I don't really give a shit if you never said I was right. No matter how severely you get owned, your over-inflated ego won't let you admit you are wrong. Here are a few things I was right about off the top of my head:
I have admitted that I was wrong many times. I admitted that I was wrong about the rhomboids to PraetorFenix. The thing is that both FLEX Magazine and MuscleMag have said that the rhomboids are visible, so it was an honest mistake. You, conversely, never admit that you're wrong whe I obviously owned your ass. You posted a quote from McGough saying that Ronnie's 2001 ASC shape was the best he's ever seen, and then I pointed out to you that he said on a FLEX editorial in a 2006 issue, entitled "Dorian's Delicate Condition" that he said that no bodybuilder has ever been as dry and hard as Dorian. You remained very silent about it. I also pointed out that there's no way in hell that Ronnie carried more mass at the 2001 ASC than he did at the 1999 Olympia, because he would have at least 8 lbs to justify through nothing other than water loss, which is impossible. This is not debateable. Physiologically, it is impossible for even a fully hydrated person to lose 8 lbs of water, let alone someone who was as dehydrated as Ronnie was at the 1999 Olympia. It was a very
obvious ownage, as I demonstrated the truth of my assertion through mathematically, and then supported it with knowledge of physiology which is indisputable. Did you apologize for being wrong? No, you did not. So don't be the pot calling the kettle black, because you're a very proud man who will resort to desperate arguments to save face, like saying that Dorian's arms were not "really" 21" because he failed by half a centimeter to reach that mark. Or when you try to justify Ronnie in his 2001 ASC form carrying more mass than Dorian at the 1995 Olympia because Dorian's joints were bigger, when in reality it is a well known fact that Black me of West African ancestry actually have a much higher boe mineral density than White Men, thus making your argument not only a strawman but also a silly one at that. Your arguments are pathetic, and you still have the audacity to claim that I never admit that I'm wrong when in reality you base you self-esteem on being right on an internet board and will resort to anything to save face.
- rhomboids (I was the first one who called you out)
And I apologized to PraetorFenix when he showed me the physiology chart and proved me wrong. He also pointed out that it is a common mistake that even medical pratitioners make, and I PMed him a FLEX articel where they actually mention that the rhomboids are visible, so the mistake was nothing to be ashamed of.
- Ronnie's arms were more than 2" bigger than Dorian's
Not at the 1999 Olympia, which is when I argued that they were only 1" bigger than Dorian's.
- Ronnie's brachialis aren't poor
I think they are, especially compared with his humongous biceps. How exactly have you proven me wrog here?
- you lying and denying it
Lying and denying what?
- Ronnie has better taper than Flex
In the front relaxed round at the 1999 Olympia he did not. Taper is the differential between clavicle width and waist in this angle, and while Ronnie's clavicles were wider, Flex waist was so tiny that the differential actually favored him. You haven't proven shit, my fried. I have even posted a pic showing that Wheeler's waist-to-clavilce ratio was better than Ronnie's. Ha ha ha ah ah ah aha ...what a joke.
sorry, but you never proved anything. I actually supported my argument with sound theory while your argument basically amounted to "nah uh."
Bullshit. Wtf?! Are you for real? I proved you dead wrong in the most precise, concise and indisputable fashion possible. Let's see. You argued that genetics don't play a role in separations, and that it indicates conditioning. I then demonstrated that this is not the case, because dierent bodybuilders show dierent amounts and numbers of separations at the exact same bodyfat levels. You then tried to save your stupid argument by bringing up a point that is completely irrelevant, namely, the minimum bodyfat level possible
. I the counter-argued that what matters is the amount of separations between bodies that are at the same bodyfat level. Sure, two guys at 4% bodyfat will have diferet amount of separations on diferent bodyparts, because fat is not distributed symmetrically. However, they should have the exact same amount of separations
in their entire bodies or your contention to be right, which is obviously not the case. Bodybuilders with the exact same percentage of bodyfat show a different amount of separations in their entire bodies, so your contention is
dead wrong. If you counted the amount of separations on Wheeler's and Dorian's bodies, with both o them being at 4% bodyfat, you'd see that Wheeler would ahve a greater number of separations overral. You made the contention that the only reason why bodybuilders with the same amount of bodyfat show different amounts of separations is due to bodyfat distribution, that the only role that genetics play in separations is determining where the bodyfat is distributed. I proved youd dead wrong by pointing out that, if that's the only role that genetics play in separations, then bodybuilders with the same amount of bodyfat would have different amounts o separations on different bodyparts, but that their total amount of separations should be the exact same. Since this is not the case, then separations can only be explained by means other than bodyfat distribution and amount of bodyfat, and that can only possibly be genetics. I proved you dead wrong, and I ranky have no idea why you're saying that you supported your claims with facts when it is obviously not the case, since the facts and logic are on my side.
I already said you are probably right.
That's an admission of defeat. And it is a much more relevant one than the one about the rhomboids, because the rhomboids is something that even an M.D can not know if it's visible of not. Conversely, I proved you wrong in a major argument and got you to admit that you were wrong. So who's the bitch?
