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

[NeoSeminole]

Listen to me. Pay attention. I never claimed that a bodybuilder with superior calves but who was inferior at everything else would win win a bodybuilding contest. The same for triceps. You seem to be implying that, if you can't use Ronnie's advantage in triceps size, then I can't use Dorian's advantge in calves. Your mistake here is assuming that the triceps and the calves have the same relevance, which they have not.

listen closely son, my argument was a parody of yours. I never claimed that you said a bodybuilder with superior calves would beat someone who was better everywhere else. I merely used calves in my analogy. My disagreement is with your comment that the triceps long heads are "so small they are irrelevant" in the back relaxed and rear double biceps. This is not true. The long head is the largest of the 3 heads, and it makes up the bulk of the arm from the rear. It's obviously not small and to say they are irrelevant is like saying the calves are irrelevant in the front lat spread or the biceps are irrelevant in a side chest. They may not necessarily be the primary show muscles in the respective aforementioned poses, but they certainly do matter.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha...the bigger head of the biceps is only visible from the front, so you have no game. As for the rhomboids ae not even a part of the arms, so gives a f**k? The head that is visible from the back is the short one. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I apologize for including the rhomboids as part of the arms. I honestly don't know why I wrote that. It was most likely due to being late at night, and I was tired. I meant to say the brachialis. My point is that most of the biceps mass is visible from the rear. The biceps long head and brachialis are prominent from this angle whereas you can only see the short head from the front (yes, the short head is medial). So you are wrong about that.

[Bear]

 Listen to me. Pay attention. I never claimed that a bodybuilder with superior calves but who was inferior at everything else would win win a bodybuilding contest. The same for triceps. You seem to be implying that, if you can't use Ronnie's advantage in triceps size, then I can't use Dorian's advantge in calves. Your mistake here is assuming that the triceps and the calves have the same relevance, which they have not. It is exactly because, ads you've said, the calve are more visible that thye are more relevant. No single muscle will make you win all rounds, but the calves do represent a greater strengh from most angles than the inner triceps head.

  As for what you've posted, hasn't this been posted dozens odf times before? Regardless, this doesen't change one iota of what I've said. Why? Well, let's analyse this. As the quoote you posted said, the pose is anlysed from head to toe. Well, from head to toe, what do we see? We see that the inner and meidal triceps heads, combined, represent less than 5% of the total muscle mass displayed in the pose, while the latissimus displays 50% of the mass, and the each calve shows more mass than both triceps combinesd. From head to toe, my point stands corrected that the back part of the triceps is insignificant in this mandatory. This is what I've been saying all along.

  Owned

  Ha ha ha ha ha ha...the bigger head of the biceps is only visible from the front, so you have no game. As for the rhomboids ae not even a part of the arms, so gives a f**k? The head that is visible from the back is the short one. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...NeoSemen is having an emotional breadown all over the boards, because SUCKMYMUSCLE is too much for him to handle.

  Be certain to name the paste where you keep my gems the "heownedmyasshole" file.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

   For someone who writes such indulgent, pseudo-intellectual threads, your arguments are displayed in a child-like manner. Writing 'owned' in a capitals does not an 'own'ing make. Neither does fashionong threads of such excessive length as to prompt any discerning reader to disregard the never-ending content therein.

Regards

[IceCold]

Ronnie, seen here "looking small" is dwarfing the massive Oleg and Darrem

bc oleg and darrem are known for size. 

[IceCold]

I don't really see a noticable difference in muscularity except in the last pic where Ronnie makes Dorian look waterlogged.

thanks for comparing an offseason pic of dorian vs. a contest pic of ronnie.

[IceCold]

HULKSTER, STOP POSTING THE SCREENCAPS FROM THE 99 OLYMPIA.  THEY ARENT REAL.


HULKSTER, STOP POSTING THE SCREENCAPS FROM THE 99 OLYMPIA.  THEY ARENT REAL


HULKSTER, STOP POSTING THE SCREENCAPS FROM THE 99 OLYMPIA.  THEY ARENT REAL

[Iceman1981]

damn, look how much better full, well-developed pecs from top to bottom look than having lower pecs which overpower the upper.

That's why I posted the pic. That shot has to be the best side chest shot in history and the fullest chest ever, including his delts, traps and arms.

[Iceman1981]

HULKSTER, STOP POSTING THE SCREENCAPS FROM THE 99 OLYMPIA.  THEY ARENT REAL.


HULKSTER, STOP POSTING THE SCREENCAPS FROM THE 99 OLYMPIA.  THEY ARENT REAL


HULKSTER, STOP POSTING THE SCREENCAPS FROM THE 99 OLYMPIA.  THEY ARENT REAL

lol, I thought you got over this. The video is real, so that means the video caps are real. Nothing was tampered with.

This is the last time I will say this. Not all video are the same. They all have different lighting, color settings etc. So any pics taken from either video should count. I don't know what the big fuss is a bout. Coleman looks amazing in both pics and screencaps. I think it's because he looks so damn good in the screencaps, that the yates fan club are looking for excuses not to count theses pics in this debate. If the screencaps make Coleman look good, they should also make yates look good. It's that simple.

[IceCold]

coleman looks great in 99 - that isnt the question.


the screencaps from the dvd and the mini poster are real and coleman looks great in those as well.

however, the other screencaps were darkened so that ronnie would look harder and dryer - something that is not reflected in the poster which is the correct representation of the dvd.

the other screen caps are from nothing.  they were tampered with.  but yet hulkster refuses to post the real pics and instead uses the fake ones saying how well conditioned coleman is.

just look at ronnie's color.

he is the same color in the poster, you tube, vhs, pictures, etc.

why would he be darker on one dvd vs. another?

