see what I mean? Why should I have to rehash my same arguments again so that this dipshit can continue to insist on his idiotic drivel? Judging by his misrepresentation of my argument, Suckmyasshole clearly doesn't grasp the concept of muscular bulk vs total body mass. Ronnie had larger biceps, triceps, pecs, delts, glutes and quads, yet he supposedly had less lean muscle than Dorian? I won't demean my brilliant intellect by addressing such retarded ideas. 
NeoSperm, since you're not very smart, I'll give you the benefit of thye doubt and address this post of yours. Dorian and Ronnie were both 257 lbs. Right? This means that the gravitational pull exercised by the Earth was similar on both of them. In other words, their
physical masses were similar. We are in agreement here, correct? Good.
Now, where does thye physical mass of a Human Being comes from? It comes from:
- The skeletal frame.
- Skeletal muscle tissue.
- Smooth muscle tissue.
- Internal organs.
- Nervous sysmtem.
Since both Dorian and Ronnie weighted the same, the only way for you to demonstrate that Ronnie carried more lean mass than Dorian would be for you to demonstate, that the sum of the weight of Ronnie's skeletal frame, internal organs and nervous tissue, represented less pounds than the sum of Dorian's internal organs, skeletal frame, bodyfat and subcutaneous water. There is no other possibility. This is Logic 101 for you, my friend. If you fail to demonstrate that, then it is immaterial that Ronnie had some larger muscles than Dorian, because Dorian
must have greater mass elsewhere, to compensate for that so that his mass is as great or greater than Ronnie's. Get it?
Now, I have laready made a very strong case for why Dorian had slightly greater mass than the 1999 Coleman, and far more so than that of the 2001 ASC Ronnie. Let's review it, shall we? Dorian has:
- Equivalent bodyfat to Ronnie. Tie.
- Less subcutaneous water. Dorian wins.
- His bones are thicker, but they weight less. Tie
- Dorian has a wider waist, but Ronnie's gut is more distended - saying otherwise is pointless. Dorian wins.
- Ronnie's muscles are rounder and fuller, which means that they have more water inside them, which means that Dorian carries more muscle tissue.
I have, logically and mathematically, demonstrated that Dorian in all likehood carried slightly more mass than the 1999 Coleman. Pics are not necessary. Why? Becasue the issue is mathematical, not visual. Ronnie might have some bigger muscles than Dorian, but what matters is if this alters the total amount of muscle mass, which is mathematical. The weight, bodyfat and subcutaneous water indicate this;
visual evidence does not.
Besides, Ronnie's muscles can look bigger than Dorian's for a variety of reasons other than lean mass, such as their shape, the size of the joints, etc. You have been owned
epically, and I genuinely am embarassed for you. Read my post and then re-read it, and you may finally comprehend. Then, you should be humble about it, relaize that you're no match for me - but then, who is -, and exit from the thread gracefully.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
