Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce  (Read 3526399 times)

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22425 on: January 28, 2007, 10:02:37 PM »
check out this close-up of his triceps :o


NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83360
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22426 on: January 29, 2007, 01:00:22 AM »
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.

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.

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.

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.


Quote
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.

First of all you're wrong on most of your points , conditioning & muscularity go hand & hand being heavier doesn't imply you're more muscular , point ? Dorian Yates beating Lee Haney in the mucularity round in 1991 despite being 11 pounds lighter , and why a 205 pound Shawn Ray could beat a 285 pound Nasser , and I don't put a greater emphasis on conditioning rather than ' muscularity ' the judges looks for who meets the criteria better , all the criteria

Quote
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.

You didn't get anything from me especially not that garbage , and conditioning & definition are the same thing , how does one get muscle definition? with conditioning the absence of fat and water in the muscles and what happens when all the fat & water is removed from the equation? the muscles separation is more visible and striations , although they are genetic and not everyone has them , so you figured wrong from my posts

Quote
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.

No no you agreed with him when pressed of 01 ASC was his best overall package , and YOU were the one who said I'm bound to agree with everything he says and when I was done laughing at you I said I respect his opinion very much but I don't have to agree with it all the time , now by your own logic you said I had to so now you're backpeddling you're a hypocrite  ;) and again I've seen his weight listed at 244 pounds several times it may be higher but its not once I've seen that weight listed



Quote
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.

Yes Ronnie has received straight firsts before not many times but he has , but Dorian to my knowledge has won every single posing rounds with straight firsts with the exception of one , so please spare me the Ronnie would pull out all the stops his whole career he can barely pull of mandated poses but now he's supposed to learn , his logic if you haven't noticed is ' if it ain't broke don't fix it ' and you just contradicted yourself Ronnie is more ' aggressive ' in the posedown than Dorian and the judges seem to reward that Yet Dorian wasn't as aggressive and always won the pose down and why? because people were ALWAYS chasing him lol he was very aggressive in 1991 , but make no mistake the posing rounds favor Dorian , especially when you consider he has the ability to effectively hide his weaknesses and he has a strong command of the mandatory poses , and this doesn't come down to preference it comes down to skill and while neither are Lee Labrada Yates would always do the poses better than Ronnie , this is old new

Once again Dorian would win the muscularity round , Ronnie ( will be fair ) the symmetry round and Dorian both posing rounds , you're out of luck kid.

NarcissisticDeity

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 83360
  • Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22427 on: January 29, 2007, 01:06:03 AM »
check out this close-up of his triceps :o



LMFAO for all the guys who keep claiming Dorian lags behind in separation , check out this tricep , better shape , better separation  ;)

Bear

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22428 on: January 29, 2007, 02:09:11 AM »
Oh so the black & whites aren't real now huh?  lmfao man you're not going to live this one down lol

For someone who has moaned about the non-existant colour-manipulation of some '99 Ronnie screencaps, it amazes be that you can't understand this basic principle of increased shading. Of course the b/w pics are real in as far as Dorian was there in front of the camera, but he never had all that definition, at least not to the extent of those manipulated pics. In fact apart from lower back he had none at all, lol. For someone who preaches such superiority you demonstrate a fantastic anability to infer correct meaning. As I stated before you're only kidding yourself, but from the number of posts you have on here I guess such self-deception is how you get through the day. :)

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22429 on: January 29, 2007, 02:10:26 AM »
First of all you're wrong on most of your points , conditioning & muscularity go hand & hand being heavier doesn't imply you're more muscular , point ? Dorian Yates beating Lee Haney in the mucularity round in 1991 despite being 11 pounds lighter , and why a 205 pound Shawn Ray could beat a 285 pound Nasser , and I don't put a greater emphasis on conditioning rather than ' muscularity ' the judges looks for who meets the criteria better , all the criteria.