[NarcissisticDeity]

damn, look how much better full, well-developed pecs from top to bottom look than having lower pecs which overpower the upper.

His pecs are full and well developed top to bottom , Ronnie's upper pecs are thicker but that does zero for him in the side chest pose.

[Shockwave]

That last most muscular is the most impressive I have ever seen, head to toe. Look at the size of his calves, not to mention the balanced development.
In the 95 video, the crowd goes absolutley WILD when he hits that. Nasser didn't even get a peep.

[IceCold]

His pecs are full and well developed top to bottom , Ronnie's upper pecs are thicker but that does zero for him in the side chest pose.

OR WHEN HE HAS GYNO.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Now this is very interesting picture on the left is from 1992 where Ronnie weighed 230 pounds the picture on the right is Ronnie at 250 pounds in 1997 notice zero improvement in calves in 5 years I mean with an increase of 20 solid pounds of muscle his calves don't grown a fucking inch

Now middle pic is 1997 to 1998 notice a difference in size?

And bottom pic 1997 to 1999 notice a difference?

Now I know calves are stubborn muscles to grow for some people but you mean to tell me for 5 years they don't move an inch and then within two they grow noticeably bigger , he went from 230 pounds to 250 pounds and his calves don't budge but within 2 years they start responding with an extra what 5 to 7 pounds of muscle? everything else grew from 92-97 with the exception of his calves and then in 98-99 they start growing? something is not damn right and they lack development & separation , many a black bodybuilder still developed calves even though they were high , now how can one rationally say there is nothing going on in those calves?

[Hulkster]

one problem ND:

ronnie's calves when he was really ripped has lots of detail.

oily calves don't look like this:


and another problem: you are claiming no increase in size - well, how do you now that without putting a tape around his calves?  They may have been an increase in size, but it might have been small, and it certainly would be very hard to detect given that his quads probably grew at a much greater rate proprotionally.

we know Ronnie's quads grow 30x as much as his calves do for the same training period.

just look at 2003.

[NarcissisticDeity]

one problem ND:

ronnie's calves when he was really ripped has lots of detail.

oily calves don't look like this:


and another problem: you are claiming no increase in size - well, how do you now that without putting a tape around his calves?  They may have been an increase in size, but it might have been small, and it certainly would be very hard to detect given that his quads probably grew at a much greater rate proprotionally.

we know Ronnie's quads grow 30x as much as his calves do for the same training period.

just look at 2003.

Dude get serious 230 pounds and in 1997 he was 255 pounds at the Olympia but I went with 250 , 20 pounds and no NOTICEABLE size difference in his calves? or detail then all the sudden a 5-7 pound increase in weight and a noticeable difference in size and his calves aren't really showing any detail in 1999 , Shawn had high calves but his showed excellent detail & separation , something is not right.

[Hulkster]

Question:


these black and white shot have often been attributed to the 2001 Arnold Classic,

However, the muscle and fitness mag that has the 1999 Olympia review had pics like this one.

does anyone know for sure if these shots were from 1999?  or were they from the AC?

its pretty tough to tell the difference since condition wise they appeared the same, and without a fellow pro to compare the size is hard to tell..

[NarcissisticDeity]

Question:


these black and white shot have often been attributed to the 2001 Arnold Classic,

However, the muscle and fitness mag that has the 1999 Olympia review had pics like this one.

does anyone know for sure if these shots were from 1999?  or were they from the AC?

its pretty tough to tell the difference since condition wise they appeared the same, and without a fellow pro to compare the size is hard to tell..

They look 99 Olympia

[Hulkster]

Dude get serious 230 pounds and in 1997 he was 255 pounds at the Olympia but I went with 250 , 20 pounds and no NOTICEABLE size difference in his calves? or detail then all the sudden a 5-7 pound increase in weight and a noticeable difference in size and his calves aren't really showing any detail in 1999 , Shawn had high calves but his showed excellent detail & separation , something is not right.

but this is what I am getting at:  your pic are not good indicators of size.

here is another shot from 1997 and his calves look a lot bigger than your 1997 shots:


crappy yes, but still bigger.

[pobrecito]

Something just isn't right with this calf

[NarcissisticDeity]

but this is what I am getting at:  your pic are not good indicators of size.

here is another shot from 1997 and his calves look a lot bigger than your 1997 shots:


crappy yes, but still bigger.

These are from 1997 and I'm shocked lol

[Hulkster]

Something just isn't right with this calf

yes but 43 year old ronnie is not a good indicator - you could say the exact same thing about triceps, delts and lats and then scream "OIL!" on each one of them...

[Hulkster]

These are from 1997 and I'm shocked lol

how do you know those are from 1997?

they look for like 1995ish to me - at least judging from his "not so great for Ronnie's standards" back.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes but 43 year old ronnie is not a good indicator - you could say the exact same thing about triceps, delts and lats and then scream "OIL!" on each one of them...

Oh jesus fucking christ with the age excuse if he was still winning you'd go on and on about how great he is at his age  big difference between tearing a muscle and one just not looking right.

[NarcissisticDeity]

how do you know those are from 1997?

they look for like 1995ish to me - at least judging from his "not so great for Ronnie's standards" back.

I scanned them from a 1997 magazine and it was a full article about Ronnie very double full they'd use old pictures and he is Ronnie 1996 with no calves

[onlyme]

I honestly cannot believe this thread.  It truly is stupid. Lets hit 1000 pages!

[NarcissisticDeity]

I honestly cannot believe this thread.  It truly is stupid. Lets hit 1000 pages!

Hey !! nice to see you pop-in !!