Once again, you shoot yourself on the foot and then run your mouth on a marathon of bullshit. You keep arguing that a bodybuilding contest is judged on muscle size, muscle symmetry and muscle maturity. Wrong.
Manion himself explicitly outlined this. I did not make it up. He stated that muscularity, symmetry, and muscle maturity/conditioning/detail were equally important, yet independent, components of the IFBB judges' criteria.
Interestingly, you STILL haven't replied to my post, where I explin how a bodybuilding contest is judged. To recap, here are the criterias:
1. Muscularity
2. Musco-skeletal balance
3. Mandatories.
I rarely reply to your posts because you tend to:
a) Delve into the theoretical
b) Misinterpret what I have to say or take it out of context
c) Make gross blanket generalizations like "Dorian has better quads", intentionally arguing against widely known facts, yet you provide little evidence and usually its irrelevant.
d) Most of your posts are so devoid of fact that they are self-incriminating
That said, your last two points are flawed.
a) We both state Muscularity. Good.
b) Musculo-skeletal balance is little more than symmetry, with a few borrowed elements from the muscularity department. You have not really stated anything new, you just modify the terminology because you think it will further your cause.
c) Mandatories??? I am talking about what the judges look for in the athletes' physiques, not the breakdown of the contest format newb! I know bodybuilding consists of mandatories, the evening round, and the posedown / challenge round (if applicable). There are no "mandatories" on the athletes physiques, therefore it isn't an element that the judges are scrutinizing.
d) You completely ignore muscle maturity / conditioning / muscle detail / separation.
So, as usual, you are 100% wrong ... and you have the audacity to question why I spare you the indignity of replying to your posts!
What the hell? Symmetry and Conditioning aren't
They most certainly are. After all, Manion would know.
In fact, symmetry is 33%. Conditioning is one element of a more comprehensive 33%.
The only place where the judging criteria, for bodybuilding contest, encomapasses muscle size, muscle symmetry and muscle maturity, is in your hed. I've been to some 300 bodybuilding contests, amateur and pro, and I've never seen single one that was judged by your criteria.
I'm not talking about the formal rounds in a bodybuilding contest. I was referring to what the judges are instructed to analyze on the competitors' physiques, and how to weight the relevant factors. There is a standard rubric, one you fail to take into account.
300? Were you a judge? Were you privy to their precise criteria? I think not!
Besides, you are crazy if you believe muscle maturity, symmetry and conditioning are not taken into account. After all, those 2 ridiculous points you previously stated (Musculo-skeletal balance and Mandatories[LOL]) account for little. The first is basically a glorified term for symmetry (which is precisely muscle balance, not only from left to right but from top to bottom, and yes the frame is relevant I agree), and the second isn't even part of an athlete's physique.
I've already explained all of this before and I'm doing it all over again. The ONLY shot Ronnie hs at beating Dorian is if you match his best, 250 lbs form, the one he had at the 98 O, against Dorian's 270 lbs version from the 97 O. That's the only possibility. What advantages does the 287 lbs Ronnie, from 2003, have over Dorian besides sheer, disproportional volume? None.
I'm not interested in comparing 250lbs Coleman to Yates. I'll save that for Hulkster.
From the beginning, I have opted to focus on pre-season 2002 or 2003 contest Ron.
What advantages does 2003 Ronnie Coleman possess? How about:
- Overall Muscularity
- Top-Bottom / Left-Right Symmetry
- Muscle Maturity
- Overall Striations
- Overall Vascularity
- Superior V-Taper
- Superior X-Frame
- Quadriceps (Quad Sweep, Size, Vascularity, Striations, Separation, Balance)
- Hamstrings (Size, Separation, Conditioning)
- Glutes (Size, Striations, Conditioning)
- Deltoids (Size, Proportion, Density, Balance)
- Biceps (Size, Peaks, No-Tears
, Vascularity, Symmetrical)
- Triceps (Superior Size, Superior Balance, Striations)
- Chest (Superior Size, Yates has sternocostal pectoral deficiency, Striations, Density)
- Smaller waist, no overdeveloped obliques like your man Yates
- Upper Back (Superior Size, Density, Balance, Thick Traps & Lats, Lat Width)
Each and every bullet I have listed was well-established in the previous pages.
