Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce  (Read 3492859 times)

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10025 on: October 16, 2006, 05:57:15 PM »
But looking 9 months pregnant isn't sad?  lol kid go away and play

Show some respect to Dorian son!!! ;D




NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83260
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10026 on: October 16, 2006, 05:58:16 PM »
Show some respect to Dorian son!!!





LMFAO at a Coleman fan posting a pic of Yates and ragging on his gut lol

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10027 on: October 16, 2006, 05:58:27 PM »
52 centimeters is 20.47 inches. That's not even 20.5" but you rounded it up to 21" anyway. ::)

  It's close enough, boy. At least it's much closer than the 17" that the Coleman nut suckers keep saying about Dorian. ::)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

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 #10028 on: October 16, 2006, 05:58:44 PM »
Quote
The limbic system is the ultimate memory storage of the brain, and the visual corte only transforms images into electro-chemical impulses which are stored in the limbic system.
SUCKY's a good example of someone with a F--- up visual corte & limbic system. ;D

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83260
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10029 on: October 16, 2006, 06:00:21 PM »
Yates' triceps and fantastic and his forearms are showstoppers his biceps are NOT great but NOT I repeat for the morons NOT poor by any stretch of the imagination.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10030 on: October 16, 2006, 06:06:37 PM »
6 sentences to make one point.  ::) All wrong anyway-he wasn't there measuring and has no idea whether his "calculations" are anywhere near the truth.

  I actually explained on one sentence before, to no avail. Regardless, Ronnie's arms were only one inch bigger than Dorian's in 1999. Separations, vascularity and striations are not muscularity. This refers only and exclusively to muscular development. Since you Coleman spooge-suckers are so fucking stupid, I'm goning to try explaining this shit one last time for you trolls: How can Ronnie's triceps be so much bigger than Dorian's, in 1999, if the total difference in arm size was only one inch and Ronnie's biceps were bigger? Explanation: the difference in arm size was all biceps, and their triceps were of similar size. Again, muscularity is not separations, vascularity, striations, etc: it is only muscular development. Pumpy,. I've said this before to you a gazillion times but will do so again, for no other reason that I enjoy bitch-slapping you around: you are a moron. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10031 on: October 16, 2006, 06:06:50 PM »
Yates' triceps and fantastic and his forearms are showstoppers his biceps are NOT great but NOT I repeat for the morons NOT poor by any stretch of the imagination.

but there is more to it than that ND.



his arms looked like shit from most angles.

why? because individually, his forearms and triceps aren't that bad, but its the medicore delts and bis that ruin everything. You can't isolate arm muscles. You have to look at the entire arm.

you never seem to take that into account.
Flower Boy Ran Away

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10032 on: October 16, 2006, 06:10:51 PM »
 I actually explained on one sentence before, to no avail. Regardless, Ronnie's arms were only one inch bigger than Dorian's in 1999. Separations, vascularity and striations are not muscularity. This refers only and exclusively to muscular development. Since you Coleman spooge-suckers are so fucking stupid, I'm goning to try explaining this shit one last time for you trolls: How can Ronnie's triceps be so much bigger than Dorian's, in 1999, if the total difference in arm size was only one inch and Ronnie's biceps were bigger? Explanation: the difference in arm size was all biceps, and their triceps were of similar size. Again, muscularity is not separations, vascularity, striations, etc: it is only muscular development. Pumpy,. I've said this before to you a gazillion times but will do so again, for no other reason that I enjoy bitch-slapping you around: you are a moron. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

who said Ronnie's arms are only 1 inch bigger than Dorian's in Ronnie's 1999 shape:


as you can see here, Ronnie's arms in 1999 were HUGE.

Dorian's arms never looked anywhere near this big at a similar bodyweight .

that is a fact.
Flower Boy Ran Away

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10033 on: October 16, 2006, 06:18:57 PM »
Enough of this crap about Labrada having arms the same size as Yates. Yates' forearm is bigger than Labrada's upper arm. Look at the actual size of Dorian's bicep itself, it's bigger than anyone elses in that shot. And why argue about arms at all? Dorian's arms were average. He had poor bicep/tricep separation and they were not as big as they should be, but they were good enough to get the job done. Ronnie has the best arms of all-times.


Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10034 on: October 16, 2006, 06:37:24 PM »
What are the heights of Labrada and yates?

in that shot, yates appears to be a foot taller.
Flower Boy Ran Away

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10035 on: October 16, 2006, 06:44:55 PM »
Yates looks denser than a brick.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10036 on: October 16, 2006, 07:53:06 PM »
 No, completely wrong you imbecile - slightyly above the idiocy level, but not by much. The limbic system is the ultimate memory storage of the brain, and the visual corte only transforms images into electro-chemical impulses which are stored in the limbic system. See tre latest research being done at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. And how exactly does picking up aan anatomy book and checking out the spelling makes you intelligent? A monkey can be train do to do that. I jhust typed very fast without any concern for these little details. Oh, and thanks for giving me this golden opportunity to humiliate you publicly. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

you can claim foul but your crys are falling on deaf ears. i pointed out your spelling because simply typing fast and making a spelling mistake are one thing but to use totally different letters that are not even in the same vicinity on the keyboard shows a lack of knowledge. your spelling of hypocampus is vastly different then the actual spelling which consists of the letters hippocampus. you used the letter y insted of two p's and no amount of quick typing can cover up your complete lack of knowledge of neuroanatomy and functionality. again the limbic system is not the ultimate storage site for memories as human memories consist of tactile, visual, olfactory etc modalities and is stored diffusely throughout the brain. better yet we dont really have a firm grasp on the concept of memory in relation to brain stuctures. remember the limbic system doesn't exsist as a the organ such as the liver and is grouped by like neuropeptide receptors and relative neuron typology and density. so it is hard to figure out exactly were subjective experiences are stored with no real reductionist model other then lesions and imaging which is still no an exact science.

since you act as if you know something i will do a brief rundown of some structures and there thought involvement in memory formation, storage and retrival which are all seperate entities which deserve attention. hippocampal lesions have little effect on memory test with the exception of spatial memory tasks for location ( see mcdonald and keith 93) as i have the paper which is a classic. this is evidenced by the morris water maze test etc.. also review ( colombo and broadbent 2000). hippocampal pyramidal cells do seem to have place fields but evidence is still unconclusive and stating so boldly that this stucture within the limbic system is paramount is a gross fallacy. however the hippocampus is important in object recongnition and damage to the medial temporal lobe which is likely to occur with hippocampal damage( patient H.M is a good example) is thought to be a chief component.

the inferotemporal cortex  or areas of the secondary sensory cortex are important in storing sensory memories. it is thought to be important in storing information of visual memories with specialization in the patterns of visual stimuli. see naya (2001) for more info if you think im making this up.along with the rhinal neurons it the infer. cortex seems to be a relay and important storage site for visual memories.

ledoux and other leaders have purported that the amygdala is important in the storage of fear response memories but this has come under recent criticisms and the cortex seems to be integral.

the prefrontal cortex of the frontal lobe is particularly important in the storage of temporal order of events memories(working memory amnesia) see smith 2000, and greyson 04 i believe have reference to this topic. thus patients with damage to the pre. cortex have trouble performing tasks with multiple responses. however, the pre frontal cortex connections are multifarious and it is very difficult to pin down exactly what the modalities of working memory are affected by lesions, acid lesions, stimulation etc..

lets move to the cerebellum which is thought to be important  in memories involving sensorimotor skills, such as pavlovian condtioning. i wont get into the conditioning methods but a tone(now the cs) seems to elicit functional and structural changes in cerebellar neurons and this function seems to correlate highly(from concurrent data from lesions, recording)with this form of memory.

now the stiratum is thought to store memory specifically between stimuli and responses that are specific to these stimuli.

the mediodorsal nucleus( as evidenced by medial diencephalic amnesia) and whole cortex including its sub categories are also important in memories. there is no central center for memory storage and no main site, there are main relay centers but completely removing any structure in the brain will not completely disrupt memories, but perhaps in one way or modality. some brain areas can make up for loses as well, which is amazing.

i briefly glossed over the rhinal cortex which is located in the medial surface of the temporal lobe but it too has an important role along with the basal forebrain.

also, what eletrochemical signals are you referring too. what receptors and what neuropeptides without this information your statment is a nebulous and convaluted as possible. i dont wish to argue anymore as i am stating fact and you result to ridiculous claims which anyone can see are incorrect.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10037 on: October 16, 2006, 08:11:13 PM »
quotes from some recent papers
"Both long- and short- term memory are composed of three processes: encoding, storage, and retrieval (8). These processes take place in various locations in the brain, often simultaneously. Not much is known about the physiology of long-term memory, although scientists speculate that the hippocampus is involved in the creation of long-term memory. It is unclear where long-term memories are stored, although there is some evidence that a single memory may be broken down into various elements and stored in many places at once. As Irving Kupferman explains, "long-term memories are stored in multiple regions throughout the nervous system. (In other words, they are not localized but stored through circuitry)" (7). Furthermore, "reflexive and declarative memory formation may involve different circuits in the brain. Reflexive memory relies on the cerebellum and amygdala; formative, on the hippocampus and temporal lobes as well as the cortex" (7).

