not even close. Sorry Hulkster, I know youre desperate, but its over for you.
Nail in the coffin was your "2 independant sources" Lololol.
Oh wait, maybe its the plethora of Experts, judges, and competitors, not to mention people in attendance, that agreed with you claim of 99 being his best.
Really hulkster, this is fucking pathetic to watch. Delusional!
BTW, youd come off sounding less desperate if you actually had an argument, rather than just saying "Stop saying its fake! Wah! Wah!! Forcedreps said so!!" ESPECIALLY when its not even forcedreps vids. Lololol
-
You say the precontest footage as if it's from a contest bwahaha. Epic difference in lighting in a changing room. You know it, I know it.
he won't admit the lighting actually favors Dorian b/c this would weaken his argument. There's a reason why bodybuilders usually look more impressive when they take pre-contest pics, for example in a kitchen or the gym. The lighting comes from directly above which creates dramatic shadows and the bodybuilders aren't covered in posing oil which detracts from the "dry" look. However, ND purposely acts clueless and tries to peddle Dorian's gym shots as at a disadvantage to contest pics ::)
-
he won't admit the lighting actually favors Dorian b/c this would weaken his argument. There's a reason why bodybuilders usually look more impressive when they take pre-contest pics, for example in a kitchen or the gym. The lighting comes from directly above which creates dramatic shadows and the bodybuilders aren't covered in posing oil which detracts from the "dry" look. However, ND purposely acts clueless and tries to peddle Dorian's gym shots as at a disadvantage to contest pics ::)
Look what little puppy is looking for master's attention again ;)
the lighting affects his muscular balance? proportion? the lighting affects his muscular bulk? it weakens nothing even if it were true.
and his conditioning is legendary on-stage and off in fact better than Ronnies.
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.
-
HAHAAH! You and forcereps. Little desperate now, arent you?
Yeah, the vid I posted of the prejudging looks absolutley NOTHING like Bizzys vids, not to mention if you look at the pic compilation video, its not even close. Sorry Hulkster, I know youre desperate, but its over for you.
Nail in the coffin was your "2 independant sources" Lololol.
Oh wait, maybe its the plethora of Experts, judges, and competitors, not to mention people in attendance, that agreed with you claim of 99 being his best.
Really hulkster, this is fucking pathetic to watch. Delusional!
lmfao ' independent source '
another example of Hulkster stupidity
-
Me? Youre the one claiming its from 2 independant sources, when the videos dont match up to ANY other vids on the web, and low and behold, its from the same guy, and even funnier, its from BIZZY!!!! Hahahah!!! Sounds like youre the one desperate to me.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesnt belong. lol.
Me getting owned? stop projecting you worthless POS. By fun to watch, you mean, I cant say anything because I just got proven wrong all over the place and now the only thing I can do is try and shift the attention away from me, than yes. lol.
Hell you cant even put together a logical response anymore. Lol.
Good work on your 2 "independant sources" btw, definatley NOT bizzy the sharpener. HAHAHAHAH!!!!
Just another example of when Hulkster is thoroughly owned he doesn't even respond to the post , he thinks by ignoring it it will go away lol
his independent source is his original source LMFAO
" look to prove Bizzy's sceencaps aren't worked check out this link " to Bizzy's work LMMFAO
-
Look what little puppy is looking for master's attention again
lol, I wasn't even talking to you. My post was direct to Immortal_Technique.
the lighting affects his muscular balance? proportion? the lighting affects his muscular bulk? it weakens nothing even if it were true.
epic not grasping the concept of favorable lighting
and his conditioning is legendary on-stage and off in fact better than Ronnies
and this means what? We're not comparing Dorian to King Kamali. We're comparing Dorian to a prime Ronnie, who holds his own in the conditioning department. So your argument about conditioning means shit
lmao @ 6-weeks out and using "conditioning" as a point in favor of Dorian compared to a prime-conditioned Ronnie
-
lol, I wasn't even talking to you. My post was direct to Immortal_Technique.
epic not grasping the concept of favorable lighting
and this means what? We're not comparing Dorian to King Kamali. We're comparing Dorian to a prime Ronnie, who holds his own in the conditioning department. So your argument about conditioning means shit
lmao @ 6-weeks out and using "conditioning" as a point in favor of Dorian compared to a prime-conditioned Ronnie
lol I wasn't even talking to you. My post was direct to Immortal_Technique.
you were talking about me , looking for my attention again
epic not grasping the concept of favorable lighting
the guy who took the photos said they were ' technically terrible ' but I'm sure he's just lying too and he can't grasp ' favorable lighting ' either ::) Dorian would look eons better in comparison with contest lighting a tan and oil
and this means what? We're not comparing Dorian to King Kamali. We're comparing Dorian to a prime Ronnie, who holds his own in the conditioning department. So your argument about conditioning means shit
of course it means shit to you , Dorian's conditioning was always better than Ronnies it's old news , when he's heavier when he's lighter it's all the same
lmao @ 6-weeks out and using "conditioning" as a point in favor of Dorian compared to a prime-conditioned Ronnie
Dorian's size & conditioning have not been equaled , let's say Ronnie did equal it for the sake of argument ( and that's being kind ) it was always at his lightest bodyweights so it's NO advantage , Shawn Ray had great conditioning and lacked behind in mass/balance/proportion so you lose as usual
-
LOL Flowerboy and Cockwave are still going on about how they think the 1999 olympia prejudging clip is faked ::)
even though everyone who has the dvd or vhs knows that it isn't. and people who have it have verified this many times over the last few years.
nevermind all the clips I posted verifying that its real..
this has been going on for years now and they are still just as clueless as day one.. ::)
they keep bringing it up because they know its there only chance to save their good but not as good hero from the physique that is Ronnie Coleman 1999.
and in parting, one more classic gem from ForcedReps, the first man to put the nuthuggers in their place over this silly conspiracy theory:
How can you say stuff like ***HERE IS THE ENTIRE ROUTINE AND IN NO WAY DO THEY MATCH THE PICS HULKSTER HAS BEEN POSTING SINCE PAGE 18***
Are you blind ?
yes ForcedReps, they are. and stupid too.
-
another classic FR quote. I laugh at how stupid you must look to people viewing your posts about these clips. especially those who own or have owned the contest on tape or dvd.
That was the source for my screenshots, yeah I know GMV ( producers of the olympia tapes/DVD's ) have faked the olympia video too that all the yates fanboys like you and NarcissisticDeity etc.... have something to bitch
yes, they maintain the faked video theory.
its right up there with the 9/11 was an inside job theory, I would say LOL
::)
-
no, it would make him laugh and wonder why a nationals level competitor is onstage with the pros:
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368507;image)
:P
Ironic, considering the guy to Yates' right, who is getting supremely owned. lol
-
you were talking about me , looking for my attention again
sorry to burst your pretty bubble with floral designs, but no. I was directing my post to Immortal_Technique
the guy who took the photos said they were ' technically terrible ' but I'm sure he's just lying too and he can't grasp ' favorable lighting ' either Dorian would look eons better in comparison with contest lighting a tan and oil
lol, stop... just stop. If this were true, then how come every pic you post is an offstage photo? "Technically terrible" means shit. I could take a "technically terrible" pic of me in my kitchen with my phone and look 10x more impressive than under bright stage lights with posing oil
of course it means shit to you , Dorian's conditioning was always better than Ronnies it's old news , when he's heavier when he's lighter it's all the same
Ronnie's conditioning at his prime was better than Dorian's
Dorian's size & conditioning have not been equaled , let's say Ronnie did equal it for the sake of argument ( and that's being kind ) it was always at his lightest bodyweights so it's NO advantage , Shawn Ray had great conditioning and lacked behind in mass/balance/proportion so you lose as usual
Ronnie's size, conditioning, symmetry, fullness, and aesthetics have not been equaled. This trumps size and conditioning
-
Hahah!
If anyones melting down Hulkster, its you, cause youre precisous vids dont match up to reality.
Melting down so badly that youre quoting and talking to someone that posted here 1 time?
And you believe him, why, becuase no one would ever lie on teh internet?! Oh noeeess!!
Besides, DBag, those vids youre freaking our about arent even forcedreps. Theyre Bizzy's.
Sad and pathetic, my friend. lol.
Lol. You are the one melting, your whole arguemnt is going out the window, fast.
No experts.
No Competitors
No judges.
And a video that doesnt match any pics or any other vids of the show.
Ummm.... Sorry dude. Your "proof", isnt. Hahahahahaha
-
another classic FR quote. I laugh at how stupid you must look to people viewing your posts about these clips. especially those who own or have owned the contest on tape or dvd.
yes, they maintain the faked video theory.
its right up there with the 9/11 was an inside job theory, I would say LOL
::)
Are you actually holding a convo with someone who isnt here right now? Whoa dude.. your seriously losing it. :-\
-
sorry to burst your pretty bubble with floral designs, but no. I was directing my post to Immortal_Technique
lol, stop... just stop. If this were true, then how come every pic you post is an offstage photo? "Technically terrible" means shit. I could take a "technically terrible" pic of me in my kitchen with my phone and look 10x more impressive than under bright stage lights with posing oil
Ronnie's conditioning at his prime was better than Dorian's
Ronnie's size, conditioning, symmetry, fullness, and aesthetics have not been equaled. This trumps size and conditioning
sorry to burst your pretty bubble with floral designs, but no. I was directing my post to Immortal_Technique
I never said you weren't I said you were talking about me , learn to pay attention.
lol, stop... just stop. If this were true, then how come every pic you post is an offstage photo? "Technically terrible" means shit. I could take a "technically terrible" pic of me in my kitchen with my phone and look 10x more impressive than under bright stage lights with posing oil
WRONG every pic I post isn't off-stage , again pay attention I posted a pic of Yates from that 96 German GP compared to Ronnie 2001 , so wrong again. I post the 93 precontest pics because I personally believe it's the best he's ever looked ( along with precontest 95 )
Technically terrible means shit to you because you need it to , go take your cell phone pics in your kitchen and we'll see how hard and grainy you appear , we'll all be waiting for them too . And the other supplemental fact you're overlooking is the testimony that comes along with the pics on how great is conditioning was . opppppsssssss forgot that little caveat of information huh? McGough's claim he could enter the Olympia six-weeks out and still win the contest , or Horton's claim he would have been in the top 3 in hardness and unmatched in thickness and size
Ronnie's conditioning at his prime was better than Dorian's
Well you consider his ' prime ' to be 2003 and that's laughable to claim than , but I love you blanket statement with nothing to back up the empty claim , come back when you have some proof
Ronnie's size, conditioning, symmetry, fullness, and aesthetics have not been equaled. This trumps size and conditioning
another blanket statement , and you forgot the clear advantage in balance & proportion , and posing & presentation , of lets not forget completeness
-
LOL Flowerboy and Cockwave are still going on about how they think the 1999 olympia prejudging clip is faked ::)
even though everyone who has the dvd or vhs knows that it isn't. and people who have it have verified this many times over the last few years.
nevermind all the clips I posted verifying that its real..
this has been going on for years now and they are still just as clueless as day one.. ::)
they keep bringing it up because they know its there only chance to save their good but not as good hero from the physique that is Ronnie Coleman 1999.
and in parting, one more classic gem from ForcedReps, the first man to put the nuthuggers in their place over this silly conspiracy theory:
yes ForcedReps, they are. and stupid too.
You're trying to use ForcedReps to defend Bizzy's sharpened screencaps LMMFAO this just keep getting better , post another link to an ' independent source ' again lol
first the independent source , now you're using another person's retort to defend someone else lmfao you can;t get any more dumb if you tried. ;D
-
I never said you weren't I said you were talking about me , learn to pay attention.
on the contrary, you need to learn to pay attention. You seem to be struggling with the concept that my post wasn't directed to you. If I wanted your attention, then I would specifically address my post to you - not to another poster
WRONG every pic I post isn't off-stage , again pay attention I posted a pic of Yates from that 96 German GP compared to Ronnie 2001 , so wrong again. I post the 93 precontest pics because I personally believe it's the best he's ever looked ( along with precontest 95 )
brah, don't lie. 9/10 pics you post of Dorian are <surprise surprise> offstage pics. Spare me your excuse about him looking his best before a contest. According to you, his conditioning improved up until the day of the show and stage lighting and posing oil make bodybuilders look more impressive (again, according to you). So, following your logic, Dorian should look even better in contest pics. You're trying to be deceitful by saying the offstage pics of him in favorable lighting actually make him look worse. If anything, the B&W shots of him in the gym make him look better than how he really looked.
Technically terrible means shit to you because you need it to , go take your cell phone pics in your kitchen and we'll see how hard and grainy you appear , we'll all be waiting for them too . And the other supplemental fact you're overlooking is the testimony that comes along with the pics on how great is conditioning was . opppppsssssss forgot that little caveat of information huh? McGough's claim he could enter the Olympia six-weeks out and still win the contest , or Horton's claim he would have been in the top 3 in hardness and unmatched in thickness and size
no, technically terrible means shit b/c bodybuilders use the same 'terrible techniques' in the kitchen, in front of a bathroom mirror, or at the gym ;)
-
Yates was wider in the front? Only appeared so cause of his shitty biceps.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/156zcih.jpg)
Yates had a better side chest? Hardly.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/23vg7cy.jpg)
This one is not even close.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/288a646.jpg)
Dorian has a sharper back, not bigger though, just sharper.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/11jsv3o.jpg)
-
Yates was wider in the front? Only appeared so cause of his shitty biceps.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/156zcih.jpg)
Yates had a better side chest? Hardly.
(http://i33.tinypic.com/23vg7cy.jpg)
This one is not even close.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/288a646.jpg)
Dorian has a sharper back, not bigger though, just sharper.
(http://i38.tinypic.com/11jsv3o.jpg)
heres the thing... if you compare there clavicle width, like in this pic you can see how wide they compare.
Yes, I realize Ronnie was way down in size, and not posed, Im simply talking clavicle width here.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368507;image)
-
on the contrary, you need to learn to pay attention. You seem to be struggling with the concept that my post wasn't directed to you. If I wanted your attention, then I would specifically address my post to you - not to another poster
brah, don't lie. 9/10 pics you post of Dorian are <surprise surprise> offstage pics. Spare me your excuse about him looking his best before a contest. According to you, his conditioning improved up until the day of the show and stage lighting and posing oil make bodybuilders look more impressive (again, according to you). So, following your logic, Dorian should look even better in contest pics. You're trying to be deceitful by saying the offstage pics of him in favorable lighting actually make him look worse. If anything, the B&W shots of him in the gym make him look better than how he really looked.
no, technically terrible means shit b/c bodybuilders use the same 'terrible techniques' in the kitchen, in front of a bathroom mirror, or at the gym ;)
on the contrary, you need to learn to pay attention. You seem to be struggling with the concept that my post wasn't directed to you. If I wanted your attention, then I would specifically address my post to you - not to another poster
We've already established it wasn't directed at me , but that's neither here nor there it was about me and this is your round-about way of getting into the conversation without looking like the troll , just like the random G.I.F.s you posted , it's your foot in the door. Not very subtle or bright
brah, don't lie. 9/10 pics you post of Dorian are <surprise surprise> offstage pics. Spare me your excuse about him looking his best before a contest. According to you, his conditioning improved up until the day of the show and stage lighting and posing oil make bodybuilders look more impressive (again, according to you). So, following your logic, Dorian should look even better in contest pics. You're trying to be deceitful by saying the offstage pics of him in favorable lighting actually make him look worse. If anything, the B&W shots of him in the gym make him look better than how he really looked.
Go learn what a lie is dummy before you accuse people of doing it like your claim with Peter McGough was not being present for the photoshoot ;), now you're reduced to amending your original claim from ' every pic I post ' to ' 9/10 pics ' and even if that's the case it's because I feel and many feel this was the best Dorian looked fucking duh I'm gonna post them , the ' debate ' after all genius is who would beat whom and their respective bests
I never said his conditioning improved until the say of the show , in fact Dorian and many experts feel Dorian was contest ready weeks before the contest and in hindsight realized he was just losing pure muscle by getting lighter. If tanning and oil and contest lighting don't make a positive contribution why do pros do it and why are contests judged under them? why not have the just go to fucking Home Depot and have the contest in one of their faux kitchens ::)
I wont lie he looks outstanding in the pics but he would have looked even better with color , oil and contest lighting if you disagree so be it , it's laughable you think he only looks great because he was in a gym ::) all the while forgetting the testimony of how great his conditioning was at that weight
no, technically terrible means shit b/c bodybuilders use the same 'terrible techniques' in the kitchen, in front of a bathroom mirror, or at the gym ;)
yes which why everyone looks as great as Dorian in those pics ::) sure that's why to this day people are still raving about them , I'm still waiting for your outstanding kitchen pics little man ;) you're trying to minimize the impact those pics had at that time and still hold to this day , it's funny his competitors were demoralized after seeing them but why would they be? seeing all they had to do is just run to the kitchen and look just as great ::)
-
Yates was wider in the front? Only appeared so cause of his shitty biceps.
Yates had a better side chest? Hardly.
This one is not even close.
Dorian has a sharper back, not bigger though, just sharper.
You're on crack if you think the scale of these pics are an accurate representation of reality, Dorian with a smaller waist & hips than Ronnie , Ronnie with bigger calves than Dorian. These are laughable and made by a Ronnie guy who needs to go back to the drawing board anyone who buys into this lives in a fanciful world .
-
We've already established it wasn't directed at me , but that's neither here nor there it was about me and this is your round-about way of getting into the conversation without looking like the troll , just like the random G.I.F.s you posted , it's your foot in the door. Not very subtle or bright
Go learn what a lie is dummy before you accuse people of doing it like your claim with Peter McGough was not being present for the photoshoot, now you're reduced to amending your original claim from ' every pic I post ' to ' 9/10 pics ' and even if that's the case it's because I feel and many feel this was the best Dorian looked fucking duh I'm gonna post them , the ' debate ' after all genius is who would beat whom and their respective bests
I never said his conditioning improved until the say of the show , in fact Dorian and many experts feel Dorian was contest ready weeks before the contest and in hindsight realized he was just losing pure muscle by getting lighter. If tanning and oil and contest lighting don't make a positive contribution why do pros do it and why are contests judged under them? why not have the just go to fucking Home Depot and have the contest in one of their faux kitchens
I wont lie he looks outstanding in the pics but he would have looked even better with color , oil and contest lighting if you disagree so be it , it's laughable you think he only looks great because he was in a gym all the while forgetting the testimony of how great his conditioning was at that weight
yes which why everyone looks as great as Dorian in those pics sure that's why to this day people are still raving about them , I'm still waiting for your outstanding kitchen pics little man you're trying to minimize the impact those pics had at that time and still hold to this day , it's funny his competitors were demoralized after seeing them but why would they be? seeing all they had to do is just run to the kitchen and look just as great
translation: my entire existence is validated by arguing with strangers online. Therefore, I will spew whatever bullshit to incite arguments and draw attention to myself. Should I be proven wrong, I will simply misconstrue other people's words and purposely lie to keep the argument going
oh what a simple man you are, ND. A simpleton indeed ;)
-
translation: my entire existence is validated by arguing with strangers online. Therefore, I will spew whatever bullshit to incite arguments and draw attention to myself. Should I be proven wrong, I will simply misconstrue other people's words and purposely lie to keep the argument going
oh what a simple man you are, ND. A simpleton indeed ;)
Projection , go look up the word. and again there is NO argument it's me correcting you people on how contests are judged. you can't counter anything I typed because you're ignorant and frustrated due to fact you simply don't know what you're talking about and are in way over your head
as usual when stifled you simply stop responding , you wanted in this conversation and now you want out a typical patten of you , I enjoy correcting you and Hulkster so I'll look for you to weasel your way back into another Dorian Yates thread until then , watch & learn ;)
-
another classic FR quote. I laugh at how stupid you must look to people viewing your posts about these clips. especially those who own or have owned the contest on tape or dvd.
yes, they maintain the faked video theory.
its right up there with the 9/11 was an inside job theory, I would say LOL
::)
You're trying to use Forcedreps to defend Bizzy's worked screencaps and it AIN'T working , here is Kevin Horton saying outright there is a difference between the two and Bizzy's are fucked ;D chew on that dumbass
-
Projection , go look up the word. and again there is NO argument it's me correcting you people on how contests are judged. you can't counter anything I typed because you're ignorant and frustrated due to fact you simply don't know what you're talking about and are in way over your head
as usual when stifled you simply stop responding , you wanted in this conversation and now you want out a typical patten of you , I enjoy correcting you and Hulkster so I'll look for you to weasel your way back into another Dorian Yates thread until then , watch & learn
no you don't, boo. I won't be sucked into your silly games ;)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/GailSnail.gif)
-
Ronnie NO year can touch this combo , 270 lbs near perfect balance & proportion , injury free unmatched conditioning at this weight and just complete from head to toe
-
no you don't, boo. I won't be sucked into your silly games ;)
You already have you're in another Dorian Yates thread resorting to ad hominem attacks and false allegations
I can walk away from any debate on this topic it's been proven , I'm not a one trick pony . I'm a fan of the sport I post on a wide variety of topics and bodybuilders , can you stay out of a Yates thread? ;) can you stop mentioning my name? ;) I don't need your attention I'm no puppy
-
You already have you're in another Dorian Yates thread resorting to ad hominem attacks and false allegations
I can walk away from any debate on this topic it's been proven , I'm not a one trick pony . I'm a fan of the sport I post on a wide variety of topics and bodybuilders , can you stay out of a Yates thread? can you stop mentioning my name? I don't need your attention I'm no puppy
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Funny%20GIFs/CoolStoryBro.gif)
-
I'm glad you agree ;)
-
I'm glad you agree
no problem, brah! Just want to see you happy is all
-
no problem, brah! Just want to see you happy is all
Yeah which is why you follow me around. ;)
-
Dorian's size & conditioning have not been equaled , let's say Ronnie did equal it for the sake of argument ( and that's being kind ) it was always at his lightest bodyweights so it's NO advantage , Shawn Ray had great conditioning and lacked behind in mass/balance/proportion so you lose as usual
Shawn Ray lacked behind in balance & proportions in comparison to Dorian?
This is a new one......
-
Ronnie's size, conditioning, symmetry, fullness, and aesthetics have not been equaled. This trumps size and conditioning
This is the exact reason why I said that Ronnie just took the "mass monster" game a step further and is better than Dorian.
According to ND, thos things don't matter. All that matters is how dry and dense a bodybuilder is, carrying a lot of muscular bulk even if it is unproportionately distributed.
-
not the only important factor but a major one. being dry is half the equation being carrying more muscular bulk is another and being dense all at the same time is the pinnacle
then either you're being contrary or you never seen any videos of the two posing. neither are Lee Labrada but I think it's apparent Yates is a better pose especially in the mandatories , go look at Yates at the 94 and Ronnie in 94 and maybe you'll see it
Again there is a lot you can't seem to understand and you think by asking the same question again the answer will change? every muscle is proportionately developed to the rest LMFAO calves , hams both in relation to the quads , glutes so grossly overdeveloped they can be seen from the front and they stick way out in the back , biceps/triceps that dominate his forearms , at his best Dorian has less flaws than this by far
Hulkster and his comrades tried this angle eons ago , trying to accumulate parts in the hopes that makes the better whole NOT how it works , entertaining it's true why doesn't he have a better side triceps? or ab-thigh? front latspread despite all of his advantages?
and forearm shape? Ronnie's are shaped like a bowling pin and Dorian's aren't it's like having short high calves like Ronnie has
not the only important factor but a major one. being dry is half the equation being carrying more muscular bulk is another and being dense all at the same time is the pinnacle
I understand your point here, but if Dorian indeed was more dense than Ronnie would it be enough to beat him? I don't think so.
then either you're being contrary or you never seen any videos of the two posing. neither are Lee Labrada but I think it's apparent Yates is a better pose especially in the mandatories , go look at Yates at the 94 and Ronnie in 94 and maybe you'll see it
I've seen videos of the two posing and both are good at holding the mandatory poses, but neither are very good at posing routines.
I didn't see Ronnie in 94, if he was that bad at posing still wouldn't matter since he got better at it by 98.
Again there is a lot you can't seem to understand and you think by asking the same question again the answer will change? every muscle is proportionately developed to the rest LMFAO calves , hams both in relation to the quads , glutes so grossly overdeveloped they can be seen from the front and they stick way out in the back , biceps/triceps that dominate his forearms , at his best Dorian has less flaws than this by far
I said his calves are his only proportion problem, but that's it. Hams are good in relation to quads, but let's say they are a bit smaller, the difference still wouldn't be as notorious as Dorian's overpowering back/torso.
Glutes overpower the rest because they stick out from the front? Are you serious? Are you saying his glutes overpower his massive upper legs and massive upperbody? I don't think so, they overpower his calves obviously, but that's it.
I don't see his forearms being underdeveloped:
-
Ronnie NO year can touch this combo , 270 lbs near perfect balance & proportion , injury free unmatched conditioning at this weight and just complete from head to toe
uh no, ronnie surpasses it. yes his calves suck.
but from the knees up the quality is far better. better back, better arms, totally ripped hams/glutes etc. its all there.
dorian has a good back shot with okay glutes/hams with great calves.
ronnie has an amazing back shot with amazing hams/glutes with shitty calves.
advantage: ronnie coleman
-
You're trying to use Forcedreps to defend Bizzy's worked screencaps and it AIN'T working
oh yes it is.
because the forcedreps quotes show that you idiots have been claiming all this 99 stuff has been faked since day one.
so everything forcedreps says about "faked" screenshots and videos applies perfectly well.
and you know it.
::)
-
Ronnie NO year can touch this combo , 270 lbs near perfect balance & proportion , injury free unmatched conditioning at this weight and just complete from head to toe
This is the reason why I think Dorian's best year was 1993, unfortunately he never looked like this onstage. Not even at the 93 Olympia.
This is strange though, you guys keep saying Dorian's best was in 1995. Which is why I was comparing Ronnie's best vs Dorian in 95. In this case Ronnie wins in my eyes.
A top Ronnie vs Dorian in 93 would be closer in my opinion, but I think Ronnie would out mass him.
-
This is strange though, you guys keep saying Dorian's best was in 1995
just let them insist that.
because Ronnie 99 destroys dorian 95 even more than he destroys dorian 93:
-
Shawn Ray lacked behind in balance & proportions in comparison to Dorian?
This is a new one......
yeah I'm sure it is to you ::) short high calves , short legs long torso , narrow clavicles , only 5'7" absolutely
-
Yeah which is why you follow me around
mmm, no. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but I moved on from our discussions on Dorian vs Ronnie. I'm currently in grad school, have a gf, and workout. I have more important priorities right now but still enjoy the occasional exchanges hence my light-humored posts recently
-
oh yes it is.
because the forcedreps quotes show that you idiots have been claiming all this 99 stuff has been faked since day one.
so everything forcedreps says about "faked" screenshots and videos applies perfectly well.
and you know it.
::)
NO ONE claimed ALL 99 stuff is fake just the shit you posted that was proved enhanced , in fact Kevin Horton used Forcedreps screencaps to prove to you there was an obvious difference
I never claimed and to my knowledge NO one else claimed forcedreps was using the sharpening tool ;) but we all know Bizzy did , so another Hulkster fail STOP trying to use forcedreps response for Bizzy dumbass
-
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/118/rondorian.jpg)
-
mmm, no. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but I moved on from our discussions on Dorian vs Ronnie. I'm currently in grad school, have a gf, and workout. I have more important priorities right now but still enjoy the occasional exchanges hence my light-humored posts recently
You type you've moved on and where are you? in another Dorian Yates thread proving me right , you say one thing and do another .
you've moved on? you still have my name in your sig ;)
you've moved on yet tried to bust me in a lie that backfired as usual ;)
-
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/118/rondorian.jpg)
More imaginary scales where Dorian at 270 pounds has a narrower waist & hips than Ronnie LMMFAO go back to the drawing board
-
NO ONE claimed ALL 99 stuff is fake
when forcedreps first posted his screencaps, the nuthuggers cried fake -hence his world famous rants embarrassing all of you
when iceman and bizzy posted screencaps, the nuthuggers cried fake.
when the 99 prejudging videos are all over the web and I link to them, yup, you guessed it- the nuthuggers cried fake.
so don't tell me no one claimed its all faked.
its all been claimed faked at one time or another by fellow guy idiots like you.\
-
when forcedreps first posted his screencaps, the nuthuggers cried fake -hence his world famous rants embarrassing all of you
when iceman and bizzy posted screencaps, the nuthuggers cried fake.
when the 99 prejudging videos are all over the web and I link to them, yup, you guessed it- the nuthuggers cried fake.
so don't tell me no one claimed its all faked.
its all been claimed faked at one time or another by fellow guy idiots like you.\
I never claimed forcedreps shit was fake so you can stuff it and in fact I never once claimed ALL of Bizzy's was either I said some of it and it's a proven fact and anything else he posts is suspect
Bizzy = fake
-
yeah I'm sure it is to you ::) short high calves , short legs long torso , narrow clavicles , only 5'7" absolutely
Other than the high calves thing, you're are just posting structural flaws that Shawn Ray supposedly had........
1. I was talking about balance & proportion in relation to muscular development, not structure. So you're saying how long your limbs are is more important than how the actual muscles are developed in a bodybuilding contest?
2. Shawn didn't have all those flaws you're listing with the exception of the high calves. Just compare him to Lee Priest and you'll see how someone with short legs/long torso looks like even for his short height.
-
You type you've moved on and where are you? in another Dorian Yates thread proving me right , you say one thing and do another.
check your number of posts in this thread alone and then check mine. You invest waaaay more resources into Ronnie vs Dorian discussions than I do. Yes, I've moved on. Just b/c I post a few pics or sentences once in a while doesn't mean I'm as passionate about this argument as you
you've moved on? you still have my name in your sig
b/c it would take more effort to change it than to leave it alone
you've moved on yet tried to bust me in a lie that backfired as usual
brah, read the quotes. Any rational adult would interpret them to mean Peter McGough wasn't present. It took a third quote to mention he was present and even then, I have my doubts b/c the separate account contradict each other.
-
Other than the high calves thing, you're are just posting structural flaws that Shawn Ray supposedly had........
1. I was talking about balance & proportion in relation to muscular development, not structure. So you're saying how long your limbs are is more important than how the actual muscles are developed in a bodybuilding contest?
2. Shawn didn't have all those flaws you're listing with the exception of the high calves. Just compare him to Lee Priest and you'll see how someone with short legs/long torso looks like even for his short height.
All of what I listed is part & parcel of balance & proportion , height , torso length , limb length , clavicle width , proportion between the muscles , etc and EVERYTHING is important not just one aspect please learn this concept
-
check your number of posts in this thread alone and then check mine. You invest waaaay more resources into Ronnie vs Dorian discussions than I do. Yes, I've moved on. Just b/c I post a few pics or sentences once in a while doesn't mean I'm as passionate about this argument as you
b/c it would take more effort to change it than to leave it alone
brah, read the quotes. Any rational adult would interpret them to mean Peter McGough wasn't present. It took a third quote to mention he was present and even then, I have my doubts b/c the separate account contradict each other.
check your number of posts in this thread alone and then check mine. You invest waaaay more resources into Ronnie vs Dorian discussions than I do. Yes, I've moved on. Just b/c I post a few pics or sentences once in a while doesn't mean I'm as passionate about this argument as you
Neo that's obvious , you're stating the obvious you'll get no argument from me about me on who posts more about the topic however that's NOT what we're talking about , stop acting like you're above posting on the subject when in fact you're in yet another Yates thread
b/c it would take more effort to change it than to leave it alone
it still proves my point , you obviously haven't moved on
brah, read the quotes. Any rational adult would interpret them to mean Peter McGough wasn't present. It took a third quote to mention he was present and even then, I have my doubts b/c the separate account contradict each other.
any intelligent person would have at the least asked before committing to an assumption , but you wanted so bad to have something on me so you drew your own conclusions and it backfired , you have this compulsion to try and prove me wrong because you've been corrected by me so many times
-
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/118/rondorian.jpg)
Fear This
-
All of what I listed is part & parcel of balance & proportion , height , torso length , limb length , clavicle width , proportion between the muscles , etc and EVERYTHING is important not just one aspect please learn this concept
I didn't know limb length, torso lenght, etc were a part of balance & proportions......its interesting you say its equally important as proportion between muscle groups, it shouldn't be. I know bodybuilding is considered to be a "beauty pageant" by some on this board, but I didn't know it was judged as one. ;D
Anyway, it still doesn't change that Shawn didn't have long torso/short legs for his height. Compare him to Lee Priest and you'll see.
-
I didn't know limb length, torso lenght, etc were a part of balance & proportions......its interesting you say its equally important as proportion between muscle groups, it shouldn't be. I know bodybuilding is considered to be a "beauty pageant" by some on this board, but I didn't know it was judged as one. ;D
Anyway, it still doesn't change that Shawn didn't have long torso/short legs for his height. Compare him to Lee Priest and you'll see.
There's a lot you didn't know , don't know and still don't know.
Shawn Ray still has a long torso and short legs and he's taller than Lee Priest so bad analogy
-
Neo that's obvious , you're stating the obvious you'll get no argument from me about me on who posts more about the topic however that's NOT what we're talking about , stop acting like you're above posting on the subject when in fact you're in yet another Yates thread
brah, where did I say I'm above posting on the subject? All I'm saying is that I have more important priorities in life right now that demand my attention. I enjoy the occasional exchanges with you. However, I cannot allow myself to get sucked into lengthy back-and-forth replies.
it still proves my point , you obviously haven't moved on
how? lol
any intelligent person would have at the least asked before committing to an assumption , but you wanted so bad to have something on me so you drew your own conclusions and it backfired , you have this compulsion to try and prove me wrong because you've been corrected by me so many times
what was there to ask? Both quotes only mention pics and say nothing about Peter McGough being present
-
Shawn Ray still has a long torso and short legs and he's taller than Lee Priest so bad analogy
I wasn't trying to show that Shawn has longer legs/shorter torso than Lee Priest (even though he has). I was trying to show how someone with short legs/long torso would look, in this case Lee Priest. Another example could be Nasser.
Why would you say Shawn Ray has short legs/long torso for his height? Compared to Dorian it was the same, Dorian was just taller.
-
can you see the difference?
-
Fear This
Show me Dorian looking better than this onstage at the Olympia:
-
Want 1998?
-
brah, where did I say I'm above posting on the subject? All I'm saying is that I have more important priorities in life right now that demand my attention. I enjoy the occasional exchanges with you. However, I cannot allow myself to get sucked into lengthy back-and-forth replies.
how? lol
what was there to ask? Both quotes only mention pics and say nothing about Peter McGough being present
brah, where did I say I'm above posting on the subject? All I'm saying is that I have more important priorities in life right now that demand my attention. I enjoy the occasional exchanges with you. However, I cannot allow myself to get sucked into lengthy back-and-forth replies.
Neo did I ever claim you said that? NO I said you act like it. I get your point but no matter how you try to escape the vortex sucks you in ;D
how? lol
It's still in your sig and that was a lame response it takes to much effort ::)
what was there to ask? Both quotes only mention pics and say nothing about Peter McGough being present
Ask if he was there because I'm sure he's said he was on many occasions , and you even acknowledge I did you jumped to conclusions and it backfired.
-
Show me Dorian looking better than this onstage at the Olympia:
Better is misleading and vague , I will show you a pic of Dorian ON-STAGE that meets the criteria better than Ronnie and would beat him due to this fact
-
Better is misleading and vague , I will show you a pic of Dorian ON-STAGE that meets the criteria better than Ronnie and would beat him due to this fact
-
Want 1998?
Dorian is the criteria
-
LOL nice arms clasped mm pic there ND. the file name is 'doughball' hahahahahahahaha
doughball is right, compared to ronnie 99:
-
LOL nice arms clasped mm pic there ND. the file name is 'doughball' hahahahahahahaha
doughball is right, compared to ronnie 99:
Dorian's harder & drier BY FAR ;) and the file-name is from you idiots doesn't mean it's accurate ;)
you can't even get the basics right , you always wrong claim Ronnie was harder & drier in 99 than 98 when it's an established fact he's not , so how can we expect you to get Dorian is better conditioned? you'd have to know what conditioning is before you can comment on who is the better of the two
-
OK I started this thread so that makes me the expert here.
I've looked at the 10000 pictures posted in this thread. And I have come to the conclusion that RONNIE COLEMAN WAS A BETTER BODY BUILDER, because DORIAN YATES HAD FUCKED UP ARM INJURIES that ruined his physique.
Case closed.
-
LOL nice arms clasped mm pic there ND. the file name is 'doughball' hahahahahahahaha
doughball is right, compared to ronnie 99:
weren't you already exposed as being a retard? Oh yeah. Hell you can't even get ronnies best showing right. At least use Ronnie 98 if your wanting to be taken seriously. Lol
-
weren't you already exposed as being a retard? Oh yeah. Hell you can't even get ronnies best showing right. At least use Ronnie 98 if your wanting to be taken seriously. Lol
He was exposed as a retard a LONG , LONG time ago :D
-
OK I started this thread so that makes me the expert here.
I've looked at the 10000 pictures posted in this thread. And I have come to the conclusion that RONNIE COLEMAN WAS A BETTER BODY BUILDER, because DORIAN YATES HAD FUCKED UP ARM INJURIES that ruined his physique.
Case closed.
what about Ronnie's FUCKED UP LEG INJURIES ? ??? ???
-
what about Ronnie's FUCKED UP LEG INJURIES?
better to have decent calves that look small underneath a pair a gargantuan thighs than toothpick arms :-X
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/93%20Mr%20Olympia/DorianYates5.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/93%20Mr%20Olympia/1993MrOlympia-Victory3.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/93%20Mr%20Olympia/TwigsOnBarrel.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/DorianYates1.jpg)
-
this is suppose to be a 'power' pose to show off the guns, lol
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/95%20Mr%20Olympia/DorianYates35.jpg)
-
this is suppose to be a 'power' pose to show off the guns, lol
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Dorian%20Yates/95%20Mr%20Olympia/DorianYates35.jpg)
If you don't think this physique would push a peak Ronnie to the absolute limit (win imo) then you are kidding yourself. Are Doz's Bis as good as Ronnies? No. But to claim his arms are toothpicks is absurd.
-
If you don't think this physique would push a peak Ronnie to the absolute limit (win imo) then you are kidding yourself. Are Doz's Bis as good as Ronnies? No. But to claim his arms are toothpicks is absurd.
owned by RL
-
better to have decent calves that look small underneath a pair a gargantuan thighs than toothpick arms :-X
/TwigsOnBarrel.jpg[/img]
Shawn Ray had ' decent ' calves , Ronnie Coleman has NO calves , none what so ever. and they don't just look small they are small
and Dorian's arms aren't toothpicks if Dorian's arms are toothpicks than Ronnie's legs are
This is Dorian at what many consider the best if you think even his arms are lacking then you need a new prescription for your glasses
-
Interesting pics there ND, now lets compare them to Ronnie:
-
More:
-
More
-
Interesting pics there ND, now lets compare them to Ronnie:
Dorian wins per the criteria
-
.....
-
.....
Funny that clearly shows 98 he was harder & drier and Dorian wins
-
NO contest in this shot . Dorian wins by far
-
NO contest in this shot . Dorian wins by far
I was comparing contest shots, not pre contest.
-
Dorian wins per the criteria
Then that has to be the weirdest and strangest criteria I've ever heard about. :-\
I honestly see Ronnie beating Dorian, whether you use Ronnie 98 or 99 with Dorian 93 or 95.
-
Funny that clearly shows 98 he was harder & drier
Possibly, it depends on what pic you use though.
and Dorian wins
In that most muscular shot? No way.........
-
Possibly, it depends on what pic you use though.
Look how hard & dry he looks in this 99 shot.
-
I was comparing contest shots, not pre contest.
I was comparing them at their bests ;) and I did post contest shots as well
-
Then that has to be the weirdest and strangest criteria I've ever heard about. :-\
I honestly see Ronnie beating Dorian, whether you use Ronnie 98 or 99 with Dorian 93 or 95.
You don't know the criteria so how can you determine if it's strange or not?
Ronnie 1998 beat Flex by the skin of his teeth , the contest was separated by just 3 points one of the closest in the contest's history. Dorian 1993 blew Flex Wheeler out of the water and Flex looked eons better in 93 than he did in 98 , Ronnie 1998 couldn't beat Dorian not by a long shot
Ronnie 99 a little bigger & softer not as dry , Dorian would beat him this year too , Dorian would be harder & drier while being 260lbs with better balance & proportion & posing this is contest Dorian
-
Look how hard & dry he looks in this 99 shot.
He's not , not compared to 1998 or 2001 or Dorian
-
;)
-
:o
-
JP, I don't know why you keep posting 99 Ronnie, when its plainly obvious his conditioning was superior in 98.
Hell, Ronnie himself admits that.
-
JP, I don't know why you keep posting 99 Ronnie, when its plainly obvious his conditioning was superior in 98.
Hell, Ronnie himself admits that.
everyone admits to that ;D
-
If you don't think this physique would push a peak Ronnie to the absolute limit (win imo) then you are kidding yourself. Are Doz's Bis as good as Ronnies? No. But to claim his arms are toothpicks is absurd.
what does posting close-up shots of Dorian's arms without any frame of reference or a pic from Ronnie's worst contest suppose to prove? lol
... and yeah, as long as you guys keep exaggerating Ronnie's calves, then I will do the same for Dorian's arms ;)
-
... and yeah, as long as you guys keep exaggerating Ronnie's calves, then I will do the same for Dorian's arms ;)
Yeah the difference being is you can't post any good shots of Ronnie's calves we can of Dorian's arms ;)
-
JP, I don't know why you keep posting 99 Ronnie, when its plainly obvious his conditioning was superior in 98.
Hell, Ronnie himself admits that.
I admitted he was a bit drier in 98 before......Would that make his physique in 98 automatically better than 99? Considering that in 99 he was amazingly conditioned too and was a bit bigger/fuller, etc.
I post 99 Ronnie because I think its among his best ever, I think its either 99 or 98.
Either way, it beats Dorian.
-
;D
-
Shawn Ray had ' decent ' calves , Ronnie Coleman has NO calves , none what so ever. and they don't just look small they are small
so according to you, Jay has small calves too ::)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/RonnieJayCalves.jpg)
and Dorian's arms aren't toothpicks if Dorian's arms are toothpicks than Ronnie's legs are
brah, it doesn't work that way. You can't make a false claim and then after I mock you, say the validity of your claim is conditional on mine being right or wrong. That's not how logic works
This is Dorian at what many consider the best if you think even his arms are lacking then you need a new prescription for your glasses
lmao, is a twisting close-up arm shot suppose to prove? Show me a full body pic of him straight on
-
I was comparing them at their bests ;) and I did post contest shots as well
Comparing contest pics its a win for Ronnie all the way.......comparing precontest pics it may be closer. And this is just the BDB pose.
-
Care to post some other poses shots of Dorian precontest?
-
I admitted he was a bit drier in 98 before......Would that make his physique in 98 automatically better than 99? Considering that in 99 he was amazingly conditioned too and was a bit bigger/fuller, etc.
I post 99 Ronnie because I think its among his best ever, I think its either 99 or 98.
Either way, it beats Dorian.
It's not a ' bit drier ' it's noticeably drier so much so in fact it's worth mentioning and yes Ronnie was bigger/fuller than 2001 yet it's considered his prime showing so your point is moot , I've posed this question to Hulkster a million times yet he can never answer , why isn't 1999 considered his best ever entertaining the conditioning aspect as negligible? he would have been at least 10 pounds heavier & fuller , I'll tell you why .....because his conditioning was NOT negligible it was noticeably off , just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not.
-
You don't know the criteria so how can you determine if it's strange or not?
Ronnie 1998 beat Flex by the skin of his teeth , the contest was separated by just 3 points one of the closest in the contest's history. Dorian 1993 blew Flex Wheeler out of the water and Flex looked eons better in 93 than he did in 98 , Ronnie 1998 couldn't beat Dorian not by a long shot
Ronnie 99 a little bigger & softer not as dry , Dorian would beat him this year too , Dorian would be harder & drier while being 260lbs with better balance & proportion & posing this is contest Dorian
You don't know the criteria so how can you determine if it's strange or not?
I think I know enough to and reading your posts claiming Dorian would win because of this criteria makes me think its messed up.
Ronnie 99 a little bigger & softer not as dry , Dorian would beat him this year too , Dorian would be harder & drier while being 260lbs with better balance & proportion & posing this is contest Dorian
Ronnie has better balance & proportion than Dorian, posing is equal and Ronnie has symmetry for him.
I don't know how much drier Dorian would look against a 98-99 Ronnie. Even if he was drier, would it be enough to beat Ronnie? No, not in my eyes.
Just looking and comparing at the pictures and videos makes me think Ronnie would beat Dorian.
-
I was comparing contest shots, not pre contest.
this is the only way ND knows he stands a chance. He likes to mix and match different versions of Dorian to build the ultimate Dorian Megazord. This version has the size and fullness of a 6 weeks pre-contest Dorian with the conditioning of a contest Dorian.
-
Comparing contest pics its a win for Ronnie all the way.......comparing precontest pics it may be closer. And this is just the BDB pose.
LMAO NOT even close , Dorian looks like granite and Ronnie looks like he's guest-posing ;D
Your fatal mistake in thinking Ronnie can compete at heavier weights is his very ho-hum conditioning , his balance & proportion are in the red zone , there is a very good reason 2001 is considered his best ;)
-
It's not a ' bit drier ' it's noticeably drier so much so in fact it's worth mentioning and yes Ronnie was bigger/fuller than 2001 yet it's considered his prime showing so your point is moot , I've posed this question to Hulkster a million times yet he can never answer , why isn't 1999 considered his best ever entertaining the conditioning aspect as negligible? he would have been at least 10 pounds heavier & fuller , I'll tell you why .....because his conditioning was NOT negligible it was noticeably off , just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not.
I can only shake my head whenever I read: "99 Ronnie's conditioning was off"
-
this is the only way ND knows he stands a chance. He likes to mix and match different versions of Dorian to build the ultimate Dorian Megazord. This version has the size and fullness of a 6 weeks pre-contest Dorian with the conditioning of a contest Dorian.
Nah , Dorian 1993 pre-contest in my opinion would destroy ANY version of Ronnie you can throw at him , and so could Dorian precontest 1995 at 283 pounds ;) but we only have that one pic of him so I really can't base much off of that
-
I can only shake my head whenever I read: "99 Ronnie's conditioning was off"
keep shaking it's a fact that almost everyone agree with ;) hell Ronnie said 98 his conditioning was spot-on 3 times now
-
It's not a ' bit drier ' it's noticeably drier so much so in fact it's worth mentioning and yes Ronnie was bigger/fuller than 2001 yet it's considered his prime showing so your point is moot , I've posed this question to Hulkster a million times yet he can never answer , why isn't 1999 considered his best ever entertaining the conditioning aspect as negligible? he would have been at least 10 pounds heavier & fuller , I'll tell you why .....because his conditioning was NOT negligible it was noticeably off , just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not.
I've read a lot of comments of Ronnie's best being 2003, does this mean its his best?
I've read some say 2001 was his best, others say it was 1998 and I've even read some say it was 1999.
I'm going by what I see and I see his best between 98-99.
-
Care to post some other poses shots of Dorian precontest?
lol, he would get destroyed if he started posting more pics of Dorian pre-contest
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie13.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie18.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie17.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie16a.jpg)
-
Yeah the difference being is you can't post any good shots of Ronnie's calves we can of Dorian's arms ;)
i dont know its cause of the calves, in this shot ronnie looks like a midget
-
Care to post some other poses shots of Dorian precontest?
You can comprehend how his conditioning can be off from 98-to-99 and you have the balls to post these? his conditioning is really off compared to 98 in these precontest shots and his balance & proportion are as well and the vast difference between Dorian precontest and Ronnie is , Dorian could hold his mass with a greater degree of hardness and dryness while being better balanced
-
Nah , Dorian 1993 pre-contest in my opinion would destroy ANY version of Ronnie you can throw at him , and so could Dorian precontest 1995 at 283 pounds but we only have that one pic of him so I really can't base much off of that
hahahaha, riiiiiiiight. Now I've heard it all. Every respectable bodybuilding expert who has seen both says a prime Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time yet ND who has never seen them claims he's right and everyone else is wrong ::)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368960;image)
Let's critique this "greatest back double of all time".
Pros :
1.) very grainy and dry except lower back region
2.) incredible trapezius thickness, overall back thickness
Cons :
1.) calves dominate upper thighs
2.) cloudy looking spinal erectors (christmas tree not sharp)
3.) teres major/minor/infraspinatus too dominant over lats
4.) deltoids overpower biceps, not much biceps peak
5.) extreme thickness loses fluid aesthetic harmony
-
keep shaking it's a fact that almost everyone agree with ;) hell Ronnie said 98 his conditioning was spot-on 3 times now
So the fact that he was a bit drier in 98 (which may be the reason why Ronnie said his 98 conditioning was his best) make his 99 conditioning off?
Just look at the pics and its a different story.
Now, did Ronnie say his 98 conditioning was his best or did he say his overall package was his best?
-
lol, he would get destroyed if he started posting more pics of Dorian pre-contest
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie13.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie18.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie17.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/02%20BFTO/2002BFTO-Ronnie16a.jpg)
Exactly.
-
hahahaha, riiiiiiiight. Now I've heard it all. Every respectable bodybuilding expert who has seen both says a prime Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time yet ND who has never seen them claims he's right and everyone else is wrong ::)
NOT quite true Neo ;) and you know it
-
lol, he would get destroyed if he started posting more pics of Dorian pre-contest
Hahahahaha guest posing Ronnie with his collection of parts just thrown together doesn't stand a chance
-
You can comprehend how his conditioning can be off from 98-to-99 and you have the balls to post these? his conditioning is really off compared to 98 in these precontest shots and his balance & proportion are as well and the vast difference between Dorian precontest and Ronnie is , Dorian could hold his mass with a greater degree of hardness and dryness while being better balanced
You were psoting precontest pics, so I did. You keep touting Ronnie's balance & proportion are off compared to Dorian, when Dorian's proportions were not great either.
Ronnie looks dry and hard in these precontest shots (with the exception of his back not being as dry as Dorian's, but it has much other things going for him)
Just look at the legs, delts, arms, etc. and see how hard and dry and "grainy" he looks in those precontest shots.
You're forgetting Dorian's pic is b&w too.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=368960;image)
Let's critique this "greatest back double of all time".
Pros :
1.) very grainy and dry except lower back region
2.) incredible trapezius thickness, overall back thickness
Cons :
1.) calves dominate upper thighs
2.) cloudy looking spinal erectors (christmas tree not sharp)
3.) teres major/minor/infraspinatus too dominant over lats
4.) deltoids overpower biceps, not much biceps peak
5.) extreme thickness loses fluid aesthetic harmony
Interesting post.
-
NOT quite true Neo and you know it
oh? I dare you to find me quotes that say Dorian had a better physique. Note: these quotes specifically talk about best physique
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
http://www.flexonline.com.au/216.html
Jim Stoppani - Flex, July 2005
"Has anyone ever displayed a more muscular, more shredded, higher-quality physique than a 247-pound Ronnie Coleman at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic?"
Lonnie Teper - MD, December 2005
"I've always said that it's too hard to compare athletes of different eras (then he names a few Mr. Olympias including Dorian). Still, it's hard to imagine that anybody who's ever stepped on a bodybuilding stage could have beaten Coleman. So I reserve the right to change my mind on this one. No offense to the rest of the champs - you were/are all truly amazing physique athletes - but Coleman has really taken it to the next level, as all magnificent conquerors do."
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
Steve Blechman - MD, February 2004
"Ronnie perseveres and proves continually that, at his best, he is unbeatable... Ronnie Coleman is not only the greatest Mr. O of all time, he is also one of the oldest"
Chris Lund (Paraphrased by Milos Sarcev) - European Flex, April 2004
"Chris Lund who I consider to be a great expert in our sport of bodybuilding, told me that Ronnie is simply the best bodybuilder he has ever seen, or photographed, and he has seen everybody, during the last 35 years."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=237938.0
Hollis Liebman - Former Fitness Editor and IFBB Official
"The era of the big man would commence with Lee Haney (1984-1991), whose formidable torso would dominate the lineup for 8 straight years and was then elevated by Dorian Yates (1992-1997), whose back and overall conditioning upped the ante yet again until an alien named Ronnie Coleman (1998-2005), in all likelihood the greatest bodybuilder of all time, would redefine the sport bringing a near 300 pound contest ready physique to the stage."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238675.0
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
Paul Dillet - MD, February 2004
"Understand that if Ronnie walked away tomorrow, I do not think anyone can measure up to the standards he has set. Just like Sergio Oliva, an awesome bodybuilder way ahead of his time, and like Flex Wheeler, who had an absolutely perfect, beautiful physique. No one will match Serigo or Flex and now Ronnie."
Mike Matarazzo – Flex, January 1999
“I think this creature from another planet, Ronnie Coleman, is going to be number one for a while. I think that, in the shape he was in, he would have beaten Dorian Yates. Ronnie has every single attribute it takes to be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived.”
Jean Pierre Fux - Personal Website
"The current Mr. Olympia (Ronnie Coleman). In top shape, probably the best physique that ever stepped on stage."
-
So the fact that he was a bit drier in 98 (which may be the reason why Ronnie said his 98 conditioning was his best) make his 99 conditioning off?
Just look at the pics and its a different story.
Now, did Ronnie say his 98 conditioning was his best or did he say his overall package was his best?
You're treading in Hulkster territory with the fuck what everyone else says
-
oh? I dare you to find me quotes that say Dorian had a better physique
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
http://www.flexonline.com.au/216.html
Lonnie Teper - MD, December 2005
"I've always said that it's too hard to compare athletes of different eras (then he names a few Mr. Olympias including Dorian). Still, it's hard to imagine that anybody who's ever stepped on a bodybuilding stage could have beaten Coleman. So I reserve the right to change my mind on this one. No offense to the rest of the champs - you were/are all truly amazing physique athletes - but Coleman has really taken it to the next level, as all magnificent conquerors do."
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
Tony Doherty - http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=270388.msg3803035#msg3803035
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
Steve Blechman - MD, February 2004
"Ronnie perseveres and proves continually that, at his best, he is unbeatable... Ronnie Coleman is not only the greatest Mr. O of all time, he is also one of the oldest"
Chris Lund (Paraphrased by Milos Sarcev) - European Flex, April 2004
"Chris Lund who I consider to be a great expert in our sport of bodybuilding, told me that Ronnie is simply the best bodybuilder he has ever seen, or photographed, and he has seen everybody, during the last 35 years."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=237938.0
Hollis Liebman - Former Fitness Editor and IFBB Official
"The era of the big man would commence with Lee Haney (1984-1991), whose formidable torso would dominate the lineup for 8 straight years and was then elevated by Dorian Yates (1992-1997), whose back and overall conditioning upped the ante yet again until an alien named Ronnie Coleman (1998-2005), in all likelihood the greatest bodybuilder of all time, would redefine the sport bringing a near 300 pound contest ready physique to the stage."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238675.0
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
Paul Dillet - MD, February 2004
"Understand that if Ronnie walked away tomorrow, I do not think anyone can measure up to the standards he has set. Just like Sergio Oliva, an awesome bodybuilder way ahead of his time, and like Flex Wheeler, who had an absolutely perfect, beautiful physique. No one will match Serigo or Flex and now Ronnie."
Mike Matarazzo – Flex, January 1999
“I think this creature from another planet, Ronnie Coleman, is going to be number one for a while. I think that, in the shape he was in, he would have beaten Dorian Yates. Ronnie has every single attribute it takes to be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived.”
Jean Pierre Fux - Personal Website
"The current Mr. Olympia (Ronnie Coleman). In top shape, probably the best physique that ever stepped on stage."
The quotes have already been posted and you know it
-
The quotes have already been posted and you know it
stop lying. All the quotes you've posted either came from before Ronnie's prime or only compare specific body parts - not best physique
-
stop lying. All the quotes you've posted either came from before Ronnie's prime or only compare specific body parts - not best physique
What happened the last time you called me a liar kid? ;)
I can post the three Ronnie quotes and embarrass you if you'd like? that silences anything you can type ;D
-
Hahahahaha guest posing Ronnie with his collection of parts just thrown together doesn't stand a chance
funny you say that when Kevin Horton said there are unseen pics of 02 pre-contest Ronnie that rival the 95 pre-contest lat spread pic of Dorian you like to post
-
ND and you love quotes.....here's one for you from Neo's quotes:
Mike Matarazzo – Flex, January 1999
“I think this creature from another planet, Ronnie Coleman, is going to be number one for a while. I think that, in the shape he was in, he would have beaten Dorian Yates. Ronnie has every single attribute it takes to be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived.”
Is a recognized bodybuilding personality (pro bodybuilder) saying that Ronnie Coleman at his best would beat Dorian Yates? Yes he is.
You see people's opinions on the subject can vary and it shows that there are A LOT of people out there that think like this.
What makes your opinion the undisputable correct one?
Could Dorian beat Ronnie? I don't think so and at least I can support my opinion with pics:
-
funny you say that when Kevin Horton said there are unseen pics of 02 pre-contest Ronnie that rival the 95 pre-contest lat spread pic of Dorian you like to post
true he also said Yates conditioning at 280-285 hasn't been equaled either and we all know Dorian has better balance & proportion and he's more complete ;) so you still lose ;D
-
ND and you love quotes.....here's one for you from Neo's quotes:
Mike Matarazzo – Flex, January 1999
“I think this creature from another planet, Ronnie Coleman, is going to be number one for a while. I think that, in the shape he was in, he would have beaten Dorian Yates. Ronnie has every single attribute it takes to be the greatest bodybuilder who ever lived.”
Is a recognized bodybuilding personality (pro bodybuilder) saying that Ronnie Coleman at his best would beat Dorian Yates? Yes he is.
You see people's opinions on the subject can vary and it shows that there are A LOT of people out there that think like this.
What makes your opinion the undisputable correct one?
