Dorian can't touch Ronnie in the back double biceps. Dorian's poor bicep development, the asymmetry (whether due to the tear or even pre-tear), complete lack of peak, poor triceps hang, and 2-dimensional back thickness with arms elevated would automatically yield Ronnie this pose. Ronnie's upper back is far more muscular, with greater thickness AND density. Doesn't really matter if it was better or worse in 1998, fact is, in 2003 Ronnie would have absolutely annihilated Yates with his back-double-bicep.
I disagree. Ronnie certainly has far superior biceps than Dorian any weight, and the biceps are definitely better than Dorian's, at any weight. But the thing is that the biceps is only a small part - even if a very important one - of this mandatory.
Ronnie, in his 250 lbs form, was able to surpass Dorian in the back double biceps when it came to details, and was almost equivalent in width. Yet, Dorian took him flat out when it came to muscularity, balance lower back detail and overrall hardness. When Ronnie ballooned to 287 lbs, he matched Dorian for thickness - even though his christmas-tree was still inferior to Dorian's -, but he remained only comparable in width and now lost flat out in separations, balance and hardness. I fail to see how the triceps is relevant in this pose, since Dorian's are more balanced and his three triceps muscle bellies are longer. Dorian's triceps is one of the areas where I strongly feel Dorian has the nod on Ronnie.
As for the lower part in this mandatory, I disagree with you on most things. Dorian had striated glutes, on an era when this was not common. His glutes, at 257 lbs, were clearly more striated than even that of Ronnie's at 250 lbs; at 287 lbs, it's no contest: Dorian takes him lat out. Dorian also has better hamstrings and calves. Ronnie's hams, in 2003, were certainly humoungous; no one is uestioning that. But were they better than his at 250 lbs? No. Dorian's biceps femori always looked like that on a human anatomy chart: separated and striated to the point where the indentations of the fibers could be seen; Ronnie's were never that good. When it comes to calves, again, it's no contest: Dorian's are thicker, more separate and harder-looking. Ronnie's calves are too small for his body, taking away from his balance. Point for Dorian. From top to bottom, and all things considered, I think the 257 lbs Dorian and the 287 lbs Ronnie tie in the back double biceps: Ronnie is slightly wider, but Dorian is just as thick, with more separations and hardness. Ronnie takes him out in beceps, but Dorian takes him out in calves.
I'm sorry, Dorian's absymal biceps alone, even with an otherwise perfect physique (which he did NOT have) would cause him to lose the pose. Couple that with his inferior upperback thickness and density, its a lost cause. AND thats NOT taking into account the judges' assessment of the glutes and hamstrings, far more important bodyparts than the calves in this case. You are foolish for even raising the rear double bicep.
His biceps were a liability, but, again, not even close enough to make him lose the pose. And I disagree that calves are unimportant: they might be unimportant when it comes to evaluating the muscularity of the back muscles in this mandatory, but, like every other bak bodypart it is of fundametal importance as far as balance goes.
Dorian's upper thickness was comparable to Ronnie's, with the differene that, at 257 lbs, he had far superior details there -something at which Ronnie edged Dorian at, when he was around 250 lbs. Not only that, his middle bak is far superior, with a thiker hristmas-tree and more details. Dorian would also easily take him out in lower back details, as well. From top to bottom, on this mandatory, Dorian takes Ronnie out in separations, hardness and balance. I strongly disagree with your assesment that Ronnie had better hardness there than Dorian: the latter remains unsurpassed in the hardness department, and his ack was the hardest part of his physique.
Whe it comes to overrall balance, no, the hamstrings and glutes are not more important that the calves. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, because Dorian's glutes, at 257 lbs, were more striated than Ronnie's at 287 lbs. And as far as his hamstrings go, he laked Ronnie's thickness; ok, but his hams were more striated, harder and dryer. A strong case could be made, that Ronnie at 250 lbs, defeats Dorian in the bak double biceps, because he has superior separations and biccps, but such is not the case when he is 287 lbs, with the sole advantge of increased width, but with similar thikness and far less separations, balance and conditioning. If anything, the 257 lbs Dorian ties this mandatory with the 287 lbs Ronnie.
Rear lat spread ... well ... Ronnie's back is wider. Most detail is lost in the rear lat spread, so Dorian's supposedly "superior conditioning" would be moot as is. Once again, Ron will destroy him in the hams/glutes department. Give Dorian the nod for the lower back and calves ... thats it. Ronnie's arms would be far thicker, and yes they do look at those in the rear lat spread, the overall greater lat width and greater crevices in the infraspinatus, Ronnie would win this pose too, albeit not quite as handily as the back double bicep.
Ronnie's back is not wider. You're forgetting, that Dorian Yates, had the widest lats in bodybuilding history. At 287 lbs, Ronnie's lats finally mathed Dorian's in width. But they were still inferior in thickness on the middle back. Roonie, at this weight, loses to Dorian when it comes to details both in the lower and upper backs. He also loses, flat out, in conditioning.
