Wrong pobrecito, Ronnie kills him in the back double bi. Why, his back is thicker but not as ripped. I agree with you there. However, he has better delts, far superior arms, and striated and thick hams/glutes. Yates has him on calves. Oh well, I guess Ronnie should go back into hiding. Seriously though, Yates back double bi is not overly impressive except for his back detail. Coleman is wider and thicker. The widest is Cutler; he just lacks detail. Overall, this thread is another rehash of Yates vs Coleman. It is old news. ND is forever gonna be a Yates lover. Hulkster is Coleman's biggest fan. Personally, I would love to see someone like Freeman come along and get bigger and more ripped than both of them.
However, while we are debating (again) Yates vs Coleman, consider the following. Yates had detail but zero aesthetics. Ronnie has decent detail (especially in 1998/1999) and far superior size and taper. Sorry ND, the 260 pound Yates had a bloated stomach, average arms and legs that would have gotten raped by Coleman. His calves were better, but his limbs for the most part were average. Good size in the quads and hams, but Ronnie kills him in detail and size. Ronnie has a far superior chest than Yates ever had. Yates has better rectus abdominus, but wider obliques. It is a joke that you think Ronnie in 2003 wouldn't blow Yates off the stage. Anybody without shades realizes that Ronnie would destroy him. The only pics where Yates could even hope to match him in size are three seasons out from the contest in off-season shape. At 290 pounds, Yates had visible fat. Face it, Ronnie is more muscular. Whether you prefer that look is one thing; however, to even insinuate that Yate's was more muscular is laughable.
Nicorulez, I thought you were more reasonable than that. So the 2003 Coleman would "absolutely destroy" Dorian? First of all, you're wrong that Dorian only came in at 260 lbs because he couldn't come in heavier without looking soft. Dorian had a visible six-pack and christmas-tree at 305 lbs off-season. Even to this day, he remains one of the top three more haevily muscled individuals ever.
The reason why Dorian came in at "only" 260 lbs is because he brought nothing to the table but pure muscular tissue on top of bones and organs. He was shredded to the bone. In fact, at the 1997 Olympia, at a bodyweight above 270 lbs, Dorian was still infinitely drier and harder than Coleman was in 2003. And the difference in bodyweight between the two there would be, at the most 15 lbs.
You assume that Ronnie would blow Dorian off the stgagwe because he would so soundly defeat him in muscularity. You make the mistake of assuming that Ronnie had 27 lbs of lean muscle mass over Dorian, when in reality he only had 10 lbs or so: most of it was gut distension and sub-cutaneous water. What happens when a man because fat? His weight increase. What's the sign that a man is overweight? A gut. Guts add weight to the body, and it doesen't matter if it is filled with fat or enlarged internal organs; regardless, it's not muscle!
You say that his arms wers shit next to Ronnie? How is this relevant since Dorian wins an entire mandatory due to his triceps? The only pose where Ronnie's superior overral arr mass is visible is in the front double biceps. That's one pose out of seven. On all other mandatories, Ronnie's arms wouldn't due shit for him. As far as arms goes, Dorian would win all mandatories where his lateral triceps head si envolved, which includes that side chest, triceps and back doubble biceps.
Speaking of the back double biceps, the only thing that Ronnie has on Dorian is biceps, which is barely visible here regardless. Dorian has triceps that are as big as Ronnie's in this pose with greater hardness. His delts may be smaller, but the difference is very small and Dorian has the three heads more equally developed. Dorian's christmas-tree is thicker than Ronnie's although the latter outweights him by 30 lbs, and his lats, although not as thick, are roughly as wide and have superior hardness. All of his back muscles are more dlineated and he doesen't have a film of water obscuring definition like Ronnie does. Ronnie's glutes are hypertrophied, which is a very, very bad thing as far as bodybuilding goes: together with the abs, the glutes are the only bodypart that should
not be hypertrophied by a male bodybuilder. Why? Because bodybuilding is about exagerating the male form, and large glutes are unmanly. Dorian is also more symmetrical in this mandatory
exactly because his glutes are smaller and his calves, bigger.
And Dorian does not have average legs. That's a riddiculous argument if there ever was one. Ronnie's quadriceps might be slightly bigger in 1999, but I think most of the appearance of size was due to his smaller joints. Dorian's quads were fantastic is size, although not so much in separations - but he compensated with greater hardness. Dorian's hams were striated; so were his glutes - and they were smaller than Ronnie's, which is a
good thing. Now the 2003 Coleman far surpassed Dorian in quad size, but Dorian still had the advantage in hardness, witht he added bones that he had better separations than the 2003 Coleman. And as much as Ronnie's quads became huge in 2003, his glutes became even bigger. Horrible. If you can make the argument that Dorian had small arms for his torso, well, then I can make the argument that the 2003 Coleman had quads that dwarfed his torso as well!
Ronnie migh have the bigger pecs in 2003, but the difference was far smaller than you make it to be, and Dorian made his pecs work better for him, because he had the better symmetry in tyhe side chest mandatory and his pecs were almost as thick. This mandatory emphasized just how huge Ronnie's vastus lateralis were over all other muscles in this pose. His calves are pathetic, and his three deltoid heads are lacking in symmetry in relation to each other. You're out of your mind if you think that the 2003 Coleman would walk all over Dorian; if anything, Dorian would win. Ronnie's monster gut is distended beyong belief and, at an unbiased contest, would make Coleman lose the symmetry round flat out. As far as muscularity goes, nothing is set in stone, because Dorian still holds his own in the back mandatories, and had much, much superior conditioning overral - with plenty of muscle to spare. Before, I used to give credit to the 2003 Coleman; not anymore. Now I realized that most of that weight he gained was water and gut distension, witht he rest going to his quads. His arms were only 1" bigger in 2003 than in 1999. Ronnie looked like a preganant water-buffalo in 2003, and it showed.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
