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

[Hulkster]

ronnie was bone dry in 99, front and back, despite what ND says

[NarcissisticDeity]

ha ha ha, that's why several people have called you a hypocrite and biased.

I never said Ronnie in 03 was at his dryest. Not once. I was just pointing out that Ronnie wasn't as waterlogged like you portray him as.

Hell people have called me worse than hypocrite and biased but what really matters is are they right?  and Ronnie 2003 has excellent conditioning for a man 287lbs no questions about it but its NOT as dry as Dorian at his best and if you notice Ronnie gets into real trrouble when his conditioning is off from its best 01/02/04 etc 2002 Show of Strenght , Gunther didn't beat him because he had a batter v-taper , structure , back , he beat him because he was bigger and dryer period.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I'm sorry Hulkster I just had to again lol Yates is just crushing him !! lol

[pobrecito]

man, ronnie looks softer than a pancake relative to Yates

Relative to his peers, Ronnie was the driest...but he doesn't come anywhere near Yates

[pumpster]

These losers are stuck on "dry" because that's all they've got left, along with "forearms" & "calves". 

[Hulkster]

I'm sorry Hulkster I just had to again lol Yates is just crushing him !! lol

yeah, but dorian is obviously tensing a whole lot more than Ronnie because he is moving a lot slower - look at their arms..

dorian's arms are in focus for the camera and Ronnie's are a blur for fuck's sake

thats how fast Ronnie's arms are going.

Pretty hard to look good when you are whipping your arms around.

[Hulkster]

I'm sorry Hulkster I just had to again lol Yates is just crushing him !! lol

funny how Yates can only crush Ronnie in 'midpose" when ronnie can crush yates full on flexing:

[nicorulez]

See this is where you lose me ! Peter McGough has gone on record as saying Ronnie Coleman 2001 ASC is the best he's personally seen ANYONE in a contest , did you read that? anyone !! now what does that have to do with them being buds? or living in the same city? nothing , Ronnie;s conditioning in 1999 was OFF from 1998 this is clearly evident , so to say Peter is no reliable or unbiased is simply not true

And density is as the name implys how dense the muscle is and very thick dense muscles is a result of superheavy training with low reps , this style of training give the muscles a very dense apperence , casey Viator had it , Mike Mentzer , Mike Francios , compare them to the king of volume someone like Paul Dillett who had a lot of volume but not much in the way of density , a good analogy would be a basketball and a bowlingball both have about the same volume but both don't have the same density , and in my opinion no one has ever coveyed the overall muscule density & thickness that Dorian Yates did , Fancios came close but his conditioning wasn't on par with Yates.

This is the problem with your reasoning.  No bodybuilder has ever lifted heavier or more intensely than Ronnie.  Thus, why doesn't he not the densest muscles; he is certainly the strongest beside Kovacs.  Moreover, thick muscles does not equate to density.  Density is a physical property.  You would never know that Plutonium was dense by looking at it.  Thus, this term density is misleading and dubious.  You can't claim a muscle is dense unless you know the mass of the muscle and volume it encompasses.  Then, you can talk about density.  To say Dorian is dense is akin to saying Lance Armstrong had good lungs.  No shit sherlock.  However, dryness and muscle size and proportion would be a better descriptive term.  Density means absolutely nothing.  That was my whole point with Sucky.  By your own statements, if a muscle is very dense, it could also be very small.  In other words, the lack of fullness from no fat or water would make it denser.  Looks good, but I would take the round look of Coleman with larger more rotund muscle bellies with some water in them.  That is my point.  density is descriptor that cannot be defined by traditional judging criteria.  Is Jocelyn P's muscles as dense as Dorian's; according to Sucky they are both actin/myosin and water so yes.  This does not compute. 

[pobrecito]

Yates destroyin Coleman, yet again

[nicorulez]

Pobrecito, I agree, Ronnie's calves really hurt him.  However, from the back double bicep pose the lack of arms really detracts from the greatness of Yate's back.  He is dry as F__K but man do the limbs look bad.  Also, why is it that his glutes and hams never look that dry.  It is amazing his back gets in such conditioning, but not his lower glutes/hams.  If Ronnie had calves, this would be a moot thread.  I agree that their lack of really hurts him overall, but I still feel his strengths are too much. 

[suckmymuscle]

I tried to explain this concept to Sucky, but he didn't get it. He firmly believes that muscle density is a magical property that only manifest itself in appearance - not physical structure.

  There's absolutely no causality between having muscles that look harder and muscles that are heavier. This is a retarded argument. It doesen't matter whether muscles vary in weight between humans, because you simply can't demonstrate that Dorian's muscles looking harder meant that they weighted more. What if they looked harder and yet weighted less? Would this still prove your bullshit claims that Ronnie's lats in 1999 were as big as Dorian's because Yates' muscles looked denser? Wtf?! Are you retarded? What about non-controlled variables? Have you accounted for that? Can you disprove the hypothesis that the difference in appearance between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles were caused by different skin textures or differently shaped muscle fibers - but of the same size? No, you cannot, so shut the f**k up. You haven't proven shit except agreeing with me that there is a visual difference between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles. You have failed utterly to demonstrate that Ronnie's lats, in 1999, were as wide as Dorian because Dorian's muscles were heavier and thus could occupy less space yet weight the same. In fact, Ronnie had a smaller waist from the back, yet his lats still appeared slightly smaller than Dorian's. This goes to show that that his lats being the size of Dorian's was an illusion.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

Pobrecito, I agree, Ronnie's calves really hurt him.  However, from the back double bicep pose the lack of arms really detracts from the greatness of Yate's back.  He is dry as F__K but man do the limbs look bad.  Also, why is it that his glutes and hams never look that dry.  It is amazing his back gets in such conditioning, but not his lower glutes/hams.  If Ronnie had calves, this would be a moot thread.  I agree that their lack of really hurts him overall, but I still feel his strengths are too much. 

thats probably because Ronnie in 99 was dryer and better conditioned than yates:

[pobrecito]

NeoSemen OWNED

[Hulkster]

my God does Ronnie destroy dorian.

that last comparison was almost painful to watch.

