This is a great post.....if you don't look at the visual evidence 
There is more than meets the eyes. Based on visual evidence alone, one could argue that Wheeler is the best bodybuilder ever. There's an objective criteria to consider.
As well, you essentially claim that a 93O flex wheeler had superior cuts, striations, taper, and shape than a 99 Coleman. I can only agree with you on one of those counts: shape. In terms of separations Ronnie and Flex were nearly identical. They were also similar is striations with Flex having more in the quads, and Ronnie more on the upper body. The dramatic difference comes in taper. Despite Flex's smaller waist, Ronnie's massive width advantage of the latissimus dorsi gives him a significant taper advantage. Also consider Ronnie's wider clavicles when compared to Flex.
Flex has the same attributes that Ronnie has, only to a greater degree. His joints are smaller than Ronnie's, and his muscles, rounder. Taper is an absolute measure that is independent of muscle size. The muscle size is already factored in. Wheeler in his 1993 form had superior taper than Ronnie both from the front as well as the back, because although his clavicles were narrower, his waist was considerably smaller. From the back, they may have equivalent taper, but Flex kills him from the front and the sides.
The bottom line is, Ronnie and Flex were very similar in many regards with the exception of one : muscularity. You CANNOT use the logic that a 93 Flex is superior to a 99 Coleman, therefore a 93 Yates would defeat a 99 Coleman.
Yes, I can. Flex was better in 1993 than he was in 1999, and Dorian defeated him with straight-firsts scores. Hulkster made the case that Ronnie would defeat him Dorian because he had an advantage in shape, separations and striations. Putting aside the fact that striations are not even judged, the fact is that Coleman is more muscular than the 1993 Flex, yes, but this size advantage would not tip the scales in hs favor because Wheeler had these attributes to a much igher degree. They might be similar in separations, but Wheeler's muscle swell is more dramatic and his taper is superior from most angles. Flex Wheeler with th size of Coleman would be unbeatable, even though Dorian would still defeat him in muscularity and symmetry overrall and would be harder. Dorian would e convincingly more muscular&symmetrical than Coleman from most angles, and while he gets defeated in shape, he only defeats Dorian in taper from th front, and Dorian is harder. It's not like Wheeler, who would convingly defeat Dorian in overrall shape, separations and taper from all angles while being only sligtly less muscular - refering to a 257 lbs Wheeler with the same conditioning that he had at 225 lbs. I have sustained that the judges migh give the win to Ronnie based on that, despite Dorian being slightly more muscular&symmetrical overrall, or they may think that Dorian's slight advantage in hardness is as strong an advantage as Ronnie's slight advantage in shape. Muscularity&symmetry is the bottom line of a contest and Dorian would have a slight edge at that overrall. Ronnie has an advantage in shape overrall and an advantage in taper from the front. That's it. Ronnie's gut was already distended in 1999, so his taper was worse from the sides. You're seriously deluded to think that Ronnie had Flex's advantages in shape and taper from most angles. It's like arguiing that Coleman is a larger version of a 225 lbs Wheeler, which is far from the case. You're basically parroting what Hulkster said, with slightly different words.
This is faulty logic for the fact that any version of Flex could never compare to a peak Ronnie for several reasons: vastly inferior muscularity and inferior conditioning, two aspects of a bodybuilding contest which I believe you will agree are of the most significant importance.
Ronnie has an advantage in muscularity and conditioning in 1999, ut Wheeler at the 1993 Olympia was drier than even the 1998 Ronnie. In any case, this is immaterial, because Dorian is not Wheeler, and Ronnie has no advantage in muscularity over him. In fact, the 1995 Dorian was more muscular and conditioned than the 1999 Ronnie.
By the way, I never said that Wheeler would defeat a 1999 Ronnie, exactly because the Ronnie is more muscular. What I said is that arguing that Ronnie would defeat Dorian in virtue of his advantages in shape and taper is not true, because his advantages in this was not on the same level as Wheeler, and Dorian would still be at least if not more muscular than Ronnie. Hulkster acted like Ronnie 1999 was a largerWheeler, when in reality he had a distended gut, bgger joints and inferior hardness. I have already conceded that Ronnie does ave an advantage in shape and taper from the front, but that it would probably not be enough to defeat a Dorian Yates that defeats him in muscularity&symmetry and also looks harder. The difference is muscularity and symmetry is small in Dorian's favor, but that is at least as relevant if not more than Ronnie's advantage in shape, and Dorian has a quality of muscularity that the judges might prefer over Ronnie's rounder muscles.
My contention is that a battle between a peak Ronnie and a peak Dorian would be a tight and very interesting battle. However, despite the fact that you have insisted throughout this thread that you speak only of truth in your posts (and opinion when you state it as so)
Completely wrong. When I give an opinion, I state it as such. For instance, I said that, in my opinion, the 1995 Dorian would defeat Ronnie because he is more muscular&symmetrical in both the relaxed and muscularity rounds, and that, altough Ronnie hs an advantage in shape and taper from the front, Dorian was harder. As for why Dorian is more muscular&symmetrical than Ronnie, how is that an opinion? I have written close to a thousand paragraps on the subect and I'm pretty sure that Dorian was more muscular&symmetrical than Ronnie from most angles while contracting most muscles. Ronnie in 2003 would defeat Dorian in muscularity from almost any angle except from the back, but is symmetrical liabilities were so severe that I beleive at an unbiased contest Dorian would ave as great a chance of winning as him.
I have read several examples when you have passed off fallacies as truth and then used faulty logic to determine Dorian as superior to Ronnie. I intend to go back and point out these wrongdoings.
By all means, go ahead. Unlike you, I ave been doing this for 700 pages and will do it for another 700 if be the case.
I hope you are prepared to rebutt each of my posts since you called me out on this matter.
Yes, I called you out, because you said that the basic premisses of my posts were wrong, and never mentioned why.
For the most part I have taken this thread very lightly, and I post mostly for fun and to relax, occasionaly posting phrases as you pointed out such as "suckymydick owned camp coleman!" just to stir things up.
That is not keeping things light-hearted; that's being an asshole. This is especially true since I didn't insult you, unlike th others who keep calling you "Pubecito. I didn't even rub it in your face when Pumpster said that you were my lap dog who parroted everything I wrote.
Now though, we will get serious.
Do you want me to copy&paste my previous replies? I mean, I think I have addressed all possible criticisms in the fifteen hundred posts and fifteen thousand paragraphs I've written about this topic at this tread.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
