They are fine on its own, but not when you compare them to Ronnie.
Both had flaws, but I see Ronnie as the more complete.
In my opinion both Shawn and Levrone were not past their primes before 2000. Shawn's best was definitively 1994.
Yes, unfortunately he never looked like that where it matters: on stage.
So now pics and videos are a good way of telling who was the best, but not when Hulkster or myself post them because they show that Ronnie was better?
So Ronnie's conditioning wasn't legendary according to you? A lot of people disagree and so does the visual proof.
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
Ronnie Coleman | 1999
In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.
Other than internet fans disagree that Dorian would beat Ronnie? How about the quotes posted from "experts", industry people and bodybuilders who think Ronnie was the greatest ever or unbeatable?
If he meets the criteria better, then it means he would beat him don't you think?
OK, one example: Shawn Ray was a way better poser as far as the posing routine goes, he is known as one of the best posers in history. Dorian was ok at the posing routines and very good at the mandatory poses.
A lot of people would agree that Shawn Ray was the better poser, but others (as you did) would say he wasn't because Dorian had his own set of advantages.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing would be even closer.
Ok, lets say the symmetry and balance & proportion criteria are not subjective on their own, but when a physique is compared to another and all of the criteria is applied at the same time, then who has the most complete physique is a subjective matter to a point.
That is why there have been so many controversial decisions in bb histroy in the past.
Let's say Dorian's calves are in better proportion to his quads than Ronnie, would it make him have better balance & proportion than Ronnie? When looking at the physique as a whole then Ronnie has the advantage in symmetry and balance & proportion.
I actually see it the other way around, Ronnie meets the criteria better than Dorian. Its actually because I see Ronnie having better balance & proportion than Dorian, better symmetry than Dorian, equally conditioned and even though Dorian was heavier, Ronnie has the advantage of "looking" just as big or even bigger than him due to other things such as muscle bellies, small joints, shape, complete muscular development, etc. How many times has a lighter guy beaten a heavier one in the past? Same would apply here. Ronnie also has the advantage of the crazy muscle separations and tie-ins.
Again, a part of the criteria alone may not be subjective (even though some of it is), but when analyzing the whole picture of who had the most complete physique it is subjective especially when its close as Dorian vs Ronnie.
They are fine on its own, but not when you compare them to Ronnie.
Both had flaws, but I see Ronnie as the more complete.
you see a lot of things , keep looking
In my opinion both Shawn and Levrone were not past their primes before 2000. Shawn's best was definitively 1994.
prime means the best they've ever looked you're agreeing 94 was his prime and then saying he wasn't past that prime in the subsequent 6 years
he looked that good or better post? Kevin in 2002 pushed Ronnie to the limit that Kevin was NO WHERE he was in 92 or 95 not even close , Ronnie's competition wasn't as conditioned or high caliber as Yates
Yes, unfortunately he never looked like that where it matters: on stage.
no it doesn't matter because what are you saying he never looked like that? for the sake of argument Dorian 93 Olympia and 95 would beat Ronnie
So now pics and videos are a good way of telling who was the best, but not when Hulkster or myself post them because they show that Ronnie was better?
they help but like I said they're not accurate , contests separated by 10 years with much improvement in camera technology , different quality , lighting , I mean get serious oh and lets not forget the fact Hulkster has been busted MANY times using manipulated pictures by professional graphic artists and one of the best contest photograhers in the business oh and by me and others
they don't show Ronnie was better , fanciful ' comparisons ' made by biased ignorant Coleman nutt-huggers , where Dorian & Ronnie have the same size calves , Dorian has a smaller waist & hips than Ronnie , are you kidding me? pictures back up your claims according to you pictures back up my claims according to me which ones of us is right?
your claims like Hulksters tend to contradict reality and mines are more in line with it , you do the math
So Ronnie's conditioning wasn't legendary according to you? A lot of people disagree and so does the visual proof.
