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

[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

Hulkster has admitted defeat

[pobrecito]

Domination by Yates

[pobrecito]

Coleman should be automatically disqualified for:

1) Gut at his "best"
2) Synthol in calves

[NeoSeminole]

Domination by Yates

I hope you're kidding. Ronnie destroys Dorian in that pic. His arms are balanced with his back, his lower back is crisp and devoid of wrinkles, his lumbar muscles are thicker, his glutes are more striated, and his hamstrings look like you could grate cheese on them.

[pobrecito]

I hope you're kidding. Ronnie destroys Dorian in that pic

Not even close. Ronnie looks like shit. Dorian's back is far superior....and Ronnie clearly has synthol in his calves. That's automatic disqualification in my book. Ronnie gets demolished by Yates there.

[NeoSeminole]

Not even close. Ronnie looks like shit. Dorian's back is far superior....and Ronnie clearly has synthol in his calves. That's automatic disqualification in my book. Ronnie gets demolished by Yates there.

Dorian's arms look 16" in that pic. This is automatic disqualification in my book for a Mr. Olympia.

[pobrecito]

Dorian's arms look 16" in that pic. This is automatic disqualification in my book for a Mr. Olympia.

Nope. Oil/Synthol bag calves are way worse. I mean if you are going to shoot goo into your calves...at least make it symmetrical

[pobrecito]

Domination

[NeoSeminole]

Nope. Oil/Synthol bag calves are way worse. I mean if you are going to shoot goo into your calves...at least make it symmetrical

I agree synthol use is bad. However, you cannot prove Ronnie uses oil in his calves. They may have poor shape but they have always been pretty detailed. I doubt he injects synthol in them. We can say for a fact that Dorian has twig arms.

[Hulkster]

Nope. Oil/Synthol bag calves are way worse. I mean if you are going to shoot goo into your calves...at least make it symmetrical

I have already shown you that Ronnie's calves looked the same whether it was 1991 or 2006 other the size.

why do you keep insisting they are injected when you have no proof, or even, visual proof?

for example, compare Flex, who we all know has synthol/oil calves, to ronnie 99:


notice, they looked like balloons.

Now, compare to Ronnie:

these calves show way too much detail to be oil injected/synthol filled:

[Hulkster]

its really remarkable how dumb Probecito has become since these amazing 99 pics were posted.

Its like he says "fuck it! Ronnie kicks dorian's ass, so I'll just become a retarded version of ND from now on!"

 

[NeoSeminole]

what's funny is that Pobreshithead says this pic is not scaled properly b/c Ronnie is 3x bigger than Dorian



yet he posts this pic in which a 250-something lb Ronnie is bigger than a 265 lb Dorian.

[pobrecito]

I have already shown you that Ronnie's calves looked the same whether it was 1991 or 2006 other the size.

why do you keep insisting they are injected when you have no proof, or even, visual proof?

for example, compare Flex, who we all know has synthol/oil calves, to ronnie 99:


notice, they looked like balloons.

Now, compare to Ronnie:

these calves show way too much detail to be oil injected/synthol filled:

How then do you explain the fact that one calf is sticking out at least 1" farther than the other one Did he only train one calf after 97





I can't say for sure...but *IF* he used synthol that is a sham and a disgrace

[pobrecito]

Again, *very* weird/odd looking calf

[pobrecito]

This pretty much seals it. Look at the left calf completely different than the right....in that 97 pic above they looked nothing like this

[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. 

  No, it was my point. NeoSemen, in his renowned stupidity, claimed that Ronnie in 1999 could be as big or bigger than Dorian, despite Dorian having less sub-cutaneous water and weighting the same, because Dorian's muscles were denser than Ronnie's. In this case, obviously, he's refering to physical density. Conversely, I used the word "density" to refer especifically to a certain visual appearance.

  There is absolutely no logical correlation between a certain amount of muscle looking a certain way or the other because it is heavier or lighter. Wtf? What kind of retarded statement is this? To demonstrate this, you'd have to show that the difference in visual appearance between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles resulted from them being physically variant in density. It is absolutely irrelevant that human beings vary in muscle physical density. Why? Because the issue here is that he failed to establish a logical correlation between a muscle looking harder and being heavier. Dorian's muscles can perfecty look harder than Ronnie's and weight less.

