He doesen't have better symmetry, and fullness is not part of the criteria. As for shape, Dorian did defeat Wheeler who has better shpe than Ronnie, so your point is redundant.
ha ha ha, wow. So many things wrong with this post. First, Andreas Munzer always had the best conditioning in the show yet he still lost. According to your logic, conditioning must not matter. See how that works? This is why I said you cannot isolate parts of the judging criteria to argue who would win.
Second, Ronnie does have better symmetry than Dorian. Let's look at the definition.
Lee Hayward - http://www.leehayward.com/bodybuilding_terms.htm"Symmetry - If you have good symmetry, you will have relatively wide shoulders, flaring lats, a small waist-hip structure, and generally small joints."
Dorian Yates - Flex, October 2006"Symmetry means one side is shaped the same as the other side--its mirror image."
using the descriptions above, Ronnie has better symmetry than Dorian.
Third, fullness is part of the judging criteria.
"Muscular development is the balanced development between the musculature displaying density, separation and definition of the muscle groups.
* DENSITY is the depth and
fullness of the muscle bellies.
* SEPARATION is the delineation between the muscle groups.
* DEFINITION is the absence of fat making the muscles clearly visible through the skin surface
You, as the judge, should be looking for muscular density that has been achieved through training, giving the muscles a
full healthy look."
http://www.getbig.com/info/npc/npcrules.htmHaney's legs were not that much a disproportion because his was much smaller than Coleman 2003, and his legs were in proportion with his arms and the rest of his body. Want to see disproportion, look no further than Coleman's quads at the 2003 Olympia, which dwarfed the rest of his physique, and his pathetic calves which were in disproportion to all his physique and massively disproportional in relation to his quads.
Ronnie's legs in 03 were in proportion with his equally massive arms (to borrow your argument) and both had relatively weak calves. So I don't see the difference between Lee Haney's and Ronnie's proportion issues.
Coleman 2003 does not have the advantages in symmetry and aesthetics that Haney 1991 enjoyed over Dorian, and his conditioning would be a liability which was not the case with Haney, who's conditioning was only slightly inferior to Dorian's.
wtf are you talking about? Ronnie's conditioning in 03 was better than Lee Haney's.
No, bad analogy. Period.
sorry, but I already showed why my analogy is valid. Lee Haney and Ronnie have better size and shape than Dorian but worse conditioning and proportion.
Wow, what a brilliant argument. Going by your stupid logic, then bodybuilders shouldn't even diet for contests, since the guy with the biggest muscles will always win. Why step onstage super-ripped at 260 lbs if you can step onstage at 300 lbs with a thick layer of subcutaneous fat and still win?
simple: definition.
No way no how does Ronnie 2003 have better symmetry than Dorian. Quads that overpower the torso and especially the calves. Ginormous biceps that overpower the triceps and forearms. Enormous glutes more suited to a female of the species which completely overpowers his back view. A huge protruding gut that looks like that of a female in the eigh month of gestation. Dorian 1993, conversely, had almost flawless symmetry.
refer to definition of symmetry above.
Ronnie does have rounder muscle bellies than Dorian, but again it is immaterial as an advantage because it is mitigated by his enormous abdomen and gluteus maximus muscles, which take away from his shape in my opinion. Furthermore, Dorian had no problem defeating Wheeler who had evne rounder muscles than Ronnie.
Ronnie kept his midsection in control during pre-judging. So his gut wouldn't be a liability unless the judges started judging contests backstage or from the corners of the stage.
Fullness is not part of the criteria, and increased fullness by having more fat and water inside the muscle is not an advantage.
refer to above.
