Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce  (Read 3107154 times)

healthiswealth

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8050 on: August 08, 2006, 09:18:11 PM »
by the way guys, I don't think suckmymuscle will be posting here anytime soon. He got "pwned" pretty badly.  :'(

healthiswealth

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8051 on: August 08, 2006, 09:19:50 PM »

yates looks better in every pic.  you should have at least shown a pic post when he had torn his bi.

stop showing pics from the 99 english grand prix.  the lighting makes the guys looks 10 times better than nomral.  looks at pics of that show vs. any other show.  ironically, dorian promoted that show. 

This guy should be next, though I don't think he will be humiliated more than suckmymuscle.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8052 on: August 08, 2006, 09:20:23 PM »
 That coupled with a wide waist, overall blockiness & unpleasant aesthetics ain't BB!

  Oh, but Poop, Dorian's blockiness, for all it's unappealing quality, came always with a six-pack and sharp serratus. Ronnie's got naturally narrower hips, but he ruined that in his later years. if you're talking about Ronnie in his 1998/9 forms, then yes, he hd the better overrall midsection. But he lost that completely by getting gut distension and losing the little abdominal separations he had at his lighter weights. While the 250 lbs Ronnie certainly got the better midsection, Dorian's muscularity was so far above his that there's no contest: Ronnie, in 1998, was a bitch when compared to the 1993/5 Dorian. And the thing is that, even though Ronnie had the better midsetion, Doran took him flat out on the abdominal-and-thighs mandatory. I dare you to come up with an abs-and-thigh shot of your man that can compare to this. And below, a pic of Ronnie's disgusting abs-and-thighs shot at over 290 lbs. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8053 on: August 08, 2006, 09:23:48 PM »
This guy should be next, though I don't think he will be humiliated more than suckmymuscle.


my opinion.  take it or leave it. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8054 on: August 08, 2006, 09:25:59 PM »
HAHAHAHA WHAT A PATHETIC DIPSHIT!

I never claimed to be a doctorate in anatomy. But I HAVE received instruction from some of the top doctorates in the country and I have a university degree in the sciences. So obviously I do have a little knowledge pertaining to anatomy, and a hell of a lot more than you do, which is the only variable of importance. It is quite clear that you NEVER took a full year of university level anatomy & physiology. That is a requisite in any science program in order to graduate. Not only are you not a science major, you don't even have 2 semesters of this basic introductory level science course. So you have no business arguing with a science major. F*ck off.

I don't use "pseudo-scientific" language. You aren't a scientist. You don't even have a full year of anatomy under your belt. You're NOT QUALIFIED to ASSESS the DIFFERENCE between science and pseudo-science, so shut your f*cking mouth.

You heard it here folks. suckmymuscle has no evidence, although I'm sure he's surfed google frantically for the past 30 minutes. Just a lackluster testimony - "my brother is an MD". WOW.
His last resort: "The rhomboids are visible. End of story." Do you think you are God or something?
That you can wish a scientific error into existence by merely stating it? Get over yourself!

I stated that the rhomboids are not visible. That is a widely known scientific fact.
It is YOUR RESPONSIBLITY to prove the contrary. You would have done so already if any existed.
There is no photographic evidence that the rhomboids are externally visible.
Face it, you merely mistook the infraspinatus for the rhomboids.
Its a common mistake, particularly for those with no vested interest in the sciences.
You could have simply admitted, "my mistake, I meant the infraspinatus" and this would be done.

I'm not going to post my instructors' personal information on a public forum to a rival that has privately investigated a user's IP address and threatened bodily harm to him. I have already posted their credentials and their alma-maters. That is more than enough.

You aren't even a science major. You have no expertise or experience in the field.
Its not like a name, email address, etc. would actually serve you any purpose other than to slander me.

Three university degrees. Bullshit. So you're claiming, what, you're a doctorate?
You have a B.S. and 2 M.S. degrees? 3 B.S.? The last 2 alternatives sound excessive.
Your one-up-manship is old. If would be commendable, if true, but the fact that you pull something like this at every possible opportunity reduces your credibility, esp. since you are entirely anonymous.

Besides, NOT ONE OF THOSE 3 DEGREES IS IN LIFE-SCIENCE OBVIOUSLY.
I don't care if you won the PULITZER PRIZE, anatomy / physiology is not your field of expertise.

