don't play dumb. Dorian's arms look better in the pic you posted of him at a lighter weight than in the pic from 93.
It was done on purpose. You can only assume we are idiots to push your theory that a comparison of Yates' arms at 230 lbs favors him when compared to Coleman's arms at 270 lbs. So according to you Dorian's arms look better, huh? You are obviously trying to win for Ronnie a massive size advantage, by claiming that Dorian's arms only compared in terms of quality when they were much smaller. Which wouldn't matter, because the size advantage would mean Ronnie's arms are better anyway.
Too bad for you, because Yates arms gained a lot more in size than they lost in quality from 1990 to 1993. I contend that the gain of a muscular 3" to his arms more than compensates for the small loss of definition and vascularity that he had. And by the way, calling you opponent dumb shows insecurity and that you are losing your argument. You are not one to call anyone stupid, judging by the number of times you were proven wrong in this thread alone. You didn't even know the difference between balance and symmetry, and that's saying someting.
Dorian's arms looked flatter and had worse proportion between the biceps and triceps in 93.
Incorrect on both counts. Dorian's biceps were fuller in 1993. As for the balance between biceps and triceps, they were fairly even. And even if your points were true, the size gain would more than compensate for it. If anything, it was Coleman's biceps which dramatically overpowered his triceps in 1999.
It is incredible that you would point out that imbalance, but leave out Coleman's much bigger imbalance between biceps/triceps that he had in 1999 and especially when he was 290 lbs.
what do you mean "according to your logic?" I already stated that an individual body part and the whole physique can look their best at different times.
Yes, and Yates' arms were at their best in 1993 when his left biceps was untorn, while the rest of his physique - sans the waist - was at it's best in 1995. You claim that Yates' arms were at their best in pic from 1990, and that's only your opinion. Better how? It was certainly more defined and vascular than in 1993, but besides that what advantage is there to it?
As for "your logic", let's see:
- You claim that Yates' arms were at their best when they were small but very vascular and defined.
- You claim that Dorian's arms were worse in 1993 than 1990 despite the fact that they were much bigger in 1993 although less vascular and defined.
- You then claim that Ronnie's arms were at their best when he was 290 lbs and not when he was 250 lbs.
- And yet, Ronnie's arms at 290 lbs were bigger but less defined and vascular than they were at the 1998 Olympia.
Ronnie's arms at 290 lbs have the same disadvantages over his smaller version than Dorian's 1993 arms have over his 1990 version. And yet, you prefer his arms at 290 lbs over their smaller but more vascular and defined version. Logic is about the non-contradictory identification of facts, and I have identified a contradiction in your preference. This is why I think your logic is retarded.
Going by your own logic, you should prefer Ronnie's arms from when he was smaller. But then, I don't expect a deluded fanboy to be consistent.
I still don't see any pics of Dorian's arms from 93.
Have you never seen those pics before? Answer with a simple yes or no. Oh wait, you have, because I have read in this thread you replying and quoting posts where pictures of Dorian's 1993 arm shot is shown.
