I stopped reading on the part where you say, that the 280+ lbs Ronnie, has better symmetry than Dorian. That is just too stupid and outrageous to stomach. Good bye.
Size has no bearing on symmetry. Symmetry has 2 elements:
1) Left To Right: How well does the left match the right?
The sheer amount of muscle isn't relevant. The ONLY matter of importance is that the quantity of muscle on the left is perfectly mirrored on the right.
2) Top To Bottom: A physique's balance and flow.
Does the lower body
overpower the upper body?
Does the athlete have an elegant V-taper (small waist, wide lats, wide delts)?
Does the athlete have an X-frame (V-taper w/ good quad sweep)?
Lastly, how do the individual muscles look
relative to the physique as a whole.
As I said, the only imbalance is the quadriceps/calves size differential.
Every muscle, no doubt alarmingly huge on its own, is well proportioned next to the adjacent.
As I said, aside from quads/calves, Coleman has little symmetrical weakness.
Don't confuse symmetry for aesthetics. You may not consider Ronnie aesthetic, but there is no way to really factor this into standard IFBB protocol since it is so subjective. Some fans love sickening vascularity (example: Dillet), whereas others prefer Arnold's "less imposing" vessels.
You mistakenly correlate symmetry with smaller muscle size, when in fact they are unrelated.
In summary, aesthetics are entirely a value judgment. There is no provision for it in the judging.
Professional physique assessment, although subjective too, does have fairly rigid standards.