The moment I step onto your turf (whatever the hell your degrees are in) and make an idiotic statement (along the line of "the rhomboids are visible"), I invite you to correct me.
Until then, f*ck off.

You have poor reading comprehension. I was a university student, yes.
I graduated several years ago. So yes, I do have a degree. I am no longer an undergraduate.

You have three ... that is commendable ... but not a single one is in the life-sciences obviously.
Case - in - point, you don't know shit about anatomy, because you've never taken it.
As a result, you have no right to cite your degrees as a defense to your baseless argument when in fact your degrees are entirely unrelated to the topic of discussion.

I have more experience in anatomy than you do.
I was instructed by several of the nation's leading authorities in laboratory and in lecture.
I learned, very early in my studies (first year, 2nd semester) that the rhomboids are hidden beneath the trapezius and you can't actually see them without removing a cross-section of said trapezius. I observed this first hand with a cadaver (dead human's body, incase you don't know).

Irrelevant.  ::)

I could care less about the Ronnie v Dorian debate.
Its stupid, has proceeded indefinitely, and quite frankly I'm bored with it.
I'm not interested enough to spend another 300 pages debating it, and I won't.

By the way, ND suggested you ignore my posts because your replies were self-incriminating.  ;)
I stand by my previous arguments, as many of the others actively involved in the thread do.

Put down the thesaurus.  ::)

If you were so bothered by my rebuttal, and you knew for a fact that the rhomboids are externally visible, you would simply cite some irrefutable evidence.

Face it, you made a mistake and now you're pissed because I called you out on it.
You would have actually looked MORE credible if you simply acknowledged that were wrong, stated that you mistook the infraspinatus for the rhomboids, and you resumed the discussion.

Its clear now that you're simply a cry-baby and you can't fess up to your mistakes. Pathetic.

The evidence doesn't exist because the rhomboids are not externally visible. Case closed.

  You still haven't posted the names and dilomas of the PhDs who, according to you, taught you the profound knowledge of anatomy and physiology you claim to posses. I am still waiting. I will write a letter to the universities they lecture and try to get them fired, such is the low quality of the students they form.

  As for the rhomboids, they are visible when doing the back double biceps; I have already posted photographic evidence to that effect. You are confusing an anatomy graphic to a bodybuilding posing at a contest; the kind of mistake a simpleton would make. Go hit the books, boy! ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8055 on: August 08, 2006, 09:30:08 PM »
Quote
first: learn to spell "grammar"

  One typing error is not evidence that someone lacks writing skills. In your case, it is, because the sheer number of spelling, grammatical and stylistic mistakes can't be random.

Quote
second: wait for a person to disagree with you BEFORE attacking them

  Well, you obviously did disagree with me...

Quote
.... and i hate to say that i agree with you... you know, about the rhomboids....

  Well, in that case, I'll interpret your the many grammatical mistakes you commit as inattention, and not the result of a lack of intelligence. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8056 on: August 08, 2006, 09:32:15 PM »
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wnor/2ndlayerofmusofback.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mywebpages.comcast.net/wnor/lesson1superficialmusclesofback.htm&h=358&w=463&sz=16&hl=en&start=22&tbnid=bOOVXVS1FyW5LM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drhomboids%26start%3D21%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Sucky, you are truly a dumbass.  I thought you were a kinesiologist.  Wouldn't you know this?  Regardless, Praetor is absolutely, resolutely correct.  I learned this in first year anatomy class.  You are truly the dipshit to lead all dipshits.  Forget the Dorian vs Ronnie thread, you need to go back to basic grade school. LOL

  I feel ashamed for you. Really. A certified board physician spewing out such nonsense. I hope your patients don't enjoy hanging around message board, and that your real name is kept anonymous here... ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

JamieX4200

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8057 on: August 08, 2006, 09:32:29 PM »
how many times a day do you guys jerk off to dorian and ronnie?
grundle has no sack,

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8058 on: August 08, 2006, 09:35:27 PM »
This guy should be next, though I don't think he will be humiliated more than suckmymuscle.

