The only case of imbalance that is valid? not quite , you also neglect his forearms not being in proportion with his biceps/triceps if you think his biceps/triceps/forearms as a whole have great balance in relation to each other your out of your mind , couple that with his biceps/triceps making his delts look small in the rear double bicep shot , I've posted a picture clearly pointing this out , if you don't think so you're blind , his glutes aren't in proportion with anything , you have a serious problem when your glutes stick out further than your hips , you may find this acceptable aside from an aesthetics standpoint , they're just to big to balance out his upper & lower body , reguardless if you don't think so
1) As I've said, you are the only person who believes Coleman's forearms are too small.
You still have not produced one iota of evidence (visual or measurements) to support your baseless accusation that his biceps/triceps overpower his forearms. If you are referring to some obscure, idealistic proportion ratio (the the Herculean or the David), you may be correct, but his forearms are not a glaring weakness by any means whatsoever, esp. when you examine athletes with a real forearm deficit, like King Kamali.
Heavily muscled forearms:
2) We've already addressed the deltoid / upper arm balance. I'm beginning to believe you are simply cutting and pasting your old content with a little bit of cosmetic editing.
You cannot penalize Coleman for having biceps peaks. Dorian had no biceps peaks whatsoever.
You are merely taking a major flaw of Dorian's, which just so happens to be a major strength of Ronnie's, and trying to invert the table by claiming Ronnie's strengths overpower a perfectly developed and separated bodypart (as in this case, his deltoids).
The proportion between Ronnie's deltoids and biceps/triceps is the same as Dorian, except Dorian doesn't have biceps peaks. Your argument is not only really old (you used this at least 20 pages ago), it is 100% wrong.
Dorian could never touch these deltoids, in terms of size or separation, NarcolepticDiety:
I'm sorry. Inferior deltoids and inferior biceps does not equate to a better back double bicep.
You are f*cking insane if you think Ronnie's " lack of proportion ", which is only a product of your imagination, is less forgivable than smaller, less separted deltoids adjacent to smaller biceps (one torn) with no peaks and an underwhelming muscle belly. I can't stand how you isolate these nonexistent weaknesses of Ronnie while you ignore the many glaring weaknesses of Yates.
3) At first you tried to subtly imply that Dorian's glutes were just as big and striated.
After that failed with a barrage of visual evidence suggesting the opposite, now you try to claim Ronnie's glutes are overdeveloped. They are a fantastic bodypart, a showstopper, the best in the sport. Stop trying to characterize Ronnie's strengths as overdevelopment and Dorian's weaknesses as balance.
Ronnie weaknesses are not limited , besides calves , his abdominals lack great shape , his forearms are shaped like bowling pins I never claimed they lacked development they only lack balance in relation to his upper arms , in 2003 his obliques are at their thickest , and his abdominal distention is a complete joke , his overall crisp muscularity is gone , along with detail this is evident in the abdominals , intercostals & serratus his back lacks detail & seperation , he has a very thin sidehead to his triceps , so we can go tit for tat on weaknesses all day but for you to say Colemans only weakness is a lowerleg imbalance shows your bias
Nothing is wrong with the shape of Ronnie's midsection dude. Aside from a genetically wide linea alba, his abdominals are large, separated, and symmetrical. Dorian did not have any semblance of symmetry as far as his rectus abdominis is concerned. His right side was not a mirror image of his left. You may not like the way his linea alba looks, but it is not a weakness and there is no grounds for a judge to penalize him for it, especially since his rectus abdominis muscles are still perfectly symmetrical. Although bodybuilding is subjective, you can't identify something so minor like that and act as though a judge is going to be merciless in his evaluation of Ronnie's midsection since his linea alba is somewhat wider than most. It may hurt an athlete like Art Atwood, but thats due to his wide linea alba AND lack of abdominal symmetry, so as a result it doesn't look to good, while Ronnie looks just fine.
You are blind if you cannot make out serratus and intercostal detail. Blind!