Could Dorian beat Ronnie? I don't think so and at least I can support my opinion with pics:
I never once claimed my opinion was ' undisputable' ( sic ) you're reduced to making up lies now , when you find that quote from me feel free to share and I'll apologize ;)
Flex Magazine Jan 1999
Ernie Taylor
" When I saw Ronnie Coleman backstage before the prejudging , it was looking at ' three-D ' again. He looked fantastic. But I think if Dorian ( Yates ) were competing he would have won the show . "
works both ways ;)
-
You're treading in Hulkster territory with the fuck what everyone else says
Nope, its not fuck what everyone else says. I just see it a bit differently.
All I'm saying is: Ronnie was drier in 98, but is that enough to top his 99 physique?
Let's suppose it is, would that make his 99 conditioning off? I don't see looking at the pics.
-
Nope, its not fuck what everyone else says. I just see it a bit differently.
All I'm saying is: Ronnie was drier in 98, but is that enough to top his 99 physique?
Let's suppose it is, would that make his 99 conditioning off? I don't see looking at the pics.
drier and HARDER stop omitting that part as well and yes it is enough to top it especially considering the general consensus among the experts is his lightest showings are considered his best
-
stop lying. All the quotes you've posted either came from before Ronnie's prime or only compare specific body parts - not best physique
Neo is a LIAR this my friend I believe is from 2009 ;)
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.
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.
PRIME-TIME Neo these were from after he started winning Sandows , please.... you make yourself look like a fool when you are reduced to making things up
-
I never once claimed my opinion was ' undisputable' ( sic ) you're reduced to making up lies now , when you find that quote from me feel free to share and I'll apologize ;)
Flex Magazine Jan 1999
Ernie Taylor
" When I saw Ronnie Coleman backstage before the prejudging , it was looking at ' three-D ' again. He looked fantastic. But I think if Dorian ( Yates ) were competing he would have won the show . "
works both ways ;)
I never once claimed my opinion was ' undisputable' ( sic ) you're reduced to making up lies now , when you find that quote from me feel free to share and I'll apologize ;)
You never claimed you opinion was undisputable, but that is the impression you put off. I wasn't trying to say you claimed it.
Flex Magazine Jan 1999
Ernie Taylor
" When I saw Ronnie Coleman backstage before the prejudging , it was looking at ' three-D ' again. He looked fantastic. But I think if Dorian ( Yates ) were competing he would have won the show . "[/b]
works both ways ;)
Exactly, it can work both ways. That is what I was trying to show you, but let's play your game here:
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"Many experts", does this include all the experts and judges you claim know and apply the criteria that would supposedly have Dorian beat Ronnie?
According to them a top Ronnie beats Dorian.
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
http://www.flexonline.com.au/216.html
Wait a minute, I thought every expert on the bb scene said Ronnie's best was either 98 or 2001 according to you?
As you see opinions can vary.
Lonnie Teper - MD, December 2005
"I've always said that it's too hard to compare athletes of different eras (then he names a few Mr. Olympias including Dorian). Still, it's hard to imagine that anybody who's ever stepped on a bodybuilding stage could have beaten Coleman. So I reserve the right to change my mind on this one. No offense to the rest of the champs - you were/are all truly amazing physique athletes - but Coleman has really taken it to the next level, as all magnificent conquerors do."
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
More "experts" saying Ronnie would beat Dorian.
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
I guess the whole "Dorian always had better conditioning with bigger size than Ronnie" idea you claim is not really so to some other people.
Oh yes ND, it can work both ways........ ;)
-
Flex Magazine Jan 1999
Ernie Taylor
" When I saw Ronnie Coleman backstage before the prejudging , it was looking at ' three-D ' again. He looked fantastic. But I think if Dorian ( Yates ) were competing he would have won the show . "
quote is from the 98 Mr Olympia, before the 01 ASC and 03 Mr Olympia which many claim are Ronnie's peak
-
You never claimed you opinion was undisputable, but that is the impression you put off. I wasn't trying to say you claimed it.
Exactly, it can work both ways. That is what I was trying to show you, but let's play your game here:
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"Many experts", does this include all the experts and judges you claim know and apply the criteria that would supposedly have Dorian beat Ronnie?
According to them a top Ronnie beats Dorian.
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
http://www.flexonline.com.au/216.html
Wait a minute, I thought every expert on the bb scene said Ronnie's best was either 98 or 2001 according to you?
As you see opinions can vary.
Lonnie Teper - MD, December 2005
"I've always said that it's too hard to compare athletes of different eras (then he names a few Mr. Olympias including Dorian). Still, it's hard to imagine that anybody who's ever stepped on a bodybuilding stage could have beaten Coleman. So I reserve the right to change my mind on this one. No offense to the rest of the champs - you were/are all truly amazing physique athletes - but Coleman has really taken it to the next level, as all magnificent conquerors do."
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
More "experts" saying Ronnie would beat Dorian.
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
I guess the whole "Dorian always had better conditioning with bigger size than Ronnie" idea you claim is not really so to some other people.
Oh yes ND, it can work both ways........ ;)
You never claimed you opinion was undisputable, but that is the impression you put off. I wasn't trying to say you claimed it.
you NEVER typed that was the impression you got , I can only go by what you type it's not my fault you can't type what you mean
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
hahahaha this hurts you because.............wher e is 1999? ;) old quote NOTHING new , nothing original , been addressed already
"Many experts", does this include all the experts and judges you claim know and apply the criteria that would supposedly have Dorian beat Ronnie?
According to them a top Ronnie beats Dorian.
Again it works both ways , it's a subjective opinion you think this trumps what Ronnie typed? I beg to differ
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
who the fuck is John Plummer? ??? ??? it was an awesome physique has nothing to do with the topic at hand , and go learn what the word possibly means
Wait a minute, I thought every expert on the bb scene said Ronnie's best was either 98 or 2001 according to you?
As you see opinions can vary.
NEVER said every expert you're lying again and don't blame me for your faults .
b]Lonnie Teper - MD, December 2005
"I've always said that it's too hard to compare athletes of different eras (then he names a few Mr. Olympias including Dorian). Still, it's hard to imagine that anybody who's ever stepped on a bodybuilding stage could have beaten Coleman. So I reserve the right to change my mind on this one. No offense to the rest of the champs - you were/are all truly amazing physique athletes - but Coleman has really taken it to the next level, as all magnificent conquerors do."
[/b]
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
More "experts" saying Ronnie would beat Dorian.
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
Due you're really reaching with these quotes where does it say 1998/2001 isn't his best? where?
go learn what subjective means when you're looking up the word possibly ;) and I've never denied it's popular opinion that people think Ronnie would beat Dorian or he's the best , it doesn't make it a fact
I guess the whole "Dorian always had better conditioning with bigger size than Ronnie" idea you claim is not really so to some other people.
Oh yes ND, it can work both ways........ ;)
who said it in specific relation to Dorian? who?
-
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.
means nothing. Ronnie is not a bodybuilding expert, and he was being humble which everybody knows.
I'm still waiting for these quotes from bodybuilding experts that compare them at their best and say Dorian would have won
-
quote is from the 98 Mr Olympia, before the 01 ASC and 03 Mr Olympia which many claim are Ronnie's peak
I don't care when they're from you just got caught in another lie by claiming they were all before he hit his peak or prime or any other semantic game you wanna play , and they're NOT
Weider thinks 98 was his best , as does Shawn Ray , as does Phil Heath as does Troy Alves , as does Shawn Perine , the quotes were from 2009 where Ronnie says 98 was his best Olympia , which if I'm not mistaken ( and I rarely am ;D ) is past 2003 , 2001 , 1999 , 1998 ;)
once again Neo when you step to me bring your A-game or go back to the minor leagues kid ;)
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best. psssstttttt post 1998 in fact 2000 ;)
-
means nothing. Ronnie is not a bodybuilding expert, and he was being humble which everybody knows.
I'm still waiting for these quotes from bodybuilding experts that compare them at their best and say Dorian would have won
The greatest bodybuilder of all-time , the guy with the most Olympia and most pro wins is NOT a bodybuilding expert LMMFAO I've heard it all now ;D
and everyone knows he was being humble? ( ad populum anyone? ) no we all know he was being honest
-
..
-
I don't care when they're from you just got caught in another lie by claiming they were all before he hit his peak or prime or any other semantic game you wanna play , and they're NOT
where did I lie? Nowhere did you show me quotes saying a prime Dorian would beat a prime Ronnie. All you did was post quotes comparing a peak Dorian in mid-stride to a Ronnie who just started winning the big one. It would be like me comparing 03 Ronnie to 92 Dorian and defending my comparison by saying "hey, Dorian was already Mr. Olympia. So it's fair game."
Weider thinks 98 was his best , as does Shawn Ray , as does Phil Heath as does Troy Alves , as does Shawn Perine , the quotes were from 2009 where Ronnie says 98 was his best Olympia , which if I'm not mistaken ( and I rarely am) is past 2003 , 2001 , 1999 , 1998
epic leaving out facts. ::) Phil Heath says the 03 Mr Olympia was Ronnie's best and Shawn Perine mentions the 01 ASC
Phil Heath - Dexter Jackson Classic Superstar Seminar
"98, yeah, was incredible but I remember sitting there buying [the 03 Mr. Olympia] PPV and watching that with my college friends and, literally, on the top of the damn chair, talking about "man, did you see that?" Did you just see what happened?"
"For me, 98 and 03, but 03 was retarded. Ask Jay. He'll tell you. Dude just came off a damn spaceship."
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.”
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.[/b] psssstttttt post 1998 in fact 2000
lol, so you admit this quote came before the 01 ASC and 03 Mr Olympia?
-
The greatest bodybuilder of all-time , the guy with the most Olympia and most pro wins is NOT a bodybuilding expert LMMFAO I've heard it all now
and everyone knows he was being humble? ( ad populum anyone? ) no we all know he was being honest
brah, that's not argument ad populum. It's the mutual consensus reached by any rational adult who follows this sport. Ronnie has always been humble in his interviews and acceptance speeches, and attributes all his wins to God. If Dorian is the defending champ, then of course Ronnie is gonna say Dorian would win b/c it's the will of God
-
where did I lie? Nowhere did you show me quotes saying a prime Dorian would beat a prime Ronnie. All you did was post quotes comparing a peak Dorian in mid-stride to a Ronnie who just started winning the big one. It would be like me comparing 03 Ronnie to 92 Dorian and defending my comparison by saying "hey, Dorian was already Mr. Olympia. So it's fair game."
epic leaving out facts. ::) Phil Heath says the 03 Mr Olympia was Ronnie's best and Shawn Perine mentions the 01 ASC
Phil Heath - Dexter Jackson Classic Superstar Seminar
"98, yeah, was incredible but I remember sitting there buying [the 03 Mr. Olympia] PPV and watching that with my college friends and, literally, on the top of the damn chair, talking about "man, did you see that?" Did you just see what happened?"
"For me, 98 and 03, but 03 was retarded. Ask Jay. He'll tell you. Dude just came off a damn spaceship."
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.”
lol, so you admit this quote came before the 01 ASC and 03 Mr Olympia?
where did I lie? Nowhere did you show me quotes saying a prime Dorian would beat a prime Ronnie. All you did was post quotes comparing a peak Dorian in mid-stride to a Ronnie who just started winning the big one. It would be like me comparing 03 Ronnie to 92 Dorian and defending my comparison by saying "hey, Dorian was already Mr. Olympia. So it's fair game."
Right here stop lying. All the quotes you've posted either came from before Ronnie's prime or only compare specific body parts - not best physique
I will correct you again NO not all the quotes I posted came from either before his prime or compared parts , you're a liar and proven so once again.
And your analogy is weak and why? many consider Ronnie's first Olympia his best ( I provided numerous examples ) NO ONE considers 1992 Dorians. and Ronnie's quote from from 2009 Neo I mean get serious.
epic leaving out facts. ::) Phil Heath says the 03 Mr Olympia was Ronnie's best and Shawn Perine mentions the 01 ASC
Phil Heath - Dexter Jackson Classic Superstar Seminar
"98, yeah, was incredible but I remember sitting there buying [the 03 Mr. Olympia] PPV and watching that with my college friends and, literally, on the top of the damn chair, talking about "man, did you see that?" Did you just see what happened?"
"For me, 98 and 03, but 03 was retarded. Ask Jay. He'll tell you. Dude just came off a damn spaceship."
No facts left out , Heath said 98 , as did Alves as did Ronnie , as did Weider , as did Ray as have others and I know Shawn mentions 01 as he does 1998 , Ronnie's peak in many eyes the Priest quote is from 2000 POST 1998/1999 , The Ernie Taylor quote is from 1999 , the Ronnie quote is 2009 , you're not being honest or accurate
-
brah, that's not argument ad populum. It's the mutual consensus reached by any rational adult who follows this sport. Ronnie has always been humble in his interviews and acceptance speeches, and attributes all his wins to God. If Dorian is the defending champ, then of course Ronnie is gonna say Dorian would win b/c it's the will of God
No it's an appeal to numbers just like your quotes and the best part is you're speaking for a LOT of people , you're taking liberties
and I really do enjoy correcting you ;D
Ronnie has always been humble in his interviews and acceptance speeches, and attributes all his wins to God.
THOUGHTS ON LOSING TO SCHLIERKAMP AT THE 2002 GNC SHOW OF STRENGTH:
It was nothing more than a way to create interest in the sport. No reigning Mr. Olympia had lost a show like this before. The goal was to shake things up, set the stage for a three-way battle [with Cutler and Schlierkamp] at the 2003 Mr. Olympia. There was no way in the world that I should have lost the GNC. Just look at the photos. I was victimized by the system
real humble ( and spare me he was just being honest that's besides the point , he didn't take the highroad or he wasn't be humble )
For Jay to get what I have [the Mr. Olympia title], I think he needs to be reborn and pray for better genetics."
Mr Humble?
Jay must be on crack to think he could ever beat me
where is this praise to God? ???
Being white sure helped Jay win the Olympia
Do I really need to continue? should I embarrass you any further? don't presume to interpret what Ronnie was thinking , he's been pretty consistent with his feelings on Dorian , who after all beat him and everyone for eons
-
Right here stop lying. All the quotes you've posted either came from before Ronnie's prime or only compare specific body parts - not best physique
I will correct you again NO not all the quotes I posted came from either before his prime or compared parts , you're a liar and proven so once again.
where are the quotes comparing Dorian to an 01 ASC or 03 Mr Olympia Ronnie? ???
you can't compare Dorian and Ronnie at their peak if the quotes you use came BEFORE Ronnie's peak, lol
No facts left out , Heath said 98 , as did Alves as did Ronnie , as did Weider , as did Ray as have others and I know Shawn mentions 01 as he does 1998 , Ronnie's peak in many eyes the Priest quote is from 2000 POST 1998/1999 , The Ernie Taylor quote is from 1999 , the Ronnie quote is 2009 , you're not being honest or accurate
looks like somebody needs to go back to grade school and learn what grammatical conjunctions are.
but: indicates a contrast or exception
Heath said 98 was good but 03 was even better
and stop with this nonsense about using quotes from 98. Funny how most bodybuilding experts say Ronnie's peak was after 98 and Flex's poll for best back changed after 98, yet according to you Ronnie didn't improve ::)
-
THOUGHTS ON LOSING TO SCHLIERKAMP AT THE 2002 GNC SHOW OF STRENGTH:
It was nothing more than a way to create interest in the sport. No reigning Mr. Olympia had lost a show like this before. The goal was to shake things up, set the stage for a three-way battle [with Cutler and Schlierkamp] at the 2003 Mr. Olympia. There was no way in the world that I should have lost the GNC. Just look at the photos. I was victimized by the system
way to go, brah! I said acceptance speeches and you post a quote after he lost ::)
-
where are the quotes comparing Dorian to an 01 ASC or 03 Mr Olympia Ronnie? ???
you can't compare Dorian and Ronnie at their peak if the quotes you use came BEFORE Ronnie's peak, lol
looks like somebody needs to go back to grade school and learn what grammatical conjunctions are.
but: indicates a contrast or exception
Heath said 98 was good but 03 was even better.
where are the quotes comparing Dorian to an 01 ASC or 03 Mr Olympia Ronnie? ???
you can't compare Dorian and Ronnie at their peak if the quotes you use came BEFORE Ronnie's peak, lol
looks like somebody needs to go back to grade school and learn what grammatical conjunctions are.
Where are the quotes comparing Ronnie to Dorian 1993 precontest or Dorian 1995 precontest , your semantic games are always destined to fail. And I just posted a score of people who feel 1998 was his peak so they're NOT before his peak and in fact Ronnie said 1998 was his peak so you're no where
Heath said 98 was good but 03 was even better.
he didn't say 98 was good , he said for me 98 and 03 but even entertaining for a moment he omitted 98 and said 03 this changes what? Ronnie said 98 THREE times , Weider , Alves , Ray , so your still fucked
looks like somebody needs to go back to grade school and learn what grammatical conjunctions
okay Mr Verbatim ;)
-
way to go, brah! I said acceptance speeches and you post a quote after he lost ::)
are you blind? seriously?
Ronnie has always been humble in his interviews and acceptance speeches
you said humble in his INTERVIEWS and acceptance speeches , I posted clear evidence per your criteria of INTERVIEWS and speeches that he was less than humble
kid you're getting lost here ;)
lol I said in his acceptance speeches AND HIS FUCKING INTERVIEWS lmfao dumbass
-
Where are the quotes comparing Ronnie to Dorian 1993 precontest or Dorian 1995 precontest , your semantic games are always destined to fail. And I just posted a score of people who feel 1998 was his peak so they're NOT before his peak and in fact Ronnie said 1998 was his peak so you're no where
lol, quotes that say Ronnie has the best physique ever are all inclusive - they don't need to specify which version of Dorian they are comparing to
he didn't say 98 was good , he said for me 98 and 03 but even entertaining for a moment he omitted 98 and said 03 this changes what? Ronnie said 98 THREE times , Weider , Alves , Ray , so your still fucked
not really. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just b/c Joe Weider may feel Ronnie in 98 had the greatest physique of all-time doesn't mean another guy who thinks 98 Ronnie would lose to Dorian also thinks 98 is Ronnie's prime ;)
-
are you blind? seriously?
hahaha, the quote you posted is right after his loss. That is the exact opposite of an acceptance speech, lol
-
hahaha, the quote you posted is right after his loss. That is the exact opposite of an acceptance speech, lol
I know when it was and so do you but you but you also included INTERVIEWS Neo it's gotta suck being you always trying to find a way out of your own stupidity ;D
-
sure they do what else are you gonna say? you can't counter Ronnie saying he wouldn't beat Dorian no matter what word game you try
the general consensus is 1998 was his best Olympia showing and 01 his best showing ever. what matters is the quotes were NOT before his prime which you claimed so in the end Neo is walking down fail stree all alone once again
lol, sure. Rather than continuing this retarded argument, I'll just let your words stand and others can pass judgment.
-
lol, quotes that say Ronnie has the best physique ever are all inclusive - they don't need to specify which version of Dorian they are comparing to
not really. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just b/c Joe Weider may feel Ronnie in 98 had the greatest physique of all-time doesn't mean another guy who thinks 98 Ronnie would lose to Dorian also thinks 98 is Ronnie's prime ;)
lol, quotes that say Ronnie has the best physique ever are all inclusive - they don't need to specify which version of Dorian they are comparing to
sure they do ::) what else are you gonna say? you can't counter Ronnie saying he wouldn't beat Dorian no matter what word game you try
not really. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just b/c Joe Weider may feel Ronnie in 98 had the greatest physique of all-time doesn't mean another guy who thinks 98 Ronnie would lose to Dorian also thinks 98 is Ronnie's prime ;)
the general consensus is 1998 was his best Olympia showing and 01 his best showing ever. what matters is the quotes were NOT before his prime which you claimed so in the end Neo is walking down fail stree all alone once again
-
lol, sure. Rather than continuing this retarded argument, I'll just let your words stand and others can pass judgment.
retarded argument? there is NO argument Ronnie's stated many times he couldn't touch Dorian , Check mate ;)
-
.....because his conditioning was NOT negligible it was noticeably off , just because you can't see it doesn't mean its not.
::) ::) ::)
bull fucking shit.
it wasn't noticably off it was almost identical if not MORE ripped in 99. thats why you can't see it. and he was 10 pounds bigger with quads so much more sliced that Lonnie Teper pointed them out specifically in his Ironman mag review of the contest. those that still have the magazine can verify.
hell, even McGough comments on how ripped ronnie was in 1999 in his article:
a good read, notice he feels 99>> 98
ND's savior and hero even says 1999> 1998
but he does prefer his AC look over either of them:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
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.
notice: Mcgough even points out that ronnie was more ripped and fuller than the year before.
notice: 1998 is NOT on his list. and for good reason.
he was much better in 99 .
and McGough realizes this. its right there in print.
and its driving ND nuts.
the article he wishes was never written. LOL
-
Peter McGough thinks 01 ASC > 99 Mr O > 98 Mr O
but ND claims 98 is Ronnie's prime ::)
-
Peter McGough thinks 01 ASC > 99 Mr O > 98 Mr O
but ND claims 98 is Ronnie's prime ::)
yup. and these morons are spending pages arguing that it is. even against all the videos and pics that show otherwise. and their hero McGough's opinon. LOL
::)
-
::) ::) ::)
bull fucking shit.
it wasn't noticably off it was almost identical. and he was 10 pounds bigger with quads so much more sliced that Lonnie Teper pointed them out specifically in his Ironman mag review of the contest. those that still have the magazine can verify.
hell, even McGough comments on how ripped ronnie was in 1999 in his article:
a good read, notice he feels 99>> 98
ND's savior and hero even says 1999> 1998
but he does prefer his AC look over either of them:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
notice: Mcgough even points out that ronnie was more ripped and fuller than the year before.
notice: 1998 is NOT on his list. and for good reason.
he was much better in 99 .
and McGough realizes this. its right there in print.
and its driving ND nuts.
the article he wishes was never written. LOL
bull fucking shit.
it wasn't noticably off it was almost identical. and he was 10 pounds bigger with quads so much more sliced that Lonnie Teper pointed them out specifically in his Ironman mag review of the contest. those that still have the magazine can verify.
hell, even McGough comments on how ripped ronnie was in 1999 in his article:
a good read, notice he feels 99>> 98
ND's savior and hero even says 1999> 1998
but he does prefer his AC look over either of them:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
bull-fucking-shit
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
Ouch that's gotta hurt , watch this dumbass
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
dam that's gonna leave a mark ;D
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
yeah buddy ;)
Special Ed , Ronnie what was your best Olympia and why? Ronnie Coleman : I would have to say my first because my conditioning was spot-on for that show.
DAMN it sucks to be you ;)
-
bull-fucking-shit
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
Ouch that's gotta hurt , watch this dumbass
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
dam that's gonna leave a mark ;D
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
yeah buddy ;)
Special Ed , Ronnie what was your best Olympia and why? Ronnie Coleman : I would have to say my first because my conditioning was spot-on for that show.
DAMN it sucks to be you ;)
Lol.
Well, to be fair you are arguing with the guy who had "2 independant sources" Neither of which were Bizzy, Fucking lol. :D
-
Peter McGough thinks 01 ASC > 99 Mr O > 98 Mr O
but ND claims 98 is Ronnie's prime ::)
I said it was his prime Olympia showing kid ;)
01 was his best though
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.
McGough thinks this well ;)
First, I didn't disagree with Peter McGough's claim that Ronnie was never harder or drier than Dorian.
again your quote
I'm sorry but Peter McGough is an idiot if he thinks 01 ASC Ronnie never surpassed Dorian's conditioning.
you think this or thought this ;D
-
Lol.
Well, to be fair you are arguing with the guy who had "2 independant sources" Neither of which were Bizzy, Fucking lol. :D
Hahahahahahah textbook backfire moronic Hulkster at his best
-
yup. and these morons are spending pages arguing that it is. even against all the videos and pics that show otherwise. and their hero McGough's opinon. LOL
::)
McGough's opinion , thanks for playing dumbass
-
ND why are you arguing that McGough says that 98 is Ronnie's prime olympia appearence when his article explicitly singles out 1999 as his best olympia showing..
::)
you are ignoring your hero's own words because they don't match your agenda.
how stupid. ::)
-
McGough's opinion , thanks for playing dumbass
not according to his article buddy.
read it again.
::)
no matter what you say ND, the fact is that McGough has specifically and directly documented in his article that in his opinion, 1999 is much better than 1998.
sorry you don't agree with him, and you think the visuals are faked, but its true.
and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
:P
-
Ronnie ftw.
-
so i hear that Yates was better than this ronnie guy
-
so i hear that Yates was better than this ronnie guy
nah, other way around. try to keep up.
-
ND why are you arguing that McGough says that 98 is Ronnie's prime olympia appearence when his article explicitly singles out 1999 as his best olympia showing..
::)
you are ignoring your hero's own words because they don't match your agenda.
how stupid. ::)
MORON I never said McGough claimed 98 was his prime Olympia appearance you dummy , I said he was harder & drier I NEVER ONCE claimed McGough said 98 was his best Olympia appearance , I know you have severe comprehension problems but try and pay attention stupid.
Ignoring YOUR own hero's words because they don't match YOUR agenda like when Ronnie said his best Olympia was 1998 and that he couldn't beat Dorian , ouch that's gotta hurt dumbass ;)
Hulkster = dumb hypocrite
-
Hulkster, I read your interview and NO WHERE does he claim 99 was ronnies best appearance. He claims he preffered 2001 over 99, and that he was fuller in 99. No where does he say that 99 was his best olympia. Again, you fail.
-
not according to his article buddy.
read it again.
::)
no matter what you say ND, the fact is that McGough has specifically and directly documented in his article that in his opinion, 1999 is much better than 1998.
sorry you don't agree with him, and you think the visuals are faked, but its true.
and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
:P
He never once said he was much better you moron , in fact he said MANY times his conditioning in 98 was much better in fact ;) and in the end you FAIL because he says 2001 is his best , you have NOTHING as usual
sorry YOU don't agree with him , and we proved YOUR screencaps were sharpened
and this is NOTHING YOU can do about it.
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
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.
-
b] No where does he say that 99 was his best olympia. Again, you fail[/b].
LOL duh!
that was the whole point of the article you dummy! ::)
the whole idea was to highlight the best Mr. Olympia presentations.
1999 was on the list. 1998 wasn't.
hence 1999> 1998 in McGough's opinion
holy shit man. :-\
I knew nuthuggers were dumb, but not this dumb.
thanks for surprising me yet again. :P
-
LOL duh!
that was the whole point of the article you dummy! ::)
the whole idea was to highlight the best Mr. Olympia presentations.
1999 was on the list. 1998 wasn't.
hence 1999> 1998 in McGough's opinion
holy shit man. :-\
I knew nuthuggers were dumb, but not this dumb.
thanks for surprising me yet again. :P
See this is where you end up looking like a moron , he liked 99 better yest emphatically states 98s conditioning was better , and to boot he says 01 kicks 99's ass , so you LOSE
hence 2001>1999 in McGough's opinion
he liked 99 better because Ronnie didn't have bitch-tits ;)
-
He never once said he was much better you moron
holy shit you are as dumb as shockwave!
I can't believe what I am reading here..
ND, if 1999 made the list and 1998 did not, then by definition Mcgough feels that 1999 was better than 1998. otherwise 1998 would be on there and 99 would not.
understand? my 5 year old nephew could understand this and you morons can't.. :'(
I can't make it any more simple for you people ::).
you are even more clueless than I though. and that is really saying something.. :-\
-
holy shit you are as dumb as shockwave!
I can't believe what I am reading here..
ND, if 1999 made the list and 1998 did not, then by definition Mcgough feels that 1999 was better than 1998. otherwise 1998 would be on there and 99 would not.
understand? my 5 year old nephew could understand this and you morons can't.. :'(
I can't make it any more simple for you people ::).
you are even more clueless than I though. and that is really saying something.. :-\
See above dummy , 2001 is better you still lose moron
you're claiming McGough's right NOW after denying him for years lol hypocrite dumbass
2001 kicks 1999's ass you still lose , and he NEVER once said he was ' much better ' in 99 like you claimed , just like he didn't put Ronnie in first like you wrongly claimed before because they were in chronological order
-
you NEVER typed that was the impression you got , I can only go by what you type it's not my fault you can't type what you mean
hahahaha this hurts you because.............wher e is 1999? ;) old quote NOTHING new , nothing original , been addressed already
Again it works both ways , it's a subjective opinion you think this trumps what Ronnie typed? I beg to differ
who the fuck is John Plummer? ??? ??? it was an awesome physique has nothing to do with the topic at hand , and go learn what the word possibly means
NEVER said every expert you're lying again and don't blame me for your faults .
Due you're really reaching with these quotes where does it say 1998/2001 isn't his best? where?
go learn what subjective means when you're looking up the word possibly ;) and I've never denied it's popular opinion that people think Ronnie would beat Dorian or he's the best , it doesn't make it a fact
who said it in specific relation to Dorian? who?
hahahaha this hurts you because.............wher e is 1999? ;) old quote NOTHING new , nothing original , been addressed already
Again it works both ways , it's a subjective opinion you think this trumps what Ronnie typed? I beg to differ
I wasn't trying to show Ronnie's best is 1999 with this quote, just that to many "experts" a top Ronnie would beat Dorian. In this case its a 1998 Ronnie. I believe these experts would know the criteria you claim would make Dorian the winner, but to them Ronnie would win.
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
who the fuck is John Plummer? ??? ??? it was an awesome physique has nothing to do with the topic at hand , and go learn what the word possibly means
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
I think that with this he means a 2003 Ronnie would possibly be the best. Again, some people think Ronnie's best was 1998, others 2001, others 2003 and others 1999.
Due you're really reaching with these quotes where does it say 1998/2001 isn't his best?
Again, I wasn't trying to "prove" Ronnie's best was 1999 with these quotes. I was trying to show thay many of your beloved experts believe Ronnie is better than Dorian.
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
By this he says Ronnie is the best. "No one comes close", that includes Dorian Yates.
I've never denied it's popular opinion that people think Ronnie would beat Dorian or he's the best , it doesn't make it a fact
But according to you its a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie according to the judging criteria?
So when experts say Ronnie would beat Dorian its popular opinion, but when others say Dorian would win its not?
I think these "experts" know what the judging criteria is. Are you now saying they don't know it?
who said it in specific relation to Dorian? who?
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
He said: "the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history", which includes Dorian since he was a past Mr. Olympia.
-
:o
-
and he NEVER once said he was ' much better ' in 99 like you claimed
wrong.
if you understood his article at all, you would understand that he thinks 99 is much better, both based on the description he gives (saying that ronnie was more ripped and fuller than the year before just as the pics and videos verify) and by the fact that your precious 1998 was nowhere to be found.
as far as Olympia physiques go, McGough feels 1999 ronnie was the best.
so as far as you going on about 1998, well, you can kiss his ass. :P
-
you're claiming McGough's right NOW after denying him for years lol hypocrite dumbass
no, I am claiming that Mcgough is right because his opinion is corroborated in this case by all pics and videos. many things he has stated over the years is not.
you have spent the last 4 years claiming he is right even when all pics and vids show the exact opposite of what he says, and yet now you disagree with him..
you make no sense at all. ::)
-
people complain that dorian's calves were out of proportion, but i think they look good, at least from the front
his lats, however, are massively disproportionate, especially in the FLS; they look ridiculous with nothing balancing them out
-
1993... best physique ever.
-
I wasn't trying to show Ronnie's best is 1999 with this quote, just that to many "experts" a top Ronnie would beat Dorian. In this case its a 1998 Ronnie. I believe these experts would know the criteria you claim would make Dorian the winner, but to them Ronnie would win.
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
I think that with this he means a 2003 Ronnie would possibly be the best. Again, some people think Ronnie's best was 1998, others 2001, others 2003 and others 1999.
Again, I wasn't trying to "prove" Ronnie's best was 1999 with these quotes. I was trying to show thay many of your beloved experts believe Ronnie is better than Dorian.
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
By this he says Ronnie is the best. "No one comes close", that includes Dorian Yates.
But according to you its a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie according to the judging criteria?
So when experts say Ronnie would beat Dorian its popular opinion, but when others say Dorian would win its not?
I think these "experts" know what the judging criteria is. Are you now saying they don't know it?
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
He said: "the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history", which includes Dorian since he was a past Mr. Olympia.
I wasn't trying to show Ronnie's best is 1999 with this quote, just that to many "experts" a top Ronnie would beat Dorian. In this case its a 1998 Ronnie. I believe these experts would know the criteria you claim would make Dorian the winner, but to them Ronnie would win.
I know you weren't that's besides the point , it doesn't help your case. You'll get NO argument from me that more people think Ronnie would beat Dorian , it's a popular opinion it doesn't make it fact
John Plummer – Flexonline 2003 Mr. Olympia Contest Review
"The long-awaited triple showdown between Coleman, Jay Cutler and Günter Schlierkamp failed to materialize as the defending champion destroyed all-comers with possibly the most awesome physique ever seen on a bodybuilding stage."
I think that with this he means a 2003 Ronnie would possibly be the best. Again, some people think Ronnie's best was 1998, others 2001, others 2003 and others 1999.
You're quoting whom? who the fuck is John Plummer? ??? and the vast majority of experts feel 2001 is his best , and 1998 , a handful think 2003 and almost NONE think 1999
There is a very good reason why 2001 is considered his best and why almost no one mentions 1999
Tony Doherty - Heavy Muscle Radio (03-16-09)
"Ronnie is the best ever. No one even comes close."
By this he says Ronnie is the best. "No one comes close", that includes Dorian Yates.
But according to you its a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie according to the judging criteria?
So when experts say Ronnie would beat Dorian its popular opinion, but when others say Dorian would win its not?
I think these "experts" know what the judging criteria is. Are you now saying they don't know it?
Wow you keep cracking out all the heavy hitters huh? John Plummer now Tony Dorherty? what makes these guys experts by the way? most fucking competitors DO NOT know the judging criteria never mind your so called ' experts '
perfect example here is Chris Cormier asking why he didn't beat Jay and Lee in the symmetry rounds in contests
Since I have a better shape than these other guys, it seems obvious to me that I should have won the symmetry rounds if everyone had done their homework. But, somehow, Jay beat me in Columbus and Lee beat me in San Francisco.
Chris doesn't know all rounds are physique rounds this includes the symmetry round as well , so like I said most people don't know how contests are judged competitors , writers and experts alike
b]Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
[/b]
He said: "the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history", which includes Dorian since he was a past Mr. Olympia.
Well Flex is technically right because Ronnie was the heaviest Olympia winner with pretty good conditioning and he's specifically commenting on Ronnie's 2003 win , did Dorian ever compete at 287 pounds? NO
And Flex also claimed Ronnie was winning the 2006 Olympia after prejudging what does that say about his abilities? he also claimed he beat Ronnie in 1999? his opinion carry a lot of weight now? how about the ninja story? or the fact that if he didn't retire he would have owned a few of Ronnie's Sandows? I mean I can continue ? you'd be wise to avoid Flex as a reference lol
-
wrong.
if you understood his article at all, you would understand that he thinks 99 is much better, both based on the description he gives (saying that ronnie was more ripped and fuller than the year before just as the pics and videos verify) and by the fact that your precious 1998 was nowhere to be found.
as far as Olympia physiques go, McGough feels 1999 ronnie was the best.
so as far as you going on about 1998, well, you can kiss his ass. :P
wrong.
if you understood his article at all, you would understand that he thinks 99 is much better, both based on the description he gives (saying that ronnie was more ripped and fuller than the year before just as the pics and videos verify) and by the fact that your precious 1998 was nowhere to be found.
lmfao Hulkster drawing his own conclusions again , I'm still waiting for the part where he said he was ' much better ' in 99 where is it? ??? he never once said he was more ripped another LIE and the fact your precious 1999 is NO WHERE to be found when people mention Ronnie's best so you still lose
as far as Olympia physiques go, McGough feels 1999 ronnie was the best.
so as far as you going on about 1998, well, you can kiss his ass. :P
McGough feels 2001 and he was harder & drier in 1998 , as far as going on about 1999 well you can kiss his ass. ;)
-
no, I am claiming that Mcgough is right because his opinion is corroborated in this case by all pics and videos. many things he has stated over the years is not.
you have spent the last 4 years claiming he is right even when all pics and vids show the exact opposite of what he says, and yet now you disagree with him..
you make no sense at all. ::)
Now he's right , and he's right ONLY when it suits your presumed point of view , he's NOT right when he says Ronnie was NEVER harder & drier than Dorian , or 2001 is his best and he wasn't as hard or as dry in 99 as 98 BUT now ignorantly you claim he's right because you think he agrees with you and he doesn't
the pics , video and all the experts agree 2001 was Ronnie's best and NOT 1999 ;) McGough owns you
-
It doesn't matter what year was Ronnie's best. In 98 & 01 he achieved his driest condition. In 99 he was fuller than 98, but not as well-conditioned. If one prefers fullness to pure conditioning, then arguably 1999 was better. However, in terms of sheer conditioning, 99 was not his best.
03 was probably his most dominant win. He was simply huge and no one was even close. I attended the 03 Mr. O, and as soon as Ronnie walked out everyone was literally laughing at how incredibly freaky he looked. He wasn't human. However, his conditioning wasn't what it was in 98,99, or 01 -- it was still great though, especially considering his size.
No matter if one prefers the driest version of Coleman (98 or 01), a slightly fuller version (99), or the freakiest version (03), I am of the opinion that a peak Dorian would likely win. It would definitely be close, and I can't say anyone is wrong for thinking Ronnie would win. However, to say either would dominate the other is wrong (hence the idiocracy of Hulkster's bias)
The way I see it, Dorian would simply outsize a 98/01 Coleman; a 99 Coleman would be out-conditioned and outsized by Dorian; an 03 Coleman would obviously outsize Dorian, but would lose on conditioning. Of course it would be close. The only real advantage I see for Coleman is his biceps and his MM; Dorian has a real advantage in abs and calves. Other than that, only a razor's edge separates the two which is where the subjectivity applies. I think Dorian had a better combination of size + conditioning, though it simply depends on one's own preference (hence the never-ending debate).
-
If 98, 99, and 01 were on stage the judges would go like this...
3rd place 99
2nd place 98
1st place 01
99 here was 260, 98 he was 252 the 8 lbs he put on didn't make that much different. You could clearly see his conditioning wasn't on par with 98 conditioning.
I don't care about 01 gut during photo shoot. All that matters is on stage.
-
Where would you rank 03?
-
Hulkster owning the nuthuggers as usual... with style!
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2n70013.gif)
-
Hulkster owning the nuthuggers as usual... with style!
(http://i42.tinypic.com/2n70013.gif)
you bet!
they really don't pose much of a challenge though..
-
If 98, 99, and 01 were on stage the judges would go like this...
3rd place 99
2nd place 98
1st place 01
99 here was 260, 98 he was 252 the 8 lbs he put on didn't make that much different. You could clearly see his conditioning wasn't on par with 98 conditioning.
I don't care about 01 gut during photo shoot. All that matters is on stage.
I agree with everything you typed ( sorta he was 257 in 99 and 249 in 1998 )
-
you bet!
they really don't pose much of a challenge though..
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
;)
-
I know you weren't that's besides the point , it doesn't help your case. You'll get NO argument from me that more people think Ronnie would beat Dorian , it's a popular opinion it doesn't make it fact
You're quoting whom? who the fuck is John Plummer? ??? and the vast majority of experts feel 2001 is his best , and 1998 , a handful think 2003 and almost NONE think 1999
There is a very good reason why 2001 is considered his best and why almost no one mentions 1999
Wow you keep cracking out all the heavy hitters huh? John Plummer now Tony Dorherty? what makes these guys experts by the way? most fucking competitors DO NOT know the judging criteria never mind your so called ' experts '
perfect example here is Chris Cormier asking why he didn't beat Jay and Lee in the symmetry rounds in contests
Since I have a better shape than these other guys, it seems obvious to me that I should have won the symmetry rounds if everyone had done their homework. But, somehow, Jay beat me in Columbus and Lee beat me in San Francisco.
Chris doesn't know all rounds are physique rounds this includes the symmetry round as well , so like I said most people don't know how contests are judged competitors , writers and experts alike
Well Flex is technically right because Ronnie was the heaviest Olympia winner with pretty good conditioning and he's specifically commenting on Ronnie's 2003 win , did Dorian ever compete at 287 pounds? NO
And Flex also claimed Ronnie was winning the 2006 Olympia after prejudging what does that say about his abilities? he also claimed he beat Ronnie in 1999? his opinion carry a lot of weight now? how about the ninja story? or the fact that if he didn't retire he would have owned a few of Ronnie's Sandows? I mean I can continue ? you'd be wise to avoid Flex as a reference lol
I know you weren't that's besides the point , it doesn't help your case. You'll get NO argument from me that more people think Ronnie would beat Dorian , it's a popular opinion it doesn't make it fact
What makes it a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie?
You're quoting whom? who the fuck is John Plummer? ??? and the vast majority of experts feel 2001 is his best , and 1998 , a handful think 2003 and almost NONE think 1999
There is a very good reason why 2001 is considered his best and why almost no one mentions 1999
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
Here is one person that you like to quote a lot. I know he thinks 2001 AC was Ronnie's best ever, but he also thinks that Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia was better than his 1998 appearance. Something you say its not possible.
Wow you keep cracking out all the heavy hitters huh? John Plummer now Tony Dorherty? what makes these guys experts by the way? most fucking competitors DO NOT know the judging criteria never mind your so called ' experts '
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
Chris Lund (Paraphrased by Milos Sarcev) - European Flex, April 2004
"Chris Lund who I consider to be a great expert in our sport of bodybuilding, told me that Ronnie is simply the best bodybuilder he has ever seen, or photographed, and he has seen everybody, during the last 35 years."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=237938.0
perfect example here is Chris Cormier asking why he didn't beat Jay and Lee in the symmetry rounds in contests
Since I have a better shape than these other guys, it seems obvious to me that I should have won the symmetry rounds if everyone had done their homework. But, somehow, Jay beat me in Columbus and Lee beat me in San Francisco.
Chris doesn't know all rounds are physique rounds this includes the symmetry round as well , so like I said most people don't know how contests are judged competitors , writers and experts alike
Well Flex is technically right because Ronnie was the heaviest Olympia winner with pretty good conditioning and he's specifically commenting on Ronnie's 2003 win , did Dorian ever compete at 287 pounds? NO
And Flex also claimed Ronnie was winning the 2006 Olympia after prejudging what does that say about his abilities? he also claimed he beat Ronnie in 1999? his opinion carry a lot of weight now? how about the ninja story? or the fact that if he didn't retire he would have owned a few of Ronnie's Sandows? I mean I can continue ? you'd be wise to avoid Flex as a reference lol
Oh, but you do enjoy quoting Lee Priest, Samir Bannout, Paul Dillet, etc. :-\ I think Paul wasn't considered one of the brightest bodybuilders and you enjoy quoting him.
Is it that pro bodybuilder's opinions are valid when they fit your agenda, but not so much when they say Ronnie is the greatest?
Flex didn't just say Ronnie was the heaviest Olympia winner with "pretty good conditioning", he said Ronnie was the "the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history".
This goes against your believe that Dorian was the biggest with the best conditioning.
-
1993... best physique ever.
Best physique ever?
-
What makes it a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie?
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
Here is one person that you like to quote a lot. I know he thinks 2001 AC was Ronnie's best ever, but he also thinks that Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia was better than his 1998 appearance. Something you say its not possible.
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
Chris Lund (Paraphrased by Milos Sarcev) - European Flex, April 2004
"Chris Lund who I consider to be a great expert in our sport of bodybuilding, told me that Ronnie is simply the best bodybuilder he has ever seen, or photographed, and he has seen everybody, during the last 35 years."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=237938.0
Oh, but you do enjoy quoting Lee Priest, Samir Bannout, Paul Dillet, etc. :-\ I think Paul wasn't considered one of the brightest bodybuilders and you enjoy quoting him.
Is it that pro bodybuilder's opinions are valid when they fit your agenda, but not so much when they say Ronnie is the greatest?
Flex didn't just say Ronnie was the heaviest Olympia winner with "pretty good conditioning", he said Ronnie was the "the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history".
This goes against your believe that Dorian was the biggest with the best conditioning.
What makes it a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie?
I never said it was , I said it's a fact the criteria favors Yates and statistically Dorian would beat Ronnie ;)
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
Here is one person that you like to quote a lot. I know he thinks 2001 AC was Ronnie's best ever, but he also thinks that Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia was better than his 1998 appearance. Something you say its not possible.
I said almost none , please show me where I said ' not possible ' he could think Ronnie 99 was better because he didn't have bitch tits , and in fact the point still stands his conditioning in 99 wasn't as good you can argue all you'd like to the contrary it doesn't change it
98/01 are very similar with the exception of bitch tits 249lbs in 98 , 247lbs in 01 , and totally dried out and hard as nails unlike 99 take your pick it's among the reasons why most think either are his best and next to nobody says 99
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
Chris Lund (Paraphrased by Milos Sarcev) - European Flex, April 2004
"Chris Lund who I consider to be a great expert in our sport of bodybuilding, told me that Ronnie is simply the best bodybuilder he has ever seen, or photographed, and he has seen everybody, during the last 35 years."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=237938.0
already been addressed a billion times over , see popular opinion and you'll get no argument from me it's more popular that people believe Ronnie is better
Oh, but you do enjoy quoting Lee Priest, Samir Bannout, Paul Dillet, etc. :-\ I think Paul wasn't considered one of the brightest bodybuilders and you enjoy quoting him.
Is it that pro bodybuilder's opinions are valid when they fit your agenda, but not so much when they say Ronnie is the greatest?
I'm not trying to pass them off as facts , merely alternatives to a popular opinion , learn the difference. and I learn the difference between between subjective and non-subjective topics , who is the better of the two from two different eras is very subjective
Flex didn't just say Ronnie was the heaviest Olympia winner with "pretty good conditioning", he said Ronnie was the "the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history".
This goes against your believe that Dorian was the biggest with the best conditioning.
Again did you miss the part where I said technically he is? did Dorian ever compete at that body weight at an Olympia? NO and again you're bitching about Paul not being a bright guy and then have the audacity to post Flex Wheeler as a credible source? LMFAO
Shawn Perine Ironage May 9 2009
Although I prefer the Reeves-Zane-Paris physique, I still contend that there was never a more complete, muscular human being to walk the earth than Dorian on the day Kevin Horton shot him pre-93 O. I was never so shocked by a set of bodybuilding photos as when I went through that article. Even Ronnie at his best, lacked Dorian's hardness and certainly his calves.
Even Ronnie at his best lacked Dorian's hardness
Kevin Horoton GetBig Dec 30th
The photo is technically terrible, fortunately the physique is awesome.
I'd agree with Kris about Dorian showing up on stage how he looked a few weeks out. There are some shots of him at around 280 - 285 shredded. That conditioning has not been surpassed.
Dorian shredded at 280-285 lbs and that conditioning HAS NOT BEEN SURPASSED !
you think Flex Wheeler negates these people? or Dorian who said specifically on this subject he was better conditioned that Ronnie?
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.
or this ? Ronnie was NEVER drier or HARDER than Dorian
it's apparent Ronnie couldn't touch Dorian in terms of conditioning period. and I've always entertained that perhaps he did and I was doing this for argument's sake it would only be at his lightest 98/01 any fool with half a brain and see his conditioning while good in 03 was NO WHERE near it was in 01/98
-
Best physique ever?
Better than 99 BY FAR ;) in fact better than ANY Ronnie
-
Best physique ever?
Evidentley he thinks so. And I agree.
You and Hulkster, you guys think that pics are some sort of definitive evidence. Like shows are judged by pics, and that theyre judged by what YOU guys thinks looks best.
It has nothing to do with what you think looks best.
-
notice how dorian has to be in offseason size to even compete.
onstage, when dieted down, his arms always appeared too small for his huge torso
in offseason mode, it was not as noticable IMO. but then again he was larger overall so..
-
I never said it was , I said it's a fact the criteria favors Yates and statistically Dorian would beat Ronnie ;)
I said almost none , please show me where I said ' not possible ' he could think Ronnie 99 was better because he didn't have bitch tits , and in fact the point still stands his conditioning in 99 wasn't as good you can argue all you'd like to the contrary it doesn't change it
98/01 are very similar with the exception of bitch tits 249lbs in 98 , 247lbs in 01 , and totally dried out and hard as nails unlike 99 take your pick it's among the reasons why most think either are his best and next to nobody says 99
already been addressed a billion times over , see popular opinion and you'll get no argument from me it's more popular that people believe Ronnie is better
I'm not trying to pass them off as facts , merely alternatives to a popular opinion , learn the difference. and I learn the difference between between subjective and non-subjective topics , who is the better of the two from two different eras is very subjective
Again did you miss the part where I said technically he is? did Dorian ever compete at that body weight at an Olympia? NO and again you're bitching about Paul not being a bright guy and then have the audacity to post Flex Wheeler as a credible source? LMFAO
Shawn Perine Ironage May 9 2009
Although I prefer the Reeves-Zane-Paris physique, I still contend that there was never a more complete, muscular human being to walk the earth than Dorian on the day Kevin Horton shot him pre-93 O. I was never so shocked by a set of bodybuilding photos as when I went through that article. Even Ronnie at his best, lacked Dorian's hardness and certainly his calves.
Even Ronnie at his best lacked Dorian's hardness
Kevin Horoton GetBig Dec 30th
The photo is technically terrible, fortunately the physique is awesome.
I'd agree with Kris about Dorian showing up on stage how he looked a few weeks out. There are some shots of him at around 280 - 285 shredded. That conditioning has not been surpassed.
Dorian shredded at 280-285 lbs and that conditioning HAS NOT BEEN SURPASSED !
you think Flex Wheeler negates these people? or Dorian who said specifically on this subject he was better conditioned that Ronnie?
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.
or this ? Ronnie was NEVER drier or HARDER than Dorian
it's apparent Ronnie couldn't touch Dorian in terms of conditioning period. and I've always entertained that perhaps he did and I was doing this for argument's sake it would only be at his lightest 98/01 any fool with half a brain and see his conditioning while good in 03 was NO WHERE near it was in 01/98
I never said it was , I said it's a fact the criteria favors Yates and statistically Dorian would beat Ronnie ;)
Oh dear........you're splitting hairs here.
already been addressed a billion times over , see popular opinion and you'll get no argument from me it's more popular that people believe Ronnie is better
Is it popular opinion when it doesn't suit your agenda?
I'm not trying to pass them off as facts , merely alternatives to a popular opinion , learn the difference. and I learn the difference between between subjective and non-subjective topics , who is the better of the two from two different eras is very subjective
True, its all subjective opinion. But you were the first to start posting quotes from "experts" to prove Dorian is better than Ronnie. I was just trying to show some other expert opinion that say the opposite.
Again did you miss the part where I said technically he is? did Dorian ever compete at that body weight at an Olympia? NO and again you're bitching about Paul not being a bright guy and then have the audacity to post Flex Wheeler as a credible source? LMFAO
You didn't get the point of my original post did you?
Shawn Perine Ironage May 9 2009
Although I prefer the Reeves-Zane-Paris physique, I still contend that there was never a more complete, muscular human being to walk the earth than Dorian on the day Kevin Horton shot him pre-93 O. I was never so shocked by a set of bodybuilding photos as when I went through that article. Even Ronnie at his best, lacked Dorian's hardness and certainly his calves.
Even Ronnie at his best lacked Dorian's hardness
Kevin Horoton GetBig Dec 30th
The photo is technically terrible, fortunately the physique is awesome.
I'd agree with Kris about Dorian showing up on stage how he looked a few weeks out. There are some shots of him at around 280 - 285 shredded. That conditioning has not been surpassed.
Dorian shredded at 280-285 lbs and that conditioning HAS NOT BEEN SURPASSED !
you think Flex Wheeler negates these people? or Dorian who said specifically on this subject he was better conditioned that Ronnie?
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.
or this ? Ronnie was NEVER drier or HARDER than Dorian
it's apparent Ronnie couldn't touch Dorian in terms of conditioning period. and I've always entertained that perhaps he did and I was doing this for argument's sake it would only be at his lightest 98/01 any fool with half a brain and see his conditioning while good in 03 was NO WHERE near it was in 01/98
Wait a minute.....isn't this popular opinion too?
Isn't it popular opinion that Dorian was harder or drier than Ronnie? According to your logic about the quotes I posted, it is.
-
notice how dorian has to be in offseason size to even compete.
onstage, when dieted down, his arms always appeared too small for his huge torso
in offseason mode, it was not as noticable IMO. but then again he was larger overall so..
1995 would murder Ronnie ;)
-
Evidentley he thinks so. And I agree.
You and Hulkster, you guys think that pics are some sort of definitive evidence. Like shows are judged by pics, and that theyre judged by what YOU guys thinks looks best.
It has nothing to do with what you think looks best.
lol, you guys are the ones that started posting pics first. I was just responding with your own "tool", pics.
-
You and Hulkster, you guys think that pics are some sort of definitive evidence
truly spoken like someone who knows dorian is not as good, but needs an excuse to save him anyway..
well played.
can pics be misleading sometimes? of course they can.
but in the case of this debate, when you have literally hundreds of pics, videos etc its a little naive to try and believe its all wrong.
I will take the visual evidence of pics and videos over erroneous human opinion that can be motived by so many other things, most of which have nothing to do with the physique at hand.
eg. McGough is a fellow Englishman and good friend of Yates.
you think he is going to talk bad about his physique even if it is warranted? fuck no.
but the camera, well, the camera does not care.
-
Oh dear........you're splitting hairs here.
Is it popular opinion when it doesn't suit your agenda?
True, its all subjective opinion. But you were the first to start posting quotes from "experts" to prove Dorian is better than Ronnie. I was just trying to show some other expert opinion that say the opposite.
You didn't get the point of my original post did you?
Wait a minute.....isn't this popular opinion too?
Isn't it popular opinion that Dorian was harder or drier than Ronnie? According to your logic about the quotes I posted, it is.
man, you are totally owning ND here.
-
You didn't get the point of my original post did you?
as you saw from my posts earlier, they never get the point.. it goes right over their heads. :-\
-
Better than 99 BY FAR ;) in fact better than ANY Ronnie
:D
-
onstage, when dieted down, his arms always appeared too small for his huge torso
True. ;)
-
1995 would murder Ronnie ;)
nope:
-
nope:
Exactly and a little more:
-
truly spoken like someone who knows dorian is not as good, but needs an excuse to save him anyway..
well played.
can pics be misleading sometimes? of course they can.
but in the case of this debate, when you have literally hundreds of pics, videos etc its a little naive to try and believe its all wrong.
I will take the visual evidence of pics and videos over erroneous human opinion that can be motived by so many other things, most of which have nothing to do with the physique at hand.
eg. McGough is a fellow Englishman and good friend of Yates.
you think he is going to talk bad about his physique even if it is warranted? fuck no.
but the camera, well, the camera does not care.
What the fuck are you even blabering about?
Werent you owned hard enough with your sharpened pics and your "independant" sources? Lol.
Contests are not judged by pics, and you try and use them as irrefutable evidence, when its plainly clear two different people can look at those pics and have 2 entirely different opinions.
Youre opionion doesnt matter in the slightest, and even with youre little "hulkster world" where things are only turth when they support your viewpoint, it doesnt change the fact that your a delusional dbag.
-
True. ;)
LOL.
Dorian > Ronnie tough in that shot.
Dorian arms looking pretty damn decent there,
Ronnie with NO calves, fucked up abs and midsection, etc
-
as you saw from my posts earlier, they never get the point.. it goes right over their heads. :-\
Yes, I'm beginning to realize that.
-
Better than 99 BY FAR ;) in fact better than ANY Ronnie
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369257;image)
(http://ronniecoleman.com/images/rc_e.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369258;image)
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9248/post1554398fun0092.jpg)
:D
-
LOL.
Dorian > Ronnie tough in that shot.
Dorian arms looking pretty damn decent there,
Ronnie with NO calves, fucked up abs and midsection, etc
I don't see it like that.
Ronnie has a fucked up midsection because his abs are oddly shaped? How about Dorian's quads? Its the same. His left bicep is also shaped considerably different than his right.
Ronnie has no calves? How about Dorian's arms getting a bit overpowered by his back/torso?
Do you honestly believe Dorian is bigger than Ronnie in that pic despite his bodyweight?
Is his conditioning that much better?
Overall, Ronnie wins that shot.
-
:) ;) :D ;D >:( ;D
-
Oh dear........you're splitting hairs here.
Is it popular opinion when it doesn't suit your agenda?
True, its all subjective opinion. But you were the first to start posting quotes from "experts" to prove Dorian is better than Ronnie. I was just trying to show some other expert opinion that say the opposite.
You didn't get the point of my original post did you?
Wait a minute.....isn't this popular opinion too?
Isn't it popular opinion that Dorian was harder or drier than Ronnie? According to your logic about the quotes I posted, it is.
Oh dear........you're splitting hairs here.
no I'm not , don't make claims I never typed , there is an obvious difference between the two
Is it popular opinion when it doesn't suit your agenda?
No it's a popular opinion when many people agree on a subjective subject , especially on the topic of whose better from two differing eras
True, its all subjective opinion. But you were the first to start posting quotes from "experts" to prove Dorian is better than Ronnie. I was just trying to show some other expert opinion that say the opposite.
only in NON-SUBJECTIVE areas such as conditioning or balance. and again Flex is an ' expert ' lmao Paul is not the brightest yet you're hoisting Flex up as an ' expert ' lmfao
You didn't get the point of my original post did you?
apparently not
Wait a minute.....isn't this popular opinion too?
Isn't it popular opinion that Dorian was harder or drier than Ronnie? According to your logic about the quotes I posted, it is.
