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

[Hulkster]

Sucky's never going to live this one down!

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?

I have an answer:

maybe its because dorian was not as hard/contioned overall as peak Ronnie?

 

William of Ockham must be turning over in his grave right now...

[RocketSwitch625]

[Iceman1981]

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

Hulkster can't handle it.

Like I said before, if you can't see Coleman owning yates in that comparison, you must be blind. Coleman looks harder, more striations, seperation, shape and better symetry in that comparison. What don't you get?

[Hulkster]

remember back when I asked mockingly what will the dorian side come up with next?

(after the "fake screencaps fiasco")

well, today, we have the answer

[SWOLETRAIN]

i cant beleive this is still going on.....and on...................... .and on...

[RocketSwitch625]

Like I said before, if you can't see Coleman owning yates in that comparison, you must be blind. Coleman looks harder, more striations, seperation, shape and better symetry in that comparison.

Bollocks

[Necrosis]

remember back when I asked mockingly what will the dorian side come up with next?

(after the "fake screencaps fiasco")

well, today, we have the answer

not a fucking cut in site with horrible seperation and he looks smallish.

[NeoSeminole]

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.

contradicting yourself now, eh? First you accused me of saying that 01 ASC did in fact carry 2 lbs more of lean mass than in 99. Now you claim that I never directly say anything. Which version is it?

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.

the difference was only 10 lbs. Ronnie weighed 247 lbs at the 01 ASC.

- 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.

Ronnie's arms and delts looked the same size. Let's say they were for argument's sake. Since Ronnie was carrying less fat and water, this represents an increase in lean mass. I do believe he lost some muscle in his quads b/c they were significantly smaller than in 99. However, it's hard to say how much of the reduction in size is the result of less water or less muscle. All things considered, I believe that 01 ASC Ronnie carried more lean mass - even if it's only 1-2 lbs more. Hell, it could be .5 lbs more for all I care. 

- 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.

I highly doubt that Ronnie was 3% bf in 99. It's more probable that he was closer to 4%. You must realize just how low 3% bf really is. Very few humans have reached that measurment and lived. At 257 lbs, 4% bf would be 10.28 lbs. I believe Ronnie might have been 3% at the 01 ASC. If so, then 3% bf at 247 lbs is 7.41 lbs. This is a difference of about 3 lbs of fat.

- 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.

01 ASC Ronnie weighed 10 lbs less than he did in 99. So we only need to account for a 10 lbs difference. I already established that it's plausible he carried 3 lbs less fat. This leaves us with 7 lbs to explain, which I propose is how much water he lost at the 01 ASC.

[RocketSwitch625]

not a fucking cut in site with horrible seperation and he looks smallish.

That's why he's a 6 time Mr Olympia.

[Necrosis]

i think the argument is over. it only took 906 pages but the last owning of nd by me and the bend in physics was the straw that broke the camels back.

[suckmymuscle]

Sucky's never going to live this one down!

  Nor do I want to. I stand by it 100%. He asked for a reason why Dorian's grain is best seen in person and not on pics; I don't know the answer, but I do know that the phenomenon is real because it is verifiable. Gravity is also verifiable, yet no one knows what causes it; ergo, my theory is logically consistent. It could be this, or the shape of the muscles, or the the way the light reflects on his muscles that is captured live but not on tape, etc.

  Now, if this phenomenon were exclusively individual to Dorian Yates, then I would look for the explantion elsewhere. Why? Because if this were unique to him, then it would be evidence that he's not Human. However, since the phenomenom is repeatable when it comes to other bodybuilders, then I speculate that there are some unknown variables in the muscular or epitelial structures of some Human Beings that make them look a certain way onstage and differently in person. Don't laugh it off, because eventually I could turn out to be right. In any case, genius, I would love to hear an alternative hypothesis for this phenomenon. And by the way, who cares? If the phenomenon is real and causes a perceptual visual difference in the way physiques are displayed, then that's all I care. My who point to usmoke is that just because we don't know that causes of a phenomenon it is irrelevant as long as the effect is verifiable.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

My who point to usmoke is that just because we don't know that causes of a phenomenon it is irrelevant as long as the effect is verifiable.

and the effect of Ronnie's conditioning is far better detail:


and

likewise, the effect of dorian's conditioning is dough-like arms and quads.

