Yes, I guess Ronnie has NO advantages over Dorian in the BACK DOUBLE BICEP, despite having a significantly better upper BACK and better BICEPS. Once again, its quite simple. Yates wins calves, lower back, forearms. Ronnie wins upper arms, upper back, hamstrings, glutes. 3-4. Simple arithmetic. Not to mention that upper arms, hamstrings, and glutes are infinitely more important than fucking calves and forearms, extremities that are usually overlooked entirely unless they are a significant, significant weakness (i.e: king kamali's forearms or johnnie jackson's calves).
The 287 lbs Ronnie definitely has a major advantage, over Dorian, in the back double biceps: his biceps. The thing is that he already had this advantage over Dorian in 1998; it did not give Ronnie anything he didn't already have before. His increase in bodyweight did not do anything to improve his back double biceps. Well, his bak certainly became thicker, but with less details. His lat flare did increase. But this is something at which Dorian also exceled at; no advantage there for Ronnie.
In 1998, Ronnie's back double biceps was one of the best ever, if not the best ever: his had a wasp-waisp, superb upper back details and some of the most peaked biceps in history. Superb. Dorian's lats were much thicker and his lats flared out more than Ronnie's. In 2003, Ronnie did surpass Dorian in outer lat thickness, but he lost out in details and density. And when it came to the middle back, Dorian
still took him out in thikness, even though Dorian was 30 lbs lighter than Ronnie. In width, Dorian was roughly equivalent to Ronnie. Coleman's increase in bodyweight, from the 2002 to the 2003 Olympias was not symmetrical: his weight increase was mostly quads and midsetion. His back did
not surpass the 257 lbs Dorian's in width, even though I admit he surpassed him in thickness in the outer lats- still losing out in the middle back.
In the lower part of this pose, Dorian takes Ronnie out in hamstrings striations, calve size and details. Oh, he also has more striated glutes. Roinnie's hamstrings are way too big for his calves, taking away from his balance. Ronnie, in 1998, had a huge advantage whenit came to taper from the back, but now that advantage goes to Dorian. All things considered, Dorian loses in biceps and lat thickness, but wins in lat width, upper and lower back details, middle back thickness, hamstring and glutes details, calves size and details and overrall balance. Dorian wins this mandatory flat out. Sorry, but having better biceps, although very important in this mandatory, is not enough to win this pose. This is really sad, considering that Ronnie actually did have a better bak double biceps than Dorian, when he was at 250 lbs.
Yes, Dorian can win the back double biceps despite no biceps (awful bicep development, asymmetry, no peaks, poor muscle bellies) coupled by inferior triceps hang due to an underdeveloped long head (over-reliance on pushdowns), 2-dimensional upper back thickness, inferior hamstrings/glutes. Yes, I guess the back-double-biceps is really a calves and lower back assessment, right??
The 1993, 257 lbs Dorian
did have biceps. And they were outstanding to boot. They were only mediocre when you compare them to the rest of his incredible physique. Or to Ronnie's high-peaked biceps. Granted, Dorian's biceps were never the hallmarks of his physique, but, before his biceps tear, they were still very, very good. In any case, I concede that Dorian's inferior biceps is a liability in this pose. But as I've said, the 257 lbs Dorian takes Ronnie out on so many other criterias, when it comes to this shot, thathe still wins the pose overrall - even though he would lose it against a 250 lbs Ronnie.
His triceps? As I've said, Dorian's triceps were so far above Ronnie's that there's no contest, really. This is evident when it comes to the mandatory where the triceps is primarilly displayed: Dorian has the best side triceps shot of all Mr.Olympias. The long head? Ok, it's not as massive as Ronnie's; which is expected, since Ronnie is 30 lbs heavier. Yet, his three triceps heads are longer and have a better shape than Ronnie's. I prefer them.
Dorian's hamstrings and glutes, when he's 257 lbs, are
not inferior. His glutes were striated way back in 1993, in an era when no one else had that. His hamstrings were like those on a human anatomy chart: striated to the point whre you could almost see the individual musle fibers. Sure, his hamstrings were bigger, but that only took away from his overrall balance, due to his small calves. "Two-dimensional upper back"?! What does that even mean? I do know this, though: Dorian's upper back was denser and more detailed than Ronnie's when the former is 257 lbs. His christmas-tree is thicker and his lower back, more defined, harder an dryer. From top to bottom, his back is clearly duperior to the 2003 Ronnie's. The only thing that Ronnie has on Dorian, on the back double biceps, when the former is 287 lbs, are bieps. That's it.
Ronnie would easily win this pose it isn't even a contest. Seriously ... shut the f*ck up! Hamstrings are one of Ronnie's signature bodyparts.
