Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce

[Praetor Fenix]

he is huge at that show, but holding water. Compare this to the 2003 video

 - he was in much better shape in 2003 than in 2004.

Ronnie looked better in 2004 during the evening round presentation.
Ronnie's 2003 pre-judging package was his all-time best (in my opinion), but he really spilled over that evening (as evidenced by his quadriceps and back definition).

Regardless, with the exception of Ronnie's 2002 Mr. Olympia outing (and possibly 2001 as well), Dorian can't match him on any level.

Ronnie's pre-season form in 2002, at 289lbs, was particularly dominant. Best of both worlds I think. The sick muscularity characteristic of 2003-2004, coupled with a flat midsection, small waist, and the detail / classic lines he presented at the 2001 ASC. Physical perfection.

[LyricTenor]

Hats off to ND (for this pic)

[pumpster]

Hats off to ND (for this pic)

Zipper down, too-there is nothing at all special about posting a pic that's been widely circulated for years, especially amongst Iron Age clones. Anyone might find it beneficial to take some air, IF it were made available, but they prance around gleefully like nerds, congratulating themselves on their perception that it "wasn't like that in the 'ol days". hahahahahahahhaha

If it had been available backstage in the 70s i'll bet they'd have used it too.

[Hulkster]

they inhaled other things during the 70's

[Hulkster]

check out Ronnie's back in this shot from 1999. He doesn't even have enough room to hit the pose right and his back double bi is still unreal.  See the video for yet more proof that Ronnie at his best was better than dorian.

[Hulkster]

 

[pumpster]

one thing that is obvious from looking at Yates is that part of his graininess is his awful skin.  I has more bumps and acne than I can shake a stick at.  Look at the three quarter's twisting back shot; his skin is disgusting.  Ronnie, although with plenty of faults, absolutely slaughters Dorian from an aesthetic point of view.

From another thread: accurate-skin & physique are about as "aesthetic" as Pete Grymkowski. hahahahahahah

In most of his "wins" one or more guys actually looks better, as in this case with Benaziza embarassing Yates - it's not close he beats him on almost every criteria..

[LyricTenor]

Awesome quads at this body weight.

[suckmymuscle]

RoDetail = striations, vascularity, and layered muscle.
nnie exceeds Dorian in each of these three facets. To argue otherwise is futile.

  Wrong. The 2003 Ronnie has very little details when compared to Dorian, 1993 or 1995 O forms: he was more etched, with better separations and a grainier look. Layered muscle? Yeah, Ronnie had more...because he was 30 lbs heavier! Too bad Ronnie couldn't bring this mass with even aceptable proportions and had a monster gut. Besides, as I've already explained to you - to no avail -, muscle size and muscularity are two very different things. The 280+ lbs Ronnie , obviously, has more muscle size than a version of Dorian which is 30 lbs lighter. But do his muscles look harder, grainier and drier than Dorian's? No! It takes Coleman an added 30 lbs more of weight to just MATCH The Yates in muscularity! Secondly, who cares that Ronnie has more vascularity than Shadow? Vascularity is not even a good thing. Look at all the work, that Charles Glass did, to DECREASE Gunter's vascularity. The result? Improved contest placings.

If Ronnie was so terrible in 2003, why do you always attempt to shift the focus to his earlier, lighter showings? I know ... Ronnie's muscularity was so overwhelming in 2003. Coupled with his superior symmetry and detail, Dorian would have absolutely no chance to win.

  The answer for this a simple one: I think the 98 Ronnie is worthy of being mentioned side by side with Dorian, whereas the 2003 version isn't. You keep talking about Ronnie's "overwhelming muscularity" from 2003, thinking that would be a decisive advantage against The Bulldog from Birmingham. Your error here is two: first, you assume that Ronnie's bigger overrall muscles mean that he's more muscular, and secondly, that carrying 280+ lbs, on a 5'11 frame, can be achieved without the body starting to look like a giant ball of muscle.

  Ronnie in 2003 is bigger, but not better than Dorian at a 30 lbs lighter bodyweight, or even at his 1997, 270+ lbs form. Like I said before, if you want to compare the 2003 Ronnie form to Dorian, then compare it to his worst 270+ lbs, 1997 Olympia form, because the lighter version of Dorian simply destroys the 280+ lbs version of Ronnie. No contest. For starters, the 257 lbs version of Dorian surpasses the 280+ lbs one, of Ronnie, in taper, balance, details, striations and dryness. The 280+ lbs Ronnie version's only advantage, over the lighter version of Dorian, obviously, is having greater mass. The problem is that Dorian defeated several guys who looked BETTER than Ronnie at 280+, like Jean-Pierre Fux and Paul Dillet. By better, I mean that they had more flowing lines, less distension on their midsections, more crispness, etc. Ronnie's frame simply cannot accomodate over 280 lbs without him developing some serious balance issues, such as his quads overpowering his upper body, his midsection becoming a severe liability and his level of crisp details suffering greatly - compare it to 98, and you'll see that Ronnie was a much, much superior bodybuilder, at his lighter weight, than he is at his heavier version.