[Necrosis]

  Nor do I want to. I stand by it 100%. He asked for a reason why Dorian's grain is best seen in person and not on pics; I don't know the answer, but I do know that the phenomenon is real because it is verifiable. Gravity is also verifiable, yet no one knows what causes it; ergo, my theory is logically consistent. It could be this, or the shape of the muscles, or the the way the light reflects on his muscles that is captured live but not on tape, etc.

  Now, if this phenomenon were exclusively individual to Dorian Yates, then I would look for the explantion elsewhere. Why? Because if this were unique to him, then it would be evidence that he's not Human. However, since the phenomenom is repeatable when it comes to other bodybuilders, then I speculate that there are some unknown variables in the muscular or epitelial structures of some Human Beings that make them look a certain way onstage and differently in person. Don't laugh it off, because eventually I could turn out to be right. In any case, genius, I would love to hear an alternative hypothesis for this phenomenon. And by the way, who cares? If the phenomenon is real and causes a perceptual visual difference in the way physiques are displayed, then that's all I care. My who point to usmoke is that just because we don't know that causes of a phenomenon it is irrelevant as long as the effect is verifiable.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

i agree with your statment about differences in person on photo etc. but its not a valid argument without a theory, and ronnie could have some unique phenomenon that no one has described or makes him better in person. taking unknown variables as proof or evidence is not a good way to make an argument. i do realize people appear different in photos etc.. or are photogenic etc.. you said that it applys to others as well, which was also my point, ronnie could have it. in fact melvin anthony when i asked him about ronnie and his size, said at a guest pose last year "you have to see him in person, you can feel his size behind you, you almost have to step back to see him all". this is actually what he said to me. so i contend that some have it some dont, but all look better in person,which seems more logical because of context, awe factor, comparison with normal people/objects/yourself etc.....

[IceCold]

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

FAG.

[Hulkster]

the argument has been made that dorian's quads are great in real life.

of course, as we see here in 94 they are doughy blobs.

compare them to shawns or porters.

now those are good quads.

[IceCold]

I don't see how anyone actually could.

I mean, come on?

better conditioning overall? get real:

one of the first points i made on this thread was which type of conditioning is better:

harder and dryer

or

more cuts and striations?

you can have some who has many cuts and striations but still shows up soft and holding water (melvin anthony)  or there is someone who is dryer and harder and beats someone who has more striations (markus ruhl beating dexter jackson at the toronto show a few years ago and gunter beating ronnie at the GNC show.  another example is every pro show mike francios won.  there are many more examples that i've listed before.

as to which type of conditioning is better, that's a personal preference.

i prefer the harder dryer type of build, but i also think the judges do as well.

(that's right, JUDGES.  not you hulkster)

that explains why yates won against guys that had more striations and details in individual bodyparts - whether they were smaller like shawn or larger like nasser.  

[EL Mariachi]

Like I said before, if you can't see Coleman owning yates in that comparison, you must be blind. Coleman looks harder, more striations, seperation, shape and better symetry in that comparison. What don't you get?

on top of that coleman is owning in muscularity, GAME OVER LIGHTS  OUT

[NarcissisticDeity]

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.

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.

Its not a moot point , and its obvious that some pics of Dorian the lighting washes out his detail this is a factor in determing how he looks in general not only compared to Ronnie and my argument hasn't been reduced to lighting it includes lighting my argument covers much more you are Johnny-come-lately on the scene so like your  ' owning ' assessments this is premature 

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.

yawn , another premature observation on your part , your intelligence came in question the moment you said Ronnie 03 was better conditioned than Dorian , and another fallacy on your part ( you are fond of them ) I never claimed  to be an expert on every subject I claimed to be very well read on the topic of atheism and religion , your problem if you think you're unique and you're NOT every argument you can formulate about the existence of God I've heard and have a counter argument , you're not original and offer nothing new , nothing I haven't heard so many times before and what a pathetic attempt at reverse psychology LMFAO yeah if I don't respond to your internet-challenge that means I can't or even worse I'm scared lol kid the fact that I have responded to all of your questions proves I don't fear what you have to say and the topic of religion is no different I've heard it all before from smarter people than you 

