Ok, lets set this straight:1) Initially, we had agreed to continue the debate, but not address one another directly.
However, you continued to address MY EXACT POINTS directly .. you merely left my name out.
It was as clear as day to anybody who has been following the thread that you were still arguing with me.
Well, hang on a second. I especifically sent you a PM telling you that I would be replying to some of your posts. I also said that I would be as civil as possible, and that you're welcome to reply.
2) Once we determined our paths would have to cross eventually if we both continued to post in the same thread, we merely agreed to cut out the immature name-calling, minimize the aggravation and debate civily, no? I acknowledged that you had a busy schedule and better things to do with your time then respond to each and every one of my posts, so we set more realistic expectations and I promised not to call you out as I did before for ignoring posts.
Keep in mind you initially did the same thing to me so I merely returned the favor in that regard.
I didn't call you out on any of my replies. It's just that I had made a promise to reply to your old posts, and I always keep my promises. And what are you talking about not pretending to reply to you? I left your name on quote at the top of each reply, so as to make it clear, to everyone, to whom I was replying to.
3) You have been slowly, but steadily, responding to old posts I made 50+ pages ago.
So evidently you're entitled to reply at will to any/all posts, including mine - but the moment I decide to comment (first time in nearly 50 pages, mind you), I've violated the truce? 
What sort of truce is that to begin with??
You're wrong: the posts I'm replying to are from 100+ pages ago. I haven't replied to any of your posts after page 208. I was just finished fulfilling a public promise I made, namely, that I would reply to
those posts and that's it. My final reply was made and it's done. Of course, you can reply to them again if you want, but I'm not sure if I will re-reply.
4) Might I remind you that it was YOU who offered the truce to ME, not vice versa.
Subsequently, you failed to offer any terms. I had to provide the terms and even then it took you a very long time to approve them. Only days later, you broke the initial terms by typing out several posts that were CLEARLY REPLIES yet addressed to absolutely nobody, sticking out like a sore thumb, but oddly enough, following the exact same sequence of topics in the exact same order that my previous posts displayed.
Yes, I offered the truce. I did it for a simple reason: you think Ronnie in his 2003 version was great; I think he sucked dick big time. Muscular diameter should be the only criteria for a bodybuilder to win a contest. It is pointless to debate something that is a non-issue. I debate Hukster because, just like him, I think the 1998 version of Ronnie was fantastic and worthy of, perhaps, defeating Dorian at his best. I still think Dorian at his best would win, but I concede that he might lose. When it comes to the 2003 Ronnie, though, the debate is
retarded because we're debating somehting that simply is a non-issue to me. Ronnie did not look great in 2003, an much, much worst than in 1998. Sure, the 2003 Ronnie would probably defeat Dorian on muscularity alone, but that's only because the judges would decide so...to please mass super-fans such as you, who are the majority of those who pay to see pro shows. To you, it's basically MASS! MASS! MASS! and nothing else; the diameter of the muscle determining who wins the show. So, I offered the truce because it's
pointless to compare apples and oranges: Dorian, in 1995, had mass, density, back separations and super overrall balance. Ronnie, in 2003, ha monster mass with a monster gut to boot and nothing else.
So basically, this "truce" turned out to nothing more then me giving you permission to leave several of my previous replies alone. It didn't change anything .. but thats your fault not mine.
No. Reply to whatever you want. Just don't say that, if I don't reply you back, I'm "avoiding the issue".
First off, you do know that the lateral head is the outer, exterior head, right?
Secondly, what do you mean by "short"? Can you be a bit more specific?
Ronnie's lateral head extends to his bow. It can't possibly be any "longer", if that is what you are referring to. I'll be honest though, I'm so lost with your assessment in this regard I don't really have the foggiest clue what I am even countering, since your comment is so vague and elusive (dare I say imaginary).
Yes, I know it's the outer head. Dorian's is better because his lateral triceps head attaches lower on the tendon than Ronnie's; it is naturally longer. I think it is you who is imagining things, thinking that Ronnie coul take Dorian out on the side triceps shot, with a istene midsetion, no calves and a genetically inferior lateral triceps head. Keep dreaming...
If by "short", you mean "thin", that simply isn't the case.
His lateral head is just as thick as Dorian's. The only difference is the shape.
Ronnie's lateral head is one solid band of striated muscle, whereas Dorian's has more of a contour accentuated by a dramatic kink at the bottom. Its apples & oranges. Both have merits.
Its simply preference. Bodybuilding criteria will not, nor has it ever, had any grounds to penalize the shape of Ronnie's, or for that matter Dorian's, lateral head.
No, I disagree. Dorian always ha more triceps striations than Ronnie, and even more so when compared to the 2003 Ronnie, who ha far less than in his 1998 version.
Your argument, in this regard, is silly and nonexistent suckmymuscle.
You & ND have so little to work with, you are perfectly willing to delve into the intangible, theoretical, and/or subjective elements that standard assessment criteria simply cannot address.
I agree that you have a lot to work with, PraetorFenix: 287 lbs of a distended midsetion, soft back, no calves and abs. that's certainly a lot!
ND's last resort is "balance". In your case, it seems to be "shape".
Does he even reply to you
Way to change the subject. Admit it, your "shape" argument is nonexistent.
You really think so? Well, let's see...a flat abdominal shape(Dorian, 1995), from the sides, looks much, much better than a concave shape(Ronnie, 2003). So, no, my shape argument is real.
Symmetry has ALWAYS referred to the opposite side along a dividing plane.
In this case, that is left to right, since humans are bilaterally, and not radially, symmetrical.
The IFBB doesn't need to spell that out since its simple english vocabulary every high school graduate should know.
not in bodybuilding! If we were talking about facial symmetry, then yes, it refers to left/right proportionality. But when it omes to a physique, symmetry refers to the proportional size of the muscles in relation to each other, as well as to a balanced frame. Ronnie does have narrower hip bones then Dorian, but his advantages end there. In evey other way else, Dorian's structure is superior to Ronnie's. Dorian's limb is and the distance between his navel and collarbone is shorter than Ronnie's. His quadriceps, although much inferior to Ronnie's in mass, is atually longer than Ronnie's. The long-waisted look with stumpish lacks is unaesthetic an Ronald Coleman has it. It isn't as bad as Shawn Ray's or Gary Strydom's, but it's bad enough.
Once again, muscle maturity is merely a term that encompasses a wide variety of criterium.
Condition, muscle detail, muscle density are all constituents of muscle maturity.
Pretty straightforward stuff.
This is babbling, my friend.
YOU prefer the shape of Dorian's lateral head. That's fine.
Stop pretending its some sort of universal trait that everyone would prefer.
Some of the bodybuilding purists prefer simplicity, and Dorian's kink is a bit too "abstract".
I'm sure some of the judges would prefer Dorian's shape, whereas others would prefer Colemans.
Realistically, none of the judges would consider the shape at all in their assessment.
There are simply too many other variables of greater importance to focus on something so small.
While my preferene is subjective, my assessment is not. Dorian's shape may be a matter of preference, but Dorian does have the genetically longer lateral triceps head. That is an objective, measurable criteria, which is not a matter of opinion.
Either way ... shape never has and never will compensate for overall development and detail.
Case closed.
[/quote]
SUCKMYMUSCLE
