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

[NeoSeminole]

no definition is the official word and its an old term , definition is conditioning and of course density is part of conditioning but again its listed separately for a reason , people can be dry and not dense , again I've said before when a person is out of shape NO ONE says ' his definition was off ' its an outdated term

no, definition is listed separately, which according to you, means it's a separate criteria.

by the way, people can be dry and not defined. So again, your argument fails to demonstrate why density is different from conditioning.

[NarcissisticDeity]

I see bitch tits and where is the full shot? you know so we can see his piss-poor balance & proportion , front latspread is Dorian's all the way , then Haney

[pumpster]

Oliva dominating Haney and Yates..

[NarcissisticDeity]

no, definition is listed separately, which according to you, means it's a separate criteria.

yeah it is its a synonym for conditioning 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Oliva dominating Haney and Yates..

LMMFAO dominating best post ever

[NeoSeminole]

yeah it is its a synonym for conditioning

so is definition.

[NarcissisticDeity]

so is definition.

isn't that what I just said? are you paying attention? lol Neo definition is NOT a word that is used anymore its conditioning and density is a part of being well conditioned but one can be well conditioned but not dense.

[Tigerman]

"In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic."

The way I see it. According to Peter McGough, Ronnie's best show was 2001 AC. He said Ronnie's physique in that instance might be only challenged by Dorian's 93 offstage pics and video.
That being said I don't think he believes Ronnie's best Olympia physique was 98. He claims that Ronnies was drier in 98 but that in 99 was 1) bigger and 2) fuller and 3) more detailed (not because he was drier but because he was fuller and his muscles were popping out more, I think). I would add that in 99 his gyno was much less evident than in 98.
I believe that the ranking for Peter Mc Gough would be

1) 01 ASC
2) 99 O
3) 98 O

Now, that's Peter McGough personal preference (he's not talking of IFBB standards here) that is not necessarily representative of judges assessment that have to follow IFBB criteria.
I believe that Ronnie's more competitive physique would be 2003 Olympia, according to IFBB standards. The extra mass he had in that show was more than enough to compensate the slight worse conditioning he had compared to the three shows above. Dorian himself said that probably he would have lost to a more massive Ronnie (I think Dorian was referring to 2003 O. Ronnie).

In my opinion Ronnie's best physique was at 99 Olympia and 99 England Grand Prix. But that is my personal preference. According to IFBB standards his absolute best was 2003 Olympia (untouchable and unbeatable).

[NeoSeminole]

isn't that what I just said? are you paying attention? lol Neo definition is NOT a word that is used anymore its conditioning and density is a part of being well conditioned but one can be well conditioned but not dense.

conditioning is an umbrella term for density and definition, you dipshit.

[NarcissisticDeity]

"In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic."

The way I see it. According to Peter McGough, Ronnie's best show was 2001 AC. He said Ronnie's physique in that instance might be only challenged by Dorian's 93 offstage pics and video.
That being said I don't think he believes Ronnie's best Olympia physique was 98. He claims that Ronnies was drier in 98 but that in 99 was 1) bigger and 2) fuller and 3) more detailed (not because he was drier but because he was fuller and his muscles were popping out more, I think). I would add that in 99 his gyno was much less evident than in 98.
I believe that the ranking for Peter Mc Gough would be

1) 01 ASC
2) 99 O
3) 98 O

Now, that's Peter McGough personal preference (he's not talking of IFBB standards here) that is not necessarily representative of judges assessment that have to follow IFBB criteria.
I believe that Ronnie's more competitive physique would be 2003 Olympia, according to IFBB standards. The extra mass he had in that show was more than enough to compensate the slight worse conditioning he had compared to the three shows above. Dorian himself said that probably he would have lost to a more massive Ronnie (I think Dorian was referring to 2003 O. Ronnie).

In my opinion Ronnie's best physique was at 99 Olympia and 99 England Grand Prix. But that is my personal preference. According to IFBB standards his absolute best was 2003 Olympia (untouchable and unbeatable).

Ronnie disagrees ( as do most others ) he said his first Olympia showing was his best , specifically because his conditioning was ' spot-on ' again other refer to his best showings either 1998 or 2001 Arnold Classic , 2003 NO WAY . he looked leaps & bounds better lighter , his balance & proportion were better his density & conditioning was well .

