hahaha - this is claimed to be a 'well thought out argument'?
lets look at this carefully:
no, it isn't: Ronnie was far wider and had a much more dramatic taper than Arnold EVER did, in 98 or 99:
The diameter of he waist is an obective, mathematical criteria, not open for dispute. You can argue that Ronnie has superior shape and that you believe that his greater vasculariy and striations makes him a better bodybuilder. But when it comes to things that are mathematical, there's no argument. Posting tons of pics is irrelevant, because the bottom line is that Arnold had, at the 1974 Olympia, a smaller waist than Ronnie, in the same way that the 1993 Dorian had greater muscularity. Now, Ronnie's taper might be almost as good as Arnie's, because his latissimus flare wider, but Arnold had a smaller waist than Ronnie did in 1998, and
certainly more so than in 1999.
that comment is nothing more than ironage bullshit again...
Wrong: I'm a getbigger, not an inronager, but this is irrelevant since the
fact is that Arnie's waist was smaller...ust like it is that the muscularity of the 1993 Dorian puts that of the 1999 Ronnie to sleep.
wrong again - Ronnie was far more full and had much better thigh sweep in 99 than in 98, his taper was much better
Ronnie was ceratainly more muscular in 1999 than he was in 1998. Also, his muscles were rounder, probably the result of him carbing up successfully before the show. But his taper was
certainly worse than in the previous Olympia. Seriously, Hulkster, even arguing otherwise is a self-defeating proposition, because you have posted pics, from 1999, showing Ronnie doing the abdominals-and-thighs mandatory in which he had one of the worst tapers ever displayed by a standard-bearer. To make it even worse, you could barely see a cut in his serratus and, when he turned to the sides, he lost the symmetry round flat out - to an unbiased eye -, because his gut was already distended. This at a weight of 257 lbs, the same where Dorian had a flat stomach and an etched six-pack and serratus. But yes, I do agree with you that his quadriceps sweep was better in 1999. So what?
is this guy stupid or what?
No, I think stupid is the guy who said that Dorian should have lost due to his inferior midsection, characteised by wide hips - and despite the fact that, throughout most of his reign, Dorian had the best combo of abs/serratus of any Mr.Olympia and a flat stomach -, but thinks Ronald deserved to win in 1999/2001/3/4, despite having a midsection like that of a nine months pregnant women and barely a cut there.
unbelievable - you ignore dorian's glaring arm and leg smoothness:
The arms are composed of: biceps/triceps/forearms. Ronnie certainly surpassed Dorian for biceps musculartiy in 1999, but Dorian triceps and forearms were more muscular. Smooth?! There wasn't a single muscle on Dorian's that was smooth, considering that he's the best conditioned(dryest) bodybuilder that ever stepped onstage. I do agree that Ronnie's muscles, including the biceps and quadriceps, ae rounder than Dorian's, but Diesel compensated for that with a "stony" look that Ronnie - or any other bodybuilder, for that matter - was neve able to replicate.
in his "1993 standard" and then say that Ronnie was less muscular and not as hard and dry as dorian
Yes, Dorian set the standard fo muscularity and onditioning, not Ronnie, considering that he competed at the same bodyweight as Ronnie six years before, but with even more muscle - because less of it was water.
guess what sucky:
smooth arms and legs do not make a new standard at 257 pounds with a wide waist.
I said Dorian set the standard for muscularity and conditioning, not symmetry. But then, Ronnie didn't set the new standard for symmetry either, so it's a mute point.
freaky detail with a wicked taper at the same bodyweight do
Detail takes a back seat to muscularity, and Dorian had more of it six years before Ronnie came along. As for Ronnie's taper, it was not that amazing when you compare him to Arnold and Sergio who, twon decades before, came in at almost 240 lbs(only about 10 lbs lighter than Coleman in 1999) but with even more dramatic taper. Sorry, but Dorian was more muscular at 257 lbs than Ronnie, and while his taper was not as dramatic, his midsection was better, with no distension and superior separations.
That's a new standard, my friend, and you lose.
and as far as shape goes, it is common knowledge that Ronnie had fantastic shape in many key areas:
That's you
opinion. And I have a different one. And the udges may go with you, or they may not. The bottom line is that Dorian competed against guys who defeated him in symmetry and "shape" flat out, like Wheeler, and defeated all of them. You can argue that the scales would tip in Ronnie's favor because he's bigger, and the udges might agree. Or they may not. Dorian defeated a 250 lbs Kevin, at the 1995 Olympia, who had a vastly superior midsection than Ronnie, with incredible separations and a tiny waist, so I do think that, going against the 1999 Coleman, Dorian would be able to defeat him. Dorian aso defeated a 275 lbs Dillet who had an even smaller waist than Ronnie, so there is
no evidence, besides your own opinion, that a 257 lbs Ronnie, with a worst taper than he had in the previous would defeat a 257 lbs Dorian, who defeated him in muscularity and conditioning. Game over.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