Lack of back detail?! LOL
We beat the triceps horse to death. Ronnie's lateral head is thin, but his triceps have far better balance than Dorian. His long head / lateral head balance is superior, and you forget that Ronnie's "thin" lateral head is actually significantly larger than Dorian's "thick" lateral head.
Ronnie's Triceps:
Superior Size, Superior Balance, Superior Proportion, Superior Striation
A thin lateral head does not constitute weak triceps, relative to Dorian, since Dorian's long head is overdeveloped, his triceps do not have striations, his lateral head is actually longer than his long head (which is very bad), his medial heads are asymmetrical, and they look absolutely awful from any angle other than the side. You have no argument whatsoever with Ronnie's triceps.
This not irrelevant in the least , its a glimpse into the possible out come , we've seen Coleman V Yates before in fact eight times before and it wasn't even close , the closest Ronnie came was 5th place on the Euro-Tour , now you can go on and say Ronnie wasn't at his prime but neither way Dorian
This was in the past man. As I said, athletes change. You are a fool for implying that Coleman could not beat Dorian in 2003 since he could not beat him in 1993. 10 f*cking years dude, you have any idea how much of a difference an athlete can make to his body within that timeframe?
So yes, it is COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY, INVARIABLY, INDEFINITELY IRRELEVANT!!!
Dorian beat Coleman with a torn bicep/tricep/quads and a bloated gut , you think he wouldn't beat 2003 Coleman if he was in prime condition?
Nope, not a chance in hell.
what new weapon does Ronnie bring into his arsenal ? redundant mass? less sharpness than his previous versions? even more exaggerated bodyparts? worse shape? I'm very confident that Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie Coleman at his best and soundly beat Coleman of 2003 , Ronnie couldn't match Dorian for density & dryness when he was the same weight and even in 2003 he had more volume his dryness was not as good as it was in 98 so while he may be 287lbs he couldn't match Dorian at 257lbs for density & dryness and that among other things would be his downfall
Muscular development is a good thing. "Exaggerated bodyparts" are the very essence of bodybuilding you fool. By your logic, any bodybuilder is an "overdeveloped" assortment of exaggerated bodyparts. Your argument is stupid and does not work. You rave about the size of Dorian's back, yet any bodypart of Ronnie's that has stellar size is overdeveloped.
You are a joke...
Conditioning is only 1/3 of a bodybuilding contest. Ronnie would win straight firsts in the muscularity and symmetry department. Yates had far too many weaknesses to rely solely on conditioning. Besides, you fail to address the superior the conditioning of Ronnie's hamstrings, quadriceps, glutes, and arms.
No the truce was designed to give it a rest and if you knew anything you'd know that I basically stop responding to the Ronnie-V-Dorian nonsense but I would only respond when I was misquoted which was a lot , you would know this but you're johnny come lately on these ' debates ' and what did I surrender? nothing !! how you made that leap is beyond me , my opinion hasn't changed one bit and one seeing bodybuilding is so subjective opinions are neither right or wrong unless you're an IFBB pro bodybuilding judge your opinion is no more wrong or right than mine , the difference is I can admit that and you cannout 
and in the end its nothing more than an opinion on a bodybuilding website
My only regret is that I came this late. If I had it to do over again, I would have been there from Page 1 to refute your lies and amend your misinformation. Now that I am here, you can rest assured that I will have the final word, even if this thread runs for years and extends to 1000s of pages. Hell, if getbig itself shuts down or this thread is closed I will revive it at the next best bodybuilding forum.
Opinions in bodybuilding ARE right or wrong because there is established criteria.
I agree, ultimately, bodybuilding is entirely subjective (example: my Mom would prefer the physique of Brad Pitt to Jay Cutler!). However, IFBB bodybuilding does have some semblance of objectivity because there is a rubric. Judging is based on muscle size (which is an absolute), muscle symmetry and muscle conditioning (which are both fairly apparent to a trained eye). Granted, I am not an official judge, but I have watched countless contests, on pay-per-view and in person, to have a sense for what exactly the judges look for, what they are likely to reward and what they are likely to penalize. So please don't dismiss my opinions entirely because they are well-founded with experience and intelligence.
