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

[NeoSeminole]

Wow, how incredibly witty and offensive. I think I'm gonna cry...

who said I was trying to be witty or offensive?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Flex - July 2005, pg. 158

Someone once told me if you believe one of Peter McGough claims you have to believe them all 


Peter McGough Flex Magazine August 2005

Personally, the best physique I ever saw onstage (there was a contender for best-ever that I saw offstage: those crazy photos of sock-footed Dorian Yates taken seven weeks before the 1993 Mr. Olympia) was Ronnie's at the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic. He was cut, full, trim in the waist and a monster (proving that when you're supersharp, you look superbig) at 244 pounds. Ronnie sporting that look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable and would make any criticisms as redundant as a chocolate squat rack.

[slaveboy1980]

shadow level pathetic

[Necrosis]

Another dose of reality 


Bob Chick GetBig Jan 15 , 2007

The judges made their decision based on what they saw live and in person. Pictures mean nothing as they can be deceiving...

i already told you why quotes suck, hmmm pics can be decieving but people can be biased, out of context, not in relation to the topic of ronnie, etc etc...

i could post conflicting quotes of how great ronnie was what does it proove, nothing, since its not adressing who was the best at there irrespective bests. the pics are the only way to make a comparison, since real life comparison is impossible. dude your not even logical in the statements you make. you were down to arguing skin tones with me as a disadvantage and subsequent excuse to why ronnie looks better ahahha. your grasping at straws

[Hulkster]

you were down to arguing skin tones with me as a disadvantage and subsequent excuse to why ronnie looks better ahahha

pathetic isn't it?

I don't know which is worse:

the fake screencaps debacle

or

the photoelectric effect excuse.

what will be next?

that dorian was not really dorian but rather an android sent down to earth and thats why he doesn't look as good as ronnie?

 

I guess these clowns have never heard of something called Occam's Razor.
 

[Hulkster]

I would say no. hahaha

I guess that means dorian the construction worker was not in the running? hahaha

[NarcissisticDeity]

i already told you why quotes suck, hmmm pics can be decieving but people can be biased, out of context, not in relation to the topic of ronnie, etc etc...

i could post conflicting quotes of how great ronnie was what does it proove, nothing, since its not adressing who was the best at there irrespective bests. the pics are the only way to make a comparison, since real life comparison is impossible. dude your not even logical in the statements you make. you were down to arguing skin tones with me as a disadvantage and subsequent excuse to why ronnie looks better ahahha. your grasping at straws

The quotes suck for YOU because they contradicted everything you claimed , and and now you're backpeddling first you claimed pics don't lie now you're admitting pics can be deceiving , classic sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about

The quotes contradicted your claims that Dorian was holding water in some parts of his body , and your retort was ' well opinions can conflict '  and again I challenge you to find a conflicting report that his conditioning was anything less than what it was , you can't do it , therefore your claim that quotes are worthless because they can be conflicting is garbage ! I have more than one source saying his conditioning was outstanding and the best of all from an I.F.B.B. judge it just doesn't get better than that lol

Just like the quote that Dorian doesn't translate as well on print & film as he does it real life , another quote  with numerous sources another one you claimed is worthless because of ' varying opinions ' which is once again nonsense and why? because there are NO other sources contradcting the claim , once again you're dead wrong , the quotes served their purpose and thats to silence your assessment

I'm not arguing over skin-tones , Dorian has fair skin and under harsh lighting his detail can get washed away in photos & video now I posted a comparison to prove my point and both images were from the same contest one showed clear separation of his bicep and the other showed it appeared smooth with no separation , my point was proven and couple that with the fact that he appears much better in person than both and your assessment is rendered moot , eye witnesses will always trump your opinion because yours is based on inaccurate means and therefore is severely lacking

And then you once again claim these quotes have nothing to do with Ronnie and damn you're not doing well even with this lame opinion and why? because I posted a quote from Lee Priest specifically stating that Dorian would beat Ronnie with ease , so once again WRONG

To beat you down even more I posted a quote from the photographer Kevin Horton who has covered both Ronnie & Dorian over the course of their careers , say amateurs and pros , off-season and on , and he's specifically says that there are pictures of Dorian at a bodyweight of 280-285 pounds with conditioning that has NOT been surpassed , and ironically enough the showing you would think would easily beat Ronnie is 2003 when he was 287 pounds , its a matter of authority who we should believe YOU who thinks Ronnie's conditioning is better than Dorian at his best or an eye witness who is a long standing history with both athletes , who is a professional photographer , who seen them both at their best , who isn't basing his opinion on misleading pics and video , instead basing it on personal experience and flesh & blood , gee this is a tuff one