Dorian's hamstrings don't even belong in the same sentence. You have no right to claim they have better separation. There is no visual evidence that comes close to remotely proving it. You might as well claim Dorian's biceps have better peaks, thats about how outrageous this claim of yours is.
No, he wouldn't; hell, even Jay has surpassed Ronnie in this shot. Hamstrings: Dorian's are better; Ronnie's, bigger. It's as simple as that. There is no way that, when it comes to quality, the 2003 Ronnie has better hamstrings than Dorian. No way. Dorian's hamstrings were the most striated and dry in bodybuilding history, bar none. Once again, you confuse quantity with quality: the
quantity, of actin and myosin glued to a bone tendon, does not indicate the
quality of this musle. Dorian's hamstrings were the best ever, and they were in balance with the calves, something that Ronnie can't claim. There is a pic, from the 1995 Olympia, that shos Dorian's hamstrings with extreme striations and hardness. It
easily takes Ronnie's out. Only in your mind does Ronnie have better hamstrings than Dorian. Once again, bigger does not = better. Try to understand this.
When you put his hamstrings and glutes wihtin the context of the bak double biceps shot, Ronnie in 2003 was by no means superb: he was unbalanced on his lower body, had less upper back details than Dorian had at 257 lbs and
far less than he had at 250 lbs, his glutes lacked striations, his lower back was thick but not striated and he still lost to Dorian when it came to christmas-tree thickness. Dorian wins this mandatory agains the 2003 Ronnie, even though he'd win at 250 lbs.
Ronnie has had striated glutes each and every year. You are just outright lying now!
God damn you f*cking deceitful little shit, you type up 10 paragraphs as though you actually have an argument then just f*cking lace the middle paragraphs with pure lies.
Fortunately I don't have anything of value to do with my time, or else I wouldn't bother to respond to a dishonest prick. Seriously, go f*ck yourself.
So much anger...to bad you are wrong. Ronnie's glutes, in 2003, were not striated. Period. When he stood relaxed, there were no visible striations there. Once again: period. Dorian, at 257 lbs, had visible striations, on his glutes, when standing relaxed at the comparisons! This is fucking amazing. Ronnie certainly had better upper back and quad details, than Dorian, when he was 250 lbs. But even then, he was never able to mth Dorian for striations on the glutes. By the way, Ronnie's glutes were awful in 2003: huge, overpowering his calves and even his back comples, with practically no striations when standing relaxed. Awful!
Ronnie's hamstrings AND glutes are f*cking miles ahead of Dorian.
This isn't even a matter of debate, absolutely every/any picture or video can attest to this. Wrap your right hand around your testicles and squeeze as hard as you can. It won't help with your pathological dishonesty, but you deserve the pain for starting this f*cking lie.
No, they aren't! There is no contest here! First of all, an increase in glute size - and Ronnie certainly did have a massive increase in glute size from 2002 to 2003 - is not even a good thing: just like the abs, the glutes has to be as tight and defined as possible with as little size as possible, as far as bodybuilding criteria goes. If there are two bodyparts, on the Human body, which should
not be hypertrophied, these are the abdominals and glutes.
Ronnie's glutes, in 2003, were bigger than Dorian's. Point for The Yates. Dorian's were tighter, harder and more striated: point for Dorian. Ronnie's glutes already mathed Dorian's, for size, when Ronnie was 250 lbs; at 287 lbs, Ronnie's ass was the size of Sally Struther's after an entire month inside an all-you-can-eat buffet retaurant. Furhtermore, Dorian's glutes already ha an advantage, when it came to striations, when Ronnie was 250 lbs. Once again, when Ronnie was 287 lbs, there's simply nothing to discuss: Dorian's glutes are
far more striated.
*Yawn*. Calves are unimportant. I'm sure that camp-Yates is thrilled that Dorian actually has ONE real advantage over Coleman, but too bad its such a small, overlooked bodypart. Certainly not on par with any of the large, individual muscle groups like chest, quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, upper back, or delts. You can continue to cite this advantage 1000s of times like you always have, but fact is it is unimportant and calves have never decided an Olympia before, EVER. Whereas the large muscle groups I mentioned are hugely important.
So let me get this straight: calves are unimportant in the back double biceps, yet the hang of the triceps is?! Wow, you have such criteria! Thank God you're not a bodybuilding judge! The calves are a small bodypart, but they're etremely important to the overral balance of the lower body. With his huge, un-detailed ass and hms, Ronnie's calves becomes even more of a liability, because the sheer size and lack of quality, of his ass and hams, calls attention to his shitty calves. The calves are the "biceps" of the lower body - even though the hams are the biceps femore -; they are the show-case musle from the waist down. If Dorian's defective biceps are a liability, then Ronnie's defective calves are, too.
