This is directed at the Mighty Templar from Planet Geek, as aresponse to his insane diatribes...
It is unbelievable, that you continue to insist, that Ronnie in 2003 even belonged on a bodybuilding stage, let alone was deserving to win the Sandow trophy. Amazing! I have already written several multi-paragraph, explaining why the 2003 Ronnie is not even worthy of mentioning, yet you still soe back for more.
It makes me wonder if you even consider, the massive photographic evidence, that Ronnie's 2003 version was an abomination bestowed upon the world of bodybuilding. Is it really possible that you ignore his mssively distended abdomen? You claim that his taper is still better than Dorian at his lighter version, which is compoletely untrue. The thing is that the 287 lbs Ronnie, in his 2003 version, due to his greater overall bodymass, had greater shoulder width than he did at his lighter version. Yet, if you look at his waist, you'll see that it has thickened dramatically from his 250+ lbs form. Ronnie "appers" to have a better taper because his shoulder girdle was wide in 2003. But if you compare the waist to Dorian's, you'll see the ltter has a thinner waist overall. You then might argue: "Oh, but taper is a relative measure: as long as the ratio between shoulder and waist remains the same, the taper remains similar proportionally" The problem here is in assuming that the aist can also increase with quality to the same degree as the shoulder. This is false.
The deltoid muscles gains in quality, as well as in size, when it expands; the waist expands without a concomitant increase in etchiness and striations. If you compare the 250+ lbs Ronnie to his 280+ lbs form, you'll see that the ratio between shoulder and waist didn't deteriorate much, because Ronnie's side delts improved and expanded as well. But when you judge the relative quality of this expansion, vis-a-vis ho the delts and shoulders compare, you'll notice that his taper deterioated dramatically in quality, even if not too much in terms of proportions - and this is only from the front! Observe that, while his delts expanded while becoming more etched - although less separated -, his wais became more concave, with less striations and definition on his obliques. The obliques are muscles, too, sothey can only expand through hypertrophy. What do you think this hypertrophy leads to? That's right: a cange from the classical "V" to a "()" shape. Ronnie's great gains in mass, from 2002 to 2003, was not accompained with the maintainance of a quality taper - even if the ratio remained relatively the same. If you look at rhe video from the 2002 Olympia, you'll see that, even then, Ronnie already displayed a distnded abdomen, even though he still had a "relatively" classical V-taper. In the next year's Olympia, Ronnie's distension became even worse, with the most bonus of a wais tha thickened mightly. So, Ronnie in 2003 has a shitty waist. Now let's tie it all in together by adding his distension into the equation.
Ronnie's great triumph, from his peak - in my opinion - 1998/99 forms, was that he came in with a combo of mass, great details and he still managed to display a wasp waist with good - not great - definition on his abs and obliques; no bodybuilder showed that packge since Wheeler at the 1993 ASC. As I metioned previously, Ronnie's taper did not deteriorated massively until he finally let himself go for good, in 2004, and came in at 296 lbs. Yet, even though his taper was not too bad, in 2003, in terms of proportions, it was of an inferior quality overall. Yet, what did deteriorate massively, from 2002 to the next year, was his waist from the sides. in 2002, you could still overlook his bad midsection, when it came to quality, because the proportion, while bad, was still acceptble. In what would his greatly deteriorated abdominal distension affect? Short anwer: any pose where he needs to show overrall proportions, or, obviously, pose from the side. So, Ronnie's distension, in 2003, negatively affected his side-tris, side chest, abs-and-thighs and even the front lat spread - it may not have affected too much his taper on this pose, but certainly it's quality. Now, you might argue: "That doesen't matter, because Ronnie ould still take Dorian out from the front, and he would still have more muscular details to show for it. unfortunately, this isn't the case.