  Humiliated? HA HA HA! I have owned so many Ronnie fans' asses on this thread, that Dorian should hire me as his PR agent... ;D ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8059 on: August 08, 2006, 09:36:36 PM »
dorian wins: front lat spread, abs and thighs, side tricep, and rear lat spread

ronnie wins: side chest, front double bi.  

back double bi = dorian.  his xmas tree is better.  shoulders even.  hams even.  calves, well...

most muscular, not a mandatory, but coleman wins.


not that it matters onstage, but dorian looks much better in the offseason.  ronnie is fat with gyno.

















R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

nicorulez

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8060 on: August 08, 2006, 09:52:30 PM »
Sucky, you are truly pathetic.  You are going to write to PhD's and get them fired...what a frickin joke.  You need to get your GED first, my dimwitted friend.  First of all, Praetor is completely correct, the rhomboids are 98% covered by the trapezius muscle.  Thus, although it definitely adds fullness to the upper back, it is not clearly visible.  The 2% or so that is not covered is so superficial and by the scapula that you can not appreciate it.  Show me a pic of Dorian's back double bi shot and enlighten us to what you feel is the rhomboids.  You can't because it is the trapezius that is mostly visible.  The trapezius does not slide away in the back double bicep shot; link me a text article where that is articulated.  ::) ::) ::)  Anyway, while Dorian's back double bicep is otherworldly, his rhomboids just accentuate his shape; they are not visible.  Peace my friend and I hope this helps.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gray409.png

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8061 on: August 08, 2006, 11:33:37 PM »
Quote
dorian wins: front lat spread, abs and thighs, side tricep, and rear lat spread

ronnie wins: side chest, front double bi. 

back double bi = dorian.  his xmas tree is better.  shoulders even.  hams even.  calves, well...

most muscular, not a mandatory, but coleman wins.


Remarkable; in just a few sentences he minimizes all of Coleman's dominance as established over the last 300 pages with silly claims such as Yates having a better front lat spread (repeatedly disproven), abs (Yates' massively wide waist is completely ignored), triceps (side tri is close and is not the only criteria).

Rear lat spread Yates? Have you looked at any of the pics you idiot? It's basically a draw that comes down to taste, certainly not Yates out in front.

Oh he does give Coleman a couple of poses before casually throwing in the fact Coleman wins MM. Let's get this straight: Coleman dominates Yates on that pose you fool.

Back double bi: Yates? With no bis? Shoulders even! Not quite on either.

Hams Yates? hahahahahaahahahahah

Quite remarkable job of showing extreme bias in an absurd "assessment". ::)

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 79384
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8062 on: August 09, 2006, 01:57:53 AM »
his lower back and lats were awesome and inspiring. So were his calves.

And his abs were great for a 257 pounder.

But as far as being flawed in key areas like waist size, arms, quads and chest, I would definitely agree.

To me, seeing a Mr. O. with no-so-great arms, chest and quads is well, underwhelming:


the calves, forearms and inner thighs just don't have the same effect :-\

The same thing happens whenever I see a shot of Chris Dickerson doing a double biceps pose...



First of all who are you to decide what the ' key areas ' are? lol ones that you think Ronnie has the edge in? lol you're ignorant of the IFBB rules this is clearly evident.

so lets get this straight Ronnie has a smaller waist yet it can't compete with Dorian's in terms of separation & detail and thats a key aera? whats the sense in having a small waistline if it doesn't have greatly shaped abdominals and deeply eteched , obliques , serattus and intercostals?

Again you keep tryng to gloss over Yates strengts in order to reduce him and it hasn't worked , his arms ( at his best ) aren't flawed thats your imagination, his triceps & forearms are fantastic and his biceps were good , no matter how many times you type this nonsense I will counter it.

his quads aren't flawed again you being prone to melodrama , the only problem with his quads are his upper separation . you've been exposed as nothing but an internet-fan for this comment before and since you're still clinging to it your title remains intact  ;)

His chest is flawed because Ronnie's has more fine-lines lol you know nothing ! especially seeing Ronnie's chest is flawed  he has bitch-tits that ruins his whole chest lol

Again you think by adding up Ronnie's parts which you think are so much better that it makes up a better whole it doesn't. Dorian according to the IFBB judging criteria simply beats Ronnie in most of the mandatory poses.

front latspread
rear latspread
sidechest
side triceps
abdominal & thigh

front & rear double biceps are DEBATABLE !

