POLL:NARC DIETY SAYS DORIAN IS "20 TIMES HARDER" THAN NASSER IN THIS SHOT

[pumpster]

do yourself a favor go and learn what judges look for

This "authority" on judging criteria can't even explain some of the contest decisions, such as Columbu over Padilla in '81 bwahahahahaha

[NarcissisticDeity]

There's also the SIZE factor you're leaving out of the equation in your 94-97 comparison.  Otherwise, why would the judges reward his 97 physique much higher than 94?  Since you always resort to what "judges" look for   

yeah a CONDITIONED size factor not a soft size factor and again it depends on his competition that particular year

[The Squadfather]

yeah a CONDITIONED size factor not a soft size factor and again it depends on his competition that particular year

yeah Nasser is really "soft" here.

[NarcissisticDeity]

This "authority" on judging criteria can't explain Columbu over Padilla in '81 bwahahahahaha

I never said I was the ' authority ' but I sure as hell know a LOT more than you guys , you idiots are claiming a guy with one of the worse backs is actually beating a guy in a back pose who has the very best great logic , and I will explain 1981 when you explain 2001/2002

[CigaretteMan]

  Show me a picture where Nasser is remotely as thick from the sides and dry like this....

[England_1]

I never said I was the ' authority ' but I sure as hell know a LOT more than you guys , you idiots are claiming a guy with one of the worse backs is actually beating a guy in a back pose who has the very best great logic , and I will explain 1981 when you explain 2001/2002

You mean when Coleman was booed off stage?

[medz zeppelin]

Ya the keg's really handling Nasser here you idiot lol

get over it already......fuckin whinebag

[CigaretteMan]

  Or like this

[NarcissisticDeity]

yeah Nasser is really "soft" here.

Yeah he absolutely is , just look at the two pictures I posted of Nasser and look at the difference between hardness and dryness , his teres , traps , lats , and spinal erectors are all clearly defined and sharp 1996 its not visible ever wonder why? because he's soft & holding water , his glutes aren't striated , his hams are blurry he is lacking in muscle density & extreme dryness in that particular shot the case is proven , stop making empty claims and appeals to like minded ignorant people who seek comfort in numbers

in this back double biceps shot Nasser is hard & dry , now take a wild guess which version it is

[pumpster]

  Or like this

If you have to resort to twisting ab shots to make the case for the keg it's o-v-e-r lol

[medz zeppelin]

 Show me a picture where Nasser is remotely as thick from the sides and dry like this....

paper thin and vascular as fuck.........damn

[The Squadfather]

Yeah he absolutely is , just look at the two pictures I posted of Nasser and look at the difference between hardness and dryness , his teres , traps , lats , and spinal erectors are all clearly defined and sharp 1996 its not visible ever wonder why? because he's soft & holding water , his glutes aren't striated , his hams are blurry he is lacking in muscle density & extreme dryness in that particular shot the case is proven , stop making empty claims and appeals to like minded ignorant people who seek comfort in numbers

in this back double biceps shot Nasser is hard & dry , now take a wild guess which version it is

it's official.....you're crazy, there's no talking sense to you.

[NarcissisticDeity]

You mean when Coleman was booed off stage?

No he dominated according to these idiots , he dominated by winning by just 4 points

[bigbobs]

yeah a CONDITIONED size factor not a soft size factor and again it depends on his competition that particular year

So you're saying the competition in 94 was so much more fierce that a 1st or 2nd place in 97 translates to a 7th in 94?    

Yeah he absolutely is , just look at the two pictures I posted of Nasser and look at the difference between hardness and dryness , his teres , traps , lats , and spinal erectors are all clearly defined and sharp 1996 its not visible ever wonder why? because he's soft & holding water , his glutes aren't striated , his hams are blurry he is lacking in muscle density & extreme dryness in that particular shot the case is proven , stop making empty claims and appeals to like minded ignorant people who seek comfort in numbers

in this back double biceps shot Nasser is hard & dry , now take a wild guess which version it is

If you look closely at the pic it only looks much different due to the lighting - its harder to show detail in the shade of the 97 pic, but if you look at it the shape in detail in the back is still there.  His glutes and hams are just as striated in 97 compared to the 94 pic.  

[CigaretteMan]

  Nasser had super wide clavicles and enormous quads which made him dominant in the abs-and-thigh, but his enormous skeleton took awasy from the flow of his muscles. He was too flawed to compare to Dorian at his best. Sorry. Two different calibers of bodybuilder. That's what Nasser had on Dorian:

  - Absolute size - enormous frame

 - Quads.

  - Abs.

  that's it. Dorian carried far more mass when you take frame into account and conditioning and he had more complete development. the end.

[The Squadfather]

 Nasser had super wide clavicles and enormous quads which made him dominant in the abs-and-thigh, but his enormous skeleton took awasy from the flow of his muscles. He was too flawed to compare to Dorian at his best. Sorry. Two different calibers of bodybuilder. That's what Nasser had on Dorian:

  - Absolute size - enormous frame

 - Quads.

  - Abs.

  that's it. Dorian carried far more mass when you take frame into account and conditioning and he had more complete development. the end.

how do you explain these two pics then?

[NarcissisticDeity]

it's official.....you're crazy, there's no talking sense to you.

