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.
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.
Better quads than Sergio ! are you even reading before you type? Huh and if you're referring to Ronnie's quads in comparison you couldn't tell if they were ' 2/3 the size ' unless they were side-by-side
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.
Fuller muscle bellies if you mean less dense sure not exactly a great advantage FYI ! and bad reference to basically say Ronnie is like Dillett , Dillett's structure , balance & proportion are much better than Ronnie's . Dorian's conditioning is legendary and how you came to the conclusion it's magical only when transitioning is beyond me Huh it's a fact pictures don't due him justice so just because it doesn't translate on paper & film doesn't mean it's not so
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.)
This is one of Ronnie's better showing in terms of balance & proportion FOR HIS PHYSIQUE but it's still not in Dorian's league his forearm discrepancy is more noticeable in other shots which you agree
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.
In terms of pic YOU see what you want to see ( much like everyone else ) being ignorant of the judging criteria you can't possibly say who is better , you can type what you think wins and what you prefer however that's not hows it done ! I think the Ronnie pics show his detail much easier than Yates for a host of reasons which doesn't mean the Ronnie pics are better just shows off his advantages in detail more , pic's clearly show Dorian's advantages in balance & proportion as well as him being more complete
And Ronnie has bigger everything besides calves compared to Dorian in what terms? when he was much lighter and Ronnie at 287 pounds? well duh how about the exact same weight? or Dorian much heavier? I mean that's a gross generalization and entertaining it were true that doesn't mean much because there are many other factors in determining who has the better physique and pose , density & dryness , balance & proportion , completeness , etc
And almost ALL of the contest reports I've read all state another fact besides him looking eons better in person , he looks bigger than much bigger competitors
Quote from John Balik, commenting on the 96 O:
"Dorian Yates looked absolutely fantastic. He was so freaking dense and so freaking ripped and dry, that he actually looked bigger than all the 280 lbs competitors, even though he tipped the scales at 255 lbs." ronman Magazine Jan 1994
I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab
Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.I can post others but you get the gist , Ronnie at a similar weight wont out muscle Yates sorry and would get positively dwarfed if Dorian is 282 pounds and Ronnie 247-257
Dorian will always have these advantages against Ronnie Coleman NO matter what year , density & dryness , balance & proportion , detail you couldn't tell unless you seen them both live and in person and entertaining Ronnie has the clear advantage in this department it doesn't mean he's an automatic winner especially considering ALL of the criteria is assessed at once , so while Ronnie has advantages in part(s) of the criteria he doesn't beat Dorian in ALL of it
