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

[NarcissisticDeity]

oh god(pun not intended) the downward spiral continues he is now trying to deflect from the topic onto god. dude start a thread in the appropriate section.

i mean before the big bang

string theory says branes collided
inflation theory says there is multiple bubbles or universe
mutliverse

etc.

you can assert that the big bang reverts further back from the singularity and placnk epoch to nothing(impossible) or that the conditions for expansion were always there and just happened(conscoius will is the only thing that can cause change when all the parameters are the same). either way your entering a spiritual argument. physics and meta-physics will merge and you'll be proven wrong.

but on another note stop deflecting the argument.

what are the criteria, ronnies arms, delts,chest,quads,glutes,hams were more seperated,striated, and cut then dorians in 03 not to mention 99 or 01. dorians back, abs and calves were more conditioned then the 03 version do you disagree? if so based on what criteria?

What planet do you live on? lol you're a strange guy you say I'm deflecting the argument yet I've answered everyone one of your questions and I could careless about the religious topic anyone who has a belief in ANY deity knowing what we know is beneath me and like your other arguments isn't worth my time , I've demoralized so many believers what would be the sense of one more? thats why I don't post there I've had my fill of believers else where I like to stick to bodybuilding

And again YOU'RE basing your assumption that Ronnie's arms , delts , chest , quads , glutes and hams were more separated ON WHAT ? pics and video and have we established this isn't the best and more accurate why do gauge Dorian? don't state otherwise it shows your ignorance.

[Necrosis]

What planet do you live on? lol you're a strange guy you say I'm deflecting the argument yet I've answered everyone one of your questions and I could careless about the religious topic anyone who has a belief in ANY deity knowing what we know is beneath me and like your other arguments isn't worth my time , I've demoralized so many believers what would be the sense of one more? thats why I don't post there I've had my fill of believers else where I like to stick to bodybuilding

And again YOU'RE basing your assumption that Ronnie's arms , delts , chest , quads , glutes and hams were more separated ON WHAT ? pics and video and have we established this isn't the best and more accurate why do gauge Dorian? don't state otherwise it shows your ignorance.

yes youve answered all my posts, but ive refuted yours. you still wont say the criteria. somehow dorian looks good in person, and has more cuts etc but ronnie would not? this is a ridiculous statement. i can see we are done here as youve moved from argument to argument while i have stayed with my assertions and have proven them with logic, you refer to a magic quality. awesome answer on what before the big bang

here ill give you a chance to chrush my faith haahah, why is the universe so anthropic? make sure its a good answer. my big bang answer was quality with no arguments to be made.


if you dont want to answer, or whatever, please destroy my faith you big world destroyer and make a post on the religious board if not stick to this topic, both you are losing on badly.

why is the universe so anthropic?

[Necrosis]

if you dont know what anthropic means pm for details lol. 

[suckmymuscle]

your trying to be reductionist and scientific yet your applying a unknown undescribable quality that allows some to photograph better then others, and some to look better on different media, yet have no way of proving it, nor any predictions you can make, nor any variables that allow this quality, nor a name for this quality , nor a test to prove it, basically making an empty argument.

so agian are the quotes from others that were there not as good for some reason, obviously with so much conflicting data and reports its a safe bet to say the pics are the best evidence not the quotes since others have different opinoins and the bias and leaning of certain individuals. if you cant comprehend this then your closed minded. pics dont lie people do.

  His point is that Dorian is so good, but so good, that he can hold his own with Ronnie and even look better than him despite the fact that pictures don't flatter him. Get it? Actually, NarcissisticDeity's claims are reinforced by this fact, not disclaimed.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

  His point is that Dorian is so good, but so good, that he can hold his own with Ronnie and even look better than him despite the fact that pictures don't flatter him. Get it? Actually, NarcissisticDeity's claims are reinforced by this fact, not disclaimed.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

i get the premise but must dismiss it based on its ridiculousness. why dont pics flatter dorian, what attribute,quality,characteristic makes this so, and how can you tell and how could you predict who this quality would also affect besides dorian. i mean if its a quality that dorian has, then it should be either quantitatively or qualitatively measurable, but since it is not, i can not take him serious.