NOT really , where is all the quotes saying the opposite? where is the slew of quotes claiming Ronnie was specifically better than Dorian in hardness & dryness? and the subject of conditioning isn't subjective , either a guy is in shape or he's not , either one guy has a clear advantage in this area of he doesn't there's no guessing on this subject same with balance & proportion and symmetry , either one guys waist & hips are narrower than the other or they're not
-
as you saw from my posts earlier, they never get the point.. it goes right over their heads. :-\
yeah I'm still trying to get your point that Dorian lost the 1993 Mr Olympia ;)
-
Dorian good back
good calves
that's it
-
Dorian good back
good calves
that's it
But he's white. So those cracker white boys support him.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369257;image)
(http://ronniecoleman.com/images/rc_e.jpg)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369258;image)
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9248/post1554398fun0092.jpg)
:D
Dorian still wins ;)
-
Dorian good back
good calves
that's it
wow that's it ??? how did he win 6 Sandows? and it should have been real easy for Ronnie to beat him and he always failed , Gee I wonder why ???
-
wow that's it ??? how did he win 6 Sandows? and it should have been real easy for Ronnie to beat him and he always failed , Gee I wonder why ???
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369274;image)
What's ironic, is that Huckster, in reference to Yates' showing in that contest, asserted that Ronnie would be made to wonder why a Nationals level competitor would be on stage with the pros. What then, would that make Ronnie, being that he is getting supremely owned there?
-
What's ironic, is that Huckster, in reference to Yates' showing in that contest, asserted that Ronnie would be made to wonder why a Nationals level competitor would be on stage with the pros. What then, would that make Ronnie, being that he is getting supremely owned there?
If all he had was a back & calves why didn't anyone beat him? ;D Ronnie wasn't even close to Yates
-
no I'm not , don't make claims I never typed , there is an obvious difference between the two
No it's a popular opinion when many people agree on a subjective subject , especially on the topic of whose better from two differing eras
only in NON-SUBJECTIVE areas such as conditioning or balance. and again Flex is an ' expert ' lmao Paul is not the brightest yet you're hoisting Flex up as an ' expert ' lmfao
apparently not
NOT really , where is all the quotes saying the opposite? where is the slew of quotes claiming Ronnie was specifically better than Dorian in hardness & dryness? and the subject of conditioning isn't subjective , either a guy is in shape or he's not , either one guy has a clear advantage in this area of he doesn't there's no guessing on this subject same with balance & proportion and symmetry , either one guys waist & hips are narrower than the other or they're not
no I'm not , don't make claims I never typed , there is an obvious difference between the two
So you are not saying its a fact that Dorian would beat Ronnie, but you're saying its a fact Dorian meets the criteria better and thus would "statistically" beat Ronnie?
Yes, there is a big difference there :-\........splitting hairs to me.
again Flex is an ' expert ' lmao Paul is not the brightest yet you're hoisting Flex up as an ' expert ' lmfao
apparently not
You were the first to quote Paul, Samir, Lee Priest, etc. I was just trying to show how different pro bodybuilders have different opinions on the subject (Wheeler, Matarazzo, etc.). As you said, it can go either way.
No it's a popular opinion when many people agree on a subjective subject , especially on the topic of whose better from two differing eras
only in NON-SUBJECTIVE areas such as conditioning or balance.
and the subject of conditioning isn't subjective , either a guy is in shape or he's not , either one guy has a clear advantage in this area of he doesn't
When you compare a bodybuilder to himself, then of course things like conditioning, size, etc. are not subjective, since you can clearly see if a bodybuilder is in shape or not, if he is full & big or not, etc.
When you start comparing two or more bodybuilders and this comparison is close, then something like conditioning can be subjective.
there's no guessing on this subject same with balance & proportion and symmetry , either one guys waist & hips are narrower than the other or they're not
Really? I recall you saying that symmetry is subjective since different people have different opinions on it. You even used quotes from Lee Priest and Bev Francis to show how symmetry can change depending on the context. If it can change depending on the context, different people's opinion, then its subjective.
Do you know I can show how balance & proportion is subjective too going by your logic? Here it goes:
Sergio Oliva said Dorian's proportion was terrible and he is a probodybuilder, but Bev Francis said Dorian's proportion was great. This shows how a bodybuilder's balance & proportion can also change in different people's opinions.
I simply used Sergio Oliva instead of Lee Priest. Again going by your logic, which in this case I agree, proportions are also subjective.
NOT really , where is all the quotes saying the opposite? where is the slew of quotes claiming Ronnie was specifically better than Dorian in hardness & dryness?
Apart from the Flex quote, I don't know any more. Still, why aren't these quotes you posted of Dorian being harder popular opinion as the quotes of Ronnie being the best?
-
If all he had was a back & calves why didn't anyone beat him? ;D Ronnie wasn't even close to Yates
Politics. ;)
-
wow that's it ??? how did he win 6 Sandows? and it should have been real easy for Ronnie to beat him and he always failed , Gee I wonder why ???
I hope you were just trying to joke about this.......if not then its the poorest argument I've ever read.
Ronnie was not a bit close to his best physique in these pics you're posting. It was 1996 right? Seriously, compare Ronnie of 1996 with Ronnie of 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2003.
That's like saying Lee Haney is better than Dorian because he beat him in 1991 and Dorian never got to face him at his best, since Lee Haney retired.
-
Ronnie could be on any of these lists and has been in many bb mags
greatest back
greatest legs
greatest arms
greatest delts
greatest chest
greatest traps
nuff said
50 greatest arm list in flex no Dorian
50 greatest legs no yates
the only greatest list I've seen Dorian in is greatest back
nuff said good night Work early tommorow
-
I hope you were just trying to joke about this.......if not then its the poorest argument I've ever read.
Ronnie was not a bit close to his best physique in these pics you're posting. It was 1996 right? Seriously, compare Ronnie of 1996 with Ronnie of 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2003.
That's like saying Lee Haney is better than Dorian because he beat him in 1991 and Dorian never got to face him at his best, since Lee Haney retired.
I was being ironic , he claims all Dorian was is a back and calves and if that were the case why didn't him or anyone else beat him? and you've followed my every word for some time now , you know my argument is much more detail , elaborate and concise than that
Lee WAS better than Dorian and Dorian still beat him in the muscularity round despite being 10lbs lighter compared to a career best Lee Haney .
-
Ronnie could be on any of these lists and has been in many bb mags
greatest back
greatest legs
greatest arms
greatest delts
greatest chest
greatest traps
nuff said
50 greatest arm list in flex no Dorian
50 greatest legs no yates
the only greatest list I've seen Dorian in is greatest back
nuff said good night Work early tommorow
Lol@flex mag
-
I hope you were just trying to joke about this.......if not then its the poorest argument I've ever read.
Ronnie was not a bit close to his best physique in these pics you're posting. It was 1996 right? Seriously, compare Ronnie of 1996 with Ronnie of 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2003.
That's like saying Lee Haney is better than Dorian because he beat him in 1991 and Dorian never got to face him at his best, since Lee Haney retired.
Ronnie was no doubt improved in 1998 vs previous years, but he didn't reinvent himself. He tightened up his conditioning and looked very good, and every bit a deserving winner, but even then barely squeaked out a win over a less than best Flex Wheeler. In contrast, Yates obliterated everyone, even while they were in better shape than when Ronnie inevitably faced them as champion. Ronnie placed a distant 9th to a less than best Yates in 1997. Precisely what would make one believe that suddenly Ronnie would have leapfrogged Dorian, had Dorian competed in 1998, or subsequent years? Losing the pre-judging to Jay in 2001? The close call to Levrone in 2002? Losing the GNC to Gunter? Losing the Olympia to Jay in 2006? His extreme mass and substandard conditioning in 2003?
-
Ronnie could be on any of these lists and has been in many bb mags
greatest back
greatest legs
greatest arms
greatest delts
greatest chest
greatest traps
nuff said
50 greatest arm list in flex no Dorian
50 greatest legs no yates
the only greatest list I've seen Dorian in is greatest back
nuff said good night Work early tommorow
Legs? quads , hams and CALVES? I think NOT
Arms? Biceps , triceps and FOREARMS? I think NOT
Delts? lmfao says you
Chest? with bitch tits ? I think NOT
Traps? FYI is part of back
Yates was on the best LEGS list , arms NOT and FYI this isn't a part contest it's the whole that matters
Dorian best back , legs , forearms , calves not that it matters
-
Ronnie was no doubt improved in 1998 vs previous years, but he didn't reinvent himself. He tightened up his conditioning and looked very good, and every bit a deserving winner, but even then barely squeaked out a win over a less than best Flex Wheeler. In contrast, Yates obliterated everyone, even while they were in better shape than when Ronnie inevitably faced them as champion. Ronnie placed a distant 9th to a less than best Yates in 1997. Precisely what would make one believe that suddenly Ronnie would have leapfrogged Dorian, had Dorian competed in 1998, or subsequent years? Losing the pre-judging to Jay in 2001? The close call to Levrone in 2002? Losing the GNC to Gunter? Losing the Olympia to Jay in 2006? His extreme mass and substandard conditioning in 2003?
Great post !
-
Lol@flex mag
Flex mag ;D
-
I was being ironic , he claims all Dorian was is a back and calves and if that were the case why didn't him or anyone else beat him? and you've followed my every word for some time now , you know my argument is much more detail , elaborate and concise than that
Lee WAS better than Dorian and Dorian still beat him in the muscularity round despite being 10lbs lighter compared to a career best Lee Haney .
I was being ironic , he claims all Dorian was is a back and calves and if that were the case why didn't him or anyone else beat him? and you've followed my every word for some time now , you know my argument is much more detail , elaborate and concise than that
Its true and I do agree that Dorian was more than just back and calves. Still Ronnie would beat him. ;D
Lee WAS better than Dorian
In 1991 he was.
and Dorian still beat him in the muscularity round despite being 10lbs lighter compared to a career best Lee Haney .
I guess this just throws the point of Dorian would beat Ronnie because he was heaviest out of the window.
-
Its true and I do agree that Dorian was more than just back and calves. Still Ronnie would beat him. ;D
In 1991 he was.
I guess this just throws the point of Dorian would beat Ronnie because he was heaviest out of the window.
Ronnie disagree with you ;)
1991 he was just barely ;)
I never claimed Dorian would beat Ronnie just because he's heavier , I said because he was heavier AND harder AND drier AND better balanced AND a more effective poser
-
Ronnie was no doubt improved in 1998 vs previous years, but he didn't reinvent himself. He tightened up his conditioning and looked very good, and every bit a deserving winner, but even then barely squeaked out a win over a less than best Flex Wheeler. In contrast, Yates obliterated everyone, even while they were in better shape than when Ronnie inevitably faced them as champion. Ronnie placed a distant 9th to a less than best Yates in 1997. Precisely what would make one believe that suddenly Ronnie would have leapfrogged Dorian, had Dorian competed in 1998, or subsequent years? Losing the pre-judging to Jay in 2001? The close call to Levrone in 2002? Losing the GNC to Gunter? Losing the Olympia to Jay in 2006?
QFT! Dorian dominated during bodybuilding's most competetive era. His greatness kept guys like Flex, Ray, Levrone, Nasser, etc., from ever winning the Mr. O despite being at their all time bests. While Ronnie had his share of dominating wins, his competition wasn't at the same level as Dorian's. 2001 was a joke (how does one lose the prejudging but not the show?); if KL had shown up with legs in 2002 Ronnie would have lost; Gunter's GNC win over Ronnie was legit (yes 03 Ronnie redeemed himself!); and RC was dethroned in 2006. If the competition during these shows had been what it was in the early/mid 1990s, Ronnie would have lost at least a couple additional shows. Doz, on the other hand, wasn't pushed this far -- he never lost a prejudging, let alone an entire show -- and he faced consistently better competition.
-
I think this version of Flex Wheeler would have won the 98 Mr. O...
-
...
The last pic is one of my fav FDBs of Doz.
-
...
The last pic is one of my fav FDBs of Doz.
Yeah his arms look really undersized there.
Fucking LOL.
-
yeah I'm still trying to get your point that Dorian lost the 1993 Mr Olympia ;)
sad that your only retort is something that I said once about 5 years ago when little visuals were available and have said the opposite ever since.. ::)
you really do just post the same misinformation over and over again without ever learning to correct yourself. its sad. really sad.
-
Doz's conditioning was just incredible in 93...
-
Ronnie was not a bit close to his best physique in these pics you're posting. It was 1996 right? Seriously, compare Ronnie of 1996 with Ronnie of 1998, 1999, 2001 or 2003.
but they do cling to that argument.
in their retarded minds, because dorian beat ronnie so easily in the mid 90's when he sucked relative to his mr. O winning days, dorian would easily beat him even at his best form years later.
stupid, isn't it?
oh, and this is how Ronnie 97 compared to Ronnie 99:
quite the difference eh?
-
What's ironic, is that Huckster, in reference to Yates' showing in that contest, asserted that Ronnie would be made to wonder why a Nationals level competitor would be on stage with the pros. What then, would that make Ronnie, being that he is getting supremely owned there?
yates looks like a national's competitor compared to a 99 ronnie who is flexing:
realize that most pros beat ronnie in the mid 90's, including dorian.
he sucked relative to his later years.
-
yates looks like a national's competitor compared to a 99 ronnie who is flexing:
realize that most pros beat ronnie in the mid 90's, including dorian.
he sucked relative to his later years.
Whats funny is you can see Yates is naturally wider in that photo, across the clavicles.
Your idea that Ronnie would make him look small is entirely unfounded.
-
yates looks like a national's competitor compared to a 99 ronnie who is flexing:
realize that most pros beat ronnie in the mid 90's, including dorian.
he sucked relative to his later years.
Ronnie barely beat a sub-par Wheeler in 1998 to take the crown, so I guess he still sucked a little bit then too, eh? ;D And that was his best conditioned Olympia win. How about 2001? 2002? 2006?
-
Yup Hulkster, Ronnie would sure make Dorian look small.
Ronnie was 85% there in this shot, 95% of his 98 and 99 size, hes just lacking conditioning. Dorians in the FUCKING BACK OF THE ROOM and still wider than Ronnie.
Yeah, Ronnie would sure dwarf Dorian. ::)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369299;image)
And I still don't understand youre hangup on 99.
No judges think 99 is his best.
No Competitors think 99 is his best.
No experts think 99 is his best (Although 99 is one of his favorite showings, but he thinks 01 is a better showing, hahahah <--- more hulkster self ownage, as Mcough is on record saying he doesnt think Ronnie would have been able to beat Dorian 93.)
Yup, looks like youre really on point with 99 being his best showing. ::)
-
Jesus, Hulkster ::) I guarantee that no version or Ronnie would make Dorian look small.
-
as Mcough is on record saying he doesnt think Ronnie would have been able to beat Dorian 93.)
as I said..a good friend of dorian and a fellow englishman..
remember what I said about opinions being motivated by other factors while the camera and video tape are not?
now you know.
owned as usual. :P
-
And I still don't understand youre hangup on 99.
for the same reason's why your guy hero singled out Ronnie 99 as his best Olympia showing, including better than 1998 much to the dismay of nuthuggers everwhere LOL
fact is, the differences between his 2001 AC showing and the 99 O. showing are very minimal.
in 99 he was 10 pounds bigger than his AC showing, with less of a gut.
in 2001 AC he was smaller, a bit harder, with a noticable gut that stuck out everywhere:
which is better is a matter of preference.
bigger, less gut?
or
smaller, more gut, but harder?
but both are significantly better than 1998. as your guy hero McGough agrees.
-
I don't know where you illiterate nuthuggers are getting that I said dorian would be made to look small by a 99 ronnie.
by a 2003 or 2004 ronnie hell yes.
but not a 99 one.
however, their structures are much different even though they were the same bodyweight if you compare 99 to 93.
dorian carried a lot of weight in his monster midsection, whereas ronnie did not. he had a reasonably trim waist.
-
I don't know where you illiterate nuthuggers are getting that I said dorian would be made to look small by a 99 ronnie.
by a 2003 or 2004 ronnie hell yes.
but not a 99 one.
however, their structures are much different even though they were the same bodyweight if you compare 99 to 93.
dorian carried a lot of weight in his monster midsection, whereas ronnie did not. he had a reasonably trim waist.
::)
-
try again: :P
just goes to show you what quality muscle can do on a bb stage.
ronnie is 257 and dorian is heavier at 263 in these shots.
but you'd never know it. look at the difference in quad size LOL
maybe ronnie could make dorian look small at similar bodyweights hahahaa
-
the other reason why the 2001 AC sticks out in everyone's mind for ronnie was the fact that, well, at the olympia he was standing next to Chris Cormier and Flex Wheeler.
at the AC he was standing next to Chris Cormier and.....Oleg Zhur and Darrem Charles.. :-\
lol
now, you tell me where ronnie is going to appear to be better?
the olympia lineup against the 10 best or the AC with two top names and a bunch of lower teir pros?
the answer is obvious:
chalk another one up for the human condition, and chalk up another win for the authenticity of the camera, which isn't subject to such tendenencies:
its so easy when you are always right.. :-*
-
Jesus, Hulkster ::) I guarantee that no version or Ronnie would make Dorian look small.
I usually get bored to tears watching any bodybuilding video for more than 20sec, but I watched this one 3 times in a row now. Doz was fucking incredible.
God I miss the days when bodybuilding was interesting and you actively followed the contests.
-
I usually get bored to tears watching any bodybuilding video for more than 20sec, but I watched this one 3 times in a row now. Doz was fucking incredible.
God I miss the days when bodybuilding was interesting and you actively followed the contests.
i tried to tell you guys.
-
what a difference 5 years can make :o
-
what a difference 5 years can make :o
why are you posting this shit in a yates thread? Insecure about your hero? Pissed cause no one that matters thinks 99 is worth a shit and youhave to come up with 1001 excuses why people really DO think 99 is the greateast and why they don't really mean what they're all saying? Lol you are fuckin pathetic hulkster
-
Ronnie barely beat a sub-par Wheeler in 1998 to take the crown, so I guess he still sucked a little bit then too, eh? ;D And that was his best conditioned Olympia win. How about 2001? 2002? 2006?
What made Wheeler so sub par in 1998? Not a sparring question, just would like to see for myself.
-
Pissed cause no one that matters thinks 99 is worth a shit
guy hero Peter Mcgough does. he thinks 99 is much better than your precious 98.
and its all documented in his article. hahahaha.
I love how there is nothing you can do to change Mcgough's words, and it eats you up inside.
driving you crazy isn't it?
lol
pretty soon you will be in an institution because peter mcgough feels 99 is better than 98 and you hate it.
hahahahaha
-
why are you posting this shit in a yates thread? Insecure about your hero?
because guy idiots are claiming that because ronnie got slaughtered by everyone including yates in the mid 90's that he would lose at his best also.
I am pointing out the obvious: ronnie sucked when dorian beat him relative to his Mr. Olympia presentations.
-
guy hero Peter Mcgough does. he thinks 99 is much better than your precious 98.
and its all documented in his article. hahahaha.
I love how there is nothing you can do to change Mcgough's words, and it eats you up inside.
driving you crazy isn't it?
lol
pretty soon you will be in an institution because peter mcgough feels 99 is better than 98 and you hate it.
hahahahaha
fucking lol!
A. Mcgough isn't my hero.
B. It doesn't bother me at all beause mcough (the ONLY person you can get
to agree with you, lol and he still doesn't, be feels 01 is ronnies best so you're self owned) also said ronnie couldn't beat 93 dorian.
Yet again you're self owned.
So stop projecting, you're the one it drives nuts, because No one that matters agrees with you, he one person that is even in the realm of agreeing said Dorian would beat him, and even then mcough doesn't think 99 was his best, he thinks 01 was.
Here's somethin else... Mcgough never said 99 would beat 98. He said 99 struck him because he was fuller. Fullness doesn't beat conditioning. You're trying to inference points mcgough never said. And he's on the record saying he's not as sharp in 99 as 98. lol. Your have to try and infer what he's saying because nothing ever agrees with you. Lol
So in closing, you're a retard, and you're pathetic because nothing but you're opinion. Sad sad sad.
-
Mcgough never said 99 would beat 98.
You're trying to inference points mcgough never said
no, I don't have to infer anything.
99 is on his list of the greatest Mr. O physiques.
98 isn't.
hence, Mcgough believes 99 is BETTER than 98.
which means he believes 99 would BEAT 98.
its plain as day.
can't be any more clear than that.
sorry.
I know the average guy has serious comprehension problems when it comes to reading and logic, but even they should be able to understand this simple fact.
-
I think Mcgough needs to authorize some 'Cliff notes' for his article, because clearly your typical guy like flowerboy and cockwave have no clue about what was said in it.. ::)
they are so clueless they think that McGough believes 98 was better than 99 even though he purposely chose to omit 98 and sing the praises of 1999...
LOL
how stupid can you get?
let me help you nuthuggers:
IF mcgough felt 98 was better and 98 would beat 99, this is what would happen:
it would have been on the list instead of 99 dumbasses!!
::)
-
I mean honestly, forget about dorian vs ronnie for a minute.
the fact that you guys can't even understand simple things as outlined in his article is appalling.
didn't you guys ever learn how to read a paragraph and answer questions about it in school? ??? ::)
the lack of simple reading comprehension skills displayed in this thread is disappointing to say the least.. :-\
-
I mean honestly, forget about dorian vs ronnie for a minute.
the fact that you guys can't even understand simple things as outlined in his article is appalling.
didn't you guys ever learn how to read a paragraph and answer questions about it in school? ??? ::)
the lack of simple reading comprehension skills displayed in this thread is disappointing to say the least.. :-\
hahahahaha! Were not the ones that have to try and rewordmwhat someone says to try and validiy our opinion, or try and ignore what is written inthe paragraph (01 is better than 99) and try and pass it off. Hulkster the only guy that says 99 was a great showing also said 93 Dorian would beat Ronnie. So please. Go ahead and try and argue why mcough is right and a credible source. I dare you.
-
::)
lol, you do get offended when Hulkster says something bad about Dorian don't you?
-
try again: :P
just goes to show you what quality muscle can do on a bb stage.
ronnie is 257 and dorian is heavier at 263 in these shots.
but you'd never know it. look at the difference in quad size LOL
maybe ronnie could make dorian look small at similar bodyweights hahahaa
Exactly, that is why I think bodyweight is not all that important as to how a bodybuilder looks on stage or if he is the best or not.
Look how a lighter Shawn Ray looks like next to a heavier Dorian in this shot:
-
Exactly, that is why I think bodyweight is not all that important as to how a bodybuilder looks on stage or if he is the best or not.
Look how a lighter Shawn Ray looks like next to a heavier Dorian in this shot:
lol at this comparison. Cause Shawn is as wide as Dorian right? Haha. Awesome comparison. I swear you're a carbon copy of hulkster. You have all the same viewpoints and you're obsessed with the most muscular. You even argue the same points he does. Lol.
-
lol at this comparison. Cause Shawn is as wide as Dorian right? Haha. Awesome comparison. I swear you're a carbon copy of hulkster. You have all the same viewpoints and you're obsessed with the most muscular. You even argue the same points he does. Lol.
translation : I know he's getting beat, so I have to play the scale card.
-
lol at this comparison. Cause Shawn is as wide as Dorian right? Haha. Awesome comparison. I swear you're a carbon copy of hulkster. You have all the same viewpoints and you're obsessed with the most muscular. You even argue the same points he does. Lol.
So let's say the scale is not 100% right because Shawn looks just as wide as Dorian. Does that change how Shawn's arms, delts and chest look in comparison to Dorian? Does it change how Shawn's conditioning is next to Dorian?
Does it change that despite being lighter and shorter, Shawn is beating Dorian in that shot?
-
you're obsessed with the most muscular.
Do you want another pose? How about the BDB (one of Dorian's strong points)
-
::)
-
Ray had a great rbd, but Dorian owned him in that pose...way more size and equal or better condition.
-
Ronnie was no doubt improved in 1998 vs previous years, but he didn't reinvent himself. He tightened up his conditioning and looked very good, and every bit a deserving winner, but even then barely squeaked out a win over a less than best Flex Wheeler. In contrast, Yates obliterated everyone, even while they were in better shape than when Ronnie inevitably faced them as champion. Ronnie placed a distant 9th to a less than best Yates in 1997. Precisely what would make one believe that suddenly Ronnie would have leapfrogged Dorian, had Dorian competed in 1998, or subsequent years? Losing the pre-judging to Jay in 2001? The close call to Levrone in 2002? Losing the GNC to Gunter? Losing the Olympia to Jay in 2006? His extreme mass and substandard conditioning in 2003?
Ronnie was no doubt improved in 1998 vs previous years, but he didn't reinvent himself. He tightened up his conditioning and looked very good, and every bit a deserving winner,
Are you saying Ronnie was not bigger/fuller in 1999 as opposed to the previous years?
Losing the pre-judging to Jay in 2001? The close call to Levrone in 2002? Losing the GNC to Gunter? Losing the Olympia to Jay in 2006? His extreme mass and substandard conditioning in 2003?
None of those are Ronnie's best appearances with the exception of 2003.
-
Ronnie was no doubt improved in 1998 vs previous years, but he didn't reinvent himself. He tightened up his conditioning and looked very good, and every bit a deserving winner, but even then barely squeaked out a win over a less than best Flex Wheeler. In contrast, Yates obliterated everyone, even while they were in better shape than when Ronnie inevitably faced them as champion. Ronnie placed a distant 9th to a less than best Yates in 1997. Precisely what would make one believe that suddenly Ronnie would have leapfrogged Dorian, had Dorian competed in 1998, or subsequent years? Losing the pre-judging to Jay in 2001? The close call to Levrone in 2002? Losing the GNC to Gunter? Losing the Olympia to Jay in 2006? His extreme mass and substandard conditioning in 2003?
This:
-
Look how Cormier looks next to Ronnie in 1997 and then in 1999.
Big difference.
-
::)
You certainly get upset when someone posts a pic or says something that goes against Dorian don't you? ;D
-
::)
None of those are 1994 by the way. ;)
-
I'm not upset -- everyone is entitled to their opinion -- I just don't think Ray was ever better than Dorian. And, I think it's ridiculous to say "Dorian getting destoyed by someone 3 inches shorter and 50lbs lighter than him."
Yes, the B & W photo is from 94. As are these... (btw, Dorian's color was way off that year, not sure why?)
-
Also from 94. Ray was admittedly sharp as hell that year (probably his best, also he looked great in 1999), and he pushed Dorian to the limit. I just think there was too much size advantage to Dorian who was just about as conditioned.
-
I'm not upset -- everyone is entitled to their opinion -- I just don't think Ray was ever better than Dorian. And, I think it's ridiculous to say "Dorian getting destoyed by someone 3 inches shorter and 50lbs lighter than him."
I don't think it's that crazy. Dorian is marginally better. If you reversed the overall size advantage, would Dorian still win? That's his saving grace. His back is a little wider, there's more separation in the back muscles, arms and waist down it's ray.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369410;image)
-
Do you want another pose? How about the BDB (one of Dorian's strong points)
Ray was to narrow and too small to ever beat yates. You might like rays physique, it's pretty and dozs is not at all, but Ray was never a threat. Just too small an too narrow.
-
QFT! Dorian dominated during bodybuilding's most competetive era. His greatness kept guys like Flex, Ray, Levrone, Nasser, etc., from ever winning the Mr. O despite being at their all time bests. While Ronnie had his share of dominating wins, his competition wasn't at the same level as Dorian's. 2001 was a joke (how does one lose the prejudging but not the show?); if KL had shown up with legs in 2002 Ronnie would have lost; Gunter's GNC win over Ronnie was legit (yes 03 Ronnie redeemed himself!); and RC was dethroned in 2006. If the competition during these shows had been what it was in the early/mid 1990s, Ronnie would have lost at least a couple additional shows. Doz, on the other hand, wasn't pushed this far -- he never lost a prejudging, let alone an entire show -- and he faced consistently better competition.
Do you really want to play the card of the level of competition they faced?
Look how Ronnie looks next to Shawn and Flex in 1998 and then look how Dorian looks to the same men in 1993.
You can say Shawn and Flex were both better in 93 for their conditioning, but Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was just as good as theirs (better in my opinion) coupled with bigger size.
It gives a perspective of how Ronnie of 98 would look next to a Dorian in 93 if you want to use their competition as prove of something.
-
I don't think it's that crazy. Dorian is marginally better. If you reversed the overall size advantage, would Dorian still win? That's his saving grace. His back is a little wider, there's more separation in the back muscles, arms and waist down it's ray.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369410;image)
I see advantage Dorian on everything except glutes (no homo). Again, I am not claiming Dorian "owned" or "destroyed" Ray in 1994. But he deserved his win and was certainly not owned by Ray.
-
Do you really want to play the card of the level of competition they faced?
Look how Ronnie looks next to Shawn and Flex in 1998 and then look how Dorian looks to the same men in 1993.
You can say Shawn and Flex were both better in 93 for their conditioning, but Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was just as good as theirs (better in my opinion) coupled with bigger size.
It gives a perspective of how Ronnie of 98 would look next to a Dorian in 93 if you want to use their competition as prove of something.
Try a post where Dorian is actually hitting the pose....
-
I'm not upset -- everyone is entitled to their opinion -- I just don't think Ray was ever better than Dorian. And, I think it's ridiculous to say "Dorian getting destoyed by someone 3 inches shorter and 50lbs lighter than him."
Yes, the B & W photo is from 94. As are these... (btw, Dorian's color was way off that year, not sure why?)
I'm not upset -- everyone is entitled to their opinion -- I just don't think Ray was ever better than Dorian. And, I think it's ridiculous to say "Dorian getting destoyed by someone 3 inches shorter and 50lbs lighter than him."
That's ok, I respect your opinion of thinking Dorian was better. I personally think that Shawn should've beaten Dorian in 1994, but definitively not in 1993,1995,1996 and maybe 1992.
I did not write the title on that pic by the way, I took it from a thread in MD. There is a big Shawn fan there who probably made the pic.
-
Yes, the B & W photo is from 94. As are these... (btw, Dorian's color was way off that year, not sure why?)
I didn't catch that one..........
Honestly we can both post pics of either of them beating the other on a respective pose that year, but I think Shawn had the better and more complete physique in 1994.
But let's keep this thread Ronnie vs Dorian ok? ;D
-
Try a post where Dorian is actually hitting the pose....
OK
-
Do you really want to play the card of the level of competition they faced?
Look how Ronnie looks next to Shawn and Flex in 1998 and then look how Dorian looks to the same men in 1993.
You can say Shawn and Flex were both better in 93 for their conditioning, but Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was just as good as theirs (better in my opinion) coupled with bigger size.
It gives a perspective of how Ronnie of 98 would look next to a Dorian in 93 if you want to use their competition as prove of something.
you can't tell shit from this kind of pics. He only ones you can get a good guage from is the pcs from 96 and 97 where Ronnie and doz are near each other. Ronnies size is 90% there and you get a good impression of clavicle comparisons, and you can tell Dorian is wider than Ronnie. And yes I know Ronnie isn't quite 100% in those pics, but he's an easy 90z
-
More with a pic you posted, so don't call "selective":
-
Last one with the pic you posted RL:
-
You really are hulksters clone. You use all th same comparisons and the same arguments. He'll I even saw a post where you said you the "pics are proof" lol. Btw, in every comparison I see Dorian being slightly larger, more complete head to toe, denser, and depending on the year, drier. Ronnies physique looks extremely impressive but it just looks lke a bunch of impressive bodyparts thrown together. There is no cohesion.
-
you can't tell shit from this kind of pics. He only ones you can get a good guage from is the pcs from 96 and 97 where Ronnie and doz are near each other. Ronnies size is 90% there and you get a good impression of clavicle comparisons, and you can tell Dorian is wider than Ronnie. And yes I know Ronnie isn't quite 100% in those pics, but he's an easy 90z
An easy 90%? Are you serious?
A 96-97 Ronnie is blown away by a 98-99 Ronnie. Just look how he was a 7th-10th place finisher first and then jumped to beat everyone. Did the rest of them just get worse or did Ronnie actually made huge improvements?
you can't tell shit from this kind of pics. He only ones you can get a good guage from is the pcs from 96 and 97 where Ronnie and doz are near each other. Ronnies size is 90% there and you get a good impression of clavicle comparisons, and you can tell Dorian is wider than Ronnie.
You guys started saying Dorian would beat Ronnie using the competition they each faced, I just did the same and showed its not the case.
If you're talking about that 96 GP pic, then let me just say that Dorian isn't that much wider than Ronnie. They are actually pretty equal as far as width is concerned, just look at the fact that they're not even hitting the same pose.
If you want to talk about size only, Ronnie isn't out sized by Dorian all that much in that pic. He was beat because of conditioning mostly.
Now take a 98-99 Ronnie which is bigger/fuller and much better conditioned than his 96 version, then you can see how he would look next to Dorian.
-
You use all th same comparisons and the same arguments
of course. because my argument is correct..and my visuals back it up.
-
An easy 90%? Are you serious?
A 96-97 Ronnie is blown away by a 98-99 Ronnie. Just look how he was a 7th-10th place finisher first and then jumped to beat everyone. Did the rest of them just get worse or did Ronnie actually made huge improvements?
You guys started saying Dorian would beat Ronnie using the competition they each faced, I just did the same and showed its not the case.
If you're talking about that 96 GP pic, then let me just say that Dorian isn't that much wider than Ronnie. They are actually pretty equal as far as width is concerned, just look at the fact that they're not even hitting the same pose.
If you want to talk about size only, Ronnie isn't out sized by Dorian all that much in that pic. He was beat because of conditioning mostly.
Now take a 98-99 Ronnie which is bigger/fuller and much better conditioned than his 96 version, then you can see how he would look next to Dorian.
ya ronnie is 90% there in 97. He did t suddenly gain 2 ft of width 20 lbs of muscle and lost 20 lbs of fat lol. He got slightly larger and brought in his conditioning a shit ton. Remember conditining makes someone loom a lot larger. And yea, Ronnie got better but the rest were past their prime and were on they're downhill slide by the one they faced Ronnie. You actliene Ronnie put on 50 lbs between 97 and 98. He picked up a few pounds and really brought in his conditioning. 99 he really didn't have any more size than 98, his conditiong was just a little off from 98. He sacrificed dryness and razor sharp crispness he had in 98 for fullness. Someone should post the 98 vid.
-
of course. because my argument is correct..and my visuals back it up.
hahaha! Where are all the competitors, judges and experts that agree with you, oh wait, you have non...
Oh I forgot mcgough, but he already said that Dorian 93 would beat Ronnie, bwahahaha!!! Only guy that agrees with you says Ronnie would lose to him! Bwahahaha! Self ownage hulkster. No to mention mcgough specifically days in that article that his 01 showin is better. Lol
-
You really are hulksters clone. You use all th same comparisons and the same arguments. He'll I even saw a post where you said you the "pics are proof" lol. Btw, in every comparison I see Dorian being slightly larger, more complete head to toe, denser, and depending on the year, drier. Ronnies physique looks extremely impressive but it just looks lke a bunch of impressive bodyparts thrown together. There is no cohesion.
You really are hulksters clone. You use all th same comparisons and the same arguments. He'll I even saw a post where you said you the "pics are proof" lol.
Oh dear.........I was using Royal Lion's pics.
He asked me to use pics where Dorian was actually "hitting the pose" and I did it, with the pics he posted. Its not my fault that Ronnie beats Dorian in those comparisons.
Btw, in every comparison I see Dorian being slightly larger, more complete head to toe, denser, and depending on the year, drier. Ronnies physique looks extremely impressive but it just looks lke a bunch of impressive bodyparts thrown together. There is no cohesion.
I strongly disagree. I actually see the opposite, I see Ronnie being slightly bigger/fuller, with equally impressive conditioning, with better proportion and with better symmetry. Not to mention the muscle separations and detail.
I actually see Ronnie's physique as the more complete of the two.
As far as a bunch of impressive bodyparts thrown together, you could say the same about Dorian as neither were known for impressive aesthetics. But Ronnie even has an advantage over Dorian as far as aesthetics is concerned, the shape, taper, small waist, etc.
-
99 he really didn't have any more size than 98
his quads ballooned up in between those years.
-
ND, yooouuuuu were amaaaazing. And weeeeee did amaaaaaazing things
here's to 4 yrs of arguing over the same dumb shit, my friend ;D
-
I strongly disagree. I actually see the opposite, I see Ronnie being slightly bigger/fuller, with equally impressive conditioning, with better proportion and with better symmetry. Not to mention the muscle separations and detail.
I actually see Ronnie's physique as the more complete of the two.
As far as a bunch of impressive bodyparts thrown together, you could say the same about Dorian as neither were known for impressive aesthetics. But Ronnie even has an advantage over Dorian as far as aesthetics is concerned, the shape, taper, small waist, etc.
well said. I agree 100% 8)
-
hahaha! Where are all the competitors, judges and experts that agree with you, oh wait, you have non...
Oh I forgot mcgough, but he already said that Dorian 93 would beat Ronnie, bwahahaha!!! Only guy that agrees with you says Ronnie would lose to him! Bwahahaha! Self ownage hulkster. No to mention mcgough specifically days in that article that his 01 showin is better. Lol
Don't forget its all subjective and "popular opinion"........... ;)
-
Don't forget its all subjective and "popular opinion"........... ;)
I know this. You're missing the point, that hulkster has absolutley no esxperts competitors of judges backing his stance of 99 being his best but one article where mcgough mentioned it as a one of the Olympias that stuck out in his head. However, hulkster tries to argue his opinion is concrete fact and uses mcgough to try and corroborate his story; however mcgough says Dorian would beat Ronnie. Not. To mention hulkster constantly has tried to discredit mcgough in the past. It's a hpocrisy thing, hulkster is saying everything from mcgough doesn't content except what he wrote about 99. Lol.
-
Jesus, Hulkster ::) I guarantee that no version or Ronnie would make Dorian look small.
False....Yates was 272 in 97 and looked like shit. Ronnie was 287 in 03 and 294 in 04. He would make Yates look small as he Did Cutler.
-
False....Yates was 272 in 97 and looked like shit. Ronnie was 287 in 03 and 294 in 04. He would make Yates look small as he Did Cutler.
Ronnie has bigger upper legs and biceps.
Dorian has bigger lower legs and forearms.
Everything else is debatable.
Neither man at their biggest would make the other look small.
-
So let's say the scale is not 100% right because Shawn looks just as wide as Dorian. Does that change how Shawn's arms, delts and chest look in comparison to Dorian? Does it change how Shawn's conditioning is next to Dorian?
Does it change that despite being lighter and shorter, Shawn is beating Dorian in that shot?
I have brought this up many times in the past with the guy idiots.
they see dorian getting killed in the quality department, and deny the quality difference because of the scale, which is stupid.
even if the shots were scaled properly, the quality of dorian's musculature is lacking in many shots compared to guys like peak ronnie and peak shawn..
-
I have brought this up many times in the past with the guy idiots.
they see dorian getting killed in the quality department, and deny the quality difference because of the scale, which is stupid.
even if the shots were scaled properly, the quality of dorian's musculature is lacking in many shots compared to guys like peak ronnie and peak shawn..
::) that shit thats impressive to look at, isnt criteria. Ronnies genetically super deep separations make him look more conidioned than he really is. Thats why in 99 he is super full, but holding a bit of water from 98 and not as sharp. But thanks to his striations and separations he looks more conditioned than youd think. (Dont get me wrong I know Ronnie is in great condition in 99, but there is a reason no one comes out with 99 as his best showing) This is also why you dont judge BB contests by pics, and everone who knows a damn says you cant judge a show by pics.
-
I didn't catch that one..........
Honestly we can both post pics of either of them beating the other on a respective pose that year, but I think Shawn had the better and more complete physique in 1994.
But let's keep this thread Ronnie vs Dorian ok? ;D
Ray was fantastic in 94. He has always been one of my favorites; in fact, his physique is more appealing (no homo) than both Ronnie's of Dorian's imo, but we all know the IFBB rewards size size size. As such, 94 Dorian just had too much size with good conditioning (even when Dorian is "off" his condition is great), and therefore won.
This is one of the most impressive MM shots ever imo...
-
sad that your only retort is something that I said once about 5 years ago when little visuals were available and have said the opposite ever since.. ::)
you really do just post the same misinformation over and over again without ever learning to correct yourself. its sad. really sad.
What is sad is A) you fucking claimed it and B) after you said it you took a massive beating for saying it and realized how fucking stupid it was to claim and C) you're reduced to lying again because at the time you said it I personally posted ALL of the pictures from Flex , Muclemag , Ironman , and Muscle & Fitness and oppsss Muscular Development , so you're full of shit not to mention other sources and D) you actually fucking believed it , just like your retarded statement Ronnie had more detailed calves , you have a history of making monumentally retarded statements and then you get your ass kicked for making them you shy way real quick
You looked at all the pics and video and all the overwhelming visual evidence and came to the conclusion Dorian Yates lost the most dominate Mr Olympia win in the history of the contest and then had the same balls to claim after you looked at all the pics and video and all the overwhelming visual evidence and came to the equally dumb statement that Ronnie Coleman in fact DOMINATED the 2001 Mr Olympia , a contest which he lost the entire pre-judging
You look at pics & video and come to the complete and utter opposite of reality like , Ronnie was harder & drier in 99 , 99 was his best , Yates lost in 93 and Ronnie dominated in 01 , you know NOTHING have learned NOTHING and those of us who are in the know sit back and laugh at just how fucking stupid you are.
-
More with a pic you posted, so don't call "selective":
;)
-
ND, yooouuuuu were amaaaazing. And weeeeee did amaaaaaazing things
here's to 4 yrs of arguing over the same dumb shit, my friend ;D
;D Here , here !!
-
Don't forget its all subjective and "popular opinion"........... ;)
It is subjective and it doesn't make it a fact , and it's quite the contrary it's not a popular opinion Dorian would beat Ronnie
-
I can't believe some of you all spend so much time and energy on this Dorian vs. Ronnie thing.
When I started this thread I thought it would be dead within 1 day! But I opened up the gates of hell with this topic.
-
This is the definition of the judging criteria...
Muscular Bulk, balance and proportion, conditioning... Complete head to toe.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369559;image)
-
This is the definition of the judging criteria...
Muscular Bulk, balance and proportion, conditioning... Complete head to toe.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369559;image)
What about his small arms? And his fucked up left arm?
You didn't see that did you?
Or his midsection?
Ronnie wins it!
-
His teardrops are awesome
-
What about his small arms? And his fucked up left arm?
You didn't see that did you?
Or his midsection?
Ronnie wins it!
That's rich. See Ronnie's fat gut? See his left calf missing? See his right calf missing? Scram kiddo. Don't go insulting the greatest and most dominant Mr Olympia of all time that left the most dominant field this sport has ever seen, right in the dust.
-
That's rich. See Ronnie's fat gut? See his left calf missing? See his right calf missing? Scram kiddo. Don't go insulting the greatest and most dominant Mr Olympia of all time that left the most dominant field this sport has ever seen, right in the dust.
I agree with you about Ronnie Coleman his gut was ridiculous. I don't really like Ronnie or Dorian and they both have major flaws. But I think Ronnie was better.
Dorian's small arms were very noticable. His left bicep was a complete mess. his midsection looked almost as bad as Ronnie's. But his calves were better.
Ronnie wins! End of discussion.....
-
What about his small arms? And his fucked up left arm?
You didn't see that did you?
Or his midsection?
Ronnie wins it!
Sorry, his left arm wasnt fucked up at that point. He didnt tear his bicep until 94.
And youre trying to say his midsection is fucked up at this point shows you know nothing. His waist is tight in 93. ::)
Ronnies gut was 10x worse, and his abs were way worse. So I dont know where youre getting this shit.
His biceps are his ONLY weakness.
-
I agree with you about Ronnie Coleman his gut was ridiculous. I don't really like Ronnie or Dorian and they both have major flaws. But I think Ronnie was better.
Dorian's small arms were very noticable. His left bicep was a complete mess. his midsection looked almost as bad as Ronnie's. But his calves were better.
Ronnie wins! End of discussion.....
Yep, midsection and left arm were really fucked up at this point.... lol.
Dont talk until you know what youre talking about. Better to keep your mouth shut, and let people think your an idiot, than to open your mouth, and remove all doubt.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369316;image)
-
I agree with you about Ronnie Coleman his gut was ridiculous. I don't really like Ronnie or Dorian and they both have major flaws. But I think Ronnie was better.
Dorian's small arms were very noticable. His left bicep was a complete mess. his midsection looked almost as bad as Ronnie's. But his calves were better.
Ronnie wins! End of discussion.....
I feel this might be old ground again, but what the hell. In how many poses is Dorian's left bicep visible? And really, if you think arm size is the criteria that measure the true worth of a Mr Olympia, then you don't know the sport. In how many poses is Ronnie's missing calves visible? Oops . ;D
-
Sorry, his left arm wasnt fucked up at that point. He didnt tear his bicep until 94.
And youre trying to say his midsection is fucked up at this point shows you know nothing. His waist is tight in 93. ::)
Ronnies gut was 10x worse, and his abs were way worse. So I dont know where youre getting this shit.
His biceps are his ONLY weakness.
In 93 he looked pretty good. I agree. But even at that time other guys were at his same level. Yates was a great bodybuilder be he wasn't as spectacular as people hype him up to be.
But I'm not trying to get into this debate. You all go ahead and rage on.
-
In 93 he looked pretty good. I agree. But even at that time other guys were at his same level. Yates was a great bodybuilder be he wasn't as spectacular as people hype him up to be.
But I'm not trying to get into this debate. You all go ahead and rage on.
Claiming that anyone was at the same level as Yates in '93 is fucking outrageous if you ask me.
-
1993 Dorian was the greatest ever!
-
:o
-
In 93 he looked pretty good. I agree. But even at that time other guys were at his same level.
But I'm not trying to get into this debate.
Regardless of whether you are Dorian fan or not, this shows just how little you know about bodybuilding. Dorian is best known for raising the level of bodybuilding in 1993 -- no one was at his level. Sure, Ronnie raised the size level during his reign, but to claim that Dorian was "pretty good" and that "other guys were at his same level" is simply lame. You're right, you shouldn't get into this debate.
-
Claiming that anyone was at the same level as Yates in '93 is fucking outrageous if you ask me.
not outrageous if you look at the visuals
ronnie was at an even higher level than dorian 93:
-
Regardless of whether you are Dorian fan or not, this shows just how little you know about bodybuilding. Dorian is best known for raising the level of bodybuilding in 1993 -- no one was at his level. Sure, Ronnie raised the size level during his reign, but to claim that Dorian was "pretty good" and that "other guys were at his same level" is simply lame. You're right, you shouldn't get into this debate.
I was thinking about 94 actually. In 1994 he looked shitty.
In 93 he did look great. You're right.
-
yup. dorian looked good in 92 and even better in 93.
but he was never the same after the tear.
-
I agree that he was off in 94 (no where near 93 in terms of conditioning) and pushed to the limit by Ray. Still, given the fact that he tore his bicep just a few weeks before the show, it is amazing that he even showed up.
-
I agree that he was off in 94 (no where near 93 in terms of conditioning) and pushed to the limit by Ray. Still, given the fact that he tore his bicep just a few weeks before the show, it is amazing that he even showed up.
I agree. he could have missed it.
but it was in his contract that if he showed up they would give him the win ....soooo..he showed up
hahahahahahaha
;D
-
I agree. he could have missed it.
but it was in his contract that if he showed up they would give him the win ....soooo..he showed up
hahahahahahaha
;D
::)
-
yup. dorian looked good in 92 and even better in 93.
but he was never the same after the tear.
He was better in 95 ;)
-
not outrageous if you look at the visuals
ronnie was at an even higher level than dorian 93:
I love how you post a pic of 99 ronnie when he is clearly holding water. lol
-
I love how you post a pic of 99 ronnie when he is clearly holding water. lol
Great post ! he doesn't know what great conditioning is that's why he THINKS Ronnie is competitive in this area he just doesn't know the difference
-
;D
-
;D
theres some owning going on here ;D
-
theres some owning going on here ;D
It's INSANE these guys claim he didn't dominate like he did in 93 LMMFAO
-
It's INSANE these guys claim he didn't dominate like he did in 93 LMMFAO
not insane when dorian turns around buddy.
his back is great.
his front, not so much.
besides, when they are actually hitting the pose, shawn holds up quite well:
-
I love how you post a pic of 99 ronnie when he is clearly holding water. lol
bullshit. he is showing a lot more detail than dorian in both of those shots.
sorry:
but even dorian's driest ever 95 gets owned by ronnie 99.
yes, dorian's upper back is drier, but that doesn't mean its better. it loses out on so many other qualities, like thickness, taper etc etc.
not to mention the shitty watery hams, glutes, shitty arms etc etc.
ronnie easily wins the pose.
-
^
ouch.
dorian 95 is getting crushed there. no wonder McGough singled out 99 in his olympia article.
he was that good.
-
^
ouch.
dorian 95 is getting crushed there. no wonder McGough singled out 99 in his olympia article.
he was that good.
McGough said 2001 was better and Dorian would trample him again ;) thanks for playing dumbass
-
Nothing special from the front he says LMFAO Ronnie is actually hitting the shot :-\ look at the gut sticking out and look at the staggering difference in density & dryness
-
^
ouch.
dorian 95 is getting crushed there. no wonder McGough singled out 99 in his olympia article.
he was that good.
Haha!
Since youre quoting Mcgough as your ONLY source of refernce to back up your 99 claim,
Mcgough said 99<01<Dorian 93. So yet again you own yourself into oblivion.
-
Haha!
Since youre quoting Mcgough as your ONLY source of refernce to back up your 99 claim,
Mcgough said 99<01<Dorian 93. So yet again you own yourself into oblivion.
I know what a fucking idiot
-
Nothing special from the front he says LMFAO Ronnie is actually hitting the shot :-\ look at the gut sticking out and look at the staggering difference in density & dryness
lol he is not hitting the shot in that freeze frame.
however, even if he WAS, dorian would still obviously have way better abs, but ronnie's quads destroy dorian's any year.
because ronnie can't hit an ab shot to save his life.
all he does is alternate which set of intercostals and serratus to flex...
he barely even crunches his abs..
however, the judges have made it clear that abs are only one part of the shot they look at.
ronnie 2004 beat dex in the shot despite having shitty abs in comparison
ronnie 99 might beat dorian in the shot too for the same reason.
great abs but shitty everything else isn't enough..as the judges made quite clear in 2004..
if dorina 95 and ronnie 99 stepped onstage, the same thing might happen..
-
Nothing special from the front he says LMFAO Ronnie is actually hitting the shot :-\ look at the gut sticking out and look at the staggering difference in density & dryness
The black and white, favorable lighting also helps with "graininess"
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369344;image)
-
The black and white, favorable lighting also helps with "graininess"
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369344;image)
but they don't help poor dorian:
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=369612;image)
neither for milos. I think he forgot to diet. :-X
-
Dorian > Ronnie. More conditioned. Yes, Ronnie looks "fuller", but in 1999 he did not achieve the dryness or hardness of a 92, 93, 95, or 96 Dorian.
-
even though the judges made it clear in 2004 that you can have shitty abs and still beat someone with great abs, dorian would still win the ab shot IMO.
even with his shitty quads.
he would win the side tri shot and ab shot, and lose everything else.
-
;)
Dorian wins from the sides , the front , the back and why? because ALL rounds are physique rounds
-
Great shot! He was one thick, dense MOFO.
-
Ray was fantastic in 94. He has always been one of my favorites; in fact, his physique is more appealing (no homo) than both Ronnie's of Dorian's imo, but we all know the IFBB rewards size size size. As such, 94 Dorian just had too much size with good conditioning (even when Dorian is "off" his condition is great), and therefore won.
This is one of the most impressive MM shots ever imo...
I understand your point of view here and have to agree.
I always prefered this version of his MM though:
-
Shawn Ray is the reason I started training. I favour his classical lines about those of Yates and Coleman. However, does not make me blind to his shortcomings.
-
It is subjective and it doesn't make it a fact , and it's quite the contrary it's not a popular opinion Dorian would beat Ronnie
Really? Because he supposedly meets the criteria better? When about 90% of the criteria is subjective?
-
I can't believe some of you all spend so much time and energy on this Dorian vs. Ronnie thing.
When I started this thread I thought it would be dead within 1 day! But I opened up the gates of hell with this topic.
Its another truce thread in the making...... ;D
I hope not.
-
Really? Because he supposedly meets the criteria better? When about 90% of the criteria is subjective?
Hope about Coleman admitting the subjective criteria favours Yates above him ?
-
Speaking of Shawn Ray, I think 1999 was arguably his best showing. Not only is physique outstanding, but his presentation is second to none.
-
Hope about Coleman admitting the subjective criteria favours Yates above him ?
Its ok, its what he may think of it. I still think Ronnie's best beats Dorian.
-
Its ok, its what he may think of it. I still think Ronnie's best beats Dorian.
Hey, you know an 8 time Mr Olympia better than himself then that's your opinion.
-
Speaking of Shawn Ray, I think 1999 was arguably his best showing. Not only is physique outstanding, but his presentation is second to none.
I personally think 94 was his best ever, but 1999 was pretty close to it. Its a matter of opinion.
I couldn't help to notice one thing here though, you guys claim Dorian is better than Ronnie because his top competitors were at their best in the years they competed against him (1992-1997) as opposed when they competed against Ronnie's best years (1998-2001), but now you say Shawn Ray's best ever was 1999. 1999 being a year he got beat by Ronnie Coleman by a large margin, not to mention Flex, Levrone and Nasser beat this 1999 version of Shawn and still got killed bt Ronnie.
Where does this leave the whole Dorian faced better competition argument?
-
Hey, you know an 8 time Mr Olympia better than himself then that's your opinion.
Do you really want to put all your argument on who said what?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
Chris Lund (Paraphrased by Milos Sarcev) - European Flex, April 2004
"Chris Lund who I consider to be a great expert in our sport of bodybuilding, told me that Ronnie is simply the best bodybuilder he has ever seen, or photographed, and he has seen everybody, during the last 35 years."
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=237938.0
Flex Wheeler - MD, February 2004
"I'll go on record as saying Ronnie is truly the biggest, hardest, most shredded Mr. Olympia in history. No disrespect to anybody at all, but I'd to identify Ronnie Coleman as the greatest Mr. Olympia of all time."
Let me ask you know: Do you know better than "experts" and an Arnold Classic winner?
Those are ALL opinions. Some I agree, but some I don't.
-
;)
:D
-
lol he is not hitting the shot in that freeze frame.
however, even if he WAS, dorian would still obviously have way better abs, but ronnie's quads destroy dorian's any year.
because ronnie can't hit an ab shot to save his life.
all he does is alternate which set of intercostals and serratus to flex...
he barely even crunches his abs..
however, the judges have made it clear that abs are only one part of the shot they look at.
ronnie 2004 beat dex in the shot despite having shitty abs in comparison
ronnie 99 might beat dorian in the shot too for the same reason.
great abs but shitty everything else isn't enough..as the judges made quite clear in 2004..
if dorina 95 and ronnie 99 stepped onstage, the same thing might happen..
Good point.
-
Good point.
as always 8)
-
Dorian > Ronnie. More conditioned. Yes, Ronnie looks "fuller", but in 1999 he did not achieve the dryness or hardness of a 92, 93, 95, or 96 Dorian.
don't be so sure.
ronnie was so ripped in 99 it wasn't even funny.
dorian never looked this dry in a side chest shot. ever.
the contrast between super ripped and dry ronnie and Exonn Valdez Flex here is astonishing.
-
don't be so sure.
ronnie was so ripped in 99 it wasn't even funny.
dorian never looked this dry in a side chest shot. ever.
the contrast between super ripped and dry ronnie and Exonn Valdez Flex here is astonishing.
Oh yeah?
Using the super contrast pics eh again eh?
Lol. Wheres Kevin Horton when you need him.
-
Oh yeah?
Using the super contrast pics eh again eh?
Lol. Wheres Kevin Horton when you need him.
caught as usual ::).
thats not one of Bizzy's screens that you all claim are faked.
like I said, nuthuggers love to claim ALL 99 stuff is faked, just because they can't deal with the fact that it is so much better than dorian.
::)
-
caught as usual ::).
thats not one of Bizzy's screens that you all claim are faked.
like I said, nuthuggers love to claim ALL 99 stuff is faked, just because they can't deal with the fact that it is so much better than dorian.
::)
I dont give a shit who's it is, you fuckhead, the colors are so far off you can barely see the competitors. yeah, compare it to the any of the 99 vids, definatley legit, you tard.
-
Really? Because he supposedly meets the criteria better? When about 90% of the criteria is subjective?
90% is subjective ::) first of all you don't even know the criteria second you're wrong once again. either one guy has high calves or he doesn't , either one guy had oddly shaped abdominals or he doesn't , either a guy is holding a film of water or he's not , either a guy can effectively hold a mandatory pose or he can't , either a guy has small hips and joints or he don't , go learn how contests are judged then come back and I'll entertain your point of view
-
don't be so sure.
ronnie was so ripped in 99 it wasn't even funny.
dorian never looked this dry in a side chest shot. ever.
the contrast between super ripped and dry ronnie and Exonn Valdez Flex here is astonishing.
Side chest is all Yates the epitome of conditioned mass
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy22.jpg)
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/dy22.jpg)
Sorry Ronnie
-
sorry dorian.
-
sorry dorian part 2
-
sorry dorian part 3.
-
sorry dorian.
sorry hulkster's parents......
he is an embarrassment and a loser
-
its funny how the nuthuggers love to claim ronnie 99 is holding all this water and not in as good as condition as dorian, yet all the side chest shots make dorian look like he is the one holding water lol
despite what the nuthuggers say, Ronnie was ripped to shreds in 1999.
typical nuthuggers. claiming the exact opposite of what reality shows onstage.. ::)
-
its funny how the nuthuggers love to claim ronnie 99 is holding all this water and not in as good as condition as dorian, yet all the side chest shots make dorian look like he is the one holding water lol
despite what the nuthuggers say, Ronnie was ripped to shreds in 1999.
typical nuthuggers. claiming the exact opposite of what reality shows onstage.. ::)
Youre always the one claiming exactly opposite of reality you fucktwit.
BB shows arent judged by pics in your living room.
Lol.
-
sorry dorian part 3.
Dorian's side chest was fantastic. If standing side by side with Ronnie, it would be very close. They hit the pose differently (Ronnie does it incorrect), so it's difficult to say. Your comparison pics, as usual, provie nothing.
