if you have eyes it is clear that ronnie is better, legs save calves suck. his arms suck, his chest looks like shit in mm. and his delts arent all that round nor striated. ronnie is bigger, rounder, just as conditioned, better individual parts, and more vascular and detailed over-all. i just dont see how dorian would win. he was great for his time, but ronnie stepped it up a notch.
this comment should end the discussion. lock the thread. 
so, lets see.
sounds like you are making a decision about dorian's career on how his chest looks in one pose - the mm?
everything you said about coleman is mostly true.
his shoulders have more striations, his arms are better, at time his quads have looked better. at times, they havent.
coleman overall is rounder with better shape and more vascular.
everything just mentioned, coleman had when he competed against dorian through the years of 92-97. WHERE DID THAT LEAVE RONNIE? HOW DID HE DO AGAINST DORIAN? WAS RONNIE ANYWHERE ABOVE 5 PLACES FROM DORIAN?after dorian retired in 98, ronnie's conditioning improved - but he was never as dry or hard as dorian. or even anything close to it. coleman never had the density or thickness yates had at any weight under 287 like he was in 2003. however, ronnie's watery and bloated conditioning would make it seem he showed up for a guest posing once he stood next to dorian.
at his all time best, ronnie
BARELY beat a subpar flex.
flex at his best lost 20-40 to dorian.
owned.
