His biceps injury would play a big role, not to mention Ronnie being so much bigger. That would be very hard to ignore. 2003 Ronnie would beat him swiftly.
Matt C, I have already written several multi-paragraphs explaining why, at an unbiased contest, the 1995 Dorian would have a 50/50 chance of defeating the 2003 Coleman. You failed to comprehend. Since I've figured out that you're a simple man, I'm going to put this is simply as I can. So here's the reason why the 1995 Dorian would most likely defeat the 2003 Coleman, in a nutshell:
Ronnie is 287 with soft muscles and a distended midsection; Dorian is 260 lbs with super-hard muscles, a flat stomach and the best abdominal/serratus separations ever seen on a bodybuilder over 250 lbs. This is as simple as I can put it to you. Ronnie in 2003 had slabs of beef that Dorian lacked, but Dorian's beef just plain looked much better than Ronnie's, and he had far less symmetrical liabilities. The
only thing that Ronnie 2003 has over Dorian is sheer muscle size. Period. That is not enought to win a contest, otherwise Kovacs or Jean-Pierre Fux would have been standard-bearers. However, muscle size is very important, which is the reason I concead that the 2003 Coleman would have a 50% chance of defeating Dorian. The 1995 Dorian has
everything else that is considered at a bodybuilding contest except sheer muscle size over Ronnie. Wheeler regularly defeated bodybuilders who carried 55 lbs of lean mass over him due to his superior
quality, so it's perfectly possible for Dorian to defeat a competitor who outweighted him by 27 lbs, when you consider the vastly superior quality of the 1995 Dorian.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
