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

[Hulkster]

You know what makes me smile? do have what I've been saying for a very long time now confirmed by a professional because it validates my knowledge and crushes evryone who disagreed with me


Bev Francis : Bodybuilder's phsyique you most admire ?

The man Dorian Yates , his combination of size and shape makes for an awesome physique , unlike a lot of big guys he's not a load of massive parts just thrown together , His symmetry is almost perfect , Everything is in proportion , no weak bodyparts .


I mean like I said Dorian at his best had outstanding balance & proportion and unlike Ronnie he isn't just a bunch of parts thrown together , I mean can I get any better ? just like I always called Ronnie having a mediocre side chest shot and side triceps only to have it confimed by Shawn Ray , damn I'm good.

no, you are an idiot because in a sport based on visuals, you rely on quotes over real comparisons everytime

when was that bev francis quote made? I am pretty sure well before 1998 or 1999..

[suckmymuscle]

Suckmyasshole tactic #3 - if your argument rests on nothing more than assumptions, make up evidence to 'strengthen' your position.

  It is not based on assumptions, you dumbshit. I proved that your claim is impossible mathematically and physiologically. You got owned by yours truly and you know it.

mere speculation on your behalf, which you're trying to pass off as fact. I agree that Ronnie lost weight from the 99 Mr. Olympia to the 01 ASC. What we don't see eye to eye on is whether this included lean mass. We don't even know when his weight at both contests were taken. For all we know, the 257 lbs could have been measured at the evening show in 99 when he carried more water.

  Another retarded tangencial argument that you're using to save face. I have seen pictures from the 1999 Olympia, both pre-judging and night show, and I don't think that Ronnie was holding more water at the night show than he was at pre-judging. But let's assume he was - again, I'm being generous. The difference could not possibly be more than 2 lbs, because Ronnie at the night show of the 1999 Olympia was already pretty dehydrated, and 2 lbs is a lot under those circumstances. So, 255 lbs. Furthermore, since Ronnie was even more dehydrated at the pre-judging of the 2001 ASC than at the pre-judging of the 1999 Olympia, then the difference in water levels between the night show and the pre-judging of the 1999 Olympia is very, very small. The total difference in water level between the night show of the 1999 Olympia and the pre-judging of the 2001 ASC is no more than 3 or 4 lbs or so. In conclusion: 4 lbs of water + 3 lbs of fat = you still have 3 lbs or more to justify, which could only possibly be the result of a loss in lean muscle mass.

  And by the way, I can see that you're copying my argumentative tactics. Nice going, proving that you are mentally inferior to me and, thus, need to equivocally use my tactics against me because you ca't come up with your own. No, idiot: the speculation is on your side! That's the entire point I proved mathematically and that you're runing away from.

ha ha ha ha, just ask Pubes. He embarrassed you for the pathetic lowlife that you are.

  The same guy that said I gave you one of the most clear-cut ownings on this thread? By the way, I demonstrated that Wheeler at his best - 1993 ASC - had better taper than Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia, so there was no ownage involved.

bwahahahahahahahaha. You got jokes, son. Where do you come up with this shit? "I never need to save face b/c I'm never wrong." "I have a life and I don't consider replying to you to be something relevant in my life." ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  Oh, I never said having fun at your expense isn't relevant. It's just that I have anally pounded you so badly throughout this thread that I see no point in continuing doing it except that is amuzes me.

I guess that's why you repost yourself several times until I respond to you, or why you threaten to call me a b*tch if I don't address your posts. Now all of a sudden you're too busy to be inconvenienced by my replies.

  That's the difference between me and you: I might take time to reply, but I always do. When you get owned, conversely, you run away and hide, like the little board c.u.n.t that you truly are.

I didn't ask you to provide a link showing me where the brachialis muscle is. I asked you to circle Ronnie's brachialis to prove that you know where it's located.

  Oh yeah, I don't know where the brachialis is. You're so fucking pathetic, dude. You quote me for spelling mistakes, correct me for mistaking an inch to centimeter conversion by one centimeter and then accuse me of not knowing where the brachialis muscle is.

The reason I issued you the challenge is b/c I knew you were wrong. Once you realized this, you tried to weasel your f*aggot ass out to save face. Then you started making up excuses, "I won't respond until you first prove to me the following..."

  Let's get something very straight: I stand by what I said 100%: Ronnie's brachialis suck in comparison to his biceps and triceps. Since I'm not wrong, that I don't understand what your point is.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

oh really? By all means, please explain how I took a beating when I accidentally typed rhomboids or when Suckmyasshole argued that 01 ASC Ronnie was actually smaller than in 96. Go ahead.

  Ugh...but he was smaller, you retard. Gravity dictates that a 250 lbs mass is greater than a 244 or 247 lbs mass. By definition, Ronnie was bigger in 1996 than at the 2001 ASC. Now, Ronnie was more conditioned at the 2001 ASC and 3 lbs is little, so he may have carried apound or two more mass at the 2001 ASC than at the 1996 CPC or Olympia, but that's a different story.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

oh please, is that the best you've got? Ronnie was carrying less fat and less water, and he had smaller quads. Other than that, he was the same size everywhere else. 