-
Ronnie smokes Dorian
-
Ronnie smokes Dorian
truth
-
sorry dorian.
hahahahhahaha another guy ' comparison ' where a 249lb Ronnie has the same size calves as Dorian at 260lbs
-
What is Dorian's tat? A British flag or something?
-
it says "Ronnie is better"
;D
-
it says "Ronnie is better"
;D
No, it says "Hulkster wants black cock".
-
Sorry Ronnie
;)
-
One more:
-
;)
Thanks for proving my case ;)
-
That's just about it....
His body is ugly as fuck. He is overrated. Big and ripped, but that's all. No symettry, no aestetics, just a big pile of shit.
dorian's physique was classically perfect
-
One more:
Ronnie isn't anywhere near Dorian's level of density in those screencaps or balance
-
90% is subjective ::) first of all you don't even know the criteria second you're wrong once again. either one guy has high calves or he doesn't , either one guy had oddly shaped abdominals or he doesn't , either a guy is holding a film of water or he's not , either a guy can effectively hold a mandatory pose or he can't , either a guy has small hips and joints or he don't , go learn how contests are judged then come back and I'll entertain your point of view
90% is subjective ::) first of all you don't even know the criteria second you're wrong once again.
I think I have an idea.......
either one guy has high calves or he doesn't , either one guy had oddly shaped abdominals or he doesn't
Wait........I thought the "Criteria" is all about judging the physique as a whole, not who has oddly shaped abs. Just as Ronnie's abs are oddly shaped, so are Dorian's quadriceps. So you see both of them have oddly shaped muscle groups, why would Ronnie's abs be more important as a flaw than Dorian's quads? The only thing that matters would be how the whole physique looks on stage, not Ronnie's abs alone.
The judging becomes subjective when its time to compare who has the most complete physique.
And about the calves: sure Ronnie had high calves and that is not subjective since its clearly visible, but so are Dorian's weak biceps. Even pre tear his biceps never looked great on stage, one of them was noticeably different than the other. (symmetry affected)
So at the moment of comparing both physiques, what is going to matter the most? It can become subjective.
either a guy is holding a film of water or he's not , either a guy can effectively hold a mandatory pose or he can't , either a guy has small hips and joints or he don't ,
What about when two or more guys are closely conditioned or when two guys are great at holding mandatory poses? When comparisons are close it becomes subjective, that is why there are so many different opinions on who had the best physique.
Symmetry is subjective (as you pointed out) and so are balance & proportion. Despite that plenty of the criteria is not subjective, who has the best physique still comes down to opinions.
-
Thanks for proving my case ;)
Sure, in your mind.............
-
ND stopped looking at Ronnie's pics years ago.
-
Sure, in your mind.............
yeah exactly and your mind Ronnie was better conditioned in 99 and has better balance and Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 and all sorts of fanciful things
-
yeah exactly and your mind Ronnie was better conditioned in 99 and has better balance and Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 and all sorts of fanciful things
I never said Ronnie was better conditioned in 99, but that his whole physique was better. I did say he was a bit drier in 98 and that still wouldn't top his 99 Olympia version.
I do think Ronnie has better balance & proportion than Dorian in any Olympia comparison of the two. An exception could be made with Dorian's 1993 B&W pics, but would be over powered by a precontest version of Ronnie 2003 or 2003. Still, Dorian never looked like that on stage.
If you are still so sure that Dorian was so much better than Ronnie, then that's fine. Its all in your head. ;D
And the whole 1995 thing, I stand by it. You may think its stupid or whatever, but that little game of you constantly pointing it out won't work with me. (As you do with Hulkster and the things he said).
-
I think I have an idea.......
Wait........I thought the "Criteria" is all about judging the physique as a whole, not who has oddly shaped abs. Just as Ronnie's abs are oddly shaped, so are Dorian's quadriceps. So you see both of them have oddly shaped muscle groups, why would Ronnie's abs be more important as a flaw than Dorian's quads? The only thing that matters would be how the whole physique looks on stage, not Ronnie's abs alone.
The judging becomes subjective when its time to compare who has the most complete physique.
And about the calves: sure Ronnie had high calves and that is not subjective since its clearly visible, but so are Dorian's weak biceps. Even pre tear his biceps never looked great on stage, one of them was noticeably different than the other. (symmetry affected)
So at the moment of comparing both physiques, what is going to matter the most? It can become subjective.
What about when two or more guys are closely conditioned or when two guys are great at holding mandatory poses? When comparisons are close it becomes subjective, that is why there are so many different opinions on who had the best physique.
Symmetry is subjective (as you pointed out) and so are balance & proportion. Despite that plenty of the criteria is not subjective, who has the best physique still comes down to opinions.
I think I have an idea.......
I know you don't ....and you have lots of ideas that conflict with reality
Wait........I thought the "Criteria" is all about judging the physique as a whole, not who has oddly shaped abs. Just as Ronnie's abs are oddly shaped, so are Dorian's quadriceps. So you see both of them have oddly shaped muscle groups, why would Ronnie's abs be more important as a flaw than Dorian's quads? The only thing that matters would be how the whole physique looks on stage, not Ronnie's abs alone.
The judging becomes subjective when its time to compare who has the most complete physique.
the parts are judged in accordance with who meets the criteria as a WHOLE , still learning huh? the judging is NOT subjective and you're hyperfocusing on one minute part of the whole package
again either one guy is hold water or he's not , either one guy has high calves or he doesn't , either one guy is short or he's not , either one guy doesn't carry a lot of muscular bulk or he does don't, these things are NOT subjective
And about the calves: sure Ronnie had high calves and that is not subjective since its clearly visible, but so are Dorian's weak biceps. Even pre tear his biceps never looked great on stage, one of them was noticeably different than the other. (symmetry affected)
So at the moment of comparing both physiques, what is going to matter the most? It can become subjective.
NOPE sorry wrong again , Ronnie's calves are much more of a liability than Dorian's biceps and you being the ignorant biased person you are can't look past your own preference , Dorian's biceps ( AT HIS BEST ) were never spectacular but in NO WAY as bad as Coleman's calves , ontop of being high and lacking proportionate size and any development the shape sucks as well , at his best Dorian's biceps lacked a peak but that's about it , and calves my ignorant friend CAN NOT be hidden the judges know this , they are clearly visible in every single pose from every single angel in a hypothetical pose-down in terms of liability Ronnie's calves is a major and glaring flaw even if you're willing to overlook it
What about when two or more guys are closely conditioned or when two guys are great at holding mandatory poses? When comparisons are close it becomes subjective, that is why there are so many different opinions on who had the best physique.
NOPE still lost huh? with all things being equal in this area with assess ALL of the criteria as a whole , get this through your head ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS all of the criteria is assessed as a whole in every single pose
So lets say Shawn Ray has the exact same conditioning as Dorian , how do we pick whose better? lets add the rest of the criteria , does Shawn carry more muscular bulk than Dorian? NO does Shawn have better balance & proportion than Dorian? NO his Shawn harder than Dorian? NO is Shawn a better poser than Dorian? you could say yes however in ANY pose ALL of the criteria is assessed so NO Dorian wins because he simply meets ALL of the criteria better
Symmetry is subjective (as you pointed out) and so are balance & proportion. Despite that plenty of the criteria is not subjective, who has the best physique still comes down to opinions.
symmetry is most certainly NOT subjective if I make the claim that Flex Wheeler has smaller joints , hips and waist than Dorian , this is NOT open for discussion it's a fact , you constantly prove with each post how little you know about how contests are judged and what they look for , you're attempting to bend everything to meet Ronnie's style physique and it's NOT how it's done
and who has the best physique does come down to opinion , opinions of people who know what to look for , how to apply it and who meets it better and your opinion is lacking severely
-
I never said Ronnie was better conditioned in 99, but that his whole physique was better. I did say he was a bit drier in 98 and that still wouldn't top his 99 Olympia version.
I do think Ronnie has better balance & proportion than Dorian in any Olympia comparison of the two. An exception could be made with Dorian's 1993 B&W pics, but would be over powered by a precontest version of Ronnie 2003 or 2003. Still, Dorian never looked like that on stage.
If you are still so sure that Dorian was so much better than Ronnie, then that's fine. Its all in your head. ;D
And the whole 1995 thing, I stand by it. You may think its stupid or whatever, but that little game of you constantly pointing it out won't work with me. (As you do with Hulkster and the things he said).
I never said Ronnie was better conditioned in 99, but that his whole physique was better. I did say he was a bit drier in 98 and that still wouldn't top his 99 Olympia version.
I do think Ronnie has better balance & proportion than Dorian in any Olympia comparison of the two. An exception could be made with Dorian's 1993 B&W pics, but would be over powered by a precontest version of Ronnie 2003 or 2003. Still, Dorian never looked like that on stage.
If you are still so sure that Dorian was so much better than Ronnie, then that's fine. Its all in your head. ;D
sure you did you said he at the least as conditioned and perhaps a tad drier in 98 and I've explained to you before the difference isn't negligible it was enough to warrant the comments
As far as Ronnie having better balance like I said you have a lot of fanciful thoughts on the subject a lot of them ignorant
Precontest Ronnie is way more imbalanced than usual and his conditioning is NO WHERE near as good as Dorians
I know for a fact Dorian is better than Ronnie , he faced Ronnie many times and easily beat him , certainly Ronnie wasn't at the level he was but Dorian still enjoys advantages he doesn't and statistically Dorian would win ;)
And the whole 1995 thing, I stand by it. You may think its stupid or whatever, but that little game of you constantly pointing it out won't work with me. (As you do with Hulkster and the things he said).
I'm glad your comfortable in your own ignorant statement , stand by it all you'd like it doesn't change the fact he dominated on par with 1993 to deny this only show how little you know but you're not shy about that either
when you speak on topics and try and sound knowledgeable I will always throw that quote back in your face because in 2 seconds I can show how little you know. ;)
-
Wayne Demilla " I've said to Ronnie , " What you've got to realize is that in 98-99 you were probably in the best proportion you could be for your frame . Those muscles have gotten bigger. Just cos you're bigger , doesn't make you better . "
this quote is from 2003 and I've said many times before I found this quote that the heavier Ronnie became the more his balance & proportion suffered for it which is exactly why the vast majority agree 2001/1998 are his best showings . so whenever anyone post these pics of Ronnie from pre-contest 2002/2003 they can't seem to grasp how much worse his physique is in this aspect an along with his density & dryness which McGough touches on and anyone with two fucking eyes can see , the heavier Ronnie becomes the worse his conditioning becomes
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
-
ND stopped looking at Ronnie's pics years ago.
not true that's how I noticed Hulkster was posting photoshopped ones ;D
-
I know you don't ....and you have lots of ideas that conflict with reality
the parts are judged in accordance with who meets the criteria as a WHOLE , still learning huh? the judging is NOT subjective and you're hyperfocusing on one minute part of the whole package
again either one guy is hold water or he's not , either one guy has high calves or he doesn't , either one guy is short or he's not , either one guy doesn't carry a lot of muscular bulk or he does don't, these things are NOT subjective
NOPE sorry wrong again , Ronnie's calves are much more of a liability than Dorian's biceps and you being the ignorant biased person you are can't look past your own preference , Dorian's biceps ( AT HIS BEST ) were never spectacular but in NO WAY as bad as Coleman's calves , ontop of being high and lacking proportionate size and any development the shape sucks as well , at his best Dorian's biceps lacked a peak but that's about it , and calves my ignorant friend CAN NOT be hidden the judges know this , they are clearly visible in every single pose from every single angel in a hypothetical pose-down in terms of liability Ronnie's calves is a major and glaring flaw even if you're willing to overlook it
NOPE still lost huh? with all things being equal in this area with assess ALL of the criteria as a whole , get this through your head ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS all of the criteria is assessed as a whole in every single pose
So lets say Shawn Ray has the exact same conditioning as Dorian , how do we pick whose better? lets add the rest of the criteria , does Shawn carry more muscular bulk than Dorian? NO does Shawn have better balance & proportion than Dorian? NO his Shawn harder than Dorian? NO is Shawn a better poser than Dorian? you could say yes however in ANY pose ALL of the criteria is assessed so NO Dorian wins because he simply meets ALL of the criteria better
symmetry is most certainly NOT subjective if I make the claim that Flex Wheeler has smaller joints , hips and waist than Dorian , this is NOT open for discussion it's a fact , you constantly prove with each post how little you know about how contests are judged and what they look for , you're attempting to bend everything to meet Ronnie's style physique and it's NOT how it's done
and who has the best physique does come down to opinion , opinions of people who know what to look for , how to apply it and who meets it better and your opinion is lacking severely
NOPE sorry wrong again , Ronnie's calves are much more of a liability than Dorian's biceps and you being the ignorant biased person you are can't look past your own preference , Dorian's biceps ( AT HIS BEST ) were never spectacular but in NO WAY as bad as Coleman's calves , ontop of being high and lacking proportionate size and any development the shape sucks as well , at his best Dorian's biceps lacked a peak but that's about it , and calves my ignorant friend CAN NOT be hidden the judges know this , they are clearly visible in every single pose from every single angel in a hypothetical pose-down in terms of liability Ronnie's calves is a major and glaring flaw even if you're willing to overlook it
Did those terrible calves prevented Ronnie from winning? No.
Was it that the rest of his physique was so good that it didn't matter so much? Probably.
Do you want to talk about "lacking proportionate size"? How about Dorian's arms lacking proportionate size to match his massive back/torso?
They may be proportionate to you, but not to others: subjective opinion.
Do you want to talk about shape? How about Dorian's quads and biceps?
And you tell me I'm biased? You are overlooking Dorian's flaws all the time.
NOPE still lost huh? with all things being equal in this area with assess ALL of the criteria as a whole , get this through your head ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS all of the criteria is assessed as a whole in every single pose
Get this through your head: I know all rounds are physique rounds. Repeating it won't make you sound smarter.........
You were the one picking up on Ronnie's calves and abs before.
does Shawn carry more muscular bulk than Dorian? NO
Try comparing Dorian to Ronnie its a lot closer........
does Shawn have better balance & proportion than Dorian? NO
Its not a fact. Plenty of people out there, myself included, think Shawn had better balance & proportion. There is even some people that say Dorian's proportion was terrible.
is Shawn harder than Dorian? NO
Try with Ronnie......a much closer comparison.
is Shawn a better poser than Dorian?
Funny that you were saying that its not a fact that Shawn was a better poser than Dorian........Again, another aspect of the criteria that is subjective.
however in ANY pose ALL of the criteria is assessed so NO Dorian wins because he simply meets ALL of the criteria better
In Shawn's case yes, since the difference between the two is more noticeable.
Try with Ronnie, would you say Dorian beats him because he meets the criteria better?
symmetry is most certainly NOT subjective if I make the claim that Flex Wheeler has smaller joints , hips and waist than Dorian , this is NOT open for discussion it's a fact , you constantly prove with each post how little you know about how contests are judged and what they look for , you're attempting to bend everything to meet Ronnie's style physique and it's NOT how it's done
Really? A few pages back you were telling how symmetry can change depending on the context and different people's opinions, meaning its subjective. Now you are saying its not subjective.
You even used quotes from Lee Priest and Bev Francis to show how symmetry can be subjective.
Did you know that proportion can also be shown to be subjective going by your logic?
-
when you speak on topics and try and sound knowledgeable I will always throw that quote back in your face because in 2 seconds I can show how little you know. ;)
Do it as you wish, it won't matter at all.........
-
Wayne Demilla " I've said to Ronnie , " What you've got to realize is that in 98-99 you were probably in the best proportion you could be for your frame . Those muscles have gotten bigger. Just cos you're bigger , doesn't make you better . "
this quote is from 2003 and I've said many times before I found this quote that the heavier Ronnie became the more his balance & proportion suffered for it which is exactly why the vast majority agree 2001/1998 are his best showings . so whenever anyone post these pics of Ronnie from pre-contest 2002/2003 they can't seem to grasp how much worse his physique is in this aspect an along with his density & dryness which McGough touches on and anyone with two fucking eyes can see , the heavier Ronnie becomes the worse his conditioning becomes
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
According to you all of these quotes should be "popular opinion". You sure when to use them to your convinience.
Anyway let's go by quotes:
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
-
He is basically saying that even though he was drier in 1998, his best Olympia appearance was 1999.
-
Wayne Demilla " I've said to Ronnie , " What you've got to realize is that in 98-99 you were probably in the best proportion you could be for your frame . Those muscles have gotten bigger. Just cos you're bigger , doesn't make you better . "
this quote is from 2003 and I've said many times before I found this quote that the heavier Ronnie became the more his balance & proportion suffered for it which is exactly why the vast majority agree 2001/1998 are his best showings . so whenever anyone post these pics of Ronnie from pre-contest 2002/2003 they can't seem to grasp how much worse his physique is in this aspect an along with his density & dryness which McGough touches on and anyone with two fucking eyes can see , the heavier Ronnie becomes the worse his conditioning becomes
Are you saying Dorian's balance & proportions didn't suffer? How about the 1995, 1996 and 1997 Olympias?
Just look at him at the 1997 Olympia and you just can't say he was proportionate. He still won.
-
Did those terrible calves prevented Ronnie from winning? No.
Was it that the rest of his physique was so good that it didn't matter so much? Probably.
Do you want to talk about "lacking proportionate size"? How about Dorian's arms lacking proportionate size to match his massive back/torso?
They may be proportionate to you, but not to others: subjective opinion.
Do you want to talk about shape? How about Dorian's quads and biceps?
And you tell me I'm biased? You are overlooking Dorian's flaws all the time.
Get this through your head: I know all rounds are physique rounds. Repeating it won't make you sound smarter.........
You were the one picking up on Ronnie's calves and abs before.
Try comparing Dorian to Ronnie its a lot closer........
Its not a fact. Plenty of people out there, myself included, think Shawn had better balance & proportion. There is even some people that say Dorian's proportion was terrible.
Try with Ronnie......a much closer comparison.
Funny that you were saying that its not a fact that Shawn was a better poser than Dorian........Again, another aspect of the criteria that is subjective.
In Shawn's case yes, since the difference between the two is more noticeable.
Try with Ronnie, would you say Dorian beats him because he meets the criteria better?
Really? A few pages back you were telling how symmetry can change depending on the context and different people's opinions, meaning its subjective. Now you are saying its not subjective.
You even used quotes from Lee Priest and Bev Francis to show how symmetry can be subjective.
Did you know that proportion can also be shown to be subjective going by your logic?
Did those terrible calves prevented Ronnie from winning? No.
Was it that the rest of his physique was so good that it didn't matter so much? Probably.
Do you want to talk about "lacking proportionate size"? How about Dorian's arms lacking proportionate size to match his massive back/torso?
They may be proportionate to you, but not to others: subjective opinion.
Do you want to talk about shape? How about Dorian's quads and biceps?
And you tell me I'm biased? You are overlooking Dorian's flaws all the time.
Did those terrible calves prevented Ronnie from winning? No.
Was it that the rest of his physique was so good that it didn't matter so much? Probably.
Do you want to talk about "lacking proportionate size"? How about Dorian's arms lacking proportionate size to match his massive back/torso?
That's all relative to who he's competing with isn't it? if everyone has weak calves than it's NOT a flaw is it? and overall compared to he was competing with he was better than them , then again his competition wasn't fantastic anyway , past his prime , Flex , Kevin , Shawn and Dillet men who were much better and sharper when they competed with Yates , you think Flex 98 would push Yates to the limit? HAHAHAHA or Kevin in 02? are you kidding me? Dorian's ARMS at his best are in proportion with his torso , arms include biceps/triceps and forearms so be careful about making blanket statements
They may be proportionate to you, but not to others: subjective opinion.
Do you want to talk about shape? How about Dorian's quads and biceps?
And you tell me I'm biased? You are overlooking Dorian's flaws all the time
I'm not overlooking Dorian's flaws just assessing which ones are more of a liability and as a whole Dorian has less flaws , when you factor in ALL of the criteria which you can't seem to grasp , lets say balance & proportion were a push , Dorian still wins in muscular bulk , density , dryness and posing so when you factor in ALL of the criteria which is how it's done , Dorian still edges Ronnie out and that's being kind
Get this through your head: I know all rounds are physique rounds. Repeating it won't make you sound smarter.........
You were the one picking up on Ronnie's calves and abs before.
the purpose wasn't to make myself sound smarter it was to beat into your ignorant head ;) I'm not doing it for my benefit but yours , I may not be smart ( although Hulkster thinks so ) but I at least know what I'm talking about
Try comparing Dorian to Ronnie its a lot closer........
or is it? there is a difference between 257lbs dense & dry and 257 lbs lacking in this area , soft size will never beat dense , dry size
Funny that you were saying that its not a fact that Shawn was a better poser than Dorian........Again, another aspect of the criteria that is subjective.
Shawn probably was a better ' poser ' but this means what? how many times did Shawn beat Dorian in ANY posing rounds? NEVER and why? ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS so in the posing rounds the judges are looking for who has the most muscular bulk , who has better balanced development , density & dryness , among other things so go back to the drawing board
Its not a fact. Plenty of people out there, myself included, think Shawn had better balance & proportion. There is even some people that say Dorian's proportion was terrible.
LMFAO your proof is popular opinion? you're flat-out wrong if you think Shawn had better balance & proportion compared to Dorian , wow people say things so they must be true this is what you're offering up? popular opinion and ignorant people? people think Ronnie was aesthetic too so I guess that means it's true ::) get a clue
In Shawn's case yes, since the difference between the two is more noticeable.
Try with Ronnie, would you say Dorian beats him because he meets the criteria better?
Yup , the criteria favor's Yates physique
Really? A few pages back you were telling how symmetry can change depending on the context and different people's opinions, meaning its subjective. Now you are saying its not subjective.
You even used quotes from Lee Priest and Bev Francis to show how symmetry can be subjective.
Did you know that proportion can also be shown to be subjective going by your logic?
It's NOT subjective just misunderstood by the layperson , and it depends on the context and what PART of it they mean , does Ronnie have better ' symmetry ' than Dorian ? smaller hips , waist , joints , etc YES , Flex was known as The Sultan of Symmetry despite the fact his balance & proportion weren't anything special
balance & proportion are part & parcel of symmetry which is why Bev Francis said Dorian's was almost perfect , the judges know the difference and what to look for and who meets it better . does Ronnie have better ' symmetry ' than Dorian? yes . does Dorian have better ' symmetry ' than Ronnie? yes it all depends on the context you're using. but make NO mistake it's not subjective , Ronnie's hips & waist & joints are smaller than Dorian's and so was Shawn's & Flex that's not open for discussion
-
He is basically saying that even though he was drier in 1998, his best Olympia appearance was 1999.
and HARDER he may have liked 1999 better due to the fact he didn't have ANY bitch-tits which would explain why he thinks 2001 is better than 1999 he was harder & drier and didn't have any bitch-tits ;)
-
Are you saying Dorian's balance & proportions didn't suffer? How about the 1995, 1996 and 1997 Olympias?
Just look at him at the 1997 Olympia and you just can't say he was proportionate. He still won.
NO not at his best NO they didn't in fact Dorian looks better heavier and at his best the 93 pics it's near perfect
in 95 his balance & proportion was great even with the one bicep shorter than the other , especially in relation to with whom he was competing. 96 not so much and 97 NO he won that on pure size , density & dryness
-
and HARDER he may have liked 1999 better due to the fact he didn't have ANY bitch-tits which would explain why he thinks 2001 is better than 1999 he was harder & drier and didn't have any bitch-tits ;)
So you're agreeing that 1999 was possibly better then 1998?
-
So you're agreeing that 1999 was possibly better then 1998?
NO as far as a whole , muscular bulk , balance & proportion , density & dryness , Ronnie looked better in 98
if Ronnie 99 had the same density & dryness he did in 98/01 I would say yes because more muscle and equal conditioning as long as balance doesn't suffer is the ideal
-
That's all relative to who he's competing with isn't it? if everyone has weak calves than it's NOT a flaw is it? and overall compared to he was competing with he was better than them , then again his competition wasn't fantastic anyway , past his prime , Flex , Kevin , Shawn and Dillet men who were much better and sharper when they competed with Yates , you think Flex 98 would push Yates to the limit? HAHAHAHA or Kevin in 02? are you kidding me? Dorian's ARMS at his best are in proportion with his torso , arms include biceps/triceps and forearms so be careful about making blanket statements
I'm not overlooking Dorian's flaws just assessing which ones are more of a liability and as a whole Dorian has less flaws , when you factor in ALL of the criteria which you can't seem to grasp , lets say balance & proportion were a push , Dorian still wins in muscular bulk , density , dryness and posing so when you factor in ALL of the criteria which is how it's done , Dorian still edges Ronnie out and that's being kind
the purpose wasn't to make myself sound smarter it was to beat into your ignorant head ;) I'm not doing it for my benefit but yours , I may not be smart ( although Hulkster thinks so ) but I at least know what I'm talking about
or is it? there is a difference between 257lbs dense & dry and 257 lbs lacking in this area , soft size will never beat dense , dry size
Shawn probably was a better ' poser ' but this means what? how many times did Shawn beat Dorian in ANY posing rounds? NEVER and why? ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS so in the posing rounds the judges are looking for who has the most muscular bulk , who has better balanced development , density & dryness , among other things so go back to the drawing board
LMFAO your proof is popular opinion? you're flat-out wrong if you think Shawn had better balance & proportion compared to Dorian , wow people say things so they must be true this is what you're offering up? popular opinion and ignorant people? people think Ronnie was aesthetic too so I guess that means it's true ::) get a clue
Yup , the criteria favor's Yates physique
It's NOT subjective just misunderstood by the layperson , and it depends on the context and what PART of it they mean , does Ronnie have better ' symmetry ' than Dorian ? smaller hips , waist , joints , etc YES , Flex was known as The Sultan of Symmetry despite the fact his balance & proportion weren't anything special
balance & proportion are part & parcel of symmetry which is why Bev Francis said Dorian's was almost perfect , the judges know the difference and what to look for and who meets it better . does Ronnie have better ' symmetry ' than Dorian? yes . does Dorian have better ' symmetry ' than Ronnie? yes it all depends on the context you're using. but make NO mistake it's not subjective , Ronnie's hips & waist & joints are smaller than Dorian's and so was Shawn's & Flex that's not open for discussion
That's all relative to who he's competing with isn't it? if everyone has weak calves than it's NOT a flaw is it? and overall compared to he was competing with he was better than them , then again his competition wasn't fantastic anyway , past his prime , Flex , Kevin , Shawn and Dillet men who were much better and sharper when they competed with Yates , you think Flex 98 would push Yates to the limit? HAHAHAHA or Kevin in 02? are you kidding me? Dorian's ARMS at his best are in proportion with his torso , arms include biceps/triceps and forearms so be careful about making blanket statements
Sure it all depends on who they are competing with. Wouldn't Dorian's arms, quads, lack of deep separations, etc. be a flaw considering he would be going on against Ronnie who was outstanding at these?
Funny thing you mention past their primes, when one of your "friends" here thinks Shawn's best was 1999.
What was Kevin's best according to you? Was he past his prime in 2002? Of course, but not in 1998-1999.
Flex 1999 is considered to be one of his best appearances ever after his 1993 AC of course.
As far as Dorian's arms: what is Dorian's best according to you?
I'm not overlooking Dorian's flaws just assessing which ones are more of a liability and as a whole Dorian has less flaws , when you factor in ALL of the criteria which you can't seem to grasp , lets say balance & proportion were a push , Dorian still wins in muscular bulk , density , dryness and posing so when you factor in ALL of the criteria which is how it's done , Dorian still edges Ronnie out and that's being kind
How do you know this is a fact? How can you be so sure that Dorian meets all of the criteria better?
Wait.....you said you think its not a fact Dorian would beat Ronnie, but now you're saying he would. :-\
or is it? there is a difference between 257lbs dense & dry and 257 lbs lacking in this area , soft size will never beat dense , dry size
So Ronnie 98-99 is soft to you? :-\
Shawn probably was a better ' poser ' but this means what? how many times did Shawn beat Dorian in ANY posing rounds? NEVER and why? ALL ROUNDS ARE PHYSIQUE ROUNDS so in the posing rounds the judges are looking for who has the most muscular bulk , who has better balanced development , density & dryness , among other things so go back to the drawing board
You're repeating this too much...........I was not trying to say Shawn should've beaten Dorian in the posing rounds and I know all rounds are physique rounds. All I was trying to do is show you how ONE aspect of the criteria, in this case posing, is subjective.
LMFAO your proof is popular opinion? you're flat-out wrong if you think Shawn had better balance & proportion compared to Dorian , wow people say things so they must be true this is what you're offering up? popular opinion and ignorant people? people think Ronnie was aesthetic too so I guess that means it's true ::) get a clue
Sergio Oliva said that Dorian had terrible proportion and symmetry. You have quoted a lot of pro bodybuilders in the past, so don't try to say their opinions don't matter.
It's NOT subjective just misunderstood by the layperson , and it depends on the context and what PART of it they mean , does Ronnie have better ' symmetry ' than Dorian ? smaller hips , waist , joints , etc YES , Flex was known as The Sultan of Symmetry despite the fact his balance & proportion weren't anything special
You say that balance & proportion are a part of symmetry, then how can someone say that Flex was the Sultan of Symmetry? perhaps because to the person who said it symmetry is just about small waist, small joints, left & right balance, etc.
If its changing due to the context or the opinion of a person then it has to be subjective.
balance & proportion are part & parcel of symmetry which is why Bev Francis said Dorian's was almost perfect , the judges know the difference and what to look for and who meets it better . does Ronnie have better ' symmetry ' than Dorian? yes . does Dorian have better ' symmetry ' than Ronnie? yes it all depends on the context you're using. but make NO mistake it's not subjective , Ronnie's hips & waist & joints are smaller than Dorian's and so was Shawn's & Flex that's not open for discussion
So using both sets of context, who has better symmetry to you Ronnie or Dorian?
-
NO not at his best NO they didn't in fact Dorian looks better heavier and at his best the 93 pics it's near perfect
in 95 his balance & proportion was great even with the one bicep shorter than the other , especially in relation to with whom he was competing. 96 not so much and 97 NO he won that on pure size , density & dryness
So you're saying someone can win on pure size and conditioning, yet a heavier Ronnie loses to Dorian because of his imbalances and proportional flaws? ???
-
NO as far as a whole , muscular bulk , balance & proportion , density & dryness , Ronnie looked better in 98
if Ronnie 99 had the same density & dryness he did in 98/01 I would say yes because more muscle and equal conditioning as long as balance doesn't suffer is the ideal
Do you consider Peter McGough to be an "expert"? You must since you quote him so much.
Now your opinion on Ronnie's best Olympia is different than that of McGough. Who's is right?
It can't be determined in an exact way because its subjective.
If its subjective to determine Ronnie's best year, then it would be equally subjective to determine who would win between him and Dorian.
In this case then, who meets the judging criteria better is also subjective. Which can make who meets part of the criteria better a subjective matter.
-
its funny and sad that ND is now claiming that he thinks that 98 is better than 99 when in the past he has specifically stated that he feels 99 was better than 98 (because of the extra size and fullness). look in the truce thread or old ronnie vs dorian threads. the statements are there.
now, he changes his mind..for no reason.
hell, his own hero Mcgough even says 99 was better than 98, but now he disagrees with him.
but he agrees with him on ridiculous stuff like dorian was harder precontest than ronnie ever was onstage.. ::)
the guy must be on crack. :-\
-
Do you consider Peter McGough to be an "expert"? You must since you quote him so much.
yes, Mcgough quotes are about the only thing that ND presents as proof for his arguments.
because the visuals always show him to be wrong.
-
Sure it all depends on who they are competing with. Wouldn't Dorian's arms, quads, lack of deep separations, etc. be a flaw considering he would be going on against Ronnie who was outstanding at these?
Funny thing you mention past their primes, when one of your "friends" here thinks Shawn's best was 1999.
What was Kevin's best according to you? Was he past his prime in 2002? Of course, but not in 1998-1999.
Flex 1999 is considered to be one of his best appearances ever after his 1993 AC of course.
As far as Dorian's arms: what is Dorian's best according to you?
How do you know this is a fact? How can you be so sure that Dorian meets all of the criteria better?
Wait.....you said you think its not a fact Dorian would beat Ronnie, but now you're saying he would. :-\
So Ronnie 98-99 is soft to you? :-\
You're repeating this too much...........I was not trying to say Shawn should've beaten Dorian in the posing rounds and I know all rounds are physique rounds. All I was trying to do is show you how ONE aspect of the criteria, in this case posing, is subjective.
Sergio Oliva said that Dorian had terrible proportion and symmetry. You have quoted a lot of pro bodybuilders in the past, so don't try to say their opinions don't matter.
You say that balance & proportion are a part of symmetry, then how can someone say that Flex was the Sultan of Symmetry? perhaps because to the person who said it symmetry is just about small waist, small joints, left & right balance, etc.
If its changing due to the context or the opinion of a person then it has to be subjective.
So using both sets of context, who has better symmetry to you Ronnie or Dorian?
Sure it all depends on who they are competing with. Wouldn't Dorian's arms, quads, lack of deep separations, etc. be a flaw considering he would be going on against Ronnie who was outstanding at these?
Dorian's arms at his best are fine as are his quads , does Ronnie have advantages in biceps? absolutely? quads? sure . but I can mention Ronnie's flaws we could go tit-for-tat but as a whole at his best Dorian has less flaws
Funny thing you mention past their primes, when one of your "friends" here thinks Shawn's best was 1999.
What was Kevin's best according to you? Was he past his prime in 2002? Of course, but not in 1998-1999.
Flex 1999 is considered to be one of his best appearances ever after his 1993 AC of course.
who said it was my friend? he thinks what he likes I think what I like . Shawn's best was either 1994 or 1996 , Kevin was 1992 or 1995 . the best Flex ever looked was 1993 and after the accident he never looked the same again , he resorted to injecting everywhere and looked foolish that and his hams/glutes most likely prevented him from beating Ronnie in 98
Dorian's arms at his best is probably the 93 precontest pics his arms are massive everywhere NO tears
How do you know this is a fact? How can you be so sure that Dorian meets all of the criteria better?
Wait.....you said you think its not a fact Dorian would beat Ronnie, but now you're saying he would. :-\
well you can tell by looking at pics & videos ( which aren't always accurate BTW ) eyewitnesses which verify these statements , Dorian who is an IFBB judge mind you said on the topic of Ronnie , that he had better balance & proportion and conditioning and I honestly don't think the conditioning aspect is in question by anyone other than internet-fans I think it's generally accepted by people in the know that Dorian's conditioning is legendary and Ronnie's well isn't , but for the sake of argument I'm always willing to entertain Ronnie may have matched Dorian in this area albeit at his lightest
and people have said Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie this does NOT make it a fact , but I think it's a fact that Dorian meets the criteria better
So Ronnie 98-99 is soft to you? :-\
NO 99 softer than 98 yes but still pretty damn conditioning , but not on par with 01 or Dorian but I'm willing to entertain he may have been even though I don't have to
You're repeating this too much...........I was not trying to say Shawn should've beaten Dorian in the posing rounds and I know all rounds are physique rounds. All I was trying to do is show you how ONE aspect of the criteria, in this case posing, is subjective.
because you're still not grasping the concept , and elaborate on how it's subjective
Sergio Oliva said that Dorian had terrible proportion and symmetry. You have quoted a lot of pro bodybuilders in the past, so don't try to say their opinions don't matter.
Okay now we have to know in what context was he talking about? 1997? I wouldn't disagree so much at his best? I mean it's a pretty vague quote and Sergio also bitched & moaned about his placement in 1984/85 does it mean he should have placed higher?
You say that balance & proportion are a part of symmetry, then how can someone say that Flex was the Sultan of Symmetry? perhaps because to the person who said it symmetry is just about small waist, small joints, left & right balance, etc.
If its changing due to the context or the opinion of a person then it has to be subjective.
no because 99% of people always refer to symmetry as small hips , waist & joints , it's the context . Dorian NEVER lost a symmetry round does that mean he always had the best ' symmetry ' again when properly applied it's not subjective because in the end Ronnie's waist is narrower and Dorian's calves are in better proportion with his quads and this isn't debatable or subjective
So using both sets of context, who has better symmetry to you Ronnie or Dorian?
Ronnie has better ' symmetry ' in the classic sense of the word and Dorian has better balance & proportion , see this is where all rounds are physique rounds comes into play because Ronnie's physique favors part(s) of the criteria better than Dorians and same with Yates in that area , but then we factor in the rest of the criteria even with better ' symmetry ' it doesn't mean a better pose perfect example ab-thigh
A pose on paper Ronnie should win hands down , smaller waist & hips , smaller joints great taper. But Ronnie's never had a better ab-thigh one because he can never seem to effectively do the pose but overall from head to toe Dorian's greater balance & proportion , bulk , abdominals density & drynes , he wins , it's a classic case of Dorian meeting the criteria better overall although Ronnie has some advantages
-
So you're saying someone can win on pure size and conditioning, yet a heavier Ronnie loses to Dorian because of his imbalances and proportional flaws? ???
I said Dorian won in 97 on size & density & dryness and Ronnie doesn't have better conditioning than Yates and again it's all relative to who you're competing with
-
but not on par with 01 or Dorian but I'm willing to entertain he may have been even though I don't have to
yes you do.
the visuals dictate that you do:
::)
-
I said Dorian won in 97 on size & density & dryness and Ronnie doesn't have better conditioning than Yates and again it's all relative to who you're competing with
I have to disagree on the statement that Ronnie never had equal conditioning to Dorian.
-
Do you consider Peter McGough to be an "expert"? You must since you quote him so much.
Now your opinion on Ronnie's best Olympia is different than that of McGough. Who's is right?
It can't be determined in an exact way because its subjective.
If its subjective to determine Ronnie's best year, then it would be equally subjective to determine who would win between him and Dorian.
In this case then, who meets the judging criteria better is also subjective. Which can make who meets part of the criteria better a subjective matter.
Do you consider Peter McGough to be an "expert"? You must since you quote him so much.
Now your opinion on Ronnie's best Olympia is different than that of McGough. Who's is right?
It can't be determined in an exact way because its subjective.
well Gee everything is ' subjective ' then how can anyone decide whose better in a contest ::)
and McGough never said 99 was his best Olympia
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.
he used Ronnie 99 as an instance but he doesn't say he's better in 99 and in fact has been pretty consistent that 01 is his best
If its subjective to determine Ronnie's best year, then it would be equally subjective to determine who would win between him and Dorian.
In this case then, who meets the judging criteria better is also subjective. Which can make who meets part of the criteria better a subjective matter.
see above everything is subjective then how do judges come to conclusions? popular opinion? or the criteria ? again stop trying to claim proportion is subjective it's NOT are you claiming Ronnie's calves are in more proportion with his quads than Dorians? is this even open for discussion? is this subjective?
-
its funny and sad that ND is now claiming that he thinks that 98 is better than 99 when in the past he has specifically stated that he feels 99 was better than 98 (because of the extra size and fullness). look in the truce thread or old ronnie vs dorian threads. the statements are there.
now, he changes his mind..for no reason.
hell, his own hero Mcgough even says 99 was better than 98, but now he disagrees with him.
but he agrees with him on ridiculous stuff like dorian was harder precontest than ronnie ever was onstage.. ::)
the guy must be on crack. :-\
he NEVER once says 99 was better that's a lie , in fact he's been pretty consistent that 01 is his best
-
yes, Mcgough quotes are about the only thing that ND presents as proof for his arguments.
because the visuals always show him to be wrong.
the only thing? owned run along dumbass
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
-
yes you do.
the visuals dictate that you do:
::)
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.
Ummm NO I don't ;) add this to the Yates quotes about him having better conditioning ;)
-
I have to disagree on the statement that Ronnie never had equal conditioning to Dorian.
Maybe he did and that's for argument's sake but he only did at his lightest weights , Dorian equals bigger ' equal ' conditioning , better balance & proportion and posing & presentation , so Dorian still wins
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.
size + fullness + hardness + dryness + balance + posing = Yates win
-
Dorian's arms at his best are fine as are his quads , does Ronnie have advantages in biceps? absolutely? quads? sure . but I can mention Ronnie's flaws we could go tit-for-tat but as a whole at his best Dorian has less flaws
who said it was my friend? he thinks what he likes I think what I like . Shawn's best was either 1994 or 1996 , Kevin was 1992 or 1995 . the best Flex ever looked was 1993 and after the accident he never looked the same again , he resorted to injecting everywhere and looked foolish that and his hams/glutes most likely prevented him from beating Ronnie in 98
Dorian's arms at his best is probably the 93 precontest pics his arms are massive everywhere NO tears
well you can tell by looking at pics & videos ( which aren't always accurate BTW ) eyewitnesses which verify these statements , Dorian who is an IFBB judge mind you said on the topic of Ronnie , that he had better balance & proportion and conditioning and I honestly don't think the conditioning aspect is in question by anyone other than internet-fans I think it's generally accepted by people in the know that Dorian's conditioning is legendary and Ronnie's well isn't , but for the sake of argument I'm always willing to entertain Ronnie may have matched Dorian in this area albeit at his lightest
and people have said Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie this does NOT make it a fact , but I think it's a fact that Dorian meets the criteria better
NO 99 softer than 98 yes but still pretty damn conditioning , but not on par with 01 or Dorian but I'm willing to entertain he may have been even though I don't have to
because you're still not grasping the concept , and elaborate on how it's subjective
Okay now we have to know in what context was he talking about? 1997? I wouldn't disagree so much at his best? I mean it's a pretty vague quote and Sergio also bitched & moaned about his placement in 1984/85 does it mean he should have placed higher?
no because 99% of people always refer to symmetry as small hips , waist & joints , it's the context . Dorian NEVER lost a symmetry round does that mean he always had the best ' symmetry ' again when properly applied it's not subjective because in the end Ronnie's waist is narrower and Dorian's calves are in better proportion with his quads and this isn't debatable or subjective
Ronnie has better ' symmetry ' in the classic sense of the word and Dorian has better balance & proportion , see this is where all rounds are physique rounds comes into play because Ronnie's physique favors part(s) of the criteria better than Dorians and same with Yates in that area , but then we factor in the rest of the criteria even with better ' symmetry ' it doesn't mean a better pose perfect example ab-thigh
A pose on paper Ronnie should win hands down , smaller waist & hips , smaller joints great taper. But Ronnie's never had a better ab-thigh one because he can never seem to effectively do the pose but overall from head to toe Dorian's greater balance & proportion , bulk , abdominals density & drynes , he wins , it's a classic case of Dorian meeting the criteria better overall although Ronnie has some advantages
Dorian's arms at his best are fine as are his quads , does Ronnie have advantages in biceps? absolutely? quads? sure . but I can mention Ronnie's flaws we could go tit-for-tat but as a whole at his best Dorian has less flaws
They are fine on its own, but not when you compare them to Ronnie.
Both had flaws, but I see Ronnie as the more complete.
who said it was my friend? he thinks what he likes I think what I like . Shawn's best was either 1994 or 1996 , Kevin was 1992 or 1995 . the best Flex ever looked was 1993 and after the accident he never looked the same again , he resorted to injecting everywhere and looked foolish that and his hams/glutes most likely prevented him from beating Ronnie in 98
In my opinion both Shawn and Levrone were not past their primes before 2000. Shawn's best was definitively 1994.
Dorian's arms at his best is probably the 93 precontest pics his arms are massive everywhere NO tears
Yes, unfortunately he never looked like that where it matters: on stage.
well you can tell by looking at pics & videos ( which aren't always accurate BTW ) eyewitnesses which verify these statements , Dorian who is an IFBB judge mind you said on the topic of Ronnie ,
So now pics and videos are a good way of telling who was the best, but not when Hulkster or myself post them because they show that Ronnie was better?
that he had better balance & proportion and conditioning and I honestly don't think the conditioning aspect is in question by anyone other than internet-fans I think it's generally accepted by people in the know that Dorian's conditioning is legendary and Ronnie's well isn't , but for the sake of argument I'm always willing to entertain Ronnie may have matched Dorian in this area albeit at his lightest
So Ronnie's conditioning wasn't legendary according to you? A lot of people disagree and so does the visual proof.
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
Other than internet fans disagree that Dorian would beat Ronnie? How about the quotes posted from "experts", industry people and bodybuilders who think Ronnie was the greatest ever or unbeatable?
and people have said Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie this does NOT make it a fact , but I think it's a fact that Dorian meets the criteria better
If he meets the criteria better, then it means he would beat him don't you think?
because you're still not grasping the concept , and elaborate on how it's subjective
OK, one example: Shawn Ray was a way better poser as far as the posing routine goes, he is known as one of the best posers in history. Dorian was ok at the posing routines and very good at the mandatory poses.
A lot of people would agree that Shawn Ray was the better poser, but others (as you did) would say he wasn't because Dorian had his own set of advantages.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing would be even closer.
Okay now we have to know in what context was he talking about? 1997? I wouldn't disagree so much at his best? I mean it's a pretty vague quote and Sergio also bitched & moaned about his placement in 1984/85 does it mean he should have placed higher?
no because 99% of people always refer to symmetry as small hips , waist & joints , it's the context . Dorian NEVER lost a symmetry round does that mean he always had the best ' symmetry ' again when properly applied it's not subjective because in the end Ronnie's waist is narrower and Dorian's calves are in better proportion with his quads and this isn't debatable or subjective
Ok, lets say the symmetry and balance & proportion criteria are not subjective on their own, but when a physique is compared to another and all of the criteria is applied at the same time, then who has the most complete physique is a subjective matter to a point.
That is why there have been so many controversial decisions in bb histroy in the past.
Let's say Dorian's calves are in better proportion to his quads than Ronnie, would it make him have better balance & proportion than Ronnie? When looking at the physique as a whole then Ronnie has the advantage in symmetry and balance & proportion.
Ronnie has better ' symmetry ' in the classic sense of the word and Dorian has better balance & proportion , see this is where all rounds are physique rounds comes into play because Ronnie's physique favors part(s) of the criteria better than Dorians and same with Yates in that area , but then we factor in the rest of the criteria even with better ' symmetry ' it doesn't mean a better pose perfect example ab-thigh
A pose on paper Ronnie should win hands down , smaller waist & hips , smaller joints great taper. But Ronnie's never had a better ab-thigh one because he can never seem to effectively do the pose but overall from head to toe Dorian's greater balance & proportion , bulk , abdominals density & drynes , he wins , it's a classic case of Dorian meeting the criteria better overall although Ronnie has some advantages
I actually see it the other way around, Ronnie meets the criteria better than Dorian. Its actually because I see Ronnie having better balance & proportion than Dorian, better symmetry than Dorian, equally conditioned and even though Dorian was heavier, Ronnie has the advantage of "looking" just as big or even bigger than him due to other things such as muscle bellies, small joints, shape, complete muscular development, etc. How many times has a lighter guy beaten a heavier one in the past? Same would apply here. Ronnie also has the advantage of the crazy muscle separations and tie-ins.
Again, a part of the criteria alone may not be subjective (even though some of it is), but when analyzing the whole picture of who had the most complete physique it is subjective especially when its close as Dorian vs Ronnie.
-
Maybe he did and that's for argument's sake but he only did at his lightest weights , Dorian equals bigger ' equal ' conditioning , better balance & proportion and posing & presentation , so Dorian still wins
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.
size + fullness + hardness + dryness + balance + posing = Yates win
How can you explain that Ronnie had bigger arms, delts, chest and quads than Dorian despite being lighter? It probably means that bodyweight its not the primary factor determining how big someone looks.
As far as conditioning goes, are you saying that the ability to display deep muscle separations, detail and striations don't matter at all?
Is it all about being dry and hard?
size + fullness + hardness + dryness + balance + posing = Yates win
I just don't see Dorian with an advantage in size/fullness, symmetry, balance & proportion and posing. Maybe conditioning, but not even that.
-
They are fine on its own, but not when you compare them to Ronnie.
Both had flaws, but I see Ronnie as the more complete.
In my opinion both Shawn and Levrone were not past their primes before 2000. Shawn's best was definitively 1994.
Yes, unfortunately he never looked like that where it matters: on stage.
So now pics and videos are a good way of telling who was the best, but not when Hulkster or myself post them because they show that Ronnie was better?
So Ronnie's conditioning wasn't legendary according to you? A lot of people disagree and so does the visual proof.
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
Other than internet fans disagree that Dorian would beat Ronnie? How about the quotes posted from "experts", industry people and bodybuilders who think Ronnie was the greatest ever or unbeatable?
If he meets the criteria better, then it means he would beat him don't you think?
OK, one example: Shawn Ray was a way better poser as far as the posing routine goes, he is known as one of the best posers in history. Dorian was ok at the posing routines and very good at the mandatory poses.
A lot of people would agree that Shawn Ray was the better poser, but others (as you did) would say he wasn't because Dorian had his own set of advantages.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing would be even closer.
Ok, lets say the symmetry and balance & proportion criteria are not subjective on their own, but when a physique is compared to another and all of the criteria is applied at the same time, then who has the most complete physique is a subjective matter to a point.
That is why there have been so many controversial decisions in bb histroy in the past.
Let's say Dorian's calves are in better proportion to his quads than Ronnie, would it make him have better balance & proportion than Ronnie? When looking at the physique as a whole then Ronnie has the advantage in symmetry and balance & proportion.
I actually see it the other way around, Ronnie meets the criteria better than Dorian. Its actually because I see Ronnie having better balance & proportion than Dorian, better symmetry than Dorian, equally conditioned and even though Dorian was heavier, Ronnie has the advantage of "looking" just as big or even bigger than him due to other things such as muscle bellies, small joints, shape, complete muscular development, etc. How many times has a lighter guy beaten a heavier one in the past? Same would apply here. Ronnie also has the advantage of the crazy muscle separations and tie-ins.
Again, a part of the criteria alone may not be subjective (even though some of it is), but when analyzing the whole picture of who had the most complete physique it is subjective especially when its close as Dorian vs Ronnie.
They are fine on its own, but not when you compare them to Ronnie.
Both had flaws, but I see Ronnie as the more complete.
you see a lot of things , keep looking
In my opinion both Shawn and Levrone were not past their primes before 2000. Shawn's best was definitively 1994.
prime means the best they've ever looked you're agreeing 94 was his prime and then saying he wasn't past that prime in the subsequent 6 years ??? he looked that good or better post? Kevin in 2002 pushed Ronnie to the limit that Kevin was NO WHERE he was in 92 or 95 not even close , Ronnie's competition wasn't as conditioned or high caliber as Yates
Yes, unfortunately he never looked like that where it matters: on stage.
no it doesn't matter because what are you saying he never looked like that? for the sake of argument Dorian 93 Olympia and 95 would beat Ronnie
So now pics and videos are a good way of telling who was the best, but not when Hulkster or myself post them because they show that Ronnie was better?
they help but like I said they're not accurate , contests separated by 10 years with much improvement in camera technology , different quality , lighting , I mean get serious oh and lets not forget the fact Hulkster has been busted MANY times using manipulated pictures by professional graphic artists and one of the best contest photograhers in the business oh and by me and others
they don't show Ronnie was better , fanciful ' comparisons ' made by biased ignorant Coleman nutt-huggers , where Dorian & Ronnie have the same size calves , Dorian has a smaller waist & hips than Ronnie , are you kidding me? pictures back up your claims according to you pictures back up my claims according to me which ones of us is right? ;) your claims like Hulksters tend to contradict reality and mines are more in line with it , you do the math
So Ronnie's conditioning wasn't legendary according to you? A lot of people disagree and so does the visual proof.
NOPE not on par with Yates
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
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.
McGough said outright , he was better in 98 and in 2001 and neither are on par with Yates , Dorian said its not as good as his , one quote doesn't prove anything to me in relation to whom he was competing with on that year , he didn't face Dorian
Other than internet fans disagree that Dorian would beat Ronnie? How about the quotes posted from "experts", industry people and bodybuilders who think Ronnie was the greatest ever or unbeatable?
he technically is the greatest ever going by his contest wins and Sandows , however in the end it's subjective and not a fact
If he meets the criteria better, then it means he would beat him don't you think?
yes I do think that but we're assuming what people are basing this on , especially laymen and even experts NOT everyone knows the criteria my example of Chris Comier
OK, one example: Shawn Ray was a way better poser as far as the posing routine goes, he is known as one of the best posers in history. Dorian was ok at the posing routines and very good at the mandatory poses.
A lot of people would agree that Shawn Ray was the better poser, but others (as you did) would say he wasn't because Dorian had his own set of advantages.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing would be even closer.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing wouldn't be anywhere near as close , Ronnie sucked as posing neither are Shawn Ray but Ronnie is way off , judges look for everything in the posing rounds and Ronnie's still behind and his posing routines were horrible , I suggest you go watch them
Let's say Dorian's calves are in better proportion to his quads than Ronnie, would it make him have better balance & proportion than Ronnie? When looking at the physique as a whole then Ronnie has the advantage in symmetry and balance & proportion.
not only that but then we get into limb length , torso length , arm length and how they all relate and tie together , then we talk about glutes and how Ronnie's aren't in proportion and stick to far out they can he seen from the front and forearms in relation to the biceps/triceps , hams in relation to quads a LOT to grasp more than just calves
Ronnie has an advantage in symmetry and that's it Dorian has the advantage in balance & proportion , now couple that with advantages in density & dryness and muscular bulk and posing and you have a Yates win
I actually see it the other way around, Ronnie meets the criteria better than Dorian. Its actually because I see Ronnie having better balance & proportion than Dorian, better symmetry than Dorian, equally conditioned and even though Dorian was heavier, Ronnie has the advantage of "looking" just as big or even bigger than him due to other things such as muscle bellies, small joints, shape, complete muscular development, etc. How many times has a lighter guy beaten a heavier one in the past? Same would apply here. Ronnie also has the advantage of the crazy muscle separations and tie-ins.
Again you see a lot of things , Ronnie has some advantages in symmetry and tie-ins , but he doesn't compared to Dorian in density & dryness , size and balance & proportion , and you can't speculate on how Ronnie would appear bigger next to Yates pure fantasy , he already know what a 250lb Ronnie looks like next to a 257lb Dorian and he didn't make him look just as big or bigger
Again, a part of the criteria alone may not be subjective (even though some of it is), but when analyzing the whole picture of who had the most complete physique it is subjective especially when its close as Dorian vs Ronnie.
none of it is , complete? at their bests? Dorian hands down , Ronnie has some advantages but overall Dorian is to dominant
perfect example in one of his best Olympia appearances 1998 Flex Wheeler pushed Ronnie to the absolute limit and Ronnie won ( rightly ) by just 3 points one of the closest contests in Olympia history , that Flex was a shadow of himself in 1993 and Dorian was so far ahead of Flex that year it wasn't even funny , Dorian 1993 would trample Ronnie 1998 , you think by adding 8 lbs and coming in less than perfect conditioning would make a dent on Yates? the man who wrote the book on conditioned mass? I think NOT
Ronnie had all of these advantages when he was competing with Yates and where was he? he had the same crazy tie-ins , same gigantic arms , same small waist & hips , same small joints etc the only thing he was lacking was crazy conditioning
-
How can you explain that Ronnie had bigger arms, delts, chest and quads than Dorian despite being lighter? It probably means that bodyweight its not the primary factor determining how big someone looks.
As far as conditioning goes, are you saying that the ability to display deep muscle separations, detail and striations don't matter at all?
Is it all about being dry and hard?
I just don't see Dorian with an advantage in size/fullness, symmetry, balance & proportion and posing. Maybe conditioning, but not even that.
How can you explain that Ronnie had bigger arms, delts, chest and quads than Dorian despite being lighter? It probably means that bodyweight its not the primary factor determining how big someone looks.
You don't know he had all these bigger parts you're assuming it , arms most certainly , delts ? chest? you couldn't say unless they were on the same stage , quads? depending on the year Ronnie's are bigger you think Ronnie's quads at 247 pounds are bigger than Dorian's at 283? lots of variable but entertaining it's true doesn't mean much bigger automatically doesn't mean better but I agree in some pose some lighter guys look equal the size of heavier ones , however bare this in mind
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
no one made Yates look small and Ronnie isn't going to only in fan-boy comparisons
As far as conditioning goes, are you saying that the ability to display deep muscle separations, detail and striations don't matter at all?
Is it all about being dry and hard?
did I say that? Dorian has deep muscle separations , detail and striations , Ronnie may have more doesn't mean he's in better condition , Hulkster tried this , Dorian has striations in his obliques , inetercostals , pecs , triceps , traps , lats , lower back , glutes and it's all about all of the above PLUS being bone dry and hard as nails all the while being 260+lbs while being balanced and complete
I just don't see Dorian with an advantage in size/fullness, symmetry, balance & proportion and posing. Maybe conditioning, but not even that.
we've established that already no point in repeating it , you can't see Dorian dominating in 95 doesn't mean it's true or correct
Ronnie does meet part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian but when all is said and done Dorian meets more better
-
Dorian looks drier/denser than Ronnie in these comparisons...
-
...
-
98 Ronnie > 99 Ronnie
Ronnies routine end of first vid and begining of 2nd vid
-
...
Ronnie looks 100 times better than Dorian in that pic comparision
-
Ronnie looks 100 times better than Dorian in that pic comparision
*Slighlty racist post espectfully removed for accuracy*
Well that you and like guys like you, all arms. ;D
-
98 Ronnie > 99 Ronnie
Ronnies routine end of first vid and begining of 2nd vid
Bump for 98>99 Ronnie.
-
Im pretty sure you just hate white BB's lol.
Well that you and like guys like you, all arms. ;D
To his credit he likes Mike Francios it's not a race thing with him.
-
Yates seriously overdieted for most of his O appearances, he could have been bigger without the loss of conditioning
-
Yates seriously overdieted for most of his O appearances, he could have been bigger without the loss of conditioning
This is true
-
To his credit he likes Mike Francios it's not a race thing with him.
Very well.
Racist post respectfully removed Meso.
-
This is true
Saw him in 1995 - guest posing in London. The man had a thickness that one believes has not been equaled.
Remeber after posing he was sitting, signing autographs, the funny thing was, was thatyou couldnt see the chair :D
-
Im pretty sure you just hate white BB's lol.
