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

[NeoSeminole]

I can't believe how retarded Pubes and AssHole are.

[pobrecito]

I can't believe how retarded Pubes and AssHole are.

Respect your elders 

[IceCold]

my god, you are f*cking stupid. If Dorian and Paul Dillet are the same height in a pic, it means Dorian is standing closer to the camera. Of course he will look as big as Paul Dillet. You really baffle me with your lack of intelligence.

wrong again.

why does shawn not look drastically smaller/shorter since he's the furthest away.

you can see that paul is still taller than yates in that shot.  not by much, though. 

like i already stated paul is 4 inches taller and only competes 10 lbs. heavier.

you are a complete moron. 

but that hasnt stopped you from posting the english grand prix pics of where yates looks 5'4.

[IceCold]

learn what the hell you are talking about. According to you, it's theoretically possible for a midget to be the most muscular person on earth.

no, idiot, i was just referring to that saying of 10 inches per inch.

theoretically is a bit of a stretch.

why are you referring to none bodybuilders?

not only are the biggest hypocrite on this thread, but you cant read through the lines either. 

[IceCold]

Dennis James is 2 inches shorter than Dorian and weighs 10 lbs less. You figure it out, dumbass.

key word LESS than dorian.

DJ and ronnie weighed the same, despite ronnie being taller.

its hilarious how smart and correct you always think you are, but you been proven wrong in virtually every post . 

[NeoSeminole]

Respect your elders

respect must be earned, b*tch.

[suckmymuscle]

yawn, this is the last time I'm going to explain this to you. If you still don't understand after this, then I'll just let it go. If you take 2 individuals - let's say one of them is 5'7" and the other is 7' - who both weigh 200 lbs and have 3% bf and 0 water levels, the person who is shorter will display more overall definition. The reason for this is simple. A taller person carries more weight in his skin, bones, organs and connective tissue, and body fat is expressed as a percentage of total weight. Therefore, even at the same body fat % the individual who is 7' carries more body fat. Since both weigh the same amount yet the taller person has more fat, it logically follows that he has less muscle mass. Even a middle school student can grasp this simple concept. The guy who is 7' will display less overall definition b/c he is carrying more fat and less muscle even though they are both 3% body fat. I standardized the height and lean body mass to compensate for this.

  Your premisse here only would have relevance if definition depended on the amount of lean muscle mass per bodyfat, which it doesen't. The fact that the taller man will have more skin, bones, etc and less muscle is irrelevant because his bodyfat will be spread over the surface area of his body which is created by the entire mass of his body.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NeoSeminole]

but that hasnt stopped you from posting the english grand prix pics of where yates looks 5'4.

what English GP pics? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

[NeoSeminole]

theoretically is a bit of a stretch. why are you referring to none bodybuilders? not only are the biggest hypocrite on this thread, but you cant read through the lines either.

I can't read through the lines when you type this incoherent babble.

[IceCold]

what English GP pics? I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

the black and white pics.

[IceCold]

I can't read through the lines when you type this incoherent babble.

like when you tried to compare short bbers who compete at a relatively high weight for their height (priest competing at 220) and an actual midget?

hilarious. 

[NeoSeminole]

key word LESS than dorian. DJ and ronnie weighed the same, despite ronnie being taller.

Ronnie carried less fat and water than DJ, and had a smaller midsection yet they both weighed the same. This means that Ronnie had significantly greater lean mass.

its hilarious how smart and correct you always think you are, but you been proven wrong in virtually every post.

I don't think I'm smart. I know I am. There's a huge difference between the posts of someone your intelligence level and mine. I do a lot more research and support all my arguments with visual evidence and testimony from professional bodybuilders and magazine writers. I also get my points across much more clearly. I'm left trying to decipher what you typed half the time I read your posts. Moreover, you've never proven me wrong in any matter of discussion - EVER.

[NeoSeminole]

the black and white pics.

what black and white pics? Post them so I know what you are talking about.

like when you tried to compare short bbers who compete at a relatively high weight for their height (priest competing at 220) and an actual midget?

dude, are you high? No joke b/c you are not making any sense right now. I think you are either imagining things or confusing me with someone else.

[Hurricane Beef !]

The Beef found this pic on MD. Has it been posted in this thread? The Beef feels it is the best comparative pic of the two ever.

The Beef

[whitewidow]

I'll be the bigger man and say enough is enough , the board is sick of our ' debates ' obviously neither of us are going to convince each other of our opinions , and we've basically said everything we could , so I say lets end this debate out of respect for others , I say you and I stop directly comparing Ronnie & Dorian and leave well enough alone and let the board have a rest lol the ball is now in your court . 

is there a longer thread online anywhere??? only on getbig can you find a million page long thread debating wether ronnie is better than dorian-lol classic!

[pumpster]

The Beef found this pic on MD. Has it been posted in this thread? The Beef feels it is the best comparative pic of the two ever.

