Bullshit. For starters, you have yet to cite ONE credible reference. If you had ANY IFBB regulations or judging books (LOL) at your fingertips, why the hell would you rely solely on commentary made by athletes and judges in the early 90's, nearly 10 years before Coleman's 2003 exhibition?? You don't reference directly from a manual, so stop pretending you have these resources at your disposal. You are full of shit!
There are several reasons. For starters, Ronnie's distended gut, which he had at the 2003 Olympia, immediately makes him lose the symmetry round flat out,
by official I.F.B.B criteria. It's as simple as that, really. The fact that he got straight firsts is an outrage against bodybuilding. Like I've mentioned before, Dorian was fantastic at the 1997 Olympia: his muscular fullness was at it's all-time best and he still had his trademarked conditioning - superb hardness and dryness. And yet, I still think that his distended midsection - which was still much, much better than Ronnie's at the 2003 rendition of the contest - was a liability severe enough for him to lose. I still think he deserved to win, because his abdominal distension was not that bad and his muscularity was so dominant, but I'm more than willing to accept the judges decision if they decided to give the victory, at that contest, to another bodybuilder.
When it comes to Ronnie, in 2003, the situation is even worse. You see, what you fail to understand is that this is called
bodybuilding, not
massbuilding; sheer muscle size is only one thing that's judged besides a whole criteria of things. Ronnie was the most muscular ever in 2003; great; I concede that. But he wasn't better. This is where Ronnie flat out loses. If we judge bodybuilding mathematically - granting and removing points -, then Ronnie, in his 2003 form, is not able to defeat Dorian at his, say, 1995 form. How so? Dorian wins the symmetry round flat out, by havind a smaller taper, better abdominals and practically all the muscles in his body in better proportions than Ronnie. Dorian loses in muscularity. Ok. Yet, Dorian is able to edge Ronnie on practically all the mandatories. If you acept that symmetry, muscularity and and muscular quality are all relevant, both in the symmetry rounds as well as in the mandatories, then Dorian wins. Let's see:
Symmetry round - Dorian wins: he has a tighter midsection and more separated abdominals and serratus. His calves are in proportion to his quadriceps. Dorian's triceps, biceps and forearms are all in balance, whereas in Ronnie's case, the entire arms are overpowered by the biceps...just like his monstrous quadriceps overpower his defective calves - and especially the soleus.
Side chest - Again, Dorian. Ronnie's pectoralis major is wider than Dorian's on his 2003 version, but not significantly thicker. Sorry, but true. Furthermore, while Ronnie's quadriceps are much bigger than Dorian's, this advantage is mostly visible from the front; from the sides, Dorian's quads hold their own very well against Ronnie. The calves are also visible from the side, and Dorian's are much bigger, even when Ronnie outweighs him by 30 lbs. Point for Dorian, both in muscularity as well as in symmetry. In this mandatory, the triceps is also visible, and while Ronnie might win when it comes to muscularity at his 2003 version, Dorian's triceps have better shape and striations. Tie. The serratus is also visible, and Dorian's is better. The final nail in the coffin, for Ronnie, at this mandatory, comes courtesy of his distended midsection, which is also visible from the sides. All things considered, Dorian wins this mandatory
flat out.
Side triceps - Could go either way. Dorian has superior shape and separations on his triceps, but, at his 2003 version, Ronnie does take him out in triceps muscularity. It would depend on the judges. But remember that, just like in the case of the side chest, the calves and midsetion are visible on this mandatory, making Dorian's far superior. The
only thinh that Ronnie has on Dorian, on this shot, is triceps mass. I still think Dorian would win, because Dorian's tris are just plainly genetically superior to Ronnie's. Dorian takes it.
Front lat spread - Dorian all the way! Ronnie did improve his lats dramatically from his 1998 version to 2003, but mostly in
thickness; when it comes to width, Ronnie's improvement was far less spectacular. Dorian's latissimus were actually the wider in the history of bodybuilding. When you put Dorian's smaller waist into the equation, Dorian flat out destroys the 2003 Ronnie at this mandatory: wider lats + smaller waist = better taper and more muscularity. Adding even more to the quality, consider that Dorian's abdominals are also superior.
Front double biceps - Ronnie wins. His monstrous biceps, which were already better than Dorian's at the 1998, became even bigger in 2003. He loses to Dorian when it comes to taper, but his quadriceps are humoungous - although poorly separated. All things considered, Ronnie takes this mandatory, mostly due to his phenomenal biceps.
