Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce

[pobrecito]

Just look at that oil filled calf sack of shit...totally ruins the whole pose  

[pumpster]

Just look at that oil filled calf sack of shit...totally ruins the whole pose   

The troll neglects to mention that Coleman looks better in that pose. hahahaahahah

Here's someone with everything falling apart..

[pumpster]

These black & white shots ND resorts to in lieu of any color versions that looks that way-does he realize that he's lost most of the cuts to get size that's still smaller than Coleman? Where are the color versions of these same shots? Bigger ya, but he could never get size & & cuts at he same time like Coleman.

[pobrecito]

No the only advantage Ronnie has in quads is sweep & upper seperation , but you get silent when Yates has better satorius seperation than Ronnie oh and lets say Ronnie's quads are just so much better , it means dick because he has no calves what so ever and his whole lower balance suffers for it , his twings for calves lack proportion in relation to those impressive quads , so you're patting yourself on the back for having better quads and missing the whole , balanced development Hulkster try as you may you will never counter this , you're trapped by it and the judges look for it in every single mandatory pose .

Totally agree. Yates' legs as a whole blow away Coleman's.

[Hulkster]

Totally agree. Yates' legs as a whole blow away Coleman's.

why have you become so retarded since those 99 pics were posted?

Ronnie had better quads, better glutes and better hams.

Hell: look at his calves - they were more detailed than dorian's were in 99.

its the size and shape that is the problem.

Still, how can you say that poor calves are more of a liability than poor QUADS?

that is retarded.

check out the detail in the calves:

[NarcissisticDeity]

Poor calves , excellent quads and NO balance = not complete

[Hulkster]

No the only advantage Ronnie has in quads is sweep & upper seperation , but you get silent when Yates has better satorius seperation than Ronnie oh and lets say Ronnie's quads are just so much better

umm...why are you brushing off the advantages in sweep and upper seperation as if they don't mean much?

why do you keep claiming that dorian's INNER THIGH makes up for the rest of his shitty looking quads?

Why am I still arguing with a fool?

[NarcissisticDeity]

why have you become so retarded since those 99 pics were posted?

Ronnie had better quads, better glutes and better hams.

Hell: look at his calves - they were more detailed than dorian's were in 99.

its the size and shape that is the problem.

Still, how can you say that poor calves are more of a liability than poor QUADS?

that is retarded.

check out the detail in the calves:

Wrong his quads aren't poor , thats a very weak attempt to justify Ronnie's weak ass twigs for calves and Ronnie's calves were more detailed that Dorians were? did I just read that right?

[Hulkster]

Poor calves , excellent quads and NO balance = not complete

sort of like:

poor biceps, good triceps and poor arm/delt shape = not complete:

[Hulkster]

and Ronnie's calves were more detailed that Dorians were? did I just read that right?

yes you did. In terms of DETAIL only, Ronnie 99 had better detail in the calves, and the entire body except for the lower back and abs:

[NarcissisticDeity]

umm...why are you brushing off the advantages in sweep and upper seperation as if they don't mean much?

why do you keep claiming that dorian's INNER THIGH makes up for the rest of his shitty looking quads?

Why am I still arguing with a fool?

You're dead wrong about his quads being poor , this was the original topic that caused Royalty to call you an internet-fan , Dorian's quads are huge , seperated , thick , detailed and balanced for you to argue otherwise is ignorant and foolish , his legs smoke Ronnie's overall !

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes you did. In terms of DETAIL only, Ronnie 99 had better detail in the calves, and the entire body except for the lower back and abs:

Add this to the list of Hulksterism lol Hulkster Dorian has among the best calves ever on a Mr Olympia winner , in no way shape or form does Ronald Dean Coleman compare favorably with him in the calves , in no way , not in size , shape , muscularity , detail , seperation , development , balance , proportion , quality , NOTHING at all , Hulkster you've gone off the deep end with this statement and if I were you I'd retract it as soon as possible , delete your post , beg for forgiveness and pray I never bring it up again !!

this is a meltdown statement you realize?

