The Dorian vs Ronnie wars

[logical?]

  All Hulkster does is post the 1999 Olympia shots where Ronnie is showing great striations and separations and then say that, in his opinion, Ronnie is drier. Well, guess what, Hulky? You're wrong. As I've already explained to you, there's no logical correlation between separations and dryness. This is evident in that some bodybuilders show better separations than others even when they have edema.

  You then post pics of Dorian where he dopesen't have a smany separations on his arms and qads as Ronnie and say that is proof that he wasn't as dry. Again, wrong. The "stony" appearance of Dorian's arm and quad muscles are a much better indication of his greater dryness in relation to Coleman than Ronnie's separations is an indication of the opposite hypothesis. Hulkster, this is being dry.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Does not a level of dryness need to be obtained to show separations?

[suckmymuscle]

Does not a level of dryness need to be obtained to show separations?

  Yes, but it correlates more strongly with bodyfat loss. The correlation is not linear. If it were, all bodybuilders with edema would have less separations than dehydrated bodybuilders. This is why it;'s my contention that a dry appearance to the muscles is a better correlation to dryness than separations. Why? Because you can obtain great separations whuile still retaining water, but no bodybuiulder gets the "stony" look to his muscles while having edema. Never.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Dorian's LATS look better in the front lat spread.  So does his chest due to better posing skills than Ronnie.  As for comparing anything else of Dorian's to Ronnie in that pose... 

  Wrong. Ronnie's stomach protrudes from the front, and he has terrible abdominal separations. Dorian also has better taper in this pose, because here taper is a funtion of the lats and not the delts. Dorian destroys your boy flat out, you spooge sucker.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[logical?]

Dorian's LATS look better in the front lat spread.  So does his chest due to better posing skills than Ronnie.  As for comparing anything else of Dorian's to Ronnie in that pose... 

I'm in complete agreement, Matt. Ronnie is a poor poser- of course it's relative- compared to the likes of Dorian, K-Lo, Ray and so on.

Dorian and ROnnie both hit each pose differently. Dorians lats look incredible in the front lat spread- but I agree, this is down to the way they hit the pose. Dorian tends to bring his elbows up further, accentuating the lats. Ronnie keeps his elbows down- for some unknown reason. Time and time again, ytou see Ronnie get ready to hit a front lat spread, and you hope that this time, he flares the lats properly. It's always underwhelming, though.

[Hulkster]

  Yes, but it correlates more strongly with bodyfat loss. The correlation is not linear. If it were, all bodybuilders with edema would have less separations than dehydrated bodybuilders. This is why it;'s my contention that a dry appearance to the muscles is a better correlation to dryness than separations. Why? Because you can obtain great separations whuile still retaining water, but no bodybuiulder gets the "stony" look to his muscles while having edema. Never.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

 your contention is wrong.

Hope this helps.

[suckmymuscle]

your contention is wrong.

Hope this helps.

  Why? Prove that separations correlate more strongly with dryness than the stomy loook that Dorian had to his muscles. You can't. This is especially true because there are bodybuilders who display better separations than others even when their conditioning is off. An example? Wheeler had more separations than Nasser even when the former's conditioning  was off and the latter was on. Sorry to say, but when a bodybuilder's muscles looks harder than another's, it's because it usually is. Muscle separations have nothing to do with it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

  Why? Prove that separations correlate more strongly with dryness than the stomy loook that Dorian had to his muscles. You can't. This is especially true because there are bodybuilders who display better separations than others even when their conditioning is off. An example? Wheeler had more separations than Nasser even when the former's conditioning  was off and the latter was on. Sorry to say, but when a bodybuilder's muscles looks harder than another's, it's because it usually is. Muscle separations have nothing to do with it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Ronnie and flex were both striated but Ronnie had a much dryer look to him:

so my point is still valid, esp. if you are comparing ronnie to dorian, or even flex to Ronnie.

ronnie looks dryer than all of them:

[Hulkster]

its the EXTREME detail over much of the body that sets Ronnie apart.

dorian had this extreme detail in the lower back and abs but thats it.

Ronnie had it almost everywhere.

i mean just LOOK at those glutes and hams

and those ARMS

and the CHEST

[Hulkster]

and the DELTS

 

[Hulkster]

and the TRICEPS

[Hulkster]

and those QUADS

cut so deep look like Ronnie will bleed to death

[Hulkster]

in short, no one has ever had ronnie's combo of shape, size and detail as displayed in 99.

dorian had the size, but lacked the shape and some detail.

Flex had the shape, had good detail, but lacked the size.

ronnie had it all.

[suckmymuscle]

  Hulkster, nothing of this discredits my contention. We're not debating Flex vs Ronnie, but Dorian vs Ronnie. Both Ronnie and Flex have a natural genetic tendency towards separations, so this is not an indication of dryness. Look at the 1993 Olympia, when Wheeler's conditioning was off and Dorian's was on, and yet Wheeler had far moe separations than Dorian. Separations and striations have a lot to do with genetics, Hulkster. There are bodybuilders who display fantastic separations and striations even when their conditioning is off, while there are others who still lack separation even when their bodyfat is at 3% and they're dehydrated. Conversely, the film of water that lies under the skin blurrs the quality of the muscle, it's hard appearance, making it look turvy.

