Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce  (Read 3567751 times)

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15825 on: December 06, 2006, 10:47:35 AM »
OK so basically you've conceded on all the points and have to resort to this. So what if Yates wasn't the creme de la creme? Does that compromise the idolatry?

i've conceded nothing other than you have provided no real evidence or proof to support your claims in 642 pages.

you've lied saying you did and referenced those pages.  i checked and nothing is there. 

you really have contributed nothing to this thread and in fact made it harder for hulkster and co. to get their points across bc of your remarks that make no sense with no proof and trying to use unusual words to make it sound like you know what your talking about. 

based on the remarks you made before, you sounded like you had years of experience in judging physiques and really knows what happens at a bodybuilding show.  your continous comments on discrediting the scores and political remarks - despite never providing evidence (remember when you said you did on page 100 - nothing is anywhere near that page) proof your ignorance about bodybuilding.

when in fact, you dont even work out at a gym.  sounds strange for a self proclaimed expert (your judging criteria comments) and IFBB insider (you must be for all your political remarks).

when in reality, you are just another fag who is too shy and self conscious to even go to a gym.  instead you use a bowflex and act like you are ronnie coleman training in metroflex as you slap on another rod of resistance. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15826 on: December 06, 2006, 12:10:34 PM »
I see Hulkster conveniently ignored my post.

Pumpster's argument consists nothing more of posting the worst pictures he can find of Dorian over and over again.

But, I will reiterate, Dorian dominated his opponents becuase he had the condition and detail of the small guys with the perceived mass of the big guys. It was a compromise of the two. And Yates found this balance in a superior manner than Coleman ever has, by virtue of better conditioning and better density.


IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15827 on: December 06, 2006, 12:22:20 PM »
I see Hulkster conveniently ignored my post.

Pumpster's argument consists nothing more of posting the worst pictures he can find of Dorian over and over again.

But, I will reiterate, Dorian dominated his opponents becuase he had the condition and detail of the small guys with the perceived mass of the big guys. It was a compromise of the two. And Yates found this balance in a superior manner than Coleman ever has, by virtue of better conditioning and better density.

true, but then hulkster and pumpster will bitch abou 'other' criteria that dorian lacks.

but what they fail to realize is that with this 'other' criteria, coleman had it all when he competed against dorian - better arms, more details, etc.

it wasnt until 98 that coleman improved his conditioning - but it still wasnt on par with dorian's. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15828 on: December 06, 2006, 12:26:08 PM »
This comparison is to merely serve one purpose - to show just how dense Dorian really was. You would guess both Coleman and Yates are roughly the same bodyweight here with a quick glance, but in reality, Coleman was 275 to Yates' 255. Now, consider the 257lb Coleman compared to the 255lb Yates. Coleman would not be making anything look small.....in fact, it would be the other way around ;)


IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15829 on: December 06, 2006, 12:33:01 PM »
This comparison is to merely serve one purpose - to show just how dense Dorian really was. You would guess both Coleman and Yates are roughly the same bodyweight here with a quick glance, but in reality, Coleman was 275 to Yates' 255. Now, consider the 257lb Coleman compared to the 255lb Yates. Coleman would not be making anything look small.....in fact, it would be the other way around ;)




dorian's arms and forearms drawfing coleman's in that pic. 

dorian is bigger, denser, harder, and dryer.

end of discussion and should be the end of this thread. 

but hulkster and pumpster will post a picture of dorian and then a completely different one of coleman and say how much better coleman is. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15830 on: December 06, 2006, 12:43:26 PM »
again, where did I contradict myself?

  You contradicted yourself because the issue here is their lat width differential, and not either of uour respective opinions about who looks wider.

Quote
I wasn't refering to taper when I said that Ronnie appears just as wide as Dorian.

  I know you weren't. That's my argument for why I believe Dorian was slightly wider.

Quote
I literally meant that their lat width looks identical when you compare them side-by-side. Your argument that Dorian was wider sucks ass b/c you are guessing where the size defecit came from.

  But your argument sucks even worse, because you asserted that Ronnie was just as wide, and yet provided no proof for it besides side by side comparisons where they weren't even standing side by side - different contests, different cameras used to take the pics, etc.

Quote
Dorian probably carried extra weight in his thicker bones and huge midsection. I use direct visual evidence, which doensn't lie.

