Yes, that is what I said. However, you took my quote out of context. Nice try dumbass. I never said Ronnie and Dorian were the same width b/c they weighed the same, in and of itself.
You tried to establish a correlation between bodyweight and specific development of some muscles. Again, the issue here is not of overrall development but of specific muscle groups, so your assertion is illogical. Your pseudo-logic is evident by the fact that bodybuilders of markedly similar bodyweights vary greatly in regards to the size of specific muslces. Nice try, "dipshit".
I said the difference in lat width between them was negligable when they weighed the same b/c Ronnie was only slightly wider in 03.
There are several levels of reply to this. Firstly, you're making an a priori assumption which is not true. I don't think Ronnie's lats were wider than Dorian's in 2003 at all, but of equal width, so any increase from 1999 to 2003 would necessarily mean that Ronnie's lats were slightly narrower than Dorian's in 1999. Secondly, even if Ronnie's lats were slightly wider than Dorian's in 2003 and that Ronnie gained little back mass from 1999 to 2003, there's still nothing that contradicts what I said. The little that he gained, which is arbitrary and an incognita, could be enough for him to have slightly surpassed Dorian in 2003 while still having been slightly narrower in 1999. Who knows? The issue here is one of an absolute measurement and not of a visual one, and even the slightest of increases could have resulted in Ronnie surpassing Dorian in 2003 while being slightly narrower in 1999 - and whether the eyes catch on this difference is immaterial.
Now, I'm not sure if Ronnie was wider in 2003. Like I said, most of the gain seem to have been in his glutes, quads and hams. He did add thickness and width to his back in 2003, but there's no evidence that he was wider in 2003 besides poorly scaled pics. It's entirely poissible for Ronnie to have been narrower in 1999 and just equivalent in width in 2003. Considering that Ronnie didn't appear to any wider than Dorian in 2003 and that he definitely gained some size between 1999 and 2003- his huge hams and glutes make his lats appear to be wider than they really are -, then I think that he was significantly wider than Ronnie in 1999, and Ronnie appears to be as wide due to his smaller waist.
You even said yourself that Ronnie did not add much size to his lats.
Correct, and that's why Dorian was slightly wider than Ronnie in his 1999 version, since they were equivalent in 2003 for
width.
This means they would be the same width when they weighed the same.
Prove it! You can't! You just say that out of your ass. First, I don't know if
Ronnie's lats were truly wider in 2003, and even if nthey were, this still doesen't make my argument illogical because we're talking about minutiae differences in width, and an arbitrarilly determined "small" increase in width could be enough for Ronnie to have surpassed Dorian for width in 2003, while still not changing the fact that he could ahve been narrower in 1999. NeoSperminole, the more you try, the more you fall.
I made an assumption that, since they weighted the same and Ronnie's quads were bigger and Dorian was drier, than what made them weight the same was Dorian's thicker&wider lats. It's just an assumption, and it could be wrong, but it is no worse than you claiming that they were as wide and then providing as evidence pics that are out of scale and angle, besides that we all know that the difference in waist size and Ronnie's rounder muscles fools the eyes. Nice try, retard!
Way to make yourself look stupid with your own argument.
Since your argument does not invalidate my point, then I fail to see how you could possibly have made me feel stupid. Furthermore, your assertion is not irrelevant to disproving my point, but it is probably based on a false assumption.Yeah, you made me feel stupid because you claimed I said something I never did, or when you corrected me for mistaking the conversion of inches to centimeters, when the reality is that I did the conversion mentally and got pretty fucking close to the real measure, and that an inch to centimeter conversion is something that anyone can do quite easily either with pencil and paper or with a converter. Duh!. Yeah, wow, you have made me feel stupid many times! ::)Now seriously, little boy, you'll have to raise your game to a much, much higher level if you want to have even a small chance of matching the mighty SUCKMYMUSCLE in this discussion. So far, you haven't made a single dent to my armor. My argument is that logical evaluation of their respective physiques indicates that Dorian had wider lats than Ronnie in his 1999 version. If there is one bodypart that Dorian could go head to head with the 2003 Ronie for sheer size, it is lats. If Ronnie's lats in 2003 were just as wide as Dorian's and Ronnie gained a small amount of lat width&thickness from 1999 to 2003, then this indicates that Ronnie's lats in 1999 were slightly narrower than Dorian's. Even if the difference is inperceptible, the issue here is not visual, but mathematical. I don't care if the difference is barely perceptible to the human eyes, because my assertion was that Dorian is wider, and even the smallest of differences would prove my claims. Remember that I never claimed that the difference was large or even percptible; I just claimed that it existed, and that it favored Dorian.