i stand by the claim that all bodybuilders will look better in person, because of context, comparison to the norm etc. if you dont agree and dorian is different you must contend why this is so and at least offer some sort of way of telling why ronnie wouldnt be the same way.

why wouldnt ronnie be the same way? it doesnt make logical sense, you are a smart dude, this goes against the scientific materialist reductionist assertion of quantability. if you claiming or he is that its a quality you cant define nor isolate then your no further ahead and many could have this quality, and maybe people didnt comment on it. so many extraneous variables are interferring that its poor argument at best. in science and logic this argument doesnt hold up sucky, seriously dude.

you just cant say the spaghetti monster did it, it just is, you have to offer logical conclusions, and objective proof of some degree neither are offered.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yes youve answered all my posts, but ive refuted yours. you still wont say the criteria. somehow dorian looks good in person, and has more cuts etc but ronnie would not? this is a ridiculous statement. i can see we are done here as youve moved from argument to argument while i have stayed with my assertions and have proven them with logic, you refer to a magic quality. awesome answer on what before the big bang

here ill give you a chance to chrush my faith haahah, why is the universe so anthropic? make sure its a good answer. my big bang answer was quality with no arguments to be made.


if you dont want to answer, or whatever, please destroy my faith you big world destroyer and make a post on the religious board if not stick to this topic, both you are losing on badly.

why is the universe so anthropic?

Now you're contadicting yourself you first claim I'm dodging your questions and now you admit I'm not lol you must be ADD and how have you refuted mine? you tried but you haven't have you refuted all my references that Dorian looks better in person ? NO have you came up with conflicting references , saying he looks just as good in person as he does in pics & prints ? NO

Points to ponder , Dorian has fair skin sometimes in pictures and in video his detail can be washed out obscuring his detail , Ronnie by virtue of his darker skin doesn't have this problem , it all depends on the lighting but I'm sure you've considered this 

And again you bitch about keeping the debate on topic yet you want to push the issue and again I could care less hence why I don't post in the religious section , so make up your mind.

[suckmymuscle]

again, please show me where I directly said that 01 ASC Ronnie carried 2 lbs more of lean mass than 99 Ronnie. You still haven't.

  You never directly say anything, because you know you'll get your ass handed to you. I already posted the link to the thread where you suggest that Ronnie carried more lean mass in 2001 than in 1999. That's good enough, and it's there for everyone to see.

 I do believe that 01 ASC Ronnie gained muscle from 99-01.

  So explain your "belief" to me, Sperm:

  - If Ronnie had the same lean mass in 2001 that he had in 1999, than he dropped 13 lbs of weight elsewhere.

  - If Ronnie carried more lean mass at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia, then he lost 13 + X lbs of weight elsewhere, with the incognita "X"  representing the number of pounds of lean muscle mass that he gained.

  - If Ronnie had arms, pecs and delts that were the same size at the 2001 ASC that they at the 1999 Olympia, and he lost weight due to losing water and quad mass - as you implied earlier -, the you're simply agreeingt with me that Ronnie carried less lean mass at the 2001 ASC than at the 1999 Olympia.

  So what is it, Sperm? The whole board wants to understand your retarded math and even more retarded logic here. Let's analyse the body composition of Coleman circa 1999 and 2001, and determine the what physiological variable might have caused the drop in bodyweight. Let's see:

   - Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat both at the 1999 Olympia as well as at the 2001 ASC. Now 3% of 257 lbs is 7.71 lbs, while 3% of 24 lbs is 7.32 lbs. So Ronie carried 0.39 lbs of bodyfat less at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia.

   - The weight of bones and internal organs do not vary under normal physiological conditions, so Ronnie lost 0 lbs i this category; in fact, he might have gained some pounds due to the growth of the bowels caused by GH. However, to be generous, I will let it at zero.

   -  Ronnie did not carry 13 lbs of water in his entire body at the 1999 Olympia stage, let alone under his skin. He was drier at the 2001 ASC, but increased dryness would account for only a pound or two of bodyweight lost from the 1999 Olympia to the 2001 ASC.

