You made the claim Dorian's quads & chest suck , then you added ' compared to ' peak ' Ronnie ' and I used to quote as an example of you not giving Dorian enough credit which seems accurate , you said his quads suck as does his chest an I.F.B.B judge said otherwise , and atheletes improve? 2003 Ronnie Coleman was most certainly not an improvement over older versions and overdevelopment doesn't add up to imporvement
- Why should I have to give Dorian credit? This is a comparison thread, no?
We are arguing if he's better than Ronnie Coleman, not how good of a bodybuilder he is overall.
How his chest & quads stack up to every and any other bodybuilder other than Coleman is entirely irrelevant. So yes, Dorian's quads & chest are HORRENDOUS compared to Coleman's.
This isn't a Dorian appreciation thread dude...
- The I.F.B.B. judge was making an assessment based on his preferences and the competition. He never saw 2003 Coleman's chest or quadriceps, so its really meaningless. You do realize, that Yates can have phenomenal quads and an outstanding chest, but still look awful when standing next to a superior bodybuilder, correct? Let me give you a simple analogy you can comprehend:
I am on vacation in Hawaii. I see the most beautiful girl I have ever observed. I put it in writing. That doesn't mean she will always remain the most beautiful girl in my estimation. Hell, I could spot a more attractive one in a few years, a few hours, or even a few minutes. Once I find a more attractive woman than the previous one, it renders my statement in writing invalid.
Likewise, your IFBB judge's opinion means jackshit in this debate. I am sorry.
- Once again, its obvious you don't like 2003 Coleman. Your preferences do not accord with standard IFBB protocol, and until they do, they are nothing more than worthless opinions. Judges reward muscular development. No muscle is EVER "overdeveloped", there are only adjacent muscles that may be "underdeveloped". I can't comprehend why you fail to grasp this point.
I'm sure if you had it your way, and you had your own bodybuilding federation, you would immediately set a cap on the muscularity limit. That's fine ... but fact is, the IFBB hasn't done that, so Coleman is by no means overdeveloped. Any/all muscular development IS an improvement. Ruhl is never penalized for his massive chest/biceps, rather, he is penalized for his small triceps, which are entirely too small for any bodybuilder, let alone one as large as him.
Ronnie may have an edge on quad development but his quads are so overdevloped they've compromised his balance of his entire lower body , his quads dominate his whole legs his hamstrings while shredded are out of balance with his quads this is evident in the sidechest shot , his calves are out of harmony and his glutes are way overdeveloped , and his quads lack their once pleasing shape they had when he was lighter
Once again, you can't dismiss muscular development as a weakness!
Its the equivalent of stating a "sprinter is too fast", a "powerlifter is too strong", etc.
"
an edge on quad development" ... are you insane? Understatement of the millenium.
Dorian's quadricep development is abysmal relative to Ronnie. Horrendous. Inexcusably weak.
Regardless, his quadriceps DO NOT compromise the balance of his lower body.
There is no apparent imbalance whatsoever. Ronnie may not have hamstrings with a hang as prominent as, say, Tom Prince, but he doesn't have to be absolute best in this facet.
Regardless, it is ill-advised to claim that proper balance between muscles can actually compensate for overall worse muscular development. Besides, it isn't even as though this would even be an issue from the front or the back shots. The few side shots of interest are exclusive. However, there is no visual evidence that supports your testimony of imbalance. Ronnie's quadriceps AND hamstrings are currently unparalleled.
Once again, your aesthetic value judgment concerning "pleasing shape" would be dismissed entirely by IFBB judges. Ronnie's quadriceps are huge with an awesome sweep.
Chest again I feel you're not giving Yates enough credit okay you think Ronnie's is better well go with that , although I feel his chest is saggy and at some angles it appears flat , Yates had an awsome chest it was thick , striated although you seem to think not as much as Ron it was striated nonetheless , and the " sternocostal attachment deficiency " isn't even worth mentioning honestly it isn't it obviously never effected him before , but the best part is lets say Ronnie's chest is ' better ' I say Dorian has a better sidechest shot from head to toe
- His pectoral deficiency is DEFINITELY worth mentioning. That IS something he would be marked down for. He has no muscle on the bottom portion of his sternum. As a result, it makes his chest look incomplete. It would be assessed similar to a tear, though it is not quite as visually detracting, but the judges would definitely take note nonetheless. You constantly mention Ronnie's wide linea alba, yet you claim that no muscle on the lower-sternum is acceptable?
- Face it ... Coleman's chest is larger. More striations. Greater muscle density and layering.
The muscle is more mature. I've never seen 1 instance from 2003 where Coleman's chest was 'saggy'. You may be thinking of 2001 Mr. Olympia, but that was an off-year for him regardless. Your claim of a saggy chest in 2003 is invalid without visual evidence. Most likely, its just another pathetic attempt to twist one of his greatest strength's into a weakness by adopting a "different", although entirely unfounded, perspective.
- Better side chest? Umm ... no way. All Yates has on this pose are calves (as usual
)
And when I say your biased its because you'll overlook Ronnie's major flaws and fixate on Dorian's you've said Ronnie stomach was completely flat in 2003 and its not , I've posted pics to the contrary , you feel his medicore calves are sufficent I say their a major liability , I say his conditioning sucks you you think its spectacular , you feel overdevlopment is imporvement I don't , you say muscle maturity is part of the judging criteria I say nonsense , so we're back to square one same old argument same old responses . 
Ronnie's stomach WAS flat in the pre-judging. The only visual evidence you have provided:
a) Backstage
b) In transition during the evening round
Lets not forget you rely heavily on that distensionshot from 2004 as well.
Besides, Dorian had abdominal distension too, coupled with a wider waist, overdeveloped obliques, AND less back thickness / lat & delt width to even it out a bit. At Dorian's best, with minimal abdominal distension, he would have nowhere near enough size to stand next to Coleman in the pre-judging. As you know, several competitors that are mainstays in the Olympia posedown (Badell, Ruhl) struggle with distension as well, so your fixation on this weakness is evidently far more pronounced than that of an IFBB judge.
I've already explained that calves are not nearly as important as hamstrings/glutes/quads.
You have yet to provide relevant examples of bodybuilders dropping in placement due to poor calf development. Johnnie Jackson recently placed 2nd to Branch Warren, and he has the worst calves in professional bodybuilding. Besides, 1 inferior bodypart does not compensate for 3. Ronnie would handily win the lower-body assessment.
You act like this is mere opinion. Manion himself stated that muscle maturity accounts for 33% of the criteria. The fact that you disagree fails to change that ordinance. Sorry. We've gone over this conditioning argument already. Yates has nothing to show for it. Minimal vascularity and exceedingly few striations. Conditioning is meant to show off muscular development and muscular maturity. It is meant to showcase the MUSCLE, and fact is, Coleman has more high-quality muscle than Dorian, and essentially that is what bodybuilding is all about.
