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

[Necrosis]

that has to be the best arm and delt combo for size and conditioning and detail ever.

[Iceman1981]

typical hypocrite.   

Tell that to ND jerk. Look at his comparison.

[Iceman1981]

This most muscular crushes Ronnie's in terms of density , thickness , balance & conditioning , you can't counter this , fear this kid with a reason

Sorry, but you asked for it. Looks like you're the one clinging to the mm shots. Here you go, and try not to feel too bad.

[Iceman1981]

This just proves how dumb and biased you truly are. Yates' most muscular is outstanding based alone on his superior muscularity and density. You are a bastard Hulkster.

yates mm is good only when he is alone, but with someone beside him, different story. You asked for it to.

[Iceman1981]

Is  that the best you  can do, or is this an admission of defeat? 

He asked you a legit question. So which side are you on this week? Not that hard of a question, but then again it's you he is asking.

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND your making retarded claims. dorians most muscular sucks, he lacks detail everywere compared to ronnie, you can see all three heads of the delt in ronnies MM. you know definition is an important aspect. you keep chiming in on dryness as part of conditioning, obviously detail would be the main factor in conditioning with dryness taking a epiphenomenal role to detail. his hands clasped most muscular is perhaps the worst of any mr o i have every seen with glaring imbalances and lack of detail in the arms and delts. his delts arent capped and his bicep is missing, how could one win this pose with drastic symmtrical and conditioning flaws, not to mention the poor shape, ronnies split bis, sweeping quads, wide taper, triple headed delts and vascularity that would put yates to shame.

heres yates losing in terms of size, shape, detail and dryness, you can see every striation in his muscle with great symmtry and tons of vascularity. the one armed man couldnt handle this.

His most muscular doesn't suck thats your opinion ! another empty statement he lacks detail everywhere , give me a break . and you can see the separation of his delts if you have a better picture and I do keep chiming in on dryness & hardness because they are the main focus of conditioning , and you talk detail , Dorian's back has way more detail than Ronnie , as does his whole midsection , as does his calves , so you keep picking and choosing what detail you like better and gloss over all the rest , and look at these two most musculars you can see his delts in both pics, the hands clasped you can see the striations in his delts as well as his chest and look at the bottom two pics of the detail in his back that Ronnie can't touch .

You're like a typical Coleman fan hoping on Ronnie's strengths while ignoring Dorian's using your personal preference as a guide and thats not how it works , there is judging criteria and it favors Yates , density , balance and conditioning all favor Yates , and bulk depending on the year , ironically you post a pic of Ronnie 2003 when his balance is at it's all-time worse and his hardness & dryness is as well

[NeoSeminole]

smooth as a baby's ass. Horrible. At least Ronnie has decent balance except for his calves. Dorian has 0 definition, which would cost him many points against Ronnie.

[suckmymuscle]

smooth as a baby's ass. Horrible. At least Ronnie has decent balance except for his calves. Dorian has 0 definition, which would cost him many points against Ronnie.

  How can anyone take what this moron says seriously, if he makes claims like that Ronnie carried 2 lbs of lean mass more at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia, despite being 13 lbs lighter? This would mean that he lost 15 lbs elsewhere. Where did it come from? Bodyfat is impossible, because Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat both at the 1999 Olympia and the 2001 ASC. The weight of bones and organs don't vary, so that can't be it either. And losing 15 lbs of water is impossible: it means death - especially considering that Ronnie was already dehydrated in 1999, although he did carry a pound or two less water at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia. Sperm got owned brutally by me at another thread. I destroyed every retarded argument he came up with, and exposed him for the intellectual train-wreck that he truly is. As far as I'm concerned, he's not a worthy rival and I won't pay any attention to him and anything he has to say anymore. However, I will continue to own him as long as he continues to insist on his bullshit.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
 

[NeoSeminole]

yawn, you make this too easy for me.

How can anyone take what this moron says seriously, if he makes claims like that Ronnie carried 2 lbs of lean mass more at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia, despite being 13 lbs lighter? This would mean that he lost 15 lbs elsewhere. Where did it come from? Bodyfat is impossible, because Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat both at the 1999 Olympia and the 2001 ASC. The weight of bones and organs don't vary, so that can't be it either. And losing 15 lbs of water is impossible: it means death - especially considering that Ronnie was already dehydrated in 1999, although he did carry a pound or two less water at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia. Sperm got owned brutally by me at another thread. I destroyed every retarded argument he came up with, and exposed him for the intellectual train-wreck that he truly is. As far as I'm concerned, he's not a worthy rival and I won't pay any attention to him and anything he has to say anymore. However, I will continue to own him as long as he continues to insist on his bullshit.

please show me where I said that 01 ASC Ronnie carried 2 lbs of more lean mass than 99 Ronnie. You can't b/c I never said that.

[suckmymuscle]

yawn, you make this too easy for me.

please show me where I said that 01 ASC Ronnie carried 2 lbs of more lean mass than 99 Ronnie. You can't b/c I never said that.

