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

[NeoSeminole]

You have tried and failed miserably. Try again. Dorian's distension is minimal there, especially when compared to the fat Santa known as Coleman.

easy there bitch. You said to find examples of Dorian's gut looking half as bad as Ronnie's. Not only did I accomplish that, but I also showed that Dorian's gut was just as big as Ronnie's.

I don't care how their arms "look" when compared to each other, since the issue here is mathematical and not visual. Take out the tape measurer and you'll see that Ronnie's arms were about 23" while Dorian's were 21". Two inches.

sure.

Only in the front double biceps.

what drugs are you smoking? That pic from 96 was a rear double biceps. Even back then, Ronnie's arms were bigger than Dorian's. Ronnie's arms were much larger in 03 then in 96. This means his arms in 03 would put Dorian's to shame.

What an annoying little turd you are. You claimed something that was incorrect and are now trying to save face by manipulating semantics. Try to understand this:

The lats might grow more in muscle tissue in the lower part, but this is irrelevant since the upper part always remains wider.

DUH! You argued that Ronnie's lats were wider because his lower lats were thicker. Well, duh, I replied that this is irrelevant to who has the widest lats because any growth of the lower lats is concomitant with a proportional growth of the upper part and the upper part is where the width is measured. I never argued that the growth in absolute muscle tissue was proportional; I argued that the visual growth of the muscle is the same throughout the muscle. Stop trying to save face by stealing my argument and pretending to make it as your own, f**cker!

Awww, poor Sucky is getting frustrated b/c he is arguing with a superior intelligence. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that Ronnie's lats were wider b/c his lower lats were thicker - ever!!! Please show me where. I said that the difference in lat width between Dorian and Ronnie is negligable b/c the upper part of the lats don't grow significantly. You can't add a foot to each lat. It's physically impossible. Ronnie in 03 was slightly wider than Dorian, but only b/c he weighed 30 lbs more. This tells us that when they were the same weight, the difference in lat width would barely be noticable.

[pobrecito]

Ronnie claimed 23" arms back in 1997.

I don't think he trained them very hard since then as he said.

[NeoSeminole]

Ronnie claimed 23" arms back in 1997.

I don't think he trained them very hard since then as he said.

Even still, that would make his arms 3" bigger than Dorian's in 97. His arms were obviously larger in 03. Sucky claims that 03 Ronnie's arms were only 2" bigger than Dorian's.

[pobrecito]

Even still, that would make his arms 3" bigger than Dorian's in 97. His arms were obviously larger in 03. Sucky claims that 03 Ronnie's arms were only 2" bigger than Dorian's.

I'm not really sure why you all are so caught up in circumference measurments Ronnie has the best arms in the history of the sport due to his dominant biceps.

The fact of the matter is, biceps are fairly irrelevant in the judging.

[pobrecito]

Yates would win the rear lat spread. He has a dry, separated quality to his back that Ronnie lacks.

[NeoSeminole]

Yates would win the rear lat spread. He has a dry, separated quality to his back that Ronnie lacks.

give me a break! The reason Dorian looks "dryer" in that pic is b/c he has less posing oil and the lights aren't as bright. Notice how shiny Ronnie's back looks.

[quadzilla456]

give me a break! The reason Dorian looks "dryer" in that pic is b/c he has less posing oil and the lights aren't as bright. Notice how shiny Ronnie's back looks.

Dorian's back looks harder and its not because of the lights. Also notice how Ronnie's legs look bigger from the rear because he angles his feet out more. If Dorian had posed like Ronnie his legs would look bigger from the rear. Dorian's conditioning in these pics is amazing!

[suckmymuscle]

easy there bitch. You said to find examples of Dorian's gut looking half as bad as Ronnie's. Not only did I accomplish that, but I also showed that Dorian's gut was just as big as Ronnie's.

  Oh, that's the best you can do? Sorry, I was expecting more, especially after the tons of pics showing Ronnie's preganant look from 2003. You have failed miserably to make you case: Dorian has no distesnion in the pics you showed. Sorry.

what drugs are you smoking? That pic from 96 was a rear double biceps. Even back then, Ronnie's arms were bigger than Dorian's. Ronnie's arms were much larger in 03 then in 96. This means his arms in 03 would put Dorian's to shame.

  Nope. Ronnie's arms were, at the most, about 23". Dorian's arms were 20" or 21". Again, it's mathematical. You saying that they "looked" bigger doesen't mean shit. In the back double biceps, Dorian's arms look as big as Ronnie's, because this pose emphasizes the lateral triceps head, and Dorian has the better one.

