New Pics of 01 ASC Ronnie

[NarcissisticDeity]

ha ha exactly they reek of desperation....
he is completly obsessed with coleman
he has all the quotes saved on his computer he just copies and pastes them whenever a ronnie thread pops up
for a guy who doesnt rate or likes colemans phsyique suprisingly enough probably 80%of his posts are on ronnie threads
 

to contribute to the thread...
imo 2001 arnld ronnie is overated
99, 98, 2000 etc i prefer

You still don't get it huh? I said nothing negative about Coleman , I know you're not that sophisticated but get with the program. I did say he looked amazing in fact try and pay attention for once to what was actually typed.

[NarcissisticDeity]

You can not see intramuscular fat deposits. Hope this helps.

says the guy who thinks fat in inside the skin  what was that about being ' analytical ' ? 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Of course I know its not INSIDE the skin, way to nitpick on typos, brutal strawman argument. You can not see intramuscular fat deposits and what you say is dense is just dry + shredded. You can not see inside the muscle. LOGICAL FALLACY DETECTED

That wasn't a strawman or a typo that was your ignorance. the strawman is you keep insisting you can't see inside the muscle when it's been explained to you numerous times that you can externally see who is carrying more intramuscular fat and who is not.

You're the one who is nitpicking on the word intramuscular when in fact you can ascertain who is more dense visually from the outside , and density is a synonym of hardness NOT dryness or ' ripped '

this is proof positive that he was carrying more intramuscular fat and holding more water , i.e not as hard ( muscle density ) you can't argue to the contrary

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

This is not positive proof of it whatsoever, he has more bodyfat in one than the other. You are unable to differentiate between fat and intramuscular fat, therefore the term is useless and complete horseshit. If this is all you have to show me then lets agree to disagree as is it quite clear you haven't shown anything conclusive.

HAHAHAHAHAH muscle hardness is complete horsehsit because you can't look past your own ignorance and want to hyperfocus on the word ' intra ' gotcha

and FYI even Ronnie in 2004 is carrying much less body fat than the normal human but he's not NOT as dense as he was in 2001

[NarcissisticDeity]

It was you who said it density = elimination of intramuscular fat, and guess what, intramuscular means inside the muscle. You can not see it, hope this helps.

Go on.

keep hyperfocusing on the word , it changes nothing , I can see who is harder in this comparison if you can't get some new glasses , density/hardness doesn't exist because you can't grasp the concept

[NarcissisticDeity]

You are making shit up bro, the difference in hardness/density you see is due too lower bf and less water and you have now proved repeatedly that you can not differentiate between IM and them (probably because you can not possibly see intramuscular fat   )

So I'm making up the word hardness/density? really? I made it up?  

review of mr. olympia 1999, january 2000, page  90:

257 pounds, a good seven pounds heavier than last year and the clear winner, ALTHOUGH NOT AS BONE DRY OR AS ROCK HARD IN 98.  In comparison to 98, his thighs are enourmous with a greater sweep and his front delts have improved; plus the pec anomaly (gyno) is no longer present.

another example of a bodybuilder being DENSE one contest and not quite replicating it in another .

you can deny it exists all you want it changes nothing

[Hulkster]

99 vs 01

looks the same just a little fuller in 99

yup. and with a noticably smaller gut/obliques too:

something that ND and co love to deny, for what reason, who knows...

[NarcissisticDeity]

yup. and with a noticably smaller gut/obliques too:

something that ND and co love to deny, for what reason, who knows...

yup which is why everyone says Ronnie 1999 is his best showing , he's 10lbs heavier with the same conditioning , oh wait NO ONE says it's his best that's right. 

you still can't prove 99 is his best and never could ever wonder why?  psssssttttttttt I'll let you in on a little secret , because it's not.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Density is not a separate criteria, it is just a total rubbish term. That qoute says bone dry or rock hard, doesn't even mention "density" WTF are you making shit up now? Deal with it and stop mentioning it.

hard = dense , density is muscle hardness , it's very simple. some people are just comfortable in their ignorance.

and let me help you here too , bone dry = not holding any water. 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Btw what the hell is "hardness"  , do you feel their muscles to see which one is harder  ?  Another RUBBISH term, its about fat and water nothing else stop posting 1000 synonyms to make it look like there are more criterias.

you can SEE hardness , allow me to help you again 

p.s. he's drier to boot too

[NarcissisticDeity]

NO you are just very set in your ways. I am right here. Hope this helps

"Hard = dense" omfg go run in front of a bus will you

I'm set in the right way , you're stuck on stupid and can't grasp simple concepts.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Your so called simple concepts have absolutely no meaning and are garbage. You are a condescending arrogant prick to boot.