[nicorulez]

  First of all, I said that the water molecules become closer when water freezes, just as in the way they spread apart when it evaporates and becomes gaseous. The floating analogy is flawed, because several objects that are heavier than water float on top of it. If you've ever seen the "Will It Float?" segment on the Letterman show and it is ovious. For instance, cement is heavier than water, yet a sac full of cement will float on top of it! The reason for this is that water has some unusual physical properties. Besides the fact that it one of the very few substances which exists in the solid, liquid and gaseous form, water, by it's structural propoerties, for what is known as a tension layer. In other words, the surface of water exerts a much stronger tension than the water beneath it. This is the reason why, if you put an ant on a cup of water, it remains in the surface and doesen't sink. Theoretically, this shouldn't happen since an ant is heavier than the specific amount of water molecules underneath it. This is also the reaon why, if you throw a person from a thousand feet high over water, the person will be crushed just like if your threw this person over cement. And speaking of cement, it also has a greater weight per area, then water, yet a bag of cement, up to a certain size, will float on top of it. This is not merely due to the tension layer, but also that the structure of certain things make them float on water, regardless of weight. If you get a sponge that weights a thousand pounds and put in water, it will slowly rise toi the surface, despite the fact that it weights more than water.Physical density is distorted when it comes to water, but this is beyond the score of this thread.

  Now, as for your claims, let's analyse this carefully. I know these things for a fact:

 - Muscles are composed by a contractile part made of myosin and actin, and water.

 - The weight of myosin is stable across human

 - The weight of water is stable on Planet Earth.

 - It is physically impossible for muscles to be squeezed so as to increase it's weight in a given area, because, since the weight of it's components do not vary, the weight is stable.

  All bodybuilders are carbed-up before a show and have roughly as much intra-tissue water as the other, with small variations. This is exactlyt he goal of carbing up and restricting Sodium: to increase the amount of water inside the muscles as much as possible, while decreasing the sub-cutaneous water as much as possible. The only way to verify your assertions would be to remove a pound of muscle tissue from Ronnie and Dorian, on contest day, and verigy it's perimeter. There's no other way: physical density is an absolute which can't be bargained with. So these leaves us with a scenario where the raw materials that compose muscles are stable across humans as far as weight is concerned, and the differentiation between the two bodybuilders as far as fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles in immaterial, because they weight the same and, regardless of the differences in glycogen storage capacity that they have, I'm sure that these fibers store different amounts of glycogen withing contexts. For instance, a distance runner, I'm sure, has more glycogen stored in his slow-twitch fibers than in the fast-twitch one, even if the latter has a greater storage capacity. So the possibilities are limitless, meaning that, even with a different profile of fibers, they can have the exact amount of glycogen stored. What about the control variables? The specific kind of skin, it's color and the shape of the muscle fibers all can result in a differing appearance of muscularity, with the same exact size of muscles. Now I disagree with what Delta said about me having owned you, because we made logical deductions based on differing inductions, making this an almost tautological argument. If I say that 1 + 1 = 2, but your say that 1 + 1 = 3, but you have said that the symbol 1 actually stands for 1.5 in my symbolic system, then we're both right and we're both wrong. Regardless, the only to verigy this is by directly measuring the amoutn of surface area occupied by one pound of Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles. If they differ, then the difference in appearance is not merely a visual propoert but also a physical one. Regardless, I don't think that Ronnie's lats were as big as Dorian's in 1999,  considering that Dorian's taper from the back was as good as Ronnie's, despite the obvious fact that Dorian's waist is thicker.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Sucky, you fail to consider that a muscle is not only myosin, actin and water.  BTW, water in the solid state is less dense than liquid water.  That is fact.  Look at the thread. 
Water molecules spread out when frozen.  Look at any physics book.  I don't want to argue man.  I am correct.  Muscle density differs from individual to individual.  It is a matter of not only actin/myosi but also water, fat and connective.  Once again, if I took a cubic inch of quadricep from Dorian and your average non-weight training male, would the density be the same?  Of course not, muscle is not synonymous with actin/myosis only.  If muscle were completely lean and lacking interspersed fat, that would be true.  However, it is not.  Look at any cross-sectional anatomy book (Netter is one) and you will see that in live humans when you cut into muscle there will be interspersed fat.  Thus, if we assume that Dorian is the leanest bodybuilder ever' he would by definition be the most dense.  Man, I am supporting your assertion that his density is unparalled.  Why the argument.  Click the link, you will see that your analogy of ice and water is reversed; ice is less dense with molecules that are spread further apart. 

