Sorry for only responding to this now. I was in Boston on business and had limited internet access.
ha ha ha ha, wtf does that have to do with you being wrong about the rhomboids? You think it makes you any less wrong if you shift the focus away from you? If you want to play the blame game, here are a few things you have been wrong about in the past.
Me being wrong about the rhomboids pales in comparison to the several times that you've been wrong and I corrected you. I don't think that me being wrong about the visibility of a muscle that both FLEX as well as MuscleMag said was visible can compesate for the innumerable times I've owned you. So, me shifting the focus is simply a way to demonstrate whos' more oftgen wrong.
- Ronnie's arms weren't more than 2" bigger than Dorian's
This is correct when talking about the 1999 Olympia Ronnie. I have always maintained that Ronnie's arms at the 2003 Olympia were 2" bigger than Dorian.
- Ronnie's brachialis are poor
How am I wrong about this? It is my opinion that Ronnie's brachilis were poor and out of balance with this biceps&triceps at the 2003 Olympia. Of course, they were huge in absolute terms, but were they as good as his biceps%triceps? No. In fact, Ronnie's humooungous biceps overpowered even the triceps.
- you denying about lying
Like you lied about Ronnie's arms being 23" onstage at the 2003 Olympia?
- Flex has better taper than Ronnie
I think that Flex at the 1993 Ironman and ASC had a better taper than Ronnie, due to his absurdly tiny waist, despite the great advantage in clavicle width that Ronnie has. I even posted pictures proving my point, so I do't understant what the logic of your charge is here.
- a person can be 4% bf and have no visible definition
I
never said that. What I said is that, between two guys at 4% bodyfat, one will be more defined than the other because separations are partially genetic. Bodyfat and muscular separations correlate, but the correlation is not linear between people. Give up.
- Peter McGough claiming Ronnie is the most conditioned bodybuilder ever
Another one of your lies. I never denied the fact that McGough said that Ronnie at the 2001 ASC was the most ripped bodybuilder he's ever seen; what I said is that there is a quote of his, from 2006, where he especifically mentions that:"No bodybuilder has ever been as hard ad dry as the man who won six Sandows.". My point is that there is a contradiction in McGough's claims, that's all.
- steroids are schedule II drugs
Oxymetholone is, and it is the most widely used steroid among the pros. Regardless, steroids are controlled substaces under the Steroid Control Act of 1990, siged by Bush senior. This means that the DEA keeps close tabs on all prescriptions issued for these drugs, and physicians are reluctant to prescribe them. Regardless, even if I'm wrong about the specific classification of steroids, how does this make you feel better, since it was another person who mentioned that and this is a completely different discussion than the one we're having.
- bodybuilders can't get a prescription for steroids through doctors
Absolutely. No doctor would prescribe steroids for bodybuildere because the doses that bodybuilders take cant be justified medically, which bring on the attention of the DEA. And getting several different physicians to precribe it also would bring the attention of the DEA, since they keep all prescriptions issued for controlled substances, and the name of the bodybuilder in question would appear in all the prescriptions, thus bringing the DEA to the doorsteps of all the doctors that issued the prescriptions, because they would know that they prescribed it for non-medical reasons. Now, again, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so stop shifting focus away from it.
what the hell you are talking about? I've been using the same discussion methods since you were calling people "turds" and accusing them of being racist. 
You copy my writing style and catch phrases. And I think it's funny that for someone who loves to call others "dipshit", you would care so much about the word "turd", which is actually far less offensive.
give it up, son. You are wrong about Dorian's arms being 21" onstage. Sergio's arms were measured around 21", and they were obviously bigger than Dorian's. A legit +20" arm is roughly the same size as the person's head. Dorian's don't come anywhere near this.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...so many false conjectures and speculations. I I'm wrong about Dorian's arms being 21" onstage, then you're also wrong about Ronnie's arms being 23" onstage. Give it up. And what has Sergio Oliva have to do with any of this
His arms appeared to be much bigger than they really were because his torso was smaller than Dorian's and he weighted 220 lbs or so.
bullshit, muscular bulk and lean mass are 2 different things. Muscular bulk refers to the size of the muscle. Lean mass simply refers to the total amount of muscle tissue. It's possible for someone to have greater muscular bulk and less lean mass. Dorian's muscles were more dense, but they lacked the fullness of Ronnie's muscles which appear larger.
Completely wrong. "Lean muscle mass", as it refers to bodybuilding, is comprised of all bodyweight that is not fat, bones, internal organs and subcutaneous water. This is how medicine deines lean muscle mass. No one is can measure only the contractile proteinous part of the muscle. So, when I said that Dorian carried more lean muscle mass than Ronnie, I am including all the intra-muscular water as well.
Your contention is wrong. I have supported my argument with sound knowledge of anatomy and physiology. All you have done is disagree with me. You have offered no shred of evidence to support your theory whatsoever.What variables do you propose are responsible for this lack of "equation" among bodybuilders? Muscle fascia? Hah, it's just a millimeter thick - hardly enough to appreciably obscure muscle definition. The skin? It's only a few millimeters in thickness and becomes even thinner when a person is conditioned. Again, this is not enough to cause one person to look smooth at 4% body fat while another looks very defined.
Oh dear, here we go again.
Give it up, dude. You are wrong and that's final. Separations are most definitely genetic beyond merely determining where at is distributed. You got
owned,
owned again and then got
owned yet one more time.
I didn't offer any explanation?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...you gotta be shitting me. I explained it to you not one or two, but
three times.
If two bodybuilders at 4% bodyfat have a different number of separations, then obviously there are factors other than bodyfat distribution that play a role in separations. Since their bodyfat is the same, then you should count an exact amount of separations in their bodies for your contention to be true. Sure, one can still have more separations here or there than the other, but not in their entire bodies. Since they don't, then you're wrong and I don't need to offer any explantion for it because this is immaterial. The fact that they have a different amount of separations at the same bodyfat determines that you're wrong. Me not knowing what accounts for the difference does not change the fact that your contention is wrong. Hope this helps.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
