We have already established how 2003 Ronnie exceeds Dorian at his peak.
Very weak strategy ... you pretend that 2003 Ronnie isn't as good as the Coleman in 1998, then desperately proceed to compare Yates to a smaller Coleman who was just beginning to come in to his own. You try to make it out as though Peak Dorian > 98 Ron > 2003 Ron yet we already proved that 2003 Ron > Peak Dorian so your argument holds no water here.
You are not man enough to admit that you are terrified of a comparison to 2003 Ronnie.
As a result, you try to shift the year by actually claiming that he used to be better! Unreal!
Congratulations! This is the 3rd time in a row you have raised this issue.
Rather than continually raise a subject that I have already answered, why don't you address my answer directly??
At first you tried to imply that Dorian's glutes were just as good as Ronnie's because they were striated. Now you attempt to argue that Ronnie's glutes are actually overdeveloped!
Overdevelopment really is a catch-all argument for you isn't it? You isolate an outstanding bodypart of his (quadriceps, biceps, glutes) and claim they are overdeveloped. With the exception of his calves, all of his muscles are in perfect harmonious balance. You fail to cite a reference to your accusation for his supposed lack of balance yet you can only point to his calves.
All of Ronnie's muscles (calves excluded) are equally massive. You have yet to properly identify any real imbalance. Its funny, because you continue to rely on this generalization yet you are unable to isolate one specific example.
We've been identifying Dorian's weaknesses throughout the course of this thread, relaxed and pose, and you have the audacity to claim that his weaknesses disappear when he flexes?
Flexing his muscles did not make up for his torn bicep, lack of striations and vascularity, wide waist with hypertrophied obliques, poor quadricep size and separation, etc. etc.
You keep raising his competitive record as though it is relevant?
I guess you are merely trying to fill up more space , at least in an effort to give your paragraphs a faint appearance of substance.
You're clueless , 2003 Ronnie doesn't beat anything you're in the minority in thinking this is the best example he's produced thus far , the general consensus of people in the know , is 2001 Arnold Classic is about the best Ronnie's looked overall since he turned pro , you're denile in accepting that either 98/99 Olympia or 01 Arnold Classic is his best overall peak package , so until you come to your senses I wont entertain your delusion on that comparsion
Overdevloped is a nice term huh? and it applies , why do ( people with any sense )consider 2001 Arnold Classic his best condition ? because his body as a whole one looked much better from an aesthetics standpoint , two tied-together much better from a balance & proportion standpoint and three his crisp muscularity completed the package , 2003 287lbs , 2004 296lbs , he looks like gargabe , he looks like 6 pounds of sugar stuffed in a 5lb bag , his muscle quality has suffered greatly , he no longer looks like a bodybuilder , he looks like a powerlifter with low bodyfat , so while you may find this fantastic , it shows you're not a bodybuilding purist and could careless about anything but size & condition , so if you think Ronnie looks his best at the 2003 Mr Olympia compared to previous version you've exposed yourself as a massbuilding fan , not a bodybuilding fan
Now on the topic of Ronnie's calves , I haven't pointed out any real imbalance? have you been reading what I typed , at the 2003 Mr Olympia his calves were huge , probably bigger most pros , and they should be he weighs 287lbs , they're NOT in proportion with his quads , there is a serious lowerleg imbalance , ontop of lacking diamond shape , they are asymmetrical , they lack seperation between gastrocnemius caput mediale and the caput laterale , and the soleus which isn't bad , still lacks deep seperation and detail from the side , so if you find his calves acceptable , it wouldn't surprise me , because you tend to overlook a lot as long as it's huge
And what relavence does that have? it gives you a idea of who you are dealing with , like the rest of Camp-Coleman , you're under this impression that Dorian is nothing more than a collection of weak parts that make up a weak whole , and you're mistaken , you all write Dorian off as some second string bodybuilder who would consider himself lucky to stand next to Ronnie Coleman , its laughable !! Dorian was
unstopable he was a winning machine , he lost just twice as a Pro , thats unheard of his first contest he placed a close second and his first Olympia he placed second winning the musculairty round from Lee Haney of all people , he won the Olympia on his second try , he won 88% of the contests he entered , he beat some of the highest caliber competition the sport has ever seen , in 1993 he was so far ahead of the rest of the great feild , the judges didn't even need to include him in the muscularity round lol they only brought him out to please the audience , Samir Bannout after the 1993 Mr Olympia said Dorian , was first , second and third !! Paul Dillet after the 1995 Mr Olympia said " I've seen jesus christ and he looks like Dorian Yates . " !! so while the lot of you may not think much of him , or his phsyique and write him off as no challenge , history begs to differ and so does his contemporaries , your underestimation of Dorian's domience & superiorty is your undoing , so continue to knitpick his weaknesses , continue to post pics where hes not at his prime continue make lame comments , I've already won this ' debate ' because I tried to call a truce and I'm more than willing to concede he may lose to Ronnie I don't know 100% for sure and neither do you , but my willingness to entertain that possibility and to want to put an end to these debates out of respect for fellow members puts me ahead of all of you , just like Dorian was ahead of everyone else
