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

[ribonucleic]

LMFAO kid this is old news...

Isn't this entire thread old news at this point? Seriously, do you think there's a single conceivable aspect of this argument that hasn't been rehashed at least 3 times by now?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Isn't this entire thread old news at this point? Seriously, do you think there's a single conceivable aspect of this argument that hasn't been rehashed at least 3 times by now?

You my friend have made a great point ! great post.

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND, what are your thoughts on this gem?

"dorians side tricep is not even close to the best ever seen, phil heath a rookie has a better side tri"....infinite wisdom courtesy of Praetor Fenix

Thats not Preator , he was smater than this one he didn't believe in God lol and I mean come on Phil Heath? he may have a great side triceps shot but he's lacking in some elements of the criteria namely muscular bulk and density , and Dorian's side chest may not be the best ever but it is outstanding !!

[Hulkster]

I think Dorian 1993/1995 would beat Ronnie 2001 asc

you honestly think that a post biceps tear and post quad tear dorian would stand a chance against Ronnie's best?

1993 I can understand.

but not 1995. not only were his arms and quads crappier than ever thanks to prior injuries, his back was as flat as it ever was.

detailed yes.

but flat compared to ronnie's.

[RocketSwitch625]

you honestly think that a post biceps tear and post quad tear dorian would stand a chance against Ronnie's best?

1993 I can understand.

but not 1995. not only were his arms and quads crappier than ever thanks to prior injuries, his back was as flat as it ever was.

detailed yes.

but flat compared to ronnie's.

This is the biggest load of bollocks I have read on any forum.

[NeoSeminole]

01 ASC Ronnie would beat 95 Dorian easily. Ronnie was just too good for the judges to overlook a torn biceps. At least 93 Dorian stands a chance. However, I still feel that Ronnie would win. He has equal, if not better, conditioning and near similar muscularity. A 10 lbs difference is really not that much, especially when you consider that Dorian's midsection alone probably carried 4-5 lbs extra. Ronnie also has smaller joints and rounder muscles (ala Flex Wheeler) that make him look more impressive.

This leaves us with symmetry and definition. Ronnie's balance improved at the 01 ASC due to his downsized quads. If you look at pics, his calves actually looked in proportion to his thighs. He also has superior bilateral symmetry. The only anatomical part I can find on Ronnie that looks asymmetrical are his calves. Dorian, on the other hand, has a whole host of imbalances. His traps don't line up, each bicep is shaped differently (pre-tear), his abs are uneven, and one side of his Christmas tree is asymmetrical to the other. I personally feel that 01 ASC had better overall symmetry, but I'll call it a tie to appease the Dorian nuthuggers. Finally, Ronnie destroys Dorian in definition.

Here's how I see the breakdown in points if we assign each criteria a numerical value (1-10)

Conditioning - Dorian 10 / Ronnie 10
Muscularity - Dorian 9 / Ronnie 8
Symmetry - Dorian 8 / Ronnie 8
Definition - Dorian 6 / Ronnie 9

Ronnie wins 35 to 33 pts.

[NarcissisticDeity]

01 ASC Ronnie would beat 95 Dorian easily. Ronnie was just too good for the judges to overlook a torn biceps. At least 93 Dorian stands a chance. However, I still feel that Ronnie would win. He has equal, if not better, conditioning and near similar muscularity. A 10 lbs difference is really not that much, especially when you consider that Dorian's midsection alone probably carried 4-5 lbs extra. Ronnie also has smaller joints and rounder muscles (ala Flex Wheeler) that make him look more impressive.

This leaves us with symmetry and definition. Ronnie's balance improved at the 01 ASC due to his downsized quads. If you look at pics, his calves actually looked in proportion to his thighs. He also has superior bilateral symmetry. The only anatomical part I can find on Ronnie that looks asymmetrical are his calves. Dorian, on the other hand, has a whole host of imbalances. His traps don't line up, each bicep is shaped differently (pre-tear), his abs are uneven, and one side of his Christmas tree is asymmetrical to the other. I personally feel that 01 ASC had better overall symmetry, but I'll call it a tie to appease the Dorian nuthuggers. Finally, Ronnie destroys Dorian in definition.

Here's how I see the breakdown in points if we assign each criteria a numerical value (1-10)

Conditioning - Dorian 10 / Ronnie 10
Muscularity - Dorian 9 / Ronnie 8
Symmetry - Dorian 8 / Ronnie 8
Definition - Dorian 6 / Ronnie 9

Ronnie wins 35 to 33 pts.

