I gota be honest with you...Ronnie 2003 is awesome from a muscular development perpective, but from the point of view of bodybuilding he looks atrcious compared to 93' Dorian. Not only is he softer and showing less definition everywhere except on the arms with inferior balance and symmetry, but he should lose by default due to his massive distended gut. The ideal male physique(Mr.Olympia) shouldn't look like a nine month pregnant woman.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Well Yates is no Paris, his arms do throw off his balance a little, and his quads don't match his upper body for mass. But would Paris beat Yates on a stage in competition? I'm guessing no. And in the 2003 pre-judging is Coleman's gut actually visible? He's not hitting vacuum shots or anything, but if we dispose of preconceptions and mental images of Ronnie's gut at it's worst, in the video posted above he looks great.
I think Ronnie has a bigger, more defined chest, arms, delts, quads, hams, glutes. Lats is close, but Coleman's are bigger if nothing else. Calves obviously Yates. Conditioning Yates, but this is still bodyBUILDING, and for the same reasons Arnold beat Zane, Haney beat Labrada et al, Dorian would look like a well conditioned NPC competitor next to Ronnie's extra 30lb. I don't think Dorian is 30lb DRYER than Ronnie, if you see what I mean, so I think Ronnie's superior size everywhere would count for a lot. Other mass monsters like Nasser and Dillet had massive weaknesses in their backs, but this is Ronnie Coleman, he wouldn't hemorrhage points in that department like those others.