Well that you and like guys like you, all arms. ;D
are you stupid why on earth would I hate White bodybuilder ... Some of my fav bbers are White ... Please don't use me to project your subliminal prejudice ... I DONT LIKE DORIANS PHYSIQUE. Not because he is any White but because his phsique is fucking ugly... Don't make wild unfounded accusations you know nothing of me stick to the topic at hand
thanks
-
are you stupid why on earth would I hate White bodybuilder ... Some of my fav bbers are White ... Please don't use me to project your subliminal prejudice ... I DONT LIKE DORIANS PHYSIQUE. Not because he is any White but because his phsique is fucking ugly... Don't make wild unfounded accusations you know nothing of me stick to the topic at hand
thanks
Read above post of mine after ND corrected me.
Besides the giant smiley face should have told you it was in jest. Mostly. Youre not Matt T
-
My friend that's a serious thing to "jest" about...
Anyway... Well leave it at that
-
My friend that's a serious thing to "jest" about...
Anyway... Well leave it at that
Oh jesus. This is getbig man. Thick skin. Im sure theyre has been 1000000x worse things said NOT in jest.
-
In my opinion, Dorian's physique here is perfection (not necessarily by IFBB standards but my own aesthetic ideal)
-
Yates seriously overdieted for most of his O appearances, he could have been bigger without the loss of conditioning
thats probably what ronnie did from 98 to 99.
he came in bigger in 99 with virtually the same conditioning, and looked a lot better as a result.
hell, even guy hero McGough like 99 better than 98.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
:P
-
thats what ronnie did from 98 to 99.
he came in bigger in 99 with virtually the same conditioning, and looked a lot better as a result.
LMFAO virtually the same conditioning
-
LMFAO virtually the same conditioning
You'll have to post it in braille for Huckster.
-
LMFAO virtually the same conditioning
yup. virtually same if not better:
NEXT:
::)
-
You'll have to post it in braille for Huckster.
Hulkster's not blind he just has something in his eyes :-X
-
yup. virtually same if not better:
NEXT:
::)
You don't know what constitutes great conditioning so anything you have to say on the subject , is wrong and contradictory , recall your comment that Dorian's great conditioning was nothing more than a myth? HAHAHAHAHAHA you know what again?
you're proving my point too , keep posting pics ;)
-
yes, I will keep posting the pics that prove the fact that ronnie had the same if not better conditioning.
just like he said in his seminar, just like McGough singled out 99 as being better.
you just keep denying it all.. ::)
ronnie 99 was dry and grainy as hell: :o
-
note the incredible definition in his biceps :o
but no, ronnie 99 was soft compared to 98 LOL
::)
how dumb can you get? :-\
-
yes, I will keep posting the pics that prove the fact that ronnie had the same if not better conditioning.
just like he said in his seminar, just like McGough singled out 99 as being better.
you just keep denying it all.. ::)
ronnie 99 was dry and grainy as hell: :o
lmfao dry & grainy it's a shitty scanned picture you fucking moron , just when I think you think you can NOT get any dumber you prove me wrong and that's the ONLY thing you proved me wrong one
try posting two independent sources again dumbass
where is the grainyness now stupid? it doesn't exist ;)
-
These shots of a vintage Dexter Jackson are as dry as Dorian ever was, and they own Dorian in asthetics too:
(http://anabolic-steroids.blogspot.com/Dexter-Jackson-3.jpg)
(http://anabolic-steroids.blogspot.com/Dexter-Jackson-2.jpg)
(http://anabolic-steroids.blogspot.com/Dexter-Jackson-1.jpg)
-
Hulkster losing at after the 98 vid was posted showing a shredded dry Ronnie.
Hey hulkster, wherea your judges?
Where's your competitors that agree?
Where's your experts toiuting 99?
Oh yeah, they all thnk 98 or 01. Hahahahaha.
I love how you omit mcgoughs line about 01 being his best
btw, if you wanna play the quot mcgough game, he said ronnie wasn't as dry or shredded asnin 98, and in you precious article he was talking about his favorite Olympia showings, not who would win. But I know your gonna have tunnelling vision and not listen to anything, so I'll leave you with the ultimate self ownage,....
The same mcough that cited Ronnie 99 as one of his favorite showing, also says Dorian 93 would beat Ronnie. Hahahahahahahaha
-
right here loser:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=4268
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=9710
::)
sorry, but you lose. the visuals own you.
you know, you have become just as pathetic as ND.
now, all you do is spend your time trying to find excuses to why the videos and pics are wrong, just like he does.
its sad you know.
sad that you can't come to terms with what everyone else can already see.
hell, even McGough himself has come to realize how good 99 ronnie was and how it was better than his 98 form..
but you and flowerboy continue to campaign against it, for what reason, I don't know.. ::)
-
Yes Ronnie looked awesome in both 1998 and 1999, But i personally think 2001 AC he looked fantastic, deep clear seperation with full round muscle bellies
-
These shots of a vintage Dexter Jackson are as dry as Dorian ever was, and they own Dorian in asthetics too:
Yippppeeeeeeee he's as dry as Yates , now try doing it at 260lbs now try doing it with near perfect balance , lots of guys were dry & hard very very few were dry and hard and 260
-
right here loser:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFY/is_7_23/ai_n15346614/
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=4268
http://www.musclemecca.com/showthread.php?t=9710
::)
sorry, but you lose. the visuals own you.
you know, you have become just as pathetic as ND.
now, all you do is spend your time trying to find excuses to why the videos and pics are wrong, just like he does.
its sad you know.
sad that you can't come to terms with what everyone else can already see.
hell, even McGough himself has come to realize how good 99 ronnie was and how it was better than his 98 form..
but you and flowerboy continue to campaign against it, for what reason, I don't know.. ::)
Where? I don't see any experts or contemporaries or judges and the McGough link clearly states 2001 SORRY Hulkster but you fail as usual
I don't you before FANBOYS don't count ;)
let's try again
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
where is 1999?
-
people often overlook the massive gut on 2001 ronnie vs his 98 and 99 olympia forms.
I don't.
-
:-\
-
Yeah and stupid fanboys overlook his massive gut in 99 too ;)
-
thanks for posting that you moron.
like I said his 99 gut was MUCH smaller than his 2001 AC gut and you just proved that for the 100000th time quite nicely
thanks.
-
Yup NO gut in 99 ::)
-
thanks for posting that you moron.
like I said his 99 gut was MUCH smaller than his 2001 AC gut and you just proved that for the 100000th time quite nicely
thanks.
yup yup ::) sure sure
you have NO case his GUT was equal if not bigger in 99 and he had shit conditioned compared to that contest too , NO ONE thinks 1999 is better than 2001 other than stupid people
Ronnie is inferior in 99
I ask again dummy
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
-
Yup NO gut in 99 ::)
who said anything about no gut in 99?
oh wait, I forgot you can't fucking read. ::)
I said and you proved quite nicely that his gut was much SMALLER in 98/99 relative to the 2001 AC and it was
watch the videos for yourself.
oh wait, thats right, all you do is campaign that the videos are faked..
::)
-
The dudes who slander Yates and Coleman for having guts dont seem to understand that with the level of mass these dudes carried, it is going to be accepted.
In fact Both of them carried it well. Yates circa 97 still managed to look decent when holding a pose, same with Coleman in 2001
-
who said anything about no gut in 99?
oh wait, I forgot you can't fucking read. ::)
I said and you proved quite nicely that his gut was much SMALLER in 98/99 relative to the 2001 AC and it was
watch the videos for yourself.
oh wait, thats right, all you do is campaign that the videos are faked..
::)
Let's entertain your moronic diversion and his gut was ' smaller ' and? his conditioning still fucking blew in comparison to 2001 so you gain NOTHING you have NO point it's an empty plea and NO ONE cares
again moron if entertaining the point his gut was smaller in 99 and his conditioning was equal if NOT better and he was 10lbs heavier why is it NOT one fucking single credible person thinks 1999 is better than 2001? WHY? you can't answer this question you have NO ONE backing you up , you contradict reality , and all the eyewitness experts
you have nothing except lies I never said all videos are fake just certain 99 screencaps that have been proven to be PHOTOSHOPPED so keep trying to divert from the topic with lies
-
Let's entertain your moronic diversion and his gut was ' smaller '
only ND is stupid enough to say that he has to 'entertain' a 'moronic diversion' with something that is completely obvious..there is NO DEBATE about this fact.
ronnie's gut first balloned up at the 2000 Olympia (where kevin kept pointing at it) and it never died down after that.
98/99 was pre massive gut ronnie.
anything after 2000 was not.
this is 100% fact and it is proven beyond all doubt. only a blind person would debate it.
::)
-
only ND is stupid enough to say that he has to 'entertain' a 'moronic diversion' with something that is completely obvious..there is NO DEBATE about this fact.
ronnie's gut first balloned up at the 2000 Olympia (where kevin kept pointing at it) and it never died down after that.
98/99 was pre massive gut ronnie.
anything after 2000 was not.
this is 100% fact and it is proven beyond all doubt. only a blind person would debate it.
::)
99 you fucking dumbass , I will continue to smash you over the head with facts stupid ;)
there is NO debate that 2001 kicks 1999's ass only stupid people in denial , stupid people who don't know anything
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
-
his conditioning still fucking blew in comparison to 2001
hey everyone! look at how ronnie's 99 conditioning blew in comparison to 2001!!
::)
ND should be embarassed for posting shit this fucking stupid.. :-\ ::)
he always melts down when reality and Hulkster prove him flat out wrong, and this happens on a daily basis..
-
hey everyone! look at how ronnie's 99 conditioning blew in comparison to 2001!!
::)
ND should be embarassed for posting shit this fucking stupid.. :-\ ::)
he always melts down when reality and Hulkster prove him flat out wrong, and this happens on a daily basis..
Translation " hey look everyone please agree with me because absolutely fucking NO ONE of credibility does and I can't back up anything I claim just plea to anyone who is dumb enough and ignorant enough to agree with me '
try this dumbass ;)
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
-
lmfao pre-gut Ronnie LMMFAO what a fucking retard
-
hey ND, how come u post the subjective opinion of experts who say which version of Ronnie has the best physique to argue your point yet you ignore the subjective opinion from the same exact experts who go on to say that Ronnie has a better physique than Dorian?
-
you see a lot of things , keep looking
prime means the best they've ever looked you're agreeing 94 was his prime and then saying he wasn't past that prime in the subsequent 6 years ??? he looked that good or better post? Kevin in 2002 pushed Ronnie to the limit that Kevin was NO WHERE he was in 92 or 95 not even close , Ronnie's competition wasn't as conditioned or high caliber as Yates
no it doesn't matter because what are you saying he never looked like that? for the sake of argument Dorian 93 Olympia and 95 would beat Ronnie
they help but like I said they're not accurate , contests separated by 10 years with much improvement in camera technology , different quality , lighting , I mean get serious oh and lets not forget the fact Hulkster has been busted MANY times using manipulated pictures byprofessional graphic artists and one of the best contest photograhers in the business oh and by me and others
they don't show Ronnie was better , fanciful ' comparisons ' made by biased ignorant Coleman nutt-huggers , where Dorian & Ronnie have the same size calves , Dorian has a smaller waist & hips than Ronnie , are you kidding me? pictures back up your claims according to you pictures back up my claims according to me which ones of us is right? ;) your claims like Hulksters tend to contradict reality and mines are more in line with it , you do the math
NOPE not on par with Yates
McGough said outright , he was better in 98 and in 2001 and neither are on par with Yates , Dorian said its not as good as his , one quote doesn't prove anything to me in relation to whom he was competing with on that year , he didn't face Dorian
he technically is the greatest ever going by his contest wins and Sandows , however in the end it's subjective and not a fact
yes I do think that but we're assuming what people are basing this on , especially laymen and even experts NOT everyone knows the criteria my example of Chris Comier
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing wouldn't be anywhere near as close , Ronnie sucked as posing neither are Shawn Ray but Ronnie is way off , judges look for everything in the posing rounds and Ronnie's still behind and his posing routines were horrible , I suggest you go watch them
not only that but then we get into limb length , torso length , arm length and how they all relate and tie together , then we talk about glutes and how Ronnie's aren't in proportion and stick to far out they can he seen from the front and forearms in relation to the biceps/triceps , hams in relation to quads a LOT to grasp more than just calves
Ronnie has an advantage in symmetry and that's it Dorian has the advantage in balance & proportion , now couple that with advantages in density & dryness and muscular bulk and posing and you have a Yates win
Again you see a lot of things , Ronnie has some advantages in symmetry and tie-ins , but he doesn't compared to Dorian in density & dryness , size and balance & proportion , and you can't speculate on how Ronnie would appear bigger next to Yates pure fantasy , he already know what a 250lb Ronnie looks like next to a 257lb Dorian and he didn't make him look just as big or bigger
none of it is , complete? at their bests? Dorian hands down , Ronnie has some advantages but overall Dorian is to dominant
perfect example in one of his best Olympia appearances 1998 Flex Wheeler pushed Ronnie to the absolute limit and Ronnie won ( rightly ) by just 3 points one of the closest contests in Olympia history , that Flex was a shadow of himself in 1993 and Dorian was so far ahead of Flex that year it wasn't even funny , Dorian 1993 would trample Ronnie 1998 , you think by adding 8 lbs and coming in less than perfect conditioning would make a dent on Yates? the man who wrote the book on conditioned mass? I think NOT
Ronnie had all of these advantages when he was competing with Yates and where was he? he had the same crazy tie-ins , same gigantic arms , same small waist & hips , same small joints etc the only thing he was lacking was crazy conditioning
prime means the best they've ever looked you're agreeing 94 was his prime and then saying he wasn't past that prime in the subsequent 6 years ??? he looked that good or better post? Kevin in 2002 pushed Ronnie to the limit that Kevin was NO WHERE he was in 92 or 95 not even close , Ronnie's competition wasn't as conditioned or high caliber as Yates
I meant they weren't on a "downfall" before 2000, I got misunderstood. Shawn's best was 94 for me, but he incredibly good in the following years too before 2000. I think Levrone's best was either 95 or 99, but 99 edging it out.
Ronnie in 2002 is not even close to Ronnie in 98-99.
no it doesn't matter because what are you saying he never looked like that? for the sake of argument Dorian 93 Olympia and 95 would beat Ronnie
I don't see it like this at all.
they help but like I said they're not accurate , contests separated by 10 years with much improvement in camera technology , different quality , lighting , I mean get serious oh and lets not forget the fact Hulkster has been busted MANY times using manipulated pictures byprofessional graphic artists and one of the best contest photograhers in the business oh and by me and others
I understand your point here.
Most of the pics Hulkster posts are valid by the way. He may have posted 1 or 2 faked pics, but that's it.
they don't show Ronnie was better , fanciful ' comparisons ' made by biased ignorant Coleman nutt-huggers , where Dorian & Ronnie have the same size calves , Dorian has a smaller waist & hips than Ronnie , are you kidding me? pictures back up your claims according to you pictures back up my claims according to me which ones of us is right? ;) your claims like Hulksters tend to contradict reality and mines are more in line with it , you do the math
Almost every pic of Dorian posted here has been compared with a pic of Ronnie having the better physique. And that is besides the few fan made comparisons.
he technically is the greatest ever going by his contest wins and Sandows , however in the end it's subjective and not a fact
How do you know they were going by his contest wins and Sandows, but not because he had the greatest physique of all time?
Some have said he is unbeatable.
not only that but then we get into limb length , torso length , arm length and how they all relate and tie together , then we talk about glutes and how Ronnie's aren't in proportion and stick to far out they can he seen from the front and forearms in relation to the biceps/triceps , hams in relation to quads a LOT to grasp more than just calves
I see that you're kind of trying to nitpick Ronnie's proportional flaws (some that don't even exist), but totally ignore Dorian's obvious and constantly talked about proportional flaws.
Seriously, Ronnie had unproportionate glutes? Forearms? Are you kidding?
You seem to ignore Dorian's arms in relation to his back/torso, his quads weren't that greatly proportionate to his torso either.
Now about limb and torso length, Dorian probably had an advantage in these over Shawn or Nasser (although I disagree on Shawn).
But he didn't over Ronnie. Maybe in torso length, but how about Ronnie's symmetrical advantage as far as a smaller waist and bette taper?
Its a lot closer than you make it out to be.
Ronnie has an advantage in symmetry and that's it Dorian has the advantage in balance & proportion , now couple that with advantages in density & dryness and muscular bulk and posing and you have a Yates win
Again you see a lot of things , Ronnie has some advantages in symmetry and tie-ins , but he doesn't compared to Dorian in density & dryness , size and balance & proportion , and you can't speculate on how Ronnie would appear bigger next to Yates pure fantasy , he already know what a 250lb Ronnie looks like next to a 257lb Dorian and he didn't make him look just as big or bigger
I guess we'll never agree on the proportion and conditioning area. I'm not the only one that disagrees with you though.
and you can't speculate on how Ronnie would appear bigger next to Yates pure fantasy
Don't forget that some (or most) bodybuilders look bigger when they are greatly conditioned and full at the same time (which Ronnie lacked before 1998).
Ronnie had all of these advantages when he was competing with Yates and where was he? he had the same crazy tie-ins , same gigantic arms , same small waist & hips , same small joints etc the only thing he was lacking was crazy conditioning
He was a bit bigger/fuller and the quality of his physique had improved considerably, one example are his quads.
-
jesus christ guys
Shut the f**k up already, you are among the saddest human beings i have ever seen
-
lmfao pre-gut Ronnie LMMFAO what a fucking retard
I didn't say pre gut you fucking idiot.
I said pre MASSIVE gut.
99 gut was much smaller than at the 2001 AC:
more proof for you to deny for the 4 billionth time:
::)
-
notice how when fully exhaling in 99, his gut isn't bad at all.
at the AC, it was spilling out over his trunks..
but no, Idiot ND says they are the same LMAO!!
::)
why he choses to spend pages arguing against things that are as clear as day is totally retarded.
-
PS thanks for making the 2001 AC gut collage ND.
its easy to use your own creation to make you look like a fucking idiot.
thank again.
keep up the good work!
-
You don't know he had all these bigger parts you're assuming it , arms most certainly , delts ? chest? you couldn't say unless they were on the same stage , quads? depending on the year Ronnie's are bigger you think Ronnie's quads at 247 pounds are bigger than Dorian's at 283? lots of variable but entertaining it's true doesn't mean much bigger automatically doesn't mean better but I agree in some pose some lighter guys look equal the size of heavier ones , however bare this in mind
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
no one made Yates look small and Ronnie isn't going to only in fan-boy comparisons
did I say that? Dorian has deep muscle separations , detail and striations , Ronnie may have more doesn't mean he's in better condition , Hulkster tried this , Dorian has striations in his obliques , inetercostals , pecs , triceps , traps , lats , lower back , glutes and it's all about all of the above PLUS being bone dry and hard as nails all the while being 260+lbs while being balanced and complete
we've established that already no point in repeating it , you can't see Dorian dominating in 95 doesn't mean it's true or correct
Ronnie does meet part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian but when all is said and done Dorian meets more better
You don't know he had all these bigger parts you're assuming it , arms most certainly , delts ? chest? you couldn't say unless they were on the same stage , quads? depending on the year Ronnie's are bigger you think Ronnie's quads at 247 pounds are bigger than Dorian's at 283? lots of variable but entertaining it's true doesn't mean much bigger automatically doesn't mean better but I agree in some pose some lighter guys look equal the size of heavier ones , however bare this in mind
I'm assuming it based on all the visual proof I see.
Of course all of this "debating" is not 100% accurate since they were never on stage at thier personal bests, but that is why pics and videos give a good idea of how it could be.
If you haven't seen them on stage competing against each other at their respective best ever, how can you be so sure Dorian would win or meet the criteria better? You're going by pics and videos just as I am or Hulkster is.
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
Good quote that actually shows how Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.
no one made Yates look small and Ronnie isn't going to only in fan-boy comparisons
See post above.
did I say that? Dorian has deep muscle separations , detail and striations , Ronnie may have more doesn't mean he's in better condition , Hulkster tried this , Dorian has striations in his obliques , inetercostals , pecs , triceps , traps , lats , lower back , glutes and it's all about all of the above PLUS being bone dry and hard as nails all the while being 260+lbs while being balanced and complete
Ok, but comparing Ronnie vs Dorian: who had the advantage on overall muscle separations, detail, striations and tie-ins? Ronnie
Ronnie was also dry & hard in both 98-99, but drier in 98 obviously. And he was also balanced and complete.
The scale doesn't tilt to Dorian's side as much as you portray it.
-
Seriously ND, are you saying Ronnie's gut in 99 was equally distended as in 2001?
Just watch the videos (whether the photoshoot or contest) of each year and you will see his gut was not even close as distended in 99 as in 2001.
-
Seriously ND, are you saying Ronnie's gut in 99 was equally distended as in 2001?
Just watch the videos (whether the photoshoot or contest) of each year and you will see his gut was not even close as distended in 99 as in 2001.
read this carefully ND.
hopefully you will learning something.
::)
-
Seriously ND, are you saying Ronnie's gut in 99 was equally distended as in 2001?
sadly, yes he is. thats what he has been arguing the last few pages ::).
this is how stupid this guy is.. :-\
-
Yes, Ronnie at the AC was dam impressive, ultra sheredded. He had greater muscle maturity then he did at the 99 O
-
ND: First off...we need you over in the "Dorian Yates=Epic Fail" thread...so you comment on Dorian's new found quest to make the blender obsolete.
2ndly... You two have been arguing about this for what...going on 6years now? ???
Why do I feel that Israel has a better chance of making peace with Iran, then you two will? :'(
-
Lol. Hulkster you are so delusional its rediculous.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=329434.0;attach=370305;image)
-
jesus christ guys
Shut the f**k up already, you are among the saddest human beings i have ever seen
I agree.
I cannot believe how far this thread has gone and how insane the main posters in it are about this shit.
-
why havent the mods merge this pointless thread with the stupid truce thread??.. why they do this with nasser's threads only?
-
why havent the mods merge this pointless thread with the stupid truce thread??.. why they do this with nasser's threads only?
Because I started this thread and i'll beat someone's ass if the thread disapears. They fear me.
-
:o
-
notice how when fully exhaling in 99, his gut isn't bad at all.
at the AC, it was spilling out over his trunks..
but no, Idiot ND says they are the same LMAO!!
::)
why he choses to spend pages arguing against things that are as clear as day is totally retarded.
Well, at least Hulkster admits that his ebony hero had one of the worst midsections and worst beer gut ever seen on a bodybuilding stage.
-
:o
no comparision
like I always say yates is just a really conditioned cuz
ugly phsique
-
hey ND, how come u post the subjective opinion of experts who say which version of Ronnie has the best physique to argue your point yet you ignore the subjective opinion from the same exact experts who go on to say that Ronnie has a better physique than Dorian?
I never ignore subjective quotes , I take them for what they're worth. there is a very good reason why many feel 2001 is his best and it's based on something that's not subjective , his conditioning.... in 2001 is probably the best it ever was sans 1998
I've always maintained it's more popular an opinion that Ronnie is better than Dorian it doesn't make it so based on that fact.
-
Dorian is a poor man's Mike Katz
-
I meant they weren't on a "downfall" before 2000, I got misunderstood. Shawn's best was 94 for me, but he incredibly good in the following years too before 2000. I think Levrone's best was either 95 or 99, but 99 edging it out.
Ronnie in 2002 is not even close to Ronnie in 98-99.
I don't see it like this at all.
I understand your point here.
Most of the pics Hulkster posts are valid by the way. He may have posted 1 or 2 faked pics, but that's it.
Almost every pic of Dorian posted here has been compared with a pic of Ronnie having the better physique. And that is besides the few fan made comparisons.
How do you know they were going by his contest wins and Sandows, but not because he had the greatest physique of all time?
Some have said he is unbeatable.
I see that you're kind of trying to nitpick Ronnie's proportional flaws (some that don't even exist), but totally ignore Dorian's obvious and constantly talked about proportional flaws.
Seriously, Ronnie had unproportionate glutes? Forearms? Are you kidding?
You seem to ignore Dorian's arms in relation to his back/torso, his quads weren't that greatly proportionate to his torso either.
Now about limb and torso length, Dorian probably had an advantage in these over Shawn or Nasser (although I disagree on Shawn).
But he didn't over Ronnie. Maybe in torso length, but how about Ronnie's symmetrical advantage as far as a smaller waist and bette taper?
Its a lot closer than you make it out to be.
I guess we'll never agree on the proportion and conditioning area. I'm not the only one that disagrees with you though.
Don't forget that some (or most) bodybuilders look bigger when they are greatly conditioned and full at the same time (which Ronnie lacked before 1998).
He was a bit bigger/fuller and the quality of his physique had improved considerably, one example are his quads.
I meant they weren't on a "downfall" before 2000, I got misunderstood. Shawn's best was 94 for me, but he incredibly good in the following years too before 2000. I think Levrone's best was either 95 or 99, but 99 edging it out.
Ronnie in 2002 is not even close to Ronnie in 98-99.
There you go again , do yourself a favor type what you mean I can only go by what you post. Like I said before the general consensus is Shawn 94/96 Kevin 92/95
I don't see it like this at all.
I've gathered that much
I understand your point here.
Most of the pics Hulkster posts are valid by the way. He may have posted 1 or 2 faked pics, but that's it.
no he may have NOT posted one or two faked pics and the funny part if we established that Bizzy was working pics so ANYTHING he posted is suspect , Hulkster new this and even after being exposed he continued to post them all the while he had the ones from Forcedreps and Muscletime and the ones I scanned , he posted them because he liked them better
Almost every pic of Dorian posted here has been compared with a pic of Ronnie having the better physique. And that is besides the few fan made comparisons.
says you , I see it differently.....the ' comparisons ' are laughable at best
How do you know they were going by his contest wins and Sandows, but not because he had the greatest physique of all time?
Some have said he is unbeatable.
There you go again looking for the masses to validate your opinion , that's not how it's done a popular opinion doesn't make it a correct one , Arnold said Flex 93 ASC is the greatest physique he's ever seen , as did Diane Bennet ( Wag Bennet's wife ) a lot of people claim Dorian was unbeatable , Ronnie said he couldn't beat Dorian , lots of opinions on a subjective topic no one is right or wrong
I see that you're kind of trying to nitpick Ronnie's proportional flaws (some that don't even exist), but totally ignore Dorian's obvious and constantly talked about proportional flaws.
Seriously, Ronnie had unproportionate glutes? Forearms? Are you kidding?
You seem to ignore Dorian's arms in relation to his back/torso, his quads weren't that greatly proportionate to his torso either.
nitpick? I'll post a pic where you can see Ronnie's glutes from the front if you think that's proportion you're showing your ignorance once again , and yes forearms are NOT in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps , again I'll post a pic . at his best Dorian has better balance & proportion compared to Ronnie without question
Now about limb and torso length, Dorian probably had an advantage in these over Shawn or Nasser (although I disagree on Shawn).
But he didn't over Ronnie. Maybe in torso length, but how about Ronnie's symmetrical advantage as far as a smaller waist and bette taper?
Its a lot closer than you make it out to be.
It's not close , Dorian has a clear advantage , and I've always said Ronnie has a symmetrical advantage but again this does what for him in the ab-thigh? and what for his front-latspread? I'll post the pic and you can clearly see who has the better balance & proportion
I guess we'll never agree on the proportion and conditioning area. I'm not the only one that disagrees with you though.
wow people don't agree with me ::) another attempt at claiming that if more people disagree it's true?
Don't forget that some (or most) bodybuilders look bigger when they are greatly conditioned and full at the same time (which Ronnie lacked before 1998).
I agree , but we've already established Ronnie couldn't touch Dorian in the conditioning department
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
Quote from John Balik, commenting on the 96 O:
"Dorian Yates looked absolutely fantastic. He was so freaking dense and so freaking ripped and dry, that he actually looked bigger than all the 280 lbs competitors, even though he tipped the scales at 255 lbs."
NO version of Ronnie would make Dorian look small
He was a bit bigger/fuller and the quality of his physique had improved considerably, one example are his quads.
he added more size in 99 at the expense of that bone dry and hard as nails look but by point stands he had all these advantages when he competed with Yates and still loss , you think by coming in with better conditioning & bigger quads he would all the sudden beat Dorian? I think NOT he just barely beat Flex at what he considers his best Olympia and that Flex wasn't as good as he was in 93 when Yates blew him off the stage
1st pic Dorian's forearms are most certainly in better proportion with his biceps-triceps when compared to Ronnie
2nd pic clearly shows Dorian has the better balance & proportion
3rd pic can you see Ronnie's glutes? NOT supposed to from the front bro
-
I didn't say pre gut you fucking idiot.
I said pre MASSIVE gut.
99 gut was much smaller than at the 2001 AC:
more proof for you to deny for the 4 billionth time:
::)
you always referred to Ronnie 99 as ' pre-gut ' go read the first few pages of the Truce thread ;)
and see above pics
-
notice how when fully exhaling in 99, his gut isn't bad at all.
at the AC, it was spilling out over his trunks..
but no, Idiot ND says they are the same LMAO!!
::)
why he choses to spend pages arguing against things that are as clear as day is totally retarded.
He's not even fully relaxed dumbass , see how Hulkster always tries to slant things in his favor
opppppppssssssssssssssss sss forgot about this pic huh stupid? ;)
-
PS thanks for making the 2001 AC gut collage ND.
its easy to use your own creation to make you look like a fucking idiot.
thank again.
keep up the good work!
I never created that dumbass , that was posted by a Ronnie fan ;) owned again ;)
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=370362;image)
OMG ND what is this? If Ronnie's superior quads and LATS-TO-WAIST ratio aren't enough in this sillhouette even at this warped scaling you still have to rely on no-one pointing out in real life Ronnie is about 1 - 1.5 inches TALLER than Yates, yet here he appears about the same margin SHORTER. What on earth did you think you were doing posting this? Interesting to note that the small-headed shrunken Ronnie silhouette still matches Dorian for arm measurements, presumably the argument this non-comparison pic is supposed to win for Dorian?
Good joke.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=370362;image)
OMG ND what is this? If Ronnie's superior quads and LATS-TO-WAIST ratio aren't enough in this sillhouette even at this warped scaling you still have to rely on no-one pointing out in real life Ronnie is about 1 - 1.5 inches TALLER than Yates, yet here he appears about the same margin SHORTER. What on earth did you think you were doing posting this? Interesting to note that the small-headed shrunken Ronnie silhouette still matches Dorian for arm measurements.
Good joke.
immortal I usuay don't defend someone else... But his point I'm pretty sure was so you simply look at their proportions, their flow as a whole . Something Dorian dominates ronnie on. I don't think nd even made that.
-
I'm assuming it based on all the visual proof I see.
Of course all of this "debating" is not 100% accurate since they were never on stage at thier personal bests, but that is why pics and videos give a good idea of how it could be.
If you haven't seen them on stage competing against each other at their respective best ever, how can you be so sure Dorian would win or meet the criteria better? You're going by pics and videos just as I am or Hulkster is.
Good quote that actually shows how Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.
See post above.
Ok, but comparing Ronnie vs Dorian: who had the advantage on overall muscle separations, detail, striations and tie-ins? Ronnie
Ronnie was also dry & hard in both 98-99, but drier in 98 obviously. And he was also balanced and complete.
The scale doesn't tilt to Dorian's side as much as you portray it.
I'm assuming it based on all the visual proof I see.
Of course all of this "debating" is not 100% accurate since they were never on stage at thier personal bests, but that is why pics and videos give a good idea of how it could be.
hahahahaha you sound like Hulkster ' visual proof ' my ass , you looked at the visual proof and came to the conclusion Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 you see what you want. You're assuming many things based on nothing but bias
If you haven't seen them on stage competing against each other at their respective best ever, how can you be so sure Dorian would win or meet the criteria better? You're going by pics and videos just as I am or Hulkster is.
I'm going by first hand eye witness accounts that supplement what I say , you guys claim 99 was his best yet NO ONE with any credibility agrees , I posted quotes specific to the debate that Dorian has better conditioning than Ronnie and better balance , and my conclusions based on the pics and videos are NOT contradicting the experts who were there live and in person , you are Hulkster's are so which one of us is right?
Good quote that actually shows how Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.
sure it does ::) it shows NO ONE made Yates look small including men much heavier and taller than Yates
See post above.
heed your own advice
Ronnie's side chest leaves a lot to be desired when compared to people who can actually hit it right like Dexter and Jay. His side triceps shot is not one of the best in the business and he got exposed because of it. As well, Markus Ruhl stood toe to toe with the champ on the Front Lat Spread pose! From where I sat, in certain poses you would never know Dexter was giving up 70lbs to Ronnie
a 296lb Ronnie wasn't dwarfing a 225lb Dexter Jackson , yet a much lighter Ronnie is going to make Dorian look small? sure ya right
Ok, but comparing Ronnie vs Dorian: who had the advantage on overall muscle separations, detail, striations and tie-ins? Ronnie
Ronnie has an advantage in tie-ins , again I don't see Ronnie having an advantage in striations and separations? where is Ronnie better? you just type these blanket statements without elaborating on any points what so ever , are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Ronnie was also dry & hard in both 98-99, but drier in 98 obviously. And he was also balanced and complete.
NOT compared to Dorian he wasn't and he wasn't as balanced and complete? he has NO fucking calves how is that complete? ??? his abdominals suck , his forearms aren't in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps
The scale doesn't tilt to Dorian's side as much as you portray it.
two areas Dorian has a clear advantage is conditioning & balance & proportion it's not close , it's not open for discussion , Ronnie depending on the year carries more muscular bulk but at the expense of outstanding conditioning , the heavier he became the worse his balance got , posing is another area where Dorian distances himself from Ronnie another clear advantage for Yates which really isn't open for discussion
Ronnie 1998/1999 would be very hard pressed to beat Dorian 1993/1995 , the only real challenge would be 2001 ASC and even then Dorian just has to many advantages
-
that sillhouette is several years old
ND only breaks it out when he is being owned really badly and he is getting desperate.
thus, why he dusted it off for this thread.
it is done using a 2003 preconest ronnie, when his proportions were actually shitty compared to his 98/99 and 2001 AC forms..and done with dorian's 93 precontest pics, the best pics of him in existance..and dorian STILL LOSES
lol
his proportions were even freakier in 99 before his obliques were bulging, like in this gym shot: :o
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=370362;image)
OMG ND what is this? If Ronnie's superior quads and LATS-TO-WAIST ratio aren't enough in this sillhouette even at this warped scaling you still have to rely on no-one pointing out in real life Ronnie is about 1 - 1.5 inches TALLER than Yates, yet here he appears about the same margin SHORTER. What on earth did you think you were doing posting this? Interesting to note that the small-headed shrunken Ronnie silhouette still matches Dorian for arm measurements.
Good joke.
the height scale doesn't change the proportions , it doesn't effect them one bit. and Dorian is 5'10" 1/2 and Ronnie is 5'11" and Dorian has hair and Ronnie is bald , points to ponder
it clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians
-
that sillhouette is several years old
ND only breaks it out when he is being owned really badly and he is getting desperate.
thus, why he dusted it off for this thread.
it is done using a 2003 preconest ronnie, when his proportions were actually shitty compared to his 98/99 and 2001 AC forms..and done with dorian's 93 precontest pics, the best pics of him in existance..and dorian STILL LOSES
lol
his proportions were even freakier in 99, like in this gym shot: :o
You always hated that comparison because it showed in two seconds how Ronnie looks like a bunch of parts just tossed together compared to Dorian , I recall you guys crying when it was first posted and still are ;)
99% of Ronnie pics are from the knees up why is that" LMFAO
-
immortal I usuay don't defend someone else... But his point I'm pretty sure was so you simply look at their proportions, their flow as a whole . Something Dorian dominates ronnie on. I don't think nd even made that.
Hmm, well in that case once you've stripped Ronnie of his completely dominating size and detail an argument can be made for Dorian's tighter midsection, but only when Ronnie was bigger like 2003, at which point without the size it's a completely biased comparison, otherwise why did the person make it?
Similarly you could blow up Shawn Ray until he's 1 inch taller than Yates and watch his size and proportions blow him away, proving...absolutely nothing.
-
no, ronnie back then had amazing proprotions:
much better than Mr. twigs on a barrell.
-
Seriously ND, are you saying Ronnie's gut in 99 was equally distended as in 2001?
Just watch the videos (whether the photoshoot or contest) of each year and you will see his gut was not even close as distended in 99 as in 2001.
BULLSHIT all 99 his gut is as big as 01 if NOT bigger
these are ALL from 1999 thanks for playing
-
see what ND is doing here?
he is posting gut pics of 99 without comparing them to 2001 AC
::)
if he did as I have been showing, he would realize that as we have been showing, his gut was much smaller in 99...
watch the videos too. its fucking obvious..
but ND HAS to say that the 99 gut was the same, otherwise he has no argument that 2001 was better physically. after all, if he admits the 99 gut was smaller, that he was bigger and we can all see he was just as ripped, well, then he has nothing to go on to argue that 2001 was better..
he knows it was smaller as everyone on the planet does.
but he can't state this otherwise he shoots himself in the foot.
its all an act.
::)
-
Even fully flexed Ronnie's gut sticks out in 1999 :-\
the difference in midsections is staggering , Ronnie on paper should win this pose , narrower waist , smaller hips , his distension , pathetic abdominals and lack of Yatesesque conditioning doesn't compare , and his advantage in quads becomes moot withe they're sitting ontop of twig calves
-
Even fully flexed Ronnie's gut sticks out in 1999 :-\
the difference in midsections is staggering , Ronnie on paper should win this pose , narrower waist , smaller hips , his distension , pathetic abdominals and lack of Yatesesque conditioning doesn't compare , and his advantage in quads becomes moot withe they're sitting ontop of twig calves
Ronnie COULD be just as hard and greatly conditioned as Dorian in this comparison, look at the side detail & striations.........don't forget Dorian's pic is black & white which enhances the grainy & dry look.
-
see what ND is doing here?
he is posting gut pics of 99 without comparing them to 2001 AC
::)
if he did as I have been showing, he would realize that as we have been showing, his gut was much smaller in 99...
watch the videos too. its fucking obvious..
but ND HAS to say that the 99 gut was the same, otherwise he has no argument that 2001 was better physically. after all, if he admits the 99 gut was smaller, that he was bigger and we can all see he was just as ripped, well, then he has nothing to go on to argue that 2001 was better..
he knows it was smaller as everyone on the planet does.
but he can't state this otherwise he shoots himself in the foot.
its all an act.
::)
See what Hulkster is doing here? DENYING , denying , denying old news , when proven flat-out wrong just deny
the whole gut issue is a diversionary tactic and that failed too , somehow Ronnie's not as good if his gut is sticking out more in 2001? even entertaining it's true NO ONE says 1999 is better than 2001 NO ONE
you have NOTHING
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
you have NOTHING let's say his gut was bigger in 01 it's still his best fucking showing of all time and NO is claiming 1999 is , you're fucked as usual ;)
-
Ronnie COULD be just as hard and greatly conditioned as Dorian in this comparison, look at the side detail & striations.........don't forget Dorian's pic is black & white which enhances the grainy & dry look.
I could remove the color from that Ronnie pic and it ain't coming close , and Ronnie is NOT as hard and greatly conditioning as Dorian especially not in 1999
-
BULLSHIT all 99 his gut is as big as 01 if NOT bigger
these are ALL from 1999 thanks for playing
Seriously, just take a good and honest look at the videos available of both years and you'll see the difference.
By the way, you're are not comparing these pics with a 2001 version.
Are you just joking around and trying to mess with Hulkster? Its the only explanation I can come up with for your idea that Ronnie's gut was bigger in 99 than 2001.
-
no, ronnie back then had amazing proprotions:
much better than Mr. twigs on a barrell.
twigs? you say? this is 1999 dumbass ;D ;)
Vickie Gates had bigger and better calves :-X
-
the height scale doesn't change the proportions , it doesn't effect them one bit. and Dorian is 5'10" 1/2 and Ronnie is 5'11" and Dorian has hair and Ronnie is bald , points to ponder
it clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians
If you take 2003 Ronnie I agree. But if it's awesome lines you want why take that year? If it's unparalleled size in every bodypart then 2003 is your year, but then he's been shrunk down so it becomes pointless. Otherwise take 1998 or 99 otherwise there's no point. I know you may not have created the image yourself but I'm just pointing out that like much of your evidence it is inadmissable, and as an intelligent man I'd expect you to realise this.
It's like comparing Arnie to Franco after Arnie's been made to look 5'6, he will look stringier with worse lines than Franco side by side in a couple of poses, despite clearly being superior in reality. Height is an aesthetic advantage as well. Ronnie also visibly still has the more impressive lat-waist ratio even when manipulated.
Also to say that one pose "clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians" is to expose your incomplete comprehension of how it all works.
-
Seriously, just take a good and honest look at the videos available of both years and you'll see the difference.
By the way, you're are not comparing these pics with a 2001 version.
Are you just joking around and trying to mess with Hulkster? Its the only explanation I can come up with for your idea that Ronnie's gut was bigger in 99 than 2001.
I never said it was bigger , just as big? sure maybe a tad smaller in 99 maybe he was just letting it out more in 01
it's a NON-ISSUE it's a diversionary tactic to get away from the point that 01 kicks 99 ass , Hulkster thinks by claiming his gut is bigger this somehow means he's not as good LMFAO it's contradictory to the general consensus Hulkster knows this
ALL 1999 and his gut appears just as big in 01 if not bigger
-
Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right? ;)
-
If you take 2003 Ronnie I agree. But if it's awesome lines you want why take that year? If it's unparalleled size in every bodypart then 2003 is your year, but then he's been shrunk down so it becomes pointless. Otherwise take 1998 or 99 otherwise there's no point. I know you may not have created the image yourself but I'm just pointing out that like much of your evidence it is inadmissable, and as an intelligent man I'd expect you to realise this.
It's like comparing Arnie to Franco after Arnie's been made to look 5'6, he will look stringier with worse lines than Franco side by side in a couple of poses, despite clearly being superior in reality. Height is an aesthetic advantage as well. Ronnie also visibly still has the more impressive lat-waist ratio even when manipulated.
Also to say that one pose "clearly shows how Ronnie's overall balance & proportion isn't as good as Dorians" is to expose your incomplete comprehension of how it all works.
If you take 2003 Ronnie I agree. But if it's awesome lines you want why take that year? If it's unparalleled size in every bodypart then 2003 is your year, but then he's been shrunk down so it becomes pointless. Otherwise take 1998 or 99 otherwise there's no point. I know you may not have created the image yourself but I'm just pointing out that like much of your evidence it is inadmissable, and as an intelligent man I'd expect you to realise this.
I didn't create it someone else did the point still stands overall you can see the discrepancy in balance & proportion , the heavier Ronnie became the worse it got
It's like comparing Arnie to Franco after Arnie's been made to look 5'6, he will look stringier with worse lines than Franco side by side in a couple of poses, despite clearly being superior in reality. Height is an aesthetic advantage as well. Ronnie also visibly still has the more impressive lat-waist ratio even when manipulated.
Ronnie is ONE half inch taller than Dorian it's nothing like it and Ronnie is bald and Dorian has hair and it does show Dorian's calves mate-up better with his quads as does his forearms and biceps-triceps and leg length and torso length etc
-
Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right? ;)
That Silhouette is an exaggeration , this is an actual picture and it's clear who has the better balance & proportion ;D
-
Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right? ;)
that vid blow away anything dorian ever presented by a good margin.
and yes, that front double bi shot has already been pointed out to ND as being 1000x better than his hero could ever do.
-
ND, keep telling yourself that ronnie's 99 gut was even close to the 2001 AC.
its amusing to see someone so stupid and delusional at the same time.. ::)
-
I never ignore subjective quotes , I take them for what they're worth. there is a very good reason why many feel 2001 is his best and it's based on something that's not subjective , his conditioning.... in 2001 is probably the best it ever was sans 1998
there's more to the judging criteria than just conditioning. The subjective opinion comes in when someone says "so and so looks better at a lighter weight" or "his mass blew away all the other competitors." What Ronnie gives up in conditioning at a heavier weight, he makes up for in size. There is no objective criteria that says "for every 1% body fat over the limit, add 1 pt to their total score"
-
Similarly you could blow up Shawn Ray until he's 1 inch taller than Yates and watch his size and proportions blow him away, proving...absolutely nothing.
^^^ this. Stripping a bodybuilder of his advantages and then adding strengths that don't even exist to the other guy proves nothing
-
there's more to the judging criteria than just conditioning. The subjective opinion comes in when someone says "so and so looks better at a lighter weight" or "his mass blew away all the competitors." What Ronnie gives up in conditioning at a lighter weight, he makes up for in size. There is no objective criteria that says "for every 1% body fat over the limit, add 1 pt to their total score"
I agree there is more to judging than conditioning , however with all things be equal it's what separates a winner from a loser
Dorian has an edge in balance & proportion , density & dryness and depending on the year bulk now add in better posing and Dorian would win
-
ND, keep telling yourself that ronnie's 99 gut was even close to the 2001 AC.
its amusing to see someone so stupid and delusional at the same time.. ::)
I'm not telling myself I'm telling you and proving you flat-out wrong on such a non-issue
let's say it is worse in 01 he's still better than 99 so you still lose
-
There you go again , do yourself a favor type what you mean I can only go by what you post. Like I said before the general consensus is Shawn 94/96 Kevin 92/95
I've gathered that much
no he may have NOT posted one or two faked pics and the funny part if we established that Bizzy was working pics so ANYTHING he posted is suspect , Hulkster new this and even after being exposed he continued to post them all the while he had the ones from Forcedreps and Muscletime and the ones I scanned , he posted them because he liked them better
says you , I see it differently.....the ' comparisons ' are laughable at best
There you go again looking for the masses to validate your opinion , that's not how it's done a popular opinion doesn't make it a correct one , Arnold said Flex 93 ASC is the greatest physique he's ever seen , as did Diane Bennet ( Wag Bennet's wife ) a lot of people claim Dorian was unbeatable , Ronnie said he couldn't beat Dorian , lots of opinions on a subjective topic no one is right or wrong
nitpick? I'll post a pic where you can see Ronnie's glutes from the front if you think that's proportion you're showing your ignorance once again , and yes forearms are NOT in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps , again I'll post a pic . at his best Dorian has better balance & proportion compared to Ronnie without question
It's not close , Dorian has a clear advantage , and I've always said Ronnie has a symmetrical advantage but again this does what for him in the ab-thigh? and what for his front-latspread? I'll post the pic and you can clearly see who has the better balance & proportion
wow people don't agree with me ::) another attempt at claiming that if more people disagree it's true?
I agree , but we've already established Ronnie couldn't touch Dorian in the conditioning department
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
Quote from John Balik, commenting on the 96 O:
"Dorian Yates looked absolutely fantastic. He was so freaking dense and so freaking ripped and dry, that he actually looked bigger than all the 280 lbs competitors, even though he tipped the scales at 255 lbs."
NO version of Ronnie would make Dorian look small
he added more size in 99 at the expense of that bone dry and hard as nails look but by point stands he had all these advantages when he competed with Yates and still loss , you think by coming in with better conditioning & bigger quads he would all the sudden beat Dorian? I think NOT he just barely beat Flex at what he considers his best Olympia and that Flex wasn't as good as he was in 93 when Yates blew him off the stage
1st pic Dorian's forearms are most certainly in better proportion with his biceps-triceps when compared to Ronnie
2nd pic clearly shows Dorian has the better balance & proportion
3rd pic can you see Ronnie's glutes? NOT supposed to from the front bro
There you go again looking for the masses to validate your opinion , that's not how it's done a popular opinion doesn't make it a correct one , Arnold said Flex 93 ASC is the greatest physique he's ever seen , as did Diane Bennet ( Wag Bennet's wife ) a lot of people claim Dorian was unbeatable , Ronnie said he couldn't beat Dorian , lots of opinions on a subjective topic no one is right or wrong
I wasn't looking for the masses to validate my opinion, just pointing out what many "experts" consider about Ronnie. You have done the same with Dorian in the past too.
I saw your reply to Neo, you said that when others say Ronnie's best was 2001/1998, its not subjective because its based on non subjective criteria like conditioning. What about when Peter McGough said Ronnie's best was 1999? Was it based on non subjective criteria too or not?
Can't you see opinions vary and its all subjective?
But let's say those comments are based on non subjective criteria and that Ronnie's best was 98 or 2001. Couldn't the same be said about people that say Ronnie is unbeatable or that he had the best physique ever? Based on non subjective criteria?
nitpick? I'll post a pic where you can see Ronnie's glutes from the front if you think that's proportion you're showing your ignorance once again , and yes forearms are NOT in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps , again I'll post a pic . at his best Dorian has better balance & proportion compared to Ronnie without question
What was Dorian's best contest physique to you?
If you say 1995, then his proportions are not better than a top Ronnie.
wow people don't agree with me ::) another attempt at claiming that if more people disagree it's true?
Why do you play this card on Hulkster all the time then........ :-\
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
Quote from John Balik, commenting on the 96 O:
"Dorian Yates looked absolutely fantastic. He was so freaking dense and so freaking ripped and dry, that he actually looked bigger than all the 280 lbs competitors, even though he tipped the scales at 255 lbs."
NO version of Ronnie would make Dorian look small
This can also show that Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.
he added more size in 99 at the expense of that bone dry and hard as nails look but by point stands he had all these advantages when he competed with Yates and still loss , you think by coming in with better conditioning & bigger quads he would all the sudden beat Dorian? I think NOT he just barely beat Flex at what he considers his best Olympia and that Flex wasn't as good as he was in 93 when Yates blew him off the stage
I think a greatly improved version of Ronnie (98-99) beats Dorian.
You're forgetting Flex's best was the 1993 Arnold Classic, he wasn't as good at the Olympia that same year.
I could dare say he was better at the 1999 Olympia and possibly equal at the 1998 version compared to the 1993 Olympia.
1st pic Dorian's forearms are most certainly in better proportion with his biceps-triceps when compared to Ronnie
2nd pic clearly shows Dorian has the better balance & proportion
3rd pic can you see Ronnie's glutes? NOT supposed to from the front bro
Those pics are ok.
1st pic: I never saw Ronnie's forearms look that narrow before, I could post another pic of his forearms looking in better proportion to his upper arms. But let's say Ronnie's forearm/upper arm proportion wasn't good compared to Dorian; Dorian's arms/back-torso proportion wasn't good either compared to Ronnie. Which do you think has a bigger impact on overall proportion? I think Dorian's flaw has more of an impact and that's not considering how his quads look in proportion to his torso compared with Ronnie.
2nd pic: I can understand your point here.......I mean, Dorian actually appears to have better balance & proportion on this pic, but what kind of comparison is this?
A black sillhouette comparison in which Dorian's waist is the same size as Ronnie's? A comparison in which Dorian's arms are just as big as Ronnie's?
I don't know where you got this pic, but its not doing the trick.
If you look at real pics of both, in most poses, you can see Ronnie actually has the better proportions. In these sillhouett pics you can't see the actual development of the muscle groups as well.
3rd pic: I see it, but its not as detrimental as Dorian's flaws. Again you are ignoring Dorian's proportion flaws.
-
Check the first pose in this video if you want a decent silhouette of Ronnie. ND it's not an Olympia stage and it's so dark it's almost black and white, that means it's cool right? ;)
Good video.
-
1998 Ronnie could match Dorian's dryness and beat him.
1999 not as dry, but overall a better physique and still beats Dorian.
-
no, ronnie back then had amazing proprotions:
much better than Mr. twigs on a barrell.
You are a sick, sick man Hulkster.
Btw...epic posting pics of Dorian literally relaxed vs. Ronnie in full pose. If Ronnie's superiority is so evident, why do you resort to this?
-
Flex wheeler should never have been 2nd at the 99 O, the guy had more oil then Rockefeller.
Cormier got pretty boned in regards to that decision. Respect to Dorian and Ron, neither guy seemed to go the synthol/oil/implant look a lot of the other top tier competitors seemed to follow.
Wheeler circa 1993, well thats a different story, the guy embodied physical perfection
-
I'm not telling myself I'm telling you and proving you flat-out wrong on such a non-issue
let's say it is worse in 01 he's still better than 99 so you still lose
LOL yeah, you are doing a great job proving it wrong when pics and videos clearly show his gut was much larger at the 2001 AC..
::)
-
I mean, Dorian actually appears to have better balance & proportion on this pic, but what kind of comparison is this?
a skewed guy comparison that has no basis in reality..
-
1998 Ronnie could match Dorian's dryness and beat him.
1999 not as dry, but overall a better physique and still beats Dorian.
1998 Ronnie had great conditioning. It didn't surpass Dorian's, however.
-
hahahahaha you sound like Hulkster ' visual proof ' my ass , you looked at the visual proof and came to the conclusion Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 you see what you want. You're assuming many things based on nothing but bias
I'm going by first hand eye witness accounts that supplement what I say , you guys claim 99 was his best yet NO ONE with any credibility agrees , I posted quotes specific to the debate that Dorian has better conditioning than Ronnie and better balance , and my conclusions based on the pics and videos are NOT contradicting the experts who were there live and in person , you are Hulkster's are so which one of us is right?
sure it does ::) it shows NO ONE made Yates look small including men much heavier and taller than Yates
heed your own advice
Ronnie's side chest leaves a lot to be desired when compared to people who can actually hit it right like Dexter and Jay. His side triceps shot is not one of the best in the business and he got exposed because of it. As well, Markus Ruhl stood toe to toe with the champ on the Front Lat Spread pose! From where I sat, in certain poses you would never know Dexter was giving up 70lbs to Ronnie
a 296lb Ronnie wasn't dwarfing a 225lb Dexter Jackson , yet a much lighter Ronnie is going to make Dorian look small? sure ya right
Ronnie has an advantage in tie-ins , again I don't see Ronnie having an advantage in striations and separations? where is Ronnie better? you just type these blanket statements without elaborating on any points what so ever , are we just supposed to take your word for it?
NOT compared to Dorian he wasn't and he wasn't as balanced and complete? he has NO fucking calves how is that complete? ??? his abdominals suck , his forearms aren't in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps
two areas Dorian has a clear advantage is conditioning & balance & proportion it's not close , it's not open for discussion , Ronnie depending on the year carries more muscular bulk but at the expense of outstanding conditioning , the heavier he became the worse his balance got , posing is another area where Dorian distances himself from Ronnie another clear advantage for Yates which really isn't open for discussion
Ronnie 1998/1999 would be very hard pressed to beat Dorian 1993/1995 , the only real challenge would be 2001 ASC and even then Dorian just has to many advantages
hahahahaha you sound like Hulkster ' visual proof ' my ass , you looked at the visual proof and came to the conclusion Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 you see what you want. You're assuming many things based on nothing but bias
I have no bias against Dorian................
I'm going by first hand eye witness accounts that supplement what I say , you guys claim 99 was his best yet NO ONE with any credibility agrees , I posted quotes specific to the debate that Dorian has better conditioning than Ronnie and better balance , and my conclusions based on the pics and videos are NOT contradicting the experts who were there live and in person , you are Hulkster's are so which one of us is right?
I'm not contradicting the experts when I say that Ronnie at his best is the greatest ever or unbeatable while basing myself on pics & videos.
You're holding too much on Dorian's conditioning without taking into account that:
1. Ronnie's conditioning in 98-99 was great and not far below Dorian's. In 98 his dryness was just as great as Dorian's.
2. You're forgetting this is all about who would meet all of the criteria better, who would have the most complete physique. Its not all about conditioning.
a 296lb Ronnie wasn't dwarfing a 225lb Dexter Jackson , yet a much lighter Ronnie is going to make Dorian look small? sure ya right
Dexter Jackson had lot of things going on for him over his weight that allowed him to stand toe to toe and beat heavier guys.
Ronnie has an advantage in tie-ins , again I don't see Ronnie having an advantage in striations and separations? where is Ronnie better? you just type these blanket statements without elaborating on any points what so ever , are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Just look at many of the different pics and videos of both Ronnie and Dorian posted here........Ronnie has deeper separations and detail in his legs, arms, delts, chest and possibly his back. Striations can be a bit closer, but Ronnie still has the advantage.
Peter McGough has refered to Ronnie as resembling a "walking anatomy chart" for some reason don't you think? No one said that about Dorian, other than his density and dryness.
NOT compared to Dorian he wasn't and he wasn't as balanced and complete? he has NO fucking calves how is that complete? ??? his abdominals suck , his forearms aren't in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps
Ronnie wasn't perfect (calves is a great example), but neither was Dorian. The question is who was the most complete and balanced of the two? For me its Ronnie.
his abdominals suck
Dorian's quads
his forearms aren't in proportion with his massive biceps-triceps
Dorian's arms in relation to his back/torso
-
a skewed guy comparison that has no basis in reality..
And he says you and other Ronnie fans make laughable comparisons........... :-\
What comparison is more laughable than his sillouette one?
-
1998 Ronnie had great conditioning. It didn't surpass Dorian's, however.
I see Ronnie just as dry here.....
-
I wasn't looking for the masses to validate my opinion, just pointing out what many "experts" consider about Ronnie. You have done the same with Dorian in the past too.
I saw your reply to Neo, you said that when others say Ronnie's best was 2001/1998, its not subjective because its based on non subjective criteria like conditioning. What about when Peter McGough said Ronnie's best was 1999? Was it based on non subjective criteria too or not?
Can't you see opinions vary and its all subjective?
But let's say those comments are based on non subjective criteria and that Ronnie's best was 98 or 2001. Couldn't the same be said about people that say Ronnie is unbeatable or that he had the best physique ever? Based on non subjective criteria?
What was Dorian's best contest physique to you?
If you say 1995, then his proportions are not better than a top Ronnie.
Why do you play this card on Hulkster all the time then........ :-\
This can also show that Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.
I think a greatly improved version of Ronnie (98-99) beats Dorian.
You're forgetting Flex's best was the 1993 Arnold Classic, he wasn't as good at the Olympia that same year.
I could dare say he was better at the 1999 Olympia and possibly equal at the 1998 version compared to the 1993 Olympia.
Those pics are ok.
