Okay to address you points in order:
If pics have no bearing on this argument then why do you bother posting them as part of your argument. I guess I only "know" Ronnie's chest is bigger and more detailed in this shot because that's how it looks to me from the pics which have been posted. Bigger insertions and many more striations to me indicates this. Since the title of the thread denotes an analysis of this one stationary shot I propose that photos should be allowed to play some kind of role in the debate. You clearly agree as you also post long strings of photos to help make your point. When was competition Dorian ever much heavier than Ronnie. Am I allowed to start posting scarily huge 300lb Ronnie pics now? Or some of the ones from off-season 99 where he looked very good also? I'm not sure Ronnie's bigger biceps than triceps is particularly evident in the shot I posted, it certainly doesn't detract. DO I need to remind you of almost all the pics of Dorian you've posted feature a badly torn biceps and triceps on one or both arms. Regarding Ronnie's calves; they do not measure up to Dorian's, I can certainly concede this. Again in the pic posted there is no noticable asymmetry, they are the best calves on the stage, clearly besting Cormier and Flex in that shot.
You say I cherry picked the body parts Ronnie would win on. What I actually did was name ALL the bodyparts visible from the front. It just happened that Ronnie has better arms, quads, in this pic midsection, chest detail etc. Dorian may have bigger delts, but not better.
Now your 3rd paragraph is a bit of an interesting one. You say we're discussing these guys' physiques at their best. But say a 282lb Dorian should be admissable to the argument, and suggest I am out of line for observing the unlikelihood of a 282lb off-season Dorian having elite levels of low BF and dryness. Kevin Horton said top 3 in this 282lb condition? Fair enough but is that his "best". If we cross-reference this with your 10th paragraph, in which you believe you are schooling me in how "a contest is judged" it becomes evident you are fudging the conditions of the debate, as he was not 282lb, at any contest. If the judges were judging the imaginary off-season contest where he weighed 282lb, he would get crucified for a film of water and fat. If he was super ripped and dry at 282lb, would he even need to diet down another 25lb? Some of that must be water or fat or both, it's folly to think otherwise.
Posing and presentation is interesting also, as Dorian is a better poser. But again I was under the impression we were discussing best front lat spread, and Ronnie hits this one damn well in 99. No generalisations about their whole career's posing can get around that.
Where in the criteria does the torso length/leg length imply Ronnie loses? Ronnie has a shorter torso, like Arnold did, and Haney. The opposite of say Nasser. This enables his lower lats for one thing. You literally assume this is advantage Dorian on this one, which I can't understand.
In your 8th paragraph you seem to concede Ronnie is "more ' aesthetic ' than Yates but please , stop acting like Ronnie was truly aesthetic in insults Labrada , Paris and Reeves ." In this debate having better aesthetics than Dorian seems very relevant, and reference to those other guys seems irrelevant. Aesthetics also ties in to balance and proportion, and symmetry. Something which Ronnie must deliver in to achieve superior aesthetics as you concede.
I don't hate the '93 Dorian B/W pics, I simply charge that they don't represent a contest showing. He looks great, much fuller than he did when he made it to stage. I think the Ronnie '99 pic I keep posting shows better symmetry, the bigger quads and smaller waist have a great effect, Dorian's lower body is more H frame in the b/w pics. Black and white obviously highlights shadows/details etc, something you seem to disagree with morally in the darker '99 Ronnie pics. Make those black and white and see how the detail increases even more.
Getting to and recapping your main punchline: judges judge contests. If you are guessing what they would say about off-season Dorian, he would lose out when turned around in the glutes, that's for sure. If you think the judges would crucify Ronnie so much for his apparently awful symmetry etc (yet superior aesthetic?) Then it seems you are not talking about the same judges that gave him 8 Olympias over guys like Flex, Shawn Ray, Kevin, all the same guys Dorian beat. Thank you for giving my attempt at a fair approach some kudos, I would applaud in you a similar abstinance from imprecise hyperbole about Ronnie's in-fact-not-terrible balance and proportion.
Apologies for Sucky-esque length of post. Pretty boring I know.
If pics have no bearing on this argument then why do you bother posting them as part of your argument. I guess I only "know" Ronnie's chest is bigger and more detailed in this shot because that's how it looks to me from the pics which have been posted. Bigger insertions and many more striations to me indicates this. Since the title of the thread denotes an analysis of this one stationary shot I propose that photos should be allowed to play some kind of role in the debate.
