Author Topic: Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce (Read 3523485 times)

Hulkster · « **Reply #23500 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:37:21 PM »

I don't think dorian was ever wider than the 2003 Ronnie. The nuthuggers might thinks so, but most rational people would not.

Necrosis · « **Reply #23501 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:38:33 PM »

Quote from: suckmymuscle on February 10, 2007, 07:28:24 PM

No, it can't be used, because all Humans show improved muscular separations as their bodyfat drops; however, some show more than others, making the measurement of bodyfat levels using this technique foolish. Sorry.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

what technique do you suggest judges use then. if not cuts since they also are variable, and striations too. wait a minute so is HARDNESS. so based on your logic only things that are linear and constant can be used to measure conditioning.

id like to hear your suggestion as too how the judges can do this. or even a phenomenon in bodybuilding that adheres to your logic.

the reason some show more others is based on many factors that are impossible to know. size, shape,water, fat etc if you lack sep, thats your problem, you got the shitty hand in the genetics department.

what is this linear variable. since all non-linear variables are useless.

Necrosis · « **Reply #23502 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:40:09 PM »

please dont say sodium potassium pumps and reverse osmosis filters. im talking bodybuilding here.

what external observable criteria do the judges use that is linear and constant for everyone. since by your logic that is all that can be used?

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #23503 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:51:49 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on February 10, 2007, 07:27:31 PM

bwahahahaha, you are so f*cking retarded. You cannot use arm space to measure width. Following your logic, pre-93 Dorian and pre-03 Ronnie were at their respective widest.

I don't give a shit what you think. To me Yates has always looked wider than Coleman.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #23504 on:** February 10, 2007, 07:52:53 PM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on February 10, 2007, 07:51:49 PM

I don't give a shit what you think. To me Yates has always looked wider than Coleman.

you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Hulkster · « **Reply #23505 on:** February 10, 2007, 08:00:11 PM »

exactly.

dorian was never wider than this in his entire career.

pobrecito · « **Reply #23506 on:** February 10, 2007, 08:22:52 PM »

These are undoubtedly the thickest, nastiest lats the IFBB has seen...just look at that width and thickness

Hulkster · « **Reply #23507 on:** February 10, 2007, 08:52:01 PM »

Quote from: pobrecito on February 10, 2007, 08:22:52 PM

These are undoubtedly the thickest, nastiest lats the IFBB has seen...just look at that width and thickness and incredible smoothness and dough-like consistency

fixed.

pumpster · « **Reply #23508 on:** February 10, 2007, 09:00:48 PM »

Even a decade ago at a lighter weight Coleman already dominating lat width and taper.

Not even close, even when lighter.

Pete McGough, recent Flex:
"Coleman, with the best back in bodybuilding history".

Iceman1981 · « **Reply #23509 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:13:05 PM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on February 10, 2007, 02:26:33 PM

Why compare 3 different pics of Coleman's hams to one pic of Yates' hams??? Would you say that is a fair comparison?

Ask your friend ND. He used that hams and glutes pic of yates for the comparison. So I just used 3 different pics of Coleman to prove my point. If you have any better pics of yates hams and glutes, just post it.

Iceman1981 · « **Reply #23510 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:17:02 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on February 10, 2007, 02:45:49 PM

Dorian was never ' doughy ' that was Ronnie for most of his career , Dorian didn't hold water

lol, you are obsessed with this "didn't hold water" comment. Please explain his puffy delts, quads and biceps.

Iceman1981 · « **Reply #23511 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:19:02 PM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on February 10, 2007, 02:59:29 PM

You're the only one who thinks that.

No he's not. Many people do. Why can't you understand that?

Hulkster · « **Reply #23512 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:29:34 PM »

Quote from: Iceman1981 on February 10, 2007, 10:17:02 PM

lol, you are obsessed with this "didn't hold water" comment. Please explain his puffy delts, quads and biceps.

oh come on Iceman. Dorian is actually has vascular, ripped, seperated and striated quads, delts and biceps.

its just the photoelectric effect fooling our eyes, remember?

Hulkster · « **Reply #23513 on:** February 10, 2007, 10:31:28 PM »

Quote from: Iceman1981 on February 10, 2007, 10:17:02 PM

lol, you are obsessed with this "didn't hold water" comment. Please explain his puffy delts, quads and biceps.

no doubt ND will explain the puffy, doughy delts, quads and bis by posting another lower back shot...

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #23514 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:11:02 PM »

Quote from: NeoSeminole on February 10, 2007, 05:40:58 PM

hey Suckmyasshole, what was that about Flex having better taper from the front than Ronnie?

Here you go, bottom boy. Flex with an infinitely better taper than that piece of shit Coleman. And by the way, how's your math going? Have you already figured out that 257 is a bigger number than 247?