Dorian has the edge in terms of muscular bulk , muscular density , muscule balance and conditioning you will never to top these advantages .




sculpture

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2538
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8063 on: August 09, 2006, 03:31:54 AM »
First of all who are you to decide what the ' key areas ' are? lol ones that you think Ronnie has the edge in? lol you're ignorant of the IFBB rules this is clearly evident.

so lets get this straight Ronnie has a smaller waist yet it can't compete with Dorian's in terms of separation & detail and thats a key aera? whats the sense in having a small waistline if it doesn't have greatly shaped abdominals and deeply eteched , obliques , serattus and intercostals?

Again you keep tryng to gloss over Yates strengts in order to reduce him and it hasn't worked , his arms ( at his best ) aren't flawed thats your imagination, his triceps & forearms are fantastic and his biceps were good , no matter how many times you type this nonsense I will counter it.

his quads aren't flawed again you being prone to melodrama , the only problem with his quads are his upper separation . you've been exposed as nothing but an internet-fan for this comment before and since you're still clinging to it your title remains intact  ;)

His chest is flawed because Ronnie's has more fine-lines lol you know nothing ! especially seeing Ronnie's chest is flawed  he has bitch-tits that ruins his whole chest lol

Again you think by adding up Ronnie's parts which you think are so much better that it makes up a better whole it doesn't. Dorian according to the IFBB judging criteria simply beats Ronnie in most of the mandatory poses.

front latspread
rear latspread
sidechest
side triceps
abdominal & thigh

front & rear double biceps are DEBATABLE !

Dorian has the edge in terms of muscular bulk , muscular density , muscule balance and conditioning you will never to top these advantages .





My oh my where have we heard all this before?

ND once again spewing rhetoric, but what really irks is the way he does so as if whats he's saying is gospel.

I'll go over the holes in your statement one last time.

Yates chest is poorly shaped compared to ronnies. Poor inner attachment and hardly a striation in sight (i dont give a rats ass if striations are genetic, they still add to the impressiveness. By the same token i could argue calves are largely genetic and defend ronnie. It works both ways chichi).

His quads are badly shaped. It goes far beyond lack of upper thigh detail. The lack of muscular separation on the lower quad you can't overlook. Its as if muscles are missing. (And i thought it was only his biceps that had done a runner.  ;))

Biceps good? Compared to what. Yours? Second to dickerson, theyre the worst any mr o has every had. Zero peak, no separation, and lacking in size. In every top six dorian was in his biceps were the worst. How can you say they're good?

His triceps are good. But lets not get too magnanimous here. Levrone, oliva, fedorov, demayo, munzer, priest, dillet, mentzer, bannout, titus. Their triceps warrant the use of the word "fantastic". Yates by no stretch of the imagination belongs in that list.

As for the mandatories we can argue all day as we have. But whats the point in arguing with one such as you, who thinks dorian wins each and every one of them. ;)

jandal.ninja

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 167
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8064 on: August 09, 2006, 05:01:15 AM »
yes i will continue to own you in the v ;D

hahahahahahahahahaha  ;D sure thing buddy... dreams are free, and apparently claiming to 'own' is too  ;D
....to the 'v'!!!!

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8065 on: August 09, 2006, 09:26:30 AM »
Again you think by adding up Ronnie's parts which you think are so much better that it makes up a better whole it doesn't. Dorian according to the IFBB judging criteria simply beats Ronnie in most of the mandatory poses.

front latspread
rear latspread
sidechest
side triceps
abdominal & thigh
front & rear double biceps are DEBATABLE!

Dorian has the edge in terms of muscular bulk , muscular density , muscule balance and conditioning you will never to top these advantages.

ND, you fool, everybody has been telling you that you cannot add up body parts. It was you who said Dorian has better overall arms b/c of his forearms and better overall legs b/c of his calves. You have to look at the whole package (i.e. separations, striations, muscle shape, symmetry, vascularity, taper). I also showed you why Ronnie wins the majority of the mandatory poses according to IFFB judging criteria. So quit using it to support your argument. Ronnie in 03 destroys Dorian in muscularity and symmetry, and ties him in conditioning.


sculpture

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2538
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8066 on: August 09, 2006, 09:42:14 AM »
That shot is incredible. Even his calves look decent.