  Here it is - although I'm sure you'll edit it. Your exact quote was: "He might have gained only one or two pounds.". Regardless, the bottom line is that you implied that he either carried as much or more lean muscle mass at the 2001 ASC as he did at the 1999 Olympia, which, as I have demonstrated while owning you in the process, is logically impossible.

  www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=1741738;topic=121458.100;num_r

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Ok, the link to the exact post is not working. Here's the link to the thread. It's post number 123, on page six.

www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=121458.0

  SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

Ok, the link to the exact post is not working. Here's the link to the thread. It's post number 123, on page six.

www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=121458.0

nice try fagg*t, here is my exact quote.

I was merely pointing out that it's very unlikely 01 ASC Ronnie carried less muscle than in 99, like you suggest. I never claimed that he did in fact gain 10 lbs of lean mass. For all I know, he might have only put on 1-2 lbs. I highly doubt that he actually shrunk.

please show me where I said that 01 ASC Ronnie did in fact carry 2 lbs of more lean mass than 99 Ronnie. This is why nobody on getbig takes you seriously anymore. Your posts are full of shit that is easy to refute.

[RocketSwitch625]

yates mm is good only when he is alone, but with someone beside him, different story. You asked for it to.

Who gives a f**k about the MM? It's a pose that impresses children not the IFBB judges.

[Necrosis]

ND you are a funny dude, you hark on blanket statements then make three in a row, haha. your so full of shit i dont think you beleive it. listen yates loses the MM to alot of people its a bad pose for him, we wouldnt argue that ronnies ab and thigh is better, your delusional. his left arm in that pic is as smooth as the new smirnoff ice. seriously, i said he lacks detail, namely seperation between the triceps and biceps, along with poorly seperated delts, with no heads showing in the left side, along with little to no striations. his pecs also are less detailed the ronnies in the most muscular. you should be able to see the quads but you cant in that particular pic, his legs bring the house of cards down with little seperation and definition, nor any shape worthy of a great quadricep.

[Bear]

Yates is totally destroying Coleman in that comparsion and it's not even contest day for Yates.

Pwned. LOL

If you really believe Ronnie is being 'owned' here then there is a serious problem with this debate. I was under the impression that I was arguing with people capable of rational reasoning. You undermine your agenda when you defame your own credibility with assertions like this.

[Bear]

OMG does anyone really think that the guy on the left would beat the guy on the right?!?! I'm really not trying to hate on my fellow British brethren but look at the two of them. Ronnie without a doubt.

[RocketSwitch625]

OMG does anyone really think that the guy on the left would beat the guy on the right?!?! I'm really not trying to hate on my fellow British brethren but look at the two of them. Ronnie without a doubt.

You're a dickhead.

[Bear]

Proof that Yates had superior legs to Coleman.



1. Just as detailed
2. More hardness
3. Better calf development
4. Bigger tear drops
5. Better waist tie-in
6. Hams visible from front

There is so much wrong with this it's unreal. Just as detailed? haha, this is outright lying.

Hams visible from the front? He's doing a bloody side leg pose, of course the backs of his legs will show more.

What about secret bullet point no. 7: 'smaller quads'.

Of course no. 3 is completely true, and does count for quite a lot, but I don't see the need to make some of the other stuff up. What the hell is 'better waist tie in' anyway? Is it a reference to his thin upper legs? And don't anyone try and play the 'sartorius' card, he's only flashing the sides of his legs because his sweep was never very good.

Regards

[Bear]

You're a dickhead.

Hmm, this seems an odd attempt at trying to prove me wrong, because you can't. ND must be ashamed to be arguing alongside such a fat, childish waste of space. What are you doing on here anyway?

[RocketSwitch625]

There is so much wrong with this it's unreal. Just as detailed? haha, this is outright lying.

Hams visible from the front? He's doing a bloody side leg pose, of course the backs of his legs will show more.

What about secret bullet point no. 7: 'smaller quads'.

Of course no. 3 is completely true, and does count for quite a lot, but I don't see the need to make some of the other stuff up. What the hell is 'better waist tie in' anyway? Is it a reference to his thin upper legs? And don't anyone try and play the 'sartorius' card, he's only flashing the sides of his legs because his sweep was never very good.

Regards

This guy is a hater.

[RocketSwitch625]

Hmm, this seems an odd attempt at trying to prove me wrong, because you can't. ND must be ashamed to be arguing alongside such a fat, childish waste of space. What are you doing on here anyway?

Hater

[RocketSwitch625]

Coleman on contest day. LOL

[Bear]

This guy is a hater.

Everything I said holds up under scrutiny. You're reductive statements are doing a good job of winding me up, but they are hardly furthering your argument.

[RocketSwitch625]

Everything I said holds up under scrutiny. You're reductive statements are doing a good job of winding me up, but they are hardly furthering your argument.

I won the argument before it even started so go back to the morgue and bury yourself.

[Bear]

I won the argument before it even started so go back to the morgue and bury yourself.

Bury myself in a morgue? Do you know what a morgue is?


Is this you?