Once again ND you look the fool. The reality is that Ronnie was over 30 pounds heavier than Yates at his largest. Ronnies thighs, chest, arms, and shoulders were definitely bigger. No question. Only Dorian nuthuggers would think differently. Backs were probably nearly even as far as size, although I believe 2003 Coleman had the biggest and thickest back ever. Yates 1993 may have had the most detailed, thick back ever. I concur with you thinking Dorian's calves were light years ahead Ronnie. The masses agree that is because of their diamond like shape and detail. Size wise, Ronnie's calves were huge. I was at the 2005 and 2007 Mr. Olympias. I saw the man from twenty feet away. He is ginormous all over. However, his calves look like a mass of hung meat. Huge but not very aesthetic. Thus, the circumferential length may be equivalent. However, in layman speak that you would understand, a Ferrari can be the same length as Ford. Hope that help clarify for you (the greatest debater ever 
).
Once again ND you look the fool.
One of us looks like a fool and it isn't me
why?
The reality is that Ronnie was over 30 pounds heavier than Yates at his largest. Ronnies thighs, chest, arms, and shoulders were definitely bigger. No question
NOT in that comparison he's not , especially considering it's from 1999 which Ronnie was 257lbs compared to Dorian's 260lbs. And don't mistake bigger for better all those parts may very well have been bigger but were they better? There is a very good reason Ronnie at his smallest is considered his best ( 1998 he was 249lbs and 2001 ASC he was 247lbs ) Many bodybuilders had bigger parts than Dorian and they all lost , ever wonder why?
No question. Only Dorian nuthuggers would think differently.
The critique was directly comparing Dorian compared to Ronnie 1999 , Ronnie has a smaller hips & waist than Dorian same with joints and in that comparison it's not the case which proves the scale isn't correct ( admittedly hard to scale two separate pictures from two separate contests ) and Ronnie's calves in 1999 are NOT on par with Dorian and in that pic they are which shows how far the scale if off in Ronnie's favor I might add
Backs were probably nearly even as far as size, although I believe 2003 Coleman had the biggest and thickest back ever.
I would say Ronnie's back in 2003 very well might be bigger than Dorians but again bigger doesn't mean better , the quality of his back suffered immensely compared he when he was just 247lbs the depth , the separation , the shrink-wrapped looked all gone
. I concur with you thinking Dorian's calves were light years ahead Ronnie. The masses agree that is because of their diamond like shape and detail. Size wise, Ronnie's calves were huge. I was at the 2005 and 2007 Mr. Olympias. I saw the man from twenty feet away. He is ginormous all over. However, his calves look like a mass of hung meat
We're talking specifically about 1999 I don't care if his calves were bigger they just don't compare. but even heavier his calves sucked
However, in layman speak that you would understand, a Ferrari can be the same length as Ford. Hope that help clarify for you (the greatest debater ever ).
lol greatest debater ever? You're the one who can't even follow along going off on tangents and letting emotion do the typing for you.