1st pic: I never saw Ronnie's forearms look that narrow before, I could post another pic of his forearms looking in better proportion to his upper arms. But let's say Ronnie's forearm/upper arm proportion wasn't good compared to Dorian; Dorian's arms/back-torso proportion wasn't good either compared to Ronnie. Which do you think has a bigger impact on overall proportion? I think Dorian's flaw has more of an impact and that's not considering how his quads look in proportion to his torso compared with Ronnie.
2nd pic: I can understand your point here.......I mean, Dorian actually appears to have better balance & proportion on this pic, but what kind of comparison is this?
A black sillhouette comparison in which Dorian's waist is the same size as Ronnie's? A comparison in which Dorian's arms are just as big as Ronnie's?
I don't know where you got this pic, but its not doing the trick.
If you look at real pics of both, in most poses, you can see Ronnie actually has the better proportions. In these sillhouett pics you can't see the actual development of the muscle groups as well.
3rd pic: I see it, but its not as detrimental as Dorian's flaws. Again you are ignoring Dorian's proportion flaws.
I wasn't looking for the masses to validate my opinion, just pointing out what many "experts" consider about Ronnie. You have done the same with Dorian in the past too.
then it's redundant you typing it then don't you think?
I saw your reply to Neo, you said that when others say Ronnie's best was 2001/1998, its not subjective because its based on non subjective criteria like conditioning. What about when Peter McGough said Ronnie's best was 1999? Was it based on non subjective criteria too or not?
Can't you see opinions vary and its all subjective?
Let's clarify Peter did NOT say 1999 was Ronnie's best in fact he said 2001 was his best which coincides with a vast majority of people , and the reference to the 99 Olympia was NOT even about his best Olympia it was in reference to a memorable moment at the Olympia where the guy set the bar on that day , he referenced Dorian and the 1993 Mr Olympia and he does NOT consider that his best Olympia showing . That's Hulkster drawing his own conclusions
2001 is considered his best because he had the perfect blend of size , density , dryness and balance for his physique it's pretty much the best of all worlds for his physique
But let's say those comments are based on non subjective criteria and that Ronnie's best was 98 or 2001. Couldn't the same be said about people that say Ronnie is unbeatable or that he had the best physique ever? Based on non subjective criteria?
no there is a difference as many have point out which McGough touched on in who is the best Mr Olympia ever , it's impossible to choose , way , way to many variables , lighting , technology , contexts , knowledge , etc many people feel many different people are the greatest ever way to subjective a topic
What was Dorian's best contest physique to you?
If you say 1995, then his proportions are not better than a top Ronnie.
1995 or 1993 and his proportions even with the one bicep shorter than the other is still better than Ronnies , Ronnie will always have two very underdeveloped sub-par calves that aren't in proportion with his quads and entertaining all things were equal ( and they're not ) two is worse than one
Why do you play this card on Hulkster all the time then........ :-\
subjective/non-subjective popular opinion doesn't make it a correct opinion , the minority judge contests not the majority , I don't look for popular opinion on a subjective topic as a means of proof
This can also show that Ronnie could look bigger than Dorian despite being lighter.
no it does not because Ronnie's conditioning was never on par with Yates and entertaining it was Dorian was still larger and had equal conditioning
I think a greatly improved version of Ronnie (98-99) beats Dorian.
You're forgetting Flex's best was the 1993 Arnold Classic, he wasn't as good at the Olympia that same year.
I could dare say he was better at the 1999 Olympia and possibly equal at the 1998 version compared to the 1993 Olympia.
Greatly improved where? by Ronnie being harder & drier? with bitch tits in 98? NO WAY in hell Ronnie 98 would beat Dorian he barely beat Flex and 99 he was bigger and fuller albeit with less density & dryness this would be very evident next to a insanely conditioned Yates
Flex wasn't as great at the Olympia as he was in the Arnold , but he was close enough and either you're being contrary or just plain ignorant , Flex at the 99/98 Olympia wasn't on par with 93 Olympia not even close if he was he would have been Mr Olympia
Those pics are ok.
1st pic: I never saw Ronnie's forearms look that narrow before, I could post another pic of his forearms looking in better proportion to his upper arms. But let's say Ronnie's forearm/upper arm proportion wasn't good compared to Dorian; Dorian's arms/back-torso proportion wasn't good either compared to Ronnie. Which do you think has a bigger impact on overall proportion? I think Dorian's flaw has more of an impact and that's not considering how his quads look in proportion to his torso compared with Ronnie.
Ronnie's forearm bicep/triceps discrepancy has always been there , the heavier he gets the worse it became old news , still NOT on par with Yates it's just not , you can't claim Dorian's arms/back-torso proportion wasn't great all you'd like it doesn't change the fact you're grasping at straws , Ronnie's arms in fact are to LONG for his short torso now couple that with long legs and the short torso and the calf & forearm imbalance out of the two Dorian's balance & proportion is better
2nd pic: I can understand your point here.......I mean, Dorian actually appears to have better balance & proportion on this pic, but what kind of comparison is this?
A black sillhouette comparison in which Dorian's waist is the same size as Ronnie's? A comparison in which Dorian's arms are just as big as Ronnie's?
I don't know where you got this pic, but its not doing the trick.
If you look at real pics of both, in most poses, you can see Ronnie actually has the better proportions. In these sillhouett pics you can't see the actual development of the muscle groups as well.
The scale isn't perfect this I know , ironic you bring up that tidbit because 99.9% of the comparisons they post are way off , where Ronnie at 247 pounds has the same size calves as Dorian and he has the same size waist , but I digress , even with the scale off it's clearly shows who has a short torso , who has long legs & arms in relation to the torso , who has disproportionate calves and forearms and it's Ronnie , he may have a smaller waist & hips and joints however he doesn't compare overall
3rd pic: I see it, but its not as detrimental as Dorian's flaws. Again you are ignoring Dorian's proportion flaws.
you see it and you shouldn't fucking see it , and you said I was nitpicking and I'm not merely showing you how the judges would look at it , Ronnie may have gotten away with it with the competition he faced but he never faced a prime Dorian , wait he did and we all know how that turned out ;D
Dorian's proportion flaws are not nearly as much as a liability compared to Ronnie
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
One thing that I think people underrated me on - it was never really mentioned because of my sheer physical size and condition - was my balance and proportion. Not only from muscle group to muscle group, but from upper body to lower body. My skeletal structure and everything else was there and in good balance.
here is Dorian commenting on his outstanding balance & proportion , you know what's ironic is I raved about it for years before I ever found this quote and it was very nice to be validated after the fact by an IFBB judge like Yates ;D
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
another IFBB judge commenting on Yates outstanding balance and at his best he was absolutely near perfect in this aspect , reminds me of the Flex magazine coverage of the 93 when they assess the competitors strengths & weaknesses , concerning Dorian they remarked weaknesses and their response was " none ...really "
Shawn Perine Ironage May 9 2009
Although I prefer the Reeves-Zane-Paris physique, I still contend that there was never a more complete, muscular human being to walk the earth than Dorian on the day Kevin Horton shot him pre-93 O. I was never so shocked by a set of bodybuilding photos as when I went through that article. Even Ronnie at his best, lacked Dorian's hardness and certainly his calves.
see a pattern here? Dorian was more complete , had better balance & proportion , unrivaled conditioning and he was a better poser , believe me Ronnie would have a ton of trouble beating Dorian
-
1998 Ronnie could match Dorian's dryness and beat him.
1999 not as dry, but overall a better physique and still beats Dorian.
1998 would not beat Dorian , he barely beat Flex in one of the closest Mr Olympia contests in the history of it ! 3 points , let's say for the sake of argument Flex was just as good in 98 as he was in 93 it wouldn't matter Dorian 93 was so far and ahead of Flex it wasn't even funny , plus the bitch-tits NO contest throw 98 out the window
99 not as dry and not as hard , please note density is a step beyond being dry and Ronnie 99 wasn't as hard AND as dry as 98 and NOT in Yates league anyway , the size advantage against Dorian would be close then 98 would be but it would be clearly evident who had the superior conditioning , and balance & posing and guess who would win?
-
LOL yeah, you are doing a great job proving it wrong when pics and videos clearly show his gut was much larger at the 2001 AC..
::)
they actually don't they prove my point as does the pics and video that show 01's conditioning shits all over 99 and it's exactly part of the reason everyone hails 01 as his best and NO ONE says 99 ;)
-
I have no bias against Dorian................
I'm not contradicting the experts when I say that Ronnie at his best is the greatest ever or unbeatable while basing myself on pics & videos.
You're holding too much on Dorian's conditioning without taking into account that:
1. Ronnie's conditioning in 98-99 was great and not far below Dorian's. In 98 his dryness was just as great as Dorian's.
2. You're forgetting this is all about who would meet all of the criteria better, who would have the most complete physique. Its not all about conditioning.
Dexter Jackson had lot of things going on for him over his weight that allowed him to stand toe to toe and beat heavier guys.
Just look at many of the different pics and videos of both Ronnie and Dorian posted here........Ronnie has deeper separations and detail in his legs, arms, delts, chest and possibly his back. Striations can be a bit closer, but Ronnie still has the advantage.
Peter McGough has refered to Ronnie as resembling a "walking anatomy chart" for some reason don't you think? No one said that about Dorian, other than his density and dryness.
Ronnie wasn't perfect (calves is a great example), but neither was Dorian. The question is who was the most complete and balanced of the two? For me its Ronnie.
Dorian's quads
Dorian's arms in relation to his back/torso
I have no bias against Dorian................
sure you do , you like Ronnie better
I'm not contradicting the experts when I say that Ronnie at his best is the greatest ever or unbeatable while basing myself on pics & videos.
You're holding too much on Dorian's conditioning without taking into account that:
1. Ronnie's conditioning in 98-99 was great and not far below Dorian's. In 98 his dryness was just as great as Dorian's.
2. You're forgetting this is all about who would meet all of the criteria better, who would have the most complete physique. Its not all about conditioning.
you're contradicting the experts by claiming he was better in 99.
1) Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was great FOR RONNIE not on par with Yates , 99 definitely NOT close to 99 nevermind Dorian
2) who has been harping on the fact that ALL rounds are physique rounds? who has been saying Dorian has better balance & proportion? posing & presentation? and muscular bulk? I have , I said while Ronnie meets part(s) of the criteria better than Yates , Dorian meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie and better than any of his contemporaries , it's old news my stance hasn't budged one iota in years
I know it's not all about conditioning HOWEVER entertaining for the sake of argument all things were being equal ( which they're not ) the guy with the best conditioning wins
Dexter Jackson had lot of things going on for him over his weight that allowed him to stand toe to toe and beat heavier guys.
has nothing to do with my point
Just look at many of the different pics and videos of both Ronnie and Dorian posted here........Ronnie has deeper separations and detail in his legs, arms, delts, chest and possibly his back. Striations can be a bit closer, but Ronnie still has the advantage.
Peter McGough has refered to Ronnie as resembling a "walking anatomy chart" for some reason don't you think? No one said that about Dorian, other than his density and dryness.
NO he does not , you see what you want to see , Ronnie has advantages sure but stop with the blatant overstatements , McGough also said Ronnie never touched Dorian in conditioning I'm sure you agree with that?
And no one said Dorian was an anatomy chart? how about these?
Quote from Julian Schmidt, "FLEX" magazine, on the November issue, 1998:
"Now that Dorian Yates, the thickest, densest and most annealed bodybuider in history has retired, Ronnie has taken the opportunity to become the new stndard-bearer. Something unlikely to have happened, if Dorian still competed
thickest , densest and most annealed !
Quote from Greg Zulak, "MuscleMag", early 1997:
"The most amazing characteristic, of Dorian, is not his size per se, but his muscularity: not only is his muscle-per-square-inch ratio the greatest ever, but his muscles seem like they were etched in stone, such is their hardness."
etched in stone
Quote from Steve Blechman, 1995:
"Even though he doesen't represent my bodybuilding ideal, I think Dorian's overall development is mind-blogging. And when you consider that his frame carrries his size so comfortably, and that he presents his mass with such incredible conditioning...I don't think that Dorian can be defeated by current professional judging standards. He'll be Mr.Olympia for as long as he wants to
incredible conditioning
At 2 p.m. on 11 September 1993 he walked out onstage at the Civic Auditorium in Atlanta, Georgia. He weighed 257 lb. His skin looked as if it had been painted directly on to his muscle. He was stone hard and grainy. Every detail of every body part punched out into the first ten rows. No man had ever looked quite like Dorian Yates looked that day: he looked big. He looked bad He looked sick. There was no Mr. Olympia contest. The judges saw no need to call him out for comparisons during the muscularity round.
' I knew then, ' he would say, ten years later, ' that I was either first or last. And I wasn't fucking last. '
his skin looked like it had been painted directly onto his muscle , ( dry anyone? ) stone hard ( dense anyone? )
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
One thing that I think people underrated me on - it was never really mentioned because of my sheer physical size and condition - was my balance and proportion. Not only from muscle group to muscle group, but from upper body to lower body. My skeletal structure and everything else was there and in good balance.
super hard condition
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.
big physique , hard , density ? see a pattern here?
As Weider photographer Bill Dobbins so succinctly put it as Yates strutted his stuff : " I have never seen such muscle development on a human being. The other guys sit around backstage talking about whether to get big or cut , what they need to do is get like Dorian. "
they need to get like Dorian , big and cut
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.
I mean this sums it all up
Has the quality of physique seen on the pro stage these days changed much compared to when you were competing as a professional?
I don't think the physiques have changed radically. I think a lot of people are trying to go the size route. My sole goal when getting ready for a contest was not building a lot of size, although when I was coming up pure muscle size was still very important. I was always really concerned about coming in very sharp conditioning wise.
I think that is lacking a little bit now, and it has occurred over the past few years. You go to a pro show now and you see a couple of guys who are in really good shape and the rest of the lineup is so-so, or not so good. Back when I was competing in the Olympia I think you saw a lot of guys who were in really good shape.
There was a greater emphasis on conditioning, but now you see guys going for size at the expense of conditioning. It seems strange me saying that, as I was known for my muscle size, but it was not my priority in getting ready for a contest. Obviously I carried a lot of muscle but my main thing was to come in super-ripped
Dorian talking about how the current crop of guys ( Ronnie was included ) just couldn't touch the 90s or his conditioning
First of all, Dorian would bring to the stage a package so massive and freakily conditioned that throughout his career as Mr. Olympia no one would come close to defeating him on size and hardness. His level of development set a new standard in bodybuilding excellence, one that is being favorably looked upon, and replicated by many in the sport, today.
freaky conditioned . size and hardness ? see a pattern here?
Peter Mcgough
"These words should not be taken lightly, because no bodybuilder has ever been as hard and dry as the man who won six Sandows."
yet again
Flex Magazine October 2004 - Peter McGough’s commentary on the "voodoo" that has now reached ridiculous complexity when it comes to trying to "dry out" bodybuilders so they’re more ripped than any anatomy chart illustration on contest day. He quotes former Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates, who notes that despite the chemistry experiments with insulin and diuretics, "I don’t see the guys getting any harder."
Dorian again commenting on how guys sucked compared to his conditioning
MuscleMag International Feb 1994 on Dorian Yates at the 1993 Mr Olympia
" He's huge , absolutely HUGE ...he's ripped completely RIPPED. And while he's not in possession of the prettiest physique body by a long shot , he's equipped with all the bodyparts you need to win .
Combine this with the fact that he's 10 TIMES more impressive when you see him onstage at the Olympia than he is in pictures or on videos and you got yourself a winner.
ripped completely ripped
Flex Magazine June 1996
Quote Milos Sarcev on Dorian Yates
" Dorian is.........The current Mr Olympia. I admire him a great deal. He's impressive , ripped and huge with a total package that can't be beat. he doesn't have the type of physique I'd want to emulate. "
ripped and huge and complete
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.
better condition
ronman Magazine Jan 1994
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.
hardest by far
Quote Mike Mattarazo on Dorian Yates
" Does he even have skin? "
dry anyone?
Flex magazine Dec 1995
Dorian Yates : Skin like tissue paper.
tissue paper
Peter McGough on Dorian at the 1996 Mr Olympia
Dorian Yates : The man was in situ was rock hard
rock hard
Interview with David Robson
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
super-hard condition , see the pattern
Dorian's conditioning is legendary and for all intents and purposes UNMATCHED
Ronnie wasn't perfect (calves is a great example), but neither was Dorian. The question is who was the most complete and balanced of the two? For me its Ronnie.
Dorian's quads
Dorian's arms in relation to his back/torso
contests aren't based on what's good for you , Dorian's conditioning and balance are both better than Ronnies
-
And he says you and other Ronnie fans make laughable comparisons........... :-\
What comparison is more laughable than his sillouette one?
search Hulkster post history and you'll find plenty of them ;)
-
you can tell ND is being owned badly because his posts lately are nothing but pages and pages of opinions.
notice: he never posts pics or videos to corroborate any of it.
why?
because they show it all to be wrong.
classic example is Peter McGough's opinon:
McGough feels 99 is better than 98.
ND believes 98 is better.
yes, McGough happens to prefer 2001, but as we have shown, the differences between them are very slight. and that larger gut (that ND pretends is the same size as 99 ::)) is a major hindrance.
so who cares whether or not someone prefers 2001 to 99?
the fact that ND cannot escape is that his own hero, the man he quotes for literally pages daily, believes that 1999 Ronnie was better than 1998. and ND uses this man's opinion as literally the basis of every post he makes lately. except for the case with 99 vs 98.
and there is nothing ND can do about it but cry.
life is good. :-*
-
there was a huge difference between ronnie's gut/waistline from 1999 to 2001:
one that ND pretends doesn't exists LMAO
how embarrassing for him.. ::)
-
you can tell ND is being owned badly because his posts lately are nothing but pages and pages of opinions.
notice: he never posts pics or videos to corroborate any of it.
why?
because they show it all to be wrong.
classic example is Peter McGough's opinon:
McGough feels 99 is better than 98.
ND believes 98 is better.
yes, McGough happens to prefer 2001, but as we have shown, the differences between them are very slight. and that larger gut (that ND pretends is the same size as 99 ::)) is a major hindrance.
so who cares whether or not someone prefers 2001 to 99?
the fact that ND cannot escape is that his own hero, the man he quotes for literally pages daily, believes that 1999 Ronnie was better than 1998. and ND uses this man's opinion as literally the basis of every post he makes lately. except for the case with 99 vs 98.
and there is nothing ND can do about it but cry.
life is good. :-*
So you're saying that McGough is correct in stating 1999 > 1998, but incorrect in stating 2001 > 1999?
Since you use McGough to back up your 1999 vs. 1998 claims, then he must also be credible regarding 2001 vs. 1999. Then 2001 must be Ronnie's best.
-
So you're saying that McGough is correct in stating 1999 > 1998, but incorrect in stating 2001 > 1999?
Since you use McGough to back up your 1999 vs. 1998 claims, then he must also be credible regarding 2001 vs. 1999. Then 2001 must be Ronnie's best.
not to mention mcgoughs statement that Dorian 93 would beat Ronnie.
But in hulkster world, logic and reason don't exist, contests are judged by pics, and judges, competitors and experts opinions don't count unless they agree with hulkster, and even then evryyhing else they say doesn't count. Not to mention what they say is NOT what they really mean, but hulkster knows what they were REALLY saying. Hahahah
-
not to mention mcgoughs statement that Dorian 93 would beat Ronnie
when did Peter say Dorian would beat Ronnie? All I've seen is when he later amended his statement about Ronnie having the best physique ever by saying it would be close between him and Dorian, but never have I seen him claim "Dorian would beat Ronnie" as you say.
-
So you're saying that McGough is correct in stating 1999 > 1998, but incorrect in stating 2001 > 1999?
Since you use McGough to back up your 1999 vs. 1998 claims, then he must also be credible regarding 2001 vs. 1999. Then 2001 must be Ronnie's best.
See this is what makes Hulkster a retard , he's trapped he needs McGough to be right that 99 is ' better ' but when he says 01 is better than 99 he's wrong lmfao the kid is a contradicting machine who is desperately looking for any angle what so ever
if McGough is right when he says 99 was ' better ' ( which by the way he doesn't say in fact ) then McGough is right when he says 2001 is his best , Hulkster says he's wrong , McGough is also right when says that in 99 Ronnie wasn't as hard or as dry as he was in 98 , once again Hulkster says he's wrong , McGough is also right when he says Ronnie was in fact NEVER harder or drier than Dorian , once again guess what position our resident retard take? he's wrong lmao
McGough is right when Hulkster wants him to be and wrong needs him to be , cherry picking at it's best which we can add to his list of fallacious positions
-
there was a huge difference between ronnie's gut/waistline from 1999 to 2001:
one that ND pretends doesn't exists LMAO
how embarrassing for him.. ::)
The old let's post a pic of Ronnie fully flexed and one of him in transition to ' prove ' my point huh? you tried it many times with Dorian vs Ronnie and now you've been reduced to Ronnie vs Ronnie LMFAO
oppsss Hulkster just got busted yet again trying to pull a fast one ;)
-
when did Peter say Dorian would beat Ronnie? All I've seen is when he later amended his statement about Ronnie having the best physique ever by saying it would be close between him and Dorian, but never have I seen him claim "Dorian would beat Ronnie" as you say.
Where did he say it would be close? ???
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.
-
Where did he say it would be close?
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.
see the part in bold
-
then it's redundant you typing it then don't you think?
Let's clarify Peter did NOT say 1999 was Ronnie's best in fact he said 2001 was his best which coincides with a vast majority of people , and the reference to the 99 Olympia was NOT even about his best Olympia it was in reference to a memorable moment at the Olympia where the guy set the bar on that day , he referenced Dorian and the 1993 Mr Olympia and he does NOT consider that his best Olympia showing . That's Hulkster drawing his own conclusions
2001 is considered his best because he had the perfect blend of size , density , dryness and balance for his physique it's pretty much the best of all worlds for his physique
no there is a difference as many have point out which McGough touched on in who is the best Mr Olympia ever , it's impossible to choose , way way to many variables , lighting , technology , contexts , knowledge , etc many people feel many different people are the greatest ever way to subjective a topic
1995 or 1993 and his proportions even with the one bicep shorter than the other is still better than Ronnies , Ronnie will always have two very underdeveloped sub-par calves that aren't in proportion with his quads and entertaining all things were equal ( and they're not ) two is worse than one
subjective/non-subjective popular opinion doesn't make it a correct opinion , the minority judge contests not the majority , I don't look for popular opinion on a subjective topic as a means of proof
no it does not because Ronnie's conditioning was never on par with Yates and entertaining it was Dorian was still larger and had equal conditioning
Greatly improved where? by Ronnie being harder & drier? with bitch tits in 98? NO WAY in hell Ronnie 98 would beat Dorian he barely beat Flex and 99 he was bigger and fuller albeit with less density & dryness this would be very evident next to a insanely conditioned Yates
Flex wasn't as great at the Olympia as he was in the Arnold , but he was close enough and either you're being contrary or just plain ignorant , Flex at the 99/98 Olympia wasn't on par with 93 Olympia not even close if he was he would have been Mr Olympia
Ronnie's forearm bicep/triceps discrepancy has always been there , the heavier he gets the worse it became old news , still NOT on par with Yates it's just not , you can't claim Dorian's arms/back-torso proportion wasn't great all you'd like it doesn't change the fact you're grasping at straws , Ronnie's arms in fact are to LONG for his short torso now couple that with long legs and the short torso and the calf & forearm imbalance out of the two Dorian's balance & proportion is better
The scale isn't perfect this I know , ironic you bring up that tidbit because 99.9% of the comparisons they post are way off , where Ronnie at 247 pounds has the same size calves as Dorian and he has the same size waist , but I digress , even with the scale off it's clearly shows who has a short torso , who has long legs & arms in relation to the torso , who has disproportionate calves and forearms and it's Ronnie , he may have a smaller waist & hips and joints however he doesn't compare overall
you see it and you shouldn't fucking see it , and you said I was nitpicking and I'm not merely showing you how the judges would look at it , Ronnie may have gotten away with it with the competition he faced but he never faced a prime Dorian , wait he did and we all know how that turned out ;D
Dorian's proportion flaws are not nearly as much as a liability compared to Ronnie
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
One thing that I think people underrated me on - it was never really mentioned because of my sheer physical size and condition - was my balance and proportion. Not only from muscle group to muscle group, but from upper body to lower body. My skeletal structure and everything else was there and in good balance.
here is Dorian commenting on his outstanding balance & proportion , you know what's ironic is I raved about it for years before I ever found this quote and it was very nice to be validated after the fact by an IFBB judge like Yates ;D
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
another IFBB judge commenting on Yates outstanding balance and at his best he was absolutely near perfect in this aspect , reminds me of the Flex magazine coverage of the 93 when they assess the competitors strengths & weaknesses , concerning Dorian they remarked weaknesses and their response was " none ...really "
Shawn Perine Ironage May 9 2009
Although I prefer the Reeves-Zane-Paris physique, I still contend that there was never a more complete, muscular human being to walk the earth than Dorian on the day Kevin Horton shot him pre-93 O. I was never so shocked by a set of bodybuilding photos as when I went through that article. Even Ronnie at his best, lacked Dorian's hardness and certainly his calves.
see a pattern here? Dorian was more complete , had better balance & proportion , unrivaled conditioning and he was a better poser , believe me Ronnie would have a ton of trouble beating Dorian
then it's redundant you typing it then don't you think?
Probably
Let's clarify Peter did NOT say 1999 was Ronnie's best in fact he said 2001 was his best which coincides with a vast majority of people , and the reference to the 99 Olympia was NOT even about his best Olympia it was in reference to a memorable moment at the Olympia where the guy set the bar on that day , he referenced Dorian and the 1993 Mr Olympia and he does NOT consider that his best Olympia showing . That's Hulkster drawing his own conclusions
I was trying to show McGough feels that 99 is better than 98, not that its his best ever. Why didn't he mention 98 if he thinks its his best Olympia appearance? Isn't it because he thinks 99 is better?
1995 or 1993 and his proportions even with the one bicep shorter than the other is still better than Ronnies , Ronnie will always have two very underdeveloped sub-par calves that aren't in proportion with his quads and entertaining all things were equal ( and they're not ) two is worse than one
I guess we will never agree on who had the better balance & proportion. You think it was Dorian, I think it was Ronnie.
no it does not because Ronnie's conditioning was never on par with Yates and entertaining it was Dorian was still larger and had equal conditioning
How can you be so sure that Ronnie's conditioning was never on par with Dorian's conditioning other than posting a quote from McGough?
Was he larger just because he was heavier? We've seen that a bodybuilder can appear to be bigger than another in certain poses despite being lighter.
Greatly improved where? by Ronnie being harder & drier? with bitch tits in 98? NO WAY in hell Ronnie 98 would beat Dorian he barely beat Flex and 99 he was bigger and fuller albeit with less density & dryness this would be very evident next to a insanely conditioned Yates
Ronnie was greatly improved in 98-99 compared to his previous showings because he was MUCH better conditioned, a bit bigger and the quality of his physique improved considerably.
Ronnie's forearm bicep/triceps discrepancy has always been there , the heavier he gets the worse it became old news , still NOT on par with Yates it's just not , you can't claim Dorian's arms/back-torso proportion wasn't great all you'd like it doesn't change the fact you're grasping at straws , Ronnie's arms in fact are to LONG for his short torso now couple that with long legs and the short torso and the calf & forearm imbalance out of the two Dorian's balance & proportion is better
Do you honestly think Dorian's arms were in good proportion to his back/torso in 1995 compared to Ronnie?
I can't understand what you're seeing here.............. :-\
The scale isn't perfect this I know , ironic you bring up that tidbit because 99.9% of the comparisons they post are way off , where Ronnie at 247 pounds has the same size calves as Dorian and he has the same size waist , but I digress , even with the scale off it's clearly shows who has a short torso , who has long legs & arms in relation to the torso , who has disproportionate calves and forearms and it's Ronnie , he may have a smaller waist & hips and joints however he doesn't compare overall
Its true it shows a lot of those things you listed, however it doesn't show other things like Dorian's arms being too small/underdeveloped for his torso compared to Ronnie and it doesn't show the level of both guy's quad development in which case Dorian's appear narrow once again compared to Ronnie.
you see it and you shouldn't fucking see it , and you said I was nitpicking and I'm not merely showing you how the judges would look at it , Ronnie may have gotten away with it with the competition he faced but he never faced a prime Dorian , wait he did and we all know how that turned out ;D
Dorian's proportion flaws are not nearly as much as a liability compared to Ronnie
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
One thing that I think people underrated me on - it was never really mentioned because of my sheer physical size and condition - was my balance and proportion. Not only from muscle group to muscle group, but from upper body to lower body. My skeletal structure and everything else was there and in good balance.
here is Dorian commenting on his outstanding balance & proportion , you know what's ironic is I raved about it for years before I ever found this quote and it was very nice to be validated after the fact by an IFBB judge like Yates ;D
Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?
The man Dorian Yates , his combonation of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .
another IFBB judge commenting on Yates outstanding balance and at his best he was absolutely near perfect in this aspect , reminds me of the Flex magazine coverage of the 93 when they assess the competitors strengths & weaknesses , concerning Dorian they remarked weaknesses and their response was " none ...really "
Shawn Perine Ironage May 9 2009
Although I prefer the Reeves-Zane-Paris physique, I still contend that there was never a more complete, muscular human being to walk the earth than Dorian on the day Kevin Horton shot him pre-93 O. I was never so shocked by a set of bodybuilding photos as when I went through that article. Even Ronnie at his best, lacked Dorian's hardness and certainly his calves.
see a pattern here? Dorian was more complete , had better balance & proportion , unrivaled conditioning and he was a better poser , believe me Ronnie would have a ton of trouble beating Dorian
Again, I guess we'll never agree on the proportion criteria on both Dorian and Ronnie.
-
sure you do , you like Ronnie better
you're contradicting the experts by claiming he was better in 99.
1) Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was great FOR RONNIE not on par with Yates , 99 definitely NOT close to 99 nevermind Dorian
2) who has been harping on the fact that ALL rounds are physique rounds? who has been saying Dorian has better balance & proportion? posing & presentation? and muscular bulk? I have , I said while Ronnie meets part(s) of the criteria better than Yates , Dorian meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie and better than any of his contemporaries , it's old news my stance hasn't budged one iota in years
I know it's not all about conditioning HOWEVER entertaining for the sake of argument all things were being equal ( which they're not ) the guy with the best conditioning wins
has nothing to do with my point
NO he does not , you see what you want to see , Ronnie has advantages sure but stop with the blatant overstatements , McGough also said Ronnie never touched Dorian in conditioning I'm sure you agree with that?
And no one said Dorian was an anatomy chart? how about these?
Quote from Julian Schmidt, "FLEX" magazine, on the November issue, 1998:
"Now that Dorian Yates, the thickest, densest and most annealed bodybuider in history has retired, Ronnie has taken the opportunity to become the new stndard-bearer. Something unlikely to have happened, if Dorian still competed
thickest , densest and most annealed !
Quote from Greg Zulak, "MuscleMag", early 1997:
"The most amazing characteristic, of Dorian, is not his size per se, but his muscularity: not only is his muscle-per-square-inch ratio the greatest ever, but his muscles seem like they were etched in stone, such is their hardness."
etched in stone
Quote from Steve Blechman, 1995:
"Even though he doesen't represent my bodybuilding ideal, I think Dorian's overall development is mind-blogging. And when you consider that his frame carrries his size so comfortably, and that he presents his mass with such incredible conditioning...I don't think that Dorian can be defeated by current professional judging standards. He'll be Mr.Olympia for as long as he wants to
incredible conditioning
At 2 p.m. on 11 September 1993 he walked out onstage at the Civic Auditorium in Atlanta, Georgia. He weighed 257 lb. His skin looked as if it had been painted directly on to his muscle. He was stone hard and grainy. Every detail of every body part punched out into the first ten rows. No man had ever looked quite like Dorian Yates looked that day: he looked big. He looked bad He looked sick. There was no Mr. Olympia contest. The judges saw no need to call him out for comparisons during the muscularity round.
' I knew then, ' he would say, ten years later, ' that I was either first or last. And I wasn't fucking last. '
his skin looked like it had been painted directly onto his muscle , ( dry anyone? ) stone hard ( dense anyone? )
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
One thing that I think people underrated me on - it was never really mentioned because of my sheer physical size and condition - was my balance and proportion. Not only from muscle group to muscle group, but from upper body to lower body. My skeletal structure and everything else was there and in good balance.
super hard condition
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.
big physique , hard , density ? see a pattern here?
As Weider photographer Bill Dobbins so succinctly put it as Yates strutted his stuff : " I have never seen such muscle development on a human being. The other guys sit around backstage talking about whether to get big or cut , what they need to do is get like Dorian. "
they need to get like Dorian , big and cut
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.
I mean this sums it all up
Has the quality of physique seen on the pro stage these days changed much compared to when you were competing as a professional?
I don't think the physiques have changed radically. I think a lot of people are trying to go the size route. My sole goal when getting ready for a contest was not building a lot of size, although when I was coming up pure muscle size was still very important. I was always really concerned about coming in very sharp conditioning wise.
I think that is lacking a little bit now, and it has occurred over the past few years. You go to a pro show now and you see a couple of guys who are in really good shape and the rest of the lineup is so-so, or not so good. Back when I was competing in the Olympia I think you saw a lot of guys who were in really good shape.
There was a greater emphasis on conditioning, but now you see guys going for size at the expense of conditioning. It seems strange me saying that, as I was known for my muscle size, but it was not my priority in getting ready for a contest. Obviously I carried a lot of muscle but my main thing was to come in super-ripped
Dorian talking about how the current crop of guys ( Ronnie was included ) just couldn't touch the 90s or his conditioning
First of all, Dorian would bring to the stage a package so massive and freakily conditioned that throughout his career as Mr. Olympia no one would come close to defeating him on size and hardness. His level of development set a new standard in bodybuilding excellence, one that is being favorably looked upon, and replicated by many in the sport, today.
freaky conditioned . size and hardness ? see a pattern here?
Peter Mcgough
"These words should not be taken lightly, because no bodybuilder has ever been as hard and dry as the man who won six Sandows."
yet again
Flex Magazine October 2004 - Peter McGough’s commentary on the "voodoo" that has now reached ridiculous complexity when it comes to trying to "dry out" bodybuilders so they’re more ripped than any anatomy chart illustration on contest day. He quotes former Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates, who notes that despite the chemistry experiments with insulin and diuretics, "I don’t see the guys getting any harder."
Dorian again commenting on how guys sucked compared to his conditioning
ripped completely ripped
Flex Magazine June 1996
Quote Milos Sarcev on Dorian Yates
" Dorian is.........The current Mr Olympia. I admire him a great deal. He's impressive , ripped and huge with a total package that can't be beat. he doesn't have the type of physique I'd want to emulate. "
ripped and huge and complete
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.
better condition
hardest by far
Quote Mike Mattarazo on Dorian Yates
" Does he even have skin? "
dry anyone?
Flex magazine Dec 1995
Dorian Yates : Skin like tissue paper.
tissue paper
Peter McGough on Dorian at the 1996 Mr Olympia
Dorian Yates : The man was in situ was rock hard
rock hard
super-hard condition , see the pattern
Dorian's conditioning is legendary and for all intents and purposes UNMATCHED
contests aren't based on what's good for you , Dorian's conditioning and balance are both better than Ronnies
sure you do , you like Ronnie better
Yes, but I don't have anything against Dorian. I don't just try to go against him because I supposedly dislike him, I don't dislike him. I just think Ronnie was better.
you're contradicting the experts by claiming he was better in 99.
Most, but not all.
1) Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was great FOR RONNIE not on par with Yates , 99 definitely NOT close to 99 nevermind Dorian
2) who has been harping on the fact that ALL rounds are physique rounds? who has been saying Dorian has better balance & proportion? posing & presentation? and muscular bulk? I have , I said while Ronnie meets part(s) of the criteria better than Yates , Dorian meets ALL of the criteria better than Ronnie and better than any of his contemporaries , it's old news my stance hasn't budged one iota in years
I know it's not all about conditioning HOWEVER entertaining for the sake of argument all things were being equal ( which they're not ) the guy with the best conditioning wins
How can you be so sure Ronnie's conditioning in 1998 is not on par with Dorian's conditioning? I see him just as dry and hard.
Again, I don't think Dorian is better than Ronnie in symmetry, balance & proportion and not even posing. Going by the criteria and that all rounds are physique rounds: Ronnie beats Dorian, I see him meeting all of the criteria better.
By muscular bulk I'm sure you mean muscularity or size right? In this case how can you be so sure Dorian meets it better just because he is heavier? Don't you think Ronnie could give the impression of being more muscular than a heavier Dorian?
NO he does not , you see what you want to see , Ronnie has advantages sure but stop with the blatant overstatements , McGough also said Ronnie never touched Dorian in conditioning I'm sure you agree with that?
I don't think I agree with it going with Ronnie in 1998.
And no one said Dorian was an anatomy chart? how about these?
Quote from Julian Schmidt, "FLEX" magazine, on the November issue, 1998:
"Now that Dorian Yates, the thickest, densest and most annealed bodybuider in history has retired, Ronnie has taken the opportunity to become the new stndard-bearer. Something unlikely to have happened, if Dorian still competed
thickest , densest and most annealed !
Quote from Greg Zulak, "MuscleMag", early 1997:
"The most amazing characteristic, of Dorian, is not his size per se, but his muscularity: not only is his muscle-per-square-inch ratio the greatest ever, but his muscles seem like they were etched in stone, such is their hardness."
etched in stone
Quote from Steve Blechman, 1995:
"Even though he doesen't represent my bodybuilding ideal, I think Dorian's overall development is mind-blogging. And when you consider that his frame carrries his size so comfortably, and that he presents his mass with such incredible conditioning...I don't think that Dorian can be defeated by current professional judging standards. He'll be Mr.Olympia for as long as he wants to
incredible conditioning
At 2 p.m. on 11 September 1993 he walked out onstage at the Civic Auditorium in Atlanta, Georgia. He weighed 257 lb. His skin looked as if it had been painted directly on to his muscle. He was stone hard and grainy. Every detail of every body part punched out into the first ten rows. No man had ever looked quite like Dorian Yates looked that day: he looked big. He looked bad He looked sick. There was no Mr. Olympia contest. The judges saw no need to call him out for comparisons during the muscularity round.
' I knew then, ' he would say, ten years later, ' that I was either first or last. And I wasn't fucking last. '
his skin looked like it had been painted directly onto his muscle , ( dry anyone? ) stone hard ( dense anyone? )
[ Q ] What were some of your better physical qualities as a bodybuilder, do you think?
Obviously I carried a lot of muscle mass and my trademark was to come into a show in super hard condition. I think my muscles had a certain quality and density from all the years of heavy training that a lot of guys didn't have.
One thing that I think people underrated me on - it was never really mentioned because of my sheer physical size and condition - was my balance and proportion. Not only from muscle group to muscle group, but from upper body to lower body. My skeletal structure and everything else was there and in good balance.
super hard condition
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.
big physique , hard , density ? see a pattern here?
As Weider photographer Bill Dobbins so succinctly put it as Yates strutted his stuff : " I have never seen such muscle development on a human being. The other guys sit around backstage talking about whether to get big or cut , what they need to do is get like Dorian. "
they need to get like Dorian , big and cut
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.
I mean this sums it all up
Has the quality of physique seen on the pro stage these days changed much compared to when you were competing as a professional?
I don't think the physiques have changed radically. I think a lot of people are trying to go the size route. My sole goal when getting ready for a contest was not building a lot of size, although when I was coming up pure muscle size was still very important. I was always really concerned about coming in very sharp conditioning wise.
I think that is lacking a little bit now, and it has occurred over the past few years. You go to a pro show now and you see a couple of guys who are in really good shape and the rest of the lineup is so-so, or not so good. Back when I was competing in the Olympia I think you saw a lot of guys who were in really good shape.
There was a greater emphasis on conditioning, but now you see guys going for size at the expense of conditioning. It seems strange me saying that, as I was known for my muscle size, but it was not my priority in getting ready for a contest. Obviously I carried a lot of muscle but my main thing was to come in super-ripped
Dorian talking about how the current crop of guys ( Ronnie was included ) just couldn't touch the 90s or his conditioning
First of all, Dorian would bring to the stage a package so massive and freakily conditioned that throughout his career as Mr. Olympia no one would come close to defeating him on size and hardness. His level of development set a new standard in bodybuilding excellence, one that is being favorably looked upon, and replicated by many in the sport, today.
freaky conditioned . size and hardness ? see a pattern here?
Peter Mcgough
"These words should not be taken lightly, because no bodybuilder has ever been as hard and dry as the man who won six Sandows."
yet again
Flex Magazine October 2004 - Peter McGough’s commentary on the "voodoo" that has now reached ridiculous complexity when it comes to trying to "dry out" bodybuilders so they’re more ripped than any anatomy chart illustration on contest day. He quotes former Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates, who notes that despite the chemistry experiments with insulin and diuretics, "I don’t see the guys getting any harder."
Dorian again commenting on how guys sucked compared to his conditioning
ripped completely ripped
Flex Magazine June 1996
Quote Milos Sarcev on Dorian Yates
" Dorian is.........The current Mr Olympia. I admire him a great deal. He's impressive , ripped and huge with a total package that can't be beat. he doesn't have the type of physique I'd want to emulate. "
ripped and huge and complete
Lee Priest
HOW DO YOU FEEL DORIAN WOULD FAIR AGAINST RONNIE COLEMAN NOW?
I think Dorian at his best (1993) would easily beat Ronnie. Dorian might not be as symmetrical as Ronnie, but all over he was more complete and in better condition at his best.
better condition
hardest by far
Quote Mike Mattarazo on Dorian Yates
" Does he even have skin? "
dry anyone?
Flex magazine Dec 1995
Dorian Yates : Skin like tissue paper.
tissue paper
Peter McGough on Dorian at the 1996 Mr Olympia
Dorian Yates : The man was in situ was rock hard
rock hard
super-hard condition , see the pattern
Dorian's conditioning is legendary and for all intents and purposes UNMATCHED
contests aren't based on what's good for you , Dorian's conditioning and balance are both better than Ronnies
Your quotes here just prove what I was trying to say before: Not one of them mentions Dorian resembling a walking anatomy chart, but they all mention his amazing dryness, density and hardness. When McGough said Ronnie resembled a walking anatomy chart, he based it off Ronnie's amazing muscle separations, striations and detail. A bodybuilder can be incredibly hard & dry, but still don't display deep muscle separations and detail.
Which is why I said Ronnie has an advantage over Dorian as far as separations, striations and detail in the first place.
-
1998 would not beat Dorian , he barely beat Flex in one of the closest Mr Olympia contests in the history of it ! 3 points , let's say for the sake of argument Flex was just as good in 98 as he was in 93 it wouldn't matter Dorian 93 was so far and ahead of Flex it wasn't even funny , plus the bitch-tits NO contest throw 98 out the window
99 not as dry and not as hard , please note density is a step beyond being dry and Ronnie 99 wasn't as hard AND as dry as 98 and NOT in Yates league anyway , the size advantage against Dorian would be close then 98 would be but it would be clearly evident who had the superior conditioning , and balance & posing and guess who would win?
1998 would not beat Dorian , he barely beat Flex in one of the closest Mr Olympia contests in the history of it ! 3 points , let's say for the sake of argument Flex was just as good in 98 as he was in 93 it wouldn't matter Dorian 93 was so far and ahead of Flex it wasn't even funny , plus the bitch-tits NO contest throw 98 out the window
I can understand your point of using Flex as a comparison factor here, but I just don't see it as very accurate. I mean, was Flex really that close to Ronnie in 98?
Was he as greatly conditioned? No
Was he as dry and hard? No
Was he as big and muscular? No
Did he have better symmetry? Probably
Did he have better balance & proportion? No
I honestly see Ronnie beating Flex by a lot in 98 despite the judging score, just as Dorian beat him in 93.
99 not as dry and not as hard , please note density is a step beyond being dry and Ronnie 99 wasn't as hard AND as dry as 98 and NOT in Yates league anyway , the size advantage against Dorian would be close then 98 would be but it would be clearly evident who had the superior conditioning , and balance & posing and guess who would win?
I agree that Ronnie in 1999 was not as dry and hard as Dorian. But he wasn't too far behind as his conditioning was still pretty great.
Stil it comes down to who has the most complete physique. Could Ronnie beat Dorian in muscularity despite being lighter? Yes.
Who would have an advantage in balance, proportion and symmetry overall? I see Ronnie. Posing? Could be equal.
I admit it would be a very close call, but I just don't see why you're so sure Dorian would win. I mean, its not like Ronnie is Nasser, Shawn or Levrone.
-
I honestly see Ronnie beating Flex by a lot in 98 despite the judging score
so does everyone else. except for idiot ND of course.. ::)
this has been brought up before to ND who doesn't look to whats onstage and only looks at the scorecards as 100% accurate.. ::)
Place Name Country 1 2 3 4 Pnts
1 Ronnie Coleman USA 17 5 5 5 32
2 Flex Wheeler USA 5 10 10 10 35
fact is, ronnie was overlooked slightly in the opening round, and his scoring reflects that.
-
I was trying to show McGough feels that 99 is better than 98, not that its his best ever. Why didn't he mention 98 if he thinks its his best Olympia appearance? Isn't it because he thinks 99 is better?
yes he does and ND knows he was caught.
so he tries to ignore this and point out that Mcgough feels 2001 was better than either, when it really doesn't matter becuase the fact is that ND has been arguing forever that 98 was better than 99, and his own hero, the cornerstone of his entire pro dorian argument, disagrees.
and it drives him crazy.
-
Probably
I was trying to show McGough feels that 99 is better than 98, not that its his best ever. Why didn't he mention 98 if he thinks its his best Olympia appearance? Isn't it because he thinks 99 is better?
I guess we will never agree on who had the better balance & proportion. You think it was Dorian, I think it was Ronnie.
How can you be so sure that Ronnie's conditioning was never on par with Dorian's conditioning other than posting a quote from McGough?
Was he larger just because he was heavier? We've seen that a bodybuilder can appear to be bigger than another in certain poses despite being lighter.
Ronnie was greatly improved in 98-99 compared to his previous showings because he was MUCH better conditioned, a bit bigger and the quality of his physique improved considerably.
Do you honestly think Dorian's arms were in good proportion to his back/torso in 1995 compared to Ronnie?
I can't understand what you're seeing here.............. :-\
Its true it shows a lot of those things you listed, however it doesn't show other things like Dorian's arms being too small/underdeveloped for his torso compared to Ronnie and it doesn't show the level of both guy's quad development in which case Dorian's appear narrow once again compared to Ronnie.
Again, I guess we'll never agree on the proportion criteria on both Dorian and Ronnie.
I was trying to show McGough feels that 99 is better than 98, not that its his best ever. Why didn't he mention 98 if he thinks its his best Olympia appearance? Isn't it because he thinks 99 is better?
he most certainly doesn't think he's better in terms of conditioning. maybe because Ronnie had bitch-tits in 98 who knows but almost anyone with any credibility says 2001 is his best
I guess we will never agree on who had the better balance & proportion. You think it was Dorian, I think it was Ronnie.
my point if proven , yours isn't
How can you be so sure that Ronnie's conditioning was never on par with Dorian's conditioning other than posting a quote from McGough?
Was he larger just because he was heavier? We've seen that a bodybuilder can appear to be bigger than another in certain poses despite being lighter.
I can because McGough and Dorian himself have said so , do you have anything directly comparing the two in this area to the contrary? feel free to post it and I've always said for arguments sake that perhaps he did at his lightest. and was he larger because he carried more muscle more evenly distributed over his physique and we've seen it however have we ever seen Ronnie appear bigger than Dorian despite being lighter? NO they've competed against each other and Ronnie didn't appear bigger than Dorian and in if you're going by pics and videos DON'T they don't accurately portray reality , Dorian touches on in this article
Dorian Yates interview bodybuilding.com 2008
Everyone who sees my physique in person always comments on how much better I look in person than in pictures. That's because my physique is thick and developed from all angles. From the front, from the back, from the side, standing on my head: it doesn't matter. Everywhere is fully developed from every angle. And this might not show in one-dimensional photos. When you turn somebody to the side and they are twice as thick as everyone else, then that shows up.
Ronnie was greatly improved in 98-99 compared to his previous showings because he was MUCH better conditioned, a bit bigger and the quality of his physique improved considerably.
Ronnie was greatly improved in terms of conditioning and in 98 he wasn't a bit bigger than 97 in fact he was lighter , albeit much harder & drier which gave the illusion of being bigger , 99 he did add a bit more size and fullness at the expense of prime conditioning though
Do you honestly think Dorian's arms were in good proportion to his back/torso in 1995 compared to Ronnie?
I can't understand what you're seeing here.............. :-\
absolutely if you're claiming they're not because of the shorter bicep you're mistaken and grasping at straws
Its true it shows a lot of those things you listed, however it doesn't show other things like Dorian's arms being too small/underdeveloped for his torso compared to Ronnie and it doesn't show the level of both guy's quad development in which case Dorian's appear narrow once again compared to Ronnie.
at his best his arms were neither small of ' underdeveloped ' and what is that supposed to mean? elaborate on this one? and please type what you mean I can't go by anything other than what you type. And you don't know how Dorian's quads appear compared to Ronnie at their separate primes you're speculating and nothing more
Again, I guess we'll never agree on the proportion criteria on both Dorian and Ronnie.
and you don't agree with the experts that his balance & proportion were that great to begin , but it changes nothing as far as this issue is concerned I think I've showed and admitted neither are perfect but Dorian has less flaws AT HIS BEST in this department
-
so does everyone else. except for idiot ND of course.. ::)
this has been brought up before to ND who doesn't look to whats onstage and only looks at the scorecards as 100% accurate.. ::)
Place Name Country 1 2 3 4 Pnts
1 Ronnie Coleman USA 17 5 5 5 32
2 Flex Wheeler USA 5 10 10 10 35
fact is, ronnie was overlooked slightly in the opening round, and his scoring reflects that.
Its probably because of this that ND feels 98 was so close......
-
I was trying to show McGough feels that 99 is better than 98
you don't need to show this to ND
he knows McGough's article makes it explicitly clear.
99 is on the list
98 is not.
case closed.
2001 has nothing to do with this fact.
despite ND's crying..
-
Its probably because of this that ND feels 98 was so close......
he has never looked the the pics, videos or onstage at all for most of his arguments.
its always just the random opinion of someone or exactly what the scorecard said.
visuals mean nothing to ND.
thats why his view is so fucked up - no other bb fan thinks this way.
we know the judging can be fucked up, we know opinions can be wrong.
and we show this by the pics and vids.
ND denies all of this just to save his hero and slam ronnie.. ::)
-
Yes, but I don't have anything against Dorian. I don't just try to go against him because I supposedly dislike him, I don't dislike him. I just think Ronnie was better.
Most, but not all.
How can you be so sure Ronnie's conditioning in 1998 is not on par with Dorian's conditioning? I see him just as dry and hard.
Again, I don't think Dorian is better than Ronnie in symmetry, balance & proportion and not even posing. Going by the criteria and that all rounds are physique rounds: Ronnie beats Dorian, I see him meeting all of the criteria better.
By muscular bulk I'm sure you mean muscularity or size right? In this case how can you be so sure Dorian meets it better just because he is heavier? Don't you think Ronnie could give the impression of being more muscular than a heavier Dorian?
I don't think I agree with it going with Ronnie in 1998.
Your quotes here just prove what I was trying to say before: Not one of them mentions Dorian resembling a walking anatomy chart, but they all mention his amazing dryness, density and hardness. When McGough said Ronnie resembled a walking anatomy chart, he based it off Ronnie's amazing muscle separations, striations and detail. A bodybuilder can be incredibly hard & dry, but still don't display deep muscle separations and detail.
Which is why I said Ronnie has an advantage over Dorian as far as separations, striations and detail in the first place.
Yes, but I don't have anything against Dorian. I don't just try to go against him because I supposedly dislike him, I don't dislike him. I just think Ronnie was better.
I don't believe I claimed you had anything against him ???
Most, but not all.
I've yet to see any that say 1999 was his best , am I missing something? ???
How can you be so sure Ronnie's conditioning in 1998 is not on par with Dorian's conditioning? I see him just as dry and hard.
Again, I don't think Dorian is better than Ronnie in symmetry, balance & proportion and not even posing. Going by the criteria and that all rounds are physique rounds: Ronnie beats Dorian, I see him meeting all of the criteria better.
Well to be 100% honest with you seeing I never seen Dorian or Ronnie over the course of their entire careers , at their best and worse showing I couldn't in all honestly ascertain who was better conditioned than the other just based on pictures & videos because neither are as accurate as being there live & in person , so I prefer to rely on some experts who were and so far the consensus is Dorian's conditioning was better , if you can do better than that feel free
Okay we've established that you feel Ronnie meets all of the criteria you didn't even know better than Dorian , it's redundant to keep typing that because you've done a horrible job at presenting a case for your opinion
By muscular bulk I'm sure you mean muscularity or size right? In this case how can you be so sure Dorian meets it better just because he is heavier? Don't you think Ronnie could give the impression of being more muscular than a heavier Dorian?
muscular bulk is NOT muscularity please learn the difference , it's amazing how you're so confident in your opinion yet it's not based on knowledge
I don't think I agree with it going with Ronnie in 1998.
you don't agree with a lot of established facts
Your quotes here just prove what I was trying to say before: Not one of them mentions Dorian resembling a walking anatomy chart, but they all mention his amazing dryness, density and hardness. When McGough said Ronnie resembled a walking anatomy chart, he based it off Ronnie's amazing muscle separations, striations and detail. A bodybuilder can be incredibly hard & dry, but still don't display deep muscle separations and detail.
Which is why I said Ronnie has an advantage over Dorian as far as separations, striations and detail in the first place.
wow they don't say he's a walking anatomy chart? that means what? all of those quotes establish two things , Dorian's conditioning is better than Ronnie's and the gold standard for bodybuilder that to this day they can't seem to match
we could brake it down part-by-part , does Ronnie have advantages in Dorian in separations? sure detail? sure , striations? maybe , Dorian's NO slouch like I've said before , Dorian's back is probably better in terms of separation , details and striations compared to Ronnie , he has striated triceps , glutes , traps , pecs , obliques , intercostals , delts , you're trying to argue Ronnie has more so he's better? laughable if so , Hulkster tried this and failed long ago
the old story is Ronnie does have some advantage(s) compared to Dorian , but at his best you factor in muscular bulk , density & dryness , balance & proportion , posing & presentation and completeness Dorian meets ALL of this criteria better than Ronnie at his best
-
I can understand your point of using Flex as a comparison factor here, but I just don't see it as very accurate. I mean, was Flex really that close to Ronnie in 98?
Was he as greatly conditioned? No
Was he as dry and hard? No
Was he as big and muscular? No
Did he have better symmetry? Probably
Did he have better balance & proportion? No
I honestly see Ronnie beating Flex by a lot in 98 despite the judging score, just as Dorian beat him in 93.
I agree that Ronnie in 1999 was not as dry and hard as Dorian. But he wasn't too far behind as his conditioning was still pretty great.
Stil it comes down to who has the most complete physique. Could Ronnie beat Dorian in muscularity despite being lighter? Yes.
Who would have an advantage in balance, proportion and symmetry overall? I see Ronnie. Posing? Could be equal.
I admit it would be a very close call, but I just don't see why you're so sure Dorian would win. I mean, its not like Ronnie is Nasser, Shawn or Levrone.
I can understand your point of using Flex as a comparison factor here, but I just don't see it as very accurate. I mean, was Flex really that close to Ronnie in 98?
Was he as greatly conditioned? No
Was he as dry and hard? No
Was he as big and muscular? No
Did he have better symmetry? Probably
Did he have better balance & proportion? No
I honestly see Ronnie beating Flex by a lot in 98 despite the judging score, just as Dorian beat him in 93.
yes Flex was VERY close to Ronnie in 98 much closer to Ronnie than he ever was to Dorian
you're claims are moving past the point of being honestly entertained when you make comments like 98 was as close as 93 , in all honesty there is you responding to such contradictory and off-the-wall remarks , this ranks up there with Hulkster's claim of Ronnie having more detailed calves than Dorian
I agree that Ronnie in 1999 was not as dry and hard as Dorian. But he wasn't too far behind as his conditioning was still pretty great.
Stil it comes down to who has the most complete physique. Could Ronnie beat Dorian in muscularity despite being lighter? Yes.
Who would have an advantage in balance, proportion and symmetry overall? I see Ronnie. Posing? Could be equal.
he was noticeably behind Ronnie 98 in 99 and that wasn't close to Yates , see above your points are either blatantly contrary or you honestly believe the nonsense you're typing either way you're just reiterating the same things YOU believe and again contests aren't judge on what you believe which clearly contradicts bodybuilding history
I admit it would be a very close call, but I just don't see why you're so sure Dorian would win. I mean, its not like Ronnie is Nasser, Shawn or Levrone.
98/99 wouldn't be a close call and even if it were the bitch-tits in 98 would swing it Dorian's way and that's entertaining it's close and the lack of conditioning in 99 would
-
so does everyone else. except for idiot ND of course.. ::)
this has been brought up before to ND who doesn't look to whats onstage and only looks at the scorecards as 100% accurate.. ::)
Place Name Country 1 2 3 4 Pnts
1 Ronnie Coleman USA 17 5 5 5 32
2 Flex Wheeler USA 5 10 10 10 35
fact is, ronnie was overlooked slightly in the opening round, and his scoring reflects that.
Oh no the OLD 98 wasn't close plea HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA always count on Hulkster to cry , make excuses and bitch '
3 fucking points separated the winner from the loser that's close in fact one of the closest Mr Olympia contest to this DAY !
look at the pics , look at the videos it confirms 98 was fucking close as it comes and FYI I have BOTH contests and watched them both many times ;)
-
yes he does and ND knows he was caught.
so he tries to ignore this and point out that Mcgough feels 2001 was better than either, when it really doesn't matter becuase the fact is that ND has been arguing forever that 98 was better than 99, and his own hero, the cornerstone of his entire pro dorian argument, disagrees.
and it drives him crazy.
