Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Hulkster on April 02, 2006, 12:33:46 PM
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc5.jpg)
for all the Colemaniacs out there 8)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy204.jpg)
feel the biceps!!
Dorian who? ;D
-
Look at those calves on Dorian :o
-
I ve got to admit yates biceps look awesome there.
Appaling
-
I ve got to admit yates biceps look awesome there.
Appaling
His arms look pathetic :-\
-
dorian is slaughtering ronnie there :o
-
His arms look pathetic :-\
I don't know about you but those forearms and triceps look fine to me
But move that shot of coleman back a few feet and you can see his pathetic calves
his bis suck and ronnies smoke his but Dorein's calves smoke Ronnies
-
Another cool B&W pic of Ronnie , tiny waist and great taper !! ;)
-
Another cool B&W pic of Ronnie , tiny waist and great taper !! ;)
He is not even flexing, you hater ;D
-
He is not even flexing, you hater ;D
Oh I know but it was a jab at HUlkster who does that all the time with Yates' pics .
-
His arms look pathetic :-\
No his arms don't look pathetic, they ARE pathetic!
Another cool B&W pic of Ronnie , tiny waist and great taper !! ;)
He looks decent there. Ah!!! Posterity will reveal just how awesome coleman was/is and in 5 years time, characters like ND will be worshipping the guy.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=62502.0;attach=72221;image)
his biceps are so big they are hanging off him in that shot! :o Good thigh sweep too.
<blows huge load all over keyboard> :-*
-
Monster V-Taper.
-
No his arms don't look pathetic, they ARE pathetic!
He looks decent there. Ah!!! Posterity will reveal just how awesome coleman was/is and in 5 years time, characters like ND will be worshipping the guy.
Wrong on 2 accounts , Yates arms aren't pathetic , excellent triceps and forearms , mediocre biceps , so overall arms aren't pathetic ;) and Coleman will break Haney's record for Olympia wins but he will never be considered as great as Haney , except to kids who think bodybuilding is about being freaky .
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc5.jpg)
check out the split in Ronnie's quad :o
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc5.jpg)
Monster triceps.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=62502.0;attach=72221;image)
his biceps are so big they are hanging off him in that shot! :o Good thigh sweep too.
<blows huge load all over keyboard> :-*
Notice how his forearms look like twigs? and look how wide is waist has become relaxed , so much for a tiny waist at 287lbs !!
-
(http://forum.bodybuildingpro.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1503&stc=1)
lat spread from the same series, "ho-hum" according to some.
-
Wrong on 2 accounts , Yates arms aren't pathetic , excellent triceps and forearms , mediocre biceps , so overall arms aren't pathetic ;) and Coleman will break Haney's record for Olympia wins but he will never be considered as great as Haney , except to kids who think bodybuilding is about being freaky .
Yates' triceps look great in the side triceps, but only mediocre in the front and rear double biceps poses
-
Wrong on 2 accounts , Yates arms aren't pathetic , excellent triceps and forearms , mediocre biceps , so overall arms aren't pathetic ;) and Coleman will break Haney's record for Olympia wins but he will never be considered as great as Haney , except to kids who think bodybuilding is about being freaky .
Once again your arrogance becomes all too clear. You assert that coleman will never be considered as great as haney without a shred of evidence. You really need to let go ND, let go of this hate for the champ.
Of course you're in the "know" along with teh rest of your ironage buddies, and therefore know who the greatest is. ;)
-
lat spread from the same series, "ho-hum" according to some.
Great point !!
-
Wrong on 2 accounts , Yates arms aren't pathetic , excellent triceps and forearms , mediocre biceps , so overall arms aren't pathetic ;) and Coleman will break Haney's record for Olympia wins but he will never be considered as great as Haney , except to kids who think bodybuilding is about being freaky .
one of the biggest reasons Yates arms look so bad is that even though his triceps are good and his biceps only okay, the lack of delt shape and detail, in addition to overall arm shape is really what makes the difference.
ND disects the arm and says overall its good.
In reality, you can't do that. You have to look at the entire arm complex.
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/comp986.jpg)
look at how much more impressive the overall arms look if you have wicked delts to complete the picture
-
(http://forum.bodybuildingpro.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1503&stc=1)
lat spread from the same series, "ho-hum" according to some.