Leaving aside his massive deterioration, when it comes to details, from 1998 to 2003, you're right that what matters is how Dorian would fare agains your prefered version of Ron. Consider, for instance, that, while it had far less bearing than to poses made from the side or front, taper still enters into the stakes from the back as well. Ronnie in 2003 had wider latissimus dorsi than he did in in his lighter version. But, once again, the quality of his back double biceps and rearlat spread, alike, are compromised. For instance, the dramatic effect, of the width of his rear lat spread, is no greater than it is when he's around 250 lbs; wider lats+ wider waist = no increase in the contrast between the two things. Now, it would only be relevant to even consider Ronnie's 2003 lat spread, as being better than Dorian's 1993/05 ones, if width were the sole criteria. And even so, even only hen it comes to width, the difference between these two versions, of both bodybuilders, is very small! In everything else, Dorian rapes Ronnie in that pose: his christmas-tree is better, his lower back is dryer and, since his waist-to-shoulder ratio is better, it gives Dorian a far more dramatic impression. To make things even worse for Ron, consider that, even though he actually surpasses Dorian for upper back detail - by a small margin - when he's around 250 lbs, this dvantage completely disappears at 280+ lbs; I have already posted several pics of Ronnie's defective back details at this weight and won't do it again.
The back double biceps is another pose, that the 280+ lbs Ronnie, loses his advantages over Dorian. The 250+ lbs Ronnie does have a better back double biceps than Dorian, because, at that weight, his taper from the back is dramatic and he does have great upper back details. The 257 lbs Dorian surpasses the 250 lbs Ronnie when it comes to thickness and width, but Ronnie has more details. Great. Now, the 280+ Ronnie is slightly wider than the 257 lbs Dorian - by a small margin -, but he does not have an edge in thickness(compare the 1993/05 Dorian's middle back to Ronnie's in 2003, and you'll see that Dorian's christmas-tree actually flairs out more than Ronnie's, despite the 30 lbs advantage! And when you consider Dorian's much greater crispness of details at that bodyweight, you realize that he tkes ronnie out on the back double biceps as well. Moving on.
So Dorian takes out, Ronnie's 2003 form, in the two most important back poses; great, but there's more. Dorian's advantages when it comes to calves and hamstrings seprations are well known. When Ronnie ws at his lighter weight, his hamstrings had good definition to it, but still lost out to Dorian. Dorian had striated glutes in 1993/04; Ronnie doesen't at 287 lbs(the form of his glutes is visible, but he has very little striations on them). When it comes to calves, it is no contest: whether at 250 or 287 lbs, Ronnie's clves are simply sub-par next to The Yates. So, we have here a situation where Ronnie is defeated, by Dorian in the to most important back poses, and can not still claim to win the relaxed round, because his horrible calves and un-etched glutes and hams are apparent all the time.
When he turns to the front, Ronnie's thighs become the most prominent feature of his body: they are massive and make his torso look small, in comparison. They improved dramatically in size from 2002 to 2003, which made Ronnie's calves become an even greater liability. The size increase clearly created a balance problem between his upper and lower bodies; the massiveness of it detracting from his lat width on the front lat spread. But you could argue that, for all the detail Ronnie lost between when he wen't from 250 to 287 lbs, his thighs would still be better because they're just so far more massive than Dorian's. Again, the problem here - as well as the problem with your whole argument that Ronnie was at his best in 2003 - lies in assuming that the size of it is all that matters: if it were so, then Ronnie's quads would be better than even his 1998 form, which isn't the case. For all it''s massiveness, Ronnie's quads cn't hiold a candle to Dorian's. Why? Dorian's quads, at his best, takes Ronnie's out in: density, balance with the hamstrings and calves, dryness and does not overpower his upper body. Now, how does Ronnie's quads fair in a legitimate abs-and-thighs comparison, with Dorian? Not well. Dorian has much better definition on his abs and obliques, a tinier waist - which I have already demonstrated on that pic where both Dexter and Cutler destroy Ronnie in waist size - and an overall much, much greater hardness! So, for all their massiveness, Ronnie's quads wouldn't be an advantage over Dorian's, on a comparison. It would only be so on the relaxed wound, if the judges ere in the mood to reward overall development over everyhting else.