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/122Adensityice.html

[Hulkster]

I am pretty much done with this thread.

Over the course of this thread, we have been debating who was better Ronnie versus dorian using their 99 (some used 2003) and 93 respective bests.

but we were doing so based on very little evidence.

up until now, there was almost no pics/videos of either Dorian 93 or Ronnie 99.

Then, a few days ago, the 99 Ronnie pics were posted and the collective jaw of Getbig dropped when they saw how ripped, huge and shapely Ronnie was.

no one gave a shit about dorian until a day later.

At first, Sucky and ND, did not really have much to say.

then they decide, the hell with it, we can't argue this anymore, so we will just go on as if the pics/video was never posted.

they continued with their (now proven wrong) garbage about how much harder dorian was, how much dryer he was, how he had fantastic quads, no distension when relaxed (bullshit - check the pics) etc etc.

I will not continue argue with people that are, as Haider put it so well " not dumb, but full of shit".

then you have pobrecito, who now says Ronnie would have lost because he had stomach distension.  Never mind the fact that dorian had inferior taper, quads, glutes, hams, biceps, some would say back, and detail in most major bodyparts.


then they go and claim that all these attributes that the judges have always considered when scoring (quad sweep, taper, striations, glutes, vascularity etc) are never considered.

what is this? the 1930's? these guys don't even know how modern contests are scored! ask any judge. They will tell you that since at least the 1990's,. all these things are considered to give an advantage in some way over another guy who does not have the same attribute, assuming all other things equal.  And, these are not the only attributes scored, so don't even start with the bullshit.

then you have the tactic of dismissing major flaws and looking at a totally different bodypart in an effort to minimize the flaws.

eg. when we are talking about Ronnie's quads, we are taking about quads.

not calves.

this thread is over because the people arguing for dorian cannot see what is right in front of their own eyes.

Yes, the 99 Ronnie pics show few mandatories. but the ones that they do show (back lat, front db, back db, mm) are all better than Dorian. Dorian would win the ab and thigh, and side tri. that is it by almost all accounts.

I will not continue to argue with people that cannot see the difference in quality between these two guys. It smacks of ignorance about how contests are judged.  And no, it has nothing to do with skin colour :

[NarcissisticDeity]

I am pretty much done with this thread.

Over the course of this thread, we have been debating who was better Ronnie versus dorian using their 99 (some used 2003) and 93 respective bests.

but we were doing so based on very little evidence.

up until now, there was almost no pics/videos of either Dorian 93 or Ronnie 99.

Then, a few days ago, the 99 Ronnie pics were posted and the collective jaw of Getbig dropped when they saw how ripped, huge and shapely Ronnie was.

no one gave a shit about dorian until a day later.

At first, Sucky and ND, did not really have much to say.

then they decide, the hell with it, we can't argue this anymore, so we will just go on as if the pics/video was never posted.

they continued with their (now proven wrong) garbage about how much harder dorian was, how much dryer he was, how he had fantastic quads, no distension when relaxed (bullshit - check the pics) etc etc.

I will not continue argue with people that are, as Haider put it so well " not dumb, but full of shit".

then you have pobrecito, who now says Ronnie would have lost because he had stomach distension.  Never mind the fact that dorian had inferior taper, quads, glutes, hams, biceps, some would say back, and detail in most major bodyparts.


then they go and claim that all these attributes that the judges have always considered when scoring (quad sweep, taper, striations, glutes, vascularity etc) are never considered.

what is this? the 1930's? these guys don't even know how modern contests are scored! ask any judge. They will tell you that since at least the 1990's,. all these things are considered to give an advantage in some way over another guy who does not have the same attribute, assuming all other things equal.  And, these are not the only attributes scored, so don't even start with the bullshit.

then you have the tactic of dismissing major flaws and looking at a totally different bodypart in an effort to minimize the flaws.

eg. when we are talking about Ronnie's quads, we are taking about quads.

not calves.

this thread is over because the people arguing for dorian cannot see what is right in front of their own eyes.

