This might be the dumbest sentence to ever come from you. Bodybuilding is not objective in the manner of measuring muscularity or symmetry.
Yes, it is. Muscularity refers primarily about muscle size. There is a criteria that is followed when evaluating a physique when it comes to muscularity&symmetry, and this is done by observing a muscle's width and thickness, and if all te other muscles grew to the same degree. Even bodybuilders who weight te same can have markedly different levels of muscularity in some areas than others. Things like bodyfat, sub-cutaneous water, bone diameter and density, etc, all affect muscularity. Bodybuilding is visual, but that doesen't mean that the judges don't compare bodybuilders for the same things objectively.
The difference between a 257lbs Yates and a 215lb Wheeler may be black and white, but not so between a 257lbs Yates and 257lbs Coleman. And it doesn't matter if Ronnie did not have as great of symmetry as Flex, he still had an advantage over Dorian in that area.
I have always said that the difference in muscularity between the 1995 Dorian and the 1999 Ronnie was slight. However, I have also that I believe Dorian was more muscular. You want to know exactly why? Dorian is shorter, drier and his muscles look harder. From the back, Dorian's lats are at least as wide as Ronnie's, but Dorian's thickness and harder is obvioulsy greater. Ronnie might have Dorian on quad muscularity, but that is it. The 1999 Ronnie can match Dorian for width and muscularity from the front - except in the front lat spread -, but Dorian murders him from the side and from the back. All things considered, I think Dorian has a sligth advantage in overrall muscularity over Ronnie.
Point for Coleman.
Tere you go, emulating me, your master, once again.
Once again, sucky making claims with no proof. Coleman had a better taper than Flex from all angles. This is irrefutable.
Wy? Just because you say so? Ronnie does not, even by the widest strectch of the imagination, posses a better taper than an all-time best Wheeler from the front and te sides. How can you argue that a man with a distended abdomen is on te same league as Wheeler wen it comes to taper is beyong me. Taper is the differential between clavicle and waist width. Going by that definition, Wheeler destroys Ronnie easily. Wheeler had the best taper from the front ever when standing relaxed.
Yet again, a false statement from the master of long-winded bullshit, suckmymuscle 
See the above pictures. This disproves you flat out. Any utterance from you claiming Flex had a better taper from the front and you will be deemed the biggest imbecile on GetBig.
You look at a pic and make a conclusion, you idiot? I don't care because the fact is that the 1999 Coleman was only equivalent in taper to Wheeler from the back. From the sides, his gut distension ruined his symmetry flat out. From the front, Wheeler had the better taper. The 1998 Wheeler might have had an equivament taper to Wheeler from the sides, but Ronnie was never in Wheeler's league from the front. Wheeler kills Ronnie in taper in: the front and sides in the relaxed round, the side chest, side triceps and the abs-and-thighs. They may be equivalent in the front lat spread, the rear lat spread and the back double biceps. Ronnie 1999 was never in Wheeler's league when it coems to taper.
My argument was not concerning who would win the pose. I was only concerned with proving your assinine claim that Flex had a better taper in all situations except from the rear.
Wrong, your argument truly was that Ronnie would win the pose. Unfortunately for you, it was such a stupid assertion that you're now back-peddling. The abs-and-thighs is Coleman's worse mandatory, and Ronnie arguably had the worse abs-and-thighs of all pros since the 1990's until today. Comparing Wheeler's tiny waist and superb abs with Coleman's thick obliques and no abs/serratus separations is pathetic and then claiming Ronnie had a better taper was hilarious. When I read this contention of yours, I deemed you too stupid to argue with. But I will keep going, just for the entertainment factor of it.
Ronnie had inferior muscle roundness to Flex, but a superior taper from all angles. This is irrefutable as proven by the visual evidence.
I'm sorry to break it to you, sport, but the visual evidence supports my contention that Wheeler had a better taper than Ronnie from all angles except fromthe back. He also has a better taper in the abs-and-thighs, for your embarassment. Are you actually saying that Coleman with his distended gut would defeat the Wheeler that showed up for the 1993 Olympia in taper from most angles? How stupid can you be?
None of your long-winded babbling can change that. So quit wasting our time. The bottom line is that despite the fact that Flex may have not been on Flex's level in terms of aesthetics or symmetry, he still has a considerable advantage of Yates in this critereon.
