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

[pobrecito]

ND, do you know, was it a boy or girl?

[pumpster]

.

[pobrecito]

What a disgrace this is....the man that is supposed to represent the pinnacle of the human physique has a belly equivalent to that of a pregnant woman



Yates may have had a gut in 1996...however he had 0 distention in 93 at his best. Ronnie on the other hand had a nasty gut at his best. I'm surprised the judges didn't automatically disqualify Ronnie for the gut

[pobrecito]

No distention

[suckmymuscle]

No my friend, actin and myosin which make up the sarcomere which is the contractile portion of muscle cannot change.  However, your post is wrong on two counts.  First, you never only lose water subcutaneously.  Trust me, bodybuilders are relatively intravascularly volume depleted when they compete.  That is why they use diuretics; it causes sodium wasting in the renal tubular (trust me on this).  Second, the water in muscle is easily moveable in and out of the muscle.  That is why you cramp when you are dehydrated.  The electrolytes like potassium and sodium are lost during exercise.  Thus, water follows them out and a cramp occurs.  The treatment is hydration with water and electrolytes.  Also, fast twitch and slow twitch fibers differ in the amount of glycogen and water is held in them.  It ma be minute, but it is present.  Finallly, water is less dense in its solid form.  If it were not so, an ice cube would floate.  Check in the free link.  Remember, also Sucky, a muscle also has fat amongst the myofibrils.  If Dorian got rid of the same amount of fat and had less water (read any physiology text and you will see that dehydration, which these guys are essentially doing, encompasses the vascular and interstitial space), his muscles cubic inch by cubic inch would be denser.  Better analysis, if I took a cubic inch of Rosanne Barr's thigh (it is the quadricep my friend), would here muscle be as dense as Dorian's?  Hell no.  It is not because of the actin/myosin component; I agree with you there.  It is because of the increased water and fat.  Link to proof and any google reference to show that frozen water is less dense than an equal amount of liquid water. 

  First of all, I said that the water molecules become closer when water freezes, just as in the way they spread apart when it evaporates and becomes gaseous. The floating analogy is flawed, because several objects that are heavier than water float on top of it. If you've ever seen the "Will It Float?" segment on the Letterman show and it is ovious. For instance, cement is heavier than water, yet a sac full of cement will float on top of it! The reason for this is that water has some unusual physical properties. Besides the fact that it one of the very few substances which exists in the solid, liquid and gaseous form, water, by it's structural propoerties, for what is known as a tension layer. In other words, the surface of water exerts a much stronger tension than the water beneath it. This is the reason why, if you put an ant on a cup of water, it remains in the surface and doesen't sink. Theoretically, this shouldn't happen since an ant is heavier than the specific amount of water molecules underneath it. This is also the reaon why, if you throw a person from a thousand feet high over water, the person will be crushed just like if your threw this person over cement. And speaking of cement, it also has a greater weight per area, then water, yet a bag of cement, up to a certain size, will float on top of it. This is not merely due to the tension layer, but also that the structure of certain things make them float on water, regardless of weight. If you get a sponge that weights a thousand pounds and put in water, it will slowly rise toi the surface, despite the fact that it weights more than water.Physical density is distorted when it comes to water, but this is beyond the score of this thread.

  Now, as for your claims, let's analyse this carefully. I know these things for a fact:

 - Muscles are composed by a contractile part made of myosin and actin, and water.

 - The weight of myosin is stable across human

 - The weight of water is stable on Planet Earth.

 - It is physically impossible for muscles to be squeezed so as to increase it's weight in a given area, because, since the weight of it's components do not vary, the weight is stable.

