I give up. I mean, I have alredy written my marathon post on why this is not even an issue, yet you continue to insist on judging them by YOUR criteria. I've never seen any judge say that a bodybuilding contest is judged by muscle size, 33%, muscle symmetry, 33%, and muscle maturity, 33%. This is YOUR judging standard. So Jim Manion said this? Great; I want to see it. Give me the source, magazine article, etc, where this criteria is endorsed by Manion. I want to see it.
Watch the 2003 Olympia pre-show. Manion is interviewed on this subject backstage.
We both mentioned muscularity? Wrong: I did. You said, and I quote, "muscle size". You're obviously a bodybuilding newbo, who doesen't even know what "muscularity" means. It is NOT muscle "size", but rather the relative size of the muscle in relation to the size and shape of the bone that suports it, and how hard and etched it appears to be, to the Human eye.
You said 1) Muscularity and 2) Musculo-Skeletal Balance.
Your definition of muscularity, based on this paragraph, is identical to musculo-skeletal balance.
I'm a newb for identifying a blantantly obvious inconsistency in your terminology?
Besides, sheer muscle size DOES matter in the IFBB. Mass monsters fill the auditoriums.
Athletes like Markus Ruhl & Gunther Schlierkamp would not be professionals, let alone top 5 finalists, if total muscle mass was not taken into account.
It is not the only factor, but you are in error by assuming that it has no bearing. Athletes are never penalized for "too much muscle", only for obvious muscle imbalance (ex: Ruhl's biceps/triceps), poor symmetry (ex: Atwood), and/or poor conditioning (ex: Ruhl).
In 2003, Coleman's symmetry was nearly perfect, his only muscle imbalance was the quadriceps/calves size differential, and his conditioning was evidently good enough to showcase incredible vascularity, stacked striations, and amazing muscle density (particularly chest and biceps, composed of thick heavy layers of proportioned striated muscle).
Once again, there is zero evidence that Yates was harder, as evidenced by:
1) Your/ND's refusal to address Hulkster's multiple posts on the subject.
2) No visual evidence provided through relevant pictures or videos.
Dorian WAS dry. Granted. However, he did not match Coleman's level of muscle detail.
The entire point of coming in dry is to showcase vascularity, striations, and muscle density.
Dorian lacks vascularity in important regions and he has exceedingly few striations.
Regardless, muscle size and muscle condition are two separate facets. A lack of muscle condition will not result in a loss of points for sheer muscle size, or else Markus Ruhl would have never made the Olympia posedown. Likewise, Dexter's condition cannot compensate for the larger athlete's size (like Coleman and Cutler).
The fact that muscularity is not a function of size explains why Dorian defeated a 285 lbs Nasser on this criteria, at the 96 O, weighing 30 lbs less. Or why Lee Labrada used to defeat practically everyone - except Lee Haney - at this, even though he ws one of the smallest guys around.
Nasser did not have Ronnie Coleman's back. Dorian himself has admitted than Nasser had him beat from the front. From behind, Coleman in 2003 exhibited superior lat width/thickness, superior trap thickness (especially with arms raised i.e. front double bicep), as well as upper back density (3Dimensional). Dorian had him in the lower back no doubt, but that would not be enough to compensate for Ronnie's superior hamstrings, glutes, AND biceps from behind. Simply wouldn't. Dorian's lower back conditioning was better, but Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes have always been far better conditioned.
Ronnie was anever a match for Dorian in muscularity during The Shadow's reign, only matching him, in this regard, some six years after Dorian retired. Bad for you that you prefer the 280+ lbs Ronnie: he loses to Dorian IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE BODYBUILDING CRITERIA, perhaps, except muscularity. So the 280+ Ronnie is competitive, with dorian, when it comes to muscularity; great, I'll give you that. Too bad for Ronnie that he had to balloon to 280+ lbs to become as MUSCULAR(not as big), as he simly doesen't look like bodybuilding material anymore.
Ronnie was never 285+ lbs and he was not working with Chad Nichols then either.
You ignore symmetry. Ronnie has better symmetry, even ND's quote he uses AGAINST us has Lee Priest agreeing that Ronnie had better symmetry. You overlook muscle detail too. You overlook Ronnie's superior hardness and conditioning in the quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, biceps, deltoids and chest.
The arguments in favor of Dorian are few:
- Calves, forearms, lower back thickness, overall dryness, lower back conditioning. Thats it!
