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

[carvedoutofwood]

Could be worse he could have Bitch Tits like Coleman 98/99 lol and no detail , same series of shots , whats great about this is , he's untanned , no oil and no contest lighting and he still destroys everyone.

its a BW photo.... tanned... oil... lighting.... wtf are you talking about its BLACK AND WHITE....please...

[NarcissisticDeity]

its a BW photo.... tanned... oil... lighting.... wtf are you talking about its BLACK AND WHITE....please...

good job NOT touching the Bitch Tits comment  and if you're implying even though its in B&W a tan , oil and great lighting wouldn't enhance the picture you're sadly mistaken.

[NeoSeminole]

Sucky, this is why arguing with you is pointless.

In fact, the amount of muscle fibers in the upper part of the latissus is roughly twice as great as that in the lower part.

Actually, I called you out on your bullshit claims, such as that most of the lat size is in the lower part of the muscle

You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. Here are 2 anatomy charts that show the latissimus dorsi. I circled the upper part in both pics for you to see.





It's obvious the lower part of the lats are larger. Hence, this is where most of the increase in size occurs. Imagine the muscle as a balloon. When you inflate it, most of the incease in size occurs in the bell-portion of the balloon. The size of the neck increases only a small proportion of the total increase in volume.

SUCKMYDICK

[pobrecito]

good job neosemen!!!

[Hulkster]

sucky didn't learn that in proctology school .

[pumpster]

Yates looking like a refrigerator..

[suckmymuscle]

Sucky, this is why arguing with you is pointless.
You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. Here are 2 anatomy charts that show the latissimus dorsi. I circled the upper part in both pics for you to see.

  Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, since the issue at hand is not where the muscle occupies more physical space, but rather where it expands further. You claimed most of the growth occurs in the lower part of the muscle; I demonstrated that this is non-sensical, since the muscle grows proportionally and the upper part of the lats expands further. Where do you measure the lat width, in the lower part of the muscle or the lower one? In the upper part. Once again, you just got owned.

It's obvious the lower part of the lats are larger. Hence, this is where most of the increase in size occurs. Imagine the muscle as a balloon. When you inflate it, most of the incease in size occurs in the bell-portion of the balloon. The size of the neck increases only a small proportion of the total increase in volume.

  Absolutely incorrect. If this were the case, then the lower part of the lats would be wider than the upper part, which even an utter idiot such as yourself can realize is incorrect. Your balloon analogy is terrible for one simple reason: it is not applicable in this case. Muscles are not sacs inflated with air. The fascia accomodates the muscle according to it's original shape. There is no structural deformation, to the muscle tissue, analogous to the one caused by oxygen and hydrogen gases to the latex fibers of a balloon. I'm waiting to here your doctoral thesis on topology that proves otherwise, dumbass.

SUCKMYDICK

[IceCold]

I still find it amusing that IceCold is so fond of these comments from Paul and Flex, totally unaware of their comments following the 2003 Mr Olympia

i have never denied or disagreed that anyone made comments after ronnie in 03.

its the fact that you totally deny comments made about dorian in the same fashion you claim was made about ronnie. 

[Hulkster]

sucky is currently working on a thesis that examines the intracellular calcium levels of Dorian's asshole

[suckmymuscle]

I challenge you to show me one bodybuilder who's lats are wider than his shoulders. According to you, lat width isn't dependent on clavicle length. So you should be able to find plenty of examples.

  Irrelevant, since the variation between shoulder girdle and latissimus development is not constant. Wasn't Ronnie's lats wider in 2003 than in 1999? Yes. This his shoulder girdle increase in width? No. Besides, even if it were true - which it is not -, there is no evidence you can provide to assert that Dorian andf Ronnie have similar clavicle widths. Run while you still can, little boy! Oh, too late!

Did you personally measure both Dorian's and Ronnie's lats? If not, then you have no evidence that Dorian was wider than Ronnie

  The thing is that it was you who claimed that they were similar in lengh, not me. I made the point that I don't know. Now, considering that there are over six billion Human Beings on Planet Earth and that they all - with the sole exception of identical twins - very genetically, I'm logically assuming that they have different clavicle lengh, even if small. As Cicero would say, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. That's you, boy.