  Thank you for agreeing with me. Since you admit that his quads were smaller, then you admit that his overral lean muscle mass was down from 1999.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[ozman]

932 pages

fair dinkum

get over it

[suckmymuscle]

ha ha ha ha, don't make me laugh kid. Dorian's triceps are smaller and have less definition overall. You're just looking at one triceps head and proclaiming Dorian the winner. You have to look at all heads from all angles.

  It doesen't matter, since two of the triceps heads are only visible from one angle! And Dorian's biceps were outstanding; they were only sub-par when compared to his utter magnificence!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Dorian's front lat spread was characterized by extreme latissumus flare, and the exarcebation of taper by the downgrading of the clavicles as taper-creator here. This was compounded by praeter-human hardness.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Dorian had superb abdominal separations at a bodyweight above 260 lbs; at around 220 lbs, his abs and serratus were better than Ray's!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  A yound amateur Dorian doing the rear lat spread. Even then, the sheer quality of his lats were obvious, exemplified by very low attachment at the tendon, and a tremendous christmas-tree development.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Dorian as a youth, doing a side triceps mandatory. Even though the triceps are barely visible here, the lengh of his pectoralis muscle bellies and the close to perfect structure is clearly visible, exemplified by the wide clavicles and short torso.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  A front double biceps comparison between two years. In both pics, the quadriceps separations are awesome, with clear delineation between rectus femoris, vastus meidialis and lateralis. The pectoralis are massive as well. Even the biceps show great improvement in size.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Dorian at 310 lbs off-season. Even at the monstrous bodyweight, the delt tie-in is still clearly visible, as well as hints of abdominal separations. And look at the thickness of that lat!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Dorian as a youth, doing a side chest mandatory. Observe how his pectoralis muscle bellies are long.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Young Dorian, doing the front double biceps: incredible separations for an amateur, long muscle bellies and perfect structure. Hints of future greatness!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Who was the moron who said Dorian lacked pectoralis striations? Oh yes, that was Sperm.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[pobrecito]

Suckmymuscle,

Do you have "Blood and Guts" (book) ?

[suckmymuscle]

  Hello, Ronnie? Come and peep at my calves. I'm 45 and retired from competition for nine years, and they're still bigger than yours!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  For the morons who claim that Dorian's biceps were sub-par, I've got news: they were still outstanding! The fact that Dorian's biceps were his "weak" bodypart goes to show Dorian's bodybuilding caliber!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  These are great biceps, although not phenomenal! Cut Dorian some slack: this is his only " liability"!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Hey, even Mr.Olympia can take it easy with the poundages sometimes!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

It is not based on assumptions, you dumbshit. I proved that your claim is impossible mathematically and physiologically. You got owned by yours truly and you know it.

your argument is entirely based on assumptions. You have no way of proving that 99 Ronnie was less than 4% bf or that he was carrying less than 7 lbs of water. The difference in weight was only 10 lbs (I found a quote from Peter McGough later saying that Ronnie was 247 lbs at the 01 ASC). It's not far-fetched that Ronnie could weigh less without sacrificing lean mass.

Another retarded tangencial argument that you're using to save face. I have seen pictures from the 1999 Olympia, both pre-judging and night show, and I don't think that Ronnie was holding more water at the night show than he was at pre-judging. But let's assume he was - again, I'm being generous. The difference could not possibly be more than 2 lbs, because Ronnie at the night show of the 1999 Olympia was already pretty dehydrated, and 2 lbs is a lot under those circumstances. So, 255 lbs. Furthermore, since Ronnie was even more dehydrated at the pre-judging of the 2001 ASC than at the pre-judging of the 1999 Olympia, then the difference in water levels between the night show and the pre-judging of the 1999 Olympia is very, very small. The total difference in water level between the night show of the 1999 Olympia and the pre-judging of the 2001 ASC is no more than 3 or 4 lbs or so. In conclusion: 4 lbs of water + 3 lbs of fat = you still have 3 lbs or more to justify, which could only possibly be the result of a loss in lean muscle mass.

it's not "tangencial" b/c any unknown variables could significantly alter this discussion. They wouldn't matter if we still had 10-15 lbs left to account for, but we are arguing over a few lbs. An extra 1-2 lbs of water is a lot.

And by the way, I can see that you're copying my argumentative tactics. Nice going, proving that you are mentally inferior to me and, thus, need to equivocally use my tactics against me because you ca't come up with your own. No, idiot: the speculation is on your side! That's the entire point I proved mathematically and that you're runing away from.

ha ha ha, where do you get this shit from? Now you're claiming that I'm copying your argument style for using the word "speculation?"

The same guy that said I gave you one of the most clear-cut ownings on this thread? By the way, I demonstrated that Wheeler at his best - 1993 ASC - had better taper than Ronnie at the 1999 Olympia, so there was no ownage involved.

