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.
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.
Your argument is retarded here due to anatomy. In the rear lat spread, most of the calves mass is visible, whereas this isn's true for the triceps. Now, of course no bodybuilder has actually won everything due to having a better triceps. No bodybuilder has won a competition in virtue of having a better muscle and all other muscles inferior.I'm not talking about the relevance of visilbility as far as number of angles is concerned, but rather the relevance of the visibility of specific muscles in specific
angles. My point is that, if the little part of the inner triceps head which is visible in the rear lat spread was that relevant, it would be able to tip the scales in favor of a bodybuilder who was losing at everything else on this mandatory. You have proven my point, exactly. Thank you very much. The triceps is able to win an entire mandatory - the side triceps -, because it is the focus of the mandatory. Conversely, the little part of the inner and medial triceps heads which are visible in the rear lat spread won's make a bodybuilder win the rear lat spread because the focus of the mandatory is the back. As for calves, you're wrong. All things considered, the bodybuilder with the better calves will win the rear lat spread if his rivals back is equivalent. Why? Because although not rhe focus of the mandatory, it still showcases far more mass than the triceps when the latter is seen from the back. Now imagine two bodybuilders with equal backs, but one has better calves and the other has the little part of the triceps that's visible thicker: Who will win? My contention is that your analogy with the triceps is flawed, because the calves represents a much bigger part of the rear lat spread than the little triceps part that's visible. Now, we're talking about mandatories and specific angles, not the entire judging. If course a bodybuilder can't win a contest due to possesing a single superior muscle, but a muscle can tip the balance in a pose, when all other things are equal, or it might not. Having better calves and inferior everything else will not make you win a bodybuilding contest, but it will tip the scales in a bodybuilder's favor from more angles and poses than the triceps,
exactly because the calves represents a larger proportion of more poses than the triceps. NeoSemen, you have been brutally owned and taken to school. Why you don't give up
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.
Here's a lesson in anatomy for you: depending from where you look at a muscle, it becomes more or less relevant.
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.
This is utterly false. Most of the triceps and biceps mass are visible in the front double biceps because you're looking at the inner part of the arms, where the tendons attach to the muscles. In the rear lat spread, you're staring at the transversal part of the arms where the elbow is located, so it represents an insignificant part of the rear lat spread.
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.
Dorian's gut was never even close to Ronnie's in distension. Not even in the same league. Even in 1997, Dorian's gut looked like Michaelangelo's David in comparison to the alien queen that showed up inside Ronnie's gut for the 2003 Olympia. Below are pics that prove my point. Either from the sides or the front, the 255 lbs Dorian showed practically no gut distension. His gut only became a liability in 1997, and it was still infinitely better than Coleman's. The last pic is Dorian's abs-and-thighs at the 1997. Hint: no distension visible, and he's 270 lbs. Now compare it to Ronnie's similar mandatory from the 1999 Olympia, and his gut was already more distended than Dorian's and visible from the front.
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. 
Where are the striations on Ronnie's triceps on those pics you've posted? Can't see a thing. Besides, striations are not even officially a part of the judging criteria, so I really don't care about them.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