what the hell are you talking about? If anything, Dorian's back was disproportionate. It overpowered everything else on his physique.
No, it didn't. Dorian's back was superbly proportional to his physique. Look at Dorian from the back, and you'll see that his back, hams, glutes and calves are all in perfect proportion. Look at Ronnie, and you'll see that his glutes and hams overpowered his back and calves, in the same way that his quads overpowered his entire physique from the front. Dorian's back was of adequate size for a 260 lbs man. Sure, Dorian had muscles that were small for his size, but this does not mean that his back was too big for his physique.
Ronnie's back, conversely, was not as big as you would expect for a 290 lbs man. In 2003, Ronnie had the quads, hams and glutes of a 300+ man, and the back of a 260 lbs one. His weight gain from 2002 to 2003 was mostly gut distension, glutes and hams. His back increased only slightly in width and equlaed Dorian's, but that was not good enough. Dorian's back at the 1997 Olympia was actually bigger than that of the 2003 Ronnie, this despite the fact that Dorian wass 270 lbs.
His arms looked like twigs sticking out of a tree
I never denied that Dorian's overrall arm size was relatively small for his torso. However, I mentioned that this is not as relevant as some might think, because the total arm mass is only visible from the front while flexing the arms. Dorian's arms worked for him when he needed it - such as in the side triceps and the back double biceps.
and his legs were too narrow when viewed straight on.
That's your opinion, one that no one cares about. Too bad for you that the Olympia judges never marked him down for it.
At least Ronnie's lower body (except for his calves) was balanced with his massive upper body.
Completely wrong. This is not true either from the front or from the back. From the back, Ronnie's glutes and hams ovepowered his calves and back. From the front, his monstrous quads overpowered his torso. And his midsection overpowered his entire physique.
Furthermore, Ronnie's back in 03 was considerably larger than Dorian's. I don't know how you can say that his advantage in muscle back mass was close to non-existent. Don't confuse overall back mass with lat width.
Lat width&thickess do correlete to some degree. There's only so much mass that you can add vertically before the muscle increases horizontally. Since Ronnie''s lats in 2003 were equal in width to Dorian, the difference in thickess could not possibly be that great. Yes, Ronnie was thicker, but not as much as you assume. My determination that most of the weight that Ronnie gained in the off-season of 2003 were quads, hams and glutes and not back comes from the observation that they were roughly equivalent in lat width, so, although Ronnie had thicker lats, the difference in overrall lat size could not be that great because a huge increase in thickess is impossible without a concomitant increase in width. Do you understand it now, kid?
Nasser was wider than Dorian. You can disagree all you want, but it will never change this.
PROVE IT! Prove that Nasser was wider than Dorian from the back! What a stupid, retarded assertion! Nasser could never match Dorian from the back in either width&thickenss and this is the reason why Dorian defeated him from the back. Since you like to base all of your stupid assertions on visual evidence, then watch the pre-judging video of the 1995 Olympia, and you'll see that even Levrone was wider than Nasser from the back. NeoSperminole: duh!
The reason Dorian beat him in the rear poses is b/c Dorian's back had better detail. You're seriously a f*cking moron.