Kid you are throughly & completely owned by ME do yourself a huge favor and return to the religious board maybe you'll fair better over there , run along an play before you cause yourself more embarrassment.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I would say no. hahaha

I guess that means dorian the construction worker was not in the running? hahaha

Sure he was in the running , Peter McGough said the best physique he seen besides Ronnie 2001 ASC was Yates B&W's at 269 pounds 

[Necrosis]

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 


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 

you truly are a special case. what are the criteria for conditioning moron. it has to be quantifiable. how do you quantify dryness if not in seperation and cuts? you cant, smoothness is lack of speration and detail, cuts etc not some unknown variable like light bending dorian muscle. if seperation,cuts and striations are the criteria for conditioning whch they are(dryness results in these attributes, it has no attribute that is its own) then ronnie wins, in the glutes,arms,delts,quads,hams, and chest how isnt he better conditioned. im not even arguing that 99 ronnie was more conditioned which he clearly was but 03 ronnie and my argument still holds up.

your so dumb you cant see how arguing about lighting is a moot point, because youd have to know many details about each show, position of the stage etc which you dont making it pointless to argue, but you cling to it and skin tone


son, you haven't presented one argument or counter to my questions(they arent even arguments yet lol), there are counter arguments but i can show that your counters are logically the worse scenario. just like antonyflew found out. your non-participation shows your lack of knowledge and intelligence, you started the arguement and when someone asks you a simple question you could google you pretend im challenging you. its not like you have alot going on you've made hundreds of posts, and daily on this thread, what else could you read etcc........ if you spend all your time on here.

dude seriously, your arguments are retarded you whine about lighting anomalies, skin tone, morphed pics,magic qualities, while the ronnie side does non of this. its not hard to see whos losing the argument when you refer to skin tone and lgihting.

[NarcissisticDeity]

you truly are a special case. what are the criteria for conditioning moron. it has to be quantifiable. how do you quantify dryness if not in seperation and cuts? you cant, smoothness is lack of speration and detail, cuts etc not some unknown variable like light bending dorian muscle. if seperation,cuts and striations are the criteria for conditioning whch they are(dryness results in these attributes, it has no attribute that is its own) then ronnie wins, in the glutes,arms,delts,quads,hams, and chest how isnt he better conditioned. im not even arguing that 99 ronnie was more conditioned which he clearly was but 03 ronnie and my argument still holds up.

your so dumb you cant see how arguing about lighting is a moot point, because youd have to know many details about each show, position of the stage etc which you dont making it pointless to argue, but you cling to it and skin tone


son, you haven't presented one argument or counter to my questions(they arent even arguments yet lol), there are counter arguments but i can show that your counters are logically the worse scenario. just like antonyflew found out. your non-participation shows your lack of knowledge and intelligence, you started the arguement and when someone asks you a simple question you could google you pretend im challenging you. its not like you have alot going on you've made hundreds of posts, and daily on this thread, what else could you read etcc........ if you spend all your time on here.

dude seriously, your arguments are retarded you whine about lighting anomalies, skin tone, morphed pics,magic qualities, while the ronnie side does non of this. its not hard to see whos losing the argument when you refer to skin tone and lgihting.

meltdown 

[Necrosis]

The quotes suck for YOU because they contradicted everything you claimed , and and now you're backpeddling first you claimed pics don't lie now you're admitting pics can be deceiving , classic sign of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about

The quotes contradicted your claims that Dorian was holding water in some parts of his body , and your retort was ' well opinions can conflict '  and again I challenge you to find a conflicting report that his conditioning was anything less than what it was , you can't do it , therefore your claim that quotes are worthless because they can be conflicting is garbage ! I have more than one source saying his conditioning was outstanding and the best of all from an I.F.B.B. judge it just doesn't get better than that lol

Just like the quote that Dorian doesn't translate as well on print & film as he does it real life , another quote  with numerous sources another one you claimed is worthless because of ' varying opinions ' which is once again nonsense and why? because there are NO other sources contradcting the claim , once again you're dead wrong , the quotes served their purpose and thats to silence your assessment

