Ronnie or Dorian? Who has the freakiest back?

**Gene** · 07-31-2002, 01:04 PM

Ronnie's nutritionists better get his diet right this time.. I didn't like his conditioning in 2001... I rather see him get deserved wins, because he is definately pushing some freak barriers.

Did anyone see video of dorian pose in his first Mr. O? very thick and tight.

Who has the best back? Ronnie of course... I dont think this is much of a contest if you look close.

gh? heh... maybe they experimented just a tad bit

I'm guessing they each took about 10 times what the average gh user takes. Heck, I can't wait to see a 6', 400+lb freak on the mr. olympia stage one day...

**tt333** · 08-01-2002, 02:17 AM

Ronnie

**RICKY1979** · 08-01-2002, 10:46 PM

LEE HANEY BEATS BOTH OF THEM!!!

**retired** · 08-02-2002, 12:21 PM

Lee Haney had the best back until Dorian came along. It's funny, but Haney is almost never mentioned these days, even though he won eight Olympias in a row and dominated bodybuilding for the better part of a decade.

In the current issue of Flex, Samir Banout (no slouch in the back department) rated Ronnie as having the SECOND best back- after Dorian- in the history of the sport. I have to agree with him...

**retired** · 02-16-2003, 10:37 PM

found some more... I gotta keep this thread alive, tomorrow is back day

**retired** · 02-16-2003, 10:50 PM

another

**Decoder** · 02-16-2003, 10:58 PM

I dont give a shit for either of them! fucking HGH junkies. 70's was the only era of bodybuilders i respect.

**OoDee** · 02-17-2003, 04:48 AM

This may go slightly off topic but what was so special about Dorian that made him win the olympia so many times? I´ve never liked him even as much as Ronnie (I can see why Ronnie has won the olympia tho I don´t really his looks). To me Dorian has never looked anything more than an average bodybuilder. Sure he´s big but that alone doesn´t equal to one of the greatest bodybuilders. So I was just wondering... what made him what he is?

OoDee

**retired** · 02-17-2003, 12:01 PM

OoDee, and you kidding me?

If the photographic evidence has not convinced you, then nothing that I say will change your mind. To each his own...

**OoDee** · 02-17-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by gordero
OoDee, and you kidding me?

If the photographic evidence has not convinced you, then nothing that I say will change your mind. To each his own...

Yeah... I guess. To me Dorian just never looked anything THAT special... definately above the average but not Mr.Olympia...

OoDee

**Steele** · 02-17-2003, 02:31 PM

yates is dry but ronnie beats him with width and incredible back mass.

**retired** · 02-17-2003, 04:48 PM

I still think that if you got out the measuring tape, Dorian would have significantly larger dimensions that Coleman- at least as far as back is concerned. Coleman has bigger arms and some CRAZY-ASS quads- unbelievably thick in the offseason- but Dorian's back is wider, thicker, and more detailed.

Coleman has the freaky waist, even when it is bloated, that magnifies his monstrous width even more. From the back, the greater disparity between lat width and waist size makes Ronnie look even wider than he is, IMO.

I wish that someone would scan some pics of the top six doing the mandatory poses from the 1994 Olympia. Even though Dorian was off slightly due to injury, the shots from the back, where he is compared to Levrone et al- show just how monstrous he was at his best.

**THEO_HUXTABLE** · 02-17-2003, 09:54 PM

ronnie blows dorians away, he has far superior genetics and a back that is just insane, dorian has good density and hardness to his back but over all mass and width goes to ronnie. i mean just watch dorians "blood and guts" video and watch ronnies " the unbelievable" and see which one is more impressive.

**retired** · 02-17-2003, 10:03 PM

Which one is more impressive? Blood and Guts by far. Watch Dorian's execution versus Ronnie's "heave and ho" approach. Coleman's style obviously works for him, but anyone else would be crippled after a couple of months. On the other hand, every rep that Dorian does is deliberate and slow- THAT is impressive, given the weights that he is using.

**hartyman** · 02-18-2003, 05:56 PM

tyjkjl

**harl** · 02-18-2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by mando
but i guess its not fair to compare them ....... as each was and is a great champ in their time

well said...sorry for the quality pic of a pic.

**harl** · 02-18-2003, 06:47 PM

another off season

**retired** · 02-18-2003, 10:15 PM

great pics, harl! If memory serves, those are pics of Yates from Flex magazine circa 1993 in which he weighs 290lbs. Awesome!