Bullshit! Everyone knows that this is not true! Nasser could never match Dorian for either back width or thickness, and this is the reason Dorian defeated him. Thbis is the reason why Dorian defeated Nasser flat out in the rear lat spread. Is the puropse of this mandatory to show "detail", you fucking idiot? Nasser wasn't as wide as Dorian even in the back double biceps.
you claimed that Nasser wasn't even close to Dorian's lat width. I demonstrated with pictorial evidence why you are wrong.
You proved it with what? A pic? Let me tell you somthing: Dorian is wider in those pics you posted. Much wider. No contest. You are a serious monster retard for saying something as non-sensical as that Basser was wider - not even
as wide - than Dorian Yates. Visual evidence doesen't mean shit, especially when they prove the opposite of what you're saying. So you think that looking at a pic is a more accurate assessment than that made by all those Olympia judges who actually saw Dorian and Nasser spread their lats and gave the nod to Dorian with striaght-firsts? Keep trying, kid, because your game is very weak.
Now you are trying to save face by ignoring this while trying to change the subject.
What am I ignoring if you didn't prove shit? I think you should delete your account, because there's no possible redemption for a guy who says that Nasser's was wider from the back than Dorian. You out did yourself here. No, really.
I never said that Ronnie's gut was under control most of the time. I said he kept his midsection in check when it mattered the most.
The two things mean exactly the same. And guess what? You're wrong! Since you like photographic evidence so much, dozens of pics have been posted showing Ronnie's monster gut distension while he was onstage, during transition, executing mandatories and also posing. You're in such denial about your hero that your refuse to acknowledge reality. I feel sorry for you. No, really. You post a pic where Dorian's gut is practically flat and then claim that it's as bad as Ronnie's in 2003. Unbelievable! How can one argue with someone in such denial?
Dorian also had a gut when he was relaxed. However, he sucked it in when he posed. I can post several pics of him with a distended midsection. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Because there's nothing to understand. It''s like me saying that 23" - 21" = 2 and you continue to insist that it's 2.5.
Everyone knows that Dorian only had a
significant gut distension in 1997. In 1995, his best year, he had the best overrall midsection ever seen on a large man, with a flat stomach and incredibly etched serratus and abdominals. You post pics where Dorian's gut is infinitely better than that of the 2003 Ronnie and then claim that it's just as bad. Let's do a poll and you'll see that all reasonable people will agree that Ronnie took gut distension to a level of it's own in 2003. It's not even close. Your "evidence" is only your opinion, one that is simply nolt a statement of fact. The fact: Ronnie's gut in 2003 was bigger than Dorian's has ever been . Period.
ha ha ha, you run away like a scared bitch after I call you out. In case you forgot, you were the one who issued the challenge.
What about all the times I challenged you to reply to my posts, and you bitched out with the bullshit excuse that they were too long? Besides, what's the point of doing that, since you can obviously go back, spell-check your posts and edit them? Guess what, if Ron opens the board's database, where you can't edit your posts, I'm sure that I'll find several spelling mistakes made by you. And the reasons why I make spelling mistakes is because I type ten times more and times faster than you, and I don't bother to use the spell-checker since I don't really care.
I also highlighted the part where you used "waist" instead of "waste." This is the 2nd time I caught you making this same mistake. Didn't you learn the difference between the two words in elementary school?
Yeah, you lack the intellectual capacity to criticize my posts for it's content, so you pick at straws, criticizing my spelling, grammar or claiming that I wrote things I never did. Again, I dared you to find the post where I said that the lats increase as much in
muscle mass in the upper part as in the lower. Surprise, you didn't show shit! I was talking about visual increase and you made me look like I said that I was talking about muscle mass. I hate your guts because you're dishonest and distort what I write to make it seem like I said things I never did. Too bad for you that it didn't work.
it's irrelevant that you've been following bodybuilding for 18 yrs compared to my 7 yrs.