  There are three things wrong here. First, Dorian's bones might be slightly thicker, but considering that they were roughly the same height, the same weight yet Dorian had less sub-cutaneous fat, it is reasonable to expect that Dorian carried more lean muscle mass. Furthermore, Black men have a greater mineral bone density than Caucasian men, so Ronnie's skeleton mighyt actually be heavier than Dorian's despite Dorian's being slightly larger. Secondly, Dorian's midsection is much smaller than Ronnie's. Having wide hips does not make a belly heavy; having a distdended midsection does! And thrirdly, visual evidence lies the most, because pictures are taken fromk different contests, the anlges the bodybuilders are facing the camera was different, etc. There are simply too many uncontrolled variables to make a visual assessment accurate.

Quote
I've already explained why Ronnie's balance was just as good, if not better, than Dorian's. At least he was huge everywhere with the exception of his calves.

  This proves that you're a bodybuilding newbie: only someone who doesen't really know what he's talkiinga bout would say something so idiotic. No wonder you have been following bodybuilding for seven years...when Ronnie was already the standard-bearer. Why am I not surprised? Ronnie was not huge everywhere, you moron: he was huge in some places that he shouldn't be and small in polaces that he should be bigger. Having a large gut and glutes id a terrible thing bodybuilding-wise, as well as having assymetrical delts, poor brachialis and forearms, etc. Ronnie was far from a symmetrical ideal, sport, and this is true even at the 1996 CPC and 1998 Olympia, his lighter versions, let alone his overbloated 2003 form. ::) ;)

Quote
Dorian, on the other hand, looked like a conglomerate of anatomical parts from bodybuilders of different weights. He had the back of a 280 lbs man with the arms of a 200 lbs man and the legs of a 240 lbs man. Thank you for giving me the perfect argument to use against you. ;D

  Dorian's arms were better than Ronnie's in many ways. Ronnie 2003 had the back, pecs and tris of a 260 lbs bodybuilder, the legs, biceps, and ass of a 300 lbs bodybuilder, and the calves and forearms of a 240 lbs bodybuilder and the stomach of a 330 lbs obese man who never worked out in his life. That's much worse than Dorian ever was, sport. ;)

Quote
sure, I guess Peter McGough was talking out of his ass when he said Ronnie had the best back of all-time. ::)

  Peter McGough also said that Dorian was the most dominant Mr.Olympia ever, and that his 1993 Olympia performance was the most dominant of all times, including that of Ronnie 2003. McGough did say that Ronnie's back was the best ever, but he was refering to Ronnie smaller versions. McGough considers Ronnie's 1999 form to the best of Coleman, not 2003. I personally prefer Ronnie in his 1998 form, but that's a different story. Ronnie lost too much quality in his back in 2003. Where were his incredible separations? Mostly gone. His crisp dryness? Gone. His hardness? Gone. The crazy cross-striations? Gone. Ronnie 2003 looked like a turd, the kind of guy that would be considered in off-season shape in the 1990's. McGough might consider Ronnie's 1999 back the best ever, but I'm sure he'd prefer Dorian's 1995 one over that.

Quote
ha ha ha, I knew you would pussy out you little bitch of a man. I'm not asking you to post a recent pic. That would be too easy for me. I issued a challenge for you to post a pic of yourself at your prime to compare to me at 19 yrs old. What do you have to be afraid of? This should be easy for you seeing as how I "have a girlish physique."

  Dude, you embarassed yourself with that pic! :-X I have nothing to prove, since I never made any claims. But in case you're wondering, I'm entering next year's MrGetbig and I*'m pretty sure I'm gonna win it. Stay tunned. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15831 on: December 06, 2006, 01:47:46 PM »
You contradicted yourself because the issue here is their lat width differential, and not either of uour respective opinions about who looks wider.

mmmmkay, I'll ask you again. Where did I contradict myself? Quote my text so I know what you are talking about.

Quote
But your argument sucks even worse, because you asserted that Ronnie was just as wide, and yet provided no proof for it besides side by side comparisons where they weren't even standing side by side - different contests, different cameras used to take the pics, etc.

your critique of the side-by-side comparisons would hold weight if there was discrepancy between them. Unfortunately for you, Dorian and Ronnie are the same exact width in all of them. Before you cry "bias," need I remind you that Pubes made, not 1, but 2 comparisons that prove what I have been saying all along? If that's not enough for you, there is also a video from 96 that shows Ronnie and Dorian were the same width - onstage together, same contest, same angle, etc. Pause the video at the 45 sec mark.



