actually, it's not. what it means is that the very best you can do is say that an IFBB judge would put Dorian over Ronnie (which is debatable). Whereas, I can say, it's the other way around- and the other six billion people in the world agree with me.
And that's the end of the discussion- it can't progress, till you address why your set of criteria is better. Untill you do that, both camps will continue shouting at each other with no result.
The criteria is better for two reasons. First, we need an objective crietria for evaluating physiques. Otherwise, all we have is a bunch of people arguing that they prefer some guy over another because they just do. To avoid this, an objective criteria was deviced.
When the I.F.B.B came up with it's criteria back in the 1960s, they sat down and asked themselves the question:"What is it that makes a bodybuilder great?". They came to the reply that this is what makes a bodybuilder great:
- Muscularity - The development of the muscles. All things considered, the more muscularity that better, because this is what distinguishes a bodybuilder from someone who doesen't work out with weights.
- Symmetry - This is divided in two criterias: struture and proportionality. Struture refers to the skeletal frame. A great bodybuilding frame is one that emphasizes masculinity, with the clavicles being as wide as possible, the hips as narrow as possible. Height is also relevant, because it is a male attribute.
Proportionality refers to the symmetrical development of muscles in relation to each other. When a muscle overpowers the other, then that's bad symmetry.
Conditioning - This is the most subjective of the three, but it still has objective criteria to it. In essence, as a bodybuilder drops bodyfat and/or sub-cutaneous fat, his muscle separations increases. Things like vascularity and striations also increases. However, when you drop bodyfat and sub-cutaneous water, another thing happens: the muscle look harder, or denser.
So, in essence, "logic", the best bodybuilder is the one who presents the most symmetrical muscle on the best frame and with the best conditioning, from most angles. It's as simple as that.
Now, what makes the I.F.B.B judges or that of any other federation better than random fans? Three things:
1.
They are unbiased - While judges certainly have their personal preferences, no bodybuilding contest is judged by a single judge. The Olympia has a dozen judges, as well as other top pro shows. The personal opinion of a given judge is mitigated by that of another, and so on. Think of the system of checks and balances of a democratic system. Furthermore, while they do have a certain margin to exercise their preferences, they still have an objective criteria to follow.
2.
They follow a stable and complete evaluation sytem - Unlike the random opinion of fans, which is entirely biased and gives preference to certain things over another, the criteria that judges follow gives consideration to all possible aspects that can be evaluated in a physique, except things that are very subjective or unimportant, like vascularity and striations. Furthermore, unlike the random opinion sof fans, the evaluation system takes into consideration all these things year after year. This gives a basis for comparison, because it would make no sense to compare to Mr,Olympias who had been judged by two different evaluation systems. Now, there are slight modifications to these criterias, but tend to remain more or less stable since the 1960s.
3.
They know more - Of course they do. It is arrogant to assume otherwise. While bodybuilding is subjective to fans, the judges have seen up-front tousands of bodybuilders in hundreds of different contests, and they applied about the same criteria at all of them, so it reasonable to assume that, even when they interject some of the obectivity of the evaluation system with their personal preferences, these preferences are based on mentally comparing gradients of excellency that these judges have witnessed.
So now that you that, why would Dorian Yates, in all likeness, defeat Ronald Coleman? Let's see:
Muscularity - Ronnie 2003 might defeat Dorian here, although it evens out in conditioning. With respect to Ronnie 1999, Dorian wins overrall. At the very least, it's a tie.
Symmetry - Dorian's structure is flawed, in the sense that he has relatively wide hips. But Coleman also has a flawed struture, with a long torso and relatively short legs. As for symmetrical development, none of the two has any major flaw - as you would expect from two guys at the top of the top of the game -, but Ronnie has more relatve weaksnesses. Dorian has weak biceps, but Ronnie's calves are very weak for his size. Furthermore, Ronnie has large, unmanly glutes and quads that overpower his body from the front. Overrall, Dorian wins here.
Conditioning - At best, it's a tie: Ronnie has more separations overrall and striations, but Dorian has grain that he lacks. I personally prefer Dorian's grain, but others might prefer otherwise. One thing is not debatable, though: Dorian had less sub-cutaneous water.
Tha mandatories are essentially the same as the relxed round, except that it involves muscle contracting. It show-cases struture, the amount, symmetry and the conditionin gof muscles distributed on it. The only mnadatory that Ronnie wins convincingly is the front double biceps. Back double biceps
SUCKMYMUSCLE
