The best rear double biceps shot ever taken?

[NarcissisticDeity]

why do you insist on fighting a losing battle? Ronnie at 287 lbs would dwarf a 20 lbs lighter Dorian

HAhahahaha only in your imaginary comparisons does Ronnie ' dwarf ' Dorian , Dorian would make Ronnie 03 look 6 weeks out , incomplete and soft as a babies ass

and speaking about losing battles how that whole Rick Ross thing work out for you?  

[NeoSeminole]

HAhahahaha only in your imaginary comparisons does Ronnie ' dwarf ' Dorian , Dorian would make Ronnie 03 look 6 weeks out , incomplete and soft as a babies ass

lol, sure. Here's your own quote:

"Dorian is 269 bone dry beats 247lbs bone dry...  and he would most certainly make Ronnie at 247lbs look TINY"

the difference between 269 and 247 lbs is about the same as 287 lbs and 269 lbs, yet somehow the weight advantage only works in Dorian's favor

if Dorian would make 01 ASC Ronnie look small, then 03 Ronnie would make Dorian look small for the same reasons

[NarcissisticDeity]

lol, sure. Here's your own quote:

"Dorian is 269 bone dry beats 247lbs bone dry...  and he would most certainly make Ronnie at 247lbs look TINY"

the difference between 269 and 247 lbs is about the same as 287 lbs and 269 lbs, yet somehow the weight advantage only works in Dorian's favor

if Dorian would make 01 ASC Ronnie look small, then 03 Ronnie would make Dorian look small for the same reasons

WRONG as usual most of Ronnie's weight in 03 was in his quads and arms and midsection , needless to say this sent his already shitty balance & proportion into a nose dive his conditioning sucked and his details disappeared , no good ' dwarfing ' anyone when it's at the expense of everything else 

and when you're super hard and super dry it makes you look even bigger and Ronnie 2003 isn't super hard and dry  thanks for playing kid

[NarcissisticDeity]

 

Dorian OWNS Ronnie 2003/2001/1998 pick a year Ronnie is down to much to recover

[OTHstrong]

lol, sure. Here's your own quote:

"Dorian is 269 bone dry beats 247lbs bone dry...  and he would most certainly make Ronnie at 247lbs look TINY"

the difference between 269 and 247 lbs is about the same as 287 lbs and 269 lbs, yet somehow the weight advantage only works in Dorian's favor

if Dorian would make 01 ASC Ronnie look small, then 03 Ronnie would make Dorian look small for the same reasons

i think what nd meant was dorian 269 and ronnie 247 shared equal hardness but ronnie s 2003s look was at the expence of hardness. so same logic wouldnt apply. Not that I am defending yates because i think ronnie would edge him out in an overall both at their peaks because of his shape and proportions, however no daubt about it that dorian would be graineir drier and harder

[NeoSeminole]

WRONG as usual most of Ronnie's weight in 03 was in his quads and arms and midsection , needless to say this sent his already shitty balance & proportion into a nose dive his conditioning sucked and his details disappeared , no good ' dwarfing ' anyone when it's at the expense of everything else

too bad you're using old arguments from 90s bodybuilding when there were fewer pictures available online and bodybuilding fans could get away with making up crap since there was no visual evidence to disprove them. There is an abundance of pics that show Ronnie in 03 was bigger overall - not just in his quads or midsection. Also, lulz for you thinking Ronnie carried most of his 287 lbs in his arms, quads, and midsection. You win for the most idiotic statement on getbig. He would need to have like 50 inch arms and 80 inch legs

and when you're super hard and super dry it makes you look even bigger and Ronnie 2003 isn't super hard and dry thanks for playing kid

go back to college and retake physics b/c you obviously don't understand that something more dense has less volume than something less dense

furthermore, you mistake Ronnie for having the same bone structure as Dorian. The fact is Ronnie could weigh less and still look bigger b/c he had smaller joints and a narrower waist. Therefore, Dorian at the same weight would look smaller than Ronnie.

[NeoSeminole]

i think what nd meant was dorian 269 and ronnie 247 shared equal hardness but ronnie s 2003s look was at the expence of hardness. so same logic wouldnt apply. Not that I am defending yates because i think ronnie would edge him out in an overall both at their peaks because of his shape and proportions, however no daubt about it that dorian would be graineir drier and harder

it's hard to say b/c how do you measure conditioning from a picture?