I'm not arguing over skin-tones , Dorian has fair skin and under harsh lighting his detail can get washed away in photos & video now I posted a comparison to prove my point and both images were from the same contest one showed clear separation of his bicep and the other showed it appeared smooth with no separation , my point was proven and couple that with the fact that he appears much better in person than both and your assessment is rendered moot , eye witnesses will always trump your opinion because yours is based on inaccurate means and therefore is severely lacking

And then you once again claim these quotes have nothing to do with Ronnie and damn you're not doing well even with this lame opinion and why? because I posted a quote from Lee Priest specifically stating that Dorian would beat Ronnie with ease , so once again WRONG

To beat you down even more I posted a quote from the photographer Kevin Horton who has covered both Ronnie & Dorian over the course of their careers , say amateurs and pros , off-season and on , and he's specifically says that there are pictures of Dorian at a bodyweight of 280-285 pounds with conditioning that has NOT been surpassed , and ironically enough the showing you would think would easily beat Ronnie is 2003 when he was 287 pounds , its a matter of authority who we should believe YOU who thinks Ronnie's conditioning is better than Dorian at his best or an eye witness who is a long standing history with both athletes , who is a professional photographer , who seen them both at their best , who isn't basing his opinion on misleading pics and video , instead basing it on personal experience and flesh & blood , gee this is a tuff one

Kid you are throughly & completely owned by ME do yourself a huge favor and return to the religious board maybe you'll fair better over there , run along an play before you cause yourself more embarrassment.

i was implying what you said moron, that you assume pics can be decieving but you think quotes cant be. the quotes dont refute the pics, dorian was conditioned for a pro but when compared to a much more seperated,striated,cut coleman his conditioning is not, what are the criteria for conditioning that makes dorians superior please tell me what the judges look for and how you quantify it, seperation can to seen/witnessed.

please answer and stop doding the question so you can still sleep at night. you moved from argument to argument with me and i never waivered once in my claims about ronnie, your final argument was lighting and skin tones, and magic powers please kid you went from conditioning to becoming david blane.

[Hulkster]

the quotes dont refute the pics

in ND's world of bias, delusion and magic they apparently do .., if Peter McGough said Ronnie was soft and uncut, but looked like this:


ND would argue until death that he was in fact, soft and uncut, because he 'was there and knows more than we do'

 

the man is an idiot who cannot grasp the concept that pics and videos (when there is an overwhelming amount of corroberating ones) do not lie, but people do.

people can be influenced by many factors in making statements.

tons of corroberating pics and videos cannot.

[Hulkster]

meltdown 

ND is getting crushed so bad this is what he is reduced to in his responses

[Necrosis]

ND is getting crushed so bad this is what he is reduced to in his responses

but hulkster your forgetting the light bending photon smashing qualities of dorians muscle fibers that is unique. also, that pics are always wrong and quotes,gasp, could never be more prone to error based on human fallacies and logic etc.. while a camera never lies, but then again the camera properties alter when taking pics of dorian because of gravitons and sparticles interweaving in a matrix making him look softer. oh and his skin tone hides detail hence we should give him extra points for detail and cuts that would be there granted his tone was better. this argument is similar to saying his arm would be bigger if it wasnt smaller. another logical gem from ND.

[Bear]

Sure he was in the running , Peter McGough said the best physique he seen besides Ronnie 2001 ASC was Yates B&W's at 269 pounds 

Oo 'Peter McGough'. You sound a little like a small boy with misplaced faith in some grown up idol of his. As if his words are the gospel. And B/W is not real. Everyone knows that increased contrast in shading = more impressive appearing muscles, so you're not fooling anyone with that one except yourself.

[NarcissisticDeity]

i was implying what you said moron, that you assume pics can be decieving but you think quotes cant be. the quotes dont refute the pics, dorian was conditioned for a pro but when compared to a much more seperated,striated,cut coleman his conditioning is not, what are the criteria for conditioning that makes dorians superior please tell me what the judges look for and how you quantify it, seperation can to seen/witnessed.

please answer and stop doding the question so you can still sleep at night. you moved from argument to argument with me and i never waivered once in my claims about ronnie, your final argument was lighting and skin tones, and magic powers please kid you went from conditioning to becoming david blane.

