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

[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.

  What the fuck? I never said that muscle density is physical; you did, when you said that muscle density is mass per volume! I have always said that I used the word density when it comes to muscles to imply hardness; it has absofuckinglutgely nothing to do with physics! It was NeoSeminole and you who said that muscles can vary in physical density between people and that's the reasons why Dorian's muscles looked harder.

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.

   But I never did! I said that he looked denser. This has nothing to do with physics! It was NeoSeminole who said that Dorian's muscles could weight the same and be smaller because they are "denser"!  He was equating physical density with the way Dorian's muscles looked and that's simply not true. It is irrelevant who has greater physical muscle density between the two because there's no correlation between this and my definition of density as it applies to muscles, which is a purely visual one. Get it?

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.

  But this is irrelevant! Even if true, there's no corralation between muscles having a greater physical density and looking harder! It doesen't matter, because Ronnie could look softer yet have muscles with a greater physical density. Get it? You gave me the definition of physical density, something that NeoSeminole argued about, not me! Yes, that's the definition of physical density, but what the fuck has this to do with a muscle looking a certain way? Huh? I never argued that the definition of density is mass per volume; my contention was that this is irrelevant, since NeoSeminole claimed Dorian's "denser" look was the result of greater physical density, and this is simply not true! He can argue that Dorian's muscles could be smaller than Ronnie's and yet weight the same, but he cannot use a visual appearance of "density" as an indication for this because there is no correlation between the two things. Damn!

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.

  Dorian is denser to me because he looks harder. That's it. I never used the word "density" as in physical density; you did! You claimed that Dorian's muscles could be heavier or Ronnie's could be heavier, but this is irrelevant because the issue here is that there's no fucking correlation between physical density and the way Dorian's muscles looked. Get it? Geez!

  Density, to me, as it relates to bodybuilding, is an entirely subjective visual quality where Dorian's muscles looked harder than Ronnie's. No Plutonium does not look harder than Iron. So what? Again, it is you who is claiming that muscle density is somewhat related to physical density, not me.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

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

  You have been owned by me so badly, you just run away and ignore me every time I post. And then people quote my posts directed at you and write "OWNED", and you remain silent. You're my board bitch.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

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

  It doesen't matter, becaus we all know that, in bodybuilding, the word "density" is used exclusively to denote a specific visual quality, and not actual physical density. Furthermore, even if true, it still does nothing to prove a correlation between the visual appearance of muscle density and muscle weight, which is what that dumbass NeoSeminole claimed when he said that Dorian could be smaller than Ronnie yet weight the same because he looked denser.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

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.

and you missed my point.

Coleman has ALWAYS had uneven calves, as far back as you want to go:

[NeoSeminole]

Furthermore, even if true, it still does nothing to prove a correlation between the visual appearance of muscle density and muscle weight, which is what that dumbass NeoSeminole claimed when he said that Dorian could be smaller than Ronnie yet weight the same because he looked denser.

Nice strawman there buddy!

I never said Dorian's muscles weigh more than Ronnie's. What I did say earlier is along the same lines as nicorulez. Density = mass x volume. Dorian's muscles have less volume b/c they contain less intracellular water. However, both 93 Dorian and 99 Ronnie weighed the same. This means Dorian was denser.

[suckmymuscle]

Nice strawman there buddy!

I never said Dorian's muscles weigh more than Ronnie's. What I did say earlier is along the same lines as nicorulez. Density = mass x volume. Dorian's muscles have less volume b/c they contain less intracellular water. However, both 93 Dorian and 99 Ronnie weighed the same. This means Dorian was denser.

  You did't mention a single thing about intracellular water. You claimed that Ronnie's lats were as wide as Dorian's in 1999. I said that was bullshit, because Dorian was dryer and Ronnie's quads wwre bigger, so the difference only could come from somewhere else, namely, tha lats. Then, you claimed this was due to him having greater density. You haven't provided one shred of evidence for that. Then, I further demonstrated that Dorian and Ronnie had equivalent taper from the back, despite the fact that Dorian has a thikcer waist. This is further evidence that you're mistaken.

