Dorian Yates kicks Ronnie's ass Hulkster is a punk Bitch and fuck any truce

[NarcissisticDeity]

Most muscular

[NarcissisticDeity]

Now thats detail

[NarcissisticDeity]

900 Pages of Yates Domination !! lol 900 pages of me correcting the ignorant


Dorian shows great detail from the front as well

[Necrosis]

I like when you type because its easy to assess your knowledge and its not much

1) Dorian is NOT missing an arm , he has one bicep shorter than the other and not by much and this does NOT effect ' symmetry ' in the bodybuilding context its apparent you don't know what they mean by symmetry

2) Dorian's quads are NOT smooth as shit , this implies there is subcutaneous water or fat in the muscles and Dorian is as dry as a bodybuilder can be , the ONLY problem with Dorian's quad separation is his rectus femoris , his vastus lateralis is separated as well as the vastus medialis as is the satorius

3) I laughed out loud when I read that his calves are wider than his quads , you're and idiot its that simple and why? because the picture was taken down looking up its the angle of the shot you dolt ! his calves are wider than his quads give me a fucking-break and talk about irony a Coleman fan commenting on lower-leg imbalance that just boogles the mind , you're actually criticizing Dorian's calves , when Ronnie has NONE

4) the two most important muscles in bodybuilding are the back and perhaps arms & quads ? according to whom ? you? Dorian's back is better than Ronnie's period end of sentence , Ronnie knows this , you need to lean it , Dorian has no quads? Hulkster-type nonsense blanket statement , and he has no arms? NO arms? another blanket statement , Ronnie may have much better biceps and bigger triceps however to say Dorian has ' no arms ' again screams " hey look how little I know " Dorian's arms as a whole have much better balance & proportion , Dorian's biceps are okay ,  his triceps smoke Ronnie's in terms of shape and separation and his forearms are better shaped and match the rest of his arms , learn this

5) He's missing a bicep so he's unbalance to the max? he's NOT missing a bicep , one is shorter than the other this doesn't effect balance it would effect right/left exactness otherwise known as symmetry but NOT symmetry used in the bodybuilding context which means balance & proportion , learn what poor balance is

Ronnie calves to small ( and overdeveloped ) for his quads which are oversized thus throwing off his lower-leg balance , factor in grossly overdeveloped glutes that stick out way to far and can be seen from the front , this is NOT great muscle balance & proportion

Ronnie' s bicep & triceps are NOT in proportion with his forearms which lag behind , now factor in his delts being overpowered ( in the back double biceps ) by his biceps/triceps this is NOT great proportion

Look no further than the side chest pose his overdeveloped front & side delts obscure his pecs hurting this shot , this is NOT great balance & proportion


6) you want to know why Dorian beats Ronnie in the most muscular ? better muscular balance , better muscular density , and by far and above better conditioning , especially compared to 2003 you actually had the balls to type this

ronnie wins this pose soundly, by better condtion for one, with better detail, dryness, size , shape, balance,proportion and symmtry.

This is retard posting on a Hulkster-scale by far ! one you typed the same shit over and over and it all means the same , conditioning is dryness and in no way shape of form does Ronnie 2003 compare favorably in terms of extreme muscle dryness and muscle hardness , better detail? not quite not in 03 , and size yes but he's holding water and this would be clearly evident standing next to Dorian , dry Ronnie 2003 out I mean really dry him out in 2003 and he would NOT be 287 pounds so he has more size yes but his it more conditioned size? NO shape? in some parts YES and in some parts NO , balance & proportion are SYMMETRY you're trying to repeat the same thing over and over like its a new entity and its NOT symmetry in the bodybuilding context is muscle balance and muscle proportion and the ironic part is 2003 Ronnie's balance and proportion is at his absolute ALL-TIME worse and the irony is you thing he's balanced

You're knowledge ( like Hulksters , pumpsters , Neoseminoles ) is very limited , you've exposed yourself as ignorant to how professional bodybuilding contests are judged and the criteria they use and there is NOTHING wrong with be ignorant but it goes wrong for you ( and them ) when you type matter-of-factly then it gives me prime opportunities to correct you and thats exactly why this thread is so long , because I keep correcting all you're mistakes 

1) here is the definition of symmetry
1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See Synonyms at proportion.
2. A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3. Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

the constituents of dorians body namely the biceps are not equivalent nor do the resemble bilateral symmetry. thus since one bicep is shorter and smaller then the other this rules on dorian having anything but poor symmetry. you cant nor should win the symmetry round with glaring imbalances. just like ronnie should not have won for having his left side smaller then the other, which he did not. thus you dont know what symmetry is whatsoever.; i suppose the bodybuilding community have come up with a new use for the word symmetry that does not imply mirror images. your ignorance knows no bounds. i have been easy on you, but your stupidity is starting to annoy me. there is also, top bottom symmetry, while this is a poor use of the word, a weak bicep also ruins this criteria if you like.