[NeoSeminole]

"In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic."

The way I see it. According to Peter McGough, Ronnie's best show was 2001 AC. He said Ronnie's physique in that instance might be only challenged by Dorian's 93 offstage pics and video.
That being said I don't think he believes Ronnie's best Olympia physique was 98. He claims that Ronnies was drier in 98 but that in 99 was 1) bigger and 2) fuller and 3) more detailed (not because he was drier but because he was fuller and his muscles were popping out more, I think). I would add that in 99 his gyno was much less evident than in 98.
I believe that the ranking for Peter Mc Gough would be

1) 01 ASC
2) 99 O
3) 98 O

Now, that's Peter McGough personal preference (he's not talking of IFBB standards here) that is not necessarily representative of judges assessment that have to follow IFBB criteria.
I believe that Ronnie's more competitive physique would be 2003 Olympia, according to IFBB standards. The extra mass he had in that show was more than enough to compensate the slight worse conditioning he had compared to the three shows above. Dorian himself said that probably he would have lost to a more massive Ronnie (I think Dorian was referring to 2003 O. Ronnie).

In my opinion Ronnie's best physique was at 99 Olympia and 99 England Grand Prix. But that is my personal preference. According to IFBB standards his absolute best was 2003 Olympia (untouchable and unbeatable).

best post I've read in a while.

[NarcissisticDeity]

conditioning is an umbrella term for density and definition, you dipshit.

NO fucking shit but according to the OFFICIAL IFBB JUDGING CRITERIA its listed separately from ' definition ' get this through your ignorant head , again one can be dry but NOT dense the most desirable position is to be bone dry and rock hard while carrying a lot of muscular bulk , you know Dorian Yates

    



Density - Muscle hardness, which is also related to muscu-lar definition. A bodybuilder can be well-defined and still have excess fat within each major muscle complex. But when he has muscle density, even this intramuscular fat has been eliminated. A combination of muscle mass and muscle density is highly prized among all competitive bodybuilders.

[NarcissisticDeity]

98/01 ASC Ronnie looked his best

[NeoSeminole]

Ronnie disagrees ( as do most others ) he said his first Olympia showing was his best , specifically because his conditioning was ' spot-on ' again other refer to his best showings either 1998 or 2001 Arnold Classic , 2003 NO WAY . he looked leaps & bounds better lighter , his balance & proportion were better his density & conditioning was well.

who gives a shit what Ronnie said? Have you ever listened to him talk? No offense to the guy, but he sounds like he's a few IQ points shy of triple digits.

[Tigerman]

Ronnie disagrees ( as do most others ) he said his first Olympia showing was his best , specifically because his conditioning was ' spot-on ' again other refer to his best showings either 1998 or 2001 Arnold Classic , 2003 NO WAY . he looked leaps & bounds better lighter , his balance & proportion were better his density & conditioning was well .

Well ND, since when Ronnie is a IFBB judge? He believed he won in 2006... He has lots of personal emotions and feelings about his first Olympia win and I agree that his condition was spot-on. Does that mean that it was the only time it was spot on?? No.

Dorian is a IFBB judge and he said during his interview that a more massive Ronnie (i.e. not in 98 or 99 or 01) would probably defeat him. As a judge Dorian probably had IFBB criteria in mind.
We both agree that personal preferences are different than what judges are after and sometimes when people are asked what was Ronnie's best they answer their favorite version (more aesthetic, more conditioned 98, 99, 01 Ronnie). But we both know how much the mass is valued in modern body building. Ronnie in 2003 was mind blowing, he would make appear 2001 ASC Ronnie too small. The judges (Dorian in primis) would give it to 2003 Ronnie.

[NeoSeminole]

NO fucking shit but according to the OFFICIAL IFBB JUDGING CRITERIA its listed separately from ' definition ' get this through your ignorant head , again one can be dry but NOT dense the most desirable position is to be bone dry and rock hard while carrying a lot of muscular bulk , you know Dorian Yates

it's listed separately just as definition is too. So I fail to see why density is a separate criteria but definition isn't. And to use your own poor logic against you, one can be dry but not defined. Your argument fails.