Seriously hulkster his forearms look tiny there and his traps "small". BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
ND, out of curiosity, who is saying that Coleman will "never be considered as great as Haney"??
-
ND, out of curiosity, who is saying that Coleman will "never be considered as great as Haney"??
ND obviously!
-
ND obviously!
but does anyone not severely under the influence agree? ;)
-
one of the biggest reasons Yates arms look so bad is that even though his triceps are good and his biceps only okay, the lack of delt shape and detail, in addition to overall arm shape is really what makes the difference.
ND disects the arm and says overall its good.
In reality, you can't do that. You have to look at the entire arm complex.
(http://www.ronniecoleman.net/comp986.jpg)
look at how much more impressive the overall arms look if you have wicked delts to complete the picture
the delts look almost overpowering the arms in that one. Good pic though!!
-
Once again your arrogance becomes all too clear. You assert that coleman will never be considered as great as haney without a shred of evidence. You really need to let go ND, let go of this hate for the champ.
Of course you're in the "know" along with teh rest of your ironage buddies, and therefore know who the greatest is. ;)
On paper Coleman has the most wins and will have the most Olympia wins , however , compare the eight Olympia wins , Haney face stiffer competition and he had only one win that could be considered controversial at that was in 1990 , Coleman has had 3 very close calls 98 he won by 3 points , 01 he won by 4 points , and in 04 he won by just 3 points , and in 02 he won by 9 point to ' defeat ' Levrone , he only won 2 of his 8 titles with straight firsts , Haney got straight first in all of win with straight firsts with the exception of losing the musculairty round to Yates , Ronnie in his first Olympia placed dead last , Haney third place , it took Ronnie 6 more trys to win and it took Haney one more , Haney defeated a current Mr Olympia to take his title , a feat that hadn't happened since Arnold besting Sergio in 1970 !! , Haney never finished lower than third in a Pro contest , Ronnie was a 3rd teir bodybuilder for years until he got his act together and Haney was a winner right out of the box , Haney domiated his competition for years , Yates was the only one who came close , Ronnie only scored 2 straight firsts and had 4 closer calls probably the closest in the Olympia history , so this is why I can say with confidence that Haney is greater than Coleman . hows that for evidence?? ;)
-
On paper Coleman has the most wins and will have the most Olympia wins , however , compare the eight Olympia wins , Haney face stiffer competition and he had only one win that could be considered controversial at that was in 1990 , Coleman has had 3 very close calls 98 he won by 3 points , 01 he won by 4 points , and in 04 he won by just 3 points , and in 02 he won by 9 point to ' defeat ' Levrone , he only won 2 of his 8 titles with straight firsts , Haney got straight first in all of win with straight firsts with the exception of losing the musculairty round to Yates , Ronnie in his first Olympia placed dead last , Haney third place , it took Ronnie 6 more trys to win and it took Haney one more , Haney defeated a current Mr Olympia to take his title , a feat that hadn't happened since Arnold besting Sergio in 1970 !! , Haney never finished lower than third in a Pro contest , Ronnie was a 3rd teir bodybuilder for years until he got his act together and Haney was a winner right out of the box , Haney domiated his competition for years , Yates was the only one who came close , Ronnie only scored 2 straight firsts and had 4 closer calls probably the closest in the Olympia history , so this is why I can say with confidence that Haney is greater than Coleman . hows that for evidence?? ;)
Yawn. How narrow is your vision, using competitive records as the only means of juding a bber. By your reasoning , yates is a greater bber than arnold?
Absurd
-
Yawn. How narrow is your vision, using competitive records as the only means of juding a bber. By your reasoning , yates is a greater bber than arnold?
Absurd
yeah I thought so ;) just based on that criteria alone Haney is the better of the two , although its extremely hard to compared bodybuilders from two eras , but I personally feel that Haney is the better bodybuilder than both Coleman & Yates , and there is no other bodybuilder greater than Arnold , except maybe Steve Reeves .
-
and there is no other bodybuilder greater than Arnold , except maybe Steve Reeves .
???
-
Question for ND:
If Coleman had stayed "pre-gut" and still progressed through his career normally as he has to this point, would he still "not be considered as great as haney"??
