Again, terrible analogy. Most of the calves mass is visible from the back, while this is not true for the inner and medial triceps head. It's very simple, really.
my god, you are so f*cking dumb. Do you not remember your own argument? You asked me to give you one example of a bodybuilder with a worse back who beat another in a rear pose b/c of his triceps long heads, as if to suggest this is proof the triceps don't matter from the back. Here is your exact quote.
Ha ha ha ha ha... I'm still waiting for you to give me a single example of a bodybuilder who had a worst back, yet won the rear lat spread on virtue of having the better triceps.
According to YOUR logic, the calves don't matter either. Show me one bodybuilder who beat another that was better except for the calves. Afterall, they can be seen from every angle unlike the triceps which can only been seen in certain poses.
But this is not relevant. Why? Because the issue here is not visibility of the muscle, but what is shown of it. The front double biceps shows the inner and medial triceps head and the biceps to full effect, while, in the rear lat spread, only the back part of the long head of the triceps is visible. Is this so hard for you to understand, retard? The poin here is that looking at the inner and meidal triceps head from the back is like looking at the biceps from the top: most of the mass is concealed.
oh it's plenty relevant b/c there's no sense arguing anatomy with you. It's obvious you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
No, completely wrong. The issue here is not size, but angle. In the front double biceps, the biceps are visible to full effect, while this is not true when it comes to the triceps in the rear la spread. First of all, it's not true that the biceps and the triceps are of equal size: everyone knows that the triceps has more overral mass. Secondly, even if they had the same size, it would still be irrelevant, because looking at the triceps from the back is akin to looking at the biceps from the top.
The issue of size and angle are not mutually exclusive in this instance. Both poses display each muscle head better than any other pose, yet both heads are equivalent in terms of size. Furthermore, I never said the biceps are the same size as the triceps. If you bothered to read the rest of my comment rather than jump to conclusions, you would know I was talking about the triceps long head and biceps medial head.
That's the key word: convincing. Your pics have been anything but convincing. You post pics of Ronnie when he's sucking his gut in and then claim he has no distension. You post pics of Ronnie doing the abdominals-and-thighs, where hois gut is visible even from the front, and you claim that his midsection is ggreat and "under control"(your words).
we've already discussed this before. No shit Ronnie sucks in his gut when he hits a pose. Almost every bodybuilder does, you moron. Even the great Dorian Yates pulled in his midsection right before he flexed.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...NeoSperm...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...ok. There isn't a single striation on any of the Ronnie pics you've posted, so you've made a fool out of yourself. Not only were Dorian's triceps more striated, but Dorian had a longer triceps head, with greater hardness. Ronnie could never match these.
I really hope you are joking b/c our discussion was about who's triceps were more striated - not who looked better in the side triceps. Dorian's triceps look smooth as a baby's ass in all those pics you posted.
