if you mean by shape then you'll get NO argument however in terms of density , development Dorian is leaving Sergio for dead , having larger rounder softer quads is NO advantage
you see what you want , nothing wrong with that , Flex comes closer to Sergio in terms of small joints , full round muscle bellies and aesthetic than Coleman ever could
Coleman's forearm's aren't ' TINY ' just not in proportion with his biceps & triceps , they like his calves insert high and lack great shape
Horton's not a judge true , Yates is 
and the impact his photos speak for themselves , but his opinion on the subject is a valuable one because to this date he's never taken any side and is really objective and honest
If you think Dorian has better quads then I don't know what to say. If they were more defined, or had superor tear-drop/outer-quad/sartorious separation etc... , then I could overlook the fact they are about 2/3 the size. Look at the pics, and see where the inner legs taper suddenly on Dorian, and how they are thick and full on Ronnie. I know Dorian beat Nasser and others with great quads, but Ronnie's got those crazy lats as well, which no-one had in Dorian's day except Dorian.
Flex may have smaller joints still, but again this seems a mute point, as in the Dorian/Ronnie debate all that matters is that Ronnie has fuller muscle bellies than Dorian, something you seem to concede with the abstract Flex reference. If Dillet had a great back and ripped glutes/hams then I believe he could have beat Dorian. Dillet didn't have those things, but Ronnie did. I guess this is irrelevant too, as we are talking about the best pic you can post of a Dorian lat spread vs. the best Ronnie lat spread I can post. With some opinions from Dorian's photographer thrown in to sweeten the argument a bit. I can believe Dorian's conditioning gave him a magical aura when he transitioned between poses, but I feel a stationary shot is a slightly different argument.
I think in the pic I posted there is no noticable flaw in Ronnie's forearms, I mean they are absolutely huge, full and ripped/detailed. They look slightly worse in the front double bi, but great in this pose, very powerful. (still pretty damn good in front double bi, also attached to arguably greatest upper arms of all time.)
Was Yates amongst the ex-Olympian judges who voted Badell 1st in challenge round 2005? Because the real judges at the time seemed to disagree, even though Ronnie already has a small left tri and a less eye-popping rear lat spread.
I think I am objective too tbh. I believe Dorian was great, and it would be a damn close call. But as far as the internet debate, my pic is better than your pic. I'd be intrigued to see if you can concede this, since it would not technically win me the real-life debate. All the quotes you have posted about the effect of real life vs. photos suggests to me you need to prove to me that even if my photo is better it doesn't mean anything. Which logically suggests to me that my photo is better, otherwise why would you bother with the real-life sub-argument. I guess since I've never seen either guy in person I could even concede Dorian might be better in person, which is the ultimate truth of course, but it sure as hell looks to me from pictures - my only frame of reference outside of Dorian's photographer's words - that Ronnie has pretty much everything bigger and better except calves. Add superior aesthetic and much better detail all over and, calves withstanding, we have the photo victor.