  Now, you can claim that you used the word "density" to indicate physical density, but I think you were refering to Dorian's grainy appearance. Regardless, even if you were using the word to imply physical density, it still doesen't matter, because there are innumerable variables that contribute to weight and none of them can be even remotely related to the skeletal muscles. It could be that Ronnie's internal organs or skeleton weight more than Dorian's, so his lats could be smaller and he weight the same. What about extra-cellular water? If Dorian had less - as he appeared to have -, and yet weighted the same, it means that Dorian had bigger lats to compensate for the difference. You lose either way.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[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.

  No problem. The explanation is exceedingly simple: density is not visual to indicate atomic density, but it is visual to indicate how hard a muscle looks. It is as simple as that. I never used the word literally, but rather metaphorically. Of course you can't indicate physical density by sight, but you can say that, for instance, ice looks denser than water, even if water is actually denser than ice. Get it? I would never say that Plutonium is denser, physically, than Iron by looking at it, but I can say that both Plutonium and Iron looks denser than water or cream. The word was used metaphorically, with a different conotation in a completely different context. Capisce?

  And speaking of ice, why should I admit defeat on something that I'm right about? You proved me wrong when it comes to having mistaken the density of water for that of ice, but my point was correct: water does vary in physical density in different states. Did you prove me wrong about that? No.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

You did't mention a single thing about intracellular water. You claimed that Ronnie's lats were as wide as Dorian's in 1999. I said that was bullshit, because Dorian was dryer and Ronnie's quads wwre bigger, so the difference only could come from somewhere else, namely, tha lats. Then, you claimed this was due to him having greater density. You haven't provided one shred of evidence for that. Then, I further demonstrated that Dorian and Ronnie had equivalent taper from the back, despite the fact that Dorian has a thikcer waist. This is further evidence that you're mistaken.

You cannot pick and choose where the weight from the difference in size comes from. How do we know Dorian doesn't have thicker bones than Ronnie? Most likely, the difference came from Dorian's barrel torso. He can easily hold more than a few lbs in there. Furthermore, you still haven't proven that 93 Dorian was actually wider than 99 Ronnie. Sorry but pics of Dorian standing alone don't prove anything. I have posted numerous side-by-side comparisons that show they had equal lat width. Hell, Ronnie in 03 outweighed Dorian by almost 30 lbs yet his lats were slightly wider. This should tell you that the difference would be negligable when they both weigh the same. I don't know what the hell you are talking about Ronnie and Dorian have the same taper from the back. Ronnie had the same lat width and a narrower waist.

Now, you can claim that you used the word "density" to indicate physical density, but I think you were refering to Dorian's grainy appearance. Regardless, even if you were using the word to imply physical density, it still doesen't matter, because there are innumerable variables that contribute to weight and none of them can be even remotely related to the skeletal muscles. It could be that Ronnie's internal organs or skeleton weight more than Dorian's, so his lats could be smaller and he weight the same. What about extra-cellular water? If Dorian had less - as he appeared to have -, and yet weighted the same, it means that Dorian had bigger lats to compensate for the difference. You lose either way.

I have always referred to density as a physical property, not just appearance. You're correct that I didn't specify earlier Dorian's muscles contained less intracellular water. I said they were denser according to the formula D = M x V. Dorian in 93 weighed the same as 99 Ronnie, yet he appears the same size or smaller in almost every comparison. Pure lean muscle tissue is denser than water. I admit Dorian was just a tad dryer than Ronnie. However, Dorian lost some muscle fullness as a result. This would explain why he appears smaller while also weighing the same.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ronnie is flexing you you can't use that same tired excuse and he's not as dry as Dorian

[NarcissisticDeity]

More visual evidence Ronnie's conditioning lags behind  !!

[NeoSeminole]

Ronnie is flexing you you can't use that same tired excuse and he's not as dry as Dorian

All you did was post 1 pose and claim Dorian was dryer than Ronnie.