Quote
This proves that you're a bodybuilding newbie: only someone who doesen't really know what he's talkiinga bout would say something so idiotic. No wonder you have been following bodybuilding for seven years...when Ronnie was already the standard-bearer. Why am I not surprised? Ronnie was not huge everywhere, you moron: he was huge in some places that he shouldn't be and small in polaces that he should be bigger. Having a large gut and glutes id a terrible thing bodybuilding-wise, as well as having assymetrical delts, poor brachialis and forearms, etc. Ronnie was far from a symmetrical ideal, sport, and this is true even at the 1996 CPC and 1998 Olympia, his lighter versions, let alone his overbloated 2003 form.

asymmetrical delts, poor brachialis and forearms? You don't even know what the brachialis muscle is, and you're calling me a bodybuilding newbie? ha ha ha ha



Quote
Dorian's arms were better than Ronnie's in many ways. Ronnie 2003 had the back, pecs and tris of a 260 lbs bodybuilder, the legs, biceps, and ass of a 300 lbs bodybuilder, and the calves and forearms of a 240 lbs bodybuilder and the stomach of a 330 lbs obese man who never worked out in his life. That's much worse than Dorian ever was, sport.

Dorian's arms didn't even come close to Ronnie's, let alone were better than them. Ask any knowledgable bodybuilding fan to come up with a list of the top 20 arms of all-time. I guarantee you that Dorian wouldn't make the list. However, Ronnie's arms would probably make the top 3.

Quote
Dude, you embarassed yourself with that pic! I have nothing to prove, since I never made any claims.

ha ha ha, monster jealousy. 

RocketSwitch625

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2420
  • Women fall all over me and Pumpster is FUGLY.
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15832 on: December 06, 2006, 01:54:47 PM »
This comparison is to merely serve one purpose - to show just how dense Dorian really was. You would guess both Coleman and Yates are roughly the same bodyweight here with a quick glance, but in reality, Coleman was 275 to Yates' 255. Now, consider the 257lb Coleman compared to the 255lb Yates. Coleman would not be making anything look small.....in fact, it would be the other way around ;)



Owned.

RocketSwitch625

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2420
  • Women fall all over me and Pumpster is FUGLY.
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15833 on: December 06, 2006, 01:58:42 PM »
Mr Softlympia 2002:


NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15834 on: December 06, 2006, 02:04:11 PM »

RocketSwitch625

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2420
  • Women fall all over me and Pumpster is FUGLY.
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15835 on: December 06, 2006, 02:09:27 PM »
sure ::)





I don't think that Coleman is owning Yates in your comparisons and Coleman is still the ugliest man in bodybuilding.

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15836 on: December 06, 2006, 02:09:43 PM »
I said the law of cause and effect contradicts itself, which is true if we assume that everything that happens must have been caused by something. Therefore, either you are arguing in favor of something that is illogical or you are using a different definition of causality all-together. Here are my objections.

  Ok, I'm going to try to keep it as short as possible, for two reasons: first, I'm bored with you, and second I don't want to give you an excuse to not reply to my posts because they're too long. So here goes:

  No, what I'm saying is that logic does not need to justify itself, since it is the language used in to justify other things inside the system where it is arbitrarilly used to determine correlations or interaction between the properties of the given system. Logic does not need to justify itself, because it is simply a rule-biased correlation between two given properties that interact in a system that is axiomatically closed. By this, I mean that the correlations are none-existant without you arbitrarilly determining that they will interact that way. The explanation is that description only exists with defintion, and thus, you cannot describe how a system will interact if you don't define the arbitrary pattern of interactions if you don't define a priori rules that the system must follow. Cause and effect determines only that two properties interact in a pre-determined way; it does not determine why the pattern is as such. For instance, if you throw an apple from a building, that's the cause that will cause the reactioin of it falling. But why doesen't it fall up? Logic predicts the reaction and the reaction indicates causality, but this is a concept that is arbitrary. My point is that, since logic explains effects of interactions inside systems arbitrarilly, it is arbitrary itself. Since deduction follows non-arbitrary, axiom-bound patterns of inferences to establish causality, the causality of logic cannot be infered because it is arbitrary "outside" the systm it is bound to explain. So, "outside" logic there is only pure abstrate an infinte potential, and the infinite possible logics that arise from that are arbitrarilly determined "perceptions" of how these potentials interact. Get it?

Quote
objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible.

