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

[Hulkster]

  What separated Dorian from the other competitors was that he had hardcore muscle. That is distinguished from mere muscle because the later is an amalgamation of muscle protein tissue, intra-muscular glycogen and water, as well as subcutaneous water. Dorian always had flat muscles because he was very depleted; what you saw covering his bones was essentially tendoms, actin and myosin rapped in skin. That's it. There was no water either inside or outside the muscles.

  Hardcore muscle is a quality seldom seen anywhere, anytime. Muscle is a dime a dozen; hardcore muscle is not. Dorian's muscles looked flat and shrinked like dried prunes because only the contractile portion of the muscles was left after he lost all that fat and water from the body.

  Ronnie never displayed hardcore muscle in his entire career: at the 1998 Olympia, he was dry but still full, and indication of having intra-muscular water stores, and at the 2003 Olympia his muscles were covered under a thick layer of lard and water, besides that his incredible muscle fullness indicates that he carb-loaded for that contest. Dorian Yates: last bodybuilder ever to display hardcore muscle onstage. Enjoy those clips on youtube and the Olympia tapes, folks, because that's the only time in your lives that you'll get to see hardcore muscle.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

hahahaaha

"hardcore muscle"..

is that caused by the photoelectric effect of the light reflecting off of the myosin and tropomyosin in dorian's muscles and then reacting with the rhodopsin in our eyes and fooling us?

 

[Hulkster]

I'm still waiting for ND to scan the dorian poster from the 93 olympia coverage in Flex mag.

no doubt he is afraid to because it makes dorian look so bad...

[Hulkster]

Yeah, sure....

ronnie's in relatively soft shape there (in 2000) and he still blows dorian's upper body out of the water.

can you imagine what a 99 Ronnie would do to dorian onstage?

oh wait, we already know:

apparently, "hardcore muscle" creates the effect of shitty, dough like arms compared to ronnie coleman

[Hulkster]

for kicks, 2000 screencap vs 99 screencap:

[Hulkster]

Ronnie vs Dorian both far from their bests:

(ronnie from the 2000 O and dorian from the 96 O)

(thanks to iceman for these pics)

[Hulkster]

ronnie 99 vs ronnie 2000:

[NarcissisticDeity]

Ronnie vs Dorian both far from their bests:

(ronnie from the 2000 O and dorian from the 96 O)

(thanks to iceman for these pics)

There was a HUGE difference between Dorian 96 and Ronnie 00 , Ronnie was holding a ton of water and Dorian was bone dry , Dorian 96 absolutely destroys Ronnie 00 its not even close.


RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .

[RocketSwitch625]

Even if you give the front double biceps and MM to Coleman, Yates still beats him on everything else.







Coleman 2 out of 7

Yates 5 out of 7

PWN3D

[Necrosis]

dorians arms, quads, delts and chest look like play dough next to a peak coleman. throw in glutes and hams too since they do. i dont see the argument for dorians conditioning, he was hard, is that it? theres more to being in condition then being hard.


i dont think flat muscle is rewarded, full round muscle bellies are, another advantage to coleman.

[pumpster]

"HARDCORE MUSCLE"

Hardcore lack of aesthetics no doubt. Another gem from SUCKY, the "grad student in exercise".

[RocketSwitch625]

dorians arms, quads, delts and chest look like play dough next to a peak coleman. throw in glutes and hams too since they do. i dont see the argument for dorians conditioning, he was hard, is that it? theres more to being in condition then being hard.


i dont think flat muscle is rewarded, full round muscle bellies are, another advantage to coleman.

And this doesn't look like brown play dough? Get a life arsehole.

[Necrosis]

read the sentence again moron. see the word PEAK, nice display of reading comprehension. ND is rubbing off on you, or one out on you. MASS ON THE BACK!!!!

[suckmymuscle]

 Usmoke, unless you can demonstrate that a given number of muscular separations equates with a given amount of bodyfat exactly for all Humans - and assuming that the two things are inversely proportional -, then you simply cannot argue that Ronnie had a lower bodyfat level in account of his superior overral separations. Game over.

  And by the way, it was you who argued that Ronnie had the better conditioning because he had more separations and striations, not me. My point frokm the start was that it was arrogant of you to assume that Dorian had more bodyat in account of having less overral separations, when you take in account his incredible grain.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  Usmoke...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[RocketSwitch625]

ronnie 99 vs ronnie 2000:

This is how usmokepole is feeling right now:

[Necrosis]

Your original claim was Ronnie was better conditioned in 2003 and thats not his prime and he may have equaled Dorian in 2001 for overall conditioning but 2003 wasn't close , and you think Dorian only shows good conditioning in his lower back , thats simply not true his whole back shows better conditioning , better separation , and ' cuts ' not add in the separation of the triceps , all three heads of the deltoids , I've yet to see one single Coleman pic to match these

dude i sadi from the front he is better conditioned in the mandatories and the glutes and hams. so take the whole front, glutes and hams and what do you have? better conditioning, dorian was more detailed in the back. not close in the delts, chest or arms. are you serious, dorians delts are less then round=lack of development. and have little seperation.

for one your ignoring every other criteria in that back shot. great detail-yes

small as hell, flat as a pancake, and no taper at all. there is no flare to his lats, see melvin anthony for details. his waist is wide. and his arms are non-exsistent. does he ever have biceps?