I've been arguing that 98's conditioning was better and that's an established FACT
and another very weak attempt at diversion , this is about Hulkster looking like a retard by agreeing with McGough , then disagreeing and disagreeing and disagreeing with him lol
you're fucked as usual NO ONE agrees 99 was his best NO ONE this whole 98/99 thing is a diversionary tactic to try and escape the fact that McGough says two things outright 98 he was harder & drier and 2001 is his best , so you my retarded little friend are wrong as usual and proven wrong by me ;)
-
he has never looked the the pics, videos or onstage at all for most of his arguments.
its always just the random opinion of someone or exactly what the scorecard said.
visuals mean nothing to ND.
thats why his view is so fucked up - no other bb fan thinks this way.
we know the judging can be fucked up, we know opinions can be wrong.
and we show this by the pics and vids.
ND denies all of this just to save his hero and slam ronnie.. ::)
Lie #355 from Hulkster , I have both videos and watched them many times ;)
I watched the videos and came to the conclusions many of the experts did , 1998 was a CLOSE contest and Ronnie was a deserving winner , and it was clearly evident to those of us who know what we're looking for that Ronnie's conditioning in 98 was noticeably better , some of us look at pics and videos and come to contradictory conclusions like Dorian lost the 93 Mr Olympia to Flex and Ronnie had more detailed calves than Dorian did , and Dorian didn't dominate in 1995 like he did in 1993 lol
-
you don't need to show this to ND
he knows McGough's article makes it explicitly clear.
99 is on the list
98 is not.
case closed.
2001 has nothing to do with this fact.
despite ND's crying..
bullshit 2001 is ON THAT LIST and in fact he says 2001 is better than 1999 , so WRONG once again retard 2001 has everything to do with that ' fact '
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/6ec386cb64df22dff37b/Superstar-Seminar-Ronnie-Coleman-Phil-Heath-Dexter-Jackson
Heath , Alves and Ronnie all say his best is 1998
where is 1999?
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
where is 1999?
Raymond Cassar - Muscletime Editor and Photographer
"There is no one alive that can beat Ronnie Coleman when he is at his best - No One! (and his best for me was when he won the 2001 Arnold Classic)"
where is 1999?
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
"We've said before that the 245 pounds or so physique with which [Ronnie Coleman] won the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic is the best ever - unbeatable."
where is 1999?
Tales from Columbus
2001 (2): Is Chris Cormier unlucky? Are Bob Cicherillo's threads so loud that he's being sponsored by a megaphone company? At the 2001 Arnold Classic, for the only time in its history, the reigning Mr. Olympia entered the contest. Not only that, but said Mr. Olympia, Ronnie Coleman, was in the best shape of his career, before or since. Now that is bad luck.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine March 2008
2001 Then-reigning Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman, in the shape of his life at 245 pounds, took this one, with Cormier gaining the second of his six consecutive runner-up positions.
where is 1999?
Q ] There are those who feel you were at your best when you competed lighter, which for you was in the low 270's, and those who say you were best in the 290's. Was there a particular look you presented that you preferred over the others?
dot
Ronnie Coleman : Number one. That one was incredible to me. It (Ronnie's first Olympia win in 1998) always will be and nothing will ever take the place of that one. Everything was just spot on for that show. I had to overcome so much to win that one too.
I had guys in front of me who had beaten me for the last ten years or so. Nobody picked me to go in and win that show because I had gotten ninth the year before. I had to come with an incredible package and blow all the judges away and that's what I pretty much did.
where is 1999?
Flex Magazine August 2003
Jim Schmatltz on Ronnie chances of winning six Olympias in a row
if he repeats his 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic form, he'll experience the joy of six.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
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.
where is 1999?
review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page 90:
257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.
where is 1999?
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
where is 1999?
Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005
Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.
where is 1999? and your response is a few guys on message boards who never went to the 1999 Olympia or in fact ANY of Ronnie's Olympias are wrong and you are right. Grin
where is 1999 fanboy? NO WHERE ;)
-
3 fucking points separated the winner from the loser that's close in fact one of the closest Mr Olympia contest to this DAY !
but what you are not understanding is that it was close on paper only because of the overlooking of ronnie in round 1.
onstage it was a massacre:
this is not a 3 point difference ND and you know it.
this is pure domination by a wide margin:
understand now what the rest of the world knows and has been saying for years? ::)
it was close on paper only. it was not close onstage.
why are you the only bb fan on the planet stupid enough to hang on the judges every number despite the huge contrast between what the scores say and what actually transpired onstage?
::)
-
by the night show, the judges realized their mistake early on and were so unconcerned with Flex that they put him and ronnie far apart onstage.
thats how dominant ronnie was in the judges eyes by then. Flex was a non contender by then.
in really close contest (actual close ones, not fake close ones beause of fucked up scoring early on) the judges always put the two top guys side by side in the lineup.
-
ND agrees that these two guys were only 3 points apart LOL
::)
this is what we are dealing with lol
-
Maybe if you all post 10,000 more pics the argument will finally get resolved?
-
by the night show, the judges realized their mistake early on and were so unconcerned with Flex that they put him and ronnie far apart onstage.
thats how dominant ronnie was in the judges eyes by then. Flex was a non contender by then.
in really close contest (actual close ones, not fake close ones beause of fucked up scoring early on) the judges always put the two top guys side by side in the lineup.
This illustrates your lack of bodybuilding knowledge. In close contests, the judges typically compare the top 3 or 4 competitors in various orders. Usually the first callout is between the top 2 or 3, but a 4th is usually shuffled in and the competitors switch places for additional comparisons. Maybe if you actually attended a pro show you would know this. But then again, all of your knowledge is based on "visual proof" in the sole form of pics :-\
-
but what you are not understanding is that it was close on paper only because of the overlooking of ronnie in round 1.
onstage it was a massacre:
this is not a 3 point difference ND and you know it.
this is pure domination by a wide margin:
understand now what the rest of the world knows and has been saying for years? ::)
it was close on paper only. it was not close onstage.
why are you the only bb fan on the planet stupid enough to hang on the judges every number despite the huge contrast between what the scores say and what actually transpired onstage?
::)
typical Hulkster make a gross overstatement that contradicts facts and experts back up your claim with an ignorant plea and the good old ' everybody ' knows routine
fact is 98 wasn't close on paper , wasn't close in reality pictures , videos and the experts ALL converge on this fact
98 was a dominating win so was 2001 and Dorian lost in 1993 Ronnie has more detailed calves , right in line with the rest of your fantasy
-
This illustrates your lack of bodybuilding knowledge. In close contests, the judges typically compare the top 3 or 4 competitors in various orders. Usually the first callout is between the top 2 or 3, but a 4th is usually shuffled in and the competitors switch places for additional comparisons. Maybe if you actually attended a pro show you would know this. But then again, all of your knowledge is based on "visual proof" in the sole form of pics :-\
exactly , he doesn't know anything which why his ' opinion ' is so often contradictory with history and facts. He attempts to speak for ' everyone ' and offers these imaginary people up as some sort of proof when even most Ronnie fans don't agree with him
Hulkster like to attempt to re-write history , he's like a Christian apologetics writer who is constantly re-write history to suit his warped point of view when the facts clearly don't work in his favor
-
by the night show, the judges realized their mistake early on and were so unconcerned with Flex that they put him and ronnie far apart onstage.
thats how dominant ronnie was in the judges eyes by then. Flex was a non contender by then.
in really close contest (actual close ones, not fake close ones beause of fucked up scoring early on) the judges always put the two top guys side by side in the lineup.
i dont know what youre trying to prove with this pic. All this shows is flex damn close to Ronnie. Ronnie still has him on conditioning tho.
-
ND, your posts are kind of ambiguous so I'm not sure I understand you. Who do you think would win between Dorian and Ronnie?
-
ND, your posts are kind of ambiguous so I'm not sure I understand you. Who do you think would win between Dorian and Ronnie?
Rorian Yatesman.
-
he most certainly doesn't think he's better in terms of conditioning. maybe because Ronnie had bitch-tits in 98 who knows but almost anyone with any credibility says 2001 is his best
my point if proven , yours isn't
I can because McGough and Dorian himself have said so , do you have anything directly comparing the two in this area to the contrary? feel free to post it and I've always said for arguments sake that perhaps he did at his lightest. and was he larger because he carried more muscle more evenly distributed over his physique and we've seen it however have we ever seen Ronnie appear bigger than Dorian despite being lighter? NO they've competed against each other and Ronnie didn't appear bigger than Dorian and in if you're going by pics and videos DON'T they don't accurately portray reality , Dorian touches on in this article
Dorian Yates interview bodybuilding.com 2008
Everyone who sees my physique in person always comments on how much better I look in person than in pictures. That's because my physique is thick and developed from all angles. From the front, from the back, from the side, standing on my head: it doesn't matter. Everywhere is fully developed from every angle. And this might not show in one-dimensional photos. When you turn somebody to the side and they are twice as thick as everyone else, then that shows up.
Ronnie was greatly improved in terms of conditioning and in 98 he wasn't a bit bigger than 97 in fact he was lighter , albeit much harder & drier which gave the illusion of being bigger , 99 he did add a bit more size and fullness at the expense of prime conditioning though
absolutely if you're claiming they're not because of the shorter bicep you're mistaken and grasping at straws
at his best his arms were neither small of ' underdeveloped ' and what is that supposed to mean? elaborate on this one? and please type what you mean I can't go by anything other than what you type. And you don't know how Dorian's quads appear compared to Ronnie at their separate primes you're speculating and nothing more
and you don't agree with the experts that his balance & proportion were that great to begin , but it changes nothing as far as this issue is concerned I think I've showed and admitted neither are perfect but Dorian has less flaws AT HIS BEST in this department
he most certainly doesn't think he's better in terms of conditioning. maybe because Ronnie had bitch-tits in 98 who knows but almost anyone with any credibility says 2001 is his best
I agree. I'm beginning to think 98 could be Ronnie's best ever going by his conditioning, but 99 is pretty close.
my point if proven , yours isn't
How is your point proven? Beause of quotes or your own opinion?
I can because McGough and Dorian himself have said so , do you have anything directly comparing the two in this area to the contrary? feel free to post it and I've always said for arguments sake that perhaps he did at his lightest. and was he larger because he carried more muscle more evenly distributed over his physique and we've seen it however have we ever seen Ronnie appear bigger than Dorian despite being lighter? NO they've competed against each other and Ronnie didn't appear bigger than Dorian and in if you're going by pics and videos DON'T they don't accurately portray reality , Dorian touches on in this article
Ronnie didn't appear to be larger than Dorian when they competed against each other because he was not as greatly conditioned as in 98.
Ronnie was greatly improved in terms of conditioning and in 98 he wasn't a bit bigger than 97 in fact he was lighter , albeit much harder & drier which gave the illusion of being bigger , 99 he did add a bit more size and fullness at the expense of prime conditioning though
That is what I was refering to........giving the illusion of being bigger than Dorian.
Other than that, I agree with everything you posted here.
absolutely if you're claiming they're not because of the shorter bicep you're mistaken and grasping at straws
at his best his arms were neither small of ' underdeveloped ' and what is that supposed to mean? elaborate on this one? and please type what you mean I can't go by anything other than what you type. And you don't know how Dorian's quads appear compared to Ronnie at their separate primes you're speculating and nothing more
This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)
-
This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)
If you could find a FDB pose from this same year it shows the same thing.
-
ND agrees that these two guys were only 3 points apart LOL
::)
this is what we are dealing with lol
Again,
Flex should never have been in the top 3 for the fact that he had synthol/site injection in his delts arms and calves which were too blatant. Not to mention his conditioning was no where near his 1993 level
To be fare to flex, he did look just as good as Ronnie in the RDB, minus the lack of glute ham seperation
(No Homo)
-
I don't believe I claimed you had anything against him ???
I've yet to see any that say 1999 was his best , am I missing something? ???
Well to be 100% honest with you seeing I never seen Dorian or Ronnie over the course of their entire careers , at their best and worse showing I couldn't in all honestly ascertain who was better conditioned than the other just based on pictures & videos because neither are as accurate as being there live & in person , so I prefer to rely on some experts who were and so far the consensus is Dorian's conditioning was better , if you can do better than that feel free
Okay we've established that you feel Ronnie meets all of the criteria you didn't even know better than Dorian , it's redundant to keep typing that because you've done a horrible job at presenting a case for your opinion
muscular bulk is NOT muscularity please learn the difference , it's amazing how you're so confident in your opinion yet it's not based on knowledge
you don't agree with a lot of established facts
wow they don't say he's a walking anatomy chart? that means what? all of those quotes establish two things , Dorian's conditioning is better than Ronnie's and the gold standard for bodybuilder that to this day they can't seem to match
we could brake it down part-by-part , does Ronnie have advantages in Dorian in separations? sure detail? sure , striations? maybe , Dorian's NO slouch like I've said before , Dorian's back is probably better in terms of separation , details and striations compared to Ronnie , he has striated triceps , glutes , traps , pecs , obliques , intercostals , delts , you're trying to argue Ronnie has more so he's better? laughable if so , Hulkster tried this and failed long ago
the old story is Ronnie does have some advantage(s) compared to Dorian , but at his best you factor in muscular bulk , density & dryness , balance & proportion , posing & presentation and completeness Dorian meets ALL of this criteria better than Ronnie at his best
I've yet to see any that say 1999 was his best , am I missing something? ???
You posted that I have no one agreeing that 99 was better, meaning better than 98 I assumed. You didn't say I had no one agreeing that 99 was his best.
We already know what Mcgough feels about 99.............
muscular bulk is NOT muscularity please learn the difference , it's amazing how you're so confident in your opinion yet it's not based on knowledge
What is the difference? Is it bodyweight?
So again I ask: why would bodyweight be more important than how muscular a bodybuilder looks?
Plenty of examples of lighter guys beating heavier ones, that is why I was refering to it as muscularity or size other than "bulk".
wow they don't say he's a walking anatomy chart? that means what? all of those quotes establish two things , Dorian's conditioning is better than Ronnie's and the gold standard for bodybuilder that to this day they can't seem to match
You were arguing that Ronnie didn't have better muscle separations, detail and striations than Dorian. I said he did and used McGough's opinion of him resembling a walking anatomy chart to prove this.
You started posting quotes showing Dorian's amazing dryness and hardness that han nothing to do with the original argument on separations and details.
I was just showing another advantage Ronnie would have against Dorian.
we could brake it down part-by-part , does Ronnie have advantages in Dorian in separations? sure detail? sure , striations? maybe , Dorian's NO slouch like I've said before , Dorian's back is probably better in terms of separation , details and striations compared to Ronnie , he has striated triceps , glutes , traps , pecs , obliques , intercostals , delts , you're trying to argue Ronnie has more so he's better? laughable if so , Hulkster tried this and failed long ago
Ok, so you're agreeing Ronnie had an advantage in separations, detail and possibly striations?
the old story is Ronnie does have some advantage(s) compared to Dorian , but at his best you factor in muscular bulk , density & dryness , balance & proportion , posing & presentation and completeness Dorian meets ALL of this criteria better than Ronnie at his best
Well........we will never agree on this.
-
If you could find a FDB pose from this same year it shows the same thing.
Here it is:
-
yes Flex was VERY close to Ronnie in 98 much closer to Ronnie than he ever was to Dorian
you're claims are moving past the point of being honestly entertained when you make comments like 98 was as close as 93 , in all honesty there is you responding to such contradictory and off-the-wall remarks , this ranks up there with Hulkster's claim of Ronnie having more detailed calves than Dorian
he was noticeably behind Ronnie 98 in 99 and that wasn't close to Yates , see above your points are either blatantly contrary or you honestly believe the nonsense you're typing either way you're just reiterating the same things YOU believe and again contests aren't judge on what you believe which clearly contradicts bodybuilding history
98/99 wouldn't be a close call and even if it were the bitch-tits in 98 would swing it Dorian's way and that's entertaining it's close and the lack of conditioning in 99 would
he was noticeably behind Ronnie 98 in 99 and that wasn't close to Yates , see above your points are either blatantly contrary or you honestly believe the nonsense you're typing either way you're just reiterating the same things YOU believe and again contests aren't judge on what you believe which clearly contradicts bodybuilding history
98/99 wouldn't be a close call and even if it were the bitch-tits in 98 would swing it Dorian's way and that's entertaining it's close and the lack of conditioning in 99 would
Would Ronnie's "bitch-tits" swing it Dorian's way, but Dorian's torn bicep wouldn't? How about how his quads look?
you're claims are moving past the point of being honestly entertained when you make comments like 98 was as close as 93 , in all honesty there is you responding to such contradictory and off-the-wall remarks , this ranks up there with Hulkster's claim of Ronnie having more detailed calves than Dorian
Why is it contradictory or "off-the-wall"?
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you. Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?
yes Flex was VERY close to Ronnie in 98 much closer to Ronnie than he ever was to Dorian
Stop going by the score card so much and actually look at the pics. I don't understand how you can say 98 was close :-\:
-
Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?
this is common knowledge that Flex was the odds on favorite to win going in.
ronnie was not even called out in the first call out yet still went on to win the contest.
the last time this happened was something like 1984 when Lee Haney came out of nowhere to win his first olympia
of course, idiot ND will deny all of this and post a bunch of quotes that are disproven by all the visuals again.. ::)
-
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you
welcome to the bizzaro world of ND.. ::)
he will argue to death that 98 was super close because of what the scorecard said even though Ronnie dominated flex from every angle as everyone keeps verifying by posting contest visuals..
yet
argue that the 1994 olympia was not close even though shawn owned dorian in many poses..
fucking retarded.
-
welcome to the bizzaro world of ND.. ::)
he will argue to death that 98 was super close because of what the scorecard said even though Ronnie dominated flex from every angle as everyone keeps verifying by posting contest visuals..
Its certainly bizarro........ :D
I mean, its clear Ronnie dominated based off the pics and videos, but ND says he didn't because of a score card.......
I understand its his opinion and I could respect it, but he likes to "mock" things you say or whenever I say Dorian didn't dominate in 95 and then comes up with this...... :-\
-
the thing is, the judges realized their mistake after round one and the average score ronnie received after this was a perfect '5' in every round there after.
had the judges not made this error, ronnie would have probably been given a perfect 5 in that round as well, and the scoresheets then would have shown what the onstage contest showed:
ronnie was far far ahead. not barely scraping by.
-
I mean, its clear Ronnie dominated based off the pics and videos, but ND says he didn't because of a score card.......
ND says a lot of things that make no sense and are so far out of touch with reality it is scary.
look no further than his insistance that ronnie's 99 gut was the same size as his 2001 AC gut LOL ::) ::)
I think ND might be legally blind.
or maybe just brain dead? ???
-
the thing is, the judges realized their mistake after round one and the average score ronnie received after this was a perfect '5' in every round there after.
had the judges not made this error, ronnie would have probably been given a perfect 5 in that round as well, and the scoresheets then would have shown what the onstage contest showed:
ronnie was far far ahead. not barely scraping by.
Yes, I agree.
But ND probably thinks judges never make mistakes.
-
I agree. I'm beginning to think 98 could be Ronnie's best ever going by his conditioning, but 99 is pretty close.
How is your point proven? Beause of quotes or your own opinion?
Ronnie didn't appear to be larger than Dorian when they competed against each other because he was not as greatly conditioned as in 98.
That is what I was refering to........giving the illusion of being bigger than Dorian.
Other than that, I agree with everything you posted here.
This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)
I agree. I'm beginning to think 98 could be Ronnie's best ever going by his conditioning, but 99 is pretty close.
01 was his best ever because he had equal or better conditioning with no bitch tits , 99 isn't close because of that fact
How is your point proven? Beause of quotes or your own opinion?
both
Ronnie didn't appear to be larger than Dorian when they competed against each other because he was not as greatly conditioned as in 98.
or as big
That is what I was refering to........giving the illusion of being bigger than Dorian.
Other than that, I agree with everything you posted here.
you're speculating he would , if you're only basing this assumption on the fact he wasn't as conditioned then it's so no advantage because Dorian is ( being kind ) equally conditioned and still carrying more muscular bulk
This is what I meant by saying Dorian's arms were not in good proportion to his torso compared to Ronnie:
(by "underdeveloped" I meant not big or developed enough to match his back/torso)
You're basing this off of one pose? how about others? Dorian's arms don't look big when viewed directly dead on , from the side you can get a glimpse of how big they are ( see pics ) needless to say I disagree
all of these pics are from 1995 Olympia
-
You posted that I have no one agreeing that 99 was better, meaning better than 98 I assumed. You didn't say I had no one agreeing that 99 was his best.
We already know what Mcgough feels about 99.............
What is the difference? Is it bodyweight?
So again I ask: why would bodyweight be more important than how muscular a bodybuilder looks?
Plenty of examples of lighter guys beating heavier ones, that is why I was refering to it as muscularity or size other than "bulk".
You were arguing that Ronnie didn't have better muscle separations, detail and striations than Dorian. I said he did and used McGough's opinion of him resembling a walking anatomy chart to prove this.
You started posting quotes showing Dorian's amazing dryness and hardness that han nothing to do with the original argument on separations and details.
I was just showing another advantage Ronnie would have against Dorian.
Ok, so you're agreeing Ronnie had an advantage in separations, detail and possibly striations?
Well........we will never agree on this.
You posted that I have no one agreeing that 99 was better, meaning better than 98 I assumed. You didn't say I had no one agreeing that 99 was his best.
We already know what Mcgough feels about 99.............
better than 98 or better than 01 of his best in general. McGough never said he was better in fact than 98 in fact he said his conditioning was not on par with 98 and in fact he said his best is 2001
my point still stands a LOT of people have opinions on Ronnie's best and no one who has any credibility says 1999 , 98/01 even 03 but no 1999 sorry I know it doesn't coincide with what you feel but it doesn't change this fact
What is the difference? Is it bodyweight?
So again I ask: why would bodyweight be more important than how muscular a bodybuilder looks?
Plenty of examples of lighter guys beating heavier ones, that is why I was refering to it as muscularity or size other than "bulk".
muscular bodyweight is not muscularity , a guy can have outstanding muscularity and not carry much muscle see Hamdullah Aykutlu , Dorian has outstanding muscularity and muscular bulk
yes plenty of lighter guys beating heavier ones whose muscularity sucked in comparison , Dorian doesn't have this problem , he has outstanding muscularity , muscular bulk and balance & proportion
muscularity by it's self doesn't get you no where , muscular bulk by itself gets you no where , great balance & proportion by it's self gets you no where , great posing by it's self gets you no where , it's the combo of ALL of this that does
You were arguing that Ronnie didn't have better muscle separations, detail and striations than Dorian. I said he did and used McGough's opinion of him resembling a walking anatomy chart to prove this.
You started posting quotes showing Dorian's amazing dryness and hardness that han nothing to do with the original argument on separations and details.
I was just showing another advantage Ronnie would have against Dorian.
Ronnie doesn't in certain PARTS in certain ones he does , does Ronnie have better muscle separations in his calves compared to Dorian? NO how about his abdominals? NO how about his back? NO how about his intercostals? NO how about his obliques? NO does Ronnie have an advantage in other places? YES stop making gross overstatements and claiming a hallow victory
Ok, so you're agreeing Ronnie had an advantage in separations, detail and possibly striations?
see above in certain parts sure overall? NO
Well........we will never agree on this.
obviously
-
McGough never said he was better in fact than 98 in fact he said his conditioning was not on par with 98
yes, Mcgough DID say he felt 99 was better than 98.
thats why he included 99 on his list of best Mr. O physiques and left off 98 for good reason.
do you not understand this? ::)
-
Would Ronnie's "bitch-tits" swing it Dorian's way, but Dorian's torn bicep wouldn't? How about how his quads look?
Why is it contradictory or "off-the-wall"?
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you. Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?
Stop going by the score card so much and actually look at the pics. I don't understand how you can say 98 was close :-\:
Would Ronnie's "bitch-tits" swing it Dorian's way, but Dorian's torn bicep wouldn't? How about how his quads look?
Was his bicep torn in 1993? his quads are fine only ignorant people think otherwise
Why is it contradictory or "off-the-wall"?
My claims go by what I see, not the judging score card like you. Hulkster made a good point on saying that Ronnie was overlooked in 98, maybe it had to do that Flex was coming in as favorite while Ronnie didn't?
It's contradictory because it's the opposite of reality and it's off-the-wall because it's way out there , he wasn't overlooked he won , and FYI Nasser was the favorite because he was the runner-up in 1997 Flex was the heir apparent as well
Stop going by the score card so much and actually look at the pics. I don't understand how you can say 98 was close :-\:
Did you miss the part where I posted on numerous occasions I have 1998/1999 Olympia on video? and stop assuming I'm only going based on the scorecard , I've watched both videos numerous times and that's how I came to my conclusions which happen to coincide with history and the facts .
I see 1998 as a very close contest Flex lost fair & square and Ronnie was a deserving winner , Ronnie was dead-on and Flex was off but it was dead close you can deny it all you'd like it doesn't change the facts
-
his lats are just comparatively way too big, they look ridiculous
-
his lats are just comparatively way too big, they look ridiculous
thats because his arms were WAY too small.
he would have needed arms as big as ronnie's to balance out his huge torso.
ronnie, on the other hand, has great proportions.
-
yes, Mcgough DID say he felt 99 was better than 98.
thats why he included 99 on his list of best Mr. O physiques and left off 98 for good reason.
do you not understand this? ::)
No in fact as far as conditioning is concerned he said outright on many occasions it wasn't
and you're comprehension problems are still apparent , here's why he picked 1999
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.
NO WHERE does it say 99 was better than 1998 , you being the complete moron you are mistakenly claimed Ronnie was the best because he was listed in chronological order ::) you know nothing
Ronnie may have advanced the sport on that day but it doesn't mean he was better than 1998 and in fact says 2001 is better so you lose
-
welcome to the bizzaro world of ND.. ::)
he will argue to death that 98 was super close because of what the scorecard said even though Ronnie dominated flex from every angle as everyone keeps verifying by posting contest visuals..
yet
argue that the 1994 olympia was not close even though shawn owned dorian in many poses..
fucking retarded.
This shows exactly how fucking retarded you are and how far off the beaten path your ' opinions ' are , you just posted a picture of Shawn in a front latspread and claiming Shawn is owning Dorian LMMFAO another fantastic Hulksterism to add to my list
as usual your claims ALL contradict reality & facts , 1994 was close and 1998 wasn't BWAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA
" Hulkster claims Shawn Ray owns Dorian in a front latspread "
saved for future reference LMFAO
-
Its certainly bizarro........ :D
I mean, its clear Ronnie dominated based off the pics and videos, but ND says he didn't because of a score card.......
I understand its his opinion and I could respect it, but he likes to "mock" things you say or whenever I say Dorian didn't dominate in 95 and then comes up with this...... :-\
Now you're reduced to lying , I never just based my opinion off of the scorecard , if you're going to claim something make sure it's accurate. I have the 1993/1995/1998/1999/2003 Olympias ALL on video and have watched them ALL numerous times.
My opinion coincides with the experts , as usual yours does NOT and you're claiming I'm bizzaro? ::) 1998 wasn't close and Yates didn't dominate in 1995 Gotcha ;)
you're in good company with Hulkster he likes to think the opposite of reality & facts almost ALL the time .
-
thats because his arms were WAY too small.
he would have needed arms as big as ronnie's to balance out his huge torso.
ronnie, on the other hand, has great proportions.
yeah real great LMFAO you can see his ass from the front real Steve Reeves like proportions there
-
thats because his arms were WAY too small.
he would have needed arms as big as ronnie's to balance out his huge torso.
ronnie, on the other hand, has great proportions.
Small arms huh? yeah thanks for playing because you're a winner on " I'm a fucking moron "
-
Reminds me of a Young Bob Paris LMFAO
-
Small arms huh? yeah thanks for playing because you're a winner on " I'm a fucking moron "
ironically, the very pic you posts shows exactly what I am talking about.
look at how small dorian's left arm looks relative to his massive torso in the bi shot LOL
thanks ND. you make it easy because you own yourself.
-
Reminds me of a Young Bob Paris LMFAO
he looks a lot more like bob paris than your hero ever did.. ::)
-
No in fact as far as conditioning is concerned he said outright on many occasions it wasn't
and you're comprehension problems are still apparent , here's why he picked 1999
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.
NO WHERE does it say 99 was better than 1998 , you being the complete moron you are mistakenly claimed Ronnie was the best because he was listed in chronological order ::) you know nothing
Ronnie may have advanced the sport on that day but it doesn't mean he was better than 1998 and in fact says 2001 is better so you lose
LOL
this is fucking hilarious. so, you are saying that McGough leaves 98 off his list, highlights 1999 but still thinks 98 is better than 99?
hahahahahahahahaha
::)
-
NO WHERE does it say 99 was better than 1998
yeah, it doesn't even mention 98 anywhere in the article because it wasn't good enough to make his list.
but you still maintain he thinks 98 was better than 99..
LOL
::)
seriously you have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.
jesus ND. this arguing that McGough still feels 98>99 even after reading that article is really taking the cake in terms of complete stupidity. even for you. :-\
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=370823;image)
Ronnie's calves don't look too small there. People tend to get confused due to his platz like thighs.
-
no, only idiot nuthuggers get confused because they are stupid.. :D
like I said, ronnie had GREAT proportions back then.
things changed when he got up to almost 300 pounds contest weight:
-
yeah, it doesn't even mention 98 anywhere in the article because it wasn't good enough to make his list.
but you still maintain he thinks 98 was better than 99..
LOL
::)
seriously you have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.
jesus ND. this arguing that McGough still feels 98>99 even after reading that article is really taking the cake in terms of complete stupidity. even for you. :-\
Lol. Mcgough has stated multiple times that ronnies conditioning was superior in 98. You are so notorious for picking a quote you like from someone and ignoring everything else he says. Not to mention, you know, that he stated he felt Dorian would beat ronnie. Lol.
You read into everything and take only what you want. You are hands down without a doubt the most delusional fanboy ever. You dont know shit about how contests are judged, yet you try and tell people how they are, you have no one agreeing with you except one reference about one of his favorite appearances (notice how right at the begining of Mcgoughs quote, it says he is NOT trying to discuss greatest physique?
Lol. If there is one truth about people in life, its that those with the least amount of knowledge about something will attempt to claim they know the most. (And try and educate everyone else.) ::)
-
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
thats a great shot of dorian.
but ronnie is harder, drier, more cut and with better arms, pecs, etc.
everything except for calves of course.
-
ironically, the very pic you posts shows exactly what I am talking about.
look at how small dorian's left arm looks relative to his massive torso in the bi shot LOL
thanks ND. you make it easy because you own yourself.
yawn . desperate much? his arms are huge in 93 and are in much better proportion than Ronnie's you have nothing as usual except to be contrary but hey after you watched that video you meltded down for months and you still are ;)
-
he looks a lot more like bob paris than your hero ever did.. ::)
yeah sure he does ::) and the difference is dummy NO one is claiming Yates is aesthetic ;)
We're all still waiting for your explanation on why Ronnie wasn't on Flex magazine's most aesthetics list ;)
-
Yates pre tear had a great FDB
-
LOL
this is fucking hilarious. so, you are saying that McGough leaves 98 off his list, highlights 1999 but still thinks 98 is better than 99?
hahahahahahahahaha
::)
You're making thigs up again where did he say 98 was better? he didn't you're liar and you're drawing your own conclusions again , you're the same dummy who claimed Ronnie was the best of that list because he was listed last HAHAHAHAHAHAHA WTF do you know?
McGough thinks 99 advanced the sport on that particular day it has absolutely NOTHING to do with if it's his best which is ironic because he says outright 99 is NOT his best and on fact has maintained that his condituioning isn't better in 99 than 98 so as usual you have nothing
99 sucks in comparison wwith 2001 so you are NO WHERE asusual
-
no, only idiot nuthuggers get confused because they are stupid.. :D
like I said, ronnie had GREAT proportions back then.
things changed when he got up to almost 300 pounds contest weight:
his proportions when he was lighter were good for him still NOT in Dorian's league old news
-
Lol. Mcgough has stated multiple times that ronnies conditioning was superior in 98. You are so notorious for picking a quote you like from someone and ignoring everything else he says. Not to mention, you know, that he stated he felt Dorian would beat ronnie. Lol.
You read into everything and take only what you want. You are hands down without a doubt the most delusional fanboy ever. You dont know shit about how contests are judged, yet you try and tell people how they are, you have no one agreeing with you except one reference about one of his favorite appearances (notice how right at the begining of Mcgoughs quote, it says he is NOT trying to discuss greatest physique?
Lol. If there is one truth about people in life, its that those with the least amount of knowledge about something will attempt to claim they know the most. (And try and educate everyone else.) ::)
QFT !
dumn Hulkster getting bitchslapped again
-
You're making thigs up again where did he say 98 was better? he didn't you're liar and you're drawing your own conclusions again , you're the same dummy who claimed Ronnie was the best of that list because he was listed last HAHAHAHAHAHAHA WTF do you know?
can anyone believe this moron? ???
ND, you are even dumber than I thought.
by omitting 98 from the list he IS saying he was better in 99.
if 98 was better than 99 it would have been on the list! not 99.
98 would have advanced the sport (in terms of Mr. O physiques) not 99 if McGough had felt his 98 Olympia physique was better
and 2001 has NOTHING to do with this fact.
holy fuck I can't believe I am having to explain this!
::)
go back to the flowershop ND.
you are clouding this debate with shear stupidity >:(.
-
You're making thigs up again where did he say 98 was better? he didn't you're liar
LOL
McGough feels 99 ronnie advanced the sport in terms of olympia physiques, not 1998 (as per his article) and ND says I am making stuff up again and lying by saying Mcgough feels 99 was better than 98..
::)
what a fucking idiot.
::)
for the last fucking time:
IF PETER MCGOUGH FELT 1998 WAS BETTER THAN 1999 IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN HIS ARTICLE AND NOT EXCLUDED.
understand now? >:(
-
Yates pre tear had a great FDB
for him, it wasn't bad.
but ronnie's was still a whole lot better, of course, having history's greatest arms helps not to mention the wasp waist etc.
-
LOL
McGough feels 99 ronnie advanced the sport in terms of olympia physiques, not 1998 (as per his article) and ND says I am making stuff up again and lying by saying Mcgough feels 99 was better than 98..
::)
what a fucking idiot.
::)
for the last fucking time:
IF PETER MCGOUGH FELT 1998 WAS BETTER THAN 1999 IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN HIS ARTICLE AND NOT EXCLUDED.
understand now? >:(
He never said he was better that's you drawing your own conclusions. and he mentions 2001 as being his best so you're fucked either way you think haggling over 98 means anything in the end it doesn't
YOU are still wrong in claiming his best was 99
you still lose moron
-
for him, it wasn't bad.
but ronnie's was still a whole lot better, of course, having history's greatest arms helps not to mention the wasp waist etc.
At his best Dorian blows Ronnie away in this pose as well and why? they judge ALL of the criteria as a whole at once not just big arms and a small waist but you're proving once again to those of us in the know , just how little you know ;)
like Shawn Ray owns Dorian in a front latspread L-O-L
-
can anyone believe this moron? ???
ND, you are even dumber than I thought.
by omitting 98 from the list he IS saying he was better in 99.
if 98 was better than 99 it would have been on the list! not 99.
98 would have advanced the sport (in terms of Mr. O physiques) not 99 if McGough had felt his 98 Olympia physique was better
and 2001 has NOTHING to do with this fact.
holy fuck I can't believe I am having to explain this!
::)
go back to the flowershop ND.
you are clouding this debate with shear stupidity >:(.
meltdown ;)
2001 is his best 1999 sucks in comparison get over it.
-
01 was his best ever because he had equal or better conditioning with no bitch tits , 99 isn't close because of that fact
both
or as big
you're speculating he would , if you're only basing this assumption on the fact he wasn't as conditioned then it's so no advantage because Dorian is ( being kind ) equally conditioned and still carrying more muscular bulk
You're basing this off of one pose? how about others? Dorian's arms don't look big when viewed directly dead on , from the side you can get a glimpse of how big they are ( see pics ) needless to say I disagree
all of these pics are from 1995 Olympia
01 was his best ever because he had equal or better conditioning with no bitch tits , 99 isn't close because of that fact
I still prefer 98 and 99 over 2001 based on the vids and pics I saw, but again I agree 98 was possibly better than 99.
both
???
or as big
you're speculating he would , if you're only basing this assumption on the fact he wasn't as conditioned then it's so no advantage because Dorian is ( being kind ) equally conditioned and still carrying more muscular bulk
I guess we will never know for sure since they never went against each other at their bests.
You're basing this off of one pose? how about others? Dorian's arms don't look big when viewed directly dead on , from the side you can get a glimpse of how big they are ( see pics ) needless to say I disagree
all of these pics are from 1995 Olympia
Good pics of Dorian there, I always thought he had the best side triceps pose ever.
I not only based my opinion on Dorian's arms looking unproportionate to his torso, but I also based it on the videos I was from the 95 Olympia.
Its something you can't get 100% accurate on pics, but the videos I show his arms are a bit small to match his back/torso in different poses (of course others than the ones you posted here).
I also got the impression of his quads looking a bit narrow in front poses from the videos.
-
better than 98 or better than 01 of his best in general. McGough never said he was better in fact than 98 in fact he said his conditioning was not on par with 98 and in fact he said his best is 2001
my point still stands a LOT of people have opinions on Ronnie's best and no one who has any credibility says 1999 , 98/01 even 03 but no 1999 sorry I know it doesn't coincide with what you feel but it doesn't change this fact
muscular bodyweight is not muscularity , a guy can have outstanding muscularity and not carry much muscle see Hamdullah Aykutlu , Dorian has outstanding muscularity and muscular bulk
yes plenty of lighter guys beating heavier ones whose muscularity sucked in comparison , Dorian doesn't have this problem , he has outstanding muscularity , muscular bulk and balance & proportion
muscularity by it's self doesn't get you no where , muscular bulk by itself gets you no where , great balance & proportion by it's self gets you no where , great posing by it's self gets you no where , it's the combo of ALL of this that does
Ronnie doesn't in certain PARTS in certain ones he does , does Ronnie have better muscle separations in his calves compared to Dorian? NO how about his abdominals? NO how about his back? NO how about his intercostals? NO how about his obliques? NO does Ronnie have an advantage in other places? YES stop making gross overstatements and claiming a hallow victory
see above in certain parts sure overall? NO
obviously
better than 98 or better than 01 of his best in general. McGough never said he was better in fact than 98 in fact he said his conditioning was not on par with 98 and in fact he said his best is 2001
my point still stands a LOT of people have opinions on Ronnie's best and no one who has any credibility says 1999 , 98/01 even 03 but no 1999 sorry I know it doesn't coincide with what you feel but it doesn't change this fact
I understand your point here, I could agree on 98 being his best ever.
muscular bodyweight is not muscularity , a guy can have outstanding muscularity and not carry much muscle see Hamdullah Aykutlu , Dorian has outstanding muscularity and muscular bulk
yes plenty of lighter guys beating heavier ones whose muscularity sucked in comparison , Dorian doesn't have this problem , he has outstanding muscularity , muscular bulk and balance & proportion
muscularity by it's self doesn't get you no where , muscular bulk by itself gets you no where , great balance & proportion by it's self gets you no where , great posing by it's self gets you no where , it's the combo of ALL of this that does
I understand your point here aswell. Despite Dorian's outstanding muscularity, wouldn't Ronnie have better muscularity? I see it like this.
You would've Dorian winning in muscular bulk, but Ronnie winning in muscularity.
And yes I agree it comes down to who had the best combo of all criteria, including symmetry, proportion, conditioning, etc. But we'll never agree on who met it the best.
Ronnie doesn't in certain PARTS in certain ones he does , does Ronnie have better muscle separations in his calves compared to Dorian? NO how about his abdominals? NO how about his back? NO how about his intercostals? NO how about his obliques? NO does Ronnie have an advantage in other places? YES stop making gross overstatements and claiming a hallow victory
see above in certain parts sure overall? NO
I see him having an advantage overall here, but again we'll never agree.
-
I still prefer 98 and 99 over 2001 based on the vids and pics I saw, but again I agree 98 was possibly better than 99.
???
I guess we will never know for sure since they never went against each other at their bests.
Good pics of Dorian there, I always thought he had the best side triceps pose ever.
I not only based my opinion on Dorian's arms looking unproportionate to his torso, but I also based it on the videos I was from the 95 Olympia.
Its something you can't get 100% accurate on pics, but the videos I show his arms are a bit small to match his back/torso in different poses (of course others than the ones you posted here).
I also got the impression of his quads looking a bit narrow in front poses from the videos.
I still prefer 98 and 99 over 2001 based on the vids and pics I saw, but again I agree 98 was possibly better than 99.
we've established that
I guess we will never know for sure since they never went against each other at their bests.
Ronnie seems to feel even at his best he wouldn't touch Dorian
Good pics of Dorian there, I always thought he had the best side triceps pose ever.
I not only based my opinion on Dorian's arms looking unproportionate to his torso, but I also based it on the videos I was from the 95 Olympia.
Its something you can't get 100% accurate on pics, but the videos I show his arms are a bit small to match his back/torso in different poses (of course others than the ones you posted here).
I also got the impression of his quads looking a bit narrow in front poses from the videos.
now you're force to amend your original statement ( a common theme with you ) Dorian's arms can look small when viewed dead-on but in other poses it's clear they're not at his best 1993 his arms are in almost perfect balance with his torso , his balance & proportion is much better than Ronnies
-
Was his bicep torn in 1993? his quads are fine only ignorant people think otherwise
It's contradictory because it's the opposite of reality and it's off-the-wall because it's way out there , he wasn't overlooked he won , and FYI Nasser was the favorite because he was the runner-up in 1997 Flex was the heir apparent as well
Did you miss the part where I posted on numerous occasions I have 1998/1999 Olympia on video? and stop assuming I'm only going based on the scorecard , I've watched both videos numerous times and that's how I came to my conclusions which happen to coincide with history and the facts .
I see 1998 as a very close contest Flex lost fair & square and Ronnie was a deserving winner , Ronnie was dead-on and Flex was off but it was dead close you can deny it all you'd like it doesn't change the facts
Was his bicep torn in 1993? his quads are fine only ignorant people think otherwise
I thought we were using his 1995 physique? His quads were fine on his own and probably vs lots of his competitors back then, but put him next to Ronnie and he would be disadvantaged on them.
-
I thought we were using his 1995 physique? His quads were fine on his own and probably vs lots of his competitors back then, but put him next to Ronnie and he would be disadvantaged on them.
no you were using 1995 , I'm using what I feel is the best Dorian ever looked and that's pre-contest 1993 Olympia and for all intents & purposes he's pretty much flawless and complete from head to toe
-
Now you're reduced to lying , I never just based my opinion off of the scorecard , if you're going to claim something make sure it's accurate. I have the 1993/1995/1998/1999/2003 Olympias ALL on video and have watched them ALL numerous times.
My opinion coincides with the experts , as usual yours does NOT and you're claiming I'm bizzaro? ::) 1998 wasn't close and Yates didn't dominate in 1995 Gotcha ;)
you're in good company with Hulkster he likes to think the opposite of reality & facts almost ALL the time .
Don't you think judges can make mistakes every once in a while?
I wasn't trying to get my way lying or any silly thing like that, I was just assuming you were going by the score cards since the reason you gave for being a close contest in the first place was the 3 points difference.
-
Don't you think judges can make mistakes every once in a while?
I wasn't trying to get my way lying or any silly thing like that, I was just assuming you were going by the score cards since the reason you gave for being a close contest in the first place was the 3 points difference.
NO I don't think judges make mistakes not even in 2001 when Ronnie beat Jay.
You're like Hulkster you're coming to your own conclusions , I have seen both videos many times and Ronnie in 1998 was harder & drier than 1999 and Flex was very close to Ronnie that year and Ronnie was a deserving winner , hell at the time even Shawn didn't think Ronnie should have won
Ronnie Coleman was the most improved bodybuilder , and they should have an award for that but it SHOULDN'T be the overall title. Ronnie Coleman won the Mr Olympia for making the most improvement.
Ronnie does NOT have the complete physique. He has a certain degree of shape and detail but , let's be honest , he has a lot of weaknesses : calves , hamstrings , midsection. He has flaws on his physique that you just can't find on my physique or Flex Wheeler's physique.
Did they even count the posing routine? Ronnie Coleman is never going to be remembered for a posing routine.
-
1991 NOC:
-
1991 NOC:
sick , sick shot ! and these guys say his quads suck L-O-L
-
we've established that
Ronnie seems to feel even at his best he wouldn't touch Dorian
now you're force to amend your original statement ( a common theme with you ) Dorian's arms can look small when viewed dead-on but in other poses it's clear they're not at his best 1993 his arms are in almost perfect balance with his torso , his balance & proportion is much better than Ronnies
lol, forced to amend my original statement......... ::) You can be a funny guy sometimes ND.
You asked for proof of Dorian's arms looking small in 1995 and I posted two different poses, but then you posted other pics which showed that his arms were good. So I used the video argument that I already thought of before, but I wasn't "forced to amend my original statement".
-
no you were using 1995 , I'm using what I feel is the best Dorian ever looked and that's pre-contest 1993 Olympia and for all intents & purposes he's pretty much flawless and complete from head to toe
True, unfortunately he never looked like this on stage.
It wasn't only me using since I asked you what you felt was Dorian's best physique on stage and you said 93 or 95. Then you said McGough feels 95 was his best, so I assumed you were saying it was. (since you seem to agree with experts all the time)
-
NO I don't think judges make mistakes not even in 2001 when Ronnie beat Jay.
You're like Hulkster you're coming to your own conclusions , I have seen both videos many times and Ronnie in 1998 was harder & drier than 1999 and Flex was very close to Ronnie that year and Ronnie was a deserving winner , hell at the time even Shawn didn't think Ronnie should have won
Ronnie Coleman was the most improved bodybuilder , and they should have an award for that but it SHOULDN'T be the overall title. Ronnie Coleman won the Mr Olympia for making the most improvement.
Ronnie does NOT have the complete physique. He has a certain degree of shape and detail but , let's be honest , he has a lot of weaknesses : calves , hamstrings , midsection. He has flaws on his physique that you just can't find on my physique or Flex Wheeler's physique.
Did they even count the posing routine? Ronnie Coleman is never going to be remembered for a posing routine.
NO I don't think judges make mistakes not even in 2001 when Ronnie beat Jay.
You're like Hulkster you're coming to your own conclusions , I have seen both videos many times and Ronnie in 1998 was harder & drier than 1999 and Flex was very close to Ronnie that year and Ronnie was a deserving winner , hell at the time even Shawn didn't think Ronnie should have won
If you don't think judges ever make mistakes, then you very alone on this topic.
I've already said I agree that Ronnie was harder & drier in 98.
Now you're using a quote from a bodybuilder that says Ronnie shouldn't have won, but when I posted quotes from other bodybuilders saying Ronnie was the best you said its hilarious since bodybuilders know so little.................. ... :-\
Ronnie Coleman was the most improved bodybuilder , and they should have an award for that but it SHOULDN'T be the overall title. Ronnie Coleman won the Mr Olympia for making the most improvement.
Ronnie does NOT have the complete physique. He has a certain degree of shape and detail but , let's be honest , he has a lot of weaknesses : calves , hamstrings , midsection. He has flaws on his physique that you just can't find on my physique or Flex Wheeler's physique.
Did they even count the posing routine? Ronnie Coleman is never going to be remembered for a posing routine.
So now you're agreeing with Shawn Ray on what he said about Ronnie having weaker calves and hamstrings than Flex? :P
How about the fact that neither Shawn nor Flex were as conditioned and muscular as Ronnie?
-
sick , sick shot ! and these guys say his quads suck L-O-L
Well, since you say Ronnie's abs are a flaw because of their odd shape, Dorian's quads should also have a flaw since they have an odd shape too...............
If you can't see this ND, then I don't know why you're so confident mocking Hulkster all the time.
-
lol, forced to amend my original statement......... ::) You can be a funny guy sometimes ND.
You asked for proof of Dorian's arms looking small in 1995 and I posted two different poses, but then you posted other pics which showed that his arms were good. So I used the video argument that I already thought of before, but I wasn't "forced to amend my original statement".
not about that , about me only using the scorecard
-
1993 Mr. Olympia:
-
not about that , about me only using the scorecard
You replied to this:
Good pics of Dorian there, I always thought he had the best side triceps pose ever.
I not only based my opinion on Dorian's arms looking unproportionate to his torso, but I also based it on the videos I was from the 95 Olympia.
Its something you can't get 100% accurate on pics, but the videos I show his arms are a bit small to match his back/torso in different poses (of course others than the ones you posted here).
I also got the impression of his quads looking a bit narrow in front poses from the videos.
Are you just playing around here?
-
1993 Mr. Olympia:
Great shot of Dorian. Here is a great shot of Ronnie too:
This is how close the 98 Olympia was. :-\
-
If you don't think judges ever make mistakes, then you very alone on this topic.
I've already said I agree that Ronnie was harder & drier in 98.
Now you're using a quote from a bodybuilder that says Ronnie shouldn't have won, but when I posted quotes from other bodybuilders saying Ronnie was the best you said its hilarious since bodybuilders know so little.................. ... :-\
So now you're agreeing with Shawn Ray what he said about Ronnie having weaker calves and hamstrings than Flex? :P
How about the fact that neither Shawn nor Flex were as conditioned and muscular as Ronnie?
If you don't think judges ever make mistakes, then you very alone on this topic.
and therefore wrong because I'm ' alone ' the old argument ad populum , if a lot of people agree that means they're right ::) not how it works
I've already said I agree that Ronnie was harder & drier in 98.
since when? and if so good for you
Now you're using a quote from a bodybuilder that says Ronnie shouldn't have won, but when I posted quotes from other bodybuilders saying Ronnie was the best you said its hilarious since bodybuilders know so little.................. ... :-\
The difference is I'm not trying to pass this off as proof , just an example of someone saying it was a lot closer than what you claim
So now you're agreeing with Shawn Ray what he said about Ronnie having weaker calves and hamstrings than Flex? :P
How about the fact that neither Shawn nor Flex were as conditioned and muscular as Ronnie?
I don't even agree with Shawn that Ronnie should have lost but strongly agree he doesn't have a complete physique
-
Small arms indeed ::)
1993 pre contest:
-
Small arms indeed ::)
1993 pre contest:
lol, I was talking about 1995.
Read before you post. ;)
-
Great shot of Dorian. Here is a great shot of Ronnie too:
This is how close the 98 Olympia was. :-\
He clearly loses that shot due to the bitch-tits
-
lol, I was talking about 1995.
Read before you post. ;)
1995
-
Small arms indeed ::)
1993 pre contest:
perfect shot
-
I'm an equal opportunity schmoe, I'll jerk off to Yates OR Ronnie!
Great thread would read again! :-*
-
and therefore wrong because I'm ' alone ' the old argument ad populum , if a lot of people agree that means they're right ::) not how it works
since when? and if so good for you
The difference is I'm not trying to pass this off as proof , just an example of someone saying it was a lot closer than what you claim
I don't even agree with Shawn that Ronnie should have lost but strongly agree he doesn't have a complete physique
and therefore wrong because I'm ' alone ' the old argument ad populum , if a lot of people agree that means they're right ::) not how it works
You could be wrong, people think differently you know its a subjective sport.
And I didn't try to amend my original statement. ;D
since when? and if so good for you
A long time ago.
Thanks, I always love having your approval........... ::) ;D
The difference is I'm not trying to pass this off as proof , just an example of someone saying it was a lot closer than what you claim
lol, this resembles one of my post responses to you in the past..................
-
He clearly loses that shot due to the bitch-tits
Sure...............keep confidently mocking Hulkster after this. ::) :-X
-
You could be wrong, people think differently you know its a subjective sport.
And I didn't try to amend my original statement. ;D
A long time ago.
Thanks, I always love having your approval........... ::) ;D
lol, this resembles one of my post responses to you in the past..................
You could be wrong, people think differently you know its a subjective sport.
And I didn't try to amend my original statement. ;D
I very well could be wrong but probably not ;) so you still feel I only base my opinion of the scorecard?
A long time ago.
Thanks, I always love having your approval........... ::) ;D
I don't think so because recently you claimed he was just as dry in 99 as 98 and you're not the only one who is seeking my approval
lol, this resembles one of my post responses to you in the past.................
says you
-
Sure...............keep confidently mocking Hulkster after this. ::) :-X
You think that doesn't affect the pose? another glaring flaw you're willing to overlook? notice the gut too :-\
NO place in bodybuilding for female breasts on the best built man
-
more bitch-tits :-\
-
sick , sick shot ! and these guys say his quads suck L-O-L
they suck compared to guys like Shawn Ray, Ronnie Coleman, Nasser El Sonbaty et al.
they look only okay on their own.
-
Small arms indeed ::)
1993 pre contest:
funny how dorian has to be 20 pounds over contest weight in order to have arms that only then seem big.
I mentioned this before. yates had to be 270 pounds in precontest shape to have arms that appeared large.
on stage in dieted down condition, his arms disappeared:
-
NO place in bodybuilding for female breasts on the best built man
ND, why do you penalize Ronnie for having gyno (not in the IFBB judging criteria) but you overlook Dorian having a torn biceps?
-
ND, why do you penalize Ronnie for having gyno (not in the IFBB judging criteria) but you overlook Dorian having a torn biceps?
because ND prefers white cocks :-X
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=371000;image)
This shot is impressive in many ways, however the lack of arm development always bothered me as he's tensing a non-existant muscle in order to show off his incredible lat and trap development.
-
Sure...............keep confidently mocking Hulkster after this. ::) :-X
yeah, ND says Ronnie should lose automatically because of bitch tits when he is blowing the oil filled Flex off the stage...yet is perfectly okay with dorian winning with a missing torn and mangled left arm..
biased much?
::)
-
ND, why do you penalize Ronnie for having gyno (not in the IFBB judging criteria) but you overlook Dorian having a torn biceps?
opps. you beat me to it.
8)
-
they suck compared to guys like Shawn Ray, Ronnie Coleman, Nasser El Sonbaty et al.
they look only okay on their own.
sure they did FAN-BOY recall Flex magazine's 40 greatest legs? Yates was on there ;) recall when you said Yates had shitty quads Royalty whose seen Ronnie and Dorian many times said you're delusional and nothing but an internet-fan-boy for saying his quads were shitty? yeah I thought so
-
funny how dorian has to be 20 pounds over contest weight in order to have arms that only then seem big.
I mentioned this before. yates had to be 270 pounds in precontest shape to have arms that appeared large.
on stage in dieted down condition, his arms disappeared:
yeah disappeared , see it's very simple to own your stupid strawman pictures , now mind you stupid these are from the same contests as you posted
-
ND, why do you penalize Ronnie for having gyno (not in the IFBB judging criteria) but you overlook Dorian having a torn biceps?
why so you penalize Dorian for having a torn bicep but you overlook Ronnie having two missing calves?
-
because ND prefers white cocks :-X
still trying to project your homosexuality on others huh? and nice to see you in another Yates thread , troll ;)
-
yeah, ND says Ronnie should lose automatically because of bitch tits when he is blowing the oil filled Flex off the stage...yet is perfectly okay with dorian winning with a missing torn and mangled left arm..
biased much?
::)
Ronnie made a career out of winning with TWO missing calves , hypocrite much?
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=371000;image)
This shot is impressive in many ways, however the lack of arm development always bothered me as he's tensing a non-existant muscle in order to show off his incredible lat and trap development.
non-existent? you say? same contest and lack of development? ::) can you fit your foot in your mouth anymore?
-
Ronnie made a career out of winning with TWO missing calves , hypocrite much?
same contest, so much for missing calves:
you pick a shot where the angle makes his calves look non existant, when in reality his calves were about the same size as his competitors back then:
dorian's missing bi on the hand, was gone:
-
non-existent? you say? same contest and lack of development? ::) can you fit your foot in your mouth anymore?
Yea, they looked "ok" in the side tricep because his arms are being pushed against his side making them look better than what they are. That's why they look horrible and unimpressive in every single other pose besides that one.
Sorry, but to say Yates had great arms is just utter crap. Maybe before the tears were they "ok" but never impressive or called out as ever being in the top 20 best arms. No one is perfect and Yates had his flaws just like everyone else, and they were his arms. Sort of like Ronnies calves I suppose, but who gives a shit about calves anyway. It's like saying someones forearms are too small or some shit, it's just nitpicking at that point because no one has ever stepped on stage with a complete package, ever.
-
same contest, so much for missing calves:
you pick a shot where the angle makes his calves look non existant, when in reality his calves were about the same size as his competitors back then:
dorian's missing bi on the hand, was gone:
Who said anything about size? I'm talking the classic diamond shape , the low insertions , the separation between gastrocmenious inner and outer heads , they're all missing and opppsssss I forgot you think they're more detailed than Dorian's ever were ::)
his bicep ain't missing , just shorter than the other ;)
and YOU of all fucking people crying about hand picking a selective shot HAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahaha dumbass crying about something he's written the book on ;)
-
Yea, they looked "ok" in the side tricep because his arms are being pushed against his side making them look better than what they are. That's why they look horrible and unimpressive in every single other pose besides that one.
Sorry, but to say Yates had great arms is just utter crap. Maybe before the tears were they "ok" but never impressive or called out as ever being in the top 20 best arms. No one is perfect and Yates had his flaws just like everyone else, and they were his arms. Sort of like Ronnies calves I suppose, but who gives a shit about calves anyway. It's like saying someones forearms are too small or some shit, it's just nitpicking at that point because no one has ever stepped on stage with a complete package, ever.
sorry who is crying he had great arms? NO ONE just better than you're giving him credit I just posted numerous pics where you clearly contradict your claim of being ' non-existent '
Dorian didn't have great ' arms ' but his side triceps sure kicks the shit out Ronnies , he may have not had a small waist & hips but his ab-thigh kicks the shit out of Ronnie's , keep your paper-advantage in parts it doesn't mean they have the best pose and that's how it's done.
-
LOL ND is melting down because his hero has shitty arms!
