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

[NeoSeminole]

Okay let me try again you said the reason you didn't respond to my original post was

"I didn't respond earlier b/c your post doesn't merit a response from me. I'm tired of refuting you over and over, only for you to post the same bullshit again. You seem to think getting the last word makes you right no matter how dumb you sound. I will respond when you actually make an intelligent post."

and then what do you do? you respond to my post anyway and the reason you didn't respond to my original post is because you were made to look very stupid , you didn't respond to my original post because ( according to you) it didn't merit one but you responded to me anyway so you end up looking stupid declaring you're not going to respond to me by responding to me

you're still not making any sense. I didn't respond to your earlier post. I responded to the one after that.

No , not more gibberish , you said you were tired of refuting me , you've yet to refute anything I've said , its an empty claim on your behalf . I've made a bunch of claims that you can't refute and why? because you're ignorant you claim to know more about competitive bodybuilding then me and you don't case in point

you keep believing that.

I say Dorian's prime showings are either 1993 or 1995 and I backed up my claim with quotes from Dorian Yates , Peter McGough and Lee Priest you were way off the mark , how can you know more about competitive bodybuilding than me when you can't figure out which year is his prime ? 1992 ring a bell? Dorian was very depleted in 1992 and sacrificed a lot of size , so this prove my point you don't know more than me about competitive bodybuilding than me

I was mocking you when you arbitrarily decided that 01 was Ronnie's prime. I don't tell you what Dorian's best showing was. You, as a fan, have the right to pick which year to argue in favor of. So don't tell me when Ronnie's prime was.

I say 2003 isn't Ronnie's prime showing I back this up with a quote from Peter McGough specifically stating 2001 is his best showing , once again this proves my point you don't know more than me about competitive bodybuilding than me

Peter McGough stated he prefers Ronnie's 01 ASC look; not necessarily that it would beat his 03 form. Moreover, the same guy said Ronnie at his best is unbeatable.

[NarcissisticDeity]

you're still not making any sense. I didn't respond to your earlier post. I responded to the one after that.

you keep believing that.

I was mocking you when you arbitrarily decided that 01 was Ronnie's prime. I don't tell you what Dorian's best showing was. You, as a fan, have the right to pick which year to argue in favor of. So don't tell me when Ronnie's prime was.

Peter McGough stated he prefers Ronnie's 01 ASC look; not necessarily that it would beat his 03 form. Moreover, the same guy said Ronnie at his best is unbeatable.

you're still not making any sense. I didn't respond to your earlier post. I responded to the one after that.

Why would I make sense to the senseless? my bad

you keep believing that.

nice attempt at refuting my points 

I was mocking you when you arbitrarily decided that 01 was Ronnie's prime. I don't tell you what Dorian's best showing was. You, as a fan, have the right to pick which year to argue in favor of. So don't tell me when Ronnie's prime was.

Oh sure were  1992 I'm still laughing at that one , arbitrarily? I've always maintained 98/01 was his prime showings and you did try to tell me what was Yates' prime showings and when crushed on it you mad a poor attempt at damage control ( see I was mocking you ) NO I can and will tell you what Ronnie's prime was and I backed it up with a Peter McGough quote and to quote you He knows a hell of a lot more about bodybuilding than you do

2003 Ronnie's conditioning is lacking ( compared to previous showings ) his balance & proportion are that their worse ( sans maybe 2004 ) for these reasons its not his prime showing

Peter McGough stated he prefers Ronnie's 01 ASC look; not necessarily that it would beat his 03 form. Moreover, the same guy said Ronnie at his best is unbeatable.

he referred to 01 as his prime spare me the ' not necessarily beat his 03 form ' bull shit it means he looked his absolute best in 2001 , and he did state he feels Ronnie would be unbeatable , it doesn't mean it true its an opinion and I respect it but it doesn't make it true.

You're a defeated man , walk away in shame by making empty ignorant claims and I'll accept your apology when you're man enough to give it.

[NeoSeminole]

Why would I make sense to the senseless? my bad

nice way of saying you don't know wtf you were talking about.

nice attempt at refuting my points

why thank you. I was in a hurry b/c I had to train a client.

Oh sure were 1992 I'm still laughing at that one , arbitrarily? I've always maintained 98/01 was his prime showings and you did try to tell me what was Yates' prime showings and when crushed on it you mad a poor attempt at damage control ( see I was mocking you ) NO I can and will tell you what Ronnie's prime was and I backed it up with a Peter McGough quote and to quote you He knows a hell of a lot more about bodybuilding than you do

bwahahaha, I love it!!! Apparently you know better than I when I'm joking or not. Even when I tell you I was mocking you, you claim that I wasn't.

he referred to 01 as his prime spare me the ' not necessarily beat his 03 form ' bull shit it means he looked his absolute best in 2001 , and he did state he feels Ronnie would be unbeatable , it doesn't mean it true its an opinion and I respect it but it doesn't make it true.

lame, you accept that 01 ASC was Ronnie's best showing b/c Peter McGough says so yet you ignore the rest of his comment that Ronnie is unbeatable.