  All bodybuilders are carbed-up before a show and have roughly as much intra-tissue water as the other, with small variations. This is exactlyt he goal of carbing up and restricting Sodium: to increase the amount of water inside the muscles as much as possible, while decreasing the sub-cutaneous water as much as possible. The only way to verify your assertions would be to remove a pound of muscle tissue from Ronnie and Dorian, on contest day, and verigy it's perimeter. There's no other way: physical density is an absolute which can't be bargained with. So these leaves us with a scenario where the raw materials that compose muscles are stable across humans as far as weight is concerned, and the differentiation between the two bodybuilders as far as fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles in immaterial, because they weight the same and, regardless of the differences in glycogen storage capacity that they have, I'm sure that these fibers store different amounts of glycogen withing contexts. For instance, a distance runner, I'm sure, has more glycogen stored in his slow-twitch fibers than in the fast-twitch one, even if the latter has a greater storage capacity. So the possibilities are limitless, meaning that, even with a different profile of fibers, they can have the exact amount of glycogen stored. What about the control variables? The specific kind of skin, it's color and the shape of the muscle fibers all can result in a differing appearance of muscularity, with the same exact size of muscles. Now I disagree with what Delta said about me having owned you, because we made logical deductions based on differing inductions, making this an almost tautological argument. If I say that 1 + 1 = 2, but your say that 1 + 1 = 3, but you have said that the symbol 1 actually stands for 1.5 in my symbolic system, then we're both right and we're both wrong. Regardless, the only to verigy this is by directly measuring the amoutn of surface area occupied by one pound of Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles. If they differ, then the difference in appearance is not merely a visual propoert but also a physical one. Regardless, I don't think that Ronnie's lats were as big as Dorian's in 1999,  considering that Dorian's taper from the back was as good as Ronnie's, despite the obvious fact that Dorian's waist is thicker.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

It means you're ignorant of the getbig poll which obliterates your argument.

Getbig poll: Coleman >> Yates, and that was BEFORE the video clips and this final decisive round of pics..

ND & SUCKY are now officially in backpeddle mode, trotting out "IFBB official judging criteria" and and discussing forearms, because it's over except to the suckers.

  How am I backpeddling if I have always maintained that, although they're judged visually, Bodybuilding contests are evaluated objectively? Saying that you prefer a physique doesen;'t mean shit as far as a bodybuilding contest goes. Why? Because physiques as different as Wheele's and Nasser's have won pro shows, so judging a physique visually is obviously not a matter of preference, but of whether certain objective criterias are observed or not by the phbysique of a given bodybuilder. Three things ar evaluated at a bodybuilding contest:

 - Muscularity - This refers only and especifically to the develppment of the muscles; it's size. Now, muscularity is also not an absolute, because it is measures in rrelation to two things: stature and bone structure. For instance, Ronnie in 2003 was more muscular than Ferrigno, despite the fact that the latter competed at a bodyweight 30 lbs higher. Why? Because Ferrigno is 6'5 and has a large structure, while Ronald is 5'11 and has a medium frame. So, Ronnie had more muscle per square inch of skeleton than Ferrigno, being more muscualr than him.

 - Conditioning - This encompasses several things. The reason why bodybuilders diet is so as to increase muscular separations, striations and hardness. These are all parts of conditioning, and the judges might value different aspects of it at different aspects.

 - Symmetry - This refers to the proportions between the muscles. A bodybuilder must increase hi muscles, yes, but while maintaining the proportions between them as close to unatered as possible. This is measured objectively. But symmetry also encompasses a subjective criteria, which refers to the  skeletal frame. This is subkjective because no single structure is the only one acceptable for winning a show, and a bodybuilder can improve the appearance of his frame - without actually altering thye shape of the skeleton - by hypertrphying certain muscles. For instance, a bodybuider with a thick waist can give the appearance of possessing a superior fram by hypertrophying both the lats and the medial deltoid heads, while avoiding the hypertrophy of the obliques.

  So these are the three objective crietrias which are evaluated at a bodybuilding contst. Now, let's see how Dorian and Ronnie would fair agains each other. But before, let's point out that these thrree things are evaluated in different contextds and from different angles.

 The relaxed round - Dorian has inferior taper to Dorian from the front, due to his wasit-to-delts ration bein g poorer than Ronnie's. However, Dorian's taper is superior from the sides and equivalent frm the back, where the taper is created by the differential between waist and lats. So, in overrall taper, they tie. When you add to that Ronnie has more symmetrical liabilities, such as large glutes and weak calves, while Dorian's sole symemtrical liability is the size of his biceps relative to the size of his triceps, you realize that Ronnie has more symmetrical liabilities. Ads for overrall muscularity, Dorian weights the same while having less subcutaneous water and equivalent bodyfat: he has greater overrall muscularity. Dorian wins the relaxed round.

  Now, how does the muscularity and symmetry of Dorian compare to that of Ronnie from different angles while contracting different muscles? Let's see:

 Rear lat spread - Dorian's taper is as good as Ronnie's, although his waist is thicker. This means Dorian has a greater lat flare. He also has superior symmetry from this angle while contracting these muscles, because his glutes are smaller and his calves, bigger. Check for Dorian.

