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

[Hulkster]

I was thinking in terms of physique.

the greatest standard our sport has ever seen should at least have a great pair of arms, quads, and a tiny waist.

dorian, whilie impressive and all, does not represent the highest standard yet acheived onstage.






this is much closer to that mark, for obvious reaons to EVERYONE except for a few lost souls posting on this thread.

and those people know who they are...

[RocketSwitch625]

I just finished watching Coleman's 2003 Olympia routine on YouTube. All I can say is holy shit. What a bodybuilder. What a routine. What a gut.

Pwned. LOL

[SWOLETRAIN]

I think if anybody is going to surpass or even break parallel to Ronnie, it will be Victor Martinez.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I was thinking in terms of physique.

the greatest standard our sport has ever seen should at least have a great pair of arms, quads, and a tiny waist.

dorian, whilie impressive and all, does not represent the highest standard yet acheived onstage.


this is much closer to that mark, for obvious reaons to EVERYONE except for a few lost souls posting on this thread.

and those people know who they are...

1993 Arnold Classic puts that to shame !

[Hulkster]

1993 Arnold Classic puts that to shame !

close, but I don't think he would take ronnie in tip top shape. lack of great lats would be too damaging to Flex's chances.

After all, that is a main reason why flex lost in 98 and 99


recall, I posted these comments in the other thread and they were well received by other people with unbiased eyes.

[RocketSwitch625]

By the way, why does it say at the start of the 2003 clip that he was weighing 258lbs? I think it is most likely correct though because he doesn't look anywhere close to 295lbs in the clip. He had a huge gut at 258lbs. LOL

[Hulkster]

By the way, why does it say at the start of the 2003 clip that he was weighing 258lbs? I think it is most likely correct though because he doesn't look anywhere close to 295lbs in the clip. He had a huge gut at 258lbs. LOL

looks like they got that one wrong.

if Ronnie was 258 in 2003 that would mean that dorian would be something like 220 in 1993! LOL

Dexter would be under 200 pounds and so on and so forth.

In terms of size, there have been only a handful of guys bigger onstage than Ronnie 2003.

[Debussey]

looks like they got that one wrong.

if Ronnie was 258 in 2003 that would mean that dorian would be something like 220 in 1993! LOL

Dexter would be under 200 pounds and so on and so forth.

In terms of size, there have been only a handful of guys bigger onstage than Ronnie 2003.

Do you even like girls?

[Hulkster]

yes. but only striated black ones

[NarcissisticDeity]

close, but I don't think he would take ronnie in tip top shape. lack of great lats would be too damaging to Flex's chances.

After all, that is a main reason why flex lost in 98 and 99


recall, I posted these comments in the other thread and they were well received by other people with unbiased eyes.

Again with the width  Shawn Ray domianted guys with much better width than him its NOT THE END ALL BE ALL , the main reason he lost to Ronnie 98/99 was CONDITIONING , Ronnie had ripped hams & glutes and Flex didn't , Ronnie 98/99 didn't beat Flex 1993 ASC he beat a shell of his former self , Flex is simply the best of both worlds !

[NarcissisticDeity]

looks like they got that one wrong.

if Ronnie was 258 in 2003 that would mean that dorian would be something like 220 in 1993! LOL

Dexter would be under 200 pounds and so on and so forth.

In terms of size, there have been only a handful of guys bigger onstage than Ronnie 2003.

In terms of size I think Nasser & Fux are the only guys I can think of who were 5'11" and weighed 285lbs contest time.

[pumpster]

I think if anybody is going to surpass or even break parallel to Ronnie, it will be Victor Martinez.

Not a chance; to even compare it will take time for someone to appear. Jay will be one of this era's Columbus or Yates until then.

[Debussey]

yes. but only striated black ones

Yes, Ronnies has tits and pratically no penis.

You have found the love of your life. 

[suckmymuscle]

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.

  "sigh" 

  Pay attention closely, dumbshit, because this is the last time I'll explain this to you. I never argued that the muscles grow proportionally in terms of amount of muscle tissue added to each part of the muscle; I argued that they grow proportionally in shape. You, conversely, argued that the muscle grows more in absolute terms in the lower part of the muscle, when you said that the lats grow more in the lower part. I said that this is not true because, if it were, then the lower part of the lats would eventually become wider than the upper part, which never happens. The lats may grow more in the lower part because there are more muscle fibers there, but the ratio between the upper and lower lats remain the same, because the growth is proportional. Hence, it is irrelevant how much muscle tissue is added to each part of the muscle if the shape remins the same. If the muscle grows 20% in the lower half but also 20% in the upper half, then the shape of the muscle remains the same, regardless where the most mucle tissue is added to!. I never argued that the muscle grows more, in absolute terms, in the lower part of the muscle: you did! The amount of muscle tissue added is irrelevant as far as the sahpe of the muscle goes. Furhtermore, this is irrelevant as far as lat width goes, because the width of the lats is measured in the upper part. This brutal owning, to add to the dozens I've already given you, should serve to you as a lesson in humility.