Awww, poor Sucky is getting frustrated b/c he is arguing with a superior intelligence. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that Ronnie's lats were wider b/c his lower lats were thicker - ever!!! Please show me where. I said that the difference in lat width between Dorian and Ronnie is negligable b/c the upper part of the lats don't grow significantly. You can't add a foot to each lat. It's physically impossible. Ronnie in 03 was slightly wider than Dorian, but only b/c he weighed 30 lbs more. This tells us that when they were the same weight, the difference in lat width would barely be noticable.

  Shouldn't a superior intelligence know that the lats grows as much in the upper part as it does in the lower one, since the upper part always remains bigger than the lower? This disproves your theory, sport. I was right: the lats do grow as much in the upper part as it does in the lower one, and where the most muscle tissue is added to is irrelevant.

  Besides, your claim here is idiotic to the utmost. Let's see. The lats don't grow much in the upper part. Put Dorian Yates next to an average man and have them both spread their lats. Well, since Dorian's lats are obviously much wider, and since the upper part is wider than the lower, then obviously there is an enormous increase in width in the upper part of the lats. I have have just owned you brutally and made you feel like a moron. Your superior intelligence didn't see that coming, huh?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[the shadow]

awesome pics ND....why the hell camp coleman is debatin?...yates pwns ronnie at conditioning to say the least

[the shadow]

yates 1996  version was freaky as hell...i think that kind of conditioning was just sick and at the same time very dangerous.i think he was drier than a bone that night..his conditioning was nuts..how can anyone be that dry..

[NeoSeminole]

Oh, that's the best you can do? Sorry, I was expecting more, especially after the tons of pics showing Ronnie's preganant look from 2003. You have failed miserably to make you case: Dorian has no distesnion in the pics you showed.

ha ha ha, you asked for me to show you 1 pic where Dorian's gut looks half as bad as Ronnie. I posted several. Here they are again for your viewing pleasure.

Nope. Ronnie's arms were, at the most, about 23". Dorian's arms were 20" or 21". Again, it's mathematical. You saying that they "looked" bigger doesen't mean shit. In the back double biceps, Dorian's arms look as big as Ronnie's, because this pose emphasizes the lateral triceps head, and Dorian has the better one.

Dorian's arms measured 20." Pobrecito said that Ronnie's arms in 97 were 23." That means Ronnie's arms were over 2" bigger than Dorian's. This is simple mathematics for you dumbass.

Shouldn't a superior intelligence know that the lats grows as much in the upper part as it does in the lower one, since the upper part always remains bigger than the lower? This disproves your theory, sport. I was right: the lats do grow as much in the upper part as it does in the lower one, and where the most muscle tissue is added to is irrelevant.

listen here son, the muscles grow proportionately. I've already explained this to you. The upper part of the lats are situated closer to the insertion and make up a small portion of the overall muscle, which means it experiences less absolute growth. Think of the lats in terms of surface area. Let's say the lower part of the lats represent 70 in² and the upper part represents 30 in². If the muscle increases 50% in size, which part experiences the most growth? Come on, I know you can answer this hard question. You can do it!

Besides, your claim here is idiotic to the utmost. Let's see. The lats don't grow much in the upper part.  Put Dorian Yates next to an average man and have them both spread their lats. Well, since Dorian's lats are obviously much wider, and since the upper part is wider than the lower, then obviously there is an enormous increase in width in the upper part of the lats. I have have just owned you brutally and made you feel like a moron.

you cannot compare Dorian to the avg man. You must compare Dorian to himself. He already had a wide back when he started bodybuilding. Obviously his lats became wider, but not as much as you think. He added maybe 3-4 in each side.

Your superior intelligence didn't see that coming, huh?

there was never anything to see little boy. I'm not the least bit worried about you b/c I know I'm more intelligent than you. Your posts, although lengthy and articulate, are full of shit! You also suck at insults. The best you can come up with is calling others "turds." Now go play in your sand box.

[pumpster]

SPECIAL THANKS TO ND..


Henceforth referred to as "the Yates Pot-Shot" (with 17" guns)..LOL

[suckmymuscle]

ha ha ha, you asked for me to show you 1 pic where Dorian's gut looks half as bad as Ronnie. I posted several. Here they are again for your viewing pleasure.

  The thing is, retard, that none of the pics you've posted, which, by the way have already been posted several times before, show that Dorian's gut was  even one tenth the size of Ronnie's. Having wide hips is not gut distension, dumbass.