Unparalleled rear lat spread.

No one comes close

Praetor Fenix

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Capable of strong empathy and tremendous rage
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8067 on: August 09, 2006, 09:44:34 AM »
You still haven't posted the names and dilomas of the PhDs who, according to you, taught you the profound knowledge of anatomy and physiology you claim to posses.

...and I'm not going to. This isn't some sort of controversial contention that is currently debated in academia. It is a clear fact and it has been established for centuries.

You are out of your f*cking mind! I'm supposed to ask my professors, years after I have graduated, to remove their diplomas from the frame in order to scan them, post them as evidence for some f*cking anonymous loser on the internet who needs confirmation that a centuries-old fact is actually true? Go f*ck yourself.

If this was a recent discovery, or something that was still under formulation, then I would feel obliged to provide references and documentation. In this case, the answer is old and clear and doesn't require further documentation.

Quote
I am still waiting. I will write a letter to the universities they lecture and try to get them fired, such is the low quality of the students they form.

Who do you think you are? Seriously? You are a nobody!
On what grounds will you get them dismissed? Tell the dean that the rhomboids are visible??
You might as well write the physics department too and tell them that gravity is a myth.
After all, I'm sure your father, who is a quantum physicist, has achieved the gift of levitation.

First off, even if you had a valid point in the first place, you aren't an authority in academia.
Any complaint you would file would be readily dismissed, particularly concerning something this stupid and erroneous. Millions of human dissections have taken place over the course of centuries. The results are filed in countless journals, periodicals, logs, and archives around the world.

Quote
As for the rhomboids, they are visible when doing the back double biceps; I have already posted photographic evidence to that effect.

Nope. The rhomboids are not visible.

...and you haven't posted shit for evidence. You put up a picture of the back-double biceps.
Circle in red where you see the rhomboids dumb-ass. Merely posting a picture doesn't prove shit, and you know it doesn't.

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, you have mistaken the infraspinatus for the rhomboids.
... or you are just arguing against the obvious for the sheer sake of remaining an ignorant prick.

You just can't grasp the fact that I have worked on a cadaver, received instruction from 2 nationally - reknowned Ph.D.'s in laboratory and lecture, and reviewed an extensive archive of photographs, illustrations, and depictions in textbooks and periodicals written by a collaboration of the world's leading authorities in anatomy & physiology, can you?

There is nothing to debate here suckmymuscle. Give it up. You're a liar and you have no ethos.

Quote
You are confusing an anatomy graphic to a bodybuilding posing at a contest; the kind of mistake a simpleton would make. Go hit the books, boy! ;)

Bodybuilders are Homo sapiens, no?

Bodybuilders have larger muscles with better definition. Thats it.
It still doesn't change the fact that the trapezius covers the rhomboids.
Bodybuilders have highly developed rhomboids of course.
They are merely hidden under an even more massive muscle - the trapezius.
Case closed.

If anything, the rhomboids would be more difficult to locate on a professional bodybuilder (if the skin was removed) since the trapezius, infraspinatus, and latissimus dorsi are so insanely massive that they would obscure it entirely, even with the skin completely removed.

You've lost my respect entirely.
You aren't intelligent, you merely use a thesaurus under the pretense that you have a vocabulary. You refuse to admit when you are wrong, even when at first I politely informed you that you were mistaken. You are racist, stubborn, delusional, & two-faced.
You have no redeeming qualities or social graces whatsoever. You're a waste of life. Seriously.

Initially, you criticized me for playing Starcraft. No problem.
Then out of the blue, you now think I'm black, or I quote, a "wigger" since I support Coleman and I recognize that bodybuilding is marketed to a primarily white audience.

You PM members with violent threats, you wish terminal illness on productive members of society who you don't even know, and in my case, write a two-faced request for a truce that you set no terms for and violated in a matter of hours.

Find me one f*cking science-fiction fan who plays a 10year-old real-time-strategy computer game who is African-American or a "wigger"!? You're so f*cking clueless. I never came off with pretense or pretended to be something I'm not (as you frequently do). You try to shift reality so that it complies with your argument, and its a f*cking joke.
BGWell Is Back.Invariably

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8068 on: August 09, 2006, 10:31:51 AM »
Quote
Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on Today at 04:57:53 AM
Again you think by adding up Ronnie's parts which you think are so much better that it makes up a better whole it doesn't. Dorian according to the IFBB judging criteria simply beats Ronnie in most of the mandatory poses.

front latspread
rear latspread
sidechest
side triceps
abdominal & thigh
front & rear double biceps are DEBATABLE!

