author=Praetor Fenix link=topic=69359.msg1162907#msg1162907 date=1151655772]
Short muscle bellies? You are f*cking retarded! His quadricep sweep is unparalleled and the muscles are thickly developed from the pelvic origin to the kneecap surrounding the patellar insertions. Few bodybuilders have such remarkable development that high up on their anterior thigh. You really don't have the foggiest f*cking idea what you are talking about.
His quad sweep was very impressive in 2003, but by no means better than that in 1998. As far as his quadriceps goes, Ronnie's major improvement was in size, not quality. Look at his quads at the 1998 Olympia, and you'll see that it clearly surpassed Dorian's in separations, but not in size and hardness. In 2003, his quads simply dwarved Dorian's in size, but he lost his majot advantage over Dorian, which he had at his 1998 version: his superb, truly incredible separations. When comparing Dorian's quads to the 2003 Ronnie's, the latter takes Dorian flat out in muscularity. But in quality? No. Dorian's front quads actually have better separations than Ronnie's when he's over 280 lbs.
Then, there's the balance issue: how does humoungous quads add to your physique, from a symmetry perpective, if they completely overpower not only your calves, but also your entire body. Sorry, but there is such a thing as lower and upper body imbalanes, and Ronnie, in 2003, clearly had it! His entire physique was a mess in terms of proportions, and his humoungous quads and immensely distended midsection, are mostly to blame. He loses the symmetry round only in acount of these two things. When you consider that this lower and upper body disproportionality affects him in the front lat spread and front double biceps, and how pathetic his abdominal separation is, Ronnie loses out more than he gains with his humoungous quads.
Funny how the length of each individual muscle is actually considerably larger than Jay's, and Jay is considered by many to have the best overall quads in bodybuilding.
So what? This doesen't make his muscle bellies longer than Dorian's. Dorian's uads were always very massive; they just have poor separations from the front. His sweep is not as good as Ronnie's, but that's a minor part of what defines great quads. You seem to believe that size immediately trnaslates into quality: this is only true if the the size increase comes together with greater separations, striations
and if this growth is proportionally accompained by a concomitant increase in the size of other muscles. Ronnie's quads were by no mean better than they were in his lighter versions, although I'm willing to grant they they were still better than Dorian's, due to nothing more than the sheer differene in muscularity. When it comes to balance it's worse. When it comes to separationsm it's most definitely also worst! Too bad his gigantic quadrieps ompletely overwhelmed his calves. Worse yet, unlike in 1998, when Ronnie's quads only overpowered his calves, in 2003, they also overpowered his entire upper torso, because his increase in latissimus and detoid width was much smaller than his increase in quad size. From a symmetry and quality standpoint, Ronnie's entire legs were most definitely
not better than Dorian's, even though I concede that Ronnie's legs were better than Dorian's at the 1998 Olympia because, even though his calves paled net to Dorian's, Ronnie's quads were so much better when it me to separations.
You are f*cking clueless dude. I guess you figured either nobody would read this, or if they did, it was so many paragraphs down they would be convinced it was an amazing argument since its so god-damn long. Believe me, I have read it verbatim, and the conclusion is painfully apparent: you are a disrespectful lying sack of shit. F*ck you.
I can say the same thing about you. Saying things such as that "muscle maturity" is part of a bodybuilding judging criteria, or that symmetry is about having the left and right sides of your bodies in equal proportion, when in reality symmetry is about the balance of the muscles' size in realation to eah other and of suh muscles to the skeletal struture. What "lies" are you refering to? That Dorian in 1993 and 1995 had better overrall balance in relation to Ronnie in his 2003 version? No: that is a
fact. That Ronnie, in the 2003 Olympia, had a massive abdominal distension and that this worsened his symmetry overrall? No. A
fact. That Ronnie had inferior upper back details than Dorian, when he's 280+ lbs? No, a
fact.
Ummm ... no they weren't. Nowhere near Ronnie's size. The only bodybuilder whose quadriceps have ever rivaled Ronnie's in size are Markus Ruhl's, but his lack too much detail to be compared to Coleman's. Not even Tom Platz' quadriceps were as large, though they were still better in my opinion.
Yes, it is obvious that Ronnie, in his 280+ lbs version, takes Dorian easily in quadriceps muscularity. I never denied that. But the question is: were they
better? Well, let's see: his separations were clerly inferior to that of his smaller version, and slightly worse than Dorian's at his 1993 and 1995 versions. They were clearly overpowering his calves, creating a serious lower body assymetry. Not only that, they were so huge that they made his entire upper torso look small. They compromised Ronnie in three of the mandatories - the front double biceps, the front lat spread and the abominals-and-thighs. Like I said, I'm still willing to give quads to Ronnie over Dorian when the former is 280+, but solely because their muscularity is so overwhelming. In everyhting else, Dorian's uads are better. And when you consider what Ronnie's quads made to his overrall symmetry, I think Ronnie was better off when his quads had less size but more quality.