"Since the 1970's, scientists have speculated that the prefrontal cortex, located in the forehead area of the brain, plays a central role in working memory. (1). Experiments using PET scans and functional MRI on primates, coupled with observations of human brain injuries, point to the fact that "the prefrontal cortex always seems to be "busy" when target information is kept "in mind" (1). Writer Tim Beardsley explains, "with neural connections to almost all the areas of the brain that process sensory information, [the prefrontal cortex] is well situated to maintain a flexible store of information relevant to any task at hand" (1).

Neurologist Patricia Goldman-Rakic of Yale University has begun to map the various areas of the prefrontal cortex into various regions associated with the different senses. Her laboratory has found evidence that information about spatial location is confined to the sub-region of the prefrontal cortex, while processes related to visual appearance are in a separate area below that. Her findings, however, are still controversial (1).

Short-term memory is the subject of various other arguments as well. "Short-term memory...may be either plastic or dynamic in nature, and this is still a matter of debate. In the plastic scenario, short-term memories are formed by brief changes in synaptic transmissions. In the dynamic theory, it may arise out of a reverberating feedback circuit, where a memory is held electrically within a loop. Thus, no physical changes are made, and synaptic connections are not modified. " Long term memory, [on the other hand,] may be encoded by plastic changes in existing synapses" (7).

i have a couple very interesting papers from pubmed if you would like further reference.

and here is the post that destroys your ridiculous claims even further

We played music in the scanner [fMRI], and then we hit a virtual 'mute' button," says first author David Kraemer, a graduate student in Dartmouth's Psychological and Brain Sciences Department. "We found that people couldn't help continuing the song in their heads, and when they did this, the auditory cortex remained active even though the music had stopped."

The researchers say that this finding extends previous work on auditory imagery and parallels work on visual imagery, which both show that sensory-specific memories are stored in the brain regions that created those events. Their study, however, is the first to investigate a kind of auditory imagery typical of everyday experience.








IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10038 on: October 16, 2006, 08:52:58 PM »
IceCold:

what is your reasoning for the fact that you keep saying that ronnie injects or has injected his calves?

I'd love to know.

they have always looked the same:


2006

2003

1995

so I'd love to hear it.


bc when he flexes, nothing really happens.  same thing with wheeler.

however, in 03, it looks like something is there, but that could be that coleman's coloring was lighter that year.

only ronnie and chad know the truth, but ronnie's calves look wierd. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10039 on: October 16, 2006, 08:55:46 PM »
i dont know why there have been so many pages/commnets on yates' arms/biceps.

his biceps are his worst bodypart.

this is nothing new and has been nothing new since 1990.

so why all the fuss?

however, in some shots yates' arms look damn good, but like i said earlier, its not a arm/biceps contest.

ronnie had great arms when he turned pro in 91 and all the way up to 98.

however, it wasnt til he had the combo of mass with conditioning that he won.

his good arms got him nowhere except the top of the tier b list. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10040 on: October 16, 2006, 09:01:45 PM »
once again, Shawn is killing dorian in that front double bi - great legs, vacuum, etc.

and yet, he recieves god like perfect scores...

and no one can explain why. ::)

Flawed judging? you bet.


can you explain how ronnie lost the prejudging to cutler in 01, yet despite his horrible posing, ronnie won the posing rounds and the show. 

he even knew he lost - signaling "peace" to someone in the crowd.

also, explain how in 02 he won despite kevin and ronnie weighing 245.

hulkster,

its very convinent to bitch about the judging when dorian is involved, but yet you ignore the bad judging when coleman is the subject.

once again, you are a hypocrite.

ps.  why do you keep posting the pic of dorian doing a MM from 91.  should we post pics of coleman from before 98?

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

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10041 on: October 16, 2006, 09:05:57 PM »
all this talk about dorian's arms.

now, lets talk about ronnie's missing tricep and lat.

at least dorian was still in shape after he tore his bicep and wasnt dethroned in an embarrasing fashion.

coleman has lost 4 shows in a row and will never win again.