Pics aren't the end all be all they are simply to limited for a host of reasons for the sake of argument they serve a purpose but again there are way to many intangibles , lighting , quality , angle , color , distance to try and form an concrete opinion on especially considering the following
Peter McGough
On the subject of conditioning, no-one did it better than Dorian. He achieved a hardness and dryness (without losing fullness) that nobody has ever matched. In the flesh he looked even harder than he did in photos. It was like a statue made of granite was standing in front of you.Dorian Yates interview bodybuilding.com 2008
Everyone who sees my physique in person always comments on how much better I look in person than in pictures. That's because my physique is thick and developed from all angles. From the front, from the back, from the side, standing on my head: it doesn't matter. Everywhere is fully developed from every angle. And this might not show in one-dimensional photos. When you turn somebody to the side and they are twice as thick as everyone else, then that shows up.
Flex magazine Jan 1992 on Dorian Yates
" Dorian has the type of physique that looks much better and more powerfull in person than photos. I personally saw him onstage , and Yates if definitely light years ahead of the way he looks in photos.MuscleMag International Feb 1994 on Dorian Yates at the 1993 Mr Olympia
" He's huge , absolutely HUGE ...he's ripped completely RIPPED. And while he's not in possession of the prettiest physique body by a long shot , he's equipped with all the bodyparts you need to win .
Combine this with the fact that he's 10 TIMES more impressive when you see him onstage at the Olympia than he is in pictures or on videos and you got yourself a winner.John Hotten book " Muscle "
" Chris Cormier standing next to Dorian onstage he sensed ' radiation coming off him , like an aura. ' The power of that muscle was tangible. It exerted a force all of its own. Cormier thought ' I might as well forget about this guy and concentrate on being second. ' There was something else , too , strange. You had to witness him in the flesh. such granite hradness had a property that could nor be held on film or caught on paper. You had to see it live.
Peter McGough Flex Magazine May 2002
Let it be said that the camera can lie at physique contests. Some guys look great onstage but not so great on final film (Dorian Yates, for one) and vice versa (Shawn Ray is an example). Despite that caveat, and despite the fact that these peepers Bob Chick GetBig Jan 15 , 2007
The judges made their decision based on what they saw live and in person. Pictures mean nothing as they can be deceiving...Now there is NO way in hell you can determine who as more striations , who's harder & drier , who has bigger parts when faced with this , absolutely NO WAY . Dorian has a ton of striations in his chest in most pics they aren't visible in black & white pics it's more evident most likely because Dorian has fair skin and Ronnie doesn't have this problem obviously , pictures serve a purpose but to be making declarations is nonsense especially when they contradict what eyewitnesses say
you clearly agree as you also post long strings of photos to help make your point. When was competition Dorian ever much heavier than Ronnie. Am I allowed to start posting scarily huge 300lb Ronnie pics now? Or some of the ones from off-season 99 where he looked very good also? I'm not sure Ronnie's bigger biceps than triceps is particularly evident in the shot I posted, it certainly doesn't detract. DO I need to remind you of almost all the pics of Dorian you've posted feature a badly torn biceps and triceps on one or both arms. Regarding Ronnie's calves; they do not measure up to Dorian's, I can certainly concede this. Again in the pic posted there is no noticable asymmetry, they are the best calves on the stage, clearly besting Cormier and Flex in that shot.
I post pics sparingly now , not as much as used to for the above mentioned reasons , but I will post any new and high quality pics because of the era difference there is a discrepancy in the quality of photos addressed by Kevin Horton already , camera technology has come a long way since 1993 . And when was a competition Dorian much heavier than Ronnie? Dorian's highest competition weight was 270 pounds in 1997 and Ronnie was 255 that's a big difference , Dorian was 257 in 1993 compared to Ronnie at the 2001 ASC who was 247 pounds , you don't think 10 pounds is a huge difference see the difference between Ronnie 1998 and 1999 with just 7 pounds but that's all irrelevant because Dorian wouldn't need to be bigger than Ronnie to beat him
You can post any pics you'd like Ronnie at 300 pounds is way behind on conditioning & balance , it's not an advantage , post any offseason pic of Ronnie because we all know the heavier he becomes the softer he becomes and the worse his balance becomes , here are some experts on the subject
Musclemag Oct 1996
on Ronnie's Canada Pro cup win
There is no way of telling how big any new pro can get before muscle size overtakes God-given structure to ruin the beauty of proportion. Many a once impressive physique has been diminished by overbuild. Not so with Ronnie. Not yet anyway , and I hope , never will it be so. The man grows and grows annually while still retaining the freshness of a 20-year old. No he still hasn't the calves to match Dorian's or Steve Reevs but what he does have is all is own.
This was Ronnie at around his ideal bodyweight 250 pounds
Wayne Demilla " I've said to Ronnie , " What you've got to realize is that in 98-99 you were probably in the best proportion you could be for your frame . Those muscles have gotten bigger. Just cos you're bigger , doesn't make you better . "Something I've said on many occasions which is exactly why 2001 is considered his Gold Standard showing
'm not sure Ronnie's bigger biceps than triceps is particularly evident in the shot I posted, it certainly doesn't detract. DO I need to remind you of almost all the pics of Dorian you've posted feature a badly torn biceps and triceps on one or both arms. Regarding Ronnie's calves; they do not measure up to Dorian's, I can certainly concede this. Again in the pic posted there is no noticable asymmetry, they are the best calves on the stage, clearly besting Cormier and Flex in that shot.
