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

[NarcissisticDeity]

why do you keep saying stupid stuff like this?

Strations by themselves don't win you contests, as you pointed out with munzer and hamdullah.

but COMBINE striations with size and shape, and you start to win everything:



435 pages and you still don't understand simple concepts...

Ah Ronnie had all that with the exception of ONE THING when he faced Yates , conditioning , he had the size 250lbs in 1996 , 255lbs in 1997 , he had his shape , the only thing he was missing was..............conditi oning !! and thats to Teh Chad he got that in 1998.

[Hulkster]

1998 vs 2003 where Ronnie is actually fully flexing.

not quite as a dramatic difference as in the half flexed shot from ND.

[carvedoutofwood]

look at ronnies arms, holy f*ck

[Hulkster]

Ah Ronnie had all that with the exception of ONE THING when he faced Yates , conditioning , he had the size 250lbs in 1996 , 255lbs in 1997 , he had his shape , the only thing he was missing was..............conditi oning !! and thats to Teh Chad he got that in 1998.

name recognition and "paying of your dues" did far more than conditioning ever did for Ronnie.

he was not as full, and was drastically overlooked.

[Hulkster]

look at ronnies arms, holy f*ck

shhhh. ND is listening

[NarcissisticDeity]

1998 vs 2003 where Ronnie is actually fully flexing.

not quite as a dramatic difference as in the half flexed shot from ND.

Are you implying he's just as dry in 03 as 98? even you can't be that dense?

[carvedoutofwood]

yes

[NarcissisticDeity]

name recognition and "paying of your dues" did far more than conditioning ever did for Ronnie.

he was not as full, and was drastically overlooked.

Yawn he covered this lame response hundreds of pages ago , Ronnie couldn't get his act together because he was the victim of to many contests and his conditioning always suffered Ronnie was winning Pro contests in 1995 and his breakout year was 1996 , enough with the lame pumpster politics retort , there was a reason he was overlooked because he wasn't good enough yet , Yates never ' paid his dues ' he place a close second in his first pro contest ever by virtue of his physique , he was an UN-fucking-KNOWN pasty guy from Britain , Yates' made a name for himself he aid his dues on contest day with the right combo.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes

Well you've just showed what you know ....or don't lol

[carvedoutofwood]

Well you've just showed what you know ....or don't lol

haha, ok, dorian=sick... ronnie=sickest ... well its friday night ... i hope these arent ur plans

[Hulkster]

I am not saying that his back was quite as hard in 2003 as it was in 1998 or 1999.

but the shot you posted is horrible because Ronnie is barely even tensing there.

compare that softness to the much harder shot I posted.

It is not as hard as 98, but it is certainly a lot more dry because he is actally fully contracted in the pic.



Ronnie's lower body was damn dry in 2003 though.

[NeoSeminole]

You are retarded you seriously are you want a clue Ronnie 2003 is carrying more water and sub-q fat in his phsyique VS Dorian , I showed you pictures its plainly evident , Ronnie is carrying more sub-q fat and watter in his back and Dorian Yates is NOT its that simple.

You are seriously a pathetic dumbf*ck. I knew you wouldn't be able to answer my question. All you do is post pics and say "look, see the difference?" Yet when I do the same thing with Dorian, you ignore me. You posted a shot of Ronnie not fully flexing and claim this is proof Ronnie is carrying water. Then I guess Dorian must be waterlogged in these pics.

[NeoSeminole]

I am not saying that his back was quite as hard in 2003 as it was in 1998 or 1999.

but the shot you posted is horrible because Ronnie is barely even tensing there.

exactly, I personally think Ronnie was dryer in 98/99 but his back was still pretty sharp in 03. ND just posted a horrible shot.

[Hulkster]

2003

 vs. 1999:

[suckmymuscle]

I didn't read much past that. Once again, you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole. I never claimed the shape of a muscle changes. In fact, I implied the shape stays the same due to proportional increases in muscle size. If a bicep increases 2" at the middle, this doesn't mean it also increases 2" at the tendon otherwise a muscle would lose its shape. I already showed you with pics. Here is how a normal muscle grows.



Here is how a muscle grows according to you.



It's obvious most of the increase in muscle size occurs where there is the most muscle. I used the example of a balloon to demonstrate this point. 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. I never said a balloon exactly mimics how a muscle grows. It was the closest analogy I could think of at the time.

SUCKMYDICK

  You couldn't reply to my post, so you re-posted this anatomy graph which doesen't mean shit. Try to understand this, you idiot: where the muscle hypertrophies the most is irrelevant because the shape of the muscle does not change in repsonse to this hypertrophy. If it did, then the lats would become wider in the lower part, while the fact is that it remains wider on the upper part, regardless of the amount of hypertrophy the muscle goes through - which makes your point about the insertion point of ther muscle irrelevant. You intellectual sophomore.