  So Sperm, please explain to yours truly and the board how the f**k could Ronnie carry more lean body mass, at the 2001 ASC, than he did at the 1999 Olympia, despite being 13 lbs lighter? Where the f**k could Ronnie have lost all those pounds - 13 + X lbs -, if he had nowhere to take it from? Oh wait, he did have some place to account for the huge drop in weight: his lean muscular mass. Unless you demonstrate that Ronnie is physiologically not Human, logically and physiologically it is impossible to substantiate your claims. Owned.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
  

[Necrosis]

Now you're contadicting yourself you first claim I'm dodging your questions and now you admit I'm not lol you must be ADD and how have you refuted mine? you tried but you haven't have you refuted all my references that Dorian looks better in person ? NO have you came up with conflicting references , saying he looks just as good in person as he does in pics & prints ? NO

Points to ponder , Dorian has fair skin sometimes in pictures and in video his detail can be washed out obscuring his detail , Ronnie by virtue of his darker skin doesn't have this problem , it all depends on the lighting but I'm sure you've considered this 

And again you bitch about keeping the debate on topic yet you want to push the issue and again I could care less hence why I don't post in the religious section , so make up your mind.

i thought it was a good time to get in an epic quotable thats all. you wont reply to my criteria question, nor to what reason dorian appears better in person, any axiom or reason that is logical why he holds this superpower is welcome.

lighting is moot, you dont know the lighting procedures for the shows of both competitors etc hence it is a moot point. pro tan was around when dorian was there, if he lacked the preperation skills he should be marked down on the performance aspect as im sure, tan etc are considered to an extent, people comment on poor tans, oil etc, if dorian did prepare poorly that is still moot, as you'd have to look at ronnies oil amounts, dream tan or any other variable.

your arguments are straw men, your down to arguing about skin tones, when the big issue is who as a whole was a better bodybuilder.

why does dorian have better conditioning? ronnie is more seperated, striated and cut in the majority of his body over dorian. im not insane dorian had better lower back seperation and striations, and cuts, also calves and abs. however, intercostals from your previous pics could be argued, as ronnies appear more feathered.

dude you brought up god talk, then claimed to have destroyed peoples faiths id like to hear your amazing arguments and rebuttals, ill stick here, your single handed dismantling of the majority beleif should be good

if you actually have the balls, why is the universe so anthropic?

[pumpster]

your arguments are straw men, your down to arguing about skin tones, when the big issue is who as a whole was a better bodybuilder.

why does dorian have better conditioning? ronnie is more seperated, striated and cut in the majority of his body over dorian. im not insane dorian had better lower back seperation and striations, and cuts, also calves and abs. however, intercostals from your previous pics could be argued, as ronnies appear more feathered.

dude you brought up god talk, then claimed to have destroyed peoples faiths id like to hear your amazing arguments and rebuttals, ill stick here, your single handed dismantling of the majority beleif should be good

if you actually have the balls, why is the universe so anthropic?

I wonder if ND actually believes his own rationalizations, they're so flimsy not to mention desperate. The lighting excuse is one of about 15 that have been recycled.

[Hulkster]

I wonder if ND actually believes his own blather..

I don't see how anyone actually could.

I mean, come on?

better conditioning overall? get real:

[Hulkster]

I mean dorian does display better condition in 2 areas:

lower back

abs

but thats it. nowhere else.

even the upper back is hard to say - dorian's is so much flatter it really ruins the look compared to the thickness that Ronnie has:

[suckmymuscle]

i get the premise but must dismiss it based on its ridiculousness. why dont pics flatter dorian, what attribute,quality,characteristic makes this so, and how can you tell and how could you predict who this quality would also affect besides dorian. i mean if its a quality that dorian has, then it should be either quantitatively or qualitatively measurable, but since it is not, i can not take him serious.

i stand by the claim that all bodybuilders will look better in person, because of context, comparison to the norm etc. if you dont agree and dorian is different you must contend why this is so and at least offer some sort of way of telling why ronnie wouldnt be the same way.

why wouldnt ronnie be the same way? it doesnt make logical sense, you are a smart dude, this goes against the scientific materialist reductionist assertion of quantability. if you claiming or he is that its a quality you cant define nor isolate then your no further ahead and many could have this quality, and maybe people didnt comment on it. so many extraneous variables are interferring that its poor argument at best. in science and logic this argument doesnt hold up sucky, seriously dude.

you just cant say the spaghetti monster did it, it just is, you have to offer logical conclusions, and objective proof of some degree neither are offered.