Dorian's arms measured 20." Pobrecito said that Ronnie's arms in 97 were 23." That means Ronnie's arms were over 2" bigger than Dorian's. This is simple mathematics for you dumbass.

  No, Dorian's arms were 21". Let's do the math: 23" - 21" = 2".

listen here son, the muscles grow proportionately. I've already explained this to you. The upper part of the lats are situated closer to the insertion and make up a small portion of the overall muscle, which means it experiences less absolute growth.
Think of the lats in terms of surface area. Let's say the lower part of the lats represent 70 in² and the upper part represents 30 in². If the muscle increases 50% in size, which part experiences the most growth? Come on, I know you can answer this hard question. You can do it!

  Of course the lower part grows more in terms of tissue, but my point, little boy, is that it doesen't really matter because visually the muscle remains the same. That's what I meant when I said that the lats grows as much in the upper part as in the lower part. Dumbass.

you cannot compare Dorian to the avg man. You must compare Dorian to himself. He already had a wide back when he started bodybuilding. Obviously his lats became wider, but not as much as you think. He added maybe 3-4 in each side.

  But his lats remained wider in the upper part, which goes to show that I'm right about the lats growing as much in the upper part as in the lower part Besides, when I compared Dorian to an average man, my point is that Dorian has much bigger lat mass, but the shape of the muscle is the same. This means that the lats grow as much in the upper part as in the lower one visually.

there was never anything to see little boy. I'm not the least bit worried about you b/c I know I'm more intelligent than you.

    Yeah, that's probably the reason why so many people have said that I owned you throughout this thread...

Your posts, although lengthy and articulate, are full of shit! You also suck at insults. The best you can come up with is calling others "turds." Now go play in your sand box.

  Oh, yeah, and "suckmydick" is an incredibly witty insult.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[kyomu]

AWESOME pictures ND!!!

Just proves that every single one of Yates' wins were well deserved.

Sadly, the same cannot be said about Ronnie's reign

Sorry,its obvious that you have never been living in the epoc of Dorian. When dorian reign mr.o,there were many criticism about his physic also.I have been in BBing since 1987.If i talk about people saying "well deserved",1.Lee Haney,2.Ronnie,3.Dorian.

[NeoSeminole]

The thing is, your majesty, that none of the pics you've posted, which, by the way have already been posted several times before, show that Dorian's gut was  even one tenth the size of Ronnie's. Having wide hips is not gut distension.

not even 1/10th the size of Ronnie's gut? ha ha ha.

No, Dorian's arms were 21". Let's do the math: 23" - 21" = 2".

Dorian's arms were 20.4" which is closer to 20" than 21". Apparently, you failed at elementary math b/c you keep rounding up instead of down.

Of course the lower part grows more in terms of tissue, but my point, Sir NeoSeminole, is that it doesen't really matter because visually the muscle remains the same. That's what I meant when I said that the lats grows as much in the upper part as in the lower part.

No kidding a muscle retains its shape when it grows. I've been telling you this all along dipshit. So why are you reiterating my own words back to me as if I stated otherwise? My point is that the upper part of the lats are situated closer to the insertion and make up a small portion of the overall muscle, which means it experiences less absolute growth. Take for instance the arm. Imagine a person builds up their arm from 14" to 20." Does this mean that if we measure their elbow where the biceps and triceps insert, it too will have grown 6" in circumference? No. What is so hard for you to understand that a muscle doesn't experience as much absolute growth at its insertion than it does in the middle or the origin?

Yeah, that's probably the reason why so many people have said that I owned you throughout this thread...

the only people who said you "owned" me were... surprise! surprise! the Dorian nuthuggers.

Oh, yeah, and "suckmydick" is an incredibly witty insult.

although it's not one of my better insults, it still reflects more cleverness than calling someone a "turd."

[suckmymuscle]

not even 1/10th the size of Ronnie's gut? ha ha ha.

  Actually, I was being generous. It's more like 1/20th. You're seriously deluded if you think that even approaches Coleman's atrociousness in 2003.

Dorian's arms were 20.4" which is closer to 20" than 21". Apparently, you failed at elementary math b/c you keep rounding up instead of down.

  Who said Dorian's arms were 20.4"? I want to see the sources for that.

No kidding a muscle retains its shape when it grows. I've been telling you this all along dipshit. So why are you reiterating my own words back to me as if I stated otherwise? My point is that the upper part of the lats are situated closer to the insertion and make up a small portion of the overall muscle, which means it experiences less absolute growth.

