my vote for most idiotic post of the year. first did you measure there arms during these contests, because i highly doubt someone was going around measuring bodyparts before they stepped on stage.
Ronnie himself, FLEX and Jim Schmaltz reported that Ronnie had 24" arms onstage at the 2003 Olympia. Considering that he was over 280 lbs, it's believable; I'll take it de facto evidence of his arm size. And the British Muscle&Fitness magazine repoted that Dorian's right arm flexed tapered at 52 centimeters in circumference for the 1995 Olympia. That's about 21".
also, you keep eluding to numbers as if this is an objective sport which couldn't be further from the truth. this sport is subjective and is judged by visual criteria.
Wrong: that what's subjective is measured by visual criteria - such as muscle separations, shape, striations, etc. But arm circumference is a mathematical absolute, not open for debate. The
fact is that Ronnie's triceps were not significantly more
muscular, in his 1999 version, than Dorian's: the difference in arm girth was around an inch or so, and most of it were caused by Ronnie's bigger biceps. Bitch all you want, but facts are facts.
therefore qualitative data not quanitative are used ala pictures. and judging from the pictures ronnie dominates dorian at their respective bests. also, i urge you to stop ref. forearms and such as positives for dorian it makes your argument come off as pathetic as you are grasping at straws. lets go over areas were ronnie wins.
Bodybuilding contests are judged by evaluating muscularity&symmetry, and the conditioning with which the bodybuilder presents it. Muscularity refers especifically to muscular development, and correlates strongly with size. And size is something that is well measured objectively. For instance, when stature is a constant and established as a control variable, a bodybuilder who weights more than another has greater muscularity. The 2003 Ronnie does have an advantage over Dorian in muscularity, but such is not the case with his 1999 version. As for symmetry, it is nothing more than the proportionality between muscles, and while it can be evaluated visually, it can also be evaluated as a measurement. In any case, Dorian has actually less disproportionalities in his physique than Ronnie. The things that are entirely subjective in bodybuilding, and thus visual, are shape, separations, striations, etc. These things may or may not be taken into account when evaluating a physique, and different judges have different preferences.
back-ronnie
When they're both 257 lbs, Dorian actually has the wider and thiker lats. His chistmas-tree is thicker and infa-spinatus is thicker, his back is denser and he has cross striations in his lower back. Dorian's back is better.
quads-ronnie
I'll give you quads, but only because Ronnie has better separations between his vastus lateralis and medialis muscles. As far as muscularity goes, Ronnie's quads are not that much bigger than Dorian's when they're both at the same weight.
arms-ronnie
We've been through this, and having
bigger biceps with a little split in the middle does not mean having
superior overrall arms.
chest-ronnie
No, Dorian's pectoralis muscles are actually thicker than that of the 1999 Ronnie. To make it even worse for Ronnie, Dorian's side chest pose is one of the best ever: only Arnold at the 1974 Olympia and maybe Oliva had a better side chest shot.
delts-ronnie
At 257 lbs, they're roughly equal in size, but Dorian had more symmetry, with the three deltoid heads being more proportional. It's obvious Coleman's frontal deltoid head overpowers the other two.
hams-ronnie
Dorian's hamstrings were striated even back in 1993. Alas, Ronnie's might be more developed, but this only highlights his weak calves even more.
glutes-ronnie
Too bad having overdeloped glutes is a
bad thing bodbuilding-wise. Just like in the case of the abdominals, the glutes should not be hypertrophied. A huge ass is unmanly to have, and definitely a negative when it comes to bodybuilding.
now lets have a look at dorians showstopping parts
calves-dorian
forearms-dorian
yup dorian is dominant for sure
That's probably the reason why Dorian won six Sandows, five of them with straight-firsts scores from
all the judges in
all the three rounds. Yep, all because he had nothing more than calves and forearms.
dorian looks like 10 gallons of shit smashed into a 5 gallon bag.
Spoken like a true Ronnie spooge-sucker...
on a final note your spelling is bad at best. "dorians arms were 21'' before toring them". aren't you the meatbag arguing about rhomboids, ahha your too much brother, stop with the intellectual angle as it doesn't suit you.
Now, you don't want me to point out your grammatical, ortographic and stylistic errors, now do you, Mr.Dickins?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
