I have said it before and I will say it again:
I do not think that even Dorian 93 would fair well against peak ronnie.
why?
because all of the advantages that enable dorian to dominate would be GONE.
he would not be wider
Bullshit. Dorian in 1993 was definitely wider than the 1999 Coleman. It was only in 2003 that Ronnie became wider than Dorian, and when it comes to lat width, Dorian could still hold his own against even the 2003. Which means that he destroys the 1999 Coleman.
he would not be bigger
I beg to differ! While tey were exactly the same weight, the 1993 or 1995 Olympia Dorians had greater muscularity than the 1999 Coleman. Check out pictures and you'll see that Dorian's pecs, delts, triceps, latissimus, teres maor and minor and infra-spinatus were thicker than Coleman's. The reason why Dorian is mre muscular at a similar bodyweight is because he's shorter and came in dryer, so he had a higher amount of lean tissue, despite weighing the same.
he would (and never was) as shapely
Define "shapely". I do think Ronnie had a better taper and a more classical V-type silhouette than Dorian, but this is not so much the case in 1999. If you're talking about overrall fullness, then I agree with you that Ronnie has the advantage. But when it comes to taper and midsection, the Ronnie of 1999 was clearly worse than the one of 1998 and no better than Dorian. The 1999 Ronald might still have had a slightly better taper than the Dorian from 1993 and 1995, but Yates' midsection was clearly superior, with Dorian having a flat stomach and separated abdominals and serratus. The worst think about the 257 lbs Coleman, from 1999, is that he already had a gut distension; at a similar bodyweight, the 1993 Dorian had a flat stomach.
And he was never as detailed.
I think the 1993 and 1995 Dorians had far more details than you give him credit for. Look at his pics, and you'll see that he had as much overrall back details as Coleman in 1999, with the difference that his back was dryer, thicker and harder. Dorian's deltoids and chest were also full of striations, as well as his abdominals and serratus. So it's non-sense saying that Dorian lacked details.
He beat guys who had better detail and individual muscle shape because he was bigger physically and had more width.
Non-sense! Dorian defeated guys because he was bigger, harder
and had more details than they did, at least when it came to having a back that looked like a human anatomy chart. He also defeatedf guys who were heavier than him and that, at least in two cases - Fux and Nasser - surpassed Dorian for muscularity on several muscle groups. Dorian won Sandows because he was a very big guy who also brought a great deal of
quality to his mass(density, conditioning, separations and balance), and who also had the tightest midsection ever seen on a guy so big.
He did not win because of quality
See my previous point. If this were true, then a much bigger Fux, with even longer muscle bellies, would have defeated him. Or a 285 lbs Nasser - as big as Coleman in 2003! -, who outweighed him by almost 30 lbs.
In ronnie, he would face the effective combo of size, shape width AND detail, a combo he never faced before except in Lee Haney.
Well, Ronnie was the same weight as Dorian at the 1996 Olympia, and brought onstage his trademarked musle fullness and taper. Surprise: Dorian defeated him flat out on the relaxed round and,on the two call-outs between the two, Dorian defeated him with straight-firsts scores. And the 1996 Olympia Ronnie was almost a carbon-opy of his CPC frm of that same year, which defeated, I might add, no other than Wheeler! You lose, Hulkster.
These are all pics from the 1993 Olympia, proving that Dorian had an inhuman muscularity, density and conditioning, coupled with
shape, separations and striations I'll match these against the 1999 Olympia Ronnie any day.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