Oh, but is was
you
who brought up the issue of the number of years that you have been following the sport! If it doesen't matter, then why did you bring it up?
There's only so much to learn about the way muscles look. I could understand if maybe I've been following the sport for only 1 yr. I'm not really sure why you felt the need to mention how many contests you've been to.
It means something because it gives you a basis of comparison. After you've seen the physiques that win shows and you understand what made them win, you understand better what bodybuilding excellency is all about. Being a bodybuilding expert, as far as physique evaluation goes, has a lot to do with going to shows.
This doesn't mean a goddamn thing. I could say I've watched the space shuttle launch over 200 times. Does this mean I know more about space shuttles than you?
This is a terrible analogy, because when you're observing a space shuttle you're not concerned with comparing it's visual appearance with other space shuttles. Do you learn more about what space shuttles launchng look like by watching them launch? Definitely!
try again dumbass. I've posted my pics here before. I can assure you that I'm not a "pencil-necked geek who's never worked out in his entire life." I would even go so far as to say that I probably look better than you ever did at your prime.
Ok, post your pic. Since you're the one claming to have a better physique than mine, I don't have to prove otherwise. Let's go. I want to see it.
By the way, I have met Ronnie in person.
I bet you have, being such a guy.
ha ha ha, too bad I know better than to fall for you lame attempt to save face. I want everybody to see you for the idiot that you are.
so which is it? Did you or did you not say that Dorian's arms were 52 cm?
Boo fucking hoo! A got an inch to centimeter mental conversion wrong by one centimeter, and this makes me an idiot! What a sophomoric argument! It's just like arguing that spelling correctly has anything to do with intelligence, since we have a spell-checker here! Duh! Besides, Dorian's arms at his best were actually closer to 22" than 21", so suck on that!
the law of cause and effect contradicts itself based on its own assumptions. Your response is a nothing more than a long-winded conjecture on the definition of logic and multiple universes. It does absolutely nothing to disprove what I said. To answer your last sentence - no, your answer was not sufficient. Apparently, you also failed grammar in elementary school b/c you used a verb instead of an adjective.
No, it contradicts what you said, because logic does not need to explain to itself since it's validity is an a priori assumption that must be valid, otherwise the Reality could not function in an ordained manner. Cause and effect is a rule into itself, a language that describes the interaction between potentials in a closed system. Since potentials are infinite, they cannot be explained by any specific logic because logic is based on the inherit axiom that a systmem is closed into itself; that it's potentials are determined and resolved because there's a there's a pattern of assumptions(logic) that must be followwed in this system.
Thus, you're wrong because cause and effect does not need to be explained by logic, because it is the cause that creates the explanation! However, as Max Tegmark has said before, potentials transcend logic because there's no amount of axioms that can be created as a priori assumptions, while logic has no meaning without the concept of limit. Like in mathematics. So, there are infinite kinds of "anti-logics" that contradict each other. This is not, however, a problem if you assume that all logics are absolutes unto themselves, and that there's a meta-logic that determines that inconsistencies between the different logics are resolved globally, because global coherence of the system is a given since there's no limit or rules to the possibilities of resolution of local inconsistencies. In other words, there are no "rules" for meta-logic to correct incompatibilites between. The meta-logic detrmines that there are infinite potentials for resilutions of inconsistencies within axiomatically closed systems because there is infinite potential for resolutions. Get it?
So this is why I said that any perceived incosistency of physical laws results from
perception: you assume that ther is an incosnsistency because your're locally restrained. In fact, the human process of inductive logic, itself, is a form of biologically based axiom-bound perception.
So, my reply to you about parallel universes and the meta-universe is pertinent, because the inherit contradiction that you perceive does not really exist, but arises from your attemp to use deductive logic to explain a grander reality that does need such logic to operate. You got caught up in a tautology, because language, like the deductive processes of the human brain, is also axiomatically bound and, thus, is not capable of expressing concepts that are beyond it's restrains. Enough for today's lesson.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