[Necrosis]

one of the first points i made on this thread was which type of conditioning is better:

harder and dryer

or

more cuts and striations?

you can have some who has many cuts and striations but still shows up soft and holding water (melvin anthony)  or there is someone who is dryer and harder and beats someone who has more striations (markus ruhl beating dexter jackson at the toronto show a few years ago and gunter beating ronnie at the GNC show.  another example is every pro show mike francios won.  there are many more examples that i've listed before.

as to which type of conditioning is better, that's a personal preference.

i prefer the harder dryer type of build, but i also think the judges do as well.

(that's right, JUDGES.  not you hulkster)

that explains why yates won against guys that had more striations and details in individual bodyparts - whether they were smaller like shawn or larger like nasser.  

wrong dryer and harder arent criteria while striated and seperated are. good seperation and striations or cuts are byproducts of dryness, not the other way around. melvin is not soft in all areas and the areas he is striated and seperated in are dry and hard follow. his quads are dry and hard hence the clear seperation and detail, while his glutes are high in bf and water hence the lack of seperation(both internally and between) the glutes and poor tie-in with the hams. there is no such thing as dry conditioning, a dry competitor like munzer(the dryest) had amazing striations and seperation. for some reason dorian is dry but lacks seperation and striations in groups. also, why is it that his back is seperated and dry subsequently being the best detailed bodypart he has with striations but his quads if equally dry arent striated nor seperated along with his arms.

in the above pic dorians calf/quad proportion is way off. and in the shape and size category his quads are poor as are his arms in those categories let alone poor conditioning.


you cant talk of conditioning as being this or that or different types that would make quantifying bodybuilding impossible. you think judges say, what conditioning is better dry and hard or seperated and striated, they dont. there is criteria for conditioning and it consists of the following

seperation, intra and inter
striations(a form of seperation)
tie-ins
cuts(not well explained in the guidlines)
shape to a degree.
this comprises definition.

however you must factor in size which coleman wins also. the above are all results of dryness and hardness.

[IceCold]

you cant talk of conditioning as being this or that or different types that would make quantifying bodybuilding impossible. you think judges say, what conditioning is better dry and hard or seperated and striated, they dont. there is criteria for conditioning and it consists of the following

seperation, intra and inter
striations(a form of seperation)
tie-ins
cuts(not well explained in the guidlines)
shape to a degree.
this comprises definition.

however you must factor in size which coleman wins also. the above are all results of dryness and hardness.

any year that coleman is bigger than dorian, he will autmatically loose due to his conditioning.

wrong on the conditioning explanation you gave.

how else can you explain contest results where guys with less striations won over guys that had more including guys that were bigger then the winner?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Here is a good example of how lighting effects some pics and why they aren't as accurate as reality , both Dorian 1993 the pic on the right it appears Dorian has no separation of his biceps and the pic on the left contradicts this and Neo the genius has posted the pic on the right as an attempt of Dorian's arms being smooth typical baseless claim

[suckmymuscle]

contradicting yourself now, eh? First you accused me of saying that 01 ASC did in fact carry 2 lbs more of lean mass than in 99. Now you claim that I never directly say anything. Which version is it?

  You implied it.

the difference was only 10 lbs. Ronnie weighed 247 lbs at the 01 ASC.

  All the sources I have, including the FEX review, point out that Ronnie was 244 lbs for the 2001 ASC.

Ronnie's arms and delts looked the same size. Let's say they were for argument's sake. Since Ronnie was carrying less fat and water, this represents an increase in lean mass. I do believe he lost some muscle in his quads b/c they were significantly smaller than in 99. However, it's hard to say how much of the reduction in size is the result of less water or less muscle. All things considered, I believe that 01 ASC Ronnie carried more lean mass - even if it's only 1-2 lbs more. Hell, it could be .5 lbs more for all I care.  

