Author Topic: Haney, Yates, Coleman, Cutler..... (Read 45461 times)

Cap · « **on:** January 23, 2007, 01:37:53 PM »

best back? Pick one.

All things considered I'm going with Yates.

AVBG · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2007, 01:51:17 PM »

Haney

ribonucleic · « **Reply #2 on:** January 23, 2007, 01:56:02 PM »

Come on. I think Ronnie is a dick - but no one else has even come close.

Jr. Yates · « **Reply #3 on:** January 23, 2007, 01:56:47 PM »

Quote from: cap86 on January 23, 2007, 01:37:53 PM

best back? Pick one.

All things considered I'm going with Yates.

coleman.

D_1000 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:01:01 PM »

Yates.

Shockwave · « **Reply #5 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:04:04 PM »

Quote from: D_1000 on January 23, 2007, 02:01:01 PM

Yates.

Morphed.
The original shot is impressive enough.

figgs · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:05:01 PM »

Here we go again. Oh well...

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:08:19 PM »

Dorian has everything everyone else does and then some.

pobrecito · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:08:48 PM »

Yates

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:10:58 PM »

Neither Cutler , Coleman or Haney had shredded lower lats and a x-mass three like this

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:13:47 PM »

Ronnie at his best

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:18:12 PM »

Haney

Necrosis · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:03:41 PM »

my perferance is ronnies back. he has so much more thickness and taper then all the other guys.

Man of Steel · « **Reply #13 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:08:28 PM »

I gotta go with Yates, but Ronnie is close, close 2nd.

pobrecito · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:09:07 PM »

Quote from: usmokepole on January 23, 2007, 03:03:41 PM

my perferance is ronnies back. he has so much more thickness and taper then all the other guys.

Ronnie's back was simply puffed up with more water than Yates' back. Yates back was harder, more separated, more detailed, and thicker than Coleman's. Nobody had thicker lats than Yates.

pobrecito · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:09:59 PM »

Quote from: D_1000 on January 23, 2007, 02:01:01 PM

Yates.

This is the real picture. Impressive as hell IMO.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:30:02 PM »

Yates 1995

ribonucleic · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:30:44 PM »

Some defense could be mounted of the Yates back viewed solely as a bodypart - which I guess was the original poster's question. But if you do a side by side of the back double biceps pose, it's all over.

"Lights out!" as the Chickster likes to say.

Necrosis · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:41:20 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on January 23, 2007, 03:30:02 PM

Yates 1995

his back is dryer for sure, but it has zero taper and looks flat as a pancake. yates lats were not thicker then ronnies.

look at ronnies lats folding over, yates lats were never that thick, nor his middle back. dryer yes. more detailed, probably. ronnies back is definitetly bigger and thicker and wider. and his taper is miles better. back alone it can be argued. but ronnie easily wins the back double bi on account that you have to take the arms, delts, glutes, hams and calves into account. if back is a draw based on preference, then all ronnie loses on is calves.

yates back was not as thick as 03 ronnie and not even close to 04 holland grad prix ronnie.

pobrecito · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:44:22 PM »

Quote from: usmokepole on January 23, 2007, 03:41:20 PM

his back is dryer for sure, but it has zero taper and looks flat as a pancake. yates lats were not thicker then ronnies.

look at ronnies lats folding over, yates lats were never that thick, nor his middle back. dryer yes. more detailed, probably. ronnies back is definitetly bigger and thicker and wider. and his taper is miles better. back alone it can be argued. but ronnie easily wins the back double bi on account that you have to take the arms, delts, glutes, hams and calves into account. if back is a draw based on preference, then all ronnie loses on is calves.

yates back was not as thick as 03 ronnie and not even close to 04 holland grad prix ronnie.

That's becuase Ronnie's back was full of water...it was soft and puffy as shit. And nobody has had thicker lats than Dorian

Necrosis · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:50:21 PM »

in that first pic i see, flat as a pancake back with zero taper. ripped to shreds and dry. shitty arms with biceps non-exsistent, less then stellar hams and great calves. glutes could also be harder and more striated. second pic is a stupid pic that is blown up and on a weird angle.

thrid pic is amazing lats, that are super thick. poor arms and delts with little detail and seperation. chest that is lacking in striations in the pick and good taper.

i think yates flexed and spread his back more in the front lat, while ronnie contracted his chest and delts.

im not a coleman guy, i can see that yates had a great back, but that is my honest opinion of the picks you posted. its really preference bt the two. i like the thickness and crazy taper ronnie has with great detail, over the dry, hard yates with great detail.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:57:18 PM »

Quote from: usmokepole on January 23, 2007, 03:50:21 PM

in that first pic i see, flat as a pancake back with zero taper. ripped to shreds and dry. shitty arms with biceps non-exsistent, less then stellar hams and great calves. glutes could also be harder and more striated. second pic is a stupid pic that is blown up and on a weird angle.

thrid pic is amazing lats, that are super thick. poor arms and delts with little detail and seperation. chest that is lacking in striations in the pick and good taper.

i think yates flexed and spread his back more in the front lat, while ronnie contracted his chest and delts.

im not a coleman guy, i can see that yates had a great back, but that is my honest opinion of the picks you posted. its really preference bt the two. i like the thickness and crazy taper ronnie has with great detail, over the dry, hard yates with great detail.

meltdown

Cap · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2007, 03:59:22 PM »

I would rather have a "drier" back than a puffy one. ANd honestly, why are glutes so important? I mean honestly, only Thordilvsen and Coleman really have them. It's really pointless IMO. Just my preference.

Like Kamali said: "LIGHTS OUT BABY!!!"

Jr. Yates · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2007, 04:01:50 PM »

If the best Dorian was hitting a rear double bi against the best Ronnie, Dorian would lose.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2007, 04:02:39 PM »

Quote from: Jr. Yates on January 23, 2007, 04:01:50 PM

If the best Dorian was hitting a rear double bi against the best Ronnie, Dorian would lose.

Sure he would

Author Topic: Haney, Yates, Coleman, Cutler..... (Read 45461 times)

AVBG