  All you can do is speculate. I try to use knowledge of anatomy to show they were the same width.

  And you have provided no evidence that your speculation has any grounds on reality, except wishful thinking on your part. Knowledge of anatomy? Even if you correctly guesstimated their tendon insertuion point, clavicle lengh and derived a calculation based on that, it would still be far from accurate.  

ha ha ha, you have been owned by more people than I bother to count. Now run along little boy.

  Oh, so you know how to count? I guess you've only learned how to count the number zero so far, because that's the number of times I've been owned in this thread. But don't worry: next year, in second grade, you'll learn the other nine numbers. Then, who knows, you'll be able to make more accurate assessments of clavicle lenghs that relies more on actual measures rather than anatomy. But then again, you'll probably repeat your school year, so my hopes are not very high.

SUCKMYDICK

[NeoSeminole]

see what I mean about how arguing with Sucky is pointless?

[IceCold]

These are some of the best Yates pictures I've ever seen!!!

I still contend that a top Ronnie VS. a top Yates would see Ronnie winning.

It would be Ronnie in first and second and Yates in third - meaning I don't think it would be close, but if someone was going to be up there with the big man, it would be Yates at his best.

can someone explain something to me after considering this:


dorian dominated some of the best bbers of all time IN THEIR PRIME - flex, kevin, shawn, paul, nasser, etc.

ronnie had a harder time (score was closer) beating those same guys dorian competed against despite those bbers (kevin, flex, shawn, cormier, etc. had seen better days.
ronnie barely beat flex in 98 despite being far below his 93 shape.
ronnie barely beat jay in 01 despite loosing the most important part of the bbing contest.
even in 99, ronnie beat flex by a couple of points.
ronnie looses to gunter in 2001.
ronnie losses the challenge round 2 years in a row to a virtual nobody - gustavo badell.


its clearly obvious that dorian was much more dominant against MUCH high caliber competition that ronnie was -even competing against those same guys.

so, how can someone say that it wouldnt be close between dorian and ronnie when you consider those facts?
(even if you think ronnie would edge dorian out).

[suckmymuscle]

sucky is currently working on a thesis that examines the intracellular calcium levels of Dorian's asshole

  Said the "leader of the Colemaniacs". At least I'm searching for Calcium. What are you searching for in Ronnie's asshole? His prostate.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

can someone explain something to me after considering this:

dorian dominated some of the best bbers of all time IN THEIR PRIME - flex, kevin, shawn, paul, nasser, etc.

Can you actually handle the truth without more of the same excuses? He wasn't dominant for the most part, and benefitted greatly from Weider's generosity in some of the contests where other guys were better. Stop pretending that he "beat" them, as if the contest is entirely based on merit, you're naive.

[Hulkster]

its clearly obvious that dorian was much more dominant against MUCH high caliber competition that ronnie was -even competing against those same guys

but it only looks that way on the score sheets only.

not in reality:



do not confuse the two.

this is what ND does all the time - he looks to the numbers, not the stage.

[pumpster]

its clearly obvious that dorian was much more dominant against MUCH high caliber competition that ronnie was -even competing against those same guys

Entirely irrelevant given the questionable veracity of the contest itself, plus it's irrelevant here-why are you looking for more excuses?

[pumpster]

sucky is currently working on a thesis that examines the intracellular calcium levels of Dorian's asshole

Enjoy the striations.

[NeoSeminole]

Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, since the issue at hand is not where the muscle occupies more physical space, but rather where it expands further. You claimed most of the growth occurs in the lower part of the muscle; I demonstrated that this is non-sensical, since the muscle grows proportionally and the upper part of the lats expands further. Where do you measure the lat width, in the lower part of the muscle or the lower one? In the upper part. Once again, you just got owned.

bullshit, now you are trying to dig yourself out a hole. I never said the upper part of the lats do not grow, nor did I claim the widest part of the lats isn't the upper portion. All I said is that most of the increase in lat size occurs in the lower part. Furthermore, I am the one who is arguing that muscles grow proportionally - NOT you. You claim the muscle grows the same amount regardless of the area of the muscle. This implies that muscles grow disproportionally. According to you, if a bicep increases 2" at the middle then it will also increase 2" at the tendon. Let me demonstrate with pics. Here is how a nomal muscle grows.