  No, I didn't say that something is responsible. What I'm saying is that cause-and-effect do not really exist "outside" the system that it is bound to explain, so your assertion that "cause and effect is not ecplained by logic" is ridiculous, because it does not need to explain itself. For instance, you cannot explain numbers with mathematics; you can simply explain the interactions between numbers. And there are infinite mathematics possible based on slight changes in it's axioms. So logic cannot explain itself, because it is based on the a priori assumption of non-arbitrarity, but it is itself arbitrary.  So, if there is no logic "outside" the system that it is bound to explain, than what is logic and what is the system? The answer is that the cause-and-effect rule that governs our physical reality is an arbitrary "perception" of potentials that are governed by meta-logic. Meta-logic is based on the assumption that, unlike specific logics, it cannot contradict itself, because contradiction results from a deviation of an arbitrarilly bound perception of something. In other words, contradictions are an illusion to meta-logic which creates logics that determine that everything is possible. So cause and effect does not really exist axcept as an arbitrary, a priori created language that describes these patterns of interactions, which are nonp-arbitrary "inside" the systmes that it rules, but which is arbitrary to meta-logic.

  And speaking of quantum mechanics, not one knows why this discipline is incompatible with general relativity. The only explantion posssible is that restrictive releativity is an illusion, which arises from Einstein's attmeps to explain contradictions between physical laws by bending these rules. What he didn't underastand is that the rules do not need bending inside itself, because at the levels of quarks and other very smalle particels, the specific pattern of interaction that gives rise to out physical universe arises, and it is arbitrary because it is controlled by meta-logic! By the way, no one knows what the essence of reality is made of. What Immanuel Kant called "the thing into itself". It could be quarks, or super-strings, or whatever; it doesen't matter. If we embrass my theory, we could simply define the smallest particle possible as a "potential", and the infinte patterns of arbitrary interactions between these potential give rise to infinte realities, governed by infinite rules, or by no rules at all. So: logic = language = description = perception = defintion. "Definition", in this context, means that we assume the axiom of all axioms, that existence exists. This could also be untrue, and meta-logic, the creator of all definitions and of all perceptions, certainly is based on the a priori assumption that it does not require a priori assumprions to exist. ;)

Quote
However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa).

  But what causes the gluons? First they found protons, then electrons, then quarks, etc. Where does it end? And why is it even relevant, since, at the basest level, we could simply define the sammles particel possible as "potential", or, better yet, "definition". It could be that quantum mechanics is wrong altogether, and there is another arbitrary systmem beyond the quantum level that defines how particles interact. Regardless, it doesen't matter, because at the end it's all a matter of definition and perception: reality exists because there is a lowest, unknown definition of the potentials that create it, and infinte possible realities that transcend logic. I have refuted your claim that nothing cause and effect is not explained by logic by demonstrating that no explanation is needed, because logic itself is an illusion, an arbitrary perception of meta-reality that arises because you choose to describe it that way.

Quote
objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."

  Nothing of this negates free-will. Unless you assume that every cause has a specific cause that preceeds it, in which case there is only one possible future. But this is not the case. Meta-reality is all inclusive of all possible realities, so there are infinite possibilities for the future. Volition is alreadyfactored in. It is based on the assumption that the causesu choose leads to the causes hat determine your future, and that your other possible futures contain you merely as a potential. ;)

Quote
objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause?

  Nothing, because causes do not really exist, except as perceptions of arbitrary relationship between potentials. Hence, your premisse here is false: all causes are preceeded by causes inside the system where it was arbitrarilly chosen to rule over, but it does it was not, itself, caused by anything because causes are illusions of perception and definition. How many times I'll have to explain this to you? ::)

Quote
According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails.

  But there doesn't need to exist a first cause! All that ther needs to be is for meta-logic to decide that there is a first cause, as an axiom, and all effects and causes will follow after that. What's so hard for you to understand? :-\

Quote
objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.

  By why does the original caue have to arise from anything at all? Again, you're trying to justify the existance of mathematics with numbers! Causes don't reallu exist, except if you define it as such and then perceive reality with it? Game over...again. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15837 on: December 06, 2006, 02:15:09 PM »
Measure the screen at the 45 second mark of the '96 video, you idiot. This removes the ambiguity you do everything possible to increase with your blather.

Common sense seems to be a real challenge for you. :-\



  This is not relevant, because they're facing the cameras from different angles and they have different waist sizes, which affects the perception of lat width. The bottom line is that visual evaluation of physiques is far from accurate. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15838 on: December 06, 2006, 02:20:27 PM »
Idiotic, this silly theory shared with ND presupposes that equal weight = equal size. WRONG. Utter dismissal of common sense to continue to propogate this crap. LOOK AT THE PICS.

