Well if you'll humour my comparison, I propose that Dennis James '03 2 weeks before the show would have been the best ever. Impossible to disprove right?
You already said a bunch of times Ronnie's quote and Dorian's corresponding quote both mean nothing so why is it coming up as the core of your argument so often?
There's a strong argument precontest Ronnie '02 is the best ever, although he never made it to the stage. The Ronnie argument doesn't have to base itself on 2 sets of black and white photographs taken weeks away from a stage by the same man and a quote from the guy who took them.
Haney was pretty dominant in his era but he wouldn't make top 10 in most people's hypothetical top-10s these days. Yet Ronnie said Haney would beat him. You don't have to 'presume to speak for Ronnie' to see that Ronnie may have been being a tad polite there. Yet in an hilarious way you feel he meant it about the others but not about Dorian....and it all means nothing .....but can still be used as evidence by you? Inadmissable surely?
One things for sure, you clearly feel onstage Dorian has never brought as good a package as Ronnie onstage, since your entire argument hinges on b/w pics from before competitions. I could conceivably believe that 93 b/w Dorian would be the best ever, it's just so hard to guess how he'd look on a stage. For instance in the colour video of the 93 Horton shoot you can see Dorian's lower back is more puffy and less dry than what he brought to the stage. Still good condition I'm sure, but since his dominance was based on being insanely granite-like I think things like this would form important factors in an hypothetical 'best-ever'. I know Dorian said of himself he was losing 'pure muscle' in the following 2 weeks, but there's no way he was 100% dehydrated in the '93 pics since the last few days are most important in the dehydration process.
So what if we agree Ronnie = best physique on a stage, Dorian '93/95 = possible best physique ever unprovable/undisprovable ?
Personally I feel that since 95 Dorian only had one arm he'd never be my own choice as best physique ever. Which to me makes '93 Dorian the main contender. If we're nit picking his chest and quads would look small next to prime Ronnie, but then Ronnie would lose calves and side-tri shots. Who knows I guess. But '93 Dorian on stage was too small to be in the running I feel.
Well if you'll humour my comparison, I propose that Dennis James '03 2 weeks before the show would have been the best ever. Impossible to disprove right?
No easy to prove wrong Dennis James has shit for balance & proportion , very high lats , long torso , short legs , calves are to high and to small for his quads, has never really been able to find the right balance between size & conditioning looks good in the most muscular and side chest he doesn't look good in many other poses , to many flaws
You already said a bunch of times Ronnie's quote and Dorian's corresponding quote both mean nothing so why is it coming up as the core of your argument so often?
well it means something but it's not proof he's right , it's very interesting how Ronnie views Dorian , he has a lot of respect for him and obviously thinks that Dorian would beat him after all Dorian beat him for years and he's the one guy Ronnie thought was good enough , I love how people go on and on about how Dorian shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breathe as Ronnie and there is no debate and then just to have Ronnie crush their opinion by conceding Dorian would beat him is just such a blow to their fanboy rantings it's great
Ronnie's opinion on the subject carries more weight than anyone on here that's for sure
There's a strong argument precontest Ronnie '02 is the best ever, although he never made it to the stage. The Ronnie argument doesn't have to base itself on 2 sets of black and white photographs taken weeks away from a stage by the same man and a quote from the guy who took them.
A strong argument from whom?
what's funny is anyone hates the precontest shots of Dorian but now love precontest shots of Ronnie , he's impressive , huge and in pretty good shape , still looks like shit compared to contests where he's totally dried out and hard as nails , it's pretty much established the heavier Ronnie became the worse his conditioning got , so the same thing applies he's bigger , not as hard as Dorian not as dry and he's still lagging behind in balance & proportion , I said this for years before I posted this quote anyone with half a brain can see for themselves
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 . "Haney was pretty dominant in his era but he wouldn't make top 10 in most people's hypothetical top-10s these days. Yet Ronnie said Haney would beat him. You don't have to 'presume to speak for Ronnie' to see that Ronnie may have been being a tad polite there. Yet in an hilarious way you feel he meant it about the others but not about Dorian....and it all means nothing .....but can still be used as evidence by you? Inadmissable surely?
Haney wouldn't make the top 10? oh I beg to differ by virtue of being an 8 time Olympia he's most assured in the top 10 , would his physique wins contests today? probably not but times changed if Haney was born in 1980 you're damn right he's be winning today. anyway to get to your point obviously he was paying lip service to past champions the difference with Dorian is subsequent to this quote , he's said a couple of times Dorian would beat him , that's the difference and Haney & Arnold never faced Ronnie and beat him Dorian did
One things for sure, you clearly feel onstage Dorian has never brought as good a package as Ronnie onstage, since your entire argument hinges on b/w pics from before competitions. I could conceivably believe that 93 b/w Dorian would be the best ever, it's just so hard to guess how he'd look on a stage. For instance in the colour video of the 93 Horton shoot you can see Dorian's lower back is more puffy and less dry than what he brought to the stage. Still good condition I'm sure, but since his dominance was based on being insanely granite-like I think things like this would form important factors in an hypothetical 'best-ever'. I know Dorian said of himself he was losing 'pure muscle' in the following 2 weeks, but there's no way he was 100% dehydrated in the '93 pics since the last few days are most important in the dehydration process.
I think Dorian 1993/1995 Mr Olympia would beat any version of Ronnie! all of his strength are still there as well as his advantages on a tad smaller scale , I thing precontest is his best because his frame looks almost perfect , he's not oversized for it like Ronnie , I agree with Peter McGough when he said when Dorian dropped weight he lost some ' roundness ' in his physique. I think Dorian carried his size extremely well and looks better heavier
The color video is of the poorest fucking quality , trying to ascertain an accurate representation of his conditioning based off of that is impossible. Dorian and others have said he was in near-enough contest condition to win the Olympia that year , I believe Dorian said he could have lost a little more water and that's it. let's say his conditioning is 98% of what it was that year at the Olympia , it's certainly better than anything Ronnie has shown at a similar weight , case in point the 2000 Mr Olympia where Ronnie was 264lbs
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
Ronnie's conditioning does NOT improve with extra weight , Dorian could maintain his while carrying more size. and Dorian's conditioning is NOT his own advantage over Ronnie , he has a clear advantage in balance & proportion , and posing
So what if we agree Ronnie = best physique on a stage, Dorian '93/95 = possible best physique ever unprovable/undisprovable ?
Personally I feel that since 95 Dorian only had one arm he'd never be my own choice as best physique ever. Which to me makes '93 Dorian the main contender. If we're nit picking his chest and quads would look small next to prime Ronnie, but then Ronnie would lose calves and side-tri shots. Who knows I guess. But '93 Dorian on stage was too small to be in the running I feel.
I think the best physique Ronnie ever displayed was on stage and the best one Dorian displayed was off , Dorian's onstage still has advantages over Ronnie on-stage and off , I really don't have to concede that conditioning is equal but for the sake of argument lets say it is , it would ONLY be at his lightest , then he still has to contend with a Yates carrying more muscular bulk , having better balance & proportion and being a better poser
Dorian's didn't have ' one arm ' in 1995 he has one bicep shorter than the other , Ronnie had TWO missing calves his entire career even at his best contest showing. but for sake of argument we'll say 1993 is his better year just based on the tear. you can claim his chest & quads would look small next to Ronnie because parts don't win contests poses do , the judges scan & look at the calves in the side-chest just as much as they do pecs , same with the front double biceps pose , the assess EVERYTHING in EVERY pose , they look for who has more muscular bulk , who has more balanced development , who is denser , who is drier , who is more complete , who is hitting the pose correctly ALL AT THE SAME TIME all of the criteria is assessed at once , so while the judges might look at Ronnie in the ab-thigh and say " wow awesome taper , huge quads , great symmetry " , they will be comparing him to Dorian and they'll be saying " not as hard or as dry , not carrying as much dense muscle , calves dominated by oversized quads , midsection not that great , not as complete "
they look at everything and while Ronnie does have some clear advantages over Dorian when we start to tally them ALL up Dorian satisfies ALL of the criteria better
1993 Olympia Dorian might look small next to a heavier Ronnie but Ronnie would look soft and out of shape , incomplete and unbalanced , Ronnie's extra weight ( which isn't even pure dense muscle ) does NOT compensate for his deficiencies in just about ALL of the other criteria
It seems like you and all these other guys can't get it through your heads there is a very good reason 2003 is NOT his best showing ever , it pales in comparison to 2001 in terms if balance & proportion , in terms of density & dryness , he's light but looks huge because of the sharp conditioning , and his posing always sucked
Dorian 1993 Mr Olympia vs Ronnie 2001 in my opinion would be real close and this is the only version I think that would give Dorian a real run for his money and this would be real close but I think Dorian still has em if not by a lot than a little.