You don't pay attention thats your problem , I've said 20 times already why Dorian was better conditioned than Ronnie 2003 because he had less subcutaneous fat & water , Ronnie probably equaled Dorian's conditioning in 2001 at 244 pounds but NOT 2003 at 287 pounds , you're assessment that Ronnie 2003 was better conditioned than Dorian is insanely ignorant

Now factor in that striations are GENETIC and not all bodybuilders have them and I proved you wrong again when you claimed everyone has them not true Ronnie at his absolute best conditioning did not have striations on his rectus femoris , or his long head triceps WHY? and to top it all off Dorian does have striations , on his chest , glutes , intercostals , obliques , lower lats , x-mass tree you're argument is Ronnie has more so he's better conditioned is nonsense , now factor in that pics and video doesn't do him justice compared to real life and your assessment is even more worthless

And you have wavered from your argument thats a lie , you claimed ' pics don't lie , people do ' and then recently you admit ' pics can be deceiving ' thats fucking wavering from your argument lol and my argument  is hasn't budged one bit I maintained that Dorian was better conditioned than Ronnie 2003 I mean besides the obvious I've posted clear quotes that support my claim I mean even the other zealots won't dare say Ronnie 2003 is better conditioned than Dorian at his best lol they are even smarter than that

And my final argument isn't lighting & skin tone thats been put to bed thats proven , harsh lighting can effect ALL bodybuilders but Dorian in particular I've showed with two pictures from the exact same contest and proven my case that lighting can effect the way a person looks in photos and video

I'm arguing that your assessment that Dorian is carrying any water or fat in the context of the bodybuilding terms is flat out wrong , you claimed Dorian's back was dry but his extremities weren't and you're dead wrong an why? because more than one firsthand accounts from eyewitnesses contradict your claim and your claim is not accurate seeing you're basing it on pictures & videos which once again I posted a quote specifically saying from a well trusted bodybuilding authority like Peter McGough who said some bodybuilders  appear much better in person than in print or film , namely Dorian Yates and to further back up my claim that your opinion is useless I posted several more quotes from several different sources all saying the same thing , Yates looks 10 times better in person than in print/film

Your retort to this was , opinions can be conflicting and not 100% accurate because bias , context , etc and that does NOT apply to unanimous opinions just conflicting ones , who is in disagreement that Dorian does indeed look the exact same in person as he does in print & film? NO ONE so your assessment that their opinion is not valid is WRONG period.

Now what are you working with? nothing ! I then add more nails into your coffin by quoting a very reliable source close to both of the mentioned that Dorian at a weight of 280-285 pounds had conditioning that has NOT been surpassed , i.e. at the same weight you claim Ronnie has the advantage in conditioning , Horton says he doesn't your opinion is once again junk , its a matter of authority who are we going to believe ? you basing your opinion on bias and incomplete/inaccurate sources or trusted reliable source ? gee let me think about this one 

And you say opinions can't be trusted because they can conflict each other , etc well your opinion conflicts with mine and so does that mean your opinion is worthless as well?  it can't be trusted? lol

I offered you an easy escape you didn't want it and now you're being punished for your ignorance , so the ball is in your court continue down the path of absurdity or go back to the rock you crawled from under either way I don't care .

[NarcissisticDeity]

Oo 'Peter McGough'. You sound a little like a small boy with misplaced faith in some grown up idol of his. As if his words are the gospel. And B/W is not real. Everyone knows that increased contrast in shading = more impressive appearing muscles, so you're not fooling anyone with that one except yourself.

Oh so the black & whites aren't real now huh?  lmfao man you're not going to live this one down lol

[Necrosis]

You don't pay attention thats your problem , I've said 20 times already why Dorian was better conditioned than Ronnie 2003 because he had less subcutaneous fat & water , Ronnie probably equaled Dorian's conditioning in 2001 at 244 pounds but NOT 2003 at 287 pounds , you're assessment that Ronnie 2003 was better conditioned than Dorian is insanely ignorant

Now factor in that striations are GENETIC and not all bodybuilders have them and I proved you wrong again when you claimed everyone has them not true Ronnie at his absolute best conditioning did not have striations on his rectus femoris , or his long head triceps WHY? and to top it all off Dorian does have striations , on his chest , glutes , intercostals , obliques , lower lats , x-mass tree you're argument is Ronnie has more so he's better conditioned is nonsense , now factor in that pics and video doesn't do him justice compared to real life and your assessment is even more worthless

