"No" what? I'm not sure what you disagree with. I said earlier Dorian has one of the biggest backs of all time and little twig arms. How can you ignore this imbalance but penalize Ronnie for his calves?
Because this is the first time I've ever seen anyone compare proportions between the lats and the arms. This is stupid beyond description, because only the back part of the triceps and the anterior delts are visible when contrasting the arms to the lats. Conversely, the calves are visible from the front, sides and bak, representing a graver symmetrical liability if under(over)developed. From the sides, it compromises symmetry in the relaxed round, and compromises symmetry and muscularity in the side chest and side triceps mandatories. From the back, it is entirely visible and compromises symmetry in both the rear lat spread and the back double bieps. For instance, Ronnie has great back muscularity in the back double biceps, but the pose is entirely ruined, from a symmetrial standpoint, due to his sub-par calves. This is especially true when you take into account his other symmetrial imbalances from the back, such as his huge glutes and the fact that his alves look even more pathetic when compared to his great biceps femorii. Do you understand it now, mental elf?
Furthermore, I've already shown you Ronnie in 03 didn't have a distended midesection. Take another look.
This assertion is made even more idiotic after tons of pis have been posted showing Ronnie aas the pregnant bitch that he was in 2003. In fact, Ronnie had a pregnant look to him even at the 2001 Olympia, when he was only 242 lbs - which probably explaines whyu he lost the symmetry round to Jason. In 2003, his waist was probably 40" around. Obviously, mathematically, it is impossible for a Human to have 40" of waist without the abdominal walls expanding forward. I don't care that Ronnie had a flat stomach in
one piture taken during transition, when he was obviously sucking his gut in. Coleman's midsection was grossly distended in 2003, boy. Deal with it. It is made even worse by the fat that he had barely a separation in his abdomen and serratus when standing relaxed, and even when contracting, it still looked like that of an off-season bodybuilder.
ha ha ha, listen closely son. You claimed Dorian "edges Ronnie out both in triceps muscularity and separations" when both of them are around 257 lbs. What did you expect me to do dumbass? Post pics of Ronnie at 286 lbs?
This is mathematical and cannot be disputed, you fucktard son of a cun.t.
Ronnie might have had 24" arms in 2003, but his arms were much smaller in 1999. I know for a fact that Dorian's arms were 21". So obviously, if Ronnie's arms edged Dorian's by only three inches in 2003, then how much bigger were they in 1999? Maybe one inch. Considering that Ronnie's biceps were significantly bigger than Dorian's, it's
obvious that practically all of the difference in arm size were biceps. You're dumb.
As for striations, Dorian did have better striations than Ronnie in the triceps when both were 257 lbs, and I have posted several pis showing the cross lines in his triceps. At the end, it doesen't really matter, because the medial triceps head is only visible from the back - in some poses -, and the anterior triceps head is only visible from the front when the arms are flexed. And since Dorian loses the front double biceps anyway, the point is mute. Now, the lateral triceps head is the one head which is showcased in a peific mandatory, and the botom line is that Dorian takes this pose because his lateral triceps head is at least as muscular as Ronnie's, but has more striations and Dorian is more proportional from head to toe .
I was merely responding to your comment. I still believe Ronnie in 03 is the most dominating physique to ever step onstage. Nobody else comes close.
Then why not Nasser? At least at 285 lbs he still had a flat stomach and great abdominal separations. His back was weak, but his quads were as big as Ronnie's and even more cut. And he had calves! I'd rather give the Olympia to a 280+ lbs guy who has no back but who at least had a flat stomach and didn't look like a pregnant bitch, rather than one whow looks like he swallowed a watermellon, has horrible proportions, etc. But wait, a 255 lbs Dorian defeated Nasser too! And a 310 lbs Ferrigno and a 280 lbs Jean-Pierre Fux, too! This year, a guy with a super wide waist and terrible separations defeated a 290+ Ronnie, so defeating your boy is no hard feat at all. You know what's the difference between them and the 2003 Ronnier? They all could arry over 280 lbs better than Ronald!
Symmetry is 50% of the judging criteria, and no one can win the symmetry round with the belly of an obese man. Case close.
Comparable? Are you out of your f*cking mind? Both versions of Ronnie destroy Dorian in triceps muscularity. You keep forgeting the triceps is composed of 3 muscles.
Dorian's arms were 21" in competition, and Ronnie's were around 22", so you just talked out of your ass again. "Muscularity" has nothing to do with separations, but only with develpment. And the bottom line is that most of the differene in arms development, between the 1995 Dorian and 1999 Ronnie, was mostly biceps. Once again, I destroyeds you. Go do your lesson, little boy!
I don't know why you keep making an ass out of yourself by saying Dorian had better tricep striations than Ronnie. He could never match Ronnie in separations.
Maybe not in separations between the three heads. But as I've already addressed before, this is largely irrelevant for several reasons - mostly due to visibilitty in most poses from most angles. But Dorian is
definitely superior to Ronnie when it comes to striations in the lateral head of the triceps.
Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Thbis coming from a boy who has no idea how a bodybuilding contest is judged, and talk out of his ass all the time, saying that a distended midsection does not represent a symmetrical liability,
when photogrpahic evidence proves the opposite when Ronnie is standing relaxed, and who believes that a distended midsection does not represent a symmetrical liability, when in fact it is
the ultimate symmetrical liability.
I still stand by the 03 version of Ronnie. The only reason I posted a shot of 99 Ronnie is b/c I was responding to your comment. Also, I find it hypocritical of you to remark about which version of Ronnie I choose. You keep posting pics of Dorian from 93, 95 and 96, yet I'm supposed to stick to only 1 year?
The difference, of course, is that there is very little variation in muscularity and proportions between the 1993/5/6 versions of Dorian, with only mild differences in conditioning. While conversely, there is a 30 lbs difference in bodyweight between the 1999 and 2003 Ronnie's. You can't have both, boy. Thye 2003 Ronnie surpasses Dorian for muscularity but has much worse proportions and refinement. The 1999 Ronnie has superior separations and slightly better taper, but loses to Dorian in muscularity. You want both things, but you can't have them.
Piss off you mental midget.
Only a mental midget to see and acknowledge the existnce of a mental insect. Little boy, I have owned you so badly that I should be claiming property rights over you.
Now, go do your homework before I spank you like your daddy again...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