  You see, Hulkster, the nproblem I have with you is that your posts ae based on conjectures, generalizations and your subjective preference for muscular qualities which ae not univesally judged to be valuable by all judges. As I explined elsewhere, there are judges who reward vascularity, while there ae others who consider it a liability. You can't say that Ronnie would defeat Dorian based on these things because it is muscularity&symmetry that is the ne plus ultra of a bodybuilding judging, and Dorian would most likely defeat Ronnie at it. Some judges might like Ronnie's superior separations and striations over Dorian's superior hadness&dryness; others might not. All things considered, Dorian would most likely win.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Shockwave]

in short, no one has ever had ronnie's combo of shape, size and detail as displayed in 99.

dorian had the size, but lacked the shape and some detail.

Flex had the shape, had good detail, but lacked the size.

ronnie had it all.

Your opinion.

[Hulkster]

Your opinion.

which is clearly correct.

[suckmymuscle]

Your opinion.

  It is poitnless to debate Hulkster. He just spills out his opinion, post the same 1999 pics and then say "you are wrong" when you disagree with him. He simply ignores my posts, where I explain point by point why he's wrong, and it's fine because I know that he secretly agrees with me.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Your opinion.

  It's always his opinions. Hulkster has never made even a single post where he explains why Ronnie has objective superiorities over Dorian that the judges would inequivocally consider as such. All he does is post pics from the 1999 Olympia, and then say something like: "See, these details and striations combined with a superior shape make Ronnie better than Dorian." Of course, striations and separations cannot overcome Dorian's conditioning, and shape is subjective: what really counts is muscularity&symmetry from different angles while contracting different muscles, and the bottom line is that Dorian has this over the 1999 Ronnie.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Hulkster got owned in yet this other thread. In total, that's three thousand pages of Dorian Yates toring Ronald Coleman a new asshole.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[swoody]

With all these dorian vs ronnie wars, I've come to the point.... who gives a shit???

[delta9mda]

only if grainy = doughy

 

get your eyes checked and stop eating shit

[Necrosis]

  Why? Prove that separations correlate more strongly with dryness than the stomy loook that Dorian had to his muscles. You can't. This is especially true because there are bodybuilders who display better separations than others even when their conditioning is off. An example? Wheeler had more separations than Nasser even when the former's conditioning  was off and the latter was on. Sorry to say, but when a bodybuilder's muscles looks harder than another's, it's because it usually is. Muscle separations have nothing to do with it.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

you prove the opposite please. your assumption is not right. dorian does not look "stony" in the above pics, ronnie screencaps look much harder. the pic were dorian is showing more striations, and cuts is the pic were he looks the hardest.

you keep posting about correlations, etc. and that hardness is better exemplified with stoniness, or graniness, but what are you talking about. the pics dont show any of these properties. his arms and delts look smooth and soft compared to ronnies.

[Necrosis]

  It is poitnless to debate Hulkster. He just spills out his opinion, post the same 1999 pics and then say "you are wrong" when you disagree with him. He simply ignores my posts, where I explain point by point why he's wrong, and it's fine because I know that he secretly agrees with me.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

dude everything about dorian is also your opinion.


so striations and sep are genetic to an extent- i would agree.

but lets keep logic going further

shape-genetic

size-genetic

cuts-genetic

proportion-genetic to an extent

hardness-genetic

so if your saying sep and striations are genetic, what are you implying? that they are not a positive? if so you are wrong. how can you say they arent advantages based on genetics when ever other criteria is also? genetics is what seperates the boys from the men.


hardness is not universal, your choosing to ignore this though for some reason, some people can get super dry, others cant its genetics.

based on your argument, the bodybuilder with better asthetics is not superior based on that attribute because of his genetic predisposition towards better asthetics then the next man. this is incorrect.

if you dont have the genetics, too bad, you cant keep up.

[suckmymuscle]

you prove the opposite please. your assumption is not right. dorian does not look "stony" in the above pics, ronnie screencaps look much harder. the pic were dorian is showing more striations, and cuts is the pic were he looks the hardest.

you keep posting about correlations, etc. and that hardness is better exemplified with stoniness, or graniness, but what are you talking about. the pics dont show any of these properties. his arms and delts look smooth and soft compared to ronnies.

  You want proof? Here it is. Dorian is showing a clearly inferior level of separations than Ronnie, yet he still looks harder. Don't equate looking hard with having more separations because you can have more than the other and vice-versa.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Usmoke, how the fuck can you say that the most separated bodybuilder must necessarily be harder ater looking at this pic? Of all the hunreds of Dorian pics, this is my absolute favorite, because it exemplifies Dorian's hardness to the utmost. Here Coleman is as separated as Dorian, yet Dorian looks much, much harder. Bodybuilding 101 to you:

  This is the hardest bodybuilder of all times

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

i dont ever simply equate. all are important. that is each of the criteria.

plus ronnie is not showing ronnie like seperation in that pic. here is one showing more sep, ronnie looks harder to me. if not tell me how to see hardness please. i mean there must be some obsevable external feature right?