-
Hulkster, give it up. You and ND will never see eye to eye. I agree with ND about Haney, but disagree about Yates. The only aesthetic feature on Yates was his back. He had average arms, delts, thighs and overall symmetry. His back was phenomenal, but the only other bodypart that was even world class was his calves (incredible) and chest to some extent. Haney had him crushed in the upper body, and also beats the new Coleman. Coleman in 2001 was pretty amazing, but we will never see a at best Haney vs Yates vs Coleman so it is really a moot point.
-
Hulkster, give it up. You and ND will never see eye to eye. I agree with ND about Haney, but disagree about Yates. The only aesthetic feature on Yates was his back. He had average arms, delts, thighs and overall symmetry. His back was phenomenal, but the only other bodypart that was even world class was his calves (incredible) and chest to some extent. Haney had him crushed in the upper body, and also beats the new Coleman. Coleman in 2001 was pretty amazing, but we will never see a at best Haney vs Yates vs Coleman so it is really a moot point.
84 Haney vs. 93 Yates vs. 99 Coleman
-
Yates' arms aren't pathetic , excellent triceps and forearms
Not. His tris were cut but lacked size-guys like him always resort to side shots that mask that deficiency. Upper arms were mediocre, just like Ron's calves, which is far less important.
Haney face stiffer competition and he had only one win that could be considered controversial at that was in 1990
This is minutiae-bottom line Haney was always seriously flawed, torso was too big for the rest of him, like Yates. Really desperate, resorting to Olympia trivia.
Neither Yates nor Haney had the balance or size to be superstars. Not quite special enough.
-
On paper Coleman has the most wins and will have the most Olympia wins , however , compare the eight Olympia wins , Haney face stiffer competition and he had only one win that could be considered controversial at that was in 1990 , Coleman has had 3 very close calls 98 he won by 3 points , 01 he won by 4 points , and in 04 he won by just 3 points , and in 02 he won by 9 point to ' defeat ' Levrone , he only won 2 of his 8 titles with straight firsts , Haney got straight first in all of win with straight firsts with the exception of losing the musculairty round to Yates , Ronnie in his first Olympia placed dead last , Haney third place , it took Ronnie 6 more trys to win and it took Haney one more , Haney defeated a current Mr Olympia to take his title , a feat that hadn't happened since Arnold besting Sergio in 1970 !! , Haney never finished lower than third in a Pro contest , Ronnie was a 3rd teir bodybuilder for years until he got his act together and Haney was a winner right out of the box , Haney domiated his competition for years , Yates was the only one who came close , Ronnie only scored 2 straight firsts and had 4 closer calls probably the closest in the Olympia history , so this is why I can say with confidence that Haney is greater than Coleman . hows that for evidence?? ;)
Using the scores from the contests to show that Coleman was not as good as Yates really doesn't work. Why? Because neither Yates nor Haney nor Coleman has ever deserved a straight firsts victory. All have competed against guys with better symmetry. The fact that the judges decided to be more reasonable when judging Coleman should not reflect more poorly on him. That is why we are trying to judge physiques only. In my opinion, Coleman going from 15th to 1st makes him an even better competitor than Yates and Haney.
-
Except it's been the same judges judging those same three.
There goes your lame ass argument out the window ::)
-
Except it's been the same judges judging those same three.
There goes your lame ass argument out the window ::)
The argument doesn't go out the window. They judged more reasonably when they stopped pretending that all Mr. Olympias should be winning with straight firsts all the time. Unless you really think Dorian and Haney were the most symmetrical of their day ::)
-
The argument doesn't go out the window. They judged more reasonably when they stopped pretending that all Mr. Olympias should be winning with straight firsts all the time. Unless you really think Dorian and Haney were the most symmetrical of their day ::)
yeah, you are a moron.
-
yeah, you are a moron.
Great argument, Albert Einstein, thanks for your contributions to the Manhattan Project ::)
-
basically, you are trying to tell me that the judges changed the way they judged. This is what accounts for the fact that Coleman's wins are not as impressive as Haney or Yates.
What I say is: how do you have any fucking clue how the judges judged? You are just making up this bullshit to pad your argument.
-
basically, you are trying to tell me that the judges changed the way they judged. This is what accounts for the fact that Coleman's wins are not as impressive as Haney or Yates.
What I say is: how do you have any fucking clue how the judges judged? You are just making up this bullshit to pad your argument.