**Random** · 02-18-2003, 11:07 PM

sorry guys Coleman is invincible. end of story.

**retired** · 02-19-2003, 10:51 AM

tell that to Gunter. Dorian remained undefeated after he won his first Olympia, and he defended his title on the post-Olympia European circuit with strange judges.

chinups · 02-19-2003, 11:40 AM

I think those guys are borderline retarted looking in some pics.....

**incrediblemass** · 02-22-2003, 06:01 AM

I think dorian didn't use synthol like nowadays pros do.

**BigDude** · 02-23-2003, 01:21 AM

I don't know what you think, but Coleman seems better to me.. still. Some people say coleman's back is not that big, it just appears big thanks to his narrow waist. Well, I placed the guys on top of each other in Photoshop, and Coleman's back seems an inch wider on both sides, in other words his back is two inches wider. Add a smaller waistline to equation, and this is the result. So, it's not just proportions.. it's proportions AND size.

**BigDude** · 02-23-2003, 01:23 AM

Oh yeah, Coleman's arms look more impressive from the back.. 2 inches bigger or so. And they actually ARE 2 inches bigger (or should I say were, unfortunately they seem to shrink each year)

**retired** · 02-23-2003, 09:15 PM

Coleman's arms are definitely bigger, but in the first comparison- where they are standing "relaxed"- Dorian's back looks much thicker and more detailed.

Also, keep in the mind that the pic of Dorian is backstage at the Olympia (in other words, at his driest and most depleted), whereas Coleman's pic appears to have been taken elsewhere.

The lat spread shots don't appear to be of the same scale- Ronnie looks closer to the camera in his pic, IMO.

**retired** · 02-23-2003, 09:16 PM

..but hey- thanks for the comparison shots, Big Dude! They are awesome!

**BigDude** · 02-24-2003, 12:30 AM

Dorian's back may seem a bit thicker depth wise, but Ronnie's is wider for sure. The second shot is hard to comapre too, but I actually think Dorian is closer the the camera, because it's a studio shot taken indoors, while Ronnies picture is a contest shot, taken in a huge hall, wherever the contest was held. Dorian's traps seem deeper, but other than that, I think it goes to Ronnie.

So, maybe the next question is, who's going to surpass these gentlemen and when? No one saw Ronnie coming, and suddenly he was Mr. O. but he was already a mega freak before that. Now, who can be the next one? I don't see anyone at the moment, unfortunately. If no one steps up, whoever wins the title thanks to Ronnie being old, could be a very underrated Mr. O because he probably didn't take the sport to a new level I hope I'm wrong.

**retired** · 02-25-2003, 01:07 AM

BD, you raise an excellent point. It's hard to imagine anyone taking the sport to the next level, although someone like Cutler might take the same level of muscular size and add a new degree of polish.

In the meantime, here's another pic while we're waiting...

**Matteusinho** · 05-25-2003, 04:58 PM

The 3 B's

1: coleman
2: yates
3: columbo

franco was a damn super freak

**OVG** · 05-26-2003, 02:26 AM

I read an interview with Dorian, he said he could not beat Ronnie today because Ronnie is to freaky. I believe he said that if he did he would want to use his physique circa 1993. He really didn't go into whos back was bigger or not. But since Dorian is my hero and inspiration... I would definetly say his back is better. In his relaxed pic above he just looks so massive. I could only dream of looking like that some day. If anybody wants to see that article I believe its in flex from not to long ago. I will have to go look for it.

**retired** · 05-26-2003, 12:49 PM

OVG, the funny thing is that Coleman said that HE could never beat Dorian in an interview that he gave after winning his first couple of titles.

What this tells me is that both men have class, and are secure enough in their respective greatness to show humility.

Dorian's physique was very misleading in clothes. He would pull his shoulders back, pinching his scapula together and making himself look narrow. That was just the way he stood- I don't think it was deliberate. When he allowed his scapula to s-p-r-e-a-d, then it was 747 time!

**ZachG_85** · 05-26-2003, 03:02 PM

I've always wondered why there are two shots of Ronnie with an unbelievable lat spread, but no more. I've never actually seen Ronnie hit that pose.