The Beef

Yes on both counts. It's a very accurate depiction of Yates' ownage.

[IceCold]

Yes on both counts. It's a very accurate depiction of Yates' ownage.

because their calves have always been the same size.

 

[Iceman1981]

your post is valid, but it also comes down to personal preference.

with the exception of back (only he and yates), i would not rate ronnie top of any list for bodyparts.

i'll give a few examples.  again personal preference, but most will agree with me, that ronnie is not the person when you think of:

thighs:  platz, demayo, warren, dillet, munzer

chest:  arnold, haney, ruhl, louie, bertil  (ronnie's gyno)

delts:  ruhl, levrone, dillet, nasser - all have bigger and rounder delts than ronnie, although his may have been more seperated.  but it seems most will agree that bigger, rounder delts are more impressive.

biceps:  arnold, priest, bertil, beckles, boyer coe, if anything, coleman is more at the top at this list than the others.


again, ronnie would on the list of 'best ever', but would not be the #1 guy people look at.

I'll break down your "argument" part by part.

Thighs: All of those guys have good thighs no doubt, but all of them were at least missing 1 thing, whether it be size, seperation, definition or quad sweep. Ronnie had "all" of these things and more. Imagine a near 300 pound Ronnie with these attributes standing next to these guys, lol. Ronnie would put all of them to shame.

Chest: I'm sorry, but no one can come close to Arnold's and Ronnie's chest, no one. Arnold and Ronnie has great thickness for up & lower chest, seperation and striations. To top it off Ronnie's and Arnold's chest looked harder than those guys.

Delts: Again you are mixing up with having "bigger" delts than having "better" delts. All of the guys you mentioned have big delts, but are lacking the seperation and definition than Ronnie has. Ronnie has the seperation, definition, round delts and they are huge. It doesn't get any better than that.

Biceps: All of the guys you mentioned including Arnold have great biceps, but are lacking the definition, dryness and split that Ronnie has. Plus Ronnie's biceps dwarfs priest, bertil, beckles, boyer coe. No Contest.

[Iceman1981]

your post is valid, but it also comes down to personal preference.

with the exception of back (only he and yates), i would not rate ronnie top of any list for bodyparts.

i'll give a few examples.  again personal preference, but most will agree with me, that ronnie is not the person when you think of:

thighs:  platz, demayo, warren, dillet, munzer

chest:  arnold, haney, ruhl, louie, bertil  (ronnie's gyno)

delts:  ruhl, levrone, dillet, nasser - all have bigger and rounder delts than ronnie, although his may have been more seperated.  but it seems most will agree that bigger, rounder delts are more impressive.

biceps:  arnold, priest, bertil, beckles, boyer coe, if anything, coleman is more at the top at this list than the others.


again, ronnie would on the list of 'best ever', but would not be the #1 guy people look at.

[pumpster]

because their calves have always been the same size.

 

They're not the same size in that pic, nor are Coleman's defined there, plus it's from the back. Hard to believe this has to be explained..

[Iceman1981]

ronnie is not dwarfing DJ at all there.

dennis is right there will ronnie on terms of size alone.

DJ is shorter and weighs the same.

samething with titus.

there are many more pics that have already been posted showing DJ and titus on pretty much the same level of size alone as ronnie.

So I guess Ronnie's bigger chest, delts, arms and thighs don't make him bigger?

[IceCold]

I'll break down your "argument" part by part.

Thighs: All of those guys have good thighs no doubt, but all of them were at least missing 1 thing, whether it be size, seperation, definition or quad sweep. Ronnie had "all" of these things and more. Imagine a near 300 pound Ronnie with these attributes standing next to these guys, lol. Ronnie would put all of them to shame.

LMAO.

you are trully delusional.

you really think ronnie has better legs than platz?

[IceCold]

They're not the same size in that pic, nor are Coleman's defined there, plus it's from the back. Hard to believe this has to be explained..

they are the same size in that pic.

size and definition are two different things.

really?  its from the back and your looking at calves?

hard to believe this has to be explained.

[IceCold]

I'll break down your "argument" part by part.


Delts: Again you are mixing up with having "bigger" delts than having "better" delts. All of the guys you mentioned have big delts, but are lacking the seperation and definition than Ronnie has. Ronnie has the seperation, definition, round delts and they are huge. It doesn't get any better than that.

ronnie for best delts.

LMAO off.

i guess you've never read a ''readers poll" in MD, FLEX, musclemag or any other magazine.

not only is ronnie not even on the delt list, but has never won a best bodypart award.

EVER.

owned by thousands and thousands of readers. 

[IceCold]

I'll break down your "argument" part by part.


Chest: I'm sorry, but no one can come close to Arnold's and Ronnie's chest, no one. Arnold and Ronnie has great thickness for up & lower chest, seperation and striations. To top it off Ronnie's and Arnold's chest looked harder than those guys.

i guess having gyno is a prerequisite for having a good chest.

DUMBASS.