You're such a lying douche. I never said 01 ASC Ronnie carried more mass than 95 Dorian.
Yes you did! You even tried to justify the weight difference by arguing that Dorian carried more weight in his bigger bones and bigger waist and belly, and that his conditioning wasn't as good as that of the 2001 ASC
. You then went on to argue that Ronnie was carryig more mass because his arms, delts and legs were bigger. I then pointed out to you that just because a muscle looks bigger doesen't mean that it is, and that the actual measurements of those bodyparts is the only way to know for sure. You argued two things: that the 2001 ASC carried more mass than he did at the 1999 Olympia, and that he also carried more mass than the 1995 Dorian. You lying fuck. You can't eve keep track of your own lies.
post both quotes b/c I have no f*cking clue what you are talking about.
What quotes?
Once again you are so pathetic that you have to make up shit to argue with me. I said that conditioning is determined by looking at separations and striations. Human anatomy and physiology are the same from person to person. It makes no sense that one person becomes defined while another gets bumps all over his skin when they shed body fat and water.
First of all, human anatomy is the same for everyone, but not physiology. Different bodybuilders show different characteristics when it comes to their phsysiologies. A bodybuilder might show incredible separations, while other might show a grainy, hard look. All the things I've mentioned: separations, striations, skin texture, hardness of the muscles, etc, etc, are all indications of conditioning. Separations are only one thing that makes conditioning. Dorian was seldom the most separated man onstage, but he was usually the most conditioned. You asked for how to access conditioning and I explained to you that, if a muscle has a look of rock to it but is relatively lackin in separations, it can still be defined as being as conditioned as a muscle that has more separations but looks softer. I think that conditioning correlates perectly with levels of subcutaneous fat and water, but that this is expresed in different bodybuilders as different characteristics that all add up to conditioning.
how do you define "grainyness" then? If the only requisite is the skin must look dry, then Ronnie is grainy too.
Ronnie never had the look of stone to him that Dorian had. You equated grain with acne, while I equated it with a particular appearace of rock to the muscles. So I posted a pic of Dorian from the 1996 Olympia where he's at his grainiest, and yet his skin is completely deprived of acne. I'm not the first person to refer to Dorian as grainy. To quote "DIVISION" talkig about Dorian:"Mothafucka showed more grain than a beer distillery". You asked me to deine waht grainy means, and I explaied that it was a particular quality of hardnesss. I have seen other bodybuilders being refered to as grainy, such as Aykutlu, and none of them had acne.
don't just take my word. I've heard several people remark that Branch looks grainy.
I've never. And why doesen't this apply to other bodybuilders who have acne? Titus was covered in acne at the 1996 NPC Nationals, and no one refered to him as grainy. Berry DeMey was notrious for having acne covering his body, and I've never seen him refered to as "grainy". If I ever see a bodybuilder who looks as hard as Dorian, then I will call him grainy. I think Baddel was pretty grainy at the 2005 Olympia, with the skin so tight around his muscles and looking like a block of rock. Not as hard as Dorian, but close.
bwahahahahaha, by all means please enlighten us why I'm afraid of you. It can't be b/c of your intelligence. You've been owned numerous times on matters of science and philosophy.
When? Where? When you said that the law of cause and effect is not explained by logic?
And philosophy? Wtf?! Did I even have any philosophical argument with anyone? The most "philosophical" thing I can recall saying was that Nicorulez was making a value-judgment when he defined greatness as doing good to others. Of course, I don't particularly oppose that, since I'm an utilitarian in the John Stuart Mill school, but the fact is that it was a value-judgement on his part. Anbd science? What science When did I argue science with anyone? The only thing I recall was that I said that water was denser as ice, when the opposite was true. You see, I confused the two things, and even though I was wrong, the analogy I was trying to prove was not discredited by it, so my point remains.
It can't be b/c of your physique. You're too scared to throw up a pic of you from your prime to compare with a 21 yr old. It can't be b/c of your popularity on Getbig. Nobody likes you.
Duh...I can argue that you're afraid of competing with me at the Mr.Getbig contest. You even bring up bullshit, like that you're a competitor in real lie, etc. If you're so good, then why don't you challenge me at a contest where the pics will be judged by impartial judges, who will give their veredictum on who's better? You can't argue that it's unfair, because you'll have the same time to prepare that I'm having. So what's left in excuses? The challenge came from you in the first place, you you're the bitch if you decline my challenge and not me. And popularity? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah...unlike you, I actually have friends in real life and don't need to make virtual friends that I'm probably never going to see in my life anyway. Furthermore, you're dead wrong, as I have many friends here and have been a member here for much longer than you have. I have friends here from the old board that was active before 2001.
So what exactly am I jealous of?
How about because I actually sleep with women on Saturday nights, while you stay logged in to an internet board masturbating to pictures of Ronnie Coleman's striated ass? How about because I wasn't a virgin like you are at your age, and don't lve in the illusion that I am going to be "popular" on a message board?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