[Jadeveon Clowney]

it's hard to say b/c how do you measure conditioning from a picture?

You have to place your computer monitor three feet to your left and two feet in front of you and then while looking straight ahead look at the pictures from the corner of your eye.  Your peripheral vision will try to compensate giving you greater ability to measure conditioning.

[Immortal_Technique]

HAhahahahahaha meltdown you're the one tampering with pictures in some lame attempt at making Ronnie ' grainy ' hahahahah

Ronnie would be left for dead by Dorian in all poses and Ronnie knows it

I'm confused what pictures I tampered? If you're referring to the '99 dark looking pics I've never posted them. And I haven't posted any pics in this thread, the title of which you still don't seem to have read. Troll.

[Immortal_Technique]

Dorian OWNS Ronnie 2003/2001/1998 pick a year Ronnie is down to much to recover

Why repeatedly post the less good Ronnie picture against the very best Dorian picture when there is a clearly better Ronnie picture above posted by Neoseminole?

Read.Title.Thread.

[NarcissisticDeity]

too bad you're using old arguments from 90s bodybuilding when there were fewer pictures available online and bodybuilding fans could get away with making up crap since there was no visual evidence to disprove them. There is an abundance of pics that show Ronnie in 03 was bigger overall - not just in his quads or midsection. Also, lulz for you thinking Ronnie carried most of his 287 lbs in his arms, quads, and midsection. You win for the most idiotic statement on getbig. He would need to have like 50 inch arms and 80 inch legs

go back to college and retake physics b/c you obviously don't understand that something more dense has less volume than something less dense

furthermore, you mistake Ronnie for having the same bone structure as Dorian. The fact is Ronnie could weigh less and still look bigger b/c he had smaller joints and a narrower waist. Therefore, Dorian at the same weight would look smaller than Ronnie.

too bad you're using old arguments from 90s bodybuilding when there were fewer pictures available online and bodybuilding fans could get away with making up crap since there was no visual evidence to disprove them. There is an abundance of pics that show Ronnie in 03 was bigger overall - not just in his quads or midsection. Also, lulz for you thinking Ronnie carried most of his 287 lbs in his arms, quads, and midsection. You win for the most idiotic statement on getbig. He would need to have like 50 inch arms and 80 inch legs

You love my arguments you copied them almost verbatim on other forums  until you got outed.

And pics prove my point , most of Ronnie's weight gain in 2003 was in his quads , glutes , arms and GUT and you're bragging as if a bigger softer guy dwarfing guy who is 18lbs lighter and dead pan on the money dense and dry is an advantage and it's NOT you = fail

287lbs soft vs 270lbs done dry = no contest extra weight is no advantage

go back to college and retake physics b/c you obviously don't understand that something more dense has less volume than something less dense

we're not talking inanimate objects we're talking about muscle and Ronnie 2003 is not as hard or as dense as Dorian at 270lbs and why? he's carrying more fat & water , after all these years you still haven't learned anything , no wonder why you're ripping me off in other forums

furthermore, you mistake Ronnie for having the same bone structure as Dorian. The fact is Ronnie could weigh less and still look bigger b/c he had smaller joints and a narrower waist. Therefore, Dorian at the same weight would look smaller than Ronnie.

You mistake extra weight as an advantage and it's NOT get this through your dense head ( pun intended ) Ronnie can look bigger all he wants ( entertaining it's true ) it means NOTHING when he's not as hard or as dry , NO ADVANTAGE which is why Shawn Ray beat Nasser as did Flex , Paul Dillett bigger and softer than Yates and he got no where

when you're bone dry and rock hard you look bigger , worked for Ronnie in 01 against his competition , and it worked for Dorian , Ronnie 03 not bone dry and rock hard

[NarcissisticDeity]

I'm confused what pictures I tampered? If you're referring to the '99 dark looking pics I've never posted them. And I haven't posted any pics in this thread, the title of which you still don't seem to have read. Troll.

the black and white ones you made in feeble attempt at making Ronnie ' grainy '

[delta9mda]

flex had better separation and "shape" over Yates and look what that got him. ronnie may have better shape and separation (and had it while losing to Yates every time).