Pubes will say anything to boost camaraderie among the Dorian nuthuggers. Someone can post a horrible shot of Dorian with a huge gut and a missing arm, and he'll still chime in with "look at that conditioning. Ronnie never looked that good." I take what he says with a grain of salt.

That's the difference between me and you: I might take time to reply, but I always do. When you get owned, conversely, you run away and hide, like the little board c.u.n.t that you truly are.

by all means, please tell me where I got owned. This will be good.

Oh yeah, I don't know where the brachialis is. You're so fucking pathetic, dude. You quote me for spelling mistakes, correct me for mistaking an inch to centimeter conversion by one centimeter and then accuse me of not knowing where the brachialis muscle is.

you're the idiot who said that Ronnie's brachialis is too small for his biceps - NOT me. I wanted to make sure you even know where it's located b/c you would realize that you're wrong.

[pobrecito]

Pubes will say anything to boost camaraderie among the Dorian nuthuggers. Someone can post a horrible shot of Dorian with a huge gut and a missing arm, and he'll still chime in with "look at that conditioning. Ronnie never looked that good." I take what he says with a grain of salt.

Here's your "grain of salt" you loser.

I dare you to post any picture of Coleman looking this dry and hard.

[NeoSeminole]

Who was the moron who said Dorian lacked pectoralis striations? Oh yes, that was Sperm.

hey dipshit, there aren't any seated bench press machines onstage.

[haider]

hey dipshit, there aren't any seated bench press machines onstage.

hahahahahahahha

[suckmymuscle]

your argument is entirely based on assumptions.

  Yes, but my assumptions are far more reasonable than yours. He lost 10 lbs of weight, but had only 3 to 5 lbs of water and fat to lose.

You have no way of proving that 99 Ronnie was less than 4% bf or that he was carrying less than 7 lbs of water. The difference in weight was only 10 lbs (I found a quote from Peter McGough later saying that Ronnie was 247 lbs at the 01 ASC). It's not far-fetched that Ronnie could weigh less without sacrificing lean mass.

  Why not 2%? Why did Ronnie carry more bodyfat in 1999 than in 2001? Why couldn't the decrease in bodyweight be caused by a decrease in lean muscle mass and water? I don't have to prove anything, since the burden of proof lies with those who make the accusation.

it's not "tangencial" b/c any unknown variables could significantly alter this discussion. They wouldn't matter if we still had 10-15 lbs left to account for, but we are arguing over a few lbs. An extra 1-2 lbs of water is a lot.

  Ugh... I have proved mathematically that Ronnie lost lean muscle mass from the 1999 Olympia to the 2001 ASC. Let's assume that he had 2 lbs lmore water at the night show. So what? then his weight would be 255 lbs. Now assume that he was at 4% bodyfat as you imply, and 3% at the 2001 ASC. Then:

  10.2 - 7.41 lbs = 2.79

  So you'd have to justify 5.21 lbs of water loss from the pre-judging of the 1999 Olympia to that of the 2001 ASC. When you consider how dehydrated Ronnie was, and since by your own admission he was already drier than at the night show, when he was already clearly dehydrated, then he must have lost not more than 2 or 3 lbs of water from the 1999 pre-judging to the 2001 ASC pre-judging. That would leave 2 or 3 lbs that can only be explained by lean body mass loss. If Ronnie was carrying a total of 4 to 6 lbs more of water at the night show of the 1999 Olympia than at the pre-judging of the 2001 ASC, then he was carrying no more than 2 or 3 lbs of water at the pre-judging of 1999 when compared to the pre-judging of the 2001 ASC - and I'm being very generous! Game over.

  Of course, I'd first have to accept that Ronnie was at 4% bodyfat in 1999, which is bullshit. So:

  7.65 - 7.41 = 0.24.

  8 - 0.24 = 7.76 lbs

  7.76 lbs - 3 lbs water = 4.76 lbs of bodyweight that can only be explained via lean body mass loss.

ha ha ha, where do you get this shit from? Now you're claiming that I'm copying your argument style for using the word "speculation?"

  No, I accused you of speculating and then you accused me of the same. We're both speculating, but my speculation is probabilistically far more likely to be true than yours.

Pubes will say anything to boost camaraderie among the Dorian nuthuggers. Someone can post a horrible shot of Dorian with a huge gut and a missing arm, and he'll still chime in with "look at that conditioning. Ronnie never looked that good." I take what he says with a grain of salt.

  You praised a guy who said I gave you the most clear-cut ownage of this thread. Nice going, retard!

by all means, please tell me where I got owned. This will be good.

  You've got owned by me more times than a port tart on Fleet Day. You've got a big SMM tattoed on your asshole.

  you're the idiot who said that Ronnie's brachialis is too small for his biceps - NOT me. I wanted to make sure you even know where it's located b/c you would realize that you're wrong.

  Hmmm...but Ronnie's brachialis is too small for his biceps, you cretin. So there!

SUCKMYMUSCLE