Abdominals-and-thighs - Ronnie does have an advantage here: the sheer montrous size of his quadrieps. But that's it. Dorian has omparable separations and better hardness. Dorian has much, much better abdominal and serratus separations and a smaller waist. In symetry al least, Dorian wins. But I'm willing to concede that, because Ronnie's quadriceps muscularity is so phenomenal, he has a chance against Dorian; a ver, very small chance. Why? Because at everything else, Dorian destroys Ronnie, on this mandatory, so badly, but so badly, that it would be a no-brainer if Ronnie didn't have an advantage in quadrieps musularity. All things considered, Dorian wins because his wais tis smaller, his abdominals and serratus more defined, and his quads, although considerably smaller, are just as defined but much denser than Ronnie's. Dorian takes it.
Back double biceps - Ronnie has one sole advantage over Dorian here: his biceps. That's basically it. On his 1998 version, Ronnie had superior upper back details than Dorian, but that was lost when he ballooned to over 280 lbs. Dorian's latissimus are just as wide and his trapezius just as big. His teres major and rhomboids are more clearly separated, and also thicker than Ronnie's,
despite the weight difference. Dorian's lower back is more striated and his erectors visible. Not Ronnie's case. Ronnie's glutes are bigger - bad, when it comes to bodybuilding - and his hamstrings, although bigger, are not more striated than Dorian's. Furthermore, Dorian's calves slaughter Rpnnie. However, since Ronnie's biceps are better, he might win. Ronnie loses at everything else big time. Tie.
Rear lat spread - This is a simple one: Dorian's latissimus is as wide or wider than Ronnie's, with a smaller waist. Dorian wins. Dorian's calves are also better, and he shows more details all over his back and has a thicker middle back. Case closed.
Secondly, if you knew ANYTHING about bodybuilding, you would know that there is NEVER a DEFINITIVE rubric. There may be some idealistic guidelines printed somewhere on paper. There ARE some universal principles and ordinances that apply to every contest, but the judges stress remarkably different elements from show to show, which partly serves to explain how some athletes like Darrem Charles can do remarkably well against mass-monsters at the spring shows then fail to even crack the top 6 at the Olympia posedown.
I kno that there isn't a definitive criteria to define the winner; exactly the reason why I coneded that Ronnie
might defeat Dorian on the abs-and-thigh and the side hest shots. I'm saying "maybe", because these are Dorian's ton signature shots; the ones he aced with utter perfection. I conceded that, even though Dorian trounces Ronnie flat out at these two shots at everything, Ronnie's advantage in nothing other than sheer triceps and quadriceps size would tip the scales in Ronnie's favor. If the judges gave these two mandatories to Ronnie, at a hypothetical omparison between the 1995 and 2003 Ronnie, they would be ignoring everyhitng thing that matters besides size: shape, balance, separations and hrdness. Yet, since it is a subjective sport, I concede that the judges might give the nod to Ronnie. It would be an outrage, but it could happen.
Nevertheless, ther
is an official I.F.B.B judging booklet, which every judge is required to abide to - I'm not saying that they do, only that they are supposed to. By the criteria of this booklet, Ronnie should have lost the Olympia in 2003. Why? Because at everything other than muscularity, he was terrible. He looked pregnant and had very little separations when standing relaxed. His quadriceps, which previously overpowered only his calves, now overpowered his entire physique. His glutes had grown enormously and, together with his calves, completely destroys his symmetry from the back. His abdominal and serratus definition, never great to begin with, was now terrible. He flat out loses in the symmetry round, which also costs him many points in the mandatories. He wins only in overrall muscularity. And when you consider that his muscles were softer than Dorian's, he flat out loses. To summarize: Ronnie had bigger musles, but they weren't better, and his entire body looked like shit from a symmetry perspective.
So don't pretend to be some f*cking authority on this subject when you are not.
We are both fans with different preferences ... nothing more.
I never said I am an authority; I said that you are wrong when it comes to evaluating physiques. That's it.
Its exceedingly simple. Ronnie has more muscle ... alot more.
The muscle he has is higher quality, in terms of detail (striations, vascularity), layering, density, and maturity. His muscle is more symmetrical from left to right, and from top to bottom his V-taper and X-frame are significantly better.
Ronnie has more muscles than Dorian, at his 2003 version. But Dorian's muscles have more
quality being hrder than Ronnie's. And Ronnie lost his major advantage, over Dorian, when he wen't to over 280 lbs: he lost a great deal of his superb separations. Look at Ronnie's upper back in 1998 and then compare it to his 2003 one. You'll see that Ronnie, at his 1998 version, has more separations there. He has less thickness, but his latissimus is just as wide. Ronnie did
not improve compared to 1998; he only became bigger. I find it funny that you say that Ronnie has more density thatn Dorjan:
no one, in bodybuildin's history, has greater hardness than Dorian. None. And for the last time, "muscle maturity" is subjective and not a part of oficial bodybuilding judging criteria.