SUCKMYMUSCLE

suckmymuscle · « **Reply #23515 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:15:53 PM »

Quote from: usmokepole on February 10, 2007, 07:38:33 PM

what technique do you suggest judges use then. if not cuts since they also are variable, and striations too. wait a minute so is HARDNESS. so based on your logic only things that are linear and constant can be used to measure conditioning.

id like to hear your suggestion as too how the judges can do this. or even a phenomenon in bodybuilding that adheres to your logic.

the reason some show more others is based on many factors that are impossible to know. size, shape,water, fat etc if you lack sep, thats your problem, you got the shitty hand in the genetics department.

what is this linear variable. since all non-linear variables are useless.

I never argued that separations is one of the criterias of conditioning; my beef was that you tried to infer bodyfat and water levels of two diferent bodybuilders by how many separations they have, which is nonsensical. If we define conditioning as bodyfat and water levels, then there's no way to say that Coleman is better conditioned because he has more separations, which is what you said. If conditioning is a visual property, then I agree with you that Coleman has better conditioning based on that, but does he have lower fat and water levels? Not at all.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

delta9mda · « **Reply #23516 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:23:26 PM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 10, 2007, 08:52:01 PM

fixed.

hulkster, you are a dickhead. yates looks carved from marble. remember, marble may be "smooth" when polished but it is also rock hard. hope this helps.

NeoSeminole · « **Reply #23517 on:** February 11, 2007, 12:21:41 AM »

Quote from: suckmymuscle on February 10, 2007, 11:11:02 PM

Here you go, bottom boy. Flex with an infinitely better taper than that piece of shit Coleman. And by the way, how's your math going? Have you already figured out that 257 is a bigger number than 247?

ha ha ha ha ha, you can't even see shit in those pics they are so small. Here is a bigger version of that pic. Ronnie still has better taper than Flex.

by the way, how is your sobriety coming along?

Quote from: gtbro1 on December 02, 2006, 09:25:51 PM

Suckmymuscle,how are ya doing with the whole sobriety thing?Good I hope.

Quote from: G o a t b o y on December 02, 2006, 09:29:33 PM

I heard his liver is suing him for damages.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #23518 on:** February 11, 2007, 01:52:24 AM »

Quote from: Hulkster on February 10, 2007, 10:31:28 PM

no doubt ND will explain the puffy, doughy delts, quads and bis by posting another lower back shot...

Again your opinion is worthless because it's based on ignorance , you keep typing Yates' was smooth or doughy it shows how little you know , your the moron who posts a pic of Ronnie 2000 and a pic of Yates 1995 and then goes on about how even in 2000 Ronnie makes every other version of Yates look soft lol you don't know what you're talking about , you're just an internet-fan-boy sitting at home making opinions on someones conditioning when you don't even know what it is first of all and you're ignoring 5 quotes all saying pictures don't do him justice , now a smart man wouldn't comment on his conditioning while never attending a contest and ignoring all the quotes flat out saying he's completely ripped , but then again you're not exactly smart are you?

Bear · « **Reply #23519 on:** February 11, 2007, 02:14:12 AM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on February 10, 2007, 07:15:02 PM

In that shot he has his hands placed about 6 inches higher to hide his weakness. The angle of their elbows says it all.

hahahahahahahahahhaah

That's definitely the reason Ronnie looks a million times better.

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #23520 on:** February 11, 2007, 02:49:49 AM »

Quote from: pumpster on February 10, 2007, 09:00:48 PM

Even a decade ago at a lighter weight Coleman already dominating lat width and taper. Not even close, even when lighter.

Pete McGough, recent Flex:
"Coleman, with the best back in bodybuilding history".

I have a lot of respect for Peter McGough but I cannot agree with him on that. He is talking out of his ass if he really thinks that Coleman has the "best back in bodynuilding history". That title definitely goes to Yates and I don't see that changing for many years.

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #23521 on:** February 11, 2007, 02:53:38 AM »

Quote from: Bear on February 11, 2007, 02:14:12 AM

hahahahahahahahahhaah

That's definitely the reason Ronnie looks a million times better.

No, it's because the Yates pic is from January 1993 and the Coleman pic was taken either right before or right after a contest.

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #23522 on:** February 11, 2007, 03:15:39 AM »

Someone should e-mail this to the Weider/Flex offices. Obviously Peter McGough hasn't directly compared photos of their backs.

RocketSwitch625 · « **Reply #23523 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:10:27 AM »

I'm still trying to figure out why Coleman is flexing his calf when his legs are completely covered in this shot. Maybe Hulkster can come up with an explanation.

BEAST 8692 · « **Reply #23524 on:** February 11, 2007, 05:16:10 AM »

Quote from: RocketSwitch625 on February 11, 2007, 05:10:27 AM

I'm still trying to figure out why Coleman is flexing his calf when his legs are completely covered in this shot. Maybe Hulkster can come up with an explanation.

he's learning the lost art of hiding one's weak spots.