  But you're ignoring the possibility that Dorian's hardness being captured in person but not on fim might be due to an incognita variable. For instance, no one truly knows what gravity is, except that it causes a specific effect everywhere mass is present, and that such effect is observable, repeatable and verifiable. Likewise, Dorian's hardness is more visible when the retina is directly focused on it rather than on a picture taken of his physique. Why? I don't know, but I can raise several possibilites: maybe the shape and profile of Dorian's muscle fibers pressing against his skin gives the Human eye this impression die to the way that light waves reflect on his muscles' surfaces - while not being captured on film. Maybe his fibers are more compressed together, creating an illusion of "tightness". Maybe Dorian's relatively square muscles fooled the eyes to make them appear harder, in the same way that round musles appear fuller and bigger than they really are. Who knows? You're aware, methinks, that all these variables are differing across Human Beings. The articles are unanimous in saying that Dorian had this, and that this phenomena is not unique to Dorian, so there might be something to it. I can't explain it, but remember that many observable phenomenons are not either.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

i thought it was a good time to get in an epic quotable thats all. you wont reply to my criteria question, nor to what reason dorian appears better in person, any axiom or reason that is logical why he holds this superpower is welcome.

lighting is moot, you dont know the lighting procedures for the shows of both competitors etc hence it is a moot point. pro tan was around when dorian was there, if he lacked the preperation skills he should be marked down on the performance aspect as im sure, tan etc are considered to an extent, people comment on poor tans, oil etc, if dorian did prepare poorly that is still moot, as you'd have to look at ronnies oil amounts, dream tan or any other variable.

your arguments are straw men, your down to arguing about skin tones, when the big issue is who as a whole was a better bodybuilder.

why does dorian have better conditioning? ronnie is more seperated, striated and cut in the majority of his body over dorian. im not insane dorian had better lower back seperation and striations, and cuts, also calves and abs. however, intercostals from your previous pics could be argued, as ronnies appear more feathered.

dude you brought up god talk, then claimed to have destroyed peoples faiths id like to hear your amazing arguments and rebuttals, ill stick here, your single handed dismantling of the majority beleif should be good

if you actually have the balls, why is the universe so anthropic?

i thought it was a good time to get in an epic quotable thats all. you wont reply to my criteria question, nor to what reason dorian appears better in person, any axiom or reason that is logical why he holds this superpower is welcome.

lighting is moot, you dont know the lighting procedures for the shows of both competitors etc hence it is a moot point. pro tan was around when dorian was there, if he lacked the preperation skills he should be marked down on the performance aspect as im sure, tan etc are considered to an extent, people comment on poor tans, oil etc, if dorian did prepare poorly that is still moot, as you'd have to look at ronnies oil amounts, dream tan or any other variable.

your arguments are straw men, your down to arguing about skin tones, when the big issue is who as a whole was a better bodybuilder.

Lighting is most certainly NOT moot another one of your baseless claims , the lighting of a show can effect how competitors look if you can't grasp this then your even more ignorant than I first thought and I'm not arguing about strawmen it lends credibilty to my point that YOU can't say his quads are smooth in the context of carrying fat in water based on the fact that he doesn't look as good in vids or pics and couple that with the fact that he tore one of his quads and this give;s him the appearence of being smooth when in fact I've never once seen the quote associated with Dorian that he was holding water in the bodybuilding context , let me guess that means nothing? because you the internet-fan-boy deduced otherwise with scans & compressed video lol you have limited abilities and you've shown this constantly as consistantly

This is exactly why Dorian is a better bodybuilder than Ronnie

The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.

if you actually have the balls, why is the universe so anthropic?