 Back double biceps - Ronnie's biceps are bigger, but this is the only thing he wins here and the biceps are mostly concealed from the back. Dorian's back is thicker with as many separations. He wins in muscularity. As for symmetry, again, his glutes are smaller and his calves bigger. Dorian takes it.

 Side triceps - Dorian's triceps are slightly smaller, but only the lateral triceps head are visible from this angle while contracting these specific muscles, and the bottom line is that Dorian's lateral triceps heads are bigger. Hi svastus lateralis is equivalent to Ronnie's. Dorian is more muscular at this pose. Symmetrically, Dorian has superior calves and a flatter stomach so he wins. Dorian wins this pose.

 Dront lat spread - Dorian's taper is equivalent to Ronnie's, and his lats spread wider. This despite the fact that Dorian's waist is thicker. Ronnie wins when it coems to quads, but the difference is small. Overrall, Dorian is more muscular with equivalent taper. He wins the pose.

 Abs-and-thighs - Dorian's taper is better than Ronnie's here, his lats spread wider and his abs/serratus are more separated. Dorian is more muscular - except for quads - and has better better midsection. Also, unlike Ronnie, he has no gut distension. Dorian wins the pose.

 Front double biceps - Ronnie's biceps are bigger and his slight advantage in inner and medial triceps heads size is evident here. He takes the pose.

 Side chest - Dorian's pectoralis are as thick as Ronnie's, and almost as striated. Ronnie might have a smalle advantage in pectoralis size, but it would be very small. Ronnie does have wider pecs than Dorian from the front, but Dorian's pecs are incredible thick from the sides. Dorian also has calves and equivalent vastus lateralis. They tie, at rhe very least.

  So, in conclusion, Dorian is more muscular and symmetrical overrall - when taking in consideration all angles - whjen standing relaxed, and he is also more muscular and symmetrical in most angles when contracting specific muslces. As for conditioning, they tie at best because, while Ronnie might have more striations adn separations overrall, Dorian is harder and dryer. All things considered, accoring to an objective bodybuilding criteria, Dorian wins over Ronnie, and you visual preference doesen't mean shit. Game over. Oh, and keeping the tradition, I owned you.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

Funny he has no bis there, but ND keeps repeating "balance"..

as stated earlier by someone other than you or me, ND is "full of shit"

not dumb

just full of shit.

[Hulkster]

notice the tendency now of ND and Co. to go back to all the "old" pics.

gee I wonder why?

could it be because the new 99 pics are way too good to try and argue against?

I think so:

[Hulkster]

Ronnie wins when it coems to quads, but the difference is small.

its crap like this that I was talking about.

Its the basis for the view that I have a problem with because it is flat out wrong in a lot of cases.


there is a HUGE difference between Ronnie and Dorian's quads, not merely a small one:

[Hulkster]

dorian 94 vs. Ronnie 99

sort of puts things into persective just how bad dorian was in 1994:

[Hulkster]

again:

[Hulkster]

closeup this time:

[Hulkster]

double (torn)bi:

[Hulkster]

[Hulkster]

and just think, the dorian side has argued that even dorian 94 was better conditioned than Ronnie

[NarcissisticDeity]

its crap like this that I was talking about.

Its the basis for the view that I have a problem with because it is flat out wrong in a lot of cases.


there is a HUGE difference between Ronnie and Dorian's quads, not merely a small one:

No the only advantage Ronnie has in quads is sweep & upper seperation , but you get silent when Yates has better satorius seperation than Ronnie oh and lets say Ronnie's quads are just so much better , it means dick because he has no calves what so ever and his whole lower balance suffers for it , his twings for calves lack proportion in relation to those impressive quads , so you're patting yourself on the back for having better quads and missing the whole , balanced development Hulkster try as you may you will never counter this , you're trapped by it and the judges look for it in every single mandatory pose .

[sculpture]

No the only advantage Ronnie has in quads is sweep & upper seperation , but you get silent when Yates has better satorius seperation than Ronnie oh and lets say Ronnie's quads are just so much better , it means dick because he has no calves what so ever and his whole lower balance suffers for it , his twings for calves lack proportion in relation to those impressive quads , so you're patting yourself on the back for having better quads and missing the whole , balanced development Hulkster try as you may you will never counter this , you're trapped by it and the judges look for it in every single mandatory pose .