2)Definition:
Indicates the degree of muscularity brought about by the absence of subcutaneous body fat. Defined muscularity is necessary to fully display the development of the physique. Definition is only of value when it allows massively developed muscles to be displayed.

this is taken from the bodybuilding criteria, in which proportion, symmetry, are also important. smooth implies bodyfat, which also can include water. however, your not using the word definition properly when you refer to dryness etc.. dryness is not even mentioned. his legs arent dry, and they arent low in bodyfat. see paco batista for details on both detailed or defined quads with low bodyfat and dryness you covet. if his legs were dry they wouldn't look so smooth, his back is dry hence the seperation and detail. the lack of seperation, cuts, striations, vascualrity etc indicate he is not dry in the quads nor is extremly low in bodyfat. people can be dry in some areas, and not in others, its not a global thing as you'd have us beleive.

3)i refered to that picture, dont post the pic if you dont like the way it looks. from the pic his quad looks uber narrow and his calves are much to big for his quads. this is called proportion.which  Implies an even balance of muscular development in comparison to each muscle group. Theoretically, a "strong body part" can be just as detrimental as a "weak body part". Bodybuilders must strive for equal development between all muscle groups. dorians great calves are to strong for his shit quads hence the inbalance and poor proportion.

4) this is a blanket statement "Dorian's arms as a whole have much better balance & proportion , Dorian's biceps are okay ,  his triceps smoke Ronnie's in terms of shape and separation and his forearms are better shaped and match the rest of his arms , learn this" what do you mean by proportion.are you using balance as a symmetry statement? if so refer to above to learn what the word symmetry means. if your using it for another word for proportion you have repeated yourself in only three words and that is the sign of a retard. both his biceps and triceps are below average and if there was a side forearm i would comment on the forearm argument. but since it is only flexed in ancillary movements for other poses its hard to tell. which parts of the forearm are you talking about? it isnt a group in so far as the arm is a group.

5)agian im not sure what balance is or in what context your using it for, is it something different then proportion, because your paragraph implies they are one in the same. proportion goes for muscle groups as well as globally. his bicep being shorter and smaller, then his tricep subsequently ruins his proportion those muscle groups not to mention his forarms. his glutes are not overdeveloped and are in proportion with his massive quads and hams, it would not be in proportion if his quads werent massive nor his quads but they are hence he should and correctly does have larger glutes. small glutes would ruin proportion just as much, see above for details.

6) you cant be serious, ronnie is not defined(a criteria) and has better symmetry(see above) with more mass in 03, he would dwarf dorian. if he is more defined(better condition) and appears dryer, less water would equal more striations as muscle fibers are more easily seen, hence the more striated coleman is dryer based on this logic which is correct. ronnies chest, delts, and arm complex are in great propotion. he is not holding water, hence the more striated less obscured muscular detail that is not impeded by water blurring defintion(detail is the main factor based on criteria).

so far your argument is non-exsistent symmetry, and balance(proportion?, or are you refering to bottom top symmetry hence proportion? clarify, the criteria has a few differences in which balance is used twice), density(ronnie obviously had more mass(not even arguable) and some factor called dryness(which is a correlate of defintion which in turn is a direct reference to detail.

ROUND 3 SIZE AND SHAPE

A) The size of the muscles.We are talking about the size of the muscular development in relation to the size of the bones or skeletal structure.

B) The shape of the muscles.We are talking about the shapeliness of the muscles which should be pleasing to the eye.

C) The muscles should be developed from it's belly (center) out to the extremities of that muscle.


with rounder fuller muscle bellies coleman would win this round, dorian has a less pleasing physique and less size comapared to 03 ronnie.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEPARATION AND DEFINITION

A) Separation would constitute the clear border line between adjoining muscles known as "Tie-Ins".

B) A distinct visible separation between muscles of what is commonly known as "CUTS".

C) Definition would refer to the distinct muscular detail within each muscle which would appear

D) The appearance of muscular development while displaying the quality of separation of adjoining muscle groups


dont see dryness here, i see what me, hulkster and neo have been saying but not your phantom graniness or dryness. dryness is a direct correlation to definition which is cuts and detail. dorian for instance has poor cuts in his quads(little detail) and little seperation.


you have been owned.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Very true, they cry like babies when you compare a contest pic of Coleman with their "famous" black & white pics. But aren't the black & white pics his best pics?