[Hulkster]

ND's misapplication of ad populum while trying desperately to impress is reminiscent of Mike Tyson's mangling of big words LOL in ND's case his equivalent to verbal diahhrea amounts to pablum, not ad populum.

yup.

misunderstanding (doesn't know when it can be used with validity and when it can't - despite being shown). A quick glance at any info on this argument shows this. I posted this too, but he ignored it and went on being incorrect and stupid.

tries to look smart but comes across looking like an idiot when I show that he is totally wrong.

[NarcissisticDeity]

nice way of saying you don't know wtf you were talking about.

why thank you. I was in a hurry b/c I had to train a client.

bwahahaha, I love it!!! Apparently you know better than I when I'm joking or not. Even when I tell you I was mocking you, you claim that I wasn't.

lame, you accept that 01 ASC was Ronnie's best showing b/c Peter McGough says so yet you ignore the rest of his comment that Ronnie is unbeatable.

nice way of saying you don't know wtf you were talking about.

Monster irony coming from you

why thank you. I was in a hurry b/c I had to train a client.

should have said so and good luck trying to refute them because you need it !

bwahahaha, I love it!!! Apparently you know better than I when I'm joking or not. Even when I tell you I was mocking you, you claim that I wasn't.

Now you're joking before it was mocking whats the next excuse going to be ? and you were dead serious when you said Dorian's prime was 1992 and elaborated on it with the fact his waist was smaller , you got crushed on both accounts and attempted to save face with the oldest trick in the book , I'm joking we both know you weren't so please don't insult my intelligence you've already done that with your ' comparisons '

lame, you accept that 01 ASC was Ronnie's best showing b/c Peter McGough says so yet you ignore the rest of his comment that Ronnie is unbeatable.

No I'm not like you I don't work backwards I didn't accept Peter's opinion ( I agree with it ) I came to that conclusion all my own , its easy to come to ( if you're savy  ) 1998/2001 are his prime showings he was super sharp and bone dry , his balance & proportion were probably at their bests and he was hard as nails !

I never ignored the comment of Ronnie being unbeatable in 2001 I posted it , stop imagining I fear this comment if I did you would have NEVER known about it , I posted it again it his personal opinion and it doesn't mean its true its open for debate , its subjective so people feel 2003 is Ronnie's best and that he's unbeatable it doesn't mean anything , case in point Ronnie himself thought he was unbeatable ( as did everyone else ) Jay would have to be on crack to thing he could ever beat Ronnie , he would have to be reborn with better genetics lol low and behold a few years later Jay has FOUR win on him including the big one , pre 2006 NO ONE was seriously considering Cutler had the ability to beat Ronnie all it takes is Ronnie's conditioning to be off a little and Jay beats him

Just because someone claims someone is unbeatable does NOT make it so , anyone is beatable , Dorian , Ronnie , Haney , Oliva , Arnold ...anyone.

[NarcissisticDeity]

yup.

misunderstanding (doesn't know when it can be used with validity and when it can't - despite being shown). A quick glance at any info on this argument shows this. I posted this too, but he ignored it and went on being incorrect and stupid.

tries to look smart but comes across looking like an idiot when I show that he is totally wrong.

I don't try to look smart lol no trying needed kid your argument from numbers is JUNK period , you've yet to counter why your point is valid its ONLY valid in stating the obvious its a popular opinion NOT that its fact , stop trying to match wits with me you always lose.

[Hulkster]

I don't try to look smart lol no trying needed kid your argument from numbers is JUNK period , you've yet to counter why your point is valid its ONLY valid in stating the obvious its a popular opinion NOT that its fact , stop trying to match wits with me you always lose.

my point is valid because I have very good visual support that experts and knowledgable people agree on.

this is a valid case of the ad populum argument as I posted from a philosophy website a while ago but you continue to ignore. You can go to any text on philosophy and find the exact same thing. You are not understanding the different cases when it can and cannot be used with validity.

do you not even bother to read my posts showing how you are misunderstanding the ad populum argument?

 

Honestly, you would fail out of philosophy in any reputable school.

when shown that you do not understand, you just go on posting anyway like nothing ever happened..

[NarcissisticDeity]

my point is valid because I have very good visual support that experts and knowledgable people agree on.

this is a valid case of the ad populum argument as I posted from a philosophy website a while ago but you continue to ignore. You can go to any text on philosophy and find the exact same thing. You are not understanding the different cases when it can and cannot be used with validity.

do you not even bother to read my posts showing how you are misunderstanding the ad populum argument?