Symmetry. It is a function of several things. For starters, it depends on the shape of your bones. Dorian is structurally more symmetrical than Ronnie, because Ronnie has a longer waist, shorter legs and his lats insert higher than Dorian's. Shadow's only major structural shortcoming, when compared to Ronnie, is that his hips are wider. ok. But let's see ho this affects him. When Ronnie is at 250 lbs, his narrower hips give him a major advantage, because his waist is so much smaller than Dorian's. But when he goes to 287 lbs, this natural advantage disappears, because, as I've explained before, his waist becomes concave.
But the real thing that takes Ronnie out, which destroys him, is that his natural structural shortcomings are accentuated hen he comes in at over 280 lbs. Consider, for instance, that his humongous quads become even more disproportional, because his quads muscle bellies are short and, thus, make his thigh appear even more deformed from the size than they should. For instance, Nasser's quads, at 280+ lbs, were just as massive as Ronnie's - if not more so -, yet Dorian took him out, on the abs-and-thighs pose more times than not, because his size took away from his proportions. Ronnie's long waist calls even more attention to his monstrous distension, taking away from his overrall symmetry - because it's seen from all angles and becomes a general liability.
the debate becomes, hence, between which is best, smaller muscles with a better proportions of bigger muscles with less? The thing jere is that Dorian has the best of both worlds. Of the 30 lbs that the 2003 Ronnie has on the 1993/4 Dorian, most of it is in the midsection and quads. That's it. Ronnie's back is only slightly wider and no thicker than Dorian's at a 30 lbs lighter weight. You're crazy if you think Ronnie's back is bigger than Dorian's; it isn't. Momo Benaziza has seen both of them compare several times and gives the nod to Dorian, in size. From top to bottom, back to front, Dorian does have better overall balance than Ronnie and, out of the great bodyparts, only in the quad department can the 2003 Ronnie claim an appreciable advantge in size over Dorian. His has far less flaws and a taper which, even if not far more dramatic, does have better quality than Ron's. And when you put Ronnie's massive distension in the picture, it's game over.
You previously had sid that "muscle maturity" was a bodybuilding criteria; I called your bluff and you said Jim Manion said it. To make it clear, I'm telling this to everyone: "muscle maturity" is not and never was an official bodybuilding criteria. You also accused me of switching the discussion to Ronnie's lighter version because I was afraid to admit that Ronnie's greater size advantage would be decisive. So, I have already addressed these critiques and showed that, if anything, Ronnie's greater size would be a hidrance, since absolute muscle size is judged inside a context of quality, which includes balance&proportions, seprations and con ditioning; otherwise, bodybuilders would do just bulking eercises, like benches, deads and squats, to increase absolute muscle size and wouldn't bother to diet for 3-4 months for each contest, to get the best taper and dryness possible.
So, the reason why I don't bring up Ronnie, in his 2003 version, is because his weaknesses were inexcusable and his monster size was mostly an increase in quad and abdominal size(that's what most of the 30 lbs, or 13 kg difference in weight beteen the two is. Muscle size is a very importnt criteria, but it cannot be accepted, by bodybuilding standards, if it comes with massive abdominal distension and gross disproportionalities in the body. Your thinking is so skewed, in favor of absolute size, that you cannot see that Dorian has a better size tris than Ronnie; no, all that matters, to you, is that Ronnie's triceps are larger overrall. The fact the triceps is judged within a context doesen't seem to register in your pea-brain at all. In any case, this discussion is over between me and you. You said you'd match the 2003 Ronnie agains any version of Dorian; well, I did it to Dorian's 257 lbs, 1993 version and demonstrated that Dorian wins. obviously, you'll reply with another diatribe about Ronnie being better because his overall musculature - and gut - is larger than Dorian's and he has more vascularity. All of which will sound like nonsense to me. It is your bodybuilding criteria which deems the 287 lbs Ronnie the best of all and better than Dorian, not anybody else. No one thinks the 280+ lbs Ronnie is at his best: not Wayne DeMilia, or Jim schmaltz, or peter McGough or Ron Harris or, for that matter, 99% of bodybuilding aficionados. What's your best is not my best and it's not bodybuilding criteria's best, and it's certainly way, way below Dorian at his best.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