  Yes, and Dorian is bigger, because: they're about the same height, weight the same, and yet Dorian is drier.

Quote
People are built differently; in Yates' case he quite clearly has a heavier, more ponderous bone structure you fool. Quite clearly with a blocky, less radical waist to shoulder ratio.

  But Black Men have a higher mineral bone density than White Men, so Ronnie's skeleton could be heavier than Dorian's despite the latter having bigger bones. All things considered, odds are that Dorian carried more laen mass because they were about the same height, same wieght and yet Dorian had less sub-cutaneous water. Ergo = more mass. You didn't see that coming, huh, Poopster? ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83581
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15839 on: December 06, 2006, 02:22:12 PM »
i've conceded nothing other than you have provided no real evidence or proof to support your claims in 642 pages.

you've lied saying you did and referenced those pages.  i checked and nothing is there. 

you really have contributed nothing to this thread and in fact made it harder for hulkster and co. to get their points across bc of your remarks that make no sense with no proof and trying to use unusual words to make it sound like you know what your talking about. 

based on the remarks you made before, you sounded like you had years of experience in judging physiques and really knows what happens at a bodybuilding show.  your continous comments on discrediting the scores and political remarks - despite never providing evidence (remember when you said you did on page 100 - nothing is anywhere near that page) proof your ignorance about bodybuilding.

when in fact, you dont even work out at a gym.  sounds strange for a self proclaimed expert (your judging criteria comments) and IFBB insider (you must be for all your political remarks).

when in reality, you are just another fag who is too shy and self conscious to even go to a gym.  instead you use a bowflex and act like you are ronnie coleman training in metroflex as you slap on another rod of resistance. 

Pumpster just got his ass beat down !! great post !!

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83581
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15840 on: December 06, 2006, 02:26:55 PM »
sure ::)






Wow a really shitty scan of Yates and a nice color one of Ronnie and thats fair how? and the bottom comparison isn't even close thats Ronnie 2000 Mr Olympia 264 pounds and holding more water than Hover damn , Dorian almost 10 pounds lighter and looks almost as big , Dorian is crushing him in that shot.

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15841 on: December 06, 2006, 03:05:08 PM »
This comparison is to merely serve one purpose - to show just how dense Dorian really was. You would guess both Coleman and Yates are roughly the same bodyweight here with a quick glance, but in reality, Coleman was 275 to Yates' 255. Now, consider the 257lb Coleman compared to the 255lb Yates. Coleman would not be making anything look small.....in fact, it would be the other way around ;)



Ronnie is 42 years old in your comparison pic.

yates was in his "best" shape according to you guys in 1995.

great comparison ::)

Dorian did NOT have the upper body (arms, chest) to come close to Ronnie in the mm, except when Ronnie was in the twilight of his career...
Flower Boy Ran Away

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15842 on: December 06, 2006, 03:07:11 PM »
Quote
Dorian's arms didn't even come close to Ronnie's, let alone were better than them. Ask any knowledgable bodybuilding fan to come up with a list of the top 20 arms of all-time. I guarantee you that Dorian wouldn't make the list. However, Ronnie's arms would probably make the top 3.

I bet most would say he might have the greatest overall arms.

Arnold was lacking in tri size.

Sergio was lacking in biceps shape.

etc etc.

Ronnie's arms look near perfect in his heyday:

Flower Boy Ran Away

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83581
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15843 on: December 06, 2006, 03:09:33 PM »
It's simply about flat out muscularity. How do then explain the fact that Dorian beat Haney in the muscularity round in 91 despite weighing 11lbs less and having inferior overall shape and "refinement" (aka a word Hulkster made up to accomodate his rediculous claims)? The answer lies in the fact that Dorian carried more lean mass and was better conditioned. The same result would occur against a 1999 Ronnie. Dorian would win the muscularity round. 

Great point Hulkster keeps fishing for new criteria that fits his agenda " refinement " how does one win the Mr Olympia contest without ' refinement ' ? he doesn't thats another ploy by Hulkster to belittle Yates into nothing because this supports his claims that Ronnie 1999 was so far and ahead of anything that the sport of bodybuilding has ever seen  ::)

He was 257 pounds in great shape , its been done 6 years earlier by Dorian Yates in 1993 but because its Ronnie is the best anyone ever looked lol pure fantasy. he once said before that Ronnie showed new levels of back development never before seen in bodybuildings , and I called him on it , what new muscles did he develop that Samir didn't have in 83 or Yates in 93? and then he backpeddles

its ironic that in terms of how bodybuilding contests are scored and judged these Coleman fans have proven themselves very ignorant .