  You assume that Ronnie, in 2003, became extremely dominant, over Dorian, because of his huge gain in size. You ignore that greater muscle size is simply not enough to defeat a bodybuilder of Dorian's caliber, if the added weight comes with a bonus of a distended midsection, terrible back details, a lower body that clearly overpowers the upper body, etc. The 270+ lbs Dorian, from 1997, has several of the same liabilities of Ronnie in 2003/04 and so I think he'd be a more fair fight for a sub-par 280+ lbs Ronnie. Of course, the 270+ lbs Dorian gains some advantages that the 257 lbs Yates doesen't have, such as greater fullness and an ever more dominant density than he normally has. The fact that I think the larger, fuller and denser version of Dorian is inferior to the lighter one, goes to show that we simply have very different standards for what we think is great: you think the 280+ lbs Ronnie is a great bodybuilder; I don't. The only thing, that the 280+ lbs Ronnie has on the 250+ Ronnie, is size. Not even muscularity, but just weight. On everything else, such as taper, details, etchiness, striations, dryness and proportions, the lighter Ronnie version is just plain better. He was so good, in fact, that I think he's a worthy rival for the 257 lbs Dorian Yates; the 280+ lbs Ronnie isn't.
 

Irrelevant. Jay Cutler is an excellent bodybuilder ... Dorian wasn't. Dorian doesn't have Jay Cutler's biceps peaks, doesn't have his triceps brachii hang, didnt have the 3-dimensional mass and deep contours in the upper back like Ron or Jay have (Dorian's upper back looks flat with arms elevated).

  An outrageous claim. Obviously, the IFBB judges disagree with you, since they made Dorian the standard-bearer six times and Jay, not once. Dorian is FAR superior to Jay in everything. He has wider clavicles, with a shorter waist-to-navel ratio. Dorian's back is actually thicker than Cutler's even at his lighter 250+ lbs weight, which makes your comment, about Cutler defeating Ronnie in the back double biceps irrelevant, because you think Dorian is no Jay, even more absurd.

  Jay's conditioning, as well as the hardness of his musculature, is simply not on Dorian's league. Dorian's triceps muscle bellies are longer than either Jay's or Ronnie's, which makes your assertion of Cutler having better triceps than Dorian just plain idiotic. Dorian's upper back details are superior even to Ronnie in his heavier form; Cutler shouldn't even be mentioned on the same sentence!

  Dorian would/could defet Jay, EASILY across weight ranges: the 250+ lbs Dorian takes out Jay in density, dryness and proportions; the 270+ Dorian takes out the 270+ lbs Jay in density, dryness and muscularity. AND across all weight ranges, Dorian maintains better christmas-tree and delts-traps development, with far superior details on his back. While the 270+ Jay matches Dorian's back for width, it is quite not there in thickness and details. Comparing any version of Ronnie to Dorian is already risky, but doing so, with Cutler, is just downright idiotic: he was not/is not/ will never be on Dorian's league. Ever! Case closed.

I can't fathom why you keep comparing Ronnie to Jay in a
DORIAN VS RONNIE debate. Are you sure you even read the title of this thread? 

  Ok, first of all, newbie, I've been posting on this thread far before you joined in, to give props to the mall Santa version of Ronnie. So don't come with an attitude towards me, because you're not even a protagonist here. I mentioned Jay Cutler because someone else did. That's all. Throughout the thread, people have been bringing up several bodybuilders to compare to Doze, and I brought them down each and every time.

No he doesn't. He whole-heartedly believed that Ronnie deserved to win in 2003, but he stated he still preferred his 2001 Arnold Classic form. It is 2005 you are referring to, and his 2005 package was entirely different.