I can tell how they judged by looking at physiques. Dorian did not deserve to win the symmetry round. At least once, Ronnie didn't actually win the symmetry round. The judges actually were being more reasonable. I think it is rare that a contestant deserves straight firsts, so if they stop giving those, they are being more reasonable.
-
That argument is not valid. It doesn't matter what you saw or thought, it was the judges.
And according to Shawn Ray, the judges never changed one bit.
-
That argument is not valid. It doesn't matter what you saw or thought, it was the judges.
And according to Shawn Ray, the judges never changed one bit.
The argument is valid. The judges used to give straight firsts to people that didn't deserve it. The judges reduced the frequency at which they did this, and the athletes not getting the straight firsts are still undeserving. The judges actually have placed Shawn Ray from 2-13th.
-
Give me first hand proof from a mouth of a judge that they did indeed change their judging critereon.
-
the other thing to keep in mind is that in some cases a "perfect score" is nothing more than a normalized number value to the winner.
In other words, the judges will often give the obvious winner a score of 5, the second place winner a score of 10 and the third place winner a score of 15 IN EVERY ROUND. There have been several olympia score sheets that have been like this over the years.
Then, the lower placed competitors get scores that are not normalized, so that they are more like a score of 23, 34, 76 etc etc.
So you CANNOT use scoring by itsef as a way of basing dominance.
You have to look at the relationship of the winner's physique to the competition.
and, to use the example, in 2004 Ronnie was still ahead by a wide margin overall. The ab and thigh shot against Dexter is only ONE POSE. I'd like to see dexter in any OTHER pose against Ronnie and see how he would look.
In 1994, Dorian was certainly not ahead at all, and in the opinion of many inside the industry (eg. musclemag international) should not have won.
but again, unlike ND, I base my assesments on the actual phyiques in question.
I don't have to resort to quotes and numbers to prove my arguments. It radiates desperation.
-
the other thing to keep in mind is that in some cases a "perfect score" is nothing more than a normalized number value to the winner.
In other words, the judges will often give the obvious winner a score of 5, the second place winner a score of 10 and the third place winner a score of 15 IN EVERY ROUND. There have been several olympia score sheets that have been like this over the years.
Then, the lower placed competitors get scores that are not normalized, so that they are more like a score of 23, 34, 76 etc etc.
So you CANNOT use scoring by itsef as a way of basing dominance.
You have to look at the relationship of the winner's physique to the competition.
and, to use the example, in 2004 Ronnie was still ahead by a wide margin overall. The ab and thigh shot against Dexter is only ONE POSE. I'd like to see dexter in any OTHER pose against Ronnie and see how he would look.
In 1994, Dorian was certainly not ahead at all, and in the opinion of many inside the industry (eg. musclemag international) should not have won.
but again, unlike ND, I base my assesments on the actual phyiques in question.
I don't have to resort to quotes and numbers to prove my arguments. It radiates desperation.
Then why is it that you keep posting that stupid relaxed picture of Dorian in 1994, AFTER THE CONTEST IS OVER. How is that any different from posting those pictures of Ronnie in the pump up room in 2003?
-
Give me first hand proof from a mouth of a judge that they did indeed change their judging critereon.
You are not listening at all. The judges gave Dorian straight firsts when he didn't deserve it and they are now doing this less, when the circumstances are the same. Do you get it? It is like watching a basketball game and seeing a foul and the ref calls it. Then later, a similar action happens and the ref does not call a foul. Do you get it?
-
You are making the most idiotic argument ever :o
You can't just say that he didn't deserve it. You aren't a judge, you weren't there, etc. How can you say that he deserved it? Conversely, how can you say that Ronnie did or didn't deserve straight firsts. You just look at a few pictures???
That's hardly valid. Nobody writes a scientifc journal saying I believe this, I believe that. They back up their argument with statistics and first hand evidence.
Well, we have the evidence here. The same judges judged Haney, Yates, and Coleman. Both Haney and Yates have more straight firsts that Coleman. End of Story.
/argument
-
the other thing to keep in mind is that in some cases a "perfect score" is nothing more than a normalized number value to the winner.
In other words, the judges will often give the obvious winner a score of 5, the second place winner a score of 10 and the third place winner a score of 15 IN EVERY ROUND. There have been several olympia score sheets that have been like this over the years.