LMFAO you guys totally ignored 2001 for the length of the this , totally passed up him up in favor of much worse showings like 1999 & 2003 now after I post that quote he's you're holy grail lol and Neo where the fucked did you come up with the criteria? thats the dumbest thing I've read from you in a while conditioning and definition are the same thing

This is how contests are judged

Muscularity round
Symmetry round
Free posing
Pose down

Dorian by shear virtue of being 257 pounds is a full 13 pounds heavier than Ronnie's 244 pounds ( remember by YOUR logic you're now bound by everything Peter McGough says  ) would win the muscularity round

Now keep in mind all rounds ARE PHYSIQUE rounds the muscularity & symmetry rounds ARE NOT judges as a separate entity , to be fair I will give Ronnie the symmetry round

Which leaves us with the posing rounds ,and this is where Dorian separates himself from Ronnie and why? he's a much better poser , he has an ability to effectively hide his weakness and to show his physique to its maximum , and he's more of a techincal poser who has a strong mastery of the mandatory poses and simply looks better in most of them , neither were classic posers in the Makkawy , Lee Labrada sense but the edge falls to Dorian

So giving Ronnie the symmetry round it still leaves Dorian with the muscularity round and the two posing rounds and the dishes would be done 

[NeoSeminole]

LMFAO you guys totally ignored 2001 for the length of the this , totally passed up him up in favor of much worse showings like 1999 & 2003 now after I post that quote he's you're holy grail lol

wrong, I still personally feel that 03 is Ronnie's best package. The reason I used 01 ASC Ronnie is b/c you seem to put a greater emphasis on conditioning rather than muscularity. So I picked a version of Ronnie that matches or exceeds Dorian's advantage.

where the fucked did you come up with the criteria? thats the dumbest thing I've read from you in a while conditioning and definition are the same thing

I got that criteria from you, in case you were wondering. I've already established that conditioning and definition are NOT the same. Conditioning refers to how much bodyfat and water a person is carrying. Definition refers to separations and striations. You always boast about Dorian's conditioning like it's part of the criteria. However, his overall definition is mediocre. I figured, according to your posts, they must be two separate categories. So which is it? Dorian can't have both excellent and poor definition simultaneously.

Dorian by shear virtue of being 257 pounds is a full 13 pounds heavier than Ronnie's 244 pounds ( remember by YOUR logic you're now bound by everything Peter McGough says) would win the muscularity round

ha ha ha, I'm not bound by anything b/c I think it's possible for him to be wrong. You're the one who quotes Peter McGough like he's the holy grail of bodybuilding. Furthermore, I believe that he listed the wrong number for 01 ASC Ronnie's weight. Now whether this is a misprint or he had the wrong number is unknown.

Which leaves us with the posing rounds ,and this is where Dorian separates himself from Ronnie and why? he's a much better poser , he has an ability to effectively hide his weakness and to show his physique to its maximum , and he's more of a techincal poser who has a strong mastery of the mandatory poses and simply looks better in most of them , neither were classic posers in the Makkawy , Lee Labrada sense but the edge falls to Dorian

Ronnie has received straight firsts before. So he's not exactly a bad poser. I'm sure that if he knew he was competing against a prime Dorian for the title of "greatest bodybuilder of all-time," he would pull out all the stops. He would also earn back any points he lost from the free posing round in the pose down. Ronnie is much more aggressive than Dorian in the pose down, and the judges seem to reward this. It's moot arguing over the posing rounds anyway b/c it basically comes down to personally preference.

[IceCold]

i have never seen someone been proven wrong so many times with so many qualified reasons, in this case, all the quotes.

hulkster, you need help.

either to read or to understand a paragraph.

actually, kinda pathetic and sad.  

[Hulkster]

i have never seen someone been proven wrong so many times with so many qualified reasons, in this case, all the quotes.

hulkster, you need help.

either to read or to understand a paragraph.

actually, kinda pathetic and sad.  

this coming from Mr. Fake Screencaps...

 

[Necrosis]

to anyone on either side, what is conditioning, how is it quantified in the judges eyes?

please answer, it is seperations,striations, and cuts which refer to intramuscular seperations apart from striations which are how the muscle is composed.

definition is the same thing as conditioning, if not tell me how they are different.


if conditioning is seperation,cuts, and striations then ronnie wins if conditioning is based on other obsevable objective criteria please tell me. if not dorians conditioning is not better then ronnies. ND keeps dodging the question along with the other nuthuggers.

what are the criteria for conditioning. i also would include size and shape to a degree.

what are low levels of bf and water if not seperations,cuts and striations theres no other was to objectively score dryness hence ronnie has better conditioning(the judges try to make objective scores, if not the sport is opinion and thats not how its judged).