Regardless, look how much further Yates' lats go beyond his shoulders. It's not just pure width, it's development. Otherwise a guy could have a huge structure but a wider back. Moreover, Dorian is obviously infinitely thicker. Look at the two spreads, it's not even a contest. That quad-picture up there proves that Dorian dominates, far and away. Especially that first one, yoiks.

**Domestic** · 05-29-2003, 12:12 AM

thats f*cked up how they have no fat on their ass. each cheek looks like a half moon & their legs are big as tree trucks. who in the hell would want to look like that?

**kristian** · 06-02-2003, 04:16 PM

Well I don't know how to put this...

Ronnie might be bigger but for some reason his overall physique doesn't look as impressive as Dorian's. Maybe it's Synthol, maybe GH I don't know but in some pictures Ronnie looks like he's made of inflatable plastic.

For me, Dorian Yates will always be the best bodybuilder. Just look how impressive and thick this guy was in his prime:

**markas214** · 06-02-2003, 10:06 PM

Coleman for pure freak size. They're so massive,His lats hang. The first pics it looks like Dorian is pumped and Coleman's back is cold.

**nickrizz** · 07-07-2003, 09:55 PM

It depends on what look you like. If you like freaky big it is definately Ronnie, but if you like old fashoned mass it is dorian

**sd11** · 07-07-2003, 11:17 PM

Why is it that on every single board this Dorian vs Ronnie back debate pops up. When you paste pictures and waste all this time comparing them via these photos then all you're showing is that you lack a lot of knowledge when it comes to this sport. These are 2 dimensional pics, nothing like real life, not to mention that each pic has different lighting. The only way to compare two bodybuilders is to see them live on stage next to one another. They are no doubt the two greatest bodybuilders of all time and I have seen both on stage. Ronnie is the greatest Mr. O of all time and will win every year until he retires, no one can touch him!

**ZachG_85** · 07-08-2003, 10:18 PM

Well, Ronnie isn't the best Mr. O ever, first. That's Lee Haney.

2nd, Ronnie is great. Obviously. However, if you see them both in motion, even not beside each other, just watch videos of them, Dorian is in another leage from Ronnie. Thicker, harder. Period.

**sd11** · 07-08-2003, 11:20 PM

Why is Haney the best, because he has the most titles? Ronnie has taken his physique to a level no one else ever has and if he wants to break Haney's record he can, as long as he continues to compete.On another note did you not read anything I wrote? Now your comparing them from videos, also with different lighting. I've seen them on video bro and better yet I've each in person on stage on two seperate occasions. Just like I said before (and if you notice I never once said who has a better back) YOU CAN'T COMPARE TWO BODYBUILDERS UNLESS THEY ARE ON THE SAME STAGE! But I guess I'm wrong and you no what your talking about because you seem to think that you don't need to see two bodybuilders beside each other, rather you can just see them in "motion". Seriously man get a clue, because you sound like an idiot!

**ZachG_85** · 07-09-2003, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by sd11

Why is Haney the best, because he has the most titles? Ronnie has taken his physique to a level no one else ever has and if he wants to break Haney's record he can, as long as he continues to compete.On another note did you not read anything I wrote? Now your comparing them from videos, also with different lighting. I've seen them on video bro and better yet I've each in person on stage on two seperate occasions. Just like I said before (and if you notice I never once said who has a better back) YOU CAN'T COMPARE TWO BODYBUILDERS UNLESS THEY ARE ON THE SAME STAGE! But I guess I'm wrong and you no what your talking about because you seem to think that you don't need to see two bodybuilders beside each other, rather you can just see them in "motion". Seriously man get a clue, because you sound like an idiot!

Wow. Angry little bastard, aren't ya?

Anyway, Haney's the best for a bunch of reasons. Aside from holding the most titles, he was the first to herald in the era of the super-heavyweight Mr. O, outweighing his competitors by around 20 lbs or more. He had a back as wide as Dorian or Ronnie but at the same time had a waist that was smaller than either of them by FAR. Haney, Sergio, Ronnie/Dorian. That's the top four Mr. Os, in order.

And you're right, you can't compare unless they're beside each other, for the most part. However there are things that ARE visible simply in pictures that are comparable. For instance you'll notice Dorian's back lat isn't nearly as impressive as his front. Ronnie is the reverse. Just one aspect.

As for Ronnie continuing to win as long as he competes, well, I don't know how much longer THIS can keep winning.