  Ronnie did not deserve to win in 2003. In fact, Peter McGough, Jim Schmaltz and Jim Manion, all of them, remarked that the IFBB created an entire new rule, just for Ronald Coleman. The rule was a direct response to his E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S-L-Y distended belly, from that year's contest. While this trend was certainly started by Dorian, in the 1997 Olympia rendition, Ronnie took it to a whole new level of grossness in 2003. What do we see when we look at the 2003 Olympia Ronnie? We see a bodybuilder who defeats everyone in absolute muscle size, but who had nothing else going on for him: his midsection is distended, he has terrible abs and obliques, his quads had far less details than in 1998/99, his back is thicker but not significantly wider than in his lighter versions, with far, far less details. His calves are still pathetic, his hamstrings are less etched and dry than at his 250 lbs form, etc. Ronnie won in 2003 ONLY because his size was so overwhelming and none of the other bodybuilders had strenghs on other areas to compensate for it. Dorian would have: his proportions, density and dryness would be superior, with a taper that, while not Wheeleresque, would make Ronnie seem like pregnant with an alien queen. And furthermore, the criteria has changed, exactly because of Ronnie Coleman in his 2003 form, which means that the judges wouldn't even consider that version of him to be even worthy of evaluation, nowadays; Ronnie came in at 270+ lbs for last year's contest, exactly because he new he would LOSE if he came like he did in 2003!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[sculpture]

Data intensive effluent.

Cutler is broader than yates.

2003 - the year everything changed.

[img]

[the shadow]

  Wrong. The 2003 Ronnie has very little details when compared to Dorian, 1993 or 1995 O forms: he was more etched, with better separations and a grainier look. Layered muscle? Yeah, Ronnie had more...because he was 30 lbs heavier! Too bad Ronnie couldn't bring this mass with even aceptable proportions and had a monster gut. Besides, as I've already explained to you - to no avail -, muscle size and muscularity are two very different things. The 280+ lbs Ronnie , obviously, has more muscle size than a version of Dorian which is 30 lbs lighter. But do his muscles look harder, grainier and drier than Dorian's? No! It takes Coleman an added 30 lbs more of weight to just MATCH The Yates in muscularity! Secondly, who cares that Ronnie has more vascularity than Shadow? Vascularity is not even a good thing. Look at all the work, that Charles Glass did, to DECREASE Gunter's vascularity. The result? Improved contest placings.

  The answer for this a simple one: I think the 98 Ronnie is worthy of being mentioned side by side with Dorian, whereas the 2003 version isn't. You keep talking about Ronnie's "overwhelming muscularity" from 2003, thinking that would be a decisive advantage against The Bulldog from Birmingham. Your error here is two: first, you assume that Ronnie's bigger overrall muscles mean that he's more muscular, and secondly, that carrying 280+ lbs, on a 5'11 frame, can be achieved without the body starting to look like a giant ball of muscle.

  Ronnie in 2003 is bigger, but not better than Dorian at a 30 lbs lighter bodyweight, or even at his 1997, 270+ lbs form. Like I said before, if you want to compare the 2003 Ronnie form to Dorian, then compare it to his worst 270+ lbs, 1997 Olympia form, because the lighter version of Dorian simply destroys the 280+ lbs version of Ronnie. No contest. For starters, the 257 lbs version of Dorian surpasses the 280+ lbs one, of Ronnie, in taper, balance, details, striations and dryness. The 280+ lbs Ronnie version's only advantage, over the lighter version of Dorian, obviously, is having greater mass. The problem is that Dorian defeated several guys who looked BETTER than Ronnie at 280+, like Jean-Pierre Fux and Paul Dillet. By better, I mean that they had more flowing lines, less distension on their midsections, more crispness, etc. Ronnie's frame simply cannot accomodate over 280 lbs without him developing some serious balance issues, such as his quads overpowering his upper body, his midsection becoming a severe liability and his level of crisp details suffering greatly - compare it to 98, and you'll see that Ronnie was a much, much superior bodybuilder, at his lighter weight, than he is at his heavier version.

  You assume that Ronnie, in 2003, became extremely dominant, over Dorian, because of his huge gain in size. You ignore that greater muscle size is simply not enough to defeat a bodybuilder of Dorian's caliber, if the added weight comes with a bonus of a distended midsection, terrible back details, a lower body that clearly overpowers the upper body, etc. The 270+ lbs Dorian, from 1997, has several of the same liabilities of Ronnie in 2003/04 and so I think he'd be a more fair fight for a sub-par 280+ lbs Ronnie. Of course, the 270+ lbs Dorian gains some advantages that the 257 lbs Yates doesen't have, such as greater fullness and an ever more dominant density than he normally has. The fact that I think the larger, fuller and denser version of Dorian is inferior to the lighter one, goes to show that we simply have very different standards for what we think is great: you think the 280+ lbs Ronnie is a great bodybuilder; I don't. The only thing, that the 280+ lbs Ronnie has on the 250+ Ronnie, is size. Not even muscularity, but just weight. On everything else, such as taper, details, etchiness, striations, dryness and proportions, the lighter Ronnie version is just plain better. He was so good, in fact, that I think he's a worthy rival for the 257 lbs Dorian Yates; the 280+ lbs Ronnie isn't.
 