-
LOL ND is melting down because his hero has shitty arms!
yeah and how's Ronnie's side triceps again? with those great arms? hahahahaha ;) how's Ronnie's ab-thigh with his narrow waist & hips? and great taper? ;) how's Ronnie's back at his best compared to Dorian who isn't at his best? ;)
-
yeah and how's Ronnie's side triceps again? with those great arms? hahahahaha ;) how's Ronnie's ab-thigh with his narrow waist & hips? and great taper? ;) how's Ronnie's back at his best compared to Dorian who isn't at his best? ;)
very well thank you:
::)
-
Hehehhehehehe his calves aren't missing ;D
-
very well thank you:
::)
Very well compared to who? they all SUCK in comparison to Dorian Yates ;)
hahahahaha and Ronnie's not even hitting the side-triceps pose dumbass
-
Hulkster you have a fucking nerve posting that pic of Ronnie as a good Ab-thigh shot. Even I can find a better pic. You don't know much do you kiddo.
-
Now I turned up the brightness all the way so the shadows don't obscure just how fucking pathetic his lower legs are , how sad is this? oh wait these are the devastating calves that have more detail than Dorians did LMMFAO
Ms Olympia has bigger/better calves
-
Ronni's ab-thigh always sucked as did his side triceps , Ronnie has an advantage in quads YIPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEE his ab-thigh sucks , so much for that advantage
-
I love how the whole point of this thread was to show how ugly dorian's physique was - and it has done that quite well, and all the nuthuggers (all three of them LOL) come out in full force to defend their hero LOL
and he is still not as good as ronnie. :P
can you imagine if dorian tried to pull off an aesthetic shot like this? LOL
-
ND, its the ANGLE not shadows that makes ronnie's calves disappear in your oft posted pic.
what would you do without smart people like me around to teach you these things?
::)
-
why so you penalize Dorian for having a torn bicep but you overlook Ronnie having two missing calves?
I've always said that Ronnie's prime was either the 03 Mr Olympia or the 01 ASC (you can even throw 02 BFTO in there). In all 3 versions, his calves looked huge. So I have no idea what you're talking about
-
Now I turned up the brightness all the way so the shadows don't obscure just how fucking pathetic his lower legs are , how sad is this? oh wait these are the devastating calves that have more detail than Dorians did LMMFAO
that pic shows how big Ronnie's calves were. Notice how they stick out several inches from the ankles. Feel free to throw up a pic of your calves to illustrate what "missing calves" looks like. Don't bother posting Ronnie's 19" calves
-
I love how the whole point of this thread was to show how ugly dorian's physique was - and it has done that quite well, and all the nuthuggers (all three of them LOL) come out in full force to defend their hero LOL
and he is still not as good as ronnie. :P
can you imagine if dorian tried to pull off an aesthetic shot like this? LOL
Dorian's not as stupid as Ronnie to pull-off shots he knows he shouldn't do , but Ronnie didn't care he tried to pose like he had an aesthetic physique even though he didn't
and who is arguing to the contrary that Dorian had an aesthetic physique? NO ONE
ND, its the ANGLE not shadows that makes ronnie's calves disappear in your oft posted pic.
what would you do without smart people like me around to teach you these things?
Oh so Dorian has no arms where you post an off-angle shot but this doesn't apply to Ronnie gotcha hypocrite ;) Ronnie has NO calves period you're arguing they're the same size as other guys WHO HAVE NO CALVES EITHER lmfao has nothing to do with Yates
-
I've always said that Ronnie's prime was either the 03 Mr Olympia or the 01 ASC (you can even throw 02 BFTO in there). In all 3 versions, his calves looked huge. So I have no idea what you're talking about
They look huge compared to when he was lighter has nothing to do with Dorian and size even entertaining it were true are the least of his calves problems
that pic shows how big Ronnie's calves were. Notice how they stick out several inches from the ankles. Feel free to throw up a pic of your calves to illustrate what "missing calves" looks like. Don't bother posting Ronnie's 19" calves
that pic clearly shows the opposite bro , his calves are small , small for a 257 pound bodybuilder , small and high and lacking severely
-
Hulkster you have a fucking nerve posting that pic of Ronnie as a good Ab-thigh shot. Even I can find a better pic. You don't know much do you kiddo.
You're right , he doesn't know much , I've been proving that for years and the dummy still can't learn even when shown the error of his ways
-
I dunno man. These pics are from 99 and his calves still look big to me
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/99%20Mr%20Olympia/99MrO-Ronnie73ab.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/99%20Mr%20Olympia/99MrO-Ronnie36.jpg)
-
plus another thing I noticed when looking through my pics of Ronnie from the 99 Mr Olympia is you chose one with an aerial view. Ronnie's knees are closer to the camera while his calves are farther away. So of course his calves will naturally look smaller than they really are
-
that pic clearly shows the opposite bro , his calves are small , small for a 257 pound bodybuilder
yes, and Yates has small arms for a 257 pound bodybuilder.
what is your point?
-
^
oh and his traps and delts are small compared to Ronnie's at the same weight too. :P
a lot of dorian's weight was in his massively thick midsection:
-
RC truly looks awful in the shot that NeoSemen posted. I know he isn't really posing but to my eyes he looks kind of deformed and flat like a pancake. A lot worse than a relaxed DY whichever year you pick. BTW I think that Coleman could easily get a job advertising for Cadbury now that his bodybuilding career is over. In fact it looks like he already has.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/99%20Mr%20Olympia/99MrO-Ronnie73ab.jpg)
(http://www.fotoknit.com/photo/archives/cadbury-world.jpg)
-
I very well could be wrong but probably not ;) so you still feel I only base my opinion of the scorecard?
I don't think so because recently you claimed he was just as dry in 99 as 98 and you're not the only one who is seeking my approval
says you
I very well could be wrong but probably not ;) so you still feel I only base my opinion of the scorecard?
Wow, you got offended by that comment didn't you......
I don't think so because recently you claimed he was just as dry in 99 as 98 and you're not the only one who is seeking my approval
I don't think so, in fact I said numerous times in this thread that he was drier in 98 than 99.
And no one is seeking for your approval here...........well, maybe in your head they are.
-
You think that doesn't affect the pose? another glaring flaw you're willing to overlook? notice the gut too :-\
NO place in bodybuilding for female breasts on the best built man
Are you willing to overlook Dorian's torn bicep? You're making too much out of nothing really, Ronnie loses that shot because of his "bitch tits"......... ::)
There was no gut in that FDB shot by the way................
-
yeah, ND says Ronnie should lose automatically because of bitch tits when he is blowing the oil filled Flex off the stage...yet is perfectly okay with dorian winning with a missing torn and mangled left arm..
biased much?
::)
So true.
And Ronnie also had the same advantages over Flex in 98 as Dorian had over his competiton in his days: size, conditioning, proportion, etc.
Yet Ronnie's win was close and loses the FDB pose to Flex, while Dorian dominated every single year he won.
Yes, I can see a bit of bias here.
-
Ronnie made a career out of winning with TWO missing calves , hypocrite much?
Because Ronnie was beating guys that didn't have great calves either. So there wasn't any point of penalizing him for that.
Dorian on the other hand was the only guy that had a torn bicep in his competition days and it definitively showed in 1994.
Its all a matter of who they competed against and got compared with. I think you've said this before too..
-
yes, and Yates has small arms for a 257 pound bodybuilder.
what is your point?
Oh someone was just complaining about angles ;) it's easy to prove you wrong
-
I dunno man. These pics are from 99 and his calves still look big to me
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/99%20Mr%20Olympia/99MrO-Ronnie73ab.jpg)
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/99%20Mr%20Olympia/99MrO-Ronnie36.jpg)
Big is a relative term , big compared to whom? who he competed with? big compared to Dorian? I don't think so , and size is half the issue with his calves
-
Wow, you got offended by that comment didn't you......
I don't think so, in fact I said numerous times in this thread that he was drier in 98 than 99.
And no one is seeking for your approval here...........well, maybe in your head they are.
Wow, you got offended by that comment didn't you......
I don't get offended by inaccuracy
I don't think so, in fact I said numerous times in this thread that he was drier in 98 than 99.
in fact I believe you said a few times he was just as dry in 99
And no one is seeking for your approval here...........well, maybe in your head they are.
maybe it is in my head , but maybe it's the gang that follows me around ;)
-
Are you willing to overlook Dorian's torn bicep? You're making too much out of nothing really, Ronnie loses that shot because of his "bitch tits"......... ::)
There was no gut in that FDB shot by the way................
There is an obvious difference between one bicep shorter than another and female breast tissue on the worlds best built man , if you can't see that that's on you. Ronnie loses that shot compared to Dorian because he's not as hard or as dry and because he lags behind on balance & proportion and muscular bulk ontop of him not having any bitch-tits
-
So true.
And Ronnie also had the same advantages over Flex in 98 as Dorian had over his competiton in his days: size, conditioning, proportion, etc.
Yet Ronnie's win was close and loses the FDB pose to Flex, while Dorian dominated every single year he won.
Yes, I can see a bit of bias here.
Dorian dominated in a way Coleman NEVER did you can deny this fact as well it still doesn't change it.
Coleman had not replicated the dominance of Haney and Yates. He always seemed slightly vulnerable, protected as much by protocol as his physique
-
Because Ronnie was beating guys that didn't have great calves either. So there wasn't any point of penalizing him for that.
Dorian on the other hand was the only guy that had a torn bicep in his competition days and it definitively showed in 1994.
Its all a matter of who they competed against and got compared with. I think you've said this before too..
Ronnie beat Mike Mattarazzo your point is wrong ( deservedly so )
and my point Ronnie's weak calves would be a major liability if they competed at their primes together and these guys are making excuses for Ronnie's two missing calves while harping on Yates shorter bicep by claiming his entire arm is missing ::)
-
There is an obvious difference between one bicep shorter than another and female breast tissue on the worlds best built man , if you can't see that that's on you. Ronnie loses that shot compared to Dorian because he's not as hard or as dry and because he lags behind on balance & proportion and muscular bulk ontop of him not having any bitch-tits
I was talking about your statement of Ronnie losing that shot to Flex.......
-
I don't get offended by inaccuracy
in fact I believe you said a few times he was just as dry in 99
maybe it is in my head , but maybe it's the gang that follows me around ;)
I don't get offended by inaccuracy
It seems you did.......
in fact I believe you said a few times he was just as dry in 99
I don't think I ever said that.
If I remember correctly I said his overall physique in 99 was better, but I've changed my mind on this now.
maybe it is in my head , but maybe it's the gang that follows me around ;)
Don't you follow this "gang" around instead?
-
Big is a relative term , big compared to whom? who he competed with? big compared to Dorian? I don't think so , and size is half the issue with his calves
if Dorian's arms aren't small, then Ronnie's calves aren't small. It works both ways
-
Ronnie beat Mike Mattarazzo your point is wrong ( deservedly so )
and my point Ronnie's weak calves would be a major liability if they competed at their primes together and these guys are making excuses for Ronnie's two missing calves while harping on Yates shorter bicep by claiming his entire arm is missing ::)
Ronnie beat Mike Mattarazzo your point is wrong ( deservedly so )
Yet placed how much lower than Ronnie?
I was talking about his top competition, since its the only that truly matters as they were the closest to him. Take a look at the top 6 in the 98 or 99 Olympia, no one had great calves.
and my point Ronnie's weak calves would be a major liability if they competed at their primes together and these guys are making excuses for Ronnie's two missing calves while harping on Yates shorter bicep by claiming his entire arm is missing ::)
True against Dorian, but you were saying that Ronnie won the Olympia on "missing calves". I just pointed out that those "missing calves" weren't that much of a problem since none of his top competition had great calves.
Dorian on the other hand was the only one with a torn bicep/smaller left arm in the top 6 at the 1994 Olympia.
Are you now going to say I was forced to amend my original statement? ;D
-
I was talking about your statement of Ronnie losing that shot to Flex.......
yet you mentioned Yates
-
if Dorian's arms aren't small, then Ronnie's calves aren't small. It works both ways
Nonsense it does and you're still missing the point it isn't about size alone
-
It seems you did.......
I don't think I ever said that.
If I remember correctly I said his overall physique in 99 was better, but I've changed my mind on this now.
Don't you follow this "gang" around instead?
I didn't if it were accurate than maybe you'd be working with something
I think you did either way it's not important because I'm glad you see the light , now we need to work on the rest of your inaccuracies
no the gang follows me and Dorian Yates name , you included
-
Yet placed how much lower than Ronnie?
I was talking about his top competition, since its the only that truly matters as they were the closest to him. Take a look at the top 6 in the 98 or 99 Olympia, no one had great calves.
True against Dorian, but you were saying that Ronnie won the Olympia on "missing calves". I just pointed out that those "missing calves" weren't that much of a problem since none of his top competition had great calves.
Dorian on the other hand was the only one with a torn bicep/smaller left arm in the top 6 at the 1994 Olympia.
Are you now going to say I was forced to amend my original statement? ;D
Yet placed how much lower than Ronnie?
I was talking about his top competition, since its the only that truly matters as they were the closest to him. Take a look at the top 6 in the 98 or 99 Olympia, no one had great calves.
There you go again , how am I supposed to know what you were talking about? you always amend your statements , I can only go by what you typed and what you typed wasn't accurate
True against Dorian, but you were saying that Ronnie won the Olympia on "missing calves". I just pointed out that those "missing calves" weren't that much of a problem since none of his top competition had great calves.
Dorian on the other hand was the only one with a torn bicep/smaller left arm in the top 6 at the 1994 Olympia.
I've said many times that if everyone has missing calves it's not an issue , and regarding Dorian's bicep in 94 his overall package was so dominating that the shorter bicep made ' no overall difference ' like Ronnie's calves in relation to who he was competing with , however if faced next to an uninjured Dorian they are major liabilities even next to a post-tear Dorian
-
Nonsense it does and you're still missing the point it isn't about size alone
not really. I pointed out that Ronnie's calves weren't small to which you asked me a bunch of questions. I could ask you the same about Dorian's arms. The fact is Ronnie's calves were not "missing" by any means. I've even shown they were nearly the same size as Jay Cutler's, who is known for his calves. So your comment is nonsense and clearly deceitful
-
There is an obvious difference between one bicep shorter than another and female breast tissue on the worlds best built man , if you can't see that that's on you. Ronnie loses that shot compared to Dorian because he's not as hard or as dry and because he lags behind on balance & proportion and muscular bulk ontop of him not having any bitch-tits
I believe the gyno was only there one year, he took care of it.
Personally, I find Dorian's right chest/biceps varicose vein problems more distracting (paul dillet syndrome). It takes away any appearance of aesthetics, and removes his image of balance and proportion which you praise so highly of.
-
RC truly looks awful in the shot that NeoSemen posted. I know he isn't really posing but to my eyes he looks kind of deformed and flat like a pancake. A lot worse than a relaxed DY whichever year you pick. BTW I think that Coleman could easily get a job advertising for Cadbury now that his bodybuilding career is over. In fact it looks like he already has.
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/NeoSeminole/Ronnie%20Coleman/99%20Mr%20Olympia/99MrO-Ronnie73ab.jpg)
(http://www.fotoknit.com/photo/archives/cadbury-world.jpg)
are you serious?
::)
-
Dorian dominated in a way Coleman NEVER did you can deny this fact as well it still doesn't change it.
Coleman had not replicated the dominance of Haney and Yates. He always seemed slightly vulnerable, protected as much by protocol as his physique
correction: he dominated on paper only. not onstage.
he should have lost 1994 (to shawn) and 1997 (to either shawn or nasser depending on who you ask)
thats not dominating. thats being given undisputed gifts.
but the judges looked the other way and he won. look no further than the classic comment from the judges about how his torn bi made no overall difference LOL
you don't get any more partial than that folks..
-
Getbigs hottest new blossoming romance: Hulkster and ND, sending secret PMs to one another in passionate, forbidden homosexual lust! They love roleplaying "Dorian vs Ronnie" with each other! :-*
-
Hulkster, you fucking dumbass. What does it do for your credibility posting pictures of a relaxed Dorian as an example of his inferiority? Do you actually think, you moron, that anyone buys that crap you're peddling. Give it up already troll, Ronnie gave best to Dorian and most disappointing at all to you kiddo, Ronnie doesn't appear to be gay, so now you're reduced to trolling positions so fucking outrageous that it beggars the mind. Stop posting for a week, sit down and rethink matters carefully. I'm serious. There is nothing for you to gain any further now that your hero casted himself the second best (or lower?) ever. You cannot argue with Ronnie's words. You don't know him any better than he knows himself and his abilities. Now scram, loser.
-
LOL like he looks any better flexing..
he still should have lost those two olympias...
::)
epic fail.
-
LOL like he looks any better flexing..
he still should have lost those two olympias...
::)
epic fail.
Dorian had a ugly phsique .... Horrible
-
sorry who is crying he had great arms? NO ONE just better than you're giving him credit I just posted numerous pics where you clearly contradict your claim of being ' non-existent '
Dorian didn't have great ' arms ' but his side triceps sure kicks the shit out Ronnies , he may have not had a small waist & hips but his ab-thigh kicks the shit out of Ronnie's , keep your paper-advantage in parts it doesn't mean they have the best pose and that's how it's done.
I didn't say non existent, I said unimpressive. You should pay more attention to whom you are replying. I wouldn't say kicks the shit out of Ronnies, Ronnies wasn't the greatest side tricep, but it by far was not kicked the shit out of by Yates. Go ahead and post some shitty shots of Coleman and Hulkster will post some shitty shots of Yates, blah blah blah.
I don't even know what you are talking about "paper advantage" or "abs and thighs" post since I was clearly talking about arms and only arms.
-
ROFLMAO @ THREAD TITLE CHANGE
x2! ;D
-
Hulkster, care to post less selective pictures of Yates and slightly better ones you gay troll? Or shall I start posting pictures of Ronnie's gut even while is flexing and sucking it in?
-
yet you mentioned Yates
What???
I commented on Dorian's great pic and then posted a pic of Ronnie crushing Flex in 98 commenting on how crazy it is to say it was a close contest.
You then said Ronnie loses that shot (I assumed to Flex) due to his "bitch tits".
-
There you go again , how am I supposed to know what you were talking about? you always amend your statements , I can only go by what you typed and what you typed wasn't accurate
I've said many times that if everyone has missing calves it's not an issue , and regarding Dorian's bicep in 94 his overall package was so dominating that the shorter bicep made ' no overall difference ' like Ronnie's calves in relation to who he was competing with , however if faced next to an uninjured Dorian they are major liabilities even next to a post-tear Dorian
There you go again , how am I supposed to know what you were talking about? you always amend your statements , I can only go by what you typed and what you typed wasn't accurate
I thought you would be clever enough to understand what I meant. I mean, its not very hard to understand that the top competition is the only one that matters.
I didn't think I had to explain everythin so detailed......... ::)
I've said many times that if everyone has missing calves it's not an issue , and regarding Dorian's bicep in 94 his overall package was so dominating that the shorter bicep made ' no overall difference ' like Ronnie's calves in relation to who he was competing with , however if faced next to an uninjured Dorian they are major liabilities even next to a post-tear Dorian
If you agree Ronnie's calves were not an issue and he was so dominating to his competition, then why did you make such a big deal out of Ronnie winning on "missing calves"?
-
Hulkster, you fucking dumbass. What does it do for your credibility posting pictures of a relaxed Dorian as an example of his inferiority? Do you actually think, you moron, that anyone buys that crap you're peddling. Give it up already troll, Ronnie gave best to Dorian and most disappointing at all to you kiddo, Ronnie doesn't appear to be gay, so now you're reduced to trolling positions so fucking outrageous that it beggars the mind. Stop posting for a week, sit down and rethink matters carefully. I'm serious. There is nothing for you to gain any further now that your hero casted himself the second best (or lower?) ever. You cannot argue with Ronnie's words. You don't know him any better than he knows himself and his abilities. Now scram, loser.
Why do you get so upset when Hulkster posts a bad pic of Dorian?
-
Hulkster, care to post less selective pictures of Yates and slightly better ones you gay troll? Or shall I start posting pictures of Ronnie's gut even while is flexing and sucking it in?
Typical Hulkster antics -- face it, deep down he knows that peak Dorian vs. peak Ronnie would go either way, just like those of us who are normal do. Yet he has pushed himself into denial of this because for some creepy reason it is too painful for him to accept. I mean this man has dedicated a significant portion of his life to defending his hero on the internet. And the only way he can prove his bullshit claims is by showing pics of Dorian when Dorian is not in a pose and compare them to the best pic he can find of Ronnie. It's both sad & laughable.
-
Typical Hulkster antics -- face it, deep down he knows that peak Dorian vs. peak Ronnie would go either way, just like those of us who are normal do. Yet he has pushed himself into denial of this because for some creepy reason it is too painful for him to accept. I mean this man has dedicated a significant portion of his life to defending his hero on the internet. And the only way he can prove his bullshit claims is by showing pics of Dorian when Dorian is not in a pose and compare them to the best pic he can find of Ronnie. It's both sad & laughable.
Its good to see a pro Dorian guy in here with a little sense. I have to agree with you.
To ND however, peak Dorian vs peak Ronnie would be a 100% Dorian win and not even close. :-\
-
Shipsekkie why do you keep changing the thread name so much?
-
I thought you would be clever enough to understand what I meant. I mean, its not very hard to understand that the top competition is the only one that matters.
I didn't think I had to explain everythin so detailed......... ::)
If you agree Ronnie's calves were not an issue and he was so dominating to his competition, then why did you make such a big deal out of Ronnie winning on "missing calves"?
I thought you would be clever enough to understand what I meant. I mean, its not very hard to understand that the top competition is the only one that matters.
I didn't think I had to explain everythin so detailed......... ::)
Don't blame me for your comments , you made a base claim and when pushed on it your response is ' that's not what I meant ' type what you mean
If you agree Ronnie's calves were not an issue and he was so dominating to his competition, then why did you make such a big deal out of Ronnie winning on "missing calves"?
Ronnie one wasn't dominating to his competition , he may have been on a few occasions but he never dominated like Yates or Haney. And it's a big deal because we're comparing Ronnie to Dorian and his lack of calves are a major liability in comparison
-
Its good to see a pro Dorian guy in here with a little sense. I have to agree with you.
To ND however, peak Dorian vs peak Ronnie would be a 100% Dorian win and not even close. :-\
There you go again making assumptions on what I feel . depending on the year Ronnie would give Dorian a run for his money but in the end Dorian has to many advantages , I always maintained there were only two guys at their best who could beat Dorian and that's Flex & Ronnie
so once again we have you drawing faulty conclusions ( like I based my opinion of the 98 Olympia only off the score card ) based on inaccuracy
-
not really. I pointed out that Ronnie's calves weren't small to which you asked me a bunch of questions. I could ask you the same about Dorian's arms. The fact is Ronnie's calves were not "missing" by any means. I've even shown they were nearly the same size as Jay Cutler's, who is known for his calves. So your comment is nonsense and clearly deceitful
Ronnie's calves are small , they're small for a bodybuilder of 257 pounds , they're small in comparison to Dorian. Ronnie's calves are missing as well , like I've explained to you before they're missing classic diamond shape , they're missing low insertions , and they're missing great separation of the inner & outer heads , you honestly can't deny this
And Jay is not known for his calves , where you got this is beyond me , his calves maybe in 03 the same size as Jay's however that's where the comparison stops and that's entertaining it's even true , Jay isn't Dorian by the way who really was known for his calves
-
I believe the gyno was only there one year, he took care of it.
Personally, I find Dorian's right chest/biceps varicose vein problems more distracting (paul dillet syndrome). It takes away any appearance of aesthetics, and removes his image of balance and proportion which you praise so highly of.
that's besides the point
how would a vein remove balance & proportion? how does this affect proportion from one muscle to the next? or muscle length ? and aesthetics? and Dorian in the same sentence? you sir are really , really grasping at straws on this
-
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r255/Kelly0108/Ronnie_Coleman_photo340.jpg)
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3994/dy56.jpg)
-
Its good to see a pro Dorian guy in here with a little sense. I have to agree with you.
To ND however, peak Dorian vs peak Ronnie would be a 100% Dorian win and not even close. :-\
I feel the same way. No were did I evel claim Ronnie would be blown out by dorian.
It would be the tightest O ever.
I think Dorian would win because his size is comparable, conditioning is equal or slightly better, and he is more complete.
Slightly undersized bi's vs NO calves.
Thats how I see it going down. Tighest contest evar.
-
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r255/Kelly0108/Ronnie_Coleman_photo340.jpg)
(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3994/dy56.jpg)
The difference in density & dryness is staggering , you're not helping your case here bro
-
;)
-
Re: Two gay men argue for 50 pages. Hulk vs. ND.
who has changed this title?? >:(
-
The difference in density & dryness is staggering , you're not helping your case here bro
More lat mass, just as much trap mass, and comparable definition.
Look more closely at your hero, you can't even make out the separation between the spinal errectors and lats on the left side. So much for the amazing balance and proportion.
-
More lat mass, just as much trap mass, and comparable definition.
Look more closely at your hero, you can't even make out the separation between the spinal errectors and lats on the left side. So much for the amazing balance and proportion.
More lat-mass? says who? just as much trap mass? don't mistake size for conditioned size my friend there is a vast difference
and what the fuck does separation have to do with balance & proportion? I mean where should I begin with this dumbass statement?
-
More lat-mass? says who? just as much trap mass? don't mistake size for conditioned size my friend there is a vast difference
and what the fuck does separation have to do with balance & proportion? I mean where should I begin with this dumbass statement?
The symmetry he displays in my pic looks shitty compared to ronnie. That's what I meant. Ronnie has more mass and you know it.
Dorian isn't drier waist down too, all he has is a bit more sharpness waist up.
Dorian is always sharpest alone, low oil gloss, usually black and white pics that give it a grainy appearance.
-
The symmetry he displays in my pic looks shitty compared to ronnie. That's what I meant. Ronnie has more mass and you know it.
Dorian isn't drier waist down too, all he has is a bit more sharpness waist up.
Dorian is always sharpest alone, low oil gloss, usually black and white pics that give it a grainy appearance.
Symmetry what do you mean by symmetry? that's a word that has many means and Ronnie has more mass? is it conditioned mass? is it dense hard muscle?
Dorian is drier ALL over compared to Ronnie especially 2003 , in 03 Ronnie's conditioning wasn't on par with 1998/2001ASC nevermind as dry as Yates
And he's only the sharpest alone? how did he win so many Olympia's directly compared to all of his contemporaries? did you not just see the color pic I posted comparing him to Ronnie 2001? you're making a LOT of assumptions and ignorant statements here
-
Symmetry what do you mean by symmetry? that's a word that has many means and Ronnie has more mass? is it conditioned mass? is it dense hard muscle?
You take an imaginary, vertical line centerd at the spine of both pics (my pics). Ronnie looks more symmetrical on both sides of the line than dorian. I can't explain this anymore clearly, it's not hard to see.
-
You take an imaginary, vertical line centerd at the spine of both pics (my pics). Ronnie looks more symmetrical on both sides of the line than dorian. I can't explain this anymore clearly, it's not hard to see.
sure you can symmetrical in the bodybuilding context has numerous meanings , if you're claiming his left & right sides are exact duplicates of each other that's nonsense because nothing in nature is truly symmetrical
Ronnie is technically more symmetrical in the context of having a smaller waist & hips and smaller joints but he doesn't have as good as muscle balance & proportion as Dorian
He's no where near as hard or dry as Dorian in 03 sorry not his best showing by a long shot
-
And he's only the sharpest alone? how did he win so many Olympia's directly compared to all of his contemporaries? did you not just see the color pic I posted comparing him to Ronnie 2001? you're making a LOT of assumptions and ignorant statements here
I'm not questioning Dorian's dryness, but there are attributes in photos, which I mentioned, that enhances it.
As an unrelated aside, I've seen plenty of pics of bodybuilders that look better without posing oil.
-
I am not a gay man.
anyone who follows my other posts knows my love of the hairy pussy 8)
ND on the other hand, well...lets just say that being gay was a prerequisit for his job at the flower company 8)
-
I am not a gay man.
anyone who follows my other posts knows my love of the hairy pussy 8)
ND on the other hand, well...lets just say that being gay was a prerequisit for his job at the flower company 8)
Hahahahahahaha owned
-
I'm not questioning Dorian's dryness, but there are attributes in photos, which I mentioned, that enhances it.
As an unrelated aside, I've seen plenty of pics of bodybuilders that look better without posing oil.
how does photos enhance the thiness of ones skin? please answer the question
-
well for starters, black and white photography is famous for enhancing the detail and making people look more 'grainy'
for example:
there is a reason why dorian's 93 precontest shots are the best photos ever taken of him and he NEVER looked that good onstage.
black and white photography and careful lighting is one of them.
-
The difference in density & dryness is staggering , you're not helping your case here bro
Dude wake up and smell the one dimensional argument. What about separation and size? Also valuable surely? Especially when it's such a staggering difference. WHo in Dorian's day had a back that made his look small? Oh yeah no one.
-
Dude wake up and smell the one dimensional argument. What about separation and size? Also valuable surely? Especially when it's such a staggering difference. WHo in Dorian's day had a back that made his look small? Oh yeah no one.
Oh boy who said the argument was one dimensional? what about separation? Dorian's back is much more separated and dry and dense compared to Ronnie 03 , he has better balance and proportion , and he's more complete and he's a better poser NO one dimensional argument in fact an argument encompassing ALL of the judging criteria
You're assuming Ronnie's back would make Dorian's look small you don't know that and even in 03 this is highly unlikely
-
well for starters, black and white photography is famous for enhancing the detail and making people look more 'grainy'
for example:
there is a reason why dorian's 93 precontest shots are the best photos ever taken of him and he NEVER looked that good onstage.
black and white photography and careful lighting is one of them.
That's not what he said , he said it enhances his dryness , that's nonsense. enhancing the detail that is already there and enhancing someones dryness are two different things
one has to be dry in order to see detail and that pic of him in color is a scan from a magazine and he never looked that good onstage? opppsss you forgot this pic and cried it was morphed , how soon we forget
-
I love that dorian pic because it shows just how piss poor his quads really were.
fully flexed and extended they have no cuts, no seperation and are way too small for his massive calves.
its a great pic. please keep posting it!
-
I love that dorian pic because it shows just how piss poor his quads really were.
fully flexed and extended they have no cuts, no seperation and are way too small for his massive calves.
its a great pic. please keep posting it!
yeah when owned try and divert to another topic typical Hulkster
yes his quads were so piss-poor that's why he destroys Ronnie in ANY ab0thigh shot ;)
same contest NO cuts? NO separation? calves to big or quads?
keep posting I'll keep correcting ;)
-
Oh boy who said the argument was one dimensional? what about separation? Dorian's back is much more separated and dry and dense compared to Ronnie 03 , he has better balance and proportion , and he's more complete and he's a better poser NO one dimensional argument in fact an argument encompassing ALL of the judging criteria
You're assuming Ronnie's back would make Dorian's look small you don't know that and even in 03 this is highly unlikely
Dude I'm calling your argument one dimensional as it hinges on density and dryness alone. But Muntzer, Gaspari etc would all have made Mr Olympia if this were the only criteria. However in Gaspari's case there was a much bigger, fuller, taller guy with a bigger back who stood in his way. This is all true of Ronnie in relation to Dorian. And Ronnie also has the most stupidly insane hams and glutes of all time in his armoury - see 'separation' - which really makes it tricky for the Dorian argument. Again Gaspari was denser and dryer than Haney, but bigger softer Haney was just more Olympian in stature and beat him in back shots en mass, if you will. If you think Dorian is more separated than Ronnie then I don't know what to say other than this is simply not true, and we've already covered Ronnie's superior aesthetic so you know it would be close, and I think the Gaspari/Haney-esque size difference argument would carry a lot of weight, so to speak.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r255/Kelly0108/Ronnie_Coleman_photo340.jpg)
-
Dude I'm calling your argument one dimensional as it hinges on density and dryness alone. But Muntzer, Gaspari etc would all have made Mr Olympia if this were the only criteria. However in Gaspari's case there was a much bigger, fuller, taller guy with a bigger back who stood in his way. This is all true of Ronnie in relation to Dorian. And Ronnie also has the most stupidly insane hams and glutes of all time in his armoury - see 'separation' - which really makes it tricky for the Dorian argument. Again Gaspari was denser and dryer than Haney, but bigger softer Haney was just more Olympian in stature and beat him in back shots on mass. If you think Dorian is more separated than Ronnie then I don't know what to say other than this is simply not true, and we've already covered Ronnie's superior aesthetic so you know it would be close, and I think the Gaspari/Haney-esque size difference argument would carry a lot of weight, so to speak.
I just explained to you my argument encompasses ALL of the criteria it doesn't hinge on conditioning alone.
I laugh at anyone who attempts to try as use the word aesthetics and advantage in the same sentence pertaining to Ronnie
Dorian is NOT Munzer , he's not Gaspari he's Yates and despite being 10lbs lighter than Haney in his first Olympia ever he eat him in the muscularity round and Haney was at his all-time best shape
Dorian directly compared to Ronnie 2003 has better density & dryness , balance & proportion , Ronnie has the advantage in muscular bulk ( although it's not much of an advantage when it's not that dense hard bulk ) he has an advantage in symmetry ( smaller joints , hips , waist ) like I've said many times before Ronnie has meets ( part(s) ) of the criteria better than Dorian but as a whole Dorian meets all of them better
-
Dude I'm calling your argument one dimensional as it hinges on density and dryness alone. But Muntzer, Gaspari etc would all have made Mr Olympia if this were the only criteria. However in Gaspari's case there was a much bigger, fuller, taller guy with a bigger back who stood in his way. This is all true of Ronnie in relation to Dorian. And Ronnie also has the most stupidly insane hams and glutes of all time in his armoury - see 'separation' - which really makes it tricky for the Dorian argument. Again Gaspari was denser and dryer than Haney, but bigger softer Haney was just more Olympian in stature and beat him in back shots en mass, if you will. If you think Dorian is more separated than Ronnie then I don't know what to say other than this is simply not true, and we've already covered Ronnie's superior aesthetic so you know it would be close, and I think the Gaspari/Haney-esque size difference argument would carry a lot of weight, so to speak.
(http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r255/Kelly0108/Ronnie_Coleman_photo340.jpg)
well said. don't forget that Haney beat dorian for much the same reason that Ronnie would beat dorian:
same size
better shape
better taper
better quads
better back (back then at least)
etc.
ronnie also displays much better seperation in many shots (except for the abs and lower back)
-
Any of u who think dorian beats ronnie ever is beyond delusional. period
-
There you go again making assumptions on what I feel . depending on the year Ronnie would give Dorian a run for his money but in the end Dorian has to many advantages , I always maintained there were only two guys at their best who could beat Dorian and that's Flex & Ronnie
so once again we have you drawing faulty conclusions ( like I based my opinion of the 98 Olympia only off the score card ) based on inaccuracy
I remember posting here that Ronnie's best vs Dorian's best would be a close contest and your reply was that it wouldn't be close. I also remember reading many times how you said Dorian meets the criteria so much better than Ronnie (again you're saying he has too many advantages), this is not saying that it would be a close contest or that it could go either way.
I wasn't making things up, I just commented on your past posts. Now you're saying that Ronnie could beat Dorian (you probably said it before, but I didn't read it).
-
I feel the same way. No were did I evel claim Ronnie would be blown out by dorian.
It would be the tightest O ever.
I think Dorian would win because his size is comparable, conditioning is equal or slightly better, and he is more complete.
Slightly undersized bi's vs NO calves.
Thats how I see it going down. Tighest contest evar.
I agree on it being a really close contest, but I'm going to have to disagree on the winner. :D
-
I'm getting bored and tired of this thread now...............let's just end it with the greatest physique and Mr. Olympia of all time:
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
-
I remember posting here that Ronnie's best vs Dorian's best would be a close contest and your reply was that it wouldn't be close. I also remember reading many times how you said Dorian meets the criteria so much better than Ronnie (again you're saying he has too many advantages), this is not saying that it would be a close contest or that it could go either way.
I wasn't making things up, I just commented on your past posts. Now you're saying that Ronnie could beat Dorian (you probably said it before, but I didn't read it).
You're making your own conclusions not the first time. and I've said it many times.
-
I'm getting bored and tired of this thread now...............let's just end it with the greatest physique and Mr. Olympia of all time:
Joe Weider - IFBB Co-Founder
"Many experts, including reigning Mr.Olympia, Jay Cutler, believe that at his best Ronnie has the greatest physique of all-time. When looking at pictures of Ronnie from the 1998 Mr.Olympia, I find it hard to argue with that."
Team Flex - http://www.flexonline.com/training/49
Let's ' end ' it with a few quotes from the ' Greatest Mr Olympia '
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.
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.
;)
-
well said. don't forget that Haney beat dorian for much the same reason that Ronnie would beat dorian:
same size
better shape
better taper
better quads
better back (back then at least)
etc.
ronnie also displays much better seperation in many shots (except for the abs and lower back)
he had all that in 1997 where did it get him? 9th fucking place against a Dorian with a torn bicep/tricep and quad LMFAO thanks for playing dummy
Dorian at his worse crushed this Ronnie , at his best forget it
-
truly yates was terribly overrated
he received the most gift Olympia wins of any mr O
rightful winners of the O
93 Flex
94 shawn ray
95 Nasser or Kevin
96 Nasser
97 Nasser
-
Ronnies back had already surpassed Yates by 1996 and the Mr O contest video showed that
-
Haha!
I changed this thread title to "Two gay men argue for 50 pages" and the mods automatically changed it to "Dorian Yates-overrated!"
That's funny.
-
truly yates was terribly overrated
he received the most gift Olympia wins of any mr O
rightful winners of the O
93 Flex
94 shawn ray
95 Nasser or Kevin
96 Nasser
97 Nasser
get the fuck outta here.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=371281;image)
You just pointed out what I mean. That's a terrible pic of yates to illustrate "dryness". He's reflecting too much stagelight here; too much light is flooding the surface areas, giving illusion of smoothness.
consider the following pics of dexter:
(http://anabolic-steroids.blogspot.com/Dexter-Jackson-3.jpg)
(http://www.bigmusclegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/dexter_jackson.jpg)
The first pic of dexter is what I consider ideal photography to illustrate his definition. There is less reflecting light on his body that doesn't wash out details as in the second.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327562.0;attach=371281;image)
You just pointed out what I mean. That's a terrible pic of yates to illustrate "dryness". He's reflecting too much stagelight here; too much light is flooding the surface areas, giving illusion of smoothness.
consider the following pics of dexter:
(http://anabolic-steroids.blogspot.com/Dexter-Jackson-3.jpg)
(http://www.bigmusclegallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/dexter_jackson.jpg)
The first pic of dexter is what I consider ideal photography to illustrate his definition. There is less reflecting light on his body that doesn't wash out details as in the second.
That pic of Yates is horrible quality to begin with and it wasn't meant to showcase his conditioning , same contest color insane dryness and density and no black & white needed
-
get the fuck outta here.
No one pays attention to him we just laugh at his stupidity much like Hulkster
-
he had all that in 1997 where did it get him?
you think he had all that in 1997?
what are you smoking?:
::)
-
Haha!
I changed this thread title to "Two gay men argue for 50 pages" and the mods automatically changed it to "Dorian Yates-overrated!"
That's funny.
yeah, everyone except for ND and Cockwave think dorian was overrated.
its common knowledge by now.
-
yeah, everyone except for ND and Cockwave think dorian was overrated.
its common knowledge by now.
Ronnie thinks very highly of Dorian but you know that hahahahahahaha dumb-ass
-
you think he had all that in 1997?
what are you smoking?:
::)
I just fucking proved he did and you know it ;)
same dumb Hulkster posting the same dumb ' advantages ' that he always had and still placed NINTH
NINTH fucking place compared to Dorian at his worse BAWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHA he's supposed to beat Dorian? at his best ;D
-
problem is, ronnie took those advantages and amplified them 100x by the time 99 rolled around:
hence the massive jump from 9th to a 2 time Mr. Olympia
-
problem is, ronnie took those advantages and amplified them 100x by the time 99 rolled around:
hence the massive jump from 9th to a 2 time Mr. Olympia
Yeah sure he did , this is 1996 BTW and he looked outstanding then too ;)
where's the cross-striations in Ronnie's quads in 99? his mid-section in 99 looks NO WHERE near as good as this , look at the striations in the deltoids , 99 ain't like this , he improved sure but in some ways digressed
-
I agree ronnie looked great in 1996, but ironically back then, he was all front.
his back wasn't that great yet at all.
and that made a HUGE difference by the time it caught up with his crazy most muculars and arm shots..
he added so much size and thickness it was crazy.
and of course his glutes/hams tightened way up. he lost a bit of detail in the delts from the rear. but other than that it was all up.
-
Lee Priest was better than both of them.
-
8) 8)
-
yeah, everyone except for ND and Cockwave think dorian was overrated.
its common knowledge by now.
Hahaha
Yeah, you truely are a bind retard. Yup, ND and I are the ONLY Dorian supporters in this thread.
I forgot how Hulkster world really works, you only see what you want, you fucking nimrod.
Im done here its obvious you were born with some sort of brain defect.
-
I agree ronnie looked great in 1996, but ironically back then, he was all front.
his back wasn't that great yet at all.
and that made a HUGE difference by the time it caught up with his crazy most muculars and arm shots..
he added so much size and thickness it was crazy.
and of course his glutes/hams tightened way up. he lost a bit of detail in the delts from the rear. but other than that it was all up.
That's not what I asked you. I asked where were his cross-striated quads in 1999? where was a mid-section that resembled that one? where are those deeply striated deltoids? you can't answer that which is exactly why you ran from it
and ironically YOU posted many pics unknowingly from 1996 claiming it would destroy Dorian and they were back shots too lmfao now his back sucks LMFAO
You constantly prove how little you know and how often you contradict reality and the facts
top 2 1996
bottom 2 1997
-
Hahaha
Yeah, you truely are a bind retard. Yup, ND and I are the ONLY Dorian supporters in this thread.
I forgot how Hulkster world really works, you only see what you want, you fucking nimrod.
Im done here its obvious you were born with some sort of brain defect.
That's Hulkster he needs to vastly overstate everything , he thinks it helps his case and he has this thing about claiming everyone agrees with him when in reality no one of credibility does and most Coleman fans don't
Kevin Horton called Hulkster a retard now you know why ;D
-
I love that dorian pic because it shows just how piss poor his quads really were.
fully flexed and extended they have no cuts, no seperation and are way too small for his massive calves.
its a great pic. please keep posting it!
Ho can you judge that if his quads are seen sideays and not from the front? Look at pictures of Dorian flexing his quads from the 1997 Olympia, hen he as 270 lbs, and you'll see that his quads ere just as separated as Ronnie's at the 1999 Olympia, but ith superior size and hardness. Your argument that Ronnie's quads are more separated is complete nonsense. Also, Dorian's quads ere in proportion to his claves but Ronnie's calves ere too small for his quads.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ho can you judge that if his quads are seen sideays and not from the front? Look at pictures of Dorian flexing his quads from the 1997 Olympia, hen he as 270 lbs, and you'll see that his quads ere just as separated as Ronnie's at the 1999 Olympia, but ith superior size and hardness. Your argument that Ronnie's quads are more separated is complete nonsense. Also, Dorian's quads ere in proportion to his claves but Ronnie's calves ere too small for his quads.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Hahahahaha NO cuts
-
I asked where were his cross-striated quads in 1999?
they were probably hidden by the super deep cuts he attained by 99 that he didn't have in 96/7 :P
fact is, ronnie lost the striations but gained the deep deep seperation and massive sweep that he hever had before.
his quads were much more impressive in 99 than in 96, even without the bit of cross striations.
-
note the super deep cuts in ronnie's quads in 99, that were absent prior to this.
even in 98, he didn't have quad cuts like this, hell, Lonnie Teper specifically commented on this in his Olympia 99 review in Ironman..
-
and ironically YOU posted many pics unknowingly from 1996 claiming it would destroy Dorian and they were back shots too lmfao now his back sucks LMFAO
it sucks compared to what it turned into by 1999: :P
-
they were probably hidden by the super deep cuts he attained by 99 that he didn't have in 96/7 :P
fact is, ronnie lost the striations but gained the deep deep seperation and massive sweep that he hever had before.
his quads were much more impressive in 99 than in 96, even without the bit of cross striations.
As usual you can't answer any direct questions , just brag about how much better they were ::) how about his delts? midesection? his quads in that 96 pic I posted are deeply cut and had cross-striations , keep running I'll keep laughing
-
they were probably hidden by the super deep cuts he attained by 99 that he didn't have in 96/7 :P
fact is, ronnie lost the striations but gained the deep deep seperation and massive sweep that he hever had before.
his quads were much more impressive in 99 than in 96, even without the bit of cross striations.
LOL!!! Youre actually trying to make shit up about the human anatomy to explain why Ronnie's didnt have the cross striations.
HE WASNT AS DRY. those things dont just disappear. Just ask Munzer.
-
it sucks compared to what it turned into by 1999: :P
the little :P isn't saving you , it didn't suck compared to 99 I just posted pics from 96 & 97 and his back is 99% the same
-
LOL!!! Youre actually trying to make shit up about the human anatomy to explain why Ronnie's didnt have the cross striations.
HE WASNT AS DRY. those things dont just disappear. Just ask Munzer.
hehehehehehehe as usual he can never back up his claims , his quads were so much better in 99 yet they don't have the cross striations he had in 96 , and neither does his delts , or his mid-section
-
yes, his quads WERE much better in 99 even without the (few) cross striations:
are you really that stupid that you ignore the shitty sweep and crappy seperation between the 4 quad heads as compared to 99?
::)
-
yes, his quads WERE much better in 99 even without the cross striations:
are you really that stupid that you ignore the shitty sweep and crappy seperation compared to 99?
::)
who is arguing they were better in 99? I asked a simple question you still can't answer , where are the cross-striations in his quads? where are they in his delts? his mid-section in 1996 is eons better than it was in 99
you think diverting from the topic is saving you from explaining?
-
who is arguing they were better in 99? I asked a simple question you still can't answer , where are the cross-striations in his quads? where are they in his delts? his mid-section in 1996 is eons better than it was in 99
you think diverting from the topic is saving you from explaining?
they were not there. duh. ::)
its no different than comparing dorian's 92 midsection and chest detail to 93.
he lost detail but gained some size.
this is nothing new, but if you are clueless like you are, I guess you might think it is.. ::)
-
they were not there. duh. ::)
its no different than comparing dorian's 92 midsection and chest detail to 93.
he lost detail but gained some size.
this is nothing new, but if you are clueless like you are, I guess you might think it is.. ::)
Oh boy lol I always laugh at the conclusions you come to based on tow very differing quality photos , Dorian's midsection & chest detail and the exact same in 93 as they were in 1992 , you think you accomplished anything by posting a pic that his detail is washed out by lighting and scanning compared to one that isn't?
Hulkster I can post pics showing you exactly his midsection and pecs were just as detailed in 93 but it's redundant , you're ignorance knows no bounds
-
you think you accomplished anything by posting a pic that his detail is washed out by lighting and scanning compared to one that isn't?
LOL everyone take note of the massive excuses being made to a known fact..
::)
subtle admission of defeat. I love it.
-
LOL everyone take note of the massive excuses being made to a known fact..
::)
subtle admission of defeat. I love it.
Watch this moron ;)
Look Ronnie 99 didn't have the same detail in his back like he did in 98 ::)
-
Watch this moron ;)
Look Ronnie 99 didn't have the same detail in his back like he did in 98 ::)
the diff. in details between the 2 pics. is mainly due to the diff. lighting!!..
-
the diff. in details between the 2 pics. is mainly due to the diff. lighting!!..
Exactly my point.
-
Bump. ;D
Ron you really should merge this thread with the truce thread.
-
Yeah sure he did , this is 1996 BTW and he looked outstanding then too ;)
where's the cross-striations in Ronnie's quads in 99? his mid-section in 99 looks NO WHERE near as good as this , look at the striations in the deltoids , 99 ain't like this , he improved sure but in some ways digressed
Back size, delt size and glute/ham condition improved massively by '99. By the end Dorian was all back, delts and conditioning so I'm sure you can appreciate how much the judges value these things.
-
look at the striations in the deltoids , 99 ain't like this
what the fuck are you talking about?:
::)
ronnie's delts in 99 were striated to all hell and back again.
god you are so incredibly stupid.. :-\
-
at the same bodyweight, dorian never had lats this thick:
:o
-
ronnie improved 210% by 99 from 96: despite ND's apparent arguing of the contrary.. ::)
-
at the same bodyweight, dorian never had lats this thick:
:o
Hahah.
Ronnie was never as thick as Dorian, back to front. Dorian lats literally looked a foot thick. Youre mistaking separation for thickness. ::)
-
what the fuck are you talking about?:
::)
ronnie's delts in 99 were striated to all hell and back again.
god you are so incredibly stupid.. :-\
dumbass do you even know what striations are? I'm not talking separation I'm talking striations learn the difference and again for the fucking dummies among us , where are the striations in his quads? his midsection sucked in comparison , you still can't answer these questions as usual
Typical Hulkster when pushed you run , keep running
-
That's not what I asked you. I asked where were his cross-striated quads in 1999? where was a mid-section that resembled that one? where are those deeply striated deltoids? you can't answer that which is exactly why you ran from it
and ironically YOU posted many pics unknowingly from 1996 claiming it would destroy Dorian and they were back shots too lmfao now his back sucks LMFAO
You constantly prove how little you know and how often you contradict reality and the facts
top 2 1996
bottom 2 1997
very interesting shots showing Ronnies back looking huge and extremely detailed in 1996-97, his Delts were as detailed as they ever were, while Ronnie did get more massive in the coming years i dont think his conditioning particularity in his back in delts were as sharp as in 96-97, with the possible exception of the 1998 O...the only Year IMO Ronnie's Physique as Mr O would be too close to call for a Victory against a 1993 or 95 Yates.
-
ronnie improved 210% by 99 from 96: despite ND's apparent arguing of the contrary.. ::)
yeah he has NO cross-striations in his quads none in his delts anymore hahahahahaha yeah he really improved by ' 210% '
moron allow me to show you how it's done , this is 1997 directly compared to 1999 and guess which year has clear fucking striated delts ;)
you know nothing and can't back up anything
-
yeah he has NO cross-striations in his quads none in his delts anymore hahahahahaha yeah he really improved by ' 210% '
moron allow me to show you how it's done , this is 1997 directly compared to 1999 and guess which year has clear fucking striated delts ;)
you know nothing and can't back up anything
why do you guys argue about this stuff non stop god, at least get behind a bodybuilder that is coming back on stage and going to reak havoc on the current top atheletes.
All hail, Nasser el Sonbaty, the future of the IFBB, 3x uncrowned Mr Olpymia, 1x future 2010 Mr Olympia, ladies love him, blonde hair, mercedes all the way, bigger, stronger, faster, TEAM Nasser 2010!!
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Sikboy666/NasserElSonbaty_197006.jpg)
-
Hahah.
Ronnie was never as thick as Dorian, back to front. Dorian lats literally looked a foot thick. Youre mistaking separation for thickness. ::)
hahahahahaha typical Hulkster doesn't know what thickness , separation and striations are , he can't even get the basics right
Dorian's lats at a comparable weight to Ronnie are clearly thicker , and denser , when Dorian does a front latspread his back fills up most of the space between his arms , same with standing relaxed despite having a wider waist his lats look much wider
-
yeah he has NO cross-striations in his quads none in his delts anymore hahahahahaha yeah he really improved by ' 210% '
moron allow me to show you how it's done , this is 1997 directly compared to 1999 and guess which year has clear fucking striated delts ;)
you know nothing and can't back up anything
97 all the way ND
-
yeah he has NO cross-striations in his quads none in his delts anymore hahahahahaha yeah he really improved by ' 210% '
moron allow me to show you how it's done , this is 1997 directly compared to 1999 and guess which year has clear fucking striated delts ;)
you know nothing and can't back up anything
Exactly my point....look @ the striations in the pecs, arms, delts etc...and thats 1997.........most the pics used as "proof" he was better in 1999 etc are in fact more or less SCREEN CAPS that have been touched up here and there, not alot of PICTURES in Similer lighting, angle, etc show Huge improvements in conditioning and detail from Ronnie's 1996-97 physique.
-
very interesting shots showing Ronnies back looking huge and extremely detailed in 1996-97, his Delts were as detailed as they ever were, while Ronnie did get more massive in the coming years i dont think his conditioning particularity in his back in delts were as sharp as in 96-97, with the possible exception of the 1998 O...the only Year IMO Ronnie's Physique as Mr O would be too close to call for a Victory against a 1993 or 95 Yates.
You sir as usual know what you're talking about. great post.
-
why do you guys argue about this stuff non stop god, at least get behind a bodybuilder that is coming back on stage and going to reak havoc on the current top atheletes.
All hail, Nasser el Sonbaty, the future of the IFBB, 3x uncrowned Mr Olpymia, 1x future 2010 Mr Olympia, ladies love him, blonde hair, mercedes all the way, bigger, stronger, faster, TEAM Nasser 2010!!
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Sikboy666/NasserElSonbaty_197006.jpg)
:o ??? :o...ahhh...don't think Nasser will be 2010 Olympia Champion, but great Physique way back in the day.
-
You sir as usual know what you're talking about. great post.
Hey ND how you doing? i see the debate is STILL going on and managed to get a real good Laugh out of yet Another "yates overrated" thread
-
Hey ND how you doing? i see the debate is STILL going on and managed to get a real good Laugh out of yet Another "yates overrated" thread
Good man , just trying to teach these guys how the game is played. ;D
and yeah overrated , you can always count on them for a good laugh.
-
Exactly my point....look @ the striations in the pecs, arms, delts etc...and thats 1997.........most the pics used as "proof" he was better in 1999 etc are in fact more or less SCREEN CAPS that have been touched up here and there, not alot of PICTURES in Similer lighting, angle, etc show Huge improvements in conditioning and detail from Ronnie's 1996-97 physique.
Hahah.
But Hulkster says the only people who disagree with him are Me and ND! lololol ::)
-
Hahah.
But Hulkster says the only people who disagree with him are Me and ND! lololol ::)
Yip i think theres alot of People on here that disagree with him however, the point is (and will always be) is you will and can only beat the Best that is available in your TIME @ the top...and Between 1992 though to 1997 Dorian Yates Beat the Best thats a Fact History shows that as so, Ronnie included...saying well Yates wouldn't beat him AFTER the fact as a Retired 6 Time Mr O, is bizarre @ the Least and Fairy tales @ best...Ronnie improved after 1997 yes that is true....enough to Beat Yates?...that is and will always be a moot point in favor of reality over speculation that being Reality...1992....though 1997.
-
Hahah.
But Hulkster says the only people who disagree with him are Me and ND! lololol ::)
He can have the whole board agree with him and they would ALL be wrong , Hulkster likes to try and harp on part of what I said and thinks he accomplished something , point I said his delts weren't as striated and neither were his quads or midsection and what does he do? post a pic of him in a most muscular not showing any striations and then claim I'm wrong , he's retarded
or I'll say Ronnie did improved in 98/99 however in some areas he didn't and what's he do? carefully selects pics and says ' see ' ::) look at the hands clasped mostmuscular from 1999 and 1997 , he clearly is NOT showing any striations compared to 1997 , Hulkster can't counter this and will run as usual or just post to the contrary just out of spite , either way he's wrong as usual and an idiot to boot
-
Exactly my point....look @ the striations in the pecs, arms, delts etc...and thats 1997.........most the pics used as "proof" he was better in 1999 etc are in fact more or less SCREEN CAPS that have been touched up here and there, not alot of PICTURES in Similer lighting, angle, etc show Huge improvements in conditioning and detail from Ronnie's 1996-97 physique.
LOL touched up?
sorry buddy, but the videos are real:
watch this and you will see that 96/97 ronnie doesn't come close to this:
there is a reason why ronnie went from losing to everyone to winning everything.
you will see why in this vid. enjoy.
:P
-
LOL
its like night and day:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1eyvt_ronnie-coleman-1997-olympia_sport
-
Hahaha
Yeah, you truely are a bind retard. Yup, ND and I are the ONLY Dorian supporters in this thread.
I forgot how Hulkster world really works, you only see what you want, you fucking nimrod.
Im done here its obvious you were born with some sort of brain defect.
you are not the only ones. Yates was better hulky, hope this helps.
-
Same here. Although I don't post too often, I find it obvious Yates being the better bodybuilder. However, I see little use in arguing history and facts with idiots. I don't believe for a second that Hulkster sees Coleman as the better man, I think it goes to a deeper level for him. Either he is trying to extract revenge for getting bitch slapped on a daily basis, or there might be sexual urges in play. I do not know and don't really want to know. Either way, the kid's a fucking idiot.
-
Same here. Although I don't post too often, I find it obvious Yates being the better bodybuilder. However, I see little use in arguing history and facts with idiots. I don't believe for a second that Hulkster sees Coleman as the better man, I think it goes to a deeper level for him. Either he is trying to extract revenge for getting bitch slapped on a daily basis, or there might be sexual urges in play. I do not know and don't really want to know. Either way, the kid's a fucking idiot.
Great post ! ;D
-
You can't 'extract' revenge, only EXACT it. Common error though.
-
very interesting shots showing Ronnies back looking huge and extremely detailed in 1996-97, his Delts were as detailed as they ever were, while Ronnie did get more massive in the coming years i dont think his conditioning particularity in his back in delts were as sharp as in 96-97, with the possible exception of the 1998 O...the only Year IMO Ronnie's Physique as Mr O would be too close to call for a Victory against a 1993 or 95 Yates.
Hahahahaha. I thought Shawn Ray put this one to bed instantly when he said that pre-Chad Ronnie's conditioning from the back was never good enough to put him in contention for the title.
Also clearly shoulder SIZE is vital as initially Ronnie was a tad narrow. You know and I know that Ronnie's delts and back (interestingly Dorian's strongest two bodyparts, barring calves) were bigger and better in 98 and 99 than in 96/97. There are some great pics from from the earlier years yes, but do not think you fool anyone that Ronnie's back was anywhere near peak in 96/97.
-
bump ;D
-
IMO, there were many bodybuilders better than Dorian during his era. Dorian was very different, and this was why he won the Olympia 6 times.