Thank you for conceding defeat , again you offer up absolutely NOTHING and rely blanket statements , I showed you proof of what a dense & dry Nasser looks like and what it doesn't look like and what do you do? nothing 

You're claiming Nasser is owning Yates in a back shot and I'm crazy? lmmfao Yates who had probaby the best back ever is being beat in a back shot by someone with among the worse

[medz zeppelin]

 Nasser had super wide clavicles and enormous quads which made him dominant in the abs-and-thigh, but his enormous skeleton took awasy from the flow of his muscles. He was too flawed to compare to Dorian at his best. Sorry. Two different calibers of bodybuilder. That's what Nasser had on Dorian:

  - Absolute size - enormous frame

 - Quads.

  - Abs.

  that's it. Dorian carried far more mass when you take frame into account and conditioning and he had more complete development. the end.

that's what i'm talking bout yo .........go on witch yo bad self

[NarcissisticDeity]

how do you explain these two pics then?

The front double biceps you could give to Nasser , Yates was depleted and his arms smaller than usual in 96 and Yates admitted that Nasser could perhaps match or beat him in some poses from the front but from the sides and back its game over

[bigbobs]

The front double biceps you could give to Nasser , Yates was depleted and his arms smaller than usual in 96 and Yates admitted that Nasser could perhaps match or beat him in some poses from the front but from the sides and back its game over

You contradict yourself!  Just earlier today you were saying that Yates was destroying Nasser in a front double biceps pose, even yesterday...and gave some dumb reasons like his forearms are smaller and his torso is too long.  Now that you recall yates admitted that Nasser would match or beat him from the front you're changing your stance somewhat.  Dorian was the farthest from being humble possible for any Mr. Olympia.  He never even admitted that Ronnie Coleman would be able to beat him, so for Dorian to say that Nasser may beat me from the front but not from the back translates to "Nasser destroyed me from the front and was pretty close from the back too"

[NarcissisticDeity]

So you're saying the competition in 94 was so much more fierce that a 1st or 2nd place in 97 translates to a 7th in 94?   

If you look closely at the pic it only looks much different due to the lighting - its harder to show detail in the shade of the 97 pic, but if you look at it the shape in detail in the back is still there.  His glutes and hams are just as striated in 97 compared to the 94 pic. 

So you're saying the competition in 94 was so much more fierce that a 1st or 2nd place in 97 translates to a 7th in 94?   

No it all depends on who competes and what shape they show up in again to many variables

If you look closely at the pic it only looks much different due to the lighting - its harder to show detail in the shade of the 97 pic, but if you look at it the shape in detail in the back is still there.  His glutes and hams are just as striated in 97 compared to the 94 pic. 

look I don't mind debating bodybuilding but get serious the it only looks different due to lighting get the hell out of here lol no it looks different because his back is actually better and why? it shows better separation & detail of the teres , infraspinatus , traps , lats and spinal erectors its clearly evident in the two if you think they're basically the same just due to lighting you're way far gone than I originally thought

[CigaretteMan]

how do you explain these two pics then?

  How do I explain it? You missed the part where I said that I was there. Nasser had visibly bigger quads and superior abs in the abs-and-thighs and he dominated Droain when standing relaxed fro.m the front because his clavicles are so damsn wide! But Dorian had a total development combined with superior dryness which destroyed Nasser

[bigbobs]

No it all depends on who competes and what shape they show up in again to many variables

Okay, so I'll rephrase, you're saying that the difference in "who competed and what shape they showed up in and other variables" were so different than what got 7th in 94 would have gotten 1st or 2nd in 97? 

[bigbobs]

 How do I explain it? You missed the part where I said that I was there. Nasser had visibly bigger quads and superior abs in the abs-and-thighs and he dominated Droain when standing relaxed fro.m the front because his clavicles are so damsn wide! But Dorian had a total development combined with superior dryness which destroyed Nasser

Yeah you clearly remember what you say over 10 years ago, and of course Dorian was always unique in that photographs always took away from his strong points and not others' 

[NarcissisticDeity]

You contradict yourself!  Just earlier today you were saying that Yates was destroying Nasser in a front double biceps pose, even yesterday...and gave some dumb reasons like his forearms are smaller and his torso is too long.  Now that you recall yates admitted that Nasser would match or beat him from the front you're changing your stance somewhat.  Dorian was the farthest from being humble possible for any Mr. Olympia.  He never even admitted that Ronnie Coleman would be able to beat him, so for Dorian to say that Nasser may beat me from the front but not from the back translates to "Nasser destroyed me from the front and was pretty close from the back too"

No that was NO contradiction it was from the 1995 Mr Olympia NOT the 1996 bit of a difference , Dorian was a hell of a lot fuller in 95 than 96 , he was small and depleted in 1996 and his arms like Coleman 2002 where down in size , a bit of a difference 

and again read what you want into Yates' statements the fact you think he's even close to Dorian in the back shows how little you know now couple this statement with that nonsense that his back as virtually the same in 94 compared to 97 but was due to lighting , it just screams " Hey look at me , I don't know the first think about competitive bodybuilding "

Again Nasser was a one dimensional bodybuilder , Mr Olympia from the front and thats it .