You simple, simple man.

Only upper seperation and sweep.

How about better natural shape?

Deeper cuts?

Muscles in the lower quad? (anyone ever noticed dorian actually apears to be missing muscles down there).

If ronnies quads are only better than dorians in those regards you listed, then how are dorians quads better than ronnies?

Sartorious development? Hardly a trait sufficient to justify dorian havin better quads.

Bottom line: Ronnies quads piss all over dorians.

When will you get this?

People's patience on this board/thread is beginning to run out. 

[pobrecito]

Ronnie's calves twigs ruin his whole physique

[sculpture]

  How am I backpeddling if I have always maintained that, although they're judged visually, Bodybuilding contests are evaluated objectively? Saying that you prefer a physique doesen;'t mean shit as far as a bodybuilding contest goes. Why? Because physiques as different as Wheele's and Nasser's have won pro shows, so judging a physique visually is obviously not a matter of preference, but of whether certain objective criterias are observed or not by the phbysique of a given bodybuilder. Three things ar evaluated at a bodybuilding contest:

 - Muscularity - This refers only and especifically to the develppment of the muscles; it's size. Now, muscularity is also not an absolute, because it is measures in rrelation to two things: stature and bone structure. For instance, Ronnie in 2003 was more muscular than Ferrigno, despite the fact that the latter competed at a bodyweight 30 lbs higher. Why? Because Ferrigno is 6'5 and has a large structure, while Ronald is 5'11 and has a medium frame. So, Ronnie had more muscle per square inch of skeleton than Ferrigno, being more muscualr than him.

 - Conditioning - This encompasses several things. The reason why bodybuilders diet is so as to increase muscular separations, striations and hardness. These are all parts of conditioning, and the judges might value different aspects of it at different aspects.

 - Symmetry - This refers to the proportions between the muscles. A bodybuilder must increase hi muscles, yes, but while maintaining the proportions between them as close to unatered as possible. This is measured objectively. But symmetry also encompasses a subjective criteria, which refers to the  skeletal frame. This is subkjective because no single structure is the only one acceptable for winning a show, and a bodybuilder can improve the appearance of his frame - without actually altering thye shape of the skeleton - by hypertrphying certain muscles. For instance, a bodybuider with a thick waist can give the appearance of possessing a superior fram by hypertrophying both the lats and the medial deltoid heads, while avoiding the hypertrophy of the obliques.

  So these are the three objective crietrias which are evaluated at a bodybuilding contst. Now, let's see how Dorian and Ronnie would fair agains each other. But before, let's point out that these thrree things are evaluated in different contextds and from different angles.

 The relaxed round - Dorian has inferior taper to Dorian from the front, due to his wasit-to-delts ration bein g poorer than Ronnie's. However, Dorian's taper is superior from the sides and equivalent frm the back, where the taper is created by the differential between waist and lats. So, in overrall taper, they tie. When you add to that Ronnie has more symmetrical liabilities, such as large glutes and weak calves, while Dorian's sole symemtrical liability is the size of his biceps relative to the size of his triceps, you realize that Ronnie has more symmetrical liabilities. Ads for overrall muscularity, Dorian weights the same while having less subcutaneous water and equivalent bodyfat: he has greater overrall muscularity. Dorian wins the relaxed round.

  Now, how does the muscularity and symmetry of Dorian compare to that of Ronnie from different angles while contracting different muscles? Let's see:

 Rear lat spread - Dorian's taper is as good as Ronnie's, although his waist is thicker. This means Dorian has a greater lat flare. He also has superior symmetry from this angle while contracting these muscles, because his glutes are smaller and his calves, bigger. Check for Dorian.

 Back double biceps - Ronnie's biceps are bigger, but this is the only thing he wins here and the biceps are mostly concealed from the back. Dorian's back is thicker with as many separations. He wins in muscularity. As for symmetry, again, his glutes are smaller and his calves bigger. Dorian takes it.

 Side triceps - Dorian's triceps are slightly smaller, but only the lateral triceps head are visible from this angle while contracting these specific muscles, and the bottom line is that Dorian's lateral triceps heads are bigger. Hi svastus lateralis is equivalent to Ronnie's. Dorian is more muscular at this pose. Symmetrically, Dorian has superior calves and a flatter stomach so he wins. Dorian wins this pose.