And you have wavered from your argument thats a lie , you claimed ' pics don't lie , people do ' and then recently you admit ' pics can be deceiving ' thats fucking wavering from your argument lol and my argument  is hasn't budged one bit I maintained that Dorian was better conditioned than Ronnie 2003 I mean besides the obvious I've posted clear quotes that support my claim I mean even the other zealots won't dare say Ronnie 2003 is better conditioned than Dorian at his best lol they are even smarter than that

And my final argument isn't lighting & skin tone thats been put to bed thats proven , harsh lighting can effect ALL bodybuilders but Dorian in particular I've showed with two pictures from the exact same contest and proven my case that lighting can effect the way a person looks in photos and video

I'm arguing that your assessment that Dorian is carrying any water or fat in the context of the bodybuilding terms is flat out wrong , you claimed Dorian's back was dry but his extremities weren't and you're dead wrong an why? because more than one firsthand accounts from eyewitnesses contradict your claim and your claim is not accurate seeing you're basing it on pictures & videos which once again I posted a quote specifically saying from a well trusted bodybuilding authority like Peter McGough who said some bodybuilders  appear much better in person than in print or film , namely Dorian Yates and to further back up my claim that your opinion is useless I posted several more quotes from several different sources all saying the same thing , Yates looks 10 times better in person than in print/film

Your retort to this was , opinions can be conflicting and not 100% accurate because bias , context , etc and that does NOT apply to unanimous opinions just conflicting ones , who is in disagreement that Dorian does indeed look the exact same in person as he does in print & film? NO ONE so your assessment that their opinion is not valid is WRONG period.

Now what are you working with? nothing ! I then add more nails into your coffin by quoting a very reliable source close to both of the mentioned that Dorian at a weight of 280-285 pounds had conditioning that has NOT been surpassed , i.e. at the same weight you claim Ronnie has the advantage in conditioning , Horton says he doesn't your opinion is once again junk , its a matter of authority who are we going to believe ? you basing your opinion on bias and incomplete/inaccurate sources or trusted reliable source ? gee let me think about this one 

And you say opinions can't be trusted because they can conflict each other , etc well your opinion conflicts with mine and so does that mean your opinion is worthless as well?  it can't be trusted? lol

I offered you an easy escape you didn't want it and now you're being punished for your ignorance , so the ball is in your court continue down the path of absurdity or go back to the rock you crawled from under either way I don't care .

dude i keep this short. lighting is not an argument in favor of EITHER bodybuilder for many extraneous variables you nor i know. it is important to to claim one had better then the other as an argument is dumb, making it moot, i wont comment on it agian as you cant seem to grasp that while its important you cant decipher who had better lighting etc making it a worthless argument

so are you saying that striations are locally gentic, that the striations in dorians chest are somehow a genetic thing programmed into his dna and for some reason not his quads. i think not, the more logical conclusion is that all bodybuilders hold water in particular areas and bf and thus have less seperation adn striations. lee priest never had striations in his quads until recently, i guess his genes turned on. muscle is striated, EVERYONES. no obstruction would show a body full of striations, thus lack of striations shows lack of conditioning of that part. ronnie had striations in his quads that he doesnt now, guess his genes turned off. according to your theory how come some guys gain striations(lee priest,jay etc) they never had, would you chalk it up to conditioning improvment or magical gene expression?


you keep saying lower fat and water but how do you quantify that in terms of conditioning that allows you to say dorian is better conditioned, i wont take your word for it, please tell me how to identify low water and low fat please with regards to the criteria. PLEASE ANSWER YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION FOR PAGES NOW, IF YOU THINK YOUR WINNING THE ARGUMENT WHY WOULDNT YOU ANSWER A QUESTION UNLESS YOUR WRONG. ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU SAID YOU'VE AVOIDED NONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

how do you quantify less water and fat in terms of conditioning so the judges can try to objectively score it?

[pobrecito]

Oo 'Peter McGough'. You sound a little like a small boy with misplaced faith in some grown up idol of his. As if his words are the gospel. And B/W is not real. Everyone knows that increased contrast in shading = more impressive appearing muscles, so you're not fooling anyone with that one except yourself.

nah, it's just evening the field with the black bodybuilders who already have that natural contrast

Notice that B/W on Ronnie pictures has a far less dramatic effect than it does on Yates pictures

[Hulkster]

Notice that B/W on Ronnie pictures has a far less dramatic effect than it does on Yates pictures

no, actually, I don't:

 

[pobrecito]

Hulkster, that's hardly dramatic, and really not different from his color pictures to begin with. With his super dark skin he already has a ton of natural contrast with the background. I mean why the f*ck do you think Cutler tried to get black this year

[Necrosis]

Hulkster, that's hardly dramatic, and really not different from his color pictures to begin with. With his super dark skin he already has a ton of natural contrast with the background. I mean why the f*ck do you think Cutler tried to get black this year

what makes them less dramtic, i see no dramatic change in these pics, agian you guys opt for the subjective "yates are more dramatic due to contrast" nonsense. what makes them more dramatic, what quality and how can you apply this to others. without that its your opinion which means shit all.