  An outrageous claim. Obviously, the IFBB judges disagree with you, since they made Dorian the standard-bearer six times and Jay, not once. Dorian is FAR superior to Jay in everything. He has wider clavicles, with a shorter waist-to-navel ratio. Dorian's back is actually thicker than Cutler's even at his lighter 250+ lbs weight, which makes your comment, about Cutler defeating Ronnie in the back double biceps irrelevant, because you think Dorian is no Jay, even more absurd.

  Jay's conditioning, as well as the hardness of his musculature, is simply not on Dorian's league. Dorian's triceps muscle bellies are longer than either Jay's or Ronnie's, which makes your assertion of Cutler having better triceps than Dorian just plain idiotic. Dorian's upper back details are superior even to Ronnie in his heavier form; Cutler shouldn't even be mentioned on the same sentence!

  Dorian would/could defet Jay, EASILY across weight ranges: the 250+ lbs Dorian takes out Jay in density, dryness and proportions; the 270+ Dorian takes out the 270+ lbs Jay in density, dryness and muscularity. AND across all weight ranges, Dorian maintains better christmas-tree and delts-traps development, with far superior details on his back. While the 270+ Jay matches Dorian's back for width, it is quite not there in thickness and details. Comparing any version of Ronnie to Dorian is already risky, but doing so, with Cutler, is just downright idiotic: he was not/is not/ will never be on Dorian's league. Ever! Case closed.

  Ok, first of all, newbie, I've been posting on this thread far before you joined in, to give props to the mall Santa version of Ronnie. So don't come with an attitude towards me, because you're not even a protagonist here. I mentioned Jay Cutler because someone else did. That's all. Throughout the thread, people have been bringing up several bodybuilders to compare to Doze, and I brought them down each and every time.

  Ronnie did not deserve to win in 2003. In fact, Peter McGough, Jim Schmaltz and Jim Manion, all of them, remarked that the IFBB created an entire new rule, just for Ronald Coleman. The rule was a direct response to his E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S-L-Y distended belly, from that year's contest. While this trend was certainly started by Dorian, in the 1997 Olympia rendition, Ronnie took it to a whole new level of grossness in 2003. What do we see when we look at the 2003 Olympia Ronnie? We see a bodybuilder who defeats everyone in absolute muscle size, but who had nothing else going on for him: his midsection is distended, he has terrible abs and obliques, his quads had far less details than in 1998/99, his back is thicker but not significantly wider than in his lighter versions, with far, far less details. His calves are still pathetic, his hamstrings are less etched and dry than at his 250 lbs form, etc. Ronnie won in 2003 ONLY because his size was so overwhelming and none of the other bodybuilders had strenghs on other areas to compensate for it. Dorian would have: his proportions, density and dryness would be superior, with a taper that, while not Wheeleresque, would make Ronnie seem like pregnant with an alien queen. And furthermore, the criteria has changed, exactly because of Ronnie Coleman in his 2003 form, which means that the judges wouldn't even consider that version of him to be even worthy of evaluation, nowadays; Ronnie came in at 270+ lbs for last year's contest, exactly because he new he would LOSE if he came like he did in 2003!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

epic bullshit...total non-sense irrelevant crap..may god have mercy on ur soul...dude how do u even have so many stupid things to stay..man this whole thing is not even worth reading..yates vs coleman=irrelevant unesessary debate of no use and with no future and bunch of dickheads just debating like total retarted demented people...wat does the future hold with 189 pages of crapppy ass debates wich has no future and a bunch of ass wipes just going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about mindless shit over and over gain....

DELETE THIS RETARTED THREAD

[pumpster]

epic bullshit...total non-sense irrelevant crap..may god have mercy on ur soul...

You were expecting coherence from someone who compares pics of Yates tensing against Coleman relaxed?

[sculpture]

You were expecting coherence from someone who compares pics of Yates tensing against Coleman relaxed?

Gold. You forget to mention the morphed pics too.

[healthiswealth]

epic bullshit...total non-sense irrelevant crap..may god have mercy on ur soul...

nah, it makes sense. Dorian was better because he was more "etched"

fuck, who am I kidding. Suckmymuscle is a tool.

[Praetor Fenix]

Wrong. The 2003 Ronnie has very little details when compared to Dorian, 1993 or 1995 O forms: he was more etched, with better separations and a grainier look.

Simply repeating what you stated earlier doesn't make it right.

- Dorian can't match Ronnie in the vascularity department (no veins on his quadriceps, hideous vascularity on his arms that accentuates his lack of biceps peak and development).