Muscularity, to my understanding, is judged on bulk (size) and definition (separations and striations). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I don't claim to be an expert on bodybuilding criteria. Dorian beat Haney in the muscularity round b/c of his bigger legs and superior definition from the back.

Quote
You didn't get anything from me especially not that garbage , and conditioning & definition are the same thing , how does one get muscle definition? with conditioning the absence of fat and water in the muscles and what happens when all the fat & water is removed from the equation? the muscles separation is more visible and striations , although they are genetic and not everyone has them , so you figured wrong from my posts

Conditioning and definition may go hand in hand, but they are not the same. The purpose of one is to display the other. When a bodybuilder is well conditioned, people say "look at those separations and striations. He must have very low body fat and water levels." They don't say "look at that conditioning. He must have separations and striations."

Quote
No no you agreed with him when pressed of 01 ASC was his best overall package , and YOU were the one who said I'm bound to agree with everything he says and when I was done laughing at you I said I respect his opinion very much but I don't have to agree with it all the time , now by your own logic you said I had to so now you're backpeddling you're a hypocrite and again I've seen his weight listed at 244 pounds several times it may be higher but its not once I've seen that weight listed

I said that Ronnie's 01 ASC package looks the best. However, I still feel that he reached his prime in 03. I fail to see how I'm a hypocrite for not agreeing with all of Peter McGough's opinions. You're the one who claims that 99 Ronnie was carrying more water than 98 b/c Peter said so, not me. The only reason I posted his quote about Ronnie having the best back of all-time was to show that if you accept one comment, then you must accept them all otherwise you concede that he could be wrong in his assessments.

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22430 on: January 29, 2007, 02:11:58 AM »
LMFAO for all the guys who keep claiming Dorian lags behind in separation , check out this tricep , better shape , better separation

Ronnie is destroying Dorian in definition there. His triceps long head also appears to be longer.

NeoSeminole

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Ronnie > Dorian
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22431 on: January 29, 2007, 02:22:29 AM »
For someone who has moaned about the non-existant colour-manipulation of some '99 Ronnie screencaps, it amazes be that you can't understand this basic principle of increased shading. Of course the b/w pics are real in as far as Dorian was there in front of the camera, but he never had all that definition, at least not to the extent of those manipulated pics. In fact apart from lower back he had none at all, lol. For someone who preaches such superiority you demonstrate a fantastic anability to infer correct meaning. As I stated before you're only kidding yourself, but from the number of posts you have on here I guess such self-deception is how you get through the day.

exactly, notice the huge difference black and white makes.












Bear

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22432 on: January 29, 2007, 02:33:41 AM »
Good point well made. Narcissistic Denialist and Rocketcockney refuting this will be a laugh.

GoneAway

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22433 on: January 29, 2007, 05:15:06 AM »
Here's an idea! Why not go bodpart by bodypart? Once it's done, tally the scores up (each bodypart is given a number of importance) and see who has the most points.

Theoak*

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1436
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22434 on: January 29, 2007, 05:27:07 AM »
For someone who has moaned about the non-existant colour-manipulation of some '99 Ronnie screencaps, it amazes be that you can't understand this basic principle of increased shading. Of course the b/w pics are real in as far as Dorian was there in front of the camera, but he never had all that definition, at least not to the extent of those manipulated pics. In fact apart from lower back he had none at all, lol. For someone who preaches such superiority you demonstrate a fantastic anability to infer correct meaning. As I stated before you're only kidding yourself, but from the number of posts you have on here I guess such self-deception is how you get through the day. :)

OWNED

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22435 on: January 29, 2007, 06:10:08 AM »
Here's an idea! Why not go bodpart by bodypart? Once it's done, tally the scores up (each bodypart is given a number of importance) and see who has the most points.

You obviously have a lot to learn about how shows are judged.

natural al

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6309
  • like it or don't, learn to live with it..whooooooo
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22436 on: January 29, 2007, 06:18:32 AM »
You obviously have a lot to learn about how shows are judged.

and how this thread is run.
nasser=piece of shit

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22437 on: January 29, 2007, 06:30:22 AM »
condition is the absense of extracellular/subcutaneous fat and water.

this response shows how much you know. how do you know if somone ha s low fat/water? what do the judges look for that shows this property.