[Necrosis]

Hulkster, that's hardly dramatic, and really not different from his color pictures to begin with. With his super dark skin he already has a ton of natural contrast with the background. I mean why the f*ck do you think Cutler tried to get black this year

that side tricep of yates isnt that good bro. his bicep is being overpowered, his obliques are giant, his abs are to thick and his chest is flat and his gut is out further then the pec. not to mention the horrible glute,ham,quad tie in that is non-exsistent.


this is all objectivity or as close to it as bodybuilding comes, saying yates was dry without saying how you quantify and observe dryness is an empty statement surely you can see this. as a logical person.

[Hulkster]

not only that, but that side tri is god damn ugly.

yates would have been even better at his best if he had at least HINT of aesthetics.

like ronnie.

I know, I know, dorian didn't NEED asthetics to beat 205 pound shawn ray and 225 pound flex wheeler.

but I think he would need it to beat a 257 pound ronnie with better shape, detail and an equal or better back than dorian himself.

[suckmymuscle]

there was only a 10 lbs difference between 99 and 01 ASC. I already gave a plausible reason why he had up to 3 lbs less fat. This leaves only 7 lbs to explain, which I propose is how much less water he carried. When you consider how much flatter his quads and pecs looked, this figure is not farfetched.

  Your math sucks, plain and simple. Accepting your argument would imply agreeing that Ronnie was at 4% bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia, when the reality is that no one knows exactly what his percentages of bodyfat was at either contests.

  You also argued that he carried more lean mass, "maybe only one or two pounds", so that would be 11 or 12 pounds to explain. Now let's get the low figure of 1 lbs and do the math. Let's also accept your idiotic argument that Ronnie was at 4% bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia. Ok. So:

  11 lbs - 2.87 lbs = 8.13 lbs

  So, you have 8.13 lbs of bodyweight that can only be justified via water loss - if it is accepted that he gained even a single pound of lean muscle tissue from the 1999 Olympia to the 2001 ASC.

  I hate to break it to you, but a healthy, fully hydrated Human Being does not have 8.13 lbs of water in the whole body to lose, let alone a contest-ready bodybuilder like Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia. Losing that much of water in his physique would be impossible, as he would die.

  And take into consideration that I'm being very generous in accepting your ridiculous argument that Ronnie was at 4% bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia. Most likely, he carried the same percentage of bodyfat at both contests, with the difference in conditioning being water. So:

  11 lbs - 0.30 lbs = 10.70 lbs. That's close to 11 lbs that you would have to explain via water loss: impossible.

  Now, I'm still being generous, because while you have showed a quote of Ronnie being 247 lbs, I have a FLEX stating that he was 244 lbs - and NarcissisticDeity posted it. Going by this figure and accepting that Ronnie was at 4% bodyfat at the 1999 Olympia and 3% bodyfat at the 2001 ASC, then:

  14 lbs - 2.96 lbs = 11.04 lbs. That's over 11 lbs of weight loss to be explained via water loss, which is utterly impossible.

  And, if we accept the most usual figure that Ronnie was 3% bodyfat at both contests, with the difference in conditioning being water loss, then:

  14 lbs - 0.39 lbs = 13.61 lbs. That's a thick fat 13 plus pounds for you to explain via water loss, sport.

  In conclusion, Part I: at the very least, Ronnie has 8.13 lbs of unnacounted weight to explain via dehydration, and perhaps as much as 13.61 lbs - assuming the most likely scenario that he was at the same bodyfat percentage on both contests.

  And guess what? In either case, it is impossible! Again, even a healthy person does not have over 8 lbs of water weight to lose before dehydration sets in, let alone a contest-ready bodybuilder who's already dehydrated.

  In conclusion, Part II: Ronnie carried less less muscular mass at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia. Saying otherwise is illogical both from the point of view of physiology as well as mathematics.

SUCKMYMUSCLE