Cool Black and White Ronnie pic

[wildman536]

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.


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!!

[NarcissisticDeity]

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??  

[sculpture]

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

[NarcissisticDeity]

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 .

[Hulkster]

and there is no other bodybuilder greater than Arnold , except maybe Steve Reeves .

 

[Hulkster]

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"??

[nicorulez]

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. 

[GMCtrk]

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

[pumpster]

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.

[LuciusFox]

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.

[GMCtrk]

Except it's been the same judges judging those same three.

There goes your lame ass argument out the window

[LuciusFox]

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 

[GMCtrk]

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.

[LuciusFox]

yeah, you are a moron.

 Great argument, Albert Einstein, thanks for your contributions to the Manhattan Project 

[GMCtrk]

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.

[LuciusFox]

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.

[GMCtrk]

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.

[LuciusFox]

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.

[GMCtrk]

Give me first hand proof from a mouth of a judge that they did indeed change their judging critereon.

[Hulkster]

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.

[GMCtrk]

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?

[LuciusFox]

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?

[GMCtrk]

You are making the most idiotic argument ever

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

[NarcissisticDeity]

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 .

[GMCtrk]

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