No. This is exactly what you don't understand. This is exactly my point: Ronnie did NOT, at 287 lbs, have better symmetry than Dorian.
From top to bottom: Ronnie has a better V-taper, a smaller waist, and superior quad sweep.
From left to right: Dorian's biceps never matched, even before the tear.
Dorian's quadriceps have never matched.
The medial heads of his triceps are grossly out of balance.
So yes, I do understand: Ronnie's symmetry is 100% better.
Did NOT have better conditioning or separations. If we're going to ignore a MAJOR liability, like a distended belly and poor taper, than let's compare the 274 lbs Dorian from the 97 O to the 287 lbs Ronnie from 2003.
Ronnie's quadriceps have much better separation. I challenge you to find one piece of visual evidence, one photograph of Dorian, that can match the separation in his quadriceps:
Ronnie's hamstrings and glutes are miles ahead of Dorian, in terms of size and separation.
Dorian's back in contest shape is 2 dimensional in the most muscular, whereas Coleman has mounds and ridges of solid muscle in his back. Dorian's dryness cannot compensate for Ronnie's superior thickness. Don't tell me contest Yates' back was thicker and more dense, the only pictures you guys can produce that attest to any semblance of thickness are those black and white pre-season photographs, but he has such little detail at that stage of preparation its moot.
Dorian is dry, but has few striations and no vascularity. You and ND constantly overlook this.
Ronnie is not as dry but still showcases a great deal of detail, far more than Dorian.
Ronnie has a better taper than Dorian:
Smaller waist + Wider lats + Wider delts = Superior taper. Get over it.
I mean, if size and density is all that matters to you, than let's compare Ronnie to Dorian at his largest. Dorin was 266 lbs for the pre-judging of the 97 O nd then ballooned to 274 lbs by the night show. Let's compare that. At his 274 lbs form, Dorian was even fuller and denser than at this previous Olympias, while still maintaining his trademarked dryness and...still had a much smaller gut and far less distension than the 2003 Ronnie. You see, Dorian defeats Ronnie across all weight ranges, irrespective of the bodybuilding criteria you adopt.
We are comparing ONE peak form! You can't mix and match Dorian's strengths in various years and act as though he showcased all of them at one time.
You are wrong. 2003 Coleman destroys Yates in the muscularity department. 33%
Symmetry is not even close. Ronnie > Dorian. 33% + 33% = 66%
The only issue that is even a debate is muscle maturity / condition, the remaining 33%
Dorian was dry but lacked detail (striations, vascularity).
I would still hand this facet over to Ronnie, although I do acknowledge it could go either way.
Ronnie's pecs are so dense, you can just see the layers of thickly proportioned muscle.
Dorian would be heavily penalized for the minimal detail / separation in his chest and quadriceps.
Dorian would win lower-back condition and perhaps abdominals. The remainder is comparable.
Regardless, it is not nearly enough for Yates to even tie, let alone win soundly as you claim.