[Necrosis]

  Usmoke...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

i cant quote you because your post is a quote for some reason.

anyway they arent exactly the same for every individual. not every 250 pound guy will have the same proportions or size. not everyone that has dorians water and bf will have his hardness. nothing is exact. this is not an argument. the correaltion between all the factors is positive hence the reason they are used as criteria. so how can you judge whos in better condition without seperation, cuts, or striations. simply hardness? when thats not constant either. there are too many variable ala genetics to hold a physhiology competition, the sport isnt judged like that.

hardness is not constant across everyone.

but i seperations will increase in every individual who loses water and bf. this is the only example i need. everyone gets more seperated and striated when they lose bodyfat and water. at the same rate-no thats genetics, size,shape etc but everyone does. hence that is why they are used as criteria in bodybuilding shows.

by your logic you cant decipher something unless its perfectly constant. lets throw out singing, dancing contests etc.. since its not constant.


i am still arguing that ronnie was better conditioned based on cuts, seperations,striations then dorian. what are the criteria that are judged if not those and hardness for instance?

agian the only thing that matters is that the correlation is positive, and everyone increases these factors as bf and water drops. perhaps not at the same rate becasue of umpteen other variables you nor i know. like the actually water and bf levels. if everyone did not there would be no standard nor a reason to use them. it is assumed that hard,sep,cuts,striations all should increase in an individual as bf and water decreases hence they compile conditioning.

[suckmymuscle]

wtf, do you just make this shit up as you type? You're the one who rounds up 20.47 to 21 and claims Dorian's rhomboids are thicker and more striated.

  Not half as bad as you saying that a guy carries more leaN mass at 247 lbs than 257 lbs. Now that's lousy math! Apparently, Sperm doesen't know that 257 lbs is a bigger number than 247.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

hahahaaha

"hardcore muscle"..

is that caused by the photoelectric effect of the light reflecting off of the myosin and tropomyosin in dorian's muscles and then reacting with the rhodopsin in our eyes and fooling us?

 

  Why not? That's how all Human eyes perceive all kinds of muscularity. I don't need to offer any explanation for why Dorian's grain is better seen in person than on pics or videos, because being unaware of the cause does not negate the effect if it is observable and repeatable. I offered a very plausible hypothesis for why this happens, but I was adamant that I don't know.Owned.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

"HARDCORE MUSCLE"

Hardcore lack of aesthetics no doubt. Another gem from SUCKY, the "grad student in exercise".

  Dorian's muscles are certainly more hardcore than your bowflex workouts.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

i cant quote you because your post is a quote for some reason.

anyway they arent exactly the same for every individual. not every 250 pound guy will have the same proportions or size. not everyone that has dorians water and bf will have his hardness. nothing is exact. this is not an argument. the correaltion between all the factors is positive hence the reason they are used as criteria. so how can you judge whos in better condition without seperation, cuts, or striations. simply hardness? when thats not constant either. there are too many variable ala genetics to hold a physhiology competition, the sport isnt judged like that.

hardness is not constant across everyone.

but i seperations will increase in every individual who loses water and bf. this is the only example i need. everyone gets more seperated and striated when they lose bodyfat and water. at the same rate-no thats genetics, size,shape etc but everyone does. hence that is why they are used as criteria in bodybuilding shows.

by your logic you cant decipher something unless its perfectly constant. lets throw out singing, dancing contests etc.. since its not constant.


i am still arguing that ronnie was better conditioned based on cuts, seperations,striations then dorian. what are the criteria that are judged if not those and hardness for instance?

agian the only thing that matters is that the correlation is positive, and everyone increases these factors as bf and water drops. perhaps not at the same rate becasue of umpteen other variables you nor i know. like the actually water and bf levels. if everyone did not there would be no standard nor a reason to use them. it is assumed that hard,sep,cuts,striations all should increase in an individual as bf and water decreases hence they compile conditioning.

  "The only thing that matters is that the correlation is positive". Completely wrong. I could accept that if your argument was that this counts as a factor in conditioning. My problem with your contention, however, is that you tried to establish a precise reltion between number of separations and bodyfat levels between two different individuals. Sorry, sport, but it can't be done. Furthermore, you refused to accept grain as one of the factors in conditioning, whereas I had no problem accepting separations, striations, etc.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

There was a HUGE difference between Dorian 96 and Ronnie 00 , Ronnie was holding a ton of water and Dorian was bone dry , Dorian 96 absolutely destroys Ronnie 00 its not even close.


RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .

LOL you make the argument about dorian 96 and than compared dorian 95 to Ronnie 2000...

[Necrosis]

  "The only thing that matters is that the correlation is positive". Completely wrong. I could accept that if your argument was that this counts as a factor in conditioning. My problem with your contention, however, is that you tried to establish a precise reltion between number of separations and bodyfat levels between two different individuals. Sorry, sport, but it can't be done. Furthermore, you refused to accept grain as one of the factors in conditioning, whereas I had no problem accepting separations, striations, etc.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

but nothing that constitutes conditioning is constant for each individual it is constant for the whole human population. hence the reason it can be used.

[anglopower]

Boowackershack

[Hulkster]

even compared to dorian's best ever pics, an in shape Ronnie would make dorian look smooth, unrefined, and dough-like

[Necrosis]

even compared to dorian's best ever pics, an in shape Ronnie would make dorian look smooth, unrefined, and dough-like

ronnie is utterly destroying dorian in conditioning, shape, symmetry and proportion in that pic. the condition isnt even close.