 

Honestly, you would fail out of philosophy in any reputable school.

when shown that you do not understand, you just go on posting anyway like nothing ever happened..

First of all you don't have ' good visual support ' thats bullshit you have slanted comparisons and spare me your experts and knowledgeable people because its proven that YOU Neo and pumpster are NOT included in that list

I'll keep beating this into your head , your popular opinion is NOT proof its NOT fact , just because many people agree doesn't mean its true , you claimed 98% people agree prime Ronnie is better than prime Dorian , and it doesn't matter for one moment how you people came to this conclusion it does NOT under any circumstances mean that in fact its true , classic text book argument ad populum exposed for what it is , a false argument , and please don't lecture me on philosophy I'm well verse and well read something you are NOT

[Iceman1981]

do you have a clip from the video?

Nah, I had these pics on my comp. I just found them. The video was on youtube. Not sure if it's still there. You can check.

[Hulkster]

and please don't lecture me on philosophy

why not?

you have no clue about philosophy.

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

why not?

you have no clue about philosophy.

 

How do you know? because you think I'm wrong about the argument ad populum? you've yet to prove your case and I'm still waiting ( 98% or was it 95% ? )

[suckmymuscle]

and man you picked a bad fucking analogy lol the difference is Evolution is a provable FACT its not an opinion its provable there is evidence for it , creationism is junk-science

  Exactly. I was about to reply the same. You beat me to it. Once again, SemenHole got owned by his own retarded logic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  And I think it's funny that SemenHole has the arrogance to keep bringing up that McGough said that the 2001 ASC Ronnie had the best physique ever, when he rejects McGough saying that no man has ever been as hard and dry as Dorian. His selective bias is astounding.

  And as for the old man comment, I think he was refering to me, even though I'm only 6 years older than him and still a boy in my twenties. I guess that he confused my vastly superior maturity as well as the fact that I'm a father for advanced age. He got owned brutally by me and ND, and he claims that he stopped responding because we don't merit a reply. Yeah, that's the excuse that one can use any time that he is cornered, defeated and has nothing to reply.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  So what, SemenHole? Didn't you comprehend that the size of Ronnie in the picture varies according to the monitor that you're using? I have already have a poster here asserting the he got 10.5 centimeters by measuring Ronni in his computer monitor, so you have no reason to cry fool. The only way to know for sure would have the actual picture and measure it, which is impossible.

  Dorian is only 1/2 of an inch shorter than Ronnie, and that is, frankly, besides the point. You did an "ok" job of scaling for height, but you did a very póor job scaling fpr width and depth. And I did not accuse you of photoshoping; I said that certain parts of the comparison look photoshopped bbecause even though the width in the depth is not adjusted, the discrepancy in width for these bodyparts look too great to be explained by mere poor scaling.

  No, you manipulated thje depth of the pictures, but maintained the same scaling that the original picture had for width and maintained it even after the height was adjusted. You cannot possibly explain the fact that Ronnie is over 2" wider from the back in your retarded comparison because that would translate into a difference of width in real life of almost 1 meter, which is completely and utterly absurd. Ronnie would need to be 550 lbs and have clavicles as wide as the span of a car to be over one meter wider than Dorian from the back. Your comparison sucks and then there's the probable issue of photoshopping. When even after maintaining the original scaling for width, you have hams that show a discrepancy that would translate inot 50 centimeters or more compared to Dorian in real life, then photoshopping is a reasonable hypothesis.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  Here's my post where SmenHole bitched out and gave up. But I'm sure he'll use the excuse that it isn't worthy of a reply, even though all of my points are facts that cannot be denied.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[NarcissisticDeity]

  Exactly. I was about to reply the same. You beat me to it. Once again, SemenHole got owned by his own retarded logic.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

He's been taking quite the beating lately lol

[NeoSeminole]

alright, I'll respond to retard #2.

And I think it's funny that Sir NeoSeminole has the arrogance to keep bringing up that McGough said that the 2001 ASC Ronnie had the best physique ever, when he rejects McGough saying that no man has ever been as hard and dry as Dorian. His selective bias is astounding.

this is the type of shit I'm talking about when I say I don't want to bother responding. Suckmyasshole, you are a liar. I'm calling you out right now to show me where I said Peter McGough is wrong about nobody being as hard and dry as Dorian.

[NeoSeminole]

it's pathetic the Dorian nuthuggers have to resort to lying, probably to delude themselves into thinking they are winning an argument when in reality they are just setting up strawmen that are easy for them to attack.