- Ronnie has far more striations (Dorian has no striations on his triceps or quadriceps, whereas Ronnie's are stacked with striations). Dorian's chest has only a few striations, nowhere near Ronnie's level of maturity. Striations are by far the most important element of muscle detail.

- The "grain" is only visible in black & white photography. Look at the black & white photos that were recently posted of Capriese Murray, he exceeds Dorian's legendary "grain" despite the fact that he was never heralded for his conditioning. Face it, Dorian isn't grainy in color.

- By no means does Dorian have better separation.
Look at the quadriceps and hamstrings! Dorian's vastus lateralis has no separation with the rectus femoris, whereas all 3 of Ronnie's visible quadricep heads are clearly delineated with distinct borders. Ronnie's delt caps are clearly separated, whereas Dorian's shoulders are only a large, indistinct mass of muscle. Ronnie's anterior, medial, and posterior deltoids are outlined at any angle. Ronnie has better upper-back separation since his back is thicker. The muscles are larger which serve to outline the crevices beneath. So no (with the exception of calves and lowerback), Dorian's separation is inferior on every level.

So, in fact, YOU are mistaken in this regard.

Layered muscle? Yeah, Ronnie had more...because he was 30 lbs heavier!

And thats a good thing. The IFBB rewards size and muscular development. The layered muscle is synonymous to muscle density ... how much muscle the athlete packs per unit area of volume. The layered muscle is particularly evident in the biceps brachii, pectoralis major, quadriceps, and hamstrings. 4 immensely important bodyparts that happen to be weaknesses of Dorian's.

Too bad Ronnie couldn't bring this mass with even aceptable proportions and had a monster gut.

Ronnie's midsection was flat during the 2003 pre-judging. He did spill over a bit in the evening round. I challenge you to find one photograph where Ronnie is distended during the afternoon mandatories / pre-judging. The only pictures you two cite for evidence are either backstage, in transition, or poses where Ronnie's BACK is facing the audience/judging panel and his gut would not be visible to the viewers.

Ronnie's proportions, with the exception of quadriceps/calves, are nearly perfect.
Ronnie's quadriceps are balanced with his glutes and hamstrings.
Ronnie's upper arms do NOT dwarf his deltoids as ND likes to insist.
Extreme X-frame with an acceptable V-taper (better than Dorian's, to say the least).
Seriously, this imbalance argument you two propagate is weak and baseless.

Besides, as I've already explained to you - to no avail -, muscle size and muscularity are two very different things. The 280+ lbs Ronnie , obviously, has more muscle size than a version of Dorian which is 30 lbs lighter. But do his muscles look harder, grainier and drier than Dorian's? No!

The only thing you managed to do was contradict yourself several pages ago, a fact that you have kept quite silent about. Ronnie's muscle was not as dry as Dorian's, I agree, but the entire point of coming in dry is to showcase muscular detail. Ronnie's detail (vascularity, striations, separation, muscle layering) is better than Dorian's, so Dorian's superior dryness is a moot point since it does not accomplish what it was intended to do.

I have yet to see these "hard" pictures of Dorian that are in color and/or contest shape.
Besides, Ronnie only looks "soft" when he is relaxed, which serves to accentuate his muscle when he does hit a pose, particularly the most muscular. The dramatic transition between flexed and unflexed muscle is appealing to the fans and the judges. Little happens when Dorian hits a pose, he looks identical whether standing flexed or relaxed, and this detracts from his ability to draw attention when he hits a pose. You can't look at Coleman's most muscular and tell me he looks soft!

And once again, Dorian is only "grainy" in black & white photography.

It takes Coleman an added 30 lbs more of weight to just MATCH The Yates in muscularity!

No. Coleman already has quite a bit more muscle, and its more dense and mature.
The quadriceps, hamstrings, chest, biceps, and upper back are the most relevant examples.
30lbs?? How do you even arrive at this figure?

Secondly, who cares that Ronnie has more vascularity than Shadow? Vascularity is not even a good thing. Look at all the work, that Charles Glass did, to DECREASE Gunter's vascularity. The result? Improved contest placings.

Ummm ... the judges care? The fans? Vascularity IS a good thing. It is one of the focal points of muscular detail. Arnold Schwarzengger even attributed his lack of visible vascularity to being too "fat" at the time of the contest, after seeing Chet Yorton in person I believe. 

Gunther Schlierkamp's vascularity was undesirable because it was disgusting, the same as Dorian's on his biceps. Whenever the vessels accumulate and form some sort of bulbous mass of tangled vessels, then YES, vascularity is no longer a good thing. Two, Gunther is attempting to redefine himself as an aesthetic, not a mass monster. Athletes like Ronnie Coleman and Melvin Anthony are riddled with vascularity, but the veins are sleek, they do not bunch together, and they actually flow in accordance to the contours of the muscle.