SUCKMYDICK

[suckmymuscle]

Listen closely son, I'm not asking for your definition of conditioning. I'm asking how can you tell who has better conditioning? What clues do you look for? So far, you have not given me a clear-cut answer. You keep going in circles

  Conditioning has several aspects. The most relevant of this is that, when you lose bodyfat through dieting andf then water by restricting Sodium before the show, your amount of muscular separations and striations increases. Now, the 1998 Ronnie definitely had an advantage over Dorian when it comes it to separations and striations; in this sense, he was better conditioned. However, separations and striations are only one aspect of conditioning: the other thing which occurs when you drop subcutaneous bodyfat and water is that the muscles look denser. In this respect, Dorian was far more conditioned than any version of Ronnie, including his 1998 one - and for that matter, than any other bodybuilder in history. Now, the 2003 version of Ronnie, for all it's size, was severely lacking in both symmetry - due to the distended midsection -, and the kind of granite-like muscularity that Dorian had. In fact, the 2003 version of Ronnie only loses in this respect to his own one of the next year's Olympia. You're a serious moron for thinking that Ronnie in 2003 was even close to Dorian in density.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

Ronnie 2003 vs. Dorian 1995:

  Well, let's see: in this comparison you posted, Dorian's pectoralis are almost as thick as Ronnie's and his quads, although not as big, have more separations. And furthermore, Ronnie's super wide waist and distended midsection - which can be seen from the front - completely ruins the whole pose. Dorian wins.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

why do you keep saying stupid stuff like this?

Strations by themselves don't win you contests, as you pointed out with munzer and hamdullah.

but COMBINE striations with size and shape, and you start to win everything:

  Ronnie has no advantage in muscularity over Dorian there. In fact, Dorian is more muscular than the 1999 Ronnie. As for shape, like I said, it's subjective and different judges have different opinions of it. Like I said before, bodybuilders as different in shape as Wheeler and Sonbaty have won pro shows, so it's a mute point. And you're ignoring that, although Ronnie has more striations and vascularity, this is not officially judged at a bodybuilding contest, and you're also ignoring that Dorian has the advantage in conditioning, which is judged in bodybuilding contest. Dorian wins.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

You couldn't reply to my post, so you re-posted this anatomy graph which doesen't mean shit. Try to understand this, you idiot: where the muscle hypertrophies the most is irrelevant because the shape of the muscle does not change in repsonse to this hypertrophy. If it did, then the lats would become wider in the lower part, while the fact is that it remains wider on the upper part, regardless of the amount of hypertrophy the muscle goes through - which makes your point about the insertion point of ther muscle irrelevant. You intellectual sophomore.

Listen closely dipshit, nothing I said contradicts with how muscle shape doesn't change during growth. In fact, I am the one who is arguing that muscles grow proportionally - NOT you. I even posted pics to demonstrate my point. 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. In contrast, what I have been trying to explain to you is that a muscle grows proportionately. This means that if a bicep increases 2% at the middle then it will also increase 2% at the tendon. Hence, the muscle retains its shape. The largest area of the lats is the lower part. So when all parts of the lats grow proportionately, the lower part still increases in size the most.

[IceCold]

why do you keep saying stupid stuff like this?

Strations by themselves don't win you contests, as you pointed out with munzer and hamdullah.

but COMBINE striations with size and shape, and you start to win everything:



435 pages and you still don't understand simple concepts...

then explain why gunter beat ronnie in his prime?

more 'flawed judgin'. 

[sculpture]

then explain why gunter beat ronnie in his prime?

more 'flawed judgin'. 

You small, small man.

2002 - arguably coleman's worse mr o showing and you proclaim it as his prime?

hahahahahah

[NarcissisticDeity]

You are seriously a pathetic dumbf*ck. I knew you wouldn't be able to answer my question. All you do is post pics and say "look, see the difference?" Yet when I do the same thing with Dorian, you ignore me. You posted a shot of Ronnie not fully flexing and claim this is proof Ronnie is carrying water. Then I guess Dorian must be waterlogged in these pics.

I've answered the question , you just don't get it ! 2003 vs 1998 , you can clearly see Ronnie is holding more water in his back and his muscle seperation within his whole back is suffereing for it , same with his abdominals which is carrying more sub-q fat and water than 1998 , his midsection in 1998 was svelte it looked like his skin was shrink-wrapped around his muscles .

[NarcissisticDeity]

2003

 vs. 1999:

His gut is such a disgrace in 2003 ! he is by far the worse poser of any Mr Olympia , what a fall from grace from 99 .

[Hulkster]

You small, small man.

2002 - arguably coleman's worse mr o showing and you proclaim it as his prime?

hahahahahah

no one said the dorian fans were smart

[NarcissisticDeity]

no one said the dorian fans were smart

There seems to be a trend towards Ronnie fans to be retarded  but it needs further exaimination.