[suckmymuscle]

This is the problem with your reasoning.  No bodybuilder has ever lifted heavier or more intensely than Ronnie.  Thus, why doesn't he not the densest muscles; he is certainly the strongest beside Kovacs.  Moreover, thick muscles does not equate to density.  Density is a physical property.  You would never know that Plutonium was dense by looking at it.  Thus, this term density is misleading and dubious.  You can't claim a muscle is dense unless you know the mass of the muscle and volume it encompasses.  Then, you can talk about density.  To say Dorian is dense is akin to saying Lance Armstrong had good lungs.  No shit sherlock.  However, dryness and muscle size and proportion would be a better descriptive term.  Density means absolutely nothing.  That was my whole point with Sucky.  By your own statements, if a muscle is very dense, it could also be very small.  In other words, the lack of fullness from no fat or water would make it denser.  Looks good, but I would take the round look of Coleman with larger more rotund muscle bellies with some water in them.  That is my point.  density is descriptor that cannot be defined by traditional judging criteria.  Is Jocelyn P's muscles as dense as Dorian's; according to Sucky they are both actin/myosin and water so yes.  This does not compute. 

  Now you get it! And it exactly proves my point: that Dorian's muscles looking harder than Ronnie's have absofuckinglutely nothing to do with him having heavier muscles than Dorian. Game over.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


  

[pobrecito]

my God does Ronnie destroy dorian.

that last comparison was almost painful to watch.

Nope. Dorian demolishes Ronnie. Are you blind?

Have you been smoking that penicillin weed again

[Hulkster]

Yates destroyin Coleman, yet again

I wouldn't go there If I were you. You are using a 1992 Dorian pic.

If you want to play that game, be my guest, but you will lose:

[nicorulez]

  There's absolutely no causality between having muscles that look harder and muscles that are heavier. This is a retarded argument. It doesen't matter whether muscles vary in weight between humans, because you simply can't demonstrate that Dorian's muscles looking harder meant that they weightedf more. What if they looked harder and yet weighted less? Would this still prove you bullshit claims that Ronnie's lats in 1999 were as big as Dorian's because Yates' muscles looked denser? Wtf?! Are you retarded? What about on-controlled variables? Have you accounted for that? Can you disprove the hypothesis that the difference in appearance between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles were caused by different skin textures or differently shaped muscle fibers - but of the same size? No, you cannot, so sgut the f**k up. You haven't proven shit ecdept agreeing with me that there is a visual difference between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles. You have failed utterly to demonstrate that Ronnie's lats, in 1999, were as wide as Dorian because Dorian's muscles were heavier and thus could occupy less space yet weight the same. In fact, Ronnie had a smaller waist from the back, yet his lats still appeared slightly smaller than Dorian's. This goes to show that that his lats being the size of Dorian's was an illusion.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

That is my point, and I am sorry if I grouped you with ND stating that Dorian's muscles look denser.  I just thought that this is an asinine exercise.  You cannot critically judge density from appearance.  A basketball filled with sand is denser than a similarly sized basketball filled with air.  Big whoop, they look the same (hypothetically ).  Dorian is dryer, that is obvious especially from the back.  I ask you this then.  Why did his obliques, abs, serratus and back get so stone cold dry, but his glutes were still relatively soft.  Moreover, his hams don't look as shredded as Coleman's.  To be honest, I would prefer a medlet of the two bodybuilders condition wise with Dorian's dryness in the torse and Colemans in the glutes and hams.  I know Coleman's glutes are huge, but I guess it is because of genetics and the fact he squats so damn heavy.  Throw Dorian's calves in there and you would be unbeatable condtion wise from the back.  My two cents. 

[nicorulez]

  Now you get it! And it exactly proves my point: that Dorian's muscles looking harder than Ronnie's have absofuckinglutely nothing to do with him having heavier muscles than Dorian. Game over.

SUCKMYMUSCLE


 

My point Sucky, I think I was thinking on the physical scale and you were talking about the appearance.  The density thing confused me cause I just figured Dorian was ripped as shit.    Got to give him credit; his back is as detailed as Labrada's and he outweighs him by 70 pounds.  I think we are on the same page now.  Peace man.  Hulkster, I still agree with you overall, but man is this argument getting old.  Both sides have their pundits and critics.  Let this shit go.  We can all agree that both of their best forms would smoke Gutler. 

[Hulkster]

the thread ended officially when these pics were posted, with ronnie winning easily:

this is just gravy

[Hulkster]

now that Ronnie has won over dorian handily, now the fun can really begin.

1996 NOC flex vs, 1999 Olympia Ronnie :

[Hulkster]

wow. ronnie makes Flex 96 look smooth, just like he does Dorian!

[pobrecito]

Nope.....when the heat is on you, you tend to deflect it away becuase you know Yates is dominant

Coleman doesn't hold a candle to the most dominant bodybuilder this world has ever seen. And this can NEVER be denied no matter what your ignorant ass says becuase you did not judge the shows, you were not there, and you really have no clue

[NeoSeminole]

NeoSemen, you piece of shit, once again you've ignored a detailed reply to you where I own you badly. Coward bitch.

[Hulkster]

Flex, 1993 Arnold Classic vs Ronnie, 1999 Olympia, their respective bests: