listen closely son, my argument was a parody of yours.
But how can it be a parody of my post, if the points about my post that you satirized were things I didn't even claim in the first place?
I never claimed that you said a bodybuilder with superior calves would beat someone who was better everywhere else. I merely used calves in my analogy.
But the analogy was incorect, for a reason: the calves are more visible from more angles and show more mass than the inner triceps head. Presto; it is more relevant. I think that you're confusing my posts with NarcissisticDeity's, because I never claimed that Dorian's superior calves would be one of the overhwelming reasons why Dorian would defeat Ronnie. However, and having said that, I do think that calves are far more relevant than the inner head of the triceps. For instance, in the rear lat spread, where two competing bodybuilder have equivalent backs but one has a thicker triceps and the other has better calves, who would win? I think the latter would. Great calves are an advantage in: the side chest, the side triceps, the ther rear lat spread and the back double biceps, and also in the bac and side relaxed rounds. In summary, in all angles from the sides and back. The inner triceps head may be the longer one, but it is mostly concealed due to it's postitioning in the arms, and is only fully visible from one angle and in one pose. Case close.
My disagreement is with your comment that the triceps long heads are "so small they are irrelevant" in the back relaxed and rear double biceps. This is not true. The long head is the largest of the 3 heads, and it makes up the bulk of the arm from the rear.
But the arms are barely visible from the back, except in the back double biceps, so you have no argument here. The bigger triceps head might not be irrelevant, granted, but it's relevance is no greater than that of the anterior delts. I think we can agree that, since it is seen from the back - where most of it's mass is concealed -, it represents a very small percentage of the total muscle mass displayed on this pose.
It's obviously not small and to say they are irrelevant is like saying the calves are irrelevant in the front lat spread or the biceps are irrelevant in a side chest. They may not necessarily be the primary show muscles in the respective aforementioned poses, but they certainly do matter.
I never denied that they matter: But how much? I do think that the calves are of a "lesser" importance in the front lat spread than any other muscle showed in this pose. As for the side chest, the relevance of biceps is roughly about the same as in the back double biceps. Again, I don't think that having great biceps or triceps in the side chest would tip the scales in favor of a competitor when everything else is equal...but great calves might.
I apologize for including the rhomboids as part of the arms. I honestly don't know why I wrote that. It was most likely due to being late at night, and I was tired.
Ok, I believe you.
I meant to say the brachialis. My point is that most of the biceps mass is visible from the rear. The biceps long head and brachialis are prominent from this angle whereas you can only see the short head from the front (yes, the short head is medial). So you are wrong about that.
Perhaps I'm wrong anatomically, but am I wrong visually? I think the biceps is only visible in it's entirety of mass in the front double biceps, due to the specific positioning of the delts and triceps. In the back double biceps, the only thing that's visible is peak. Everyone knows that Dorian had no peak whatsoever from the back, so this is a mute issue. The back double biceps, in fact, displays the lateral head of the triceps - which Dorian has on Ronnie -, and Dorian's back is thicker, harder and as separated as the 1999 Ronnie, which is why I think he'd win over Ronnie, despite having worse biceps.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
