funny how he avoids the real questions and the ones he responds to it seems as though he cannot comprehend the meaning. perhaps we should try subliminal messages for ND to decipher what people are trying to say
-some of NDS logic
-dorian is even better in person, while ronnie is not, thus the pictures arent accurate, ronnie is the same and yates becomes better
- pictures of dorian could have been taken better, but not ronnies, the said pretend pictures would show that dorian was better
-if yates arms were bigger then they woudnt be small
-lighting effects have been against yates his whole career while ronnies lighitng has been optimal, hence yates would be better in imaginary land with better lighting
-dryness doesnt equal seperation,cuts,symmetry it is just dryness to which the judges can tell the amounts of water, sort of like bodybuilding meterologists
-symmetry can be measured between none identical parts
-striations are genetic, even though people have gained them at different times in there career, hence rapid gene expression for some unknown reason
-people can still be shredded and holding water
-the planet is flat
- black and white pics dont make you look better.
-yates calves werent too big for his quads
- a tear wouldnt throw off symmetry.
still wont answer the questoin will ya pumpkin, the funny thing is you wont make an assement becasue you dont know what constitutes conditioning.
what is the objective criteria for conditioning?
please pay attention and answer, i dont see what the problem is your lack of engagment of simple questions shows that you either dont know or do and realize you are wrong.
-dorian is even better in person, while ronnie is not, thus the pictures arent accurate, ronnie is the same and yates becomes better
I've posted at least 5 different quotes all all from eyewitnesses saying Dorian looks 10 times better in person than he does in print or film , and you cannot accurately determine Dorian's conditioning with A ) taking this information in and B ) not being their in person on both mentioned occasions with both bodybuilders , and I never once claimed Ronnie doesn't look better or the same , I said I've never once said I read that attribute about Ronnie , if you have it feel free to post it until then stop crying and please quote me correctly or don't quote me at all because any misinformation from you will be quickly corrected
- pictures of dorian could have been taken better, but not ronnies, the said pretend pictures would show that dorian was better
I didn't say pictures if Dorian could have been taken better , the photographer of that particular series of shots said they were terrible from a technical standpoint and couple that with his quote that a bodyweight of 280-285 pounds his conditioning has not been surpassed , now factor in the black & whites aren't the best representation of that physique and why? lets see gym shots in dark light , sure it helps to an extent but given time to be tanned , have posing oil applied and under contest lighting he would be that more impressive to argue to the contrary is just nonsense hence why all of those things are done at a show to fully accentuate the physique to its maximum potential
-if yates arms were bigger then they woudnt be small
I never once claimed this , is this what you've been reduced to? you don't have anything to work with and now you're making stuff up? lol
-lighting effects have been against yates his whole career while ronnies lighitng has been optimal, hence yates would be better in imaginary land with better lighting
I never once claimed Ronnie's lighting has always been optimal thats another LIE you pulled that rabbit out of your ass , I said sometimes harsh lighting can effect Dorian MORE than Ronnie in pics & video ( and in person to an extent ) because he has naturally fair skin and Ronnie obviously doesn't , both Ronnie & Dorian have had contests were the lighting hasn't been optimal , but my point was YOU CANNOT ascertain his level of conditioning knowing this information based on a faulty means such as photos & videos , you'd be working with more if you live & in person but you'd still have problems with intangibles , bias , preference , ignorance ( seeing we're having the conversation it proves you're ignorant
) etc so either way you're fucked
-dryness doesnt equal seperation,cuts,symmetry it is just dryness to which the judges can tell the amounts of water, sort of like bodybuilding meterologists
absolute BULLSHIT this statement among the others show how little you know , muscle dryness is just another term for conditioning and ' definition ' how does one become dry ? shedding excess water & subcutaneous fat , what happens when muscles are rid of water & fat the muscles become
DRY & HARD you know the opposite of SOFT & HOLDING water , well for the idiots how does one tell if a person is DRY & HARD ? they don't hydrostatically weigh each competitor before , during a contest , well of course not silly , the judges do it
VISUALLY for the retarded that was visually , well how does one visually tell if a competitor is DRY & HARD ? a number of ways including , thinness of skin , muscle separations and yes even striations , yet one can carry a film of water and still be striated so while its a part of the ' definition ' its NOT the only part and not always accurate , with every post you make you reveal how little you know
-symmetry can be measured between none identical parts
First of all if you knew anything about how bodybuilding contests are judged you'd know that in the symmetry round competitors are NOT judged on symmetry alone as its own separate entity , ALL ROUNDS are physique rounds , same with the muscularity round , symmetry refers to right/left exactness and I hate to break it to you nothing in nature is truly symmetrical , you think both of Ronnie Colemans arms measure lets say 22' 5'16" ? NO of course NOT while I'm sure they do look at this to an extent the symmetry round is more based in proportional & balanced development , which my friend Dorian has the clear edge in regardless if you disagree
-striations are genetic, even though people have gained them at different times in there career, hence rapid gene expression for some unknown reason
Again striations are genetic , hence why Ronnie never had them in his rectus femoris , or long head triceps not matter how great his conditioning was and you're right some people do get striations after a while and its usually dependent of conditioning factors and even well conditioned bodybuilders cane be striated in other places but not in the glutes , why? because they're one of the last places to be rid of excess water & fat
-people can still be shredded and holding water
Absolutely see Ronnie Coleman 2000 Mr Olympia its very possible to be dry in one area and be holding water in others , and its possible to have a film of water over striated muscle
-the planet is flat
More filler because you don't have ZERO to work with
- black and white pics dont make you look better.
I never said they don't make you look better , I said given the right set of circumstances all the black & white shots of Dorian would look even better
-yates calves werent too big for his quads
MONSTER stupid insanely moronic statement of epic proportions , this isn't worthy or a honest reply , you should be ashamed of every typing this again , seriously dude if you want to EVERY even for a pico-second be taken seriously spare yourself
- a tear wouldnt throw off symmetry.
Symmetry under what context? right/left exactness? well it was never symmetrical to begin with , under the context of proportion in relation not it wouldn't hurt his ' symmetry ' or should I say it never effected his symmetry
still wont answer the questoin will ya pumpkin, the funny thing is you wont make an assement becasue you dont know what constitutes conditioning.
what is the objective criteria for conditioning?
please pay attention and answer, i dont see what the problem is your lack of engagment of simple questions shows that you either dont know or do and realize you are wrong.
[/quote]
All of your ignorant nonsense if addressed , dismantled , dismissed and corrected , I don't need to run from ANYTHING you claim , you're not even a worthy adversary , like 10 out of 10 Coleman fans that preceded you , you DO NOT KNOW how physique contests are judged , you don't know the criteria ( definition round ring a bell ? ) and you don't know the terminology , I have exposed you for what you are..........simple , so do yourself a favor and run along back to the religious board because maybe you had better luck there then you ever had here and thats only because I wasn't there