SUCKMYDICK

[NeoSeminole]

"sigh"

                               

[suckmymuscle]

                               

   

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

we are arguing the same thing. We both agree the lats retain their shape by growing proportionally. I don't see what the problem is. My point was that the upper part represents a small portion of the lats overall. Therefore, less growth occurs here than in the lower lats. We're just seeing the same picture differently.

[delta9mda]

  "sigh" 

  Pay attention closely, dumbshit, because this is the last time I'll explain this to you. I never argued that the muscles grow proportionally in terms of amount of muscle tissue added to each part of the muscle; I argued that they grow proportionally in shape. You, conversely, argued that the muscle grows more in absolute terms in the lower part of the muscle, when you said that the lats grow more in the lower part. I said that this is not true because, if it were, then the lower part of the lats would eventually become wider than the upper part, which never happens. The lats may grow more in the lower part because there are more muscle fibers there, but the ratio between the upper and lower lats remain the same, because the growth is proportional. Hence, it is irrelevant how much muscle tissue is added to each part of the muscle if the shape remins the same. If the muscle grows 20% in the lower half but also 20% in the upper half, then the shape of the muscle remains the same, regardless where the most mucle tissue is added to!. I never argued that the muscle grows more, in absolute terms, in the lower part of the muscle: you did! The amount of muscle tissue added is irrelevant as far as the sahpe of the muscle goes. Furhtermore, this is irrelevant as far as lat width goes, because the width of the lats is measured in the upper part. This brutal owning, to add to the dozens I've already given you, should serve to you as a lesson in humility.

SUCKMYDICK

owned again. damnit neospermhole, danmit!

[suckmymuscle]

we are arguing the same thing. We both agree the lats retain their shape by growing proportionally. I don't see what the problem is. My point was that the upper part represents a small portion of the lats overall. Therefore, less growth occurs here than in the lower lats. We're just seeing the same picture differently.

  Exactly. Now, in re-reading your biceps analogy, I understood what happened. You accused me of saying something I never did. It is a matter of semantics. I have always been in total agreement with you that the amount of muscle tissue added to different parts of the muscle is not proportional, but rather that it grows more in certain areas than others. I thought you were talking about shape, and not muscle growth. I though you were saying that certain parts of the muscle grow disproportionally in relation to the others. Hence, when you said that the lower part of the lats grows more than the lower part, I thought you were refering to this growth causing a change in the shape of the muscle. In other words, that certain areas of the muscle grows more in absolute terms, which would cause a change not merely in the size, but also in the shape of the muscle. Which is what I thought you had said. Obviously the lats grows more in the lower and middle parts because there are far more muscle fibers there. But regardless, although there is far less total muscle growth in the upper part, it remains proportional as far as shape goes. Obviously, if I had argued that the muscle grows proportionally in terms of amount of muscle tissue, which is what you accused me of saying and was not the case, then you'd be right that I had argued that the muscle, as a whole, grows disproportionally in terms of shape. Hence, since Ronnie's lats were not much wider than Dorian's in 2003, the difference in width could not be that great in the lower part either, because the shape of their respective lats were roughly equivalent. However, Ronnie definitely had an advantage in thickness - which is expected, since he outweighed Dorian by 30 lbs. Ok, we misunderstood each other.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

owned again. damnit neospermhole, danmit!

ha ha ha, I love Getbig. F*ck Muscle Mayhem.

[pumpster]

I though you were saying that certain parts of the muscle grow disproportionally in relation to the others. Hence, when you said that the lower part of the lats grows more than the lower part, I thought you were refering to this growth causing a change in the shape of the muscle.

SUCKY confused as usual. Let's keep it simple for him:

[RocketSwitch625]

 

Great calves. Fantastic leg proportion.

[suckmymuscle]

SUCKY confused as usual. Let's keep it simple for him:

  The lower lats grows more than the upper part in terms of absolute muscle tissue, but it does not grow more than the lower lats proportionally. When he said that Ronnie's lats were wider than Dorian's because most of the lats grows in the lower part and Ronnie had wider lower lats, I pointed out that this was non-sensical because all the lats parts grows proportionally, thus his rationale for justifying Ronnie's wider lats was flawed. I was never talking about increase in muscle tissue, but rather that this is irrelevant because the shape of the muscle doesen't change. Do you understand my point now, you son of a c.u.n.t? Confused? Not as much as you and your illogical conspiracy theories about how having a British White guy as Mr.Olympia makes more sense than having a Black one, despite the fact that most Mr.Olympias have been Black.  I'll make it simple for you, Poopster: Dorian is destroying your boy in hardness in the pic you posted.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pumpster]

Great calves. Fantastic leg proportion.

Out of balance, but not as visible as this...

[Hulkster]

Again with the width  Shawn Ray domianted guys with much better width than him its NOT THE END ALL BE ALL , the main reason he lost to Ronnie 98/99 was CONDITIONING , Ronnie had ripped hams & glutes and Flex didn't , Ronnie 98/99 didn't beat Flex 1993 ASC he beat a shell of his former self , Flex is simply the best of both worlds !

ND, check the other thread.

NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU!

hope this helps.