 Dront lat spread - Dorian's taper is equivalent to Ronnie's, and his lats spread wider. This despite the fact that Dorian's waist is thicker. Ronnie wins when it coems to quads, but the difference is small. Overrall, Dorian is more muscular with equivalent taper. He wins the pose.

 Abs-and-thighs - Dorian's taper is better than Ronnie's here, his lats spread wider and his abs/serratus are more separated. Dorian is more muscular - except for quads - and has better better midsection. Also, unlike Ronnie, he has no gut distension. Dorian wins the pose.

 Front double biceps - Ronnie's biceps are bigger and his slight advantage in inner and medial triceps heads size is evident here. He takes the pose.

 Side chest - Dorian's pectoralis are as thick as Ronnie's, and almost as striated. Ronnie might have a smalle advantage in pectoralis size, but it would be very small. Ronnie does have wider pecs than Dorian from the front, but Dorian's pecs are incredible thick from the sides. Dorian also has calves and equivalent vastus lateralis. They tie, at rhe very least.

  So, in conclusion, Dorian is more muscular and symmetrical overrall - when taking in consideration all angles - whjen standing relaxed, and he is also more muscular and symmetrical in most angles when contracting specific muslces. As for conditioning, they tie at best because, while Ronnie might have more striations adn separations overrall, Dorian is harder and dryer. All things considered, accoring to an objective bodybuilding criteria, Dorian wins over Ronnie, and you visual preference doesen't mean shit. Game over. Oh, and keeping the tradition, I owned you.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Please will someone translate this tripe.

SUCKY, its like your involved in an utterly different argument, choosing not to respond to specific points but rather posting the same protracted, self indulgence bunkum over and over again.

[pobrecito]

Sucky OWNED Camp Coleman

[Bear]

No the only advantage Ronnie has in quads is sweep & upper seperation , but you get silent when Yates has better satorius seperation than Ronnie oh and lets say Ronnie's quads are just so much better , it means dick because he has no calves what so ever and his whole lower balance suffers for it , his twings for calves lack proportion in relation to those impressive quads , so you're patting yourself on the back for having better quads and missing the whole , balanced development Hulkster try as you may you will never counter this , you're trapped by it and the judges look for it in every single mandatory pose .

So the only advantage Ronnie enjoys is more sweep with better seperation. cool.

Your calf argument can be reversed easily to say Yates' calves don't mean shit when his poor quads are taken in to account, WHICH THE JUDGES LOOK FOR IN EVERY MANDATORY POSE.

Yates= Good Y frame, poor X frame. This isn't the 70s old man.

[sculpture]

So the only advantage Ronnie enjoys is more sweep with better seperation. cool.

Your calf argument can be reversed easily to say Yates' calves don't mean shit when his poor quads are taken in to account, WHICH THE JUDGES LOOK FOR IN EVERY MANDATORY POSE.

Yates= Good Y frame, poor X frame. This isn't the 70s old man.

Thus highlighting what many have been saying for ages now yet can't seem to penetrate the skulls of nd and co; bodyparts like calves and forearms don't account for as much as quads and biceps on the bodybuilding stage.

Dorian - poorer quads

Ronnie - poorer calves.

Which is most detrimental?

Yep, you guessed it, having poor quads.

[pumpster]

Ronnie's calves twigs ruin his whole physique

More emptiness from poby. Generally speaking, it's the beginners with 14" arms who have to be told that bad calves don't matter as much as twig arms. haahahahahaha

Thus highlighting what many have been saying for ages now yet can't seem to penetrate the skulls of nd and co; bodyparts like calves and forearms don't account for as much as quads and biceps on the bodybuilding stage.

Beginner's syndrome, they don't get it.

Or they do but have precious little left to defend other than calves and density.

[sculpture]

dorian 94 vs. Ronnie 99

sort of puts things into persective just how bad dorian was in 1994:

That's actually quite depressing for dorian fans.

He looks awful in those pics from 94.

Shame ronnie looks outstanding.

[pumpster]

Those comparisons are like "before" & "after" pics, and they know it. Comedic, like comparing John Grimek to Sergio Oliva.

Thus the desperate recyclement of calves, forearms and "density" arguments.

Translated: we've hit bottom of the barrel after comparing these shots.