Right there you know he's in a dreamworld, thus discrediting all of his other claims in the process - rear double bis debatable?  ::) ::) ::)


pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8069 on: August 09, 2006, 10:33:25 AM »
SUCKY humiliated after unsuccessfully attempting to rearrange the definitions of human anatomy:

Quote
I'm supposed to ask my professors, years after I have graduated, to remove their diplomas from the frame in order to scan them, post them as evidence for some f*cking anonymous loser on the internet

Quote
Who do you think you are? Seriously? You are a nobody!
On what grounds will you get them dismissed? Tell the dean that the rhomboids are visible??

ROFL


kiwiol

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18393
  • Who is John Galt?
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8070 on: August 09, 2006, 11:18:25 AM »
  I feel ashamed for you. Really. A certified board physician spewing out such nonsense. I hope your patients don't enjoy hanging around message board, and that your real name is kept anonymous here... ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE

SucksHisDadsAsshole, feel free to reply to my questions in this thread about you ;D

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=88356.0

sculpture

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2538
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8071 on: August 09, 2006, 11:21:42 AM »
I thought you needed bis to win the rear double bi pose?  ;D

No the last time i checked it was called "rear double calves". ;)

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8072 on: August 09, 2006, 12:31:46 PM »

Remarkable; in just a few sentences he minimizes all of Coleman's dominance as established over the last 300 pages with silly claims such as Yates having a better front lat spread (repeatedly disproven), abs (Yates' massively wide waist is completely ignored), triceps (side tri is close and is not the only criteria).

Rear lat spread Yates? Have you looked at any of the pics you idiot? It's basically a draw that comes down to taste, certainly not Yates out in front.

Oh he does give Coleman a couple of poses before casually throwing in the fact Coleman wins MM. Let's get this straight: Coleman dominates Yates on that pose you fool.

Back double bi: Yates? With no bis? Shoulders even! Not quite on either.

Hams Yates? hahahahahaahahahahah

Quite remarkable job of showing extreme bias in an absurd "assessment". ::)



yes, dorian waist is wider, but his midsection is still better than coleman's shitty 4 pack.

back double bi?  coleman with no calves.  and yes the shoulders are even.  show me a pic in the back double bi where one is better than the other.


rear lat spread still goes to dorian. 

front lat spread?  repeatedley disproven?  where.  you show 1 pic from dorian's worst year and expect that to prove your point. 

i said the coleman wins the most muscular.  why would you repeat that. 







based on your comments, i hope you are being sarcastic.  you really cant be that stupid.
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

Rami

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8120
  • One Hundred Percent
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8073 on: August 09, 2006, 12:41:18 PM »
Dorian looked horrible. Ronnie looks freaky and awesome. Dorian has a ear ring, Dorian loose. The end.

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #8074 on: August 09, 2006, 12:41:57 PM »
Quote
yes, dorian waist is wider, but his midsection is still better than coleman's shitty 4 pack.

Then show some objectivity and mention BOTH instead of waiting for me to correct you, groupie.


Quote
back double bi?  coleman with no calves.  and yes the shoulders are even.  show me a pic in the back double bi where one is better than the other.

WTF do calves have to do with Yates horrendous back double-bi in which he is raped by Coleman?



Quote
front lat spread?  repeatedley disproven?  where.  you show 1 pic from dorian's worst year and expect that to prove your point. 

 

Then get off your lazy ASS and show us just ONE shot in which Yates is demonstratedly better than Coleman in a shot Yates is supposed to be much better. That shot is only comparable to Coleman, not better, in a shot Yates is supposed to own! Instead you're being owned because you've succeeded only in confirming again that Coleman's comparable in a shot that Yates is supposed to be better at. Nice work! ::)

Quote

i said the coleman wins the most muscular.  why would you repeat that. 

Not good enough; they're much farther apart than you've suggested. One more shot in which Coleman's boot is on your hero's face. ;D