[NarcissisticDeity]

it's hard to say b/c how do you measure conditioning from a picture?

yeah it's real hard 

you do the math

[Immortal_Technique]

I've not posted these pics, not sure why you're saying this repeatedly, maybe you're thinking of someone else.

I'm talking about the pic above posted by neo-seminole in colour from 2003. You've not referenced it in your last 3 or so replies, despite it being the entire argument from the Ronnie camp, well from me anyway, you can only argue against different, less impressive pictures, which is irrelevant, hilarious to watch, please continue.

I predict now a reply referring to old hazily mashed-together arguments from the truce thread, and zero reference to the 2 pics in question or the title of this thread, in which Ronnie fans are perfectly entitled to post their fav back double biceps pic, regardless of your amusingly final sounding interpretations of the judging criteria etc.

[Immortal_Technique]

Differences in stage lighting and picture contrast are clear in those two pics don't you think? In the same way everyone at the 99 English grand prix had mad conditioning cos the lighting was amazing. The 98 pic it's dark in the background, the 99 pic it's light as fuck.

Although I personally think he had better conditioning in 98. Not the most scientific comparison in those two pics though.

[che]

 

[daddy8ball]

I dunno...Ronnie looks fantastic..(as we expect him to be)....

But I remember when those black and white pics of Dorian first came out...when they were brand new...I felt sick. I was like "HOLY FUCK"... No rear double biceps..before or since..has had that raw effect.

Take it for what its worth....

[NarcissisticDeity]

Differences in stage lighting and picture contrast are clear in those two pics don't you think? In the same way everyone at the 99 English grand prix had mad conditioning cos the lighting was amazing. The 98 pic it's dark in the background, the 99 pic it's light as fuck.

Although I personally think he had better conditioning in 98. Not the most scientific comparison in those two pics though.

look at all pics from 1998 compared to 1999 it's obvious which contest he's harder and drier in , same with 2000 vs 2001 ASC it's obvious if you know what you're looking at

[NarcissisticDeity]

I've not posted these pics, not sure why you're saying this repeatedly, maybe you're thinking of someone else.

I'm talking about the pic above posted by neo-seminole in colour from 2003. You've not referenced it in your last 3 or so replies, despite it being the entire argument from the Ronnie camp, well from me anyway, you can only argue against different, less impressive pictures, which is irrelevant, hilarious to watch, please continue.

I predict now a reply referring to old hazily mashed-together arguments from the truce thread, and zero reference to the 2 pics in question or the title of this thread, in which Ronnie fans are perfectly entitled to post their fav back double biceps pic, regardless of your amusingly final sounding interpretations of the judging criteria etc.

You're right my apology I mistook you for iceman


and the other shots from 2003 ? they get a taste of their own medicine , they want to hand pick shots of Dorian I'll return the favor

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yeah it's hard to ascertain conditioning via pictures 

[Hulkster]

both weigh the same here.

you can see the classical taper of ronnie vs. the awful mess that is dorian.

[NeoSeminole]

yeah it's real hard you do the math

what objective visual criteria are you using?

[BILL ANVIL]

Difference is Ronnie was born a v taper, Dorian didn't so he tried to make one.

[NarcissisticDeity]

both weigh the same here.

you can see the classical taper of ronnie vs. the awful mess that is dorian.

you can see one if flexed and the other is not , dummy

both ' weigh ' the same and  one is 257lbs bone dry and rock hard and the other is...................... ........................ .NOT , another genius who can't grasp the concept

Yipppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeee he has a smaller waist & hips WOW-WWEEEEEEEE he also has inferior conditioning and balance & proportion oh and he's not as complete but fuck-yeah he has a smaller waist though LMFAO

psssssttttttttttt I'm gonna let you in on a little secret   99% of the people Dorian competed with had smaller waist & hips than him and it did them NOTHING in beating him , you keep projecting what YOU think wins a contest all the while ignoring what really wins

Ronnie's taper is ' better ' yet his front & rear lats spreads can't touch Dorian nor can his ab-thigh , your assumed taper advantage =  fail


now mind you Dorian's waist & hips and both wider than Ronnie's in these pics and so it would really show how much wider his back is as well