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83581
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15844 on: December 06, 2006, 03:11:57 PM »
Ronnie is 42 years old in your comparison pic.

yates was in his "best" shape according to you guys in 1995.

great comparison ::)

Dorian did NOT have the upper body (arms, chest) to come close to Ronnie in the mm, except when Ronnie was in the twilight of his career...

Stop using age as an excuse its pathetic , you had NO problems with Ronnie's win in 05 but when compared to  Yates you start using excuses , I'll put Yates most muscular 1995 against Ronnie 1999 it doesn't matter.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83581
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15845 on: December 06, 2006, 03:13:21 PM »
I bet most would say he might have the greatest overall arms.

Arnold was lacking in tri size.

Sergio was lacking in biceps shape.

etc etc.

Ronnie's arms look near perfect in his heyday:



Oh here we go lol You have no complaints from me about Ronnie having better arms than Arnold and Sergio but Priest has him covered .

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15846 on: December 06, 2006, 03:14:21 PM »

name the boards?

we will use your 2nd all time fav bber.

in 99, flex never called ronnie untouchable.

in fact, he turned his back to the crowd thinking he should have won.

in 93, flex calls dorian 'untouchable'.

this isnt your usual cop out of the judges with quantity over quality - this is flex saying how great dorian was and that he won bc he was the best.

also, ronnie was called out numerous times in 99.  yates was never called out during prejuding.  it was that apparent how dominant he was.

both of those things NEVER happened to ronnie in 99.

you can ignore what i say and what the judges say, but now are you going to ignore flex wheeler?

You want me to name the boards?

Bodybuilding dungeon.
Mayhem
Everyone on getbig who does not post in this thread.

there.

Of course 99 flex never called Ronnie untouchable! do you know how big Flex's EGO was at that point in  his career?  In his rookie year, it was a lot different.

Quote
also, ronnie was called out numerous times in 99.  yates was never called out during prejuding.  it was that apparent how dominant he was.

no, it proves how much of a predetermined notion that the judges had of Dorian's phyisque - which is a really bad, non-impartial thing to do.  Conscientious judges would never do something like that.

Quote
you can ignore what i say and what the judges say, but now are you going to ignore flex wheeler?

and you are ignoring his comments following the 2003 olympia...
Flower Boy Ran Away

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15847 on: December 06, 2006, 03:16:57 PM »
Ronnie is 42 years old in your comparison pic.

yates was in his "best" shape according to you guys in 1995.

great comparison ::)

Dorian did NOT have the upper body (arms, chest) to come close to Ronnie in the mm, except when Ronnie was in the twilight of his career...

arms, yes.

however, ronnie's arms are nowhere near as impressive as dorian's in the side tricep shot, although ronnie has better arms.  kinda strange.

i disagree about your chest comparison.  dorian's chest is damn good.  one of the densest ever.  you always say shit about it, but virtually every shot has striations in it.

also, coleman always has gyno.  that alone makes for a shitty chest.  
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83581
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15848 on: December 06, 2006, 03:17:58 PM »
You want me to name the boards?

Bodybuilding dungeon.
Mayhem
Everyone on getbig who does not post in this thread.

there.

Of course 99 flex never called Ronnie untouchable! do you know how big Flex's EGO was at that point in  his career?  In his rookie year, it was a lot different.

no, it proves how much of a predetermined notion that the judges had of Dorian's phyisque - which is a really bad, non-impartial thing to do.  Conscientious judges would never do something like that.

and you are ignoring his comments following the 2003 olympia...

again you seek comfort in numbers it means nothing , people base their opinions on their persona preferences NOT on the IFBB judging criteria , most people I've come across online are much like you , ignorant of what to look for , what the judges favor etc . you still think bodybuilder A will beat bodybuilder B because he has a better taper lol or bigger arms or more ' lumpiness ' and " X-frame " most are uneducated on how the sport of competitive bodybuilding is judged and scored .

Hulkster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22972
  • ND ran away from me
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #15849 on: December 06, 2006, 03:18:32 PM »
, I'll put Yates most muscular 1995 against Ronnie 1999 it doesn't matter.

LOL go right ahead:

Flower Boy Ran Away