ENJOY PUMPSTER. 



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

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 #10042 on: October 16, 2006, 09:25:26 PM »
Quote
so why all the fuss?

however, in some shots yates' arms look damn good, but like i said earlier, its not a arm/biceps contest.
I like the way this character continues to try to change BBing and judging to suit his own biases-Yates has lousy bis so therefore biceps don't matter much.  ::) Yates has density, so that's more important than anything else.  ::) Monster delusions.

Last time i looked, arms were a major part of BB judging. Stop trying to dismiss it..1-2-3...DUH.

Until recently and for most of his career, Coleman had tris that look to be almost twice the size of Yates-deal with it. ;D

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 #10043 on: October 16, 2006, 09:31:54 PM »
Quote
Quote
so why all the fuss?

however, in some shots yates' arms look damn good, but like i said earlier, its not a arm/biceps contest.
Why all the fuss over arm bi/tri domination..DUH..

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10044 on: October 16, 2006, 09:41:39 PM »
who said Ronnie's arms are only 1 inch bigger than Dorian's in Ronnie's 1999 shape:

  Ronnie's arms were 24" in 2003, and much smaller in 1999. Julian Schmidt reported at the timne that Ronnie's arms were 22" flexed. Well, I know for sure that Dorian's untorn arm was 21" in 1995. So: 22" - 21" = 1". Duh! :P

Quote
as you can see here, Ronnie's arms in 1999 were HUGE.

  The key word here is "see". Ronnie's muscles are rounder than Dorian's, and his delt tie-in are more separated. This combined with his smaller elbow joint, gives the impression that his arms are bigger than they really are. Kind of a Flex Wheeler effect, although Ronnie is bigger.

Quote
Dorian's arms never looked anywhere near this big at a similar bodyweight .
that is a fact.

  "Looking" this big is immaterial to your proposition, because a measurement is a mathematical absolute which can't be debated about. But in fact, Dorian's triceps actually appeared to be slightly bigger than Ronnie's, because they contrasted with Dorian's smaller biceps. Furthermore, the visual effect of size only works in Ronnie's favor in the front double biceps pose, when his arms are flexed. Once again, you're confusing muscularity - a measurement of girth and development - with separations, vascularity and striations. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10045 on: October 16, 2006, 09:47:45 PM »
SUCKY's a good example of someone with a F--- up visual corte & limbic system. ;D

  No, I think that's you who've poted this same pic 300 times before. Go get your eyes checked, Pumpy, because you either have some serious cataracts or are starting to show the first signs of Alzheimer's. ;D ::)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10046 on: October 16, 2006, 10:17:38 PM »
I like the way this character continues to try to change BBing and judging to suit his own biases-Yates has lousy bis so therefore biceps don't matter much.  ::) Yates has density, so that's more important than anything else.  ::) Monster delusions.

Last time i looked, arms were a major part of BB judging. Stop trying to dismiss it..1-2-3...DUH.

Until recently and for most of his career, Coleman had tris that look to be almost twice the size of Yates-deal with it. ;D


why do you continue to think that the Mr. Olympia is soley based on biceps development.

just as you say i am biased bc yates' biceps are poor, you are in the other direction saying they are more important just bc they are a strong point for coleman.

abs/midsection is of much more importance that fucking biceps, but bc coleman has such a horrendous four pack with a distended gut, you leave that out.

how convienent.


i'm not denying that biceps are a major part of judging.  but they are still are just ONE bodypart.

and clearly not as important as others; such as back or legs. 

if that were true, the lee priest, dillet, matarazzo would have been mr. olympia.

and ronnie would have won this year.


owned again pumpster.

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

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10047 on: October 16, 2006, 10:21:48 PM »
Until recently and for most of his career, Coleman had tris that look to be almost twice the size of Yates-deal with it. ;D


and your point is?????????

and no they arent anyways.  not even close. 







not only are dorian's tri's better, but so is everything else in this pose. 


i'll save you the trouble of posting the mm of dorian from 92 vs. a mm from ronnie.

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

whitewidow

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10048 on: October 17, 2006, 01:04:56 AM »
team goodbum running this bitch in 07!!!!!!

healthiswealth

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #10049 on: October 17, 2006, 02:21:32 AM »
A case could be made on who was the most dominant Mr. Olympia ever. But who was better? thats coleman by a longshot.

that is like comparing the great Pete Sampras to the current Roger Federer.