I wrote like 10 paragraphs outlining precisely why Ronnie has superior muscle size, superior symmetry, superior balance, superior detail, and superior separation. Please address some of the specific points I made and why you disagree. Its hard to respond to a general statement like "lolz ronnie would lose in everything." Be specific like I was earlier.
At this weight, Ronnie CLEARLY loses to even Jay Cutler and Dexter Jackson, let alone to Dorian Yates!(pic below). Sorry, sport, but simply too many of the mandatories - where bodybuilding contests are truly won - demnd an acceptable taper and great back details to be won; all things Coleman loses when he surpasses even 250 lbs, let alone 280 lbs!(second pic below)
Now you are just being foolish. He beat Cutler and Jackson with straight firsts. Sorry.
The mandatories are only 50% of the show, and Ronnie is notorious for dominanting the last 2 rounds (as evidenced by his come-from-behind victory over Jay Cutler in 2001).
Regardless, its a moot point, because Dorian would not win the mandatories.
He is hopelessly outclassed in every pose. Lets argue a few specifics please. I'll start:
Ab & Thigh:
- Quadriceps (Coleman ... hands down: size, striations, vascularity, superior sweep, separation)
- V-Taper (Coleman ... wider delts, wider lats, smaller waist)
- X-Frame (Coleman ... Refer to V-taper and Quad Sweep)
- Calves (Yates ... very very minor portion of the Ab&Thigh assessment)
- Arms (Coleman ... minor portion of assessment as well)
- Obliques (Coleman ... Yates are too developed)
- Rectus Abdominis (Draw ... both have good development, symmetry, and separation)
- Intercostals/Serratus (Yates ... slight edge due to conditioning)
Besides, Yates could never, NEVER, in a million years, compensate for the superior of Coleman's quadriceps. That aspect alone would cause Yates to lose the pose.
So you're not interested in arguing about the 250 lbs Ronnie, prefering his Santa-Claus-belly-big-blob-of-muscle 2003/04 forms? Too bad; I don't. How can I argue with you if we don't even agree which version of Ronnie is the better one? I think the superb taper, great quad and upper back details hat Ronnie displayed in 98 was one of the best top five physiques ever: if this were an argument about any bodybuilder other than Dorian, against Ronnie, I would be defending Ronnie! At his lighter version, that is...
No, I am not interested. I'm sure Hulkster will indulge you on this however.
I enjoy monser mass, too, and can certainly appreciate it. But when it comes to the REAL big boys, Coleman doesen't stack well, either. If the criteria were sheer mass, without any regards to balance, details, etchiness, dryness and hardness, then how would a 287 lbs Coleman fair against a ripped- even if holding water - 360 lbs Kovacs? Od those dudes from the "World's Strongest Man" contest, who sometimes weight over 400 lbs at heights over 6'5, while still having low bodyfat? He wouldn't do very well...
Since I simply don't consider the 2003/04 Ronnie to even be a bodybuilder, then the argument becomes mute. How can I compare a bodybuilder, a superb one at that, the 93 and 95 Os Dorian, to a short "World's Strongest Man" look-alike? It can't be done. I'll tell you this, though, as I've said many times before and am quoting myself again: by BODYBUILDING criteria, the 257 lbs Dorian simply DESTROYS the 280+ lbs Ronnie. No contest. Now, I'll go back to arguing with Huckster. 
Don't even put Kovacs in the same sentence as Coleman.
Kovacs' arms and legs are grossly underdeveloped relative to his trunk, he had no lower body detail whatsoever (worse than Yates even
), his waist and abdomen were enormous, he had weird discolored indentations on the side of his ribcage, etc etc. Very poor comparison.
You are really grasping for straws with this one suckmymuscle.
None of these large guys you are comparing Coleman with would have his balance, symmetry, or complete development. Coleman DOES have details (striations, vascularity), DOES have balance (the only imbalance, like I said, is quadriceps/calves differential).
You still haven't proven that Ronnie isn't hard, or for that matter, not as hard as Yates.
The etchiness argument is a joke since Yates had minimal underlying detail.
It is clear as day that you think 2003 Ronnie Coleman was garbage. That's fine.
Fact is ... based on standard IFBB protocol ... he was good enough to win the show with straight 1st's. If put up against peak Dorian, an athlete who's prime was 13 years ago, it would be no contest. This sport has changed. The athletes are larger AND harder.
Yates does not have enough muscle, symmetry, or detail to defeat Coleman. Case closed.