  This is impossible, and your example makes it even worse. Why? Because lean muscle weights more than water, so if his arms remained the same size with less water than you have even more pounds to justify for. The issue here is the absolute weights of the total muscle mass when contrasted to the rest of the body. If a muscle remains the same size while losing water, then it's weight increases. Yet, Ronnie went down in weight. The bottom line is that if you argue that Ronnie's lean mass remained by same, then mathematically you have 13 lbs to justify. Now if you're arguing that he gained lean muscle, then you have more than that to justify. The issue here is very simple: was the loss in muscle mass that Ronnie had in his quads greater, in pounds, then the gain he had in his arms? If so, then you're simply agreeing with me that Ronnie carried less lean mass.

  Your assertion that Ronnie carried more lean mass at the 2001 ASC is asinine. One pound more lean mass would be 14 lbs to justify, and your math simply doesen't add up. There's no way that Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia had 14 lbs to lose in bodyfat and water. If anything, he had no more than 6 or 7 lbs of both things combined to lose.

I highly doubt that Ronnie was 3% bf in 99. It's more probable that he was closer to 4%

  No, Ronnie actually was 3% bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia. His improvements in conditioning, at the 2001 ASC, were mostly due to an improved dehydration state.

You must realize just how low 3% bf really is. Very few humans have reached that measurment and lived. At 257 lbs, 4% bf would be 10.28 lbs. I believe Ronnie might have been 3% at the 01 ASC. If so, then 3% bf at 247 lbs is 7.41 lbs. This is a difference of about 3 lbs of fat.

  This is a bullshit argument. First, I would have to accept that the difference in weight between the two was only 10 lbs, while both the FLEX as well as the MuscleMag reviews I read state that Ronnie was 244 lbs for pre-judging. Secondly, Iwould have to accept that Ronnie was at 4% bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia, when Nichols has already stated that Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat for both the 1998 and 1999 Olympias. Thirdly, I'd have to accept the argument that the numbers of pounds to justify are ten, when you have laready stated that you believed that Ronnie carried more lean mass, by one of two pounds - making the actual number 11 or 12. Guess what? Even if I accepted all of that, you'd still be wrong. Why? Because there's no way that Coleman could come in with 7 lbs less of water - in reality 8 or 9, since you argue that he gained mass - than he had at the 1999 Olympia without dying from dehydration. 7 lbs of water is what the average person drinks in two full days, idiot. Ronnie was alreadt peeled to the core in 1999, and the difference in conditioning between him and 1999, although noticible, was probably caused by the loss on no more than 1 or 2 pounds of water.

01 ASC Ronnie weighed 10 lbs less than he did in 99. So we only need to account for a 10 lbs difference. I already established that it's plausible he carried 3 lbs less fat. This leaves us with 7 lbs to explain, which I propose is how much water he lost at the 01 ASC.

  You math only adds up when it comes to the physiology of beings other than Humans.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[IceCold]

Here is a good example of how lighting effects some pics and why they aren't as accurate as reality , both Dorian 1993 the pic on the right it appears Dorian has no separation of his biceps and the pic on the left contradicts this and Neo the genius has posted the pic on the right as an attempt of Dorian's arms being smooth typical baseless claim

BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING HULKSTER:


one pic is from the dvd

another is scanned from a magazine.

however, in both pics, dorian's color is virutally the same.

the same cannot be said of ronnie in the real pics and the fake pics you insist are real, but no longer post. 

(by the way, the fake pics dont even match the dvd pics that supposedly they are from).

[Hulkster]

the only reason I have not posted many of the second set of better resolution screencaps is I have not taken the time to delete all the old ones and then save all the new ones.

but don't worry

I will.

[NeoSeminole]

Neo the genius has posted the pic on the right as an attempt of Dorian's arms being smooth typical baseless claim

where the f*ck do you come up with this shit? I posted the pic on the right to show that his arms were small and lack separation in the triceps. Whoop-tee-doo, you can see a line between his bicep and tricep - 1 measly line - in the screen cap. Somehow that's supposed to make a huge difference.