Then, the lower placed competitors get scores that are not normalized, so that they are more like a score of 23, 34, 76 etc etc.
So you CANNOT use scoring by itsef as a way of basing dominance.
You have to look at the relationship of the winner's physique to the competition.
and, to use the example, in 2004 Ronnie was still ahead by a wide margin overall. The ab and thigh shot against Dexter is only ONE POSE. I'd like to see dexter in any OTHER pose against Ronnie and see how he would look.
In 1994, Dorian was certainly not ahead at all, and in the opinion of many inside the industry (eg. musclemag international) should not have won.
but again, unlike ND, I base my assesments on the actual phyiques in question.
I don't have to resort to quotes and numbers to prove my arguments. It radiates desperation.
Whats funny is you can't resort to quotes & numbers to prove your argument , because you have nothing , okay you may find a writer that says Yates shouldn't have won in 94 and I can find you 5 that says he should , whats ironic is the stats don't work in your favor so you don't like them , boo-hoo , if they did work for your lame argument , you'd be spewing them left & right , bottom line , both Haney & Yates were heavy contenders right out the bat , both never placed below 3rd & 2nd respectively in a contest , both won the Olympia on their 2nd try , both have greater win percentages , both faced much better competition , both domiated on the score cards their competition , 99% of both their wins were with almost perfect scores , now you may disagree with these facts , but they are still facts that you can't change , no matter how bad you try , out of 8 Olympia wins for Coleman , just 2 of those wins were with perfect scores , out of the other 6 , 3 were very close calls by 3 points only , and on one ocassion it was by 4 points , etc , so keep bitching , about the facts , but it doesn't change them .
-
Whats funny is you can't resort to quotes & numbers to prove your argument , because you have nothing , okay you may find a writer that says Yates shouldn't have won in 94 and I can find you 5 that says he should , whats ironic is the stats don't work in your favor so you don't like them , boo-hoo , if they did work for your lame argument , you'd be spewing them left & right , bottom line , both Haney & Yates were heavy contenders right out the bat , both never placed below 3rd & 2nd respectively in a contest , both won the Olympia on their 2nd try , both have greater win percentages , both faced much better competition , both domiated on the score cards their competition , 99% of both their wins were with almost perfect scores , now you may disagree with these facts , but they are still facts that you can't change , no matter how bad you try , out of 8 Olympia wins for Coleman , just 2 of those wins were with perfect scores , out of the other 6 , 3 were very close calls by 3 points only , and on one ocassion it was by 4 points , etc , so keep bitching , about the facts , but it doesn't change them .
OWNED :o 8)
-
That first picture of Coleman in this thread is one of the best I've ever seen of him, excellent. I guess this picture was taken around 1997? Here's what I don't understand:
The 1997 Coleman lost to the 1997 Yates, quite decisevely. It is quite likely that the 2003 Coleman would defeat the 1993, 1995, 1997 or whatever reincarnation of Yates. So this would mean that by bodybuilding standards the 2003 Coleman is way better than the 1997 version. Something I, and I think many others with me, completely disagree with. I think it shows how futile these discussions of Coleman vs Yates are, because obviously the judges have standards of their own.
-
That first picture of Coleman in this thread is one of the best I've ever seen of him, excellent. I guess this picture was taken around 1997? Here's what I don't understand:
The 1997 Coleman lost to the 1997 Yates, quite decisevely. It is quite likely that the 2003 Coleman would defeat the 1993, 1995, 1997 or whatever reincarnation of Yates. So this would mean that by bodybuilding standards the 2003 Coleman is way better than the 1997 version. Something I, and I think many others with me, completely disagree with. I think it shows how futile these discussions of Coleman vs Yates are, because obviously the judges have standards of their own.
I've always said that Ronnie was at his best in 96-97, not according to the judges, but according to my eye.
-
(http://www.martonaron.hu/~prog/Ronnie%20Dean%20Colemann/974181897.jpg)
-
this is just rediculous :o
(http://www.bk-sportsmag.se/webblogg/bilder/ronnie_coleman.jpg)
-
From that greatness to this sack of shit...how they let him win this one I don't know ???