[NarcissisticDeity]

who gives a shit what Ronnie said? Have you ever listened to him talk? No offense to the guy, but he sounds like he's a few IQ points shy of triple digits.

Of course you don't give a shit what Ronnie says because it silences your bull shit , just like you don't care what McGough says , and Shawn Perine says or Dorian Yates says because they all silence your ignorance , stick to training fat chicks competitive bodybuilding isn't your thing 

oh and having a high IQ means dick it means you're good at taking tests designed by like minded people it has NOTHING to do with a particular field of expertise .

[NarcissisticDeity]

Well ND, since when Ronnie is a IFBB judge? He believed he won in 2006... He has lots of personal emotions and feelings about his first Olympia win and I agree that his condition was spot-on. Does that mean that it was the only time it was spot on?? No.

Dorian is a IFBB judge and he said during his interview that a more massive Ronnie (i.e. not in 98 or 99 or 01) would probably defeat him. As a judge Dorian probably had IFBB criteria in mind.
We both agree that personal preferences are different than what judges are after and sometimes when people are asked what was Ronnie's best they answer their favorite version (more aesthetic, more conditioned 98, 99, 01 Ronnie). But we both know how much the mass is valued in modern body building. Ronnie in 2003 was mind blowing, he would make appear 2001 ASC Ronnie too small. The judges (Dorian in primis) would give it to 2003 Ronnie.

I think Ronnie would know when his conditioning is on , anyway that just confirms what the ' experts ' say on the topic and more than one of them McGough , Perine etc

and Yates said Ronnie would probably beat him and right after that he said I don't know its a hard question for me two answer and he's gone on record as saying he's better conditioned than Ronnie and has better balance and he would know he is an IFBB judge what is left? size? Ronnie was heavier but less conditioned , less dense and his balance & proportion is worse hence why Yates would beat him because he satisfies the criteria better .

[NeoSeminole]

Of course you don't give a shit what Ronnie says because it silences your bull shit , just like you don't care what McGough says , and Shawn Perine says or Dorian Yates says because they all silence your ignorance , stick to training fat chicks competitive bodybuilding isn't your thing

no, I don't care what Ronnie says b/c he's not a credible source. Tigerman provided a good example with Ronnie thinking he won the 06 Mr. Olympia. We all know the outcome of that contest.

oh and having a high IQ means dick it means you're good at taking tests designed by like minded people it has NOTHING to do with a particular field of expertise.

IQ is related to how well a person can rationalize and formulate their own thoughts. I get the impression that Ronnie just parrots whatever he hears.

[NarcissisticDeity]

it's listed separately just as definition is too. So I fail to see why density is a separate criteria but definition isn't. And to use your own poor logic against you, one can be dry but not defined. Your argument fails.

Keep chasing your tail around in circles  its all moot because Ronnie was never as hard or as dry as Yates ( old news ) and to use your own stupidity against you , better detail doesn't make a better pose , especially when you consider he lags behind in balance & proportion , density & dryness 

[NarcissisticDeity]

no, I don't care what Ronnie says b/c he's not a credible source. Tigerman provided a good example with Ronnie thinking he won the 06 Mr. Olympia. We all know the outcome of that contest.

IQ is related to how well a person can rationalize and formulate their own thoughts. I get the impression that Ronnie just parrots whatever he hears.

no, I don't care what Ronnie says b/c he's not a credible source. Tigerman provided a good example with Ronnie thinking he won the 06 Mr. Olympia. We all know the outcome of that contest.

okay lets take Coleman out of the equation , both independent and objective writers both came to the same conclusion , Ronnie was better conditioned in 1998 & 2001 and Ronnie's opinion is right in line with theirs 

IQ is related to how well a person can rationalize and formulate their own thoughts. I get the impression that Ronnie just parrots whatever he hears.

IQ means you're good at problem solving and please read this on the topic of IQ from one with a very high one



    What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me. (It didn't mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP - kitchen police - as my highest duty.)

    All my life I've been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I'm highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too. Actually, though, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests - people with intellectual bents similar to mine?

    For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car.

    Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.

    Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: "Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?"

    Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, "Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them." Then he said smugly, "I've been trying that on all my customers today." "Did you catch many?" I asked. "Quite a few," he said, "but I knew for sure I'd catch you." "Why is that?" I asked. "Because you're so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn't be very smart."

    And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.

[NeoSeminole]

Keep chasing your tail

on the contrary, you're the one who is going in circles with no substance to your argument. All you can do is say "I'm right and you're wrong." I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation why density is a separate criteria from conditioning but not definition without contradicting yourself.

its all moot because Ronnie was never as hard or as dry as Yates ( old news ) and to use your own stupidity against you , better detail doesn't make a better pose , especially when you consider he lags behind in balance & proportion , density & dryness

Ronnie in 03 presented a better combination of muscular bulk, symmetry, definition, fullness, and shape than Dorian.

[Tigerman]

I think Ronnie would know when his conditioning is on , anyway that just confirms what the ' experts ' say on the topic and more than one of them McGough , Perine etc

and Yates said Ronnie would probably beat him and right after that he said I don't know its a hard question for me two answer and he's gone on record as saying he's better conditioned than Ronnie and has better balance and he would know he is an IFBB judge what is left? size? Ronnie was heavier but less conditioned , less dense and his balance & proportion is worse hence why Yates would beat him because he satisfies the criteria better .

1) ND, Dorian didn't only say it was a tough question!!! He added that Ronnie would have probably beaten him. Again, he's IFBB judge and probably has good reasons to believe that Ronnie's size advantage would be enough to compensate for his conditioning or balance slight advantage.

2) I know that Perine and Mc Gough are expert but they are not judging the Olympia. Actually on Flex they disagree with judges very often. IFBB judges (like Dorian) evaluate contests not Flex columnists.

3) Regarding Ronnie knowing about his condition... well, competitors are always and obvioulsy biased about their own appearance. They have feelings involved and they always belevee what they want to believe, that they deserved more or placed higher. Is Ronnie different?! lol no!  

[NarcissisticDeity]

1) ND, Dorian didn't only say it was a tough question!!! He added that Ronnie would have probably beaten him. Again, he's IFBB judge and probably has good reasons to believe that Ronnie's size advantage would be enough to compensate for his conditioning or balance slight advantage.

2) I know that Perine and Mc Gough are expert but they are not judging the Olympia. Actually on Flex they disagree with judges very often. IFBB judges (like Dorian) evaluate contests not Flex columnists.

3) Regarding Ronnie knowing about his condition... well, competitors are always and obvioulsy biased about their own appearance. They have feelings involved and they always belevee what they want to believe, that they deserved more or placed higher. Is Ronnie different?! lol no!   

1) ND, Dorian didn't only say it was a tough question!!! He added that Ronnie would have probably beaten him. Again, he's IFBB judge and probably has good reasons to believe that Ronnie's size advantage would be enough to compensate for his conditioning or balance slight advantage.

he also said " I don't know " don't discount this , and again Dorian at his best satisfies the criteria better , much better than Ronnie 2003 who's conditioning & density aren't their best ( never mind on Dorian's level ) his balance & proportion are at their all-time personal worse ( with the exception of the following year ) Dorian at 269 pounds is almost as big , much better balance & proportion , harder & denser and factor in the other criteria posing , Dorian is a better technical poser , Dorian would beat Ronnie 2003 because he's more complete the same way Dorian beat Nasser who was 285

 

2) I know that Perine and Mc Gough are expert but they are not judging the Olympia. Actually on Flex they disagree with judges very often. IFBB judges (like Dorian) evaluate contests not Flex columnists.

Again its their job to know what their talking about and again everyone points out that Ronnie's best showings are 98 & 01 and Yates has gone on record as saying he has better conditioning than Ronnie , and he's an IFBB judge so I'll agree ( and it coinsides with what McGough said )

3) Regarding Ronnie knowing about his condition... well, competitors are always and obvioulsy biased about their own appearance. They have feelings involved and they always belevee what they want to believe, that they deserved more or placed higher. Is Ronnie different?! lol no!   

okay ( again ) take Ronnie out of the equation , Yates has said his conditioning is better than Ronnies ( old news )

[NeoSeminole]

LMAO @ ND saying this:



was more conditioned than this: