Tell the 'striations' bit to Andreas Munzer. He based his carreer on them. And as far as using the word 'density' metaphorically and not literally: I thought we were having a real deabate, not some kind of figuritively pseudo-philosophical quasi-debate. In actual terms Ronnie's better, but metaphorically you can win if you want. 
Well, you defeated yourself at this argument, because Munzer combined his crazy striations with a superb structure and great separations. He was also quite big, and brought in a great taper. Secondly, was Munzer that successful? No. Sure, he qualified and competed at the O, but he never won any of the major shows. Just like Nasser. Who remembers Nasser? Unless you win one of the major shows, like the Olympia of the ASC, nobody cares.
As for you points of this beins an exact, logical debate, well, that's what I tried to do. Look throught the thread and you'lls see that I wrote hundreds of paragraphs ecplaining why, objectively, Dorian at his best would defeat Ronnie.
The Coleman side replied with nothing but pics. So got tell Hulkster and his cadres that the debate should be more objective, because I've been doing my part for 530 pages.
As for the density thing, you can't prove that Dorian's muscles had greater physical density than Ronnie's, so my point that Dorian had bigger lats than Ronnie, at the same weight, due to the latter having bigger quads, is a more reasonable argument, from an
objective perspective, than that of the Coleman side.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