  It doesen't matter, because that's where the width of the muscle is measured; ergo, where the most muscle is added is immaterial to lat width. I understood your point completely. My point, which you don't understand, is that where the most absolute growth occurs is not relevant because it doesen't change the place where the muscle is wider. Get a grip.

Take for instance the arm. Imagine a person builds up their arm from 14" to 20." Does this mean that if we measure their elbow where the biceps and triceps insert, it too will have grown 6" in circumference? No. What is so hard for you to understand that a muscle doesn't experience as much absolute growth at its insertion than it does in the middle or the origin?

  But the biceps is a completely different muscle from the lats. The biceps does not have, for instance, "width". The area with the greatest girth in the biceps is the middle part, whereas the lats are widest on the upper part. Bad analogy!

the only people who said you "owned" me were... surprise! surprise! the Dorian nuthuggers.

  But why haven't the Ronnie nut-huggers pointed out that I got owned by you?

although it's not one of my better insults, it still reflects more cleverness than calling someone a "turd."

  My cleverness is in the content, not the insults, which are more adequate for little boys like you.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

Actually, I was being generous. It's more like 1/20th. You're seriously deluded if you think that even approaches Coleman's atrociousness in 2003.

too bad the pics show otherwise.

Who said Dorian's arms were 20.4"? I want to see the sources for that.

you did dumbass. You said Dorian's arms were 51 or 52 cm. All I did was convert it to inches.

It doesen't matter, because that's where the width of the muscle is measured; ergo, where the most muscle is added is immaterial to lat width. I understood your point completely. My point, which you don't understand, is that where the most absolute growth occurs is not relevant because it doesen't change the place where the muscle is wider.

My god you are f*cking dumb. I can care less if you find where most lat growth occurs irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the upper part of the lats, where the width is measured, don't grow more than 3-4 inches per side.

But the biceps is a completely different muscle from the lats. The biceps does not have, for instance, "width". The area with the greatest girth in the biceps is the middle part, whereas the lats are widest on the upper part. Bad analogy!

you completely missed the point of my analogy. I was not substituting the arms for lats in terms of muscle shape. I was demonstrating how any muscle, regardless of shape, experiences the least absolute growth closest to the insertion.

But why haven't the Ronnie nut-huggers pointed out that I got owned by you?

b/c they are smarter than to toss around the term "owned."

My cleverness is in the content, not the insults, which are more adequate for gents like you.

unfortunately, your posts are full of shit. Your insults are lame and your math is poor for an elementary student. When you feel overwhelmed by others who make you look dumb, you threaten them via personal messages, wish cancer upon them or call them a "turd." Now go back to playing in your sand box little kid.

[Scimowser]

how many times can you argue about the same people and show the same pictures? fuck me, come on guys get a grip

[sculpture]

unfortunately, your posts are full of shit. Your insults are lame and your math is poor for an elementary student. When you feel overwhelmed by others who make you look dumb, you threaten them via personal messages, wish cancer upon them or call them a "turd." Now go back to playing in your sand box little kid.

True

  Dude, I fucking hate your guts. I hope you get cancer and die with blood spilling through all your holes.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Yorkie T]

Ok this has gone on long enough, im going to end it, right here, right now

Dorian and Ronnie have got nothing on this guy

As you can see he has bigger arms that Ronnie

Also his pec development is second to none

He owns Dorian in the tricep department aswell

Your looking at the next mr olympia people.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ok this has gone on long enough, im going to end it, right here, right now

Dorian and Ronnie have got nothing on this guy

As you can see he has bigger arms that Ronnie

Also his pec development is second to none

He owns Dorian in the tricep department aswell

Your looking at the next mr olympia people.

Him and Ronnie have the same size gut !! 

[pumpster]

Sorry,its obvious that you have never been living in the epoc of Dorian. When dorian reign mr.o,there were many criticism about his physic also.

WHAT I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING-CRITICISMS FROM ARNOLD & SERGIO FOR EXAMPLE.

[NarcissisticDeity]

WHAT I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING-CRITICISMS FROM ARNOLD & SERGIO FOR EXAMPLE.

Arnold never criticized his physique and Sergio did he said Yates had no arms and a belly like a cow 

[pumpster]

Him and Ronnie have the same size gut !!

LET'S THANK ND FOR THIS PICTORIAL VERIFICATION.

[pumpster]

Arnold never criticized his physique and Sergio did he said Yates had no arms and a belly like a cow 

Scwarzenegger made the statements in Flex in the mid-90s, to the effect that the look was akin to powerlifting, not BB.