What f*cked up logic. You proceed to equate Ronnie's quads to Nasser's, when in fact there is a world of difference, then compare Dorian's performance against Nasser WHILE DORIAN ENJOYED THE INHERENT ADVANTAGE THAT THE INCUMBENT MR. OLYMPIA ALWAYS ENJOYS. Even Dorian himself admitted that Nasser had him beat from the front in terms of size and thickness. Huge mistake though, Ronnie's quadriceps are much better than Nasser's, and you look foolish equating his quads to Nasser's.
So you admit that reigning Mr.Olympias don't lose? Good. Nasser's quads were just as big as Ronnie's was in 2003. And, !surprise!, !surprise!, Dorian defeated him in the abdominal-and-thighs mandatory every time they competed against each other. Doesen't this tell you that there's more to the overrall quality of the quads than sheer size? It should. But obviously, it doesen't. Like I said, his extreme quad muscularity was not increased concomitantly with separations
and did not increase in proportion to the rest of his physique. That's called a liability, my friend. Overrall, winning the category of muscularity, when it comes to quads, was a bd gambit for Ronnie because it cme at the expense of quality and compromised his entire body's symmetry. The judges overlooked that because...you've guessed it: reigning Mr.Olympias don't lose.
Distension can only be observed from the side. In the ab & thigh it would not be an issue, and Ronnie's thin waist and superior V-taper would more than offset it. As I said, every bodybuilder in the 2004 Challenge Round, with 1 exception, had issues with distension.
No. I strongly disagree, His distension was visible from the front, although I admit not s muh as from the side. In any case, his distension did not omes by itself, but also with an increase in oblique thickness and decreased abdominal separations. I have already posted several shoots of Ronnie doing the abdominal-and-thighs mandatory, both at the 2003 and 2004 Olympis, and it clearly shows just how bad his taper was in those two contests. Dorian alwys had Ronnie at this mandatory, and even more so when Ronnie was over 280 lbs. You fool yourself into believing that Ronnie's thick obliques wouldn't be a liability when compared to a 257 lbs Dorian; you fool yourself into believing that Dorian's genetically superior abdominals wouldn't win him points over Dorian. He flt out takes Ronnie on this mandatory.
Ronnie's proportions are fine. The only issue is the quad/calves differential.
Larger muscles with acceptable proportions vs. smaller muscles with a wide waist and overwhelming torso. Hmmmm. Dorian's upper arms, in general, were entirely too small. His chest and quadriceps were too small, hamstrings/glutes mediocre. You overrate Dorian's balance, esp. when you fail to take into account his inferior taper, absent quad sweep, and poor delt width.
Fine?! Wow...so, you think it's acceptable for someone to win the Olympia with a distended midsetion, quadriceps that overwhelm everything else, little details on his upper back when standing relaxed, horrible abdominal separations nd calves that look like toothpicks? i don't think so! And also, it's simply not true that Ronnie's chest was thicker than Dorian's. Wider, maybe. But in thikness, Dorian was right there with Ronnie, even though the ltter outweighed him by 30 lbs. In fact, on the side chest mandatory, Dorian takes Ronnie flat out. How? With a gut tht doesen't stick out, better calves and pectoralis major musles that stick out as much as Ronnie's. You just can't accept that, despite his greater weight, the 280+ lbs Ronnie would still lose several mandatories to Dorian...not the mention that Dorian would crush him on the symmetry round.
Ummm, the extra weight Ronnie had in 2003 was far more than just quads. It was the chest, which was way larger than Dorian's genetics could ever afford, the delts, biceps, upper back, hamstrings, glutes, etc.
I agree with you that it was far more than quads: it was also the result in a giant increase in his glute and abdominal mass - two very bd things. His hest was not muh thicker than Dorian's. His latissimus were thicker, but not wider, and Dorian
still takes Ronnie out when it omes to the thickness of his teres major and rhomboids.
Ronnie's back was way wider and immensely thicker than Dorian's.
Particularly with arms raised, Dorian's back had a tendency to flatten out whereas Coleman's maintains the huge mounds of muscles with deep ridges and crevices which serve to accentuate the individual edifices
.
No, it wasn't. Dorian's lats are the widest in the history of bodybuilding. Benaziza, Peter McGough and Julian Schmidt all agree with me. He was definitely thicker, but not by a large margin; Dorian's lats were increadible thick. And, as I've pojnted out, Dorian still had a thiker middle back, despite being much lighter than Ronnie.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