Again which way do you want it? first you bitch that I'm avoiding your questions , then admit I'm not and then you claim I should stick to the topic and once again you press the issue , and spare me your pathetic attempt at bating , oooooohhhhh if I have the balls , Uh-Oh you're challenging my internet-manhood I better answer your challenge out of fear of being exposed , lmmfao kid I'm an atheist and I am VERY , very well read on the subject and can hold my own with the best of them , your ploy failed and I could care less about your internet-challenge , heed you're own advice and stick to the topic , just because you're getting your ass handed to you here , doesn't mean I wouldn't do the same elsewhere 

[Iceman1981]

the dorian side is not exactly known for its brightness...

What I don't understand, is how did NEO post more than 4 pics in one post?

[Hulkster]

 But you're ignoring the possibility that Dorian's hardness being captured in person but not on fim might be due to an incognita variable. For instance, no one truly knows what gravity is, except that it causes a specific effect everywhere mass is present, and that such effect is observable, repeatable and verifiable. Likewise, Dorian's hardness is more visible when the retina is directly focused on it rather than on a picture taken of his physique. Why? I don't know, but I can raise several possibilites:maybe the shape and profile of Dorian's muscle fibers pressing against his skin gives the Human eye this impression die to the way that light waves reflect on his muscles' surfaces - while not being captured on film.  Maybe his fibers are more compressed together, creating an illusion of "tightness". Maybe Dorian's relatively square muscles fooled the eyes to make them appear harder, in the same way that round musles appear fuller and bigger than they really are. Who knows? You're aware, methinks, that all these variables are differing across Human Beings. The articles are unanimous in saying that Dorian had this, and that this phenomena is not unique to Dorian, so there might be something to it. I can't explain it, but remember that many observable phenomenons are not either.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

I'm not sure which is worse from the dorian side:


- the 'fake' pics accusation

or

-this bullshit

 

no one is saying that dorian was not superbly conditioned. there is lots of first hand accounts (and vids/pics) to back that up.

but the issue is whether or not he was better conditioned than a peak ronnie.

and I am not naive enough to believe that "maybe the shape and profile of Dorian's muscle fibers pressing against his skin gives the Human eye this impression die to the way that light waves reflect on his muscles' surfaces - while not being captured on film. "

please.

dorian was not as conditioned overall as peak Ronnie.

period.

there is no hocus pocus going on here.

[RocketSwitch625]

I see more detail on Yates' physique here. His arms are more detailed and chest more striated than Coleman's.

[Hulkster]

What I don't understand, is how did NEO post more than 4 pics in one post?

maybe its due to the shape and profile of his muscle fibres pressing against his skin resulting in wave-particle duality of the photons on our retinas but not on film?

[Iceman1981]

Ronnie 98 owning 03 in terms of separation , dryness & hardness

Ofcourse the 98 version looks drier and harder than the 03. What, now you're comparing and owning Coleman with a Coleman comparison? Oh man.

[Necrosis]

Lighting is most certainly NOT moot another one of your baseless claims , the lighting of a show can effect how competitors look if you can't grasp this then your even more ignorant than I first thought and I'm not arguing about strawmen it lends credibilty to my point that YOU can't say his quads are smooth in the context of carrying fat in water based on the fact that he doesn't look as good in vids or pics and couple that with the fact that he tore one of his quads and this give;s him the appearence of being smooth when in fact I've never once seen the quote associated with Dorian that he was holding water in the bodybuilding context , let me guess that means nothing? because you the internet-fan-boy deduced otherwise with scans & compressed video lol you have limited abilities and you've shown this constantly as consistantly

This is exactly why Dorian is a better bodybuilder than Ronnie

The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.