Yes, the 99 Ronnie pics show few mandatories. but the ones that they do show (back lat, front db, back db, mm) are all better than Dorian. Dorian would win the ab and thigh, and side tri. that is it by almost all accounts.

I will not continue to argue with people that cannot see the difference in quality between these two guys. It smacks of ignorance about how contests are judged.  And no, it has nothing to do with skin colour :

MELTDOWN !! this ones a keeper. 

[nicorulez]

Sucky, you fail to consider that a muscle is not only myosin, actin and water.  BTW, water in the solid state is less dense than liquid water.  That is fact.  Look at the thread. 
Water molecules spread out when frozen.  Look at any physics book.  I don't want to argue man.  I am correct.  Muscle density differs from individual to individual.  It is a matter of not only actin/myosi but also water, fat and connective.  Once again, if I took a cubic inch of quadricep from Dorian and your average non-weight training male, would the density be the same?  Of course not, muscle is not synonymous with actin/myosis only.  If muscle were completely lean and lacking interspersed fat, that would be true.  However, it is not.  Look at any cross-sectional anatomy book (Netter is one) and you will see that in live humans when you cut into muscle there will be interspersed fat.  Thus, if we assume that Dorian is the leanest bodybuilder ever' he would by definition be the most dense.  Man, I am supporting your assertion that his density is unparalled.  Why the argument.  Click the link, you will see that your analogy of ice and water is reversed; ice is less dense with molecules that are spread further apart. 

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/122Adensityice.html

Also, Sucky just because they weigh the same does not mean their muscles are the same size.  Once again, the body is composed of 60% water.  On top of that, in top level bodybuilders you have 3-4% fat.  Then, take into consideration what the bones, tendons, ligaments and organs weight.  Because these are all variable, it is impossible to state that Ronnie and Dorian had an equivalent amount of muscle.  That is akin to saying a 257 pound lard ass has as much muscle.  Fact, we do not know either of their bodyfat percentages as I know of no reliable bodyfat measurements that were taken; we are assuming.  Second, who is to say that their bones, organs, connective tissue and organs weighed the same' it is literaly impossible.  Then, how much water is really being held on by both bodybuilders.  We assume that Dorian is drier as he looks so, but do we really know?  Thus, I can very easily say that the idea that if I took an equal volume of muscle (say a cube biopsy) from any bodypart of your choosing and weighed them they would not be identical.  There will always be some variability.  SInce fat and water and glycogen stores from one individual to the next differ, the density will differ.  That is it; that is my point.  If you don't believe it, go to any physiological lab in the country that does muscle biopsies an see for yourself.  Question, if actin and myosis is universal and that is all muscle is composed of, would the same truth apply amongst various species.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Just a couple of points here:

Dorian's arms at his best - that was only in 1993 right?

As for Ronnie's calves lacking size - no chance.  They have plenty of size.  They are easily over 20".  However, the other flaws you mentioned are accurate.

His calves aren't anywhere NEAR 20" when he's 250lbs maybe 300lbs but no way at 250lbs.

[pobrecito]

Ronnie calves 20" hmm...Dorian's were likely 23" or 24" then.

And Dorian's arms were 21"....and in 93 they were no where near the liability that Ronnie's calves in 99 were. Dorian's arms in 93 do not, in any way, detract from his physique. Ronnie's oil filled calves on the other hand are very detrimental to his physique and completely throw his lower body out of proportion.

[pobrecito]

Pictoral proof to back up my last post:

[Pecs]

Pictoral proof to back up my last post:

Wow!, i might have edge out ronnie in CALVES......only.

[pobrecito]

Check out Dorian slaugtering Ronnie here. Clear proof that the calf completely ruins the pose for Coleman. Fortunately for him, he faced other mortals who had even worse calves than him! (Wheeler, Cormier). And, for as much as you talk shit about Dorian quads, his quads actually have more visible cuts than Coleman's in this pose Complete and utter domination by Yates

[NarcissisticDeity]

No contest even though Ronnie has the clearly better biceps

[pobrecito]

holy shit Dorian looks monsterous there

[NarcissisticDeity]

Yates is the epitome of density 

[pobrecito]

That shot is simply unmatched, from head to toe. Utter domination and decimation of Coleman by Yates.