I disagree I see his massive biceps in that shot clearly affecting it , and a LOT of the pictures I post are of Dorian with untorn arms and even in 1995 his torn biceps cannot be seen in this pose . As far as the calves they don't measure up to Dorian's that's painfully obvious how ever and more importantly they DO NOT match up to his quads and that's were his proportional issues come into play and we're not talking about how his calves measure up against Flex & Comier ( and BTW Cormier's are better see all pics and all angles ) it's now they measure up to Dorian in this pose ,and symmetrical means exact copies of each other and guess what? they don't look like it and that doesn't matter anyway
You say I cherry picked the body parts Ronnie would win on. What I actually did was name ALL the bodyparts visible from the front. It just happened that Ronnie has better arms, quads, in this pic midsection, chest detail etc. Dorian may have bigger delts, but not better.
You did exactly that picked out parts made claims omitted the rest of the criteria nothing new , Ronnie doesn't have better ' arms ' another gross overstatement , arms include forearms which Ronnie doesn't beat Dorian in , biceps ( which he does ) and triceps which depending on the pose does NOT then factor in how well ALL of those parts fit together in a proportionate package ( Dorian ) then factor in how the arm matches up to the torso length and proportion in relation ( Dorian ) how the torso matches the lower body , length of legs in relation , then proportion of the calves to the quads and the proportion of the glutes in relation to the body ( Ronnie's can be seen from the front NO WAY in hell that's proportionate ) then you have to factor in density & dryness ( Dorian ) , muscular bulk ( Dorian depending on the year ) then lat sweep ( Dorian ) posing & presentation .
ALL OF THESE FACTORS DETERMINE WHO HAS THE SUPERIOR SHOT while Ronnie may satisfy part(s) of the criteria better than Dorian , he does NOT meet ALL of them as good as Dorian and that's how it's done
Now your 3rd paragraph is a bit of an interesting one. You say we're discussing these guys' physiques at their best. But say a 282lb Dorian should be admissable to the argument, and suggest I am out of line for observing the unlikelihood of a 282lb off-season Dorian having elite levels of low BF and dryness. Kevin Horton said top 3 in this 282lb condition? Fair enough but is that his "best". If we cross-reference this with your 10th paragraph, in which you believe you are schooling me in how "a contest is judged" it becomes evident you are fudging the conditions of the debate, as he was not 282lb, at any contest. If the judges were judging the imaginary off-season contest where he weighed 282lb, he would get crucified for a film of water and fat. If he was super ripped and dry at 282lb, would he even need to diet down another 25lb? Some of that must be water or fat or both, it's folly to think otherwise.
I'm not asking permission to use Dorian at 282 pounds lol I'm posting it regardless of if you think it's ' admissable ' ( sic ) or not , it's Dorian at his best compared to Ronnie at his , many feel 1993 Olympia is his best , other 1995 , you can argue 1993 pre-contest , same with 1995 pre-contest , a case can be made for all , but I personally think Dorian looks better heavier , he carries his weight very well and any advantages in size that Ronnie has becomes nullified ( not that it matters because he doesn't have to be bigger to beat him , like he wasn't compared to Nasser )
Here is Kevin Horton & Peter McGough on the topic of Dorian's pre-contest showings
Peter McGough Ironage
June 06 , 2003
The later photos were taken in his gym about seven weeks before the 1993 Olympia. He'd just finished a chest workout and he weighed 269 pounds. If I had to rate my most memorable bodybuilding moment the sight of Dorian that day would be neck-and-neck with the first time I saw Sergio. He hit the first shot, double biceps, and I walked up to him and said, "Don't worry Dorian. You have plenty of time to fix this. All is not lost."
I told him he could walk on to the Olympia stage in that condition weighing 269 pounds, untanned, with his socks on and still win.Admitting Dorian pre-contest in 1993 could have still defeated everyone at the 1993 Olympia
Kevin Horton
When I photgraphed Dorian , I told him " You should step onstage at 270 pounds. Do that , and there won't be a man on earth who can beat you." At 270 pounds Dorian was in very , very good condition , enough to put him in the top three onstage in hardness , and his untouachble size and thickness would have assured him the victory. This was after the famous 1993 pre-contest shots
Kevin Horoton GetBig Dec 30th
The photo is technically terrible, fortunately the physique is awesome.
I'd agree with Kris about Dorian showing up on stage how he looked a few weeks out. There are some shots of him at around 280 - 285 shredded. That conditioning has not been surpassed.