I agree that a large part of detail is lost in a lat spread. Yet, the middle back is still visible and Dorian flat out detroys Ronnie there in thikness and details; the middle of the back, besides the spread itself, is the most important part of this mandatory. Dorian also wins in hardness, dryness and overrall balance. Ronnie has poor calves, and this compromises his overrall balance on this pose.
Ronnie's hams are not better than Dorian's. You're mistaking "bigger" with "better". Ronnie did have a very slight edge in ham details when he was 250 lbs, but he lost this advantage completely when he wen't to 280+ lbs. Dorian's hamstrings were super-striated and dry; the same for his glutes. Ronnie's better? Ronnie's glutes were not even close to Dorian's in the striations department when Dorian was 257 lbs, and the same can be said for hamstrings. All things considered, Dorian wins this mandatory in everything except the spread of the lats, at which he merely equals Ronnie. All things onsidered, he does have a better rear lat spread than Ronnie.
LOL. Dorian's back doesn't look as wide when he is standing alone even. I can't imagine how it would look standing right next to Ronnie, who is taller, has a smaller waist, and would have what, ~40lbs more muscle? Claiming the difference in width would be "very small" attests to your delusions. Dorian's back was never considered the greatest due to its width relative to Coleman's, but rather its overall shape, proportions, and thickness in Ron's earlier days. Ronnie's significant edge in the width department was never a contention.
I completely disagree from you. Dorian's bak was not wide?! Ecuse me, but if there's one bodybuilder who wrote the book on lat width, it is Dorian. Dorian's lats were not merely wide; they were humoungously so. During his Olympia reign, he won the rear lat spread with straight firsts, from all judges, at all renditions of the contest!
Secondly, Ronnie's waist is not smaller than Dorian. That was certainly the case in his 1998 form, but not in 2003. Dorian's smaller waist, in relation to the 2003 Ronnie, is a mathematical fact, beyond dispute: something which can be verified through tape measurement. The difference is small, because Ronnie does have a genetic advantage by having smaller hips, but Dorian's superiority is mathematically verifiable.
Ronnie's gain of 40 lbs, from 2002 to 2003, was by no means all lean mass, and it was by no means a symmetrical gain. Most of Ronnie's size increase was in quad and midsection size. This is evident by the fact that Ronnie's lats were not significantly wider or thicker than Dorian's, even though he came in 30 lbs heavier. The 257 lbs Dorian loses in overrall thickness, but still has superior thickness in the middle of the back. He is comparable to Ronnie in width, but with superior upper and lower back details, hardness and overrall hardness. One again, he wins the rear lat spread, although by a small margin.
The Christmas tree is of secondary importance in the rear lat spread, and its detail is obscured with lat flare extended anyway. Dorian's waist-to-shoulder ratio is worst, since his waist is wider than Coleman's and his shoulders are more narrow. So yes, Dorian wins lower back and calves, as always. That will NOT compensate for Ron's superior lat width, superior trap height and thickness, hamstrings, glutes, AND arms. This is simple arithmetic.
No, it isn't. In fat, besides the flare of the lats itself, the thickness of the middle back is the most apparent factor in the rear lat spread, as far as muscularity goes. And Dorian flat out takes Ronnie out, even though he's 30 lbs kighter. He is dryer overrall and has more detail. He does win hen it comes to conditioning and hardness of the lower back, but also in hamstring quality: they are not as massive as Ronnie's, but more striated. His calves surpass Ronnie's both in size and striations. All things considered, Dorian is comprable in thickness, but with more details, hardness andbalance. Game over: he wins.
Upper back detail is obscured in the rear lat spread. You seem to have no comprehension that detail is not the focal point of the rear lat spread since the very act of flaring the lats like that extends the actin/myosin articulations. Z-bands are what are responsible for detail, and the act of having the muscle fully stretched extends the myofilament overlap beyond that point. Width, thickness, size, lowerback conditioning (yates would win), and lower body conditioning (coleman would handily win) are the primary objectives.
I have conceded that the act of falring the lats is the most important element of the rear lat spread; hence, it's name. And, as I've also said, Dorian, at a bodyweight 30 lbs lighter, is comparable to Coleman, with perhaps a very small, insignificant edge to Dorian: we are talking about the most flared out lats in bodybuilding history. Period. Upper back detail is obscured in this mandatory, granted, but it's still relevant. And Dorian wins there as well. Dorian wins in thikness in the lower back as well, besides winning it in the middle back, and both these areas are druer and harder.
For instance, most thought Jay Cutler deserved to win the rear-lat spread in 2004 yet his back had comparable width but considerably less detail.
If Cutler, who's back was never in Dorian's league, can push a 296 lbs Coleman to the brink, then what does that tell you that Dorian, with his preter-human back, would do to a 287 lbs Ronnie?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
