]Sucky, I enjoyed our discussion about "great men" and kind of get your point. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do respect your opinion.
It is not a matter of opinion. My "opinion" was that, when evaluting the merits nd demerits of things/actions/people, Humans are naturally deterministic and selfish.
Now for Ronnie vs Dorian. What I have tried to emphasize to you numerous times is that I agree in general about your assessment of Dorian in 1993 (maybe 1995, but the torn bicep ruins it for me).
What about Ronnie in all of his years? Dorian lacked one biceps in 1995; Ronnie lacked two calves.
The man was a damned stallion in 1993. No question, he had it all. Size, shape and density. Now, if you had to be critical, he could have more separation and probably be more vascular.
I don't think Dorian ws at his best in 1993, exactly because his separations weren't that good. 1995 was the year Dorian's muscularity, density and balance were coparable to 1993, but his upper back separations and hams/glutes were at their best. Vascularity: I don't like it. It's a matter of taste and it certainly not part of a bodybuilding criteria, so to hell with vascularity!
Gunther was not too vascular; he had a varicosity that looked abnormal and disgusting; thus, he had it surgically removed. Vascularity if not overly done is definitely a plus as it shows true conditioning.
Matter o taste. It must be said, however, that vascularity is one of the hallmarks of amateur bodybuilders, and that the pros have always considered it a negative.
Veins criss-crossing the arms and chest that are not unsightly are a plus. I agree that varicosities are a negative and detrimental to the overall effect.
Now, comparing Dorian 1993 to Ronnie 1999 would have been tough. Ronnie had fuller muscle bellies with smaller joints and a smaller waist. I agree that his waist and calves were lacking, but his overall shape was excellent. Dorian had him in conditioning and density. Was he bigger, that is debateable.
Both Dorian and Ronnie were 257 lbs in the respective years. The thing is that Dorian had greater muscularity, because he ws so much dryer. Dorian ws even dryer than the 1998 Ronnie, and let me tell you that both Peter McGough and John Romano remarked that the added weight decreased his sharpness. So, here we have a situation where Dorian takes Ronnie out in both muscularity and conditioning. As far as balane goes, I think Dorian also takes him out. Ronnie, though, hd better taper. But Dorian had a flatter stomah and better abdominal and serratus separations than Ronnie. Here's how the mandatories would go:
Abs-and-thighs - Dorian has the better abdominal separations and serratus, but Ronnie hs sightly better taper - in 1998, he had much better taper! Ronnie's front quads show more cuts, but Dorian's quads are thicker than Ronnie's when they're around the same weight. Dorian takes it.
Front Double biceps - Ronnie wins it, on virtue of better biceps and tapper alone.
Front lat spread - Dorian flat out takes it. His waist is almost as tiny as Ronnie's, but his lat flare is far more dramatic.
Back double biceps - They tie. Ronnie has the better biceps. But Dorian's upper back is just as separated as that of the 1999 Coleman. Now, where Dorian really takes Ronnie out is in that his lats are both thicker and wider than Ronnie's when they're both at this weight, and Dorian has a much thicker christmas-tree. His hams and glutes are just as strited as Coleman's, with the differene that Dorian has calves.
Rear lat spread - This is very simple: Dorian wins. His lts simply spreads much wider than tht of the 1999 Coleman - hell, Dorian's lat spread is a match even for the 2003 Ronnie, let alone his smaller 1999 version. His glutes and hams are thicker than Ronnie's at that weight, and are also more striated. Oh, and Dorian has calves!
Side chest - Debatable. I( do think Dorian's chest, at 257 lbs, is thicker than Coleman's, but the latter's is robably more striated.
Side triceps - Dorian's triceps were thicker and with superior genetic shape than Ronnie's, so it's a no-brainer.
As you can see, the 1993 and 1995 Dorian flat out
destroys the 1999 Ronnie in everything except taper, front quad and upper back details.
However, I believe the winner in that mythical battle could have gone either way. If the IFBB judges were looking for conditioning and density, they may have gone with Dorian. If they were looking for the bodybuilder with fuller muscles and more pop, they may have gone for Ronnie. However, either way it would have been damn close. Remember, this is a hypothetical battle assuming the judging panel was not biased (i.e. 1997 and 2001) and had no inherent predispositions to where each athlete deserved to place. Thus, it would have been a very good contest.
Agreed that it would be a fantstic contest; but I think that, at the end, Dorian's superior muscularity and midsection would ti the scales in his favor - Ronnie already had some gut distesnsion in 1999, and his abdominals and serrtus were never as etched as Dorian. But yes, you're right that it could go either way: Ronnie did look incredible in 1999 - although I prefer him in 1998, when he was super-dry.
Moving on to Ronnie 2003. I absolutely agree that he lost some of his taper. However, his overall size and conditioning was dazzling. Nobody before or since has presented such a muscular package on stage. Comparing Ronnie to Dorian in this case could be equated to comparing Dorian 1993 to Flex.
I think the comparison is weak, because Flex never had the iron-dense quality of muscle that Dorian had, and Dorian possesed enough mass in the key areas, suh as chest and back, to hold his own against any version of Coleman, including his 2003 rendition form.
But yeah, I do agree that, if the 1993 or 1995 Dorian were to ste onstage against the 2003 Ronnie, he would get defeated in muscularity alone. This
despite the fact that Dorian's usles were still harder. And this
despite the fact that Ronnie would lose the symmetry round, due to his monster distended gut with little abdominal separation, when compared to Dorian's washboard abs and flat stomach at a super-hard 257 lbs. I do think the 2003 Ronnie would defeat Dorian on musularity alone, but if Dorian defeated a 280 lbs Fux and a 285 lbs Nasser - as he did -, you have to entertain the possibility that there is small chance he would edge out the 2003 Ronnie. Unlikely given the modern girth-is-all-that-counts mentality that rules pro bodybuilding nowadays, but possible.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