I would be more than happy to debate ANY one of these points with you again.
Keep in mind, each is documented with visual evidence, so I'll have none of your usual statements like "Dorian's quads are better" with no relevant reference or evidence.
In 1998, Ronnie, at 250 lbs, had one of the best tapers, quad and delt detils ever seen on a bodybuilding stage. Superb. His 98 form is one of my favorite ever; like a larger, denser Flex Wheeler. If you match that against Dorian's 270 lbs form, then he'd have real shot of winning. This DESPITE the fact that, at 270 lbs, Dorian takes the 250 lbs Ronnie in all the mandatory poses! Why do I think Ronnie would still win? Well, because his advantage in taper and detail would be so overwhelming.
Why would you even care to debate 1998 Coleman vs. 1997 Dorian if you acknowledge that Ronnie would still win? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
As I said, I don't care about 1998 Coleman. Debate this point with Hulkster.
I will reitterate: I am concerned solely with 2003 contest-ready Ronnie Coleman.
I will gladly compare him with whatever year/form you consider Yates' best.
Once again, his peak year/form does not constitute your peculiar habit of borrowing his various strengths from year to year, and negating their associated weaknesses, and somehow fashioning this into one ultimate physique.
Pick one year, one peak form, come back and we'll juxtapose it to 2003 Coleman.
But this is not the case if you compare Ronnie at 280+ lbs against Dorian. Again, the best shot that the 280+ lbs Coleman would have, at defeating Shadow, would be against his sub-par 270 lbs form. Both of them hve terrible tapers at those respective weights, but Dorian is far better. AND Dorian maintains his trademanrked hardness and dryness at that weight, but...with greater fullness! 
But still, you could argue that the difference in size, although small, would tip the scales in Ronnie's favor and make him win. Ok.
How can Dorian have a "far better" taper when his waist is wider, his obliques are more developed, yet his lats and delts are more narrow? That is a physiological impossibility.
You and ND have yet to provide evidence that Yates ever had comparable lat width, let alone superior lat width, to 2003 Coleman other than that pre-season 1993 Dorian picture where HE ISN'T in contest shape and doesn't have a single detail on his back (he would lose hands down in that photograph due to lack of detail, among other reasons). I want at least one contest picture that can support your previous claims that Dorian has comparable lat width to 2003 Coleman (he doesn't). I can produce at least 10 pictures in defense of Coleman, why can't you come up with even one in Yates defense?
Once again, dryness is meaningless since Dorian had no detail underlying his skin.
Few striations, minimal vascularity, poor muscle maturity.
Yes, he was hard, I agree, although not harder than Ronnie based on color photos.
I love how every picture you two use in reference to Dorian's "hardness" is in black & white, yet you fail to comment on the fact that Coleman's black & white shots exhibit comparable hardness, in fact more in particular bodyparts.
Dorian was not fuller dude!
Dorian's chest, deltoids, biceps, quadriceps were grossly underdeveloped and flat.
Ronnie has harder quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, biceps, deltoids, AND chest.
But there is no fucking way in hell, !ever!, that the 280+ lbs version of Ronnie would defeat the 257 lbs Dorian. NO FUCKING WAY!!! Not by bodybuilding criteria! It's like saying that a 310 lbs Roland Kickinger would defeat a 230 lbs Wheeler. Sorry, dude: not possible. The 257 lbs Dorian has great(not merely good) taper, extreme hardness, incredible etchiness, a level of detail that, although not quite as good, is very close to the 250 lbs Ronnie and superb muscular-skeletal balance, the likes of which Ronnie could only dream of!(because Roonie has a long waist, high calves, assymetrical abs, etc...).
Dorian's waist was still wider, and his lats and delts more narrow.
So no, not a better taper. Sorry.
Hardness and etchiness. Ok.
Still only 1 element of many comprising only 33% of the rubric.
Dorian still had awful symmetry (his quads didn't match, biceps grossly asymmetrical, sternocostal pectoral deficiency, un-even upper traps, imbalanced medial heads).