Vascularity is a good thing, but with most elements, too much of it, or too much mangled together in one specific place, can serve to take away from the intended effect.

[Praetor Fenix]

You keep talking about Ronnie's "overwhelming muscularity" from 2003, thinking that would be a decisive advantage against The Bulldog from Birmingham.

Your bias is evident in your cute little "pet" names. How sweet.

Muscle is 1/3 of the criteria. Secondly, the IFBB has always awarded muscular development. Its the equivalent of saying "You keep talking about Dwayne Chamber's 'overwhelming speed' thinking it would be a decisive advantage against Tim Washington." Well ... DUH ... this is bodyBUILDING. More muscle, as long as it is symmetrical, proportioned, and detailed, is always better than less.

Your error here is two: first, you assume that Ronnie's bigger overrall muscles mean that he's more muscular, and secondly, that carrying 280+ lbs, on a 5'11 frame, can be achieved without the body starting to look like a giant ball of muscle.

Ronnie has a better taper than Dorian, based on the aforementioned equation.
Couple that with a flat midsection in the pre-judging, he hardly looked like a "ball".

I have run out of time ... I will reply to the remainder shortly.

[Praetor Fenix]

Ok, first of all, newbie, I've been posting on this thread far before you joined in, to give props to the mall Santa version of Ronnie. So don't come with an attitude towards me, because you're not even a protagonist here. I mentioned Jay Cutler because someone else did. That's all. Throughout the thread, people have been bringing up several bodybuilders to compare to Doze, and I brought them down each and every time.

I've been around this forum, in general, much longer than you have.
Secondly, what does seniority, or lack thereof, have to do with valid evidence and debate?
ND brings up the different bodybuilders to try to send the argument off of a tangent to give him a reprieve from outright lying and making stupid shit up in Dorian's defence. Likewise, you always try to shift the topic to Ronnie's lighter outings.

Ronnie did not deserve to win in 2003. In fact, Peter McGough, Jim Schmaltz and Jim Manion, all of them, remarked that the IFBB created an entire new rule, just for Ronald Coleman. The rule was a direct response to his E-N-O-R-M-O-U-S-L-Y distended belly, from that year's contest. While this trend was certainly started by Dorian, in the 1997 Olympia rendition, Ronnie took it to a whole new level of grossness in 2003.

First of all, the rule was created in response to a general trend.
We all know Ronnie will continue to win the Olympia until he retires, so why would the IFBB even bother to draft an entirely new mandate that applied only to Coleman, knowing it would have absolutely no bearing on his future performance??

Jay Cutler, Gustavo Badell, Markus Ruhl, Gunther, and even Vic Martinez (SURPRISE, all of the competitors featured in either the 2004 OR 2005 posedown) have some problems with abdominal distension, with varying degrees of severity. The mandate is basically a statement warning the athletes that the trend will change AFTER Coleman has retired. So obviously, if Coleman was the only one with the problem, it would never have been formulated, and if he was as bad as you think, he would not continue to win the Olympia.

Lastly, Peter McGough thought Ronnie deserved to win in 2003. He merely stated that he preferred Ronnie's 2001 ASC package, but Peter McGough clearly acknowledged that none of the other competitors were better. Ronnie won with straight 1st's.

What do we see when we look at the 2003 Olympia Ronnie? We see a bodybuilder who defeats everyone in absolute muscle size, but who had nothing else going on for him: his midsection is distended

His midsection perfectly flat during the pre-judging.
In the evening, it was only an issue in transition. 

he has terrible abs and obliques

Greater size, yet with comparable detail in the serratus and intercostals to Dorian.
Certainly not better detail, maybe not quite as good, but not nearly as bad as you imply. Ronnie's rectus abdominis itself is fine, perfectly symmetrical abs with good shape. The judges' don't penalize Ronnie for his wide linea alba. Dorian had worse obliques since his were overdeveloped and further detracted from his inferior V-taper.

his quads had far less details than in 1998/99

Still light-years ahead of Dorian's quadricep size and detail.
Even if they had less detail compared to his previous personal standard, they were far more developed than Dorian's, with superior balance (Dorian's vastus lateralis is too small and the rectus femoris is caved in, accentuating a bland vastus medialis), striations, vascularity, separation (Dorian has no separation b/w rectus femoris and vastus lateralis). Its silly to even raise his quadriceps in a comparison debate because they are simply so much better than Dorian's in every respect.

his back is thicker but not significantly wider than in his lighter versions with far, far less details.

Still thicker/wider than Dorian, greater depth w/ arms elevated, and deeper crevices that serve to separate and outline the individual muscles.