NOPE not on par with Yates
Flex, Sept, 2005 by Peter McGough
Ronnie Coleman | 1999
In his first defense of the Mr. O title, Coleman exhibited size, condition and sinew-splitting fullness he lacked a year earlier. At 257 pounds, he was so separated that he looked like a walking anatomy chart. That being said, I still think he achieved his best-ever physique for the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic.
McGough said outright , he was better in 98 and in 2001 and neither are on par with Yates , Dorian said its not as good as his , one quote doesn't prove anything to me in relation to whom he was competing with on that year , he didn't face Dorian
Other than internet fans disagree that Dorian would beat Ronnie? How about the quotes posted from "experts", industry people and bodybuilders who think Ronnie was the greatest ever or unbeatable?
he technically is the greatest ever going by his contest wins and Sandows , however in the end it's subjective and not a fact
If he meets the criteria better, then it means he would beat him don't you think?
yes I do think that but we're assuming what people are basing this on , especially laymen and even experts NOT everyone knows the criteria my example of Chris Comier
OK, one example: Shawn Ray was a way better poser as far as the posing routine goes, he is known as one of the best posers in history. Dorian was ok at the posing routines and very good at the mandatory poses.
A lot of people would agree that Shawn Ray was the better poser, but others (as you did) would say he wasn't because Dorian had his own set of advantages.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing would be even closer.
A comparison with Ronnie as far as posing wouldn't be anywhere near as close , Ronnie sucked as posing neither are Shawn Ray but Ronnie is way off , judges look for everything in the posing rounds and Ronnie's still behind and his posing routines were horrible , I suggest you go watch them
Let's say Dorian's calves are in better proportion to his quads than Ronnie, would it make him have better balance & proportion than Ronnie? When looking at the physique as a whole then Ronnie has the advantage in symmetry and balance & proportion.
not only that but then we get into limb length , torso length , arm length and how they all relate and tie together , then we talk about glutes and how Ronnie's aren't in proportion and stick to far out they can he seen from the front and forearms in relation to the biceps/triceps , hams in relation to quads a LOT to grasp more than just calves
Ronnie has an advantage in symmetry and that's it Dorian has the advantage in balance & proportion , now couple that with advantages in density & dryness and muscular bulk and posing and you have a Yates win
I actually see it the other way around, Ronnie meets the criteria better than Dorian. Its actually because I see Ronnie having better balance & proportion than Dorian, better symmetry than Dorian, equally conditioned and even though Dorian was heavier, Ronnie has the advantage of "looking" just as big or even bigger than him due to other things such as muscle bellies, small joints, shape, complete muscular development, etc. How many times has a lighter guy beaten a heavier one in the past? Same would apply here. Ronnie also has the advantage of the crazy muscle separations and tie-ins.
Again you see a lot of things , Ronnie has some advantages in symmetry and tie-ins , but he doesn't compared to Dorian in density & dryness , size and balance & proportion , and you can't speculate on how Ronnie would appear bigger next to Yates pure fantasy , he already know what a 250lb Ronnie looks like next to a 257lb Dorian and he didn't make him look just as big or bigger
Again, a part of the criteria alone may not be subjective (even though some of it is), but when analyzing the whole picture of who had the most complete physique it is subjective especially when its close as Dorian vs Ronnie.
none of it is , complete? at their bests? Dorian hands down , Ronnie has some advantages but overall Dorian is to dominant
perfect example in one of his best Olympia appearances 1998 Flex Wheeler pushed Ronnie to the absolute limit and Ronnie won ( rightly ) by just 3 points one of the closest contests in Olympia history , that Flex was a shadow of himself in 1993 and Dorian was so far ahead of Flex that year it wasn't even funny , Dorian 1993 would trample Ronnie 1998 , you think by adding 8 lbs and coming in less than perfect conditioning would make a dent on Yates? the man who wrote the book on conditioned mass? I think NOT
Ronnie had all of these advantages when he was competing with Yates and where was he? he had the same crazy tie-ins , same gigantic arms , same small waist & hips , same small joints etc the only thing he was lacking was crazy conditioning