Again which way do you want it? first you bitch that I'm avoiding your questions , then admit I'm not and then you claim I should stick to the topic and once again you press the issue , and spare me your pathetic attempt at bating , oooooohhhhh if I have the balls , Uh-Oh you're challenging my internet-manhood I better answer your challenge out of fear of being exposed , lmmfao kid I'm an atheist and I am VERY , very well read on the subject and can hold my own with the best of them , your ploy failed and I could care less about your internet-challenge , heed you're own advice and stick to the topic , just because you're getting your ass handed to you here , doesn't mean I wouldn't do the same elsewhere 

just like your other assertions i never said lighting wasnt important i said it was a moot point pumpkin, which is correct. you'd have to examine the lighting situation from every show, both entered etc and know what type of lighting is better, what angles etc.. since you dont know this for all the pics, comparisons it is moot to claim inferior lighting for dorian when you dont know the lighting aspects of A)dorian for each show and pic and B)ronnie for each show and each pic.

im sorry its obvious who is losing this debate, your reduced to lighting arguments and magic gifts.

your not well read on anything, what topics do you know, you questioned my intelligence. your an internet pretend intellect. just because you claim expertise on every subject doesnt make it so. put your money were your mouth is and argue the anthropic, statistically fine tuning of the universe.  it is only one argument.

would you argue that non-sentience can become sentient, that a chair can become conscious? answer and stop doging. if you dont want to answer ill assume its because you cant since you've stated you've replied to all my comments.

lighting is moot from the above argument and logic, you cant decipher who had better lighting if you never observed the lights, or knew the type, intensity among other variables. claiming dorians contest lighting is worse then ronnies is a weak argument, since there is no reason to believe this, besides your ridiculous assertion.

[Hulkster]

when ronnie poses when in top shape his muscles are so hard and dense they look like they are about to explode.

dorian's look like they will be done in 15 minutes at 350F.

[RocketSwitch625]

when ronnie poses when in top shape his muscles are so hard and dense they look like they are about to explode.

dorian's look like they will be done in 15 minutes at 350F.

Hulkster really has lost the fucking plot.

[Iceman1981]

Nice symetrical traps. LOL

The pot calling the kettle black.

Coleman's traps are more symetrical than yates traps in that comparison. How come you can't see that?

[Necrosis]

 But you're ignoring the possibility that Dorian's hardness being captured in person but not on fim might be due to an incognita variable. For instance, no one truly knows what gravity is, except that it causes a specific effect everywhere mass is present, and that such effect is observable, repeatable and verifiable. Likewise, Dorian's hardness is more visible when the retina is directly focused on it rather than on a picture taken of his physique. Why? I don't know, but I can raise several possibilites: maybe the shape and profile of Dorian's muscle fibers pressing against his skin gives the Human eye this impression die to the way that light waves reflect on his muscles' surfaces - while not being captured on film. Maybe his fibers are more compressed together, creating an illusion of "tightness". Maybe Dorian's relatively square muscles fooled the eyes to make them appear harder, in the same way that round musles appear fuller and bigger than they really are. Who knows? You're aware, methinks, that all these variables are differing across Human Beings. The articles are unanimous in saying that Dorian had this, and that this phenomena is not unique to Dorian, so there might be something to it. I can't explain it, but remember that many observable phenomenons are not either.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

sucky you are a smart cat but this is pure gold "maybe the shape and profile of Dorian's muscle fibers pressing against his skin gives the Human eye this impression die to the way that light waves reflect on his muscles' surfaces - while not being captured on film".  ahahahahahahahahahahah this is a funny articulation of a nuisance variable. wait a minute though your not thinking about underpinning variables with coleman that may allow this phenomenon also. maybe through fourier analysis unbenounced to man the + and - that are used in the rods and cones of the human retina somehow allows ronnies muscles to actuate the potentiality of having forty pounds of extra muscle in person due to a special type of cold fushion within the nuclei of the atom causing electrons to quiver out of there quanta and expand in size thus allowing coleman to be bigger in person, not to mention the roundness of his muscles creating a 4-d illusion in which time is interwoven with matter in a unique way that has never been observed allowing his blackness to be an advantage. . im just bustin your balls. ive heard this statement before, he looks better in person etc.. but without any proof, or observability or namely a theory as to how and why it shouldnt be considered an argument.

[RocketSwitch625]

Fact: Coleman is being owned here in his best pose by "a blocky white guy".

Hulkster can't handle it.

[Necrosis]

maybe its due to the shape and profile of his muscle fibres pressing against his skin resulting in wave-particle duality of the photons on our retinas but not on film?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, yes the photoelectric effect is strong within dorian.