I’m not a true fan of bodybuilding, at all. I appreciate the sport and I recognize great physiques when I see them, but I don’t buy the magazines or follow all of the news and rumors. I’ll pay attention to who wins the Olympia, each year, but besides that it doesn’t really interest me.
There are certain things that you see and just appreciate, sometimes, whether or not you have a full understanding of the topic at hand. As with any performance, there are particular ones that just stand out and make you take notice. You almost have no choice but to appreciate what you are seeing, because you know it is very rare and special.
Dorian Yates is like that for me. When I see this guy in the Youtube videos that I’ve watched, it just amazes me.
I don’t understand why so many people consider him a bad Olympia title holder, though? What was it about Yates that drew so much controversy?
The man should have only won maybe two Mr. Olympias. Once he lost all symmetry by tearing both his biceps and triceps, he should have lost. Instead, he kept right on winning.
It isn’t that much controversy. Yates was a quiet person who rarely gave interviews. If there was any controversy, it was why he was so quiet. His nickname was “The Shadow” because of that.
Im not 100% sure but i think its to do with the fact that he was the first ultra freak and he was the cause of the less aestheticly pleasing physiques with big growth hormone bellys and that over all freaky look as opposed to the 70’s/80’s when they had wasp waists and were still into those vaccum poses where you suck your tummy in. He changed bodybuilding and probably not for the better, i would disagree with people saying he was not a great champion though, he was, i think its just that he’s a lot of the reason that bodybuilding looks the way it does today and i couldn imagine them starting to favour the smaller more aesthetic physiques.
I first started training during Yates’ reign. He was a damn freak, who definitely pushed the envelope as far as development and conditioning went. He was also a very intense trainer, and his theories weren’t what most other pros went by (a la Mike Mentzer). While the injuries did start to pile up, and without a doubt brought about his retirement (he has admited this in interviews), I still consider him one of the greats. He just looked so damn powerful all the time. And who knew a back could have so many damn lumps in it?! -lol
I think there is a major difference between Yates’ big, freakiness and the others he may have spawned. Yates argues in interviews that his most underrated feature was his symmetry.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I first started training during Yates’ reign. He was a damn freak, who definitely pushed the envelope as far as development and conditioning went. He was also a very intense trainer, and his theories weren’t what most other pros went by (a la Mike Mentzer). While the injuries did start to pile up, and without a doubt brought about his retirement (he has admited this in interviews), I still consider him one of the greats. He just looked so damn powerful all the time. And who knew a back could have so many damn lumps in it?! -lol
S
[/quote]
agreed - and he was from England - seems everyone always wanted an American Mr. O . . .
Well if you look at the amount of drugs he was supposedly taking (Yates, that is), and add in that style of training and couple it with his genetics…you get what we saw.
One of T-Nations, “things we think we know” articles mentioned that “when using steroids it is not necessary to do as many sets and reps, even if it seems counterintuitive.”
I think that concept was the one Yates followed to great personal success.
[quote]therev wrote:
Im not 100% sure but i think its to do with the fact that he was the first ultra freak and he was the cause of the less aestheticly pleasing physiques with big growth hormone bellys and that over all freaky look as opposed to the 70’s/80’s when they had wasp waists and were still into those vaccum poses where you suck your tummy in. He changed bodybuilding and probably not for the better, i would disagree with people saying he was not a great champion though, he was, i think its just that he’s a lot of the reason that bodybuilding looks the way it does today and i couldn imagine them starting to favour the smaller more aesthetic physiques.[/quote]
Well, apparently Markus Ruhl is pissed off at the Olympias (probably because he never won) but he says, “It’s turned into a dehydration contest. Nobody appreciates the mass monsters, the only one really left is Jay Cutler”
If he’s right, I say good. I’d like to see smaller guys, they look better than the over inflated cheesewizz lookin guys of now. I’m all for slim waists. Come on Dennis!
I know he tore his biceps while doing bent over rows. He used to do them underhanded, which I guess put a little more strain on the biceps. After the tear, and rehab, he switched to a more commonly used overhand grip. I believe his rationale behind the underhand grip was that it stressed the lower lats more.
[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
I never understood this “growth hormone” belly thing. It’s a huge gut of abs. Why would that necessarily be GH-related?[/quote]
It’s not a gut of abs. Abs are not physiologically constructed to look like beach balls. A GH gut is caused by the growth of internal organs to the extent that your abdomen is extended. An underdeveloped transversus abdominis and overdevloped rectus abdominis can cause a distended belly to some degree even at low levels of bodyfat. The transversus abdominis acts as an internal corset and keeps your abdominal muscles pulled inward and flat. But most of it is from excessive GH use. No matter how big your abdominal muscles are, they should lay flat assuming you transversus abdominis is developed and you do not have internal organ acromegaly from excessive GH use.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Yates changed BBing. No one had ever displayed the freak physique that he showed up with.
Everyone after him is merely standing on his shoulders. [/quote]
I give Yates credit, but not that much credit. Freaks like Orville Burke showed up on stage and made it look very easy for a while. What Yates had was the conditioning. He is also who many blame for why “freaks” began winning over those with slightly smaller and more symmetrical physiques.
Yates also claims that he is “stage-ready” for two entire weeks and never needed to do any crazy last minute conditioning techniques. Seems like he had everything down to very fine detail, and also impressive is that he never took time out from the gym. He trained all year around with a few breaks here and there, but not months off, like some competitors are known to take.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Yates changed BBing. No one had ever displayed the freak physique that he showed up with.
Everyone after him is merely standing on his shoulders.
I give Yates credit, but not that much credit. Freaks like Orville Burke showed up on stage and made it look very easy for a while. What Yates had was the conditioning. He is also who many blame for why “freaks” began winning over those with slightly smaller and more symmetrical physiques.[/quote]
I’m not the historian you are, so I will defer to your opinion. But he was the first freak I can remember. I’m not just talking size - but his vascularity as well.