Here is how a muscle grows according to you.



If we superimpose a before and after pic of a normal muscle, here is what it would look like. The middle portion grows faster than both ends.

Absolutely incorrect. If this were the case, then the lower part of the lats would be wider than the upper part, which even an utter idiot such as yourself can realize is incorrect. Your balloon analogy is terrible for one simple reason: it is not applicable in this case. Muscles are not sacs inflated with air. The fascia accomodates the muscle according to it's original shape. There is no structural deformation, to the muscle tissue, analogous to the one caused by oxygen and hydrogen gases to the latex fibers of a balloon. I'm waiting to here your doctoral thesis on topology that proves otherwise, dumbass.

You misunderstand what I said. I never claimed the upper part of the lats do not grow. I merely said most of the increase in lat size occurs in the lower part. Even though the lower lats may grow more, the upper lats still increase in size too, albeit at a slower rate. It's impossible for the lower lats to be wider than the upper lats simply due to its position. The lower lats are situated much closer to the medial axis. There are cases where the lowers lats are almost as wide as the upper lats though. For example:

[Hulkster]

someone show me a dorian rear lat spread that is as good as that

[delta9mda]

  Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion, since the issue at hand is not where the muscle occupies more physical space, but rather where it expands further. You claimed most of the growth occurs in the lower part of the muscle; I demonstrated that this is non-sensical, since the muscle grows proportionally and the upper part of the lats expands further. Where do you measure the lat width, in the lower part of the muscle or the lower one? In the upper part. Once again, you just got owned.

  Absolutely incorrect. If this were the case, then the lower part of the lats would be wider than the upper part, which even an utter idiot such as yourself can realize is incorrect. Your balloon analogy is terrible for one simple reason: it is not applicable in this case. Muscles are not sacs inflated with air. The fascia accomodates the muscle according to it's original shape. There is no structural deformation, to the muscle tissue, analogous to the one caused by oxygen and hydrogen gases to the latex fibers of a balloon. I'm waiting to here your doctoral thesis on topology that proves otherwise, dumbass.

SUCKMYDICK

neosperminole owned

[delta9mda]

  Irrelevant, since the variation between shoulder girdle and latissimus development is not constant. Wasn't Ronnie's lats wider in 2003 than in 1999? Yes. This his shoulder girdle increase in width? No. Besides, even if it were true - which it is not -, there is no evidence you can provide to assert that Dorian andf Ronnie have similar clavicle widths. Run while you still can, little boy! Oh, too late!

  The thing is that it was you who claimed that they were similar in lengh, not me. I made the point that I don't know. Now, considering that there are over six billion Human Beings on Planet Earth and that they all - with the sole exception of identical twins - very genetically, I'm logically assuming that they have different clavicle lengh, even if small. As Cicero would say, the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. That's you, boy.

  And you have provided no evidence that your speculation has any grounds on reality, except wishful thinking on your part. Knowledge of anatomy? Even if you correctly guesstimated their tendon insertuion point, clavicle lengh and derived a calculation based on that, it would still be far from accurate. 

  Oh, so you know how to count? I guess you've only learned how to count the number zero so far, because that's the number of times I've been owned in this thread. But don't worry: next year, in second grade, you'll learn the other nine numbers. Then, who knows, you'll be able to make more accurate assessments of clavicle lenghs that relies more on actual measures rather than anatomy. But then again, you'll probably repeat your school year, so my hopes are not very high.

SUCKMYDICK

owned again

[pobrecito]

neosperminole owned

neosperminole LOL

[NeoSeminole]

neosperminole owned

[delta9mda]

come on man you gotta laugh at that one!!! this is getbig, enjoy.

[pobrecito]

Yates beat this in 94