(http://www.powerstar.de/gallery/mr_o/images/top6dblbi.jpg)
-
Ronnie never said one word in 96 and 97 when he was getting screwed. His conditioning, in the back, wasn't quite up to Yates' level, but how did he place 4 spots behind Ray here ???
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/96%20olympia/32.jpg)
-
Ronnie never said one word in 96 and 97 when he was getting screwed. His conditioning, in the back, wasn't quite up to Yates' level, but how did he place 4 spots behind Ray here ???
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/96%20olympia/32.jpg)
Insane taper.
-
nobody used to root for Ronnie as much as me. I remember seeing his pics when he placed in the top 5 at his first nationals and I said that guy is gonna be great. When he placed near the bottom at the 91 Chicago-I think he that was his first pro show but I'm going off memory so I could be wrong-and the 91 NOC I still said he's gonna rip it up if he gets his shit together. 91 Olympia I remember pics of him standing in the background and thinking he's gonna be great and if he ever decides to do roids he's gonna crush everyone. When Ronnie started winning shows I was like-yes, he finally did it. 96 Toronto, I could not believe it..he beat Flex and I still think he could have won the 96 NOC. 97 I thought he was aswome, front lat spread from the NOC that year was great, still one of the only pics I ever cut out and put on my wall. 1st olympia win, I was all for it but since then I really can't wait to see him loose. He's not what he used to be. Ronnie is actually everything he used to say he didn't want to be. He used to say he'd rather look like he did than some 300lbs monster with no taper..it's kinda sad. He's arrogant, at least he comes across that way in the mags. Dorian never seemed to change when he was winning, same attitude all the time. yeah it's great that ronnie got up to almost 300lbs and was ripped a couple of years ago but what did that do for the sport? Nothing. Thanks to ronnie we've got a bunch of bloated gut no detail having pro's dominating the sport. Ronnie just looked like a drugged up water logged pro, his back isn't even as good as it used to be. He gets so pissed when he looses, not gracious at all. Did you see the look on his face when he lost the challenge round? that's a true champ right there. Did you read any of his comments after Gunter beat him..true class there.
Bottom line Ronnie was the best bodybuilder on the planet...key word "was" now he's just living off his name.
-
One of his best pics
-
that pic in 96 97 ronnie looks great in that shot. def. the better of the 3. if the greatest is considered by # of wins then ronnie is tied with the greatest and 1 more will make him the greatest over haney, if # of wins is considered. now if personal favs or popular opinions determine the greatest then thats a totaly dif. story. the oaks gotta be up there, along with the myth and early ronnie prob up there too. as to the debate of dorian v ronnie, thats personal preference but what would you rather have, monster calves or monster bi's? dorian good if u like the dry grainy look ala branch warren, personally i don't i like shredded ronnie, darreem, dex types better. personal preference, i don't go for the grainy dry look.
-
You are making the most idiotic argument ever :o
You can't just say that he didn't deserve it. You aren't a judge, you weren't there, etc. How can you say that he deserved it? Conversely, how can you say that Ronnie did or didn't deserve straight firsts. You just look at a few pictures???
That's hardly valid. Nobody writes a scientifc journal saying I believe this, I believe that. They back up their argument with statistics and first hand evidence.
Well, we have the evidence here. The same judges judged Haney, Yates, and Coleman. Both Haney and Yates have more straight firsts that Coleman. End of Story.
/argument
Evidence? Hahahaha...it's a bodybuilding contest. I looked at the pictures and determined that Dorian competed with more symmetrical bodybuilders and still won the symmetry round. Do you dispute that? This is not science, it is art.
-
Whats funny is you can't resort to quotes & numbers to prove your argument , because you have nothing , okay you may find a writer that says Yates shouldn't have won in 94 and I can find you 5 that says he should , whats ironic is the stats don't work in your favor so you don't like them , boo-hoo , if they did work for your lame argument , you'd be spewing them left & right , bottom line , both Haney & Yates were heavy contenders right out the bat , both never placed below 3rd & 2nd respectively in a contest , both won the Olympia on their 2nd try , both have greater win percentages , both faced much better competition , both domiated on the score cards their competition , 99% of both their wins were with almost perfect scores , now you may disagree with these facts , but they are still facts that you can't change , no matter how bad you try , out of 8 Olympia wins for Coleman , just 2 of those wins were with perfect scores , out of the other 6 , 3 were very close calls by 3 points only , and on one ocassion it was by 4 points , etc , so keep bitching , about the facts , but it doesn't change them .