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22438 on: January 29, 2007, 06:32:58 AM »
this response shows how much you know. how do you know if somone ha s low fat/water? what do the judges look for that shows this property.

You asked for a definition of condition, I gave it to you.

ND has owned you so badly I'm surprised you have the balls to come back in here.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9905
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22439 on: January 29, 2007, 06:35:48 AM »
haha, ND was raped by me and turned to magic powers and skin tone. and he still dodges my questions ahhahahaha, "if dorians arm wasnt smaller it would be bigger"-ND. this is one of ronnies better side tris ive seen.

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22440 on: January 29, 2007, 06:39:43 AM »
Ronnie look like SHIT in the side tri....he got beat by fucking gustavo baddell hahahahahahahahahaa

GoneAway

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22441 on: January 29, 2007, 07:39:10 AM »
You obviously have a lot to learn about how shows are judged.

I guess so.

and how this thread is run.

Right again.

I was just trying to find a definate answer to put this thread to sleep. How many times can you rehash the SAME argument... the same exact lines... the same pics... ? Something I don't understand here. It's like going round in circles.

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22442 on: January 29, 2007, 07:43:48 AM »
I guess so.

Right again.

I was just trying to find a definate answer to put this thread to sleep. How many times can you rehash the SAME argument... the same exact lines... the same pics... ? Something I don't understand here. It's like going round in circles.

The definitive answer is that Yates would win, just as he did the 8 times Yates and Coleman met on stage. However, Hulkster refuses to admit this, and posts over and over again, pictures of Yates at his worst against Coleman at his best, that is his MO. Then Camp Yates has to educate this fool and put him in check.

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22443 on: January 29, 2007, 08:49:03 AM »
this coming from Mr. Fake Screencaps...

 ::)


here's another example regarding the screencaps that maybe you can understand.

6 people all witness a crime - same location, same everything.

5 of those people all agree on the same story, 1 person says something different - despite having no more knowledge, better point of view, etc. than the other 5.

then there is 1 person who says something different.

who do you think the jury will believe?

the 5 people who saw the exact same thing and all of their stories match or the 1 person who saw the same thing but says somthing different.

the 1 person is the fake screencaps.  taken at the same contest, with the same source of equipment and media, but match nothing. 
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22444 on: January 29, 2007, 09:55:43 AM »
What year is this?

IceCold

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4878
  • Getbig!
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22445 on: January 29, 2007, 10:07:50 AM »
looks like 92. 

the same year ronnie finished out of the top 15 with his taper, arms, striations, details, etc.
R.I.P. DIMEBAG DARRELL ABBOTT (1966-2004)

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22446 on: January 29, 2007, 11:16:38 AM »
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.

  Common sense tells me that, if a man loses 10 lbs or more of bodyweight and it can't be entirely explained via the loss of fat, water, bone and organ mass, then the diferential that is unaccounted for must be explained via the loss of skeletal muscle tissue. ;)

SUCKMYMUSCLE


Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22447 on: January 29, 2007, 11:18:21 AM »
looks like 92. 

the same year ronnie finished out of the top 15 with his taper, arms, striations, details, etc.

Thanks for the year and your "extra 2 cents"

Iceman1981

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • www.LegendsOfBodybuilding.com
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22448 on: January 29, 2007, 11:20:52 AM »
How old is yates here?

suckmymuscle

  • Guest
Re: Hulkster I'm calling for a Truce
« Reply #22449 on: January 29, 2007, 11:23:56 AM »
Check out these pics guys:

http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/1999britishgrandprix

Post a pic of Dorian looking like this:



  Some points to consider:

  He's holding water

  The light is hitting him straight on

  The contrast between the black background and the light hitting him emphasizes details

  He has some gut distension

SUCKMYMUSCLE