You think we need them side by side to determine who has the bigger quads? Interesting... does any part of you think Ronnie, the slightly taller of the two, would suddenly seem to have the smaller quads when side by side? Also you slipped arms in there as something Dorian might win on side by side; surely a mistake? Ask Shawn Ray, arms were not Dorian's thing. If we are talking 95 he only had one bicep. If we are talking '93 he was 257 wasn't he? You can;t pic and choose attributes from different years and combine them.
Ronnie's chest does flatten out in this pose it's true, although I think the crazy detail and extra massive insertions are pluses Dorian doesn't have.
I maintain his calves are good by normal standards in the '99 pic. Just not crazy best-ever Dorian standards. But then Dorian's biceps, although not bad in '93 were never best-ever material like Ronnie's. And I honestly think quads are a bigger muscle group than calves, and that average calves (please don't pretend they're so bad IN THAT SHOT) and fantastic quads is certainly equal to great calves and small, poorly separated quads.
Condition is funny because I personally think Dorian takes it with his granite look thing. But Ronnie sure had people shocked when he turned around and had that crazy crazy ham and glute conditioning, he really shocked the world, like a 250lb black Rich Gaspari or something. Anyway he really is no slouch in this department, as in later years he'd even rely on this for wins, much like post-tear Dorian did with his granite muscles. Striations, detail and separation do play a part, just like muscle maturity etc, so I wouldn't pooh-pooh these comments so readily. Ronnie does have great balance in some shots, surely a requirement for 8x Mr O? The judges sure thought he was better than a best-ever 2000 Levrone and several big versions of Flex, so not all the pro-Ronnie arguemnts are pure "garbage". The guy was good.
You think we need them side by side to determine who has the bigger quads? Interesting... does any part of you think Ronnie, the slightly taller of the two, would suddenly seem to have the smaller quads when side by side? Also you slipped arms in there as something Dorian might win on side by side; surely a mistake? Ask Shawn Ray, arms were not Dorian's thing. If we are talking 95 he only had one bicep. If we are talking '93 he was 257 wasn't he? You can;t pic and choose attributes from different years and combine them.
Well that depends on the year if we're talking about 2003 NO his quads were without equal in terms of size , but it all depends on the circumstance do you think Ronnie from the 2001 ASC has bigger quads than say a 282 pound Dorian? I think not. Dorian at 260 pounds compared to Ronnie at 247 sure they better be side-by-side before you can say definitively who has the bigger quads which is a matter of semantics anyway but that doesn't create a better pose when his calves aren't in proportion
And on the subject of
ARMS you know biceps , triceps and forearms , we can always give Ronnie the nod on biceps but triceps and forearms ( which are part of
ARMS depending on the year Dorian would be comparable in terms of size . His triceps and forearms are pretty damn good in fact Peter McGough has said his forearms are among the best he's ever seen , you can't pick which muscle you think is more important and ignore the rest NOT how it works .
Ronnie's chest does flatten out in this pose it's true, although I think the crazy detail and extra massive insertions are pluses Dorian doesn't have.
Ronnie has better tie-ins which help but you're picking and choosing what you think wins a pose again and Dorian's pecs are striated just because you can't gather than from certain pics doesn't mean it's not there
I maintain his calves are good by normal standards in the '99 pic. Just not crazy best-ever Dorian standards. But then Dorian's biceps, although not bad in '93 were never best-ever material like Ronnie's. And I honestly think quads are a bigger muscle group than calves, and that average calves (please don't pretend they're so bad IN THAT SHOT) and fantastic quads is certainly equal to great calves and small, poorly separated quads.
Keep maintaining all you's like but his calves suck and only a biased fan would try and minimize them . why do they suck? they lack shape that classic diamond shape , they're insert high , they lack any separation of the gastrocnemious inner & outer heads , and they're not in proportion with his quads , they just aren't . normal ' standard ' calves would be like Lee Labrada who's calves were developed and diamond shaped but weren't massive Ronnie's calves suck
Dorian's biceps were ok Ronnie's calves are horrible and you honesty think quads are a bigger muscle group than calves? is this a joke? no kidding they're a bigger group lol and Dorian's quads are ONLY behind Ronnie's in terms of rectus femoris separation and that's it , you can argue size depending on the year and even shape if you'd like but development give me a break . and Dorian's LEGS have better proportion throughout calves are in proportion with the quads , glutes in proportion with the legs so they don't stick out and can be seen from the front , upper & lower body balance all in Yates favor , so you can argue over parts all you like it's the whole that separates one from another
Condition is funny because I personally think Dorian takes it with his granite look thing. But Ronnie sure had people shocked when he turned around and had that crazy crazy ham and glute conditioning, he really shocked the world, like a 250lb black Rich Gaspari or something. Anyway he really is no slouch in this department, as in later years he'd even rely on this for wins, much like post-tear Dorian did with his granite muscles. Striations, detail and separation do play a part, just like muscle maturity etc, so I wouldn't pooh-pooh these comments so readily. Ronnie does have great balance in some shots, surely a requirement for 8x Mr O? The judges sure thought he was better than a best-ever 2000 Levrone and several big versions of Flex, so not all the pro-Ronnie arguemnts are pure "garbage". The guy was good.
Dorian's conditioning in legendary Ronnie's isn't there were a few times in his career where he came in great shape but if you notice that all went down hill , first Olympia his conditioning ( for that contest ) was his best , the pros agree as does he and has maintained that on several occasions . from that contest on it was all down hill ( 2001 ASC best showing ever ) Dorian had striated glutes if you say Ronnie has more I'd say you need to get out more often , and Dorian's hams were outstanding period ! and to boot they were in proportion with his quads ( which you can see in any side pose in profile ) Ronnie's aren't at different times it was better when he was lighter but the bigger the quads became the bigger that discrepancy became , keep ALL of this in mind the judges do
No one is arguing Ronnie wasn't good , his balance & proportion were GOOD for him when he was lighter , but not in Yates' league . same with the conditioning although I would concede Ronnie at the least matched it in 1998 & 2001 albeit at lighter weights than Dorian , and Ronnie's balance was good compared to the guys he was competing with again not in Yates' league Ronnie won in 98/99 because of his overall package in the later years he won purely on size and good conditioning and did you actually just say Levrone was his best ever in 2000? lol do you actually follow bodybuilding? Levrone's best most definitely was NOT 2000 and I don't know why you're bringing that up Dorian cleaned the floor with a probable best ever Kevin in 95 as well as a much , much better Flex Wheeler from 1993
Dorian AT HIS BEST is just to complete hard , dry and balanced for Ronnie in fact for anyone which is why he dominated the sport like no one before or after him.