[pobrecito]

to anyone on either side, what is conditioning, how is it quantified in the judges eyes?

please answer, it is seperations,striations, and cuts which refer to intramuscular seperations apart from striations which are how the muscle is composed.

definition is the same thing as conditioning, if not tell me how they are different.


if conditioning is seperation,cuts, and striations then ronnie wins if conditioning is based on other obsevable objective criteria please tell me. if not dorians conditioning is not better then ronnies. ND keeps dodging the question along with the other nuthuggers.

what are the criteria for conditioning. i also would include size and shape to a degree.

what are low levels of bf and water if not seperations,cuts and striations theres no other was to objectively score dryness hence ronnie has better conditioning(the judges try to make objective scores, if not the sport is opinion and thats not how its judged).

condition is the absense of extracellular/subcutaneous fat and water.

[suckmymuscle]

 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

  

  Sperm, you moron, read carefully this post of mine where I tear down your idiotic theory about the muscularity of the 2001 ASC Ronnie to shreds. 11 lbs difference in bodyweight, with at least 8 lbs of it having to be explained via water loss. You incredible, incredible dumbass!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pobrecito]

  Sperm, you moron, read carefully this post of mine where I tear down your idiotic theory about the muscularity of the 2001 ASC Ronnie to shreds. 11 lbs difference in bodyweight, with at least 8 lbs of it having to be explained via water loss. You incredible, incredible dumbass!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

This has to be one of the most clear-cut ownages in this entire thread due to the fact that you based your response on mathematics. However, my gripes with you are limited to the subjective, and therefore, neither you, nor I can be deemed correct

[Hulkster]

condition is the absense of extracellular/subcutaneous fat and water.

yes but the whole idea of getting conditioned in the first place is to display DETAIL.

dorian's arms and quads just have enough of it compared to Ronnie.

and this would hurt him greatly.

and before you retards jump in and start shouting, ronnie's 1994 or 95 or whatever form that was dominated by everyone on the pro circuit including dorian is not the same as his 1999 form...

[pobrecito]

yes but the whole idea of getting conditioned in the first place is to display DETAIL.

dorian's arms and quads just have enough of it compared to Ronnie.

and this would hurt him greatly.

and before you retards jump in and start shouting, ronnie's 1994 or 95 or whatever form that was dominated by everyone on the pro circuit including dorian is not the same as his 1999 form...

Please explain what "detail" Dorian is "missing" in his arms compared to Ronnie. Take away Ronnie's veins and they will look the same as Dorian's arms.

[delta9mda]

dorian's side tri is good but damn, you need to have some biceps to make the pose look really good:

calves and triceps are required for the pose.

[pobrecito]

calves and triceps are required for the pose.

No. Calves are required for every pose.

[NeoSeminole]

Sperm, you moron, read carefully this post of mine where I tear down your idiotic theory about the muscularity of the 2001 ASC Ronnie to shreds. 11 lbs difference in bodyweight, with at least 8 lbs of it having to be explained via water loss. You incredible, incredible dumbass!

ha ha ha, is that the best you've got? "Incredible, incredible dumbass?" I will admit that from a theoretical standpoint it seems that 01 ASC Ronnie lost some muscle. However, from a common sense standpoint it doesn't stand to reason. The only way to settle this discussion is by asking Ronnie himself. I just have a difficult time believing that Ronnie actually shrunk from 99 to 01.

[NeoSeminole]

condition is the absense of extracellular/subcutaneous fat and water.

no shit, but how do you determine conditioning without looking at definition? The judges don't use hydrostatic weighing onstage. So they have no way to directly measure a bodybuilder's fat and water levels.

[Iceman1981]

someone post a side tricep shot of phil and dorian with phil from the new york and dorian from a contest, not pre contest or offseason. im sure you'll soon learn you lose.

im nt preator moron ND even said it, im the easter bunny. either way someone please post a good comparison in stage lighting of the both

iceman think you could hook this up.

Here:

[Iceman1981]

someone post a side tricep shot of phil and dorian with phil from the new york and dorian from a contest, not pre contest or offseason. im sure you'll soon learn you lose.

im nt preator moron ND even said it, im the easter bunny. either way someone please post a good comparison in stage lighting of the both

iceman think you could hook this up.

Here:

[NeoSeminole]

more pics of 01 ASC Ronnie

[realkarateblackbelt]

Heath looks like he's retaining water.

"All drugs"

He's the new Paul Dillet.

[Iceman1981]

more pics of 01 ASC Ronnie

A screencap I found at the ASC. Ripped, chest striated, delts are seperated, tricep is dry, abs are ripped, traps are huge.