This speaks VOLUMES Kevin touching on what he believed Yates' best showing to be pre-contest 1995 at 282 pounds in which that front latspread where Hulkster cried photoshopped
And Dorian admitted he over dieted for most of his Olympia wins like 93 and 95 and sacrificed just pure muscle , in which McGough explained he lost some of his roundness which is true , so when he dieted down to 255-260 he lost mostly muscle his conditioning at that weight has not been surpassed
Posing and presentation is interesting also, as Dorian is a better poser. But again I was under the impression we were discussing best front lat spread, and Ronnie hits this one damn well in 99. No generalisations about their whole career's posing can get around that.
I already said posing & presentation is moot because in that particular pose Ronnie's actually hitting correctly for once and it's one of the better ones I've seen from him
Where in the criteria does the torso length/leg length imply Ronnie loses? Ronnie has a shorter torso, like Arnold did, and Haney. The opposite of say Nasser. This enables his lower lats for one thing. You literally assume this is advantage Dorian on this one, which I can't understand.
Where does it say in the criteria? balance & proportion? Arnold didn't really have a short torso , Haney did like Ronnie but what's ironic is Dorian's Yates are lower than both of them without a short torso , the pose worked for Haney despite his flaws structurally , Dorian's overall balance & proportion are evident throughout the entire pose
In your 8th paragraph you seem to concede Ronnie is "more ' aesthetic ' than Yates but please , stop acting like Ronnie was truly aesthetic in insults Labrada , Paris and Reeves ." In this debate having better aesthetics than Dorian seems very relevant, and reference to those other guys seems irrelevant. Aesthetics also ties in to balance and proportion, and symmetry. Something which Ronnie must deliver in to achieve superior aesthetics as you concede.
Again how can he be ' aesthetic ' when he doesn't have calves and abdominals? these along with deltoids are the hallmarks of an aesthetic bodybuilder , you want to claim he's more aesthetic than Yates knock yourself out it doesn't say much , and means much less considered Dorian absolutely destroyed some of the most aesthetic bodybuilders in the history of the sport , and aesthetic tie into balance & proportion and symmetry all of which Ronnie is lacking in with the exception of ' symmetry ' depending on who's definition of it.
I don't hate the '93 Dorian B/W pics, I simply charge that they don't represent a contest showing. He looks great, much fuller than he did when he made it to stage. I think the Ronnie '99 pic I keep posting shows better symmetry, the bigger quads and smaller waist have a great effect, Dorian's lower body is more H frame in the b/w pics. Black and white obviously highlights shadows/details etc, something you seem to disagree with morally in the darker '99 Ronnie pics. Make those black and white and see how the detail increases even more.
I agree they don't represent a contest showing , I think he would look even better with a tan and oil and contest lighting ! Dorian's front latspread is remarkable for many reasons especially considering how much wider his waist & hips are compared to Ronnie , side-by-side the difference would be much great in Yates favor and better symmetry meaning what? symmetry is part of balance & proportion , if you mean a smaller waist & hips and narrow joints than Ronnie wins that PART if you're talking balance & proportion than Dorian wins those factor in the rest of the criteria and Dorian wins it ALL ! Ronnie's problem isn't detail that can be clearly seen in most pics
Getting to and recapping your main punchline: judges judge contests. If you are guessing what they would say about off-season Dorian, he would lose out when turned around in the glutes, that's for sure. If you think the judges would crucify Ronnie so much for his apparently awful symmetry etc (yet superior aesthetic?) Then it seems you are not talking about the same judges that gave him 8 Olympias over guys like Flex, Shawn Ray, Kevin, all the same guys Dorian beat. Thank you for giving my attempt at a fair approach some kudos, I would applaud in you a similar abstinance from imprecise hyperbole about Ronnie's in-fact-not-terrible balance and proportion.
You're mistaken ' off-season ' with ' pre-contest ' quite a difference and Dorian's pre-contest conditioning at that weight is ' unmatched ' so let's say the conditioning was a push , Dorian still wins on muscular bulk , balance & proportion so he wins overall , let's say it's 1993 Mr Olympia Dorian ties Ronnie on muscular bulk or lets says he's slightly behind he clearly wins on density & dryness and balance & proportion so he wins again , he has way to many advantages to be beat !
And Dorian beat ALL of the guys to mentioned much closer to their primes , Ronnie had the flaws I mentioned yet still won and he deserved to compared to those guys , he never faced a anyone of Dorian's caliber who had the size & conditioning to surpass him and the balance to deal the deal ! everyone has flaws Dorian has less than Ronnie and meets the criteria better which is exactly why he would win
Apologies for Sucky-esque length of post. Pretty boring I know.
No apologies needed , if I've offended you I apologize . you present your case well and do it without the need for attacks and seem more objective than these guys .