His calves are still pathetic, his hamstrings are less etched and dry than at his 250 lbs form, etc.

Still, Ronnie's hamstrings are still miles ahead of Dorian's from any year.
The calves are an issue, but your list of advantages that Dorian has is pathetic.
It comes down to calves, abdominals (arguable), and lower-back. ABYSMAL.

Ronnie won in 2003 ONLY because his size was so overwhelming and none of the other bodybuilders had strenghs on other areas to compensate for it. Dorian would have: his proportions, density and dryness would be superior, with a taper that, while not Wheeleresque, would make Ronnie seem like pregnant with an alien queen.

Ummm ... Dorian had a worse taper:
Narrower delts + Narrower lats + Wider Waist + Bigger Obliques = Worse Taper.

Dorian's dryness failed to showcase underlying detail ... so its irrelevant.

Density?? What a f*cking joke. Density is the amount of muscle per unit of volume.
Ronnie has more overall muscle and the muscle is more layered as you admitted to earlier, so by no means does Dorian has better density.

Better proportions?? You mean his a torso that completely overwhelms his small quads and horrible upper arm development? You refer to a lack of Dorian's quadricep sweep?
A worse taper and worse X-frame? I have no idea what you are getting at here...

And furthermore, the criteria has changed, exactly because of Ronnie Coleman in his 2003 form, which means that the judges wouldn't even consider that version of him to be even worthy of evaluation, nowadays; Ronnie came in at 270+ lbs for last year's contest, exactly because he new he would LOSE if he came like he did in 2003!

Ronnie doesn't come in that heavy anymore due to age, health, and stress.
Ronnie would win the Olympia indefinitely if he could come in every year like he did in 2003. His only viable threat would be an athlete like Phil Heath bulking up significantly while still maintaining his symmetry, elegance, and classic lines too. Dorian would never touch his 2003 form, he had some of the worse genetics in bodybuilding on top of his even-present injuries from that stupid HIT training regimen.

[nicorulez]

Damn Praetor, if I ever get sued I would want you as my lawyer....   Regardless, it is moot of me or anyone to describe it any better than Praetor.  The man is quite possibly the most articulate individual on GetBig.  Ronnie >>>> Dorian.  Dorian was insane in 1992/1993; easily one of the alltime bests.  However, Ronnie took it to another level.  Quite simply, no one has ever put together a package of size, shape and muscularity as the "Cop from Arlington." .... is that a good nickname Sucky.  Oh well, I enjoy reading this thread as it is almost as contentious as a debate on Israel vs Palestine.  Peace guys.

[Hulkster]

The 280+ lbs Ronnie , obviously, has more muscle size than a version of Dorian which is 30 lbs lighter. But do his muscles look harder, grainier and drier than Dorian's?

yes - check out the quads.


yes - note the striated triceps


quads are far more detailed than a 93 Dorian even at 287 pounds..


check out the detail in the delts, chest, arms and forearms..


back double bi lookin' good...in fact, not sure if I have seen any dorian shots that could take this  (dorians back double bi was not that great)


arms way more detailed.


ever seen glutes and hams more detailed?


good detail even at 287..


crazy..


umm..who says Dorian could take this??

so, there you have it - Ronnie even at 287 is full of muscular detail, striations and vascularity that Dorian even in 1993 did not have..

Even though I believe that Ronnie at 250 or so pounds looked better, Ronnie version 2003 would still easily win against 1993 Dorian.

it is simply 10 years of progress.

[Hulkster]

You ignore that greater muscle size is simply not enough to defeat a bodybuilder of Dorian's caliber, if the added weight comes with a bonus of a distended midsection, terrible back details, a lower body that clearly overpowers the upper body, etc.

terrible back details??




 

if you are basing your assesments on half flexed shot like this:


then yes, it appears that Ronnie's upper back was soft.

But if you look at completed poses like the one I posted, or the video, you will quickly see that Ronnie's back was still very detailed (even Peter M. admitted this).

[Hulkster]

when I see shots like this, I know I am correct saying that while Dorian was amazing, he certainly was overrated to some extent. Hell, even the Pirate is owning him!

[Praetor Fenix]

Damn Praetor, if I ever get sued I would want you as my lawyer....   Regardless, it is moot of me or anyone to describe it any better than Praetor.  The man is quite possibly the most articulate individual on GetBig.

Thank You. 