And where did you get that symmetry is about left versus right? It isn't. Symmetry is about
balance of muscular development - all the muscles being equaly developed and proportional, in size, in relation to each other -, and they being layered over a balanced frame.
This is symmetry, not about how equal the left and right of the body look.
This is irrelevant. Dorian had the INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE THAT EVERY MR. OLYMPIA ENJOYS.
It is very hard for a Mr.Olympia to lose. We are assuming, in this comparison, that neither competitor would enjoy the incumbent's advantage, because that element would infinitely complicate the assessment, since a reigning Mr. Olympia rarely loses.
Which is eatly the reason that Ronnie won in 2000/1/2/4. In 2003, his muscularity was astounding, but he was horrible at everything else...
Irrelevant filler. 
I'm sick of you taking these debates off on a tangent. Stick to the f*cking pertinent topic.
We are comparing 'peak' forms. I consider 'peak' Ronnie to be 2003, so any assessment pertaining to Ronnie's physique that does not apply to the 2003 Olympia will be readily dismissed.
Ronnie won, in 2003, due to muscularity. That's it. From a
massbuilding criteria, he was incredible. But from a
bodybuilding criteria perpective, he was at his third worst form, behind only 2001 and 2004. A man with a distended stomah should not win the super-bowl of bodybuilding; a man with a giant ass should not be the standard-bearer; he should
not win by having severe liabilities at four of the six mandatories(abs-and-thighs, side chest, side triceps and rear lat spread). Ronnie was
not great from a
bodybuilding perspective in his 2003 version; he was good from a
musclebuilding perpective. I love mass monsters, too, but even a 205 Shawn Ray defeats the 287 lbs Ronnie when you put all the elements, which are relevant on a bodybuilding contest, into the big picture.
See ... this JUST ISN'T TRUE. Even Peter McGough, the scholar you love to cite, mentioned that Ronnie improved his midsection control considerably. Even at Ronnie's worst stage in 2003, the evening round, his stomach was not nearly as distended as it was in 2002. During the pre-judging, I cannot stress enough, HIS MIDSECTION WAS COMPLETELY FLAT.
Euse me, but you're joking right? Not only was Ronnie's midsection far more distended in 2003 than in 2002, but his waist was also several inches wider. Well, if you think Ronnie's midsetion was flat at teh pre-judging, in 2003, I strongly recomend you mark an appointment with an ophtalmologist, becase the photographic evidence is to the contrary. Should I believe your "elegant'prose, or what my lying eyes tell me?
His taper was BETTER since his waist remained the same size, YET his lats & delts were significantly wider. GET IT THROUGH YOUR DENSE F*CKING SKULL. THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE WAIST DOES NOT FLUCTUATE SPORADICALLY IN A BODYBUILDER FROM YEAR TO YEAR. BONE GROWTH AND ADIPOSE DEPOSITION ARE THE ONLY 2 FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR A WIDE WAIST, AND SINCE BODYBUILDERS COMPETE AT <5% BF, BODYFAT IS NOT A FACTOR. APPOSITIONAL BONEGROWTH TAKES SEVERAL YEARS OF TIME, EVEN WITH THE REQUISITE, MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF GH, IGF LONG, INSULIN, ETC.
No, it wasn't. This is mathematical: Ronnie's latissimus was
not wider in 2003 than in 2002, but his waist got thicker; ergo, his taper got worse. And who said that this is the only thing that matters? What about the distension? That completely compromises Ronnie in the two mandatories whih are eveluated from the side - the side triceps and the side chest -, and also compromises his overrall symmetry. And what does the affirmation that "the circumference of the skull does not flutuate sporadically..."? This is sompletely immaterial to this discussion: in the case of Ronald Coleman, it is obvious that his waist acquired a oncave shape to the sides. His entire naval area looked like absolute shit in 2003. Get over it. Only you think that would not be a liability.
See, you keep doing this. You are either making assumptions that are completely wrong or intentionally lying. His distention was NOT worse, his waist was NOT wider, AND his taper was significantly better. This is a very cheap, albeit transparent, strategy. You instill the reader with a visual of Ronnie at one of
Oh, I beg to differ! It wasn't worse; it was much worse. Check it out.
This should
not have won the Sandow...
[/quote]