It doesn't matter if that they had perfect scores because they were not the most symmetrical (particularly Dorian) and they won the symmetry round anyway. So the judging is/was obviously pretty ridiculous.
-
Ronnie never said one word in 96 and 97 when he was getting screwed. His conditioning, in the back, wasn't quite up to Yates' level, but how did he place 4 spots behind Ray here ???
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/96%20olympia/32.jpg)
This is what I am saying. All we can do is look at pictures and make judgments. Bodybuilding is the rare sport where the judges don't know any more than the average longtime fan.
-
ronnie looks like a phenom in that pic. whatever show that is he should have won. looks great there. :o
-
It doesn't matter if that they had perfect scores because they were not the most symmetrical (particularly Dorian) and they won the symmetry round anyway. So the judging is/was obviously pretty ridiculous.
well in a perfect world an in shape Bob Paris would win everything..no can touch him in terms of symmetry so he'd win that round, he was a great poser so he could win that round and the posedown is up in the air...I don't understand how Dorian or even Ronnie today can win a show...
-
well in a perfect world an in shape Bob Paris would win everything..no can touch him in terms of symmetry so he'd win that round, he was a great poser so he could win that round and the posedown is up in the air...I don't understand how Dorian or even Ronnie today can win a show...
I understand how they win the posedown and posing round IF the physique is all that is being judged, BUT neither Ronnie nor Dorian is the most aesthetic. If someone else wins the symmetry round, which is what should happen, shouldn't they both be able to claim that they have quality physiques, and therefore either one could win the posing and posedown rounds?
-
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc5.jpg)
for all the Colemaniacs out there 8)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/yates/dy204.jpg)
feel the biceps!!
Dorian who? ;D
notice hulkster cut off captain corndog legs at the knees in the pic above.....
::)
-
notice hulkster cut off captain corndog legs at the knees in the pic above.....
::)
Ronnie's calves are bigger than yours ::)
-
Ronnie's calves are bigger than yours ::)
At 300lbs they better be ;) and its not how big they are irs how developed they are and how well they size up with his quads and he fails on both those accounts .
-
actually, I didn't "cut off" the pic - thats the way I found the pic. It was perfect as is :)
-
actually, I didn't "cut off" the pic - thats the way I found the pic. It was perfect as is :)
I agree it is perfect...nobody wants to see shitty calves....
8)
-
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/96%20olympia/32.jpg)
its funny how some bodybuilders are given success right from the get go and handed the wins on a silver platter (eg. yates didn't have to pay any dues) yet others like Ronnie (who obviously should have been placing a lot better than he was in 96/97) have to "do the time" before they get their deserving rewards.
politics have no place in judging physiques.
-
kevin was another one who pretty much "debuted" placing second at the 91 O., Flex did well right off the bat, but others, like Ronnie, Chris Cormier, and others really had to fight tooth and nail to get the judges to recognize their greatness.
I am sure there are others besides Ronnie and Chris, but those are two obvious examples.
-
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/dungeon1986/96%20olympia/32.jpg)
its funny how some bodybuilders are given success right from the get go and handed the wins on a silver platter (eg. yates didn't have to pay any dues) yet others like Ronnie (who obviously should have been placing a lot better than he was in 96/97) have to "do the time" before they get their deserving rewards.
politics have no place in judging physiques.
Get Ronnie's dick out of your mouth please ::) Ronnie had potential, but even just watch the '95 olympia, he was really not a threat at all becuase he wasn't conditioned well (not even close to yates), and I agree he took it up a notch 96-97, but he still wasn't conditioned as well.
Yates didn't pay his dues? Yates waited 3 years before even doing a pro show becuase he wanted to make sure he could win right off the bat.
-
Get Ronnie's dick out of your mouth please ::) Ronnie had potential, but even just watch the '95 olympia, he was really not a threat at all becuase he wasn't conditioned well (not even close to yates), and I agree he took it up a notch 96-97, but he still wasn't conditioned as well.
Yates didn't pay his dues? Yates waited 3 years before even doing a pro show becuase he wanted to make sure he could win right off the bat.
If you love Dorian so much, why don't you marry him ::)