[Tigerman]

The "ad populum" argument is not valid when it is used to prove facts that can be proven with logic or scientific method.
However here we are talking about bodybuilding and guess what? Bodybuilding competitions are evaluated according to the opinion of the judges (that can follow some criteria but still they express an opinion and they can also disagree with each other).
Here to make things more complicated we are trying to compare two bodybuilders who didn't reach their primes at the same time.
So I think that the opinion of bodybuilding fans (especially when it's so polarized) makes a strong argument in favor of Ronnie because there is no way to put them on a stage together at their best and even if it was possible, the outcome would be based on opinions in  any case.

[NarcissisticDeity]

alright, I'll respond to retard #2.

this is the type of shit I'm talking about when I say I don't want to bother responding. Suckmyasshole, you are a liar. I'm calling you out right now to show me where I said Peter McGough is wrong about nobody being as hard and dry as Dorian.

Neo you claimed Ronnie had better conditioning than Dorian , and you obviously ignore the quote from Peter saying NO ONE had better conditioning than Yates but cling so desperately to the one saying in HIS OPINION h's be unbeatable , thats not a lie .

[NarcissisticDeity]

The "ad populum" argument is not valid when it is used to prove facts that can be proven with logic or scientific method.
However here we are talking about bodybuilding and guess what? Bodybuilding competitions are evaluated according to the opinion of the judges (that can follow some criteria but still they express an opinion and they can also disagree with each other).
Here to make things more complicated we are trying to compare two bodybuilders who didn't reach their primes at the same time.
So I think that the opinion of bodybuilding fans (especially when it's so polarized) makes a strong argument in favor of Ronnie because there is no way to put them on a stage together at their best and even if it was possible, the outcome would be based on opinions in  any case.

Its still an argument ad populum just because the opinion is popular doesn't mean its right , especially when comparing two bodybuilders , it doesn't matter how polarizing the opinion may be or how the masses reached that opinion its still NOT a fact period , end of sentence its faulty logic when the argument ad populum is relied upon

[NeoSeminole]

Neo you claimed Ronnie had better conditioning than Dorian , and you obviously ignore the quote from Peter saying NO ONE had better conditioning than Yates but cling so desperately to the one saying in HIS OPINION h's be unbeatable, thats not a lie.

you are correct about one thing. I did say 01 ASC Ronnie had better conditioning than Dorian. Conditioning refers to body fat and water levels. I never said Ronnie was harder or dryer, which is what Suckmyasshole claimed. Dorian may have looked 'harder' in person. I never saw him compete. So it's hard for me to compare a tactile perception based on pics. However, I can say with 100% certainty that 01 ASC Ronnie had better overall conditioning.

[NarcissisticDeity]

you are correct about one thing. I did say 01 ASC Ronnie had better conditioning than Dorian. Conditioning refers to body fat and water levels. I never said Ronnie was harder or dryer, which is what Suckmyasshole claimed. Dorian may have looked 'harder' in person. I never saw him compete. So it's hard for me to compare a tactile perception based on pics. However, I can say with 100% certainty that 01 ASC Ronnie had better overall conditioning.

You cannot not say with 100% certainty that Ronnie 01 ASC had better overall conditioning , you just can't especially taken into account Yates , Priest and McGough who all say Yates has better conditioning , you make an empty claim and then you think you accomplished something and you haven't . try backing up your claim it might help.

[Hulkster]

So I think that the opinion of bodybuilding fans (especially when it's so polarized) makes a strong argument in favor of Ronnie because there is no way to put them on a stage together at their best and even if it was possible, the outcome would be based on opinions in  any case.

exactly.

but ND does not understand.

he probably never will.

[Tigerman]

Its still an argument ad populum just because the opinion is popular doesn't mean its right , especially when comparing two bodybuilders , it doesn't matter how polarizing the opinion may be or how the masses reached that opinion its still NOT a fact period , end of sentence its faulty logic when the argument ad populum is relied upon

Sure it's what I'm saying. I never said that the majority of opinions translate into a fact.
Also you can't use the word "right" when referring to the outcome of a bodybuilding competition, at least not in an objective sense. Opinions about subjective matters are not objectively right or wrong. What I'm trying to say is that the outcome of this subjective debate seems to be in Ronnie's favor because way more people (and these are not only getbiggers but also many experts) prefer him over Dorian.
Is it right or wrong? The question is not even appropriate because bodybuilding is a subjective sport. What we can say is that for the majority of the readers of this endless thread the arguments in Ronnie's favor are stronger. Period.

[NarcissisticDeity]

exactly.

but ND does not understand.

he probably never will.

I understand that the opinion is popular and you wont get an argument from me about that but the moment you cling to the argument ad populum , claiming its a fact because its popular you will get corrected .