  This is why I've repeatedly said that density is purely a visual and not physical quality, and it is absolutely irrelevant that humans vary in the physical density of their muscles. Ergo, NeoSemen's assertion was bullshit. And you also claimed that Dorian carried the most volume per area. So, you, too, said that Dorian was the densest bodybuilder ever in a physical way. Guess what? If you two manage to establish that Dorian's muscles looked the way they did because they were physically denser, I'm going to post a public aplogy at this thread for eveyone to read and concede defeat on this issue. But I will only do that if you establish, beyong reasonable doubt, that Dorian's muscles looked the way they did because they had a greater mass per volume than Ronnie's. Proving that Dorian had greater mass per volume is not enough; you two have the prove the correlation. Because even if you prove that Dorian's muscles had more mass per volume, it would still not explain this as the cause of his muscles looking the way they did. Game one! Remember: if you're successful, I will apologize publicly and concede defeat on this issue.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

This pretty much seals it. Look at the left calf completely different than the right....in that 97 pic above they looked nothing like this

no, they have always looked this way:



no matter what year you pick
 

[pobrecito]

Are you blind



Look at the left calf, about half way down there is "calf" sticking out that isn't even present on the right leg

[NeoSeminole]

I guess Dorian's back must contain synthol b/c it's uneven too. Notice his traps don't line up perfectly and one side of his christmas tree is messed up.

[nicorulez]

  No, it was my point. NeoSemen, in his renowned stupidity, claimed that Ronnie in 1999 could be as big or bigger than Dorian, despite Dorian having less sub-cutaneous water and weighting the same, because Dorian's muscles were denser than Ronnie's. In this case, obviously, he's refering to physical density. Conversely, I used the word "density" to refer especifically to a certain visual appearance.

  There is absolutely no logical correlation between a certain amount of muscle looking a certain way or the other because it is heavier or lighter. Wtf? What kind of retarded statement is this? To demonstrate this, you'd have to show that the difference in visual appearance between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles resulted from them being physically variant in density. It is absolutely irrelevant that human beings vary in muscle physical density. Why? Because the issue here is that he failed to establish a logical correlation between a muscle looking harder and being heavier. Dorian's muscles can perfecty look harder than Ronnie's and weight less.

  This is why I've repeatedly said that density is purely a visual and not physical quality, and it is absolutely irrelevant that humans vary in the physical density of their muscles. Ergo, NeoSemen's assertion was bullshit. And you also claimed that Dorian carried the most volume per area. So, you, too, said that Dorian was the densest bodybuilder ever in a physical way. Guess what? If you two manage to establish that Dorian's muscles looked the way they did because they were physically denser, I'm going to post a public aplogy at this thread for eveyone to read and concede defeat on this issue. But I will only do that if you establish, beyong reasonable doubt, that Dorian's muscles looked the way they did because they had a greater mass per volume than Ronnie's. Proving that Dorian had greater mass per volume is not enough; you two have the prove the correlation. Because even if you prove that Dorian's muscles had more mass per volume, it would still not explain this as the cause of his muscles looking the way they did. Game one! Remember: if you're successful, I will apologize publicly and concede defeat on this issue.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

No, Sucky, I think your statement along with ND's is BS.  Ask any professor of physics and they will state that you cannot tell the density of an object by looking at it.  That is quite possibly the dumbest fucking statement made on this board for the entire 500+ pages.  Your assertion that density is physical is beyond belief.  You really believe that or are you joshing?  If you believe that, you need to stick to the law my friend.  A physics major you are not.  My contention was that unless Dorian and Ronnie had muscle core biopsies obtained and then weighed you could not assert in any viable manner who is denser.  However, both you and ND seem to think that Dorian had lower bodyfat and water weight.  Have I been misreading your quotes for five hundred pages?  If so, mea culpa.  If so, listen to a little physics teaching session.  If Dorian is lean (2% to 3% BF) and has less water weight; guess what, his musculature is denser.  Why, you cannot spot reduce fat.  Any person who has taken anatomy and physiology understands this.  Moreover, water is not selectively removed from just the intravascular space.  In dehydration (which is essentially what these bodybuilders are doing when they use diuretics) they are removing water from the intravascular, intracellular and subcutaneous space.  Guess what, that would mean that he has less water in his muscles.  So if you and ND are correct, Dorian would be denser.  It is not because he has smaller or larger muscles.  It is because the variable components of muscle tissue are less prominent in his body (if you are correct).  If you are wrong, Ronnie could very well be denser.  If their variables are equal, then they could have equal densities.  However, once again, to define muscularity and conditioning is a misnomer to the greatest extent.  It is quite pointless.  Hope that helps.