When did I deny that? Yet, Ronnie is by no means a larger version of Wheeler. He wouldn't posses any of these advantages to even remotely the level that Wheeler had. Secondly, aesthetics is subjective. I can say Dorian's physique is more aesthetic to me, and no one would be able to counter otherwise. Thridly, it is simply not true that Ronnie is more symmetrical than Dorian. Not by a long shot. Dorian's taper in the relaxed round is no worse than Ronnie's except from the front, and he has better taper on most of the mandatories. Furthermore, Dorian is more symmetrical muscular-wise as well from the back, because his glutes are smaller and he has calves. From the sides, Dorian is thicker and more complete, with thikcer pecs, equivalent vastus lateralis, triceps and calves. You have no idea about what you'r etalking aout. And finally, it was not me, but your new master, Hulkster, who made the case that Ronnie would defeat Dorian for having Wheeler's attributes plus size. It was him who said that Ronnie was as aesthetic and symmetrical as Wheeler, only larger, so go complain to you man.
Oh really? Then why did Ronnie defeat Flex in 1999 with straight first in all rounds? Owned.
For the exact same reason that Ronnie won with straight-firsts in 2003, or Dorian in 1997, despite their distended guts: the I.F.B.B udges, especially at the Olynmpia level, are biased in favor of muscularity above everything else - because that's what the fans care about -, and don't care about symmetry. Somehow, just like in 2003, Ronnie managed to win the symmetry round despite having a distended gut, large, unmanly glutes and huge hams that emphasized his sub-bar calves. Following he federation's booklet, the 1999 Ronnie would never, and I mean, ever, defeat Wheeler, despite him not being at his best, when it comes to symmetry. This is utter bias in favor of the champ, in both cases.
Owned.
Not only do you have zero proof for this retarded statement, but I doubt anyone here would agree with you. Ronnie's condition in 98 and 99 was second only to Yates in 95.
My proof is that everyone agrees that Wheeler was pretty much as dry as you can get at the 1993 ASC, and he might have even be as dry as Dorian. It is a retarded statement only because your dumb ass says so. Ronnie Coleman was never known for his conditioning. Ever. Even in 1998, the buzz was that he came drier than ever,
for him. This does not mean that his conditioning was great; it means it was the best they had seen on him. At the next yea's Olympia, his conditioning was obvioulsy down. He might have been just as conditioned as Flex, but that was Wheeler far from his best. Dorian became famous for his conditioning, but not Ronnie. He was never anything special in tha t regard, so your point is immaterial to the discussion.
I've already proven this to be wrong. Quit wasting our time with this garbage.
Giving your opinion and your visual assessment of irrelevant pics is not, by any means, proving me wrong.
Again, faulty logic from SMM. Wheeler's condition has 
matched Coleman's at his best. This voids your entire argument.
I disagree. I don't think Ronnie was ever as dry and conditioned as Wheeler at the 1993 ASC. I think he tested at 0% bodyfat for that contest. While this is impossible, it still shows just how dry and ripped he was. Ronnie wa never anything special as far as condituioning goes, so I don't really care what you say.
Oh, and, did you mean "moot"
Correcting spelling mistakes. How predictible. The hallmark of an opponent who's losing the argument.
Laughable. Completely laughable. It is completely inexplicable how Yates received straight firsts in symmetry when he was clearly more unsymmetrical in the front double biceps compared to his closest rivals.
Te front double biceps is one out of six mandatories, and I had already factored that in. Regardless, the discussion is about Dorian vs Ronnie, and the bottom line is that Dorian is more symmetrical. Ronnie had a distended gut, which ruined is look from the sides in the relaxed round. From the back, he had large unmanly glutes and large hams that dwarfed his calves. Ronnie was by no means more symmetrical than Dorian Yates, and if Ronnie deserved to win the 1999 Olympia with a perfect score in the symmetry round, then so did Dorian. Yates' torn biceps is visible only in the front double biceps and, very minorly, in the front relaxed round and the back double biceps. In this mandatory, it doesen't really matter much, because most of the biceps is concealed anyway by the delts and tris. Ronnie Coleman was never as symmetrical as Dorian Yates, not from a skeletal of muscular perspective, and his torn biceps doesen't change that.
Yates is no more symmetrical than Nasser or Ray here, and certainly not more symmetrical enough to merit straight firsts WITH a torn bicep!
And Ronnie got straight-firsts, in 1999, wit a distended gut, puny forearms, no calves, large glutes that are in conflict wit a masculine appearance, etc. You've got no game, dude. Give up.