Translation : I can't grasp the concept so it's bullshit in my mind

I am condescending and arrogant , you get that way after dealing with people who can't compete intellectually 

and the simple concept I just showed you over and over , if you directly compare Ronnie 2001 to Ronnie 2002 you can clearly see he's harder in 2001 ( density ) and drier to boot , how can we tell this? visually we can see there is no water , or fat to obscure the muscles from showing their details , their separations , and their depth , we can clearly see how the skin appears like tissue paper directly over pure muscle with nothing to fill it out and blur it's appearance , nothing to fill in the area that should show depth etch separation of all the muscles

[NarcissisticDeity]

I repeat

Hardness = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc

Density = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc

Fat and water are the only thing that counts and once again, I repeat

you CAN NOT see inside the muscle.

keep repeating your strawman about seeing inside the muscle , NO ONE is claiming you can , just externally

and no kidding all that matters is fat & water that's an oversimplification , now what does matter is to what degree is someone fat free and dry and also how much muscle they are carrying while doing it

Hamdullah Aykutlu is a perfect example of always being hard & dry yet not carrying much muscle , but what he did carry was the pinnacle of conditioning , in juxtaposition Paul Dillett super big , full yet his muscles were never dense & dry as his , why? he was carrying more intramuscular fat & water

It's one thing to be hard & dry and a whole other ball of wax being , hard , dry while being 270lbs , next to impossible .

 

Once again you post a picture where Coleman has more fat and water on him than the other.

Need proof? Just look at his shoulders or glutes. Again density/hardness = made up bullshit lingo made up to look like they are some different criteria.

Yes more fat , more intramuscular fat and water , I'm glad you finally agree.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I have seen all your arguments, and I am done here. Thanks for playing.

You were done a long time ago when you claimed density is a bullshit word. I've yet to see your argument that it's bullshit and the strawman wasn't it.

[mesmorph78]

You still don't get it huh? I said nothing negative about Coleman , I know you're not that sophisticated but get with the program. I did say he looked amazing in fact try and pay attention for once to what was actually typed.

I don't need to try to be sophisticated... here
I am where I need to be.. My profession...
Arguing for coleman v yates 5 years seems to be quite important and highlight to you ...
Not me
I'm merely pointing out facts you don't like ronnie colemans physique
Yet you are on EVERY Coleman thread, with your quotes and notes ready copy and paste and always the one arguing the most and posting the most..
80% of your posts are on ronnie threads...
You kind of remind me of comic guy from the simpsons
very "passionate" .. Over the top even when ever it comes to Coleman
On the other side of the coin you do post good old school bodybuilding rare pics
And seem to be rational when it comes to any other subject
So whatever... I guess

[Shockwave]

I repeat

Hardness = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc

Density = useless, meaningless, bullshit etc

Fat and water are the only thing that counts and once again, I repeat

you CAN NOT see inside the muscle.

Cmon Xerxes, you are acting like the arrogant hardheaded coach that you despise so much.
Youre thinking too logically, like Seminole said. Hardness/Density is a way to describe the lack of fat in the muscle itself, that give it that puffy balloon look. Its a completely different term than traditional subcutaneous fat, because that just alows you to see the separation between muscle groups.
Todays competitors get shredded, but for whatever reason (Insulin IMHO), they dont get that super dense rock hard look of the 90's, and that is IM fat, not SC fat. See? Density?Hardness is a term to describe that effect.
Why are you so being so hardheaded about this, when youre the one always telling people to keep an open mind?
You had your mind made up in the begining, and you have no intention whatsoever of being objective on this subject, which is sad, because youre the one always touting objectivity.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I don't need to try to be sophisticated... here
I am where I need to be.. My profession...
Arguing for coleman v yates 5 years seems to be quite important and highlight to you ...
Not me
I'm merely pointing out facts you don't like ronnie colemans physique
Yet you are on EVERY Coleman thread, with your quotes and notes ready copy and paste and always the one arguing the most and posting the most..
80% of your posts are on ronnie threads...
You kind of remind me of comic guy from the simpsons
very "passionate" .. Over the top even when ever it comes to Coleman
On the other side of the coin you do post good old school bodybuilding rare pics
And seem to be rational when it comes to any other subject
So whatever... I guess