[NeoSeminole]

More visual evidence Ronnie's conditioning lags behind!!

If you actually watched the video, you would notice Dorian is fully flexing in those pics. He hit a rear double biceps with one arm in the air, then he kept his back tense as he lowered his arm. Ronnie is not done flexing in those pics.

[The Night Stalker]

Who is better at the bottom sex? dorian or ronne?

[Bear]

All you did was post 1 pose and claim Dorian was dryer than Ronnie.

Dorian looks like a little dry, flat man next to Ronnie, who is not as dry but has big, full muscles. Ronnie's ass and hams are more shredded too!

[Bear]

All you did was post 1 pose and claim Dorian was dryer than Ronnie.

Dorian looks like a little dry, flat man next to Ronnie, who is not as dry but has big, full muscle bellies. Ronnie's ass and hams are more shredded too!

[Bear]

Fuck, sorry, my computer's gay.

[pobrecito]

and you missed my point.

Coleman has ALWAYS had uneven calves, as far back as you want to go:

eh, they always looked fairly even to me, except for a few times like at the 2000O picture I posted. They just looked weird that year....if he did synthol/goo then he should be disqualified. I mean, did Coleman honestly ever try and work on his calves? Look at Shawn Ray...he had shitty calf genetics just like Coleman but he worked his and they ended up pretty damn good, athough high.

[Hulkster]

those great comparisons Neo posted show exactly why this thread officially ended 3 days ago.

Ronnie 99 is in a whole other league.

equal size, better detail, better shape, more full looking.

fantastic.

and ND: if you post that stupid shot of Ronnie whipping his arms around so fast that they are BLURRED on camera and expect everyone to think it is the same as this: then you are a total idiot:

[pobrecito]

hahaha...thread ended?? maybe for Camp Coleman I will never let this go...we can argue for another 2000 pages I could care less. It is plainly evident to me, and MANY (including BB experts and IFBB JUDGES) that Yates was the most dominant bodybuilder of all-times Nothing you can say. No picture you can post can disprove that becuase as ND likes to put it you are nothing but an internet fanboy Never even been to a contest...claims to go to a Kamali seminar yet calls Yates the most overrated of all-time Hopefully we can get our resident cumstain Suckmymuscle to post another fantastic essay on why Yates would beat down your boy

Yates would win. This is evident to MANY...

[NeoSeminole]

03 Ronnie would destroy 93 Dorian.

[pobrecito]

not even close NeoSemen...ronnie looks fat and bloated like a pig in 2003 At least use 99 pictures. And why didn't you do a front on shot of Ronnie hitting the ab/thigh Wouldn't want to show his 40" waist and fat obliques spilling over would you

[pobrecito]

WTF is this??? You can see Ronnie's gut distention from the front Automatic loss right there.

What's also funny is all this garbage Hulkster talks about X-frame and taper Yates is killing Ronnie in that here

[NeoSeminole]

not even close NeoSemen...ronnie looks fat and bloated like a pig in 2003 At least use 99 pictures. And why didn't you do a front on shot of Ronnie hitting the ab/thigh Wouldn't want to show his 40" waist and fat obliques spilling over would you

I'm not sure what you are talking about pubecito. I did post a front on shot of Ronnie hitting an abs-and-thighs.

[pobrecito]

damn look at those bowling pin forearms Ronnie has....horrible

[NeoSeminole]

WTF is this??? You can see Ronnie's gut distention from the front  Automatic loss right there.

What's also funny is all this garbage Hulkster talks about X-frame and taper Yates is killing Ronnie in that here

That's no more gut distension than Dorian in that pose. Ronnie has a gap in between his abs that causes his stomach to look convex. I guarantee you if you viewed both Ronnie and Dorian from the side, you would see they both have "distension" b/c they are pushing their sternums out to accentuate their lats. Furthermore, Ronnie is killing Dorian in taper in that pose.