[dearth]

This is the most emarrasing picture of ronnie coleman.
huckster is so obviously enamoured with his quads, that he forgets the

40 inch waist!!!

a pathetic midsection for a bodybuilder, much less an olympia level bodybuilder, much less Mr. Olympia.

only a biased coleman fan would think of this pathetic display as "impressive"

[NarcissisticDeity]

This is the most emarrasing picture of ronnie coleman.
huckster is so obviously enamoured with his quads, that he forgets the

40 inch waist!!!

a pathetic midsection for a bodybuilder, much less an olympia level bodybuilder, much less Mr. Olympia.

only a biased coleman fan would think of this pathetic display as "impressive"

LOL are you kidding me thats Ronnie at his ' peak '

[Praetor Fenix]

Ronnie in 2003 is bigger, but not better than Dorian at a 30 lbs lighter bodyweight, or even at his 1997, 270+ lbs form. Like I said before, if you want to compare the 2003 Ronnie form to Dorian, then compare it to his worst 270+ lbs, 1997 Olympia form, because the lighter version of Dorian simply destroys the 280+ lbs version of Ronnie.

2003 Ronnie was bigger ... much bigger.
He was certainly better than Dorian too. Better symmetry. More muscle detail.
Superior muscle maturity. Stacked layers of densely packed striated muscle.

I'll compare 2003 Ronnie to any form you wish. Dorian never presented a single package that could compete with Coleman's in 2003. I know you like to delve into the theoretical by choosing Dorian's various strengths at different stages, but please refrain from doing so. I have chosen my template (2003 Ron), now you should choose yours...

I will continue to stress a very important, albeit overlooked, point:
- Conditioning/dryness are irrelevant if there is no detail beneath the skin.
Good condition is not a virtue in and of itself unless it showcases mature, detailed muscle. So you and ND can continue to cite Dorian's superior "condition" for an additional 200 pages, and I will simply continue to counter that it would make little difference since Ronnie's supposedly "inferior" conditioning would actually showcase MORE underlying detail, which is the ENTIRE POINT!

No contest. For starters, the 257 lbs version of Dorian surpasses the 280+ lbs one, of Ronnie, in taper, balance, details, striations and dryness.

Taper? No! Ronnie's waist has not grown.
It has always been thin, and this is a genetic predisposition.
Couple that with significantly wider deltoids and wider lats, and Ronnie has a more dramatic V-taper. Need I mention, for the 1000th time, that Dorian's obliques were overdeveloped and actually hurt the appearance of his taper? Sure, he had wide lats and good shoulder width to compensate for a genetically wide waist, but his lats/delts were certainly nowhere near as large as Ronnie's!

Details? Dude, why can't you comprehend this point!
Detail = striations, vascularity, muscle layering, & separation.

Ronnie has far more striations (esp. the chest, triceps, quadriceps), high quality vascularity in more locations (biceps, quadriceps, chest, forearms, delts, upper traps).
Ronnie's quadricep, hamstring, chest, and back separation exceed Dorian's best.
Superior density across the board, which equates to stacks of layered muscle.

These discussions always lead back to dryness  

Other than quads/calves, camp-Yates has NO grounds claiming that Ronnie's physique is imbalanced. Its not only foolish ... its impossible to argue against inventions of the imagination.

The 280+ lbs Ronnie version's only advantage, over the lighter version of Dorian, obviously, is having greater mass.

Don't underestimate the importance of this particular advantage.
It is, after all, 33% of the Olympia's criteria for placement.

The problem is that Dorian defeated several guys who looked BETTER than Ronnie at 280+, like Jean-Pierre Fux and Paul Dillet.

Jean-Pierre Fux and Paul Dillet ... look BETTER than 2003 6x Mr.Olympia champion Ronnie Coleman??

Neither athlete would have even made the 2003 posedown. You are living in the past.
I don't understand what you are attempting to prove with that comparison...

By better, I mean that they had more flowing lines, less distension on their midsections, more crispness, etc.

"Flowing lines" ... generalized subjective rubbish. You and ND love to throw around these vague terms as though they actually mean something. Fact is, neither athlete could match Ronnie's symmetry, detail, or for that matter the sheer development/separation/maturity/density of each and every individual muscle on Coleman's body. Though their bodyweight may have been comparable, the actual development of the individual muscles would have been subpar in relation to Coleman.

Seriously ... this is an embarrassing comparison. Please don't raise it again.

Ronnie's frame simply cannot accomodate over 280 lbs without him developing some serious balance issues, such as his quads overpowering his upper body

His quads overpower his calves but NOT his upper-body.
Look at the picture, and tell me, how the hell is his upper body overwhelmed?
What a f*cking joke, I even remember 30-40 pages ago you claimed Dorian's lats were wider!
You love to mix pure lies in with your delusions, inventions, exaggerations, and twisted tales.

Based on Ronnie's chest, upper arms, quadriceps, and deltoids alone, Dorian could never touch Ronnie from the front.