I think, realistically speaking, that Danny had 18-19" arms and Dorian had 20-20.5" arms. Lee Priest is 2 inches taller than Danny and his arms are 21". So they would still appear proportionately larger than Danny's.
Nope. Dorian's arms were 21".
I have asked you numerous times to give examples where Dorian carried more muscular bulk than 01 ASC Ronnie. You continue to ignore my request. I'm not doubting that Dorian had greater total body mass. This much is obvious from their body weights. However, where else besides the midsection and calves did Dorian carry more bulk than Ronnie?
How stupid can a single individual be? No wonder Cuba is that shithole. Sperm, I'm going to go in detail about this, to shut you once and for all - although I'm sure you'll ignore this once again and continue to insist that you're right just to save face. Your entire argument is based on three false premisses:
1.
Dorian's gut was not more distended than Coleman's. - This is obvious. Dorian was never known for gut distension except at the 1997 Olympia.
2.
Calves represent a small bodypart - Calves are relatively small bodypart and represent about 5% of the body's overral muscle mass. Saying that Dorian weighted 16lbs more despite having smaller chest, triceps, delts and quads muscle mass all because of calves is just ridiculous.
3.
The entire human skeleton weights 25 lbs - Dorian's skeletal frame would need to be 75% bigger than Coleman's to make Dorian weight 16 lbs more
if they had the same muscular bulk. However since you claim that Dorian weighted all that more despite having smaller muscular bulk in his chest, triceps, delts and quads, then the diffrerence would need to be even greater than that. It would need to be around 30 lbs or more to compensate for it. That's a
lot of bones, Sperm! In fact, the variations between Human Beings in skeleton weight is no more than 15 lbs in
extreme cases. In other words, when comparing the frame of a large man to that of a small woman. Now, when you add all to that the fact that Black Men have much heavier bones than Whites, you understand that Dorian would need to have a mamoth frame to carry 30 lbs or more in his bones than Ronnie. It is impossible, sport. You got owned
epically and you just can't deal emotionally with it.
When you factor in the gut size, the frame and calve issue, all we have left is your opinion that Ronnie had bigger chest, delts, triceps and quads. Again, Ronnie's muscles just look bigger than Dorian's because:
1.
His muscles are rounder - This gives a visual appearance of fullness which Dorian's flat, square muscles lacked.
2.
His joints are smaller - This also makes his muscle look bigger than they really are, ala Wheeler. Contrast creates an illusion of size. This is why only short men work at Tom Cruise's films: to make the leading man look tall. Get it? Contrast.
In conclusion, I have logically demonstrated how it is extraordinarily unlikely that Dorian's gut, calves and frame explained the weight difference. When you add this to the facts that:
1.
They had equivalent bodyfat levels - They were both at around 3% bodyfat so Ronnie can't claim to have more lean mass here.
2.
Ronnie had more fluids inside his muscles - A given. Ronnie's muscle swere always fuller than Dorian's, and this is partly the result of water retention. So Ronnie can't claim to have more lean mass here.
3.
Ronnie had less fluids than Dorian outside his muscles - Another given. Even at the 2001 ASC, Ronnie wasn't as crisp dry as a 1995 Dorian. At best, they tie - and I'm being generous. Ronnie can't claim to have more lean mass here.
Sperm, when you put all the variables into the equation, it is
obvious that the 1995 Dorian carried more mass than the 2001 ASC Ronnie, and
extremely likely that he carried more mass than the 1999 Olympia Ronnie - for the same reasons as the above, although to a much smaller degree.
You have been taken to school; this was Logic 101 to you, from Professor Suckmymuscle. Now be humble about it, and admit that you were wrong.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