Your level of education is comical. I'd love to hear what you do for a living. I need a good laugh today. Oh, and learn to fucking spell. I'm sick of reading posts with the spelling of a 5 year old.
And yet, you've been kissing my ass since you joined the thread. As for the spelling, no: why would I bother using a spell-checker with you? You're so not worth it.
And you are an imbecile. Comprende?
And you are a mental "pobrecito". Comprendes, niņo?
Trust me: being called a down-graded version of Hulkster is a much graver insult than imbecile
. Oh, I'm also willing to be that you got the word "imbecile" from one of my posts. I don't think you even knew this word before you got it from me. Now seriously, I think you should go back to bein my lackey instead of trying to argue wit me, because you're not on my level.
Quit comparing Flex and Ronnie. It doesn't help your faulty argument anyways. As I have already stated, Flex may have had an advantage in symmetry over Ronnie, but Ronnie still carries an advantage over Dorian here.
Yes, but it would not tip the scales in Ronnie's favor, because Ronnie possesed these attributes to a much lower degree than Wheeler, and Dorian would still be more muscular and harder than Ronnie. Dorian would still be more muscular&symmetrical than Ronnie from most angles and while contracting most muscles, so he would likely win. Ronnie has an advantage in taper from most angles except the side relaxed round, the abs-and-thighs and the side mandatories, and also rounder muscles which gives him a more classically aesthetic appeal, but that is it. This advantage in shape is unlikely to give Ronnie the victory considering that Dorian would soundly defeat in two of the three angles of the relaxed round and at most of the mandatories, and despite not being as shapely or separated, Dorian's muscles had a quality that Ronnie's simply lacked.
You act like Ronnie is this large Wheeler, when in relaity the only resemblence between the two is that both have round muscles which give a more aesthetic appeal, but he comparisons end there. Wheeler's joints are much smaller, as well as his hips are narower. His muscle bellies are longer than Ronnie's, which give a dramatic impression of fullness. Ronnie was never a bigger Flex. The clsest he came was at the 2001 ASC, but even ten he was onl;y 242 lbs, a solid 15 lbs lighter than Dorian, and would be defeated in terms of muscularity to an even greater extent, both when standing relaxed as well as in most mandatories,
and Dorian woul stll be harder
and Ronnie's muscle roundness and taper would still not be on Wheeler's level. In fact, it is exactly Ronnie's bigger joints that allowed him to pack on more mass than Wheeler ever did. Unfortunately, his bigger joints and shorter muscle bellies overrall completely disproves any comparison to Wheeler as far as shape, fullness and taper goes.
Combine that with the fact that visually Yates and Coleman are indistinguishable in muscularity, and it's easy to see how the judges could pick Coleman as the winner. In fact, this scenario is more likely than Yates defeating Coleman, albeit possible.
Yeah, I knew you would switch back to Ronnie's side. Troll.
Dorian's back looks at least as wide but definitely thicker than Ronnie's. His lats spread as wide if not wider. His ack douile biceps whos greater thickness with as mucvh separations. From the sides, Dorian's chest is thicker, he has bigger calves. Ronnie is looks as muscular as Dorian when standing relaxed from the front, because even then Dorian kills him in the front lat spread and as-and-thighs.
Now I will patiently wait for more garbage from suckmymuscle with 0 proof.
Like you proof that Ronnie had a better taper than Wheeler in the abs-and-thigs, when in reality everyone knows that Ronnie's abs-and-thigs is one of te best ever. Pubecito, you should go back to parroting my arguments to the Coleman side, instead of trying to challenge your master.
To put suckmymuscle's posts in perspective, imagine a scientific journal with invalid or no empirical data and it not being peer reviewed. It would be considered useless and garbage. The same can be said of anything SMM posts.
Ugh...what a dumb a analogy. And what empirical data have you provided, Pubes? Poorly scaled, out of angle pictures that show Wheeler beneath his best standing next to Coleman? And "peer reviewed"? By what peers? How many professional bodybuilding judges are posting here? What knowledge do you have? Have you ever even attended a bodybuuilding contest? Yeah, didn't think so. Yeah, I'm gonna be "peer reviewed" in my assessment by Pubecito, a college kid who follows bodybuilding in magazines and has never watced a sow in his life.
Yeah, wow, your approval is so important to validate my contentions.
Peace. 
[/b]
Thanks.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