Believe me your lack of sophistication follows you everywhere

You tend to fixate only on the Coleman/Yates subject , I don't in fact I almost don't argue it anymore , just correct a lot of ignorant people on the subject , I post on much , much more than this subject you don't know because you haven't looked you just like assuming and we all know what they say about assumption.

even in this thread you couldn't get it right when in fact I said nothing negative in the least , I said he looked outstanding and it's no wonder why the mass consensus is this was the best he's ever looked or anyone for that matter , like I said before PAY ATTENTION to what was actually typed and base your comment on that or you run the risk of looking stupid , something you obviously don't care about.

80% of my posts are Ronnie topics? my ass how would you know unless you were tallying them up? and even if it were the case ( which it's not ) at least it's on the subject unlike 90% of the topics on this site and you'll only point out my obsession and not others , especially considering Hulkster's post count is 99% Dorian Yates yet you wont say a word because you agree with him , don't be a hypocrite , which I exposed you as already , acting like you're above this topic and then posting in the Truce Thread , it's A-O-Kay when anyone posts endlessly in praise of Ronnie but when they don't it's a obsession or a bad thing , please spare me the hypocrisy.

the bottom line , I said nothing negative in this thread about Ronnie so once again try and follow along.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yet you still cannot tell me how to spot lack of intramuscular fat other than "poofy" look 

If you can then I will change my mind.

I just gave you a detailed explanation and multiple photographic comparisons , you can't see then don't change your mind , you'll be just another guy who thinks he knows what he's talking about.

[Shockwave]

Yet you still cannot tell me how to spot lack of intramuscular fat other than "poofy" look 

If you can then I will change my mind.

Sigh.
Jim posted exactly how.

Picture of Phil Heath vs. Munzer. Except instead of just accepting that youre wrong, you went off about the striations (which are genetic, but unless you have dieted off all the fat, including IM fat(Hardness) then you wont be able to see the).

A good example of that is the pic of Ronnie from 96 where you can see the feathered striations in his leg, but now in 98. (where his conditioning was better, and his SC fat was lower, but his IM fat was higher (Hardness)).

So replace a pic of Phil with a pic of Dorian 95. There is a series in 95 of the quarter turns where you can see every fiber in Dorians abdominal/oblique muscles. Ill find it if I can in an old thread.

ND maybe you can help me out with those pics?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Your photographic comparisons where of a person leaner and less watery, didnt tell me anything about the fat inside his muscles

leaner = less fat intramuscularlly , Ronnie in 04 is still carry low bodyfat especially compared to the average human but his density is not on par with 01

[Shockwave]

Ok show me a picture of someone who is ripped and dry to the bone but not dense??

Phil Heath. Lol.
Paul Dillet. <--- Epic lol.

[mesmorph78]

Sophistication is relative like I said in my profession
Not here... Plus I don't pride myself on sophistication because it's a a facade at the core
Anyway in regards to the truce threa I posted 10 to posts on that thread as after a I could see opinion was overriding logic
You probably posted 10,000 AT LEAST no contest
anyway I'll leave you to it
Mes.

[NeoSeminole]

flex and kevin were at their best facing dorian - not ronnie.

you mean a legless levrone and a too heavy, synthol filled flex wheeler?

no, I mean a prime Kevin and Flex. What contests do you consider their respective bests?

as for your no legs comment...

http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/9d097bd3e8ef30567a5c/kevin-levrone-beim-russian-gp-1997

btw, Ronnie won

cormier?  please - wasnt even top 6 against the guys yates faced.

lol, who gives a shit? Chris Cormier didn't peak until later. In bodybuilding, all that matters is how you looked at your best

Flex was still an amateur when Haney competed. Following your logic, that must mean he sucked

dont even try to compare jay and dex to anyone from the 90's not even close.

bwahahaha

[NeoSeminole]

Says the guy who thought balance & proportion were the same thing.

says the guy who knows more about what color posing trunks bodybuilders wore every contest than about anatomy and physiology

density and dryness are NOT the same thing , need correcting let me know

either you're conditioned or you're not. Need help understanding?

[Wiggs]

Also please show me a black person with density.

Kai and Ronnie