The other bodyparts? At a weight 30 lbs lighter, Dorian has lats that are as wide as Ronnie's, with greater thickness on the middle back. His chest is not as wide as Ronnie's, but they're even thicker- check out the most musular shots I've posted, which shows Dorian's preter-Human chest thickness. His quads are not as massive; ok, I'll give you that. But his legs still have better balance overrall, because they're balanced with the calves. They also have a harder appearance. And even though Ronnie had better quad details in 1998, such was not the case in 2003. And finally, too finish of, don't forget one of the major bodyparts that Ronnie also hypertrophied beyond belief, from 1998 to 2003: his abdominals. All things considered, Dorian is better.
Dorian's hamstrings/glutes were never 1/10th of Ronnie Coleman's.
Not even ND has attempted to argue that Dorian could touch Coleman in the hamstrings / glutes department.
I agree with you. When it comes to sheer size, Ronnie's ass unbeatable. His hamstrings are massive, but Dorian's are more striated and harder. I'm asying it flat out: Dorian's hamstrings, when he's 257 lbs, is far superior to the 287 lbs Ronnie's in striations, hardness and balance with the calves. Saying otherwide is to contradict overwhelming photographic evidence.
Ronnie's glutes are larger, more striated, have significantly better shape and MUCH BETTER development near the gluteal tuberosity of the ileum. Hamstrings are no question. Dorian's look like large, smooth chunks of polished pork, whereas Coleman's resemble massive steel suspension beams.
Ronnie's glutes are larger, but that's eactly my point: in bodybuilding, having larger glute mass is
not a positive thing! The glutes, like the abs, are
not supposed to be big! And also, you're wrong that Ronnie's glutes are more striated; you're wrong about that when it comes to the 2003 Ronnie. I've already posted a ton of pics showing that Dorian's glutes are more striated and tighter than Ronnie's, when they are, respetively, 257 lbs and 287 lbs.
Ronnie's hamstrings are definitely more developed than Dorian's when Ronnie is 287 lbs, and he should be awarded points for that, over Dorian, when it comes to muscularity. But the thing is that size is only part of it: you also need to have details, hardness and balance with other bodyparts. All things Dorian takes Ronnie out at. Ronnie's hamstrings are not
better than Dorian's when he's 287 lbs; they're only bigger.
The fact that you call his glutes / hams unetched just goes to show that you are a biased deviant who's only goal in this thread is to be subversive and take the side of the underdog. I'm all for fair debate, but don't say stupid shit like that which is so utterly outrageous that it really makes the remainder of anything else you have to say not worth responding to, because it is evident you are perfectly willing to lie or make absurd generalizations in your defense.
The only outrageous thing is the size of Ronnie's ass. That's just disgusting. His ass is
not striated when he's 287 lbs, they are
not more striated than Dorian's at 257 lbs and Ronnie's hamstrings are
not better than Dorian's; only bigger. That's it. I'll take Dorian's striated, hard and tight hams over Ronnie's water-logged hams any day. Ronnie did have superb hams in 1998, but that's gone. I vehemently disagree with you, and think you need to go to the ophtamologist(maybe Dr.Queen can help you?) to have your retina cheked, because Ronnie's hams were definitely not better than Dorian's when the latter was 257 lbs. I'm goning to post a pick, from the 1995 Olympia, whih shos just ho striated Dorian's hams were, espeially compred to Ronnie's water-logged 2003 ones.
Once again, calves are not important. They are evaluated, but not weighted as much as larger bodyparts like quadriceps, hamstrings, and quadriceps - three large, major muscle groups where Coleman's development absolutely embarrasses Yates.
Calves are very important onto themselves because, just like every other bodypart, they are judged for muscularity. And, surprise, surprise, Dorian's calves takes Ronnie's flat out. Calves are also very important to the balance of the lower body and, once again, Ronnie loses flat out. Just like youargue that calves are unimportant, I can argue that biceps are unimportaint, too: small bodyparts, covered on most shots.
So far I'm reading alot of your paragraphs but you don't really have any content.
Most of it is blatant dishonesty (example: Dorian's glutes are more striated), some of it is physiologically impossible (example: your claim that Ronnie's waist has changed substantially from year to year), some of it is mere ignorance (example: your statement that the obliques are actually ON the waist), but most if your usual egotistical banter devoid of any sort of fact or supporting evidence. You are a waste of time.
I could say the same about your incessant rambling about a man with a huge ass, a distended midsection, poor back details, no calves and abs...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