[nicorulez]

  No, it was my point. NeoSemen, in his renowned stupidity, claimed that Ronnie in 1999 could be as big or bigger than Dorian, despite Dorian having less sub-cutaneous water and weighting the same, because Dorian's muscles were denser than Ronnie's. In this case, obviously, he's refering to physical density. Conversely, I used the word "density" to refer especifically to a certain visual appearance.

  There is absolutely no logical correlation between a certain amount of muscle looking a certain way or the other because it is heavier or lighter. Wtf? What kind of retarded statement is this? To demonstrate this, you'd have to show that the difference in visual appearance between Dorian's and Ronnie's muscles resulted from them being physically variant in density. It is absolutely irrelevant that human beings vary in muscle physical density. Why? Because the issue here is that he failed to establish a logical correlation between a muscle looking harder and being heavier. Dorian's muscles can perfecty look harder than Ronnie's and weight less.

  This is why I've repeatedly said that density is purely a visual and not physical quality, and it is absolutely irrelevant that humans vary in the physical density of their muscles. Ergo, NeoSemen's assertion was bullshit. And you also claimed that Dorian carried the most volume per area. So, you, too, said that Dorian was the densest bodybuilder ever in a physical way. Guess what? If you two manage to establish that Dorian's muscles looked the way they did because they were physically denser, I'm going to post a public aplogy at this thread for eveyone to read and concede defeat on this issue. But I will only do that if you establish, beyong reasonable doubt, that Dorian's muscles looked the way they did because they had a greater mass per volume than Ronnie's. Proving that Dorian had greater mass per volume is not enough; you two have the prove the correlation. Because even if you prove that Dorian's muscles had more mass per volume, it would still not explain this as the cause of his muscles looking the way they did. Game one! Remember: if you're successful, I will apologize publicly and concede defeat on this issue.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Admit defeat on the issue...come on my friend  .  You would never do that.  You barely admitted that you fucked up with the water density in diferent states.  Tell you what, show me one scientific review in which the density of an object were described by visual appearance.  I don't want some BS answer from Peter McGough or some dipshit journalist.  I want a scientific journal that shows me that density is visual.  Then I will apologize.  Personally, I think this debate is far more interesting and contentious than Dorian vs Ronnie.  It is quite fun actually.  I am waiting.

[pobrecito]

I guess Dorian's back must contain synthol b/c it's uneven too. Notice his traps don't line up perfectly and one side of his christmas tree is messed up.

YOu missed the whole point. My point was that in 1997 (first picture posted) the calves were NOT uneven...then magically in 2000 they are uneven? Very, very fishy.

[nicorulez]

Check this link and go to the bottom.  It describes density in bodybuilding.  It talks about hyperplasia which I though was a myth in humans, but it gives the definition pretty well. At no time does it describe appearance.

http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/magazine/physiologicalaspectsofphysiquebuilding.htm

[NeoSeminole]

YOu missed the whole point. My point was that in 1997 (first picture posted) the calves were NOT uneven...then magically in 2000 they are uneven? Very, very fishy.

One leg is turned slightly more than the other. I know this explanation sounds crazy, but it makes sense when you look at his other pics. Ronnie has high calf insertions which means any slight rotation in his legs create a dramatic difference in calf appearance. Here's a pic with one leg viewed straight on while the other is turned to the side.



now both facing straight forward

[NeoSeminole]

No, Sucky, I think your statement along with ND's is BS.  Ask any professor of physics and they will state that you cannot tell the density of an object by looking at it.  That is quite possibly the dumbest fucking statement made on this board for the entire 500+ pages.  Your assertion that density is physical is beyond belief.

you're not the only person who feels this way. From another thread:

sucky is a cumstain claiming to be the next einstein.