here's a brutally honest comparison between a 260 lbs Dorian and a 287 lbs Ronnie.
Brutally honest my ass
Coleman's right chicken calf looks twice as big as yates calves, dream on and stop to make such stupid claims.
Coleman was best between 1998-2000, afterwards it went downhill and you could witness how his lats went shit and 2003 was one of his worst years from the lats.
The only thing he could improve compared to 99 from the backside were a little more mass in the middle back and the traps but that's not really much if it comes with the water-logged look that he had in 2003.
He has not even flexed the lats right after 2000, he just looked like a hunchback, that must be the reason why the word esmeralda comes in mind if I check a coleman lat spread after 2000
He basically just get in a hunched position and hopes that his lats are flexed, really poor for a Mr.O
Sure he still showed a really good middle back thickness but his lats looked poor in the hunched position.
Also he had those ugly skin folds right on the spot were the upper lats should be flexed in a rear lat spread, oh I forgot this is called a lat tear after the 2006 Mr.O
No way 2003 was colemans prime.
If you prefer quantity or quality yes, but I for my part prefer quality and 2003 is far away from quality.
1999 is by far his best showing.
Coleman 2003 looked more like a water buffalo than a Mr.O, only seperated bodyparts like legs or arms were still impressive but the whole package that he presented in 2003 was a big mess.
Not to forget that he had brought the most gay moments to a Mr.O stage with his gay dance ass shake shit this year
Oh and let's not forget his improved gh-gut, yeah 2003 was his prime.
But 1999 or 2003, it doesnt really matter.
He looks also way too small for a guy with almost 300 lbs in 2003 from the back if he stands relaxed.
Here a few pics to prove my point.
You should also check this ugly looking skin folds, I have marked them for you
but I bet you are too much of a guy to the see the folds..