No quad sweep, hence no X-frame. Wide waist, thick obliques. Inferior V-taper.
33% down the drain. You vastly, arrogantly underrate the importance of symmetry.
Ronnie absolutely outclasses him in the muscularity department. No contest. 33%
Dorian didn't have detail. No striations in his chest (nowhere, nowhere near the number and quality of striations in 2003 Coleman's chest). Not a single striation on either tricep. His shoulders had poor delt-cap separation. Biceps were an absolute joke, they had ugly varicose veins on them (so I guess a little vascularity) but in this case only served to bring more attention to already inferior, undersized, asymmetrical biceps.
Where is this superior detail?? Its only in the lower back, as I said. That's pathetic!
Dorian could never match Coleman's hamstring or glute detail.
Their upper back detail is comparable, and this is forgiving suckmymuscle, since Yates didn't have the 3D muscularity and deep ridges Coleman's upper back exhibits.
Asymmetrical abs? Get your eyes checked please:
Your calves argument is old. Calves, though they are a relevant bodypart, are not critiqued as rigorously as larger bodyparts such as chest, quadriceps, deltoids, hamstrings, namely all of the glaring weaknesses Dorian possessed. Sad.
Now, compare how the 250 lbs and the 287 lbs Ronnie would compare to a 257 lbs Dorian, as far as muscularity, musco-skeletal balance and in the mandatories. The 287 lbs Ronnie does surpass Dorian in muscle size, but only compares to him in muscularity. And when you take into considertion that he flat out loses in balance&proportions - even you have to agree with that -, you realize the only thing left are the mandatories. The problem here is that Ronnie's distended gut becomes a major liability in ALL the mandatories, especifically: abs-and-thighs, front lat spread, side chest and rear lat spread.
Ronnie DOESN'T lose out in balance & proportion. We have gone over this already.
Aside from the calves/quadriceps imbalance, you don't have an argument.
With that one exception, Ronnie's balance and proportion is superior in every sense.
Balance & Proportion IS symmetry, and I have outlined this dozens of times already.
The gut is an issue in the "REAR LAT SPREAD"?? LOL
Ronnie's gut was in check in every pose you mentioned. No visible distension.
... and his waist is smaller ;]. The only visual evidence ND can produce of distension is either backstage or in transition.
When it comes to the 250 lbs Ronnie, Dorian loses several of his advantages, but still wins out. How? The 257 lbs Dorian wins flat out in muscularity and loses in taper, but still has the best overall musco-skeletal balance. All that's left then, is the mandatories. How would the 250 lbs Ronnie fair agains the 257 lbs Dozer? Ronnie would win the front double biceps, and tie both the most muscular and back double biceps - and his despite Dorian's much, much greater thickness, width and hardness! But that's it. In all other mandatories, Dorian would simly cream Ronnie in the pooper.
God damn it, I don't care about 250lbs Ronnie. Debate this with Hulkster.
Conclusion: the largest version of Ronnie loses to the smaller version of Dorian and ties with the lrger version. The smaller version of Coleman, conversely, defeats the largest version of Dorian but still loses - even if only by points - to the smaller version of Dorian. Game over. Here are a few shots of Ronnie at his great 
280+ lbs form, which clearly demonstrates how his terrible taper, lack of details, horrendous balance and overall softeness are in no way acceptable for a pro, let alone a Mr.O. 
You have proven nothing. Your judging criteria was random, unfounded, and wrong.
And you accuse me of making Manion's up!
Taper: Wide delts + Wide lats + Lean Waist = Excellent V-Taper
Details: Striations, Vascularity, Separation, and thick muscle density
His biceps are peaked with crags and fissures. He looks like he has a bicep on top of his bicep. His quad sweep was unreal, riddled with striations in the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis, with thick veins meandering beneath his close to bursting skin.
Dorian could never match that quadricep separation.
Horrendous balance? Nope.
I clearly outlined the components that constitute symmetry.
SOFT?
HORRIBLE TAPER?
Look at the delt/lat : waist ratio. Insane!
LACK OF DETAIL?
Dorian is the one with few striations, minimal vascularity, and more separations.
So No ... Ronnie does not lack detail ... Dorian does.
