excuses excuses. Regardless of whether I checked the location of the rhomboids on an anatomy chart or not, you're still wrong. 
Like you are wrong about the 2001 ASC Ronnie carrying more mass than himself in 1999 or Dorian at the 1995 Olympia, and that separations are partially genetic besides determining fat distribution? Yes.
oh, but you are a liar. Dorian's arms were never 21" except maybe in the offseason. Arnold's arms were measured at 20", and you're claiming that Dorian's were an inch bigger. Get real son. Moreover, 03 Ronnie's arms were over 23". Pubes said that Ronnie's arms were 23" back in 96 or 97 (I forgot which year he said). It's safe to say they were even larger in 03.
Oh, I can see that you are copying my argumentative tactics. And no, I'm not wrong about Dorian having 21" arms onstage, in the same way that you're not wrong about Ronnie having 23" arms onstage. It's not my fault that you're stupid and do't understand a little something called approximation and rounding a number up. I never intended it as a lie, and you know it. Furthermore, I have never seen on print that Ronnie had 23" arms ontage; I've read that he had them in the off-season. The German Muscle&Fitness I've read stated 56 cm for the 2003 Olympia, and that's a massive 2.4 cetimeters less than 23". As or Arnold, your argumet is non-sensical. Arnold was at this biggest at the 1974 Olympia, and he was only 237 lbs, a full 23 lbs less than Dorian at the 1995 Olympia. Arnold's arms appear to be bigger exactly because he is smaller than Dorian ad had a thiner, less bony torso. It's called the law of contrast, dumbass.We're not talking about what "looks" bigger here, but about actual measuremets, which are mathematical. You are a liar, NeoSeminole. Just like you lied when you said that you only read my posts addressed to you, and yet you quote posts of mine that are not only not addressed to you, but that were not even posted at this thread. In any case, be positive about this: Ronnie did not have 23"+ onstage for the 2003 Olympia.
I don't remember exactly what I said. For all I know, I could have said 01 ASC Ronnie had greater muscular bulk than 95 Dorian (which is true). This is not the same as saying he carried more muscle.
Who are you trying to kid? Muscular bulk and muscle are the exact same thing. Stop lying. You did say that the 2001 ASC Ronnie carried more muscle than the 1995 Dorian, and no, that is not correct. Statistically, odds are massively stacked in Dorian's favor that he carried more muscle than Ronnie did at the 2001 ASC. Dorian is shorter than Ronnie, was 13 lbs heavier and was at least as dry. Your argument about difference in skeletal frame weight is a strawman if there ever was one, and it is frankly pathetic. An adult Human Being's full skeleton weight around 25 lbs, and the difference between a big framed man and a small framed woman is 10 lbs at the absolute most. You can't argue inerior conditioning as artificially boosting Dorian's weight, because Dorian's dryness was second to none. Even Nicorulez, from you side, said that:"No Mr.Olympia has been as dry as Dorian at the 1993 and 1995 Olympias. This is not debatable.". So Dorian is 13 lbs heavier and is at least as dry and depleted as the 1999 Ronnie, so it is imposible for Ronnie to be carrying more mass. Even if we assumed that Dorian's frame was a massive 10 lbs heavier than Ronnie's, the former would still be carrying more mass than the latter. ow, a 10 lbs diference in bone mass between two adult males is close to impossible, so odds are that Dorian actuallt carried eve more of a mass advantage in relation to Coleman than he otherwise would. Add to that the fact that Black Men actually have much heavier bones than White Men, and the fact is that Ronnie's frame could actually be heavier than Dorian's, despite the the fact that the latter's bones are bigger. In conclusion: it is not plausible that Ronnie in his 2001 ASC versio carried as much muscle as Dorian did at the 1995 Olympia, let alone more. We're both speculating, but odds are statistically 99% that I'm right.
but you are wrong. I have yet to see a person with 4% body fat have no visible definition.
When did I say that? Where? Of course everyone has visible definition at 4% bodyfat, you dipshit. But do they have the same amount and depth of separations? Hell no! I have already explained this to you several times. My guess is that you understood it perfectly, but is pretendig not to because deep down you know that I'm right and it would be embarassing for you to admit defeat on a major argument like this.
I have already contended that number of separations is not linear between individuals. What is so hard for you to understand? Yes, everyone shows great separations at 4% bodyfat, but some show more than others. Your contention that the only role genetics plays in separations is determining where we lose fat first is non-sensical, because in this case, the equation of subcutaneous fat between all Humans
must show the exact same predictable result across all Humans. At 4% bodyfat, individuals will show a different amount of separations for bodyparts due to differing fat distributions, but the problem here is that they
also show a different amount of separations between their whole bodies. The issue here is one of
equation. When you equate subcutaneous bodyfat levels between individuals, they should show the same amount of separations for your contention to be true, otherwise, there are other variables at play determining separations.
Now, this is true both for entire physiques as well as for comparable bodyparts from diferent physiques. Imagine two bodybuilders at 4% bodyfat, as you said. You pointed out that they have a different amount of separations
only because they have a different bodyfat distribution. The problem here is that they must have the exact same amount of separations
in their entire bodies for your assertion to be true. Unfortunately for you, this isn't the case. No two bodybuilders show the exact same amout of separations in their entire bodies as another. Now. let's extend our example further. If you equated the subcutaneous fat levels between the exact same bodypart of two different bodybuilders, will their respective bodyparts show the exact same number of separations? No, they will not. Just like two entire physiques at 4% bodyparts don't show the exact same number of separations. When you equate bodyfat percentages between two comparable bodyparts or physiqes, any diferential in number of separations can only possibly be explained by factors other than bodyfat distribution - because this is equated. Now, isolating bodyparts and then equating theirt subcutaneous fat content may be impossibel outside a lab, but I don't need that to prove my assetion, because we can equate entire physiques for bodyfat and then determine if they show the same amount of total separations. Since they don't, I'm right and you're wrong, NeoSeminole. Just admit that you're
dead wrong and move on.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