Yes those black & whites are his best , however , he's still not in the best possible situation to effectively show that package off to its maximum potential , Peter McGough has said that 2001 ASC Ronnie was the best physique he's ever seen onstage ........................ ............and 1993 Dorian at 269 pounds off stage 

[Iceman1981]

I like when you type because its easy to assess your knowledge and its not much

1) Dorian is NOT missing an arm , he has one bicep shorter than the other and not by much and this does NOT effect ' symmetry ' in the bodybuilding context its apparent you don't know what they mean by symmetry

2) Dorian's quads are NOT smooth as shit , this implies there is subcutaneous water or fat in the muscles and Dorian is as dry as a bodybuilder can be , the ONLY problem with Dorian's quad separation is his rectus femoris , his vastus lateralis is separated as well as the vastus medialis as is the satorius

3) I laughed out loud when I read that his calves are wider than his quads , you're and idiot its that simple and why? because the picture was taken down looking up its the angle of the shot you dolt ! his calves are wider than his quads give me a fucking-break and talk about irony a Coleman fan commenting on lower-leg imbalance that just boogles the mind , you're actually criticizing Dorian's calves , when Ronnie has NONE

4) the two most important muscles in bodybuilding are the back and perhaps arms & quads ? according to whom ? you? Dorian's back is better than Ronnie's period end of sentence , Ronnie knows this , you need to lean it , Dorian has no quads? Hulkster-type nonsense blanket statement , and he has no arms? NO arms? another blanket statement , Ronnie may have much better biceps and bigger triceps however to say Dorian has ' no arms ' again screams " hey look how little I know " Dorian's arms as a whole have much better balance & proportion , Dorian's biceps are okay ,  his triceps smoke Ronnie's in terms of shape and separation and his forearms are better shaped and match the rest of his arms , learn this

5) He's missing a bicep so he's unbalance to the max? he's NOT missing a bicep , one is shorter than the other this doesn't effect balance it would effect right/left exactness otherwise known as symmetry but NOT symmetry used in the bodybuilding context which means balance & proportion , learn what poor balance is

Ronnie calves to small ( and overdeveloped ) for his quads which are oversized thus throwing off his lower-leg balance , factor in grossly overdeveloped glutes that stick out way to far and can be seen from the front , this is NOT great muscle balance & proportion

Ronnie' s bicep & triceps are NOT in proportion with his forearms which lag behind , now factor in his delts being overpowered ( in the back double biceps ) by his biceps/triceps this is NOT great proportion

Look no further than the side chest pose his overdeveloped front & side delts obscure his pecs hurting this shot , this is NOT great balance & proportion


6) you want to know why Dorian beats Ronnie in the most muscular ? better muscular balance , better muscular density , and by far and above better conditioning , especially compared to 2003 you actually had the balls to type this

ronnie wins this pose soundly, by better condtion for one, with better detail, dryness, size , shape, balance,proportion and symmtry.

This is retard posting on a Hulkster-scale by far ! one you typed the same shit over and over and it all means the same , conditioning is dryness and in no way shape of form does Ronnie 2003 compare favorably in terms of extreme muscle dryness and muscle hardness , better detail? not quite not in 03 , and size yes but he's holding water and this would be clearly evident standing next to Dorian , dry Ronnie 2003 out I mean really dry him out in 2003 and he would NOT be 287 pounds so he has more size yes but his it more conditioned size? NO shape? in some parts YES and in some parts NO , balance & proportion are SYMMETRY you're trying to repeat the same thing over and over like its a new entity and its NOT symmetry in the bodybuilding context is muscle balance and muscle proportion and the ironic part is 2003 Ronnie's balance and proportion is at his absolute ALL-TIME worse and the irony is you thing he's balanced

You're knowledge ( like Hulksters , pumpsters , Neoseminoles ) is very limited , you've exposed yourself as ignorant to how professional bodybuilding contests are judged and the criteria they use and there is NOTHING wrong with be ignorant but it goes wrong for you ( and them ) when you type matter-of-factly then it gives me prime opportunities to correct you and thats exactly why this thread is so long , because I keep correcting all you're mistakes 

Like you always say: MELTDOWN

[Necrosis]

Yes those black & whites are his best , however , he's still not in the best possible situation to effectively show that package off to its maximum potential , Peter McGough has said that 2001 ASC Ronnie was the best physique he's ever seen onstage ........................ ............and 1993 Dorian at 269 pounds off stage 

dude, stop with the whining, the best possible situation, what in better condition and shape, or size or what? this the equvilent to saying what if dorian had bigger arms, more seperated quads and so on.

your arguments are straw men that you set up, such as dryness and then attack and dismantle. while it makes for an interesting ploy to a moron the intelligent see your tactic and your utter defeat in this thread.

[Iceman1981]

I swear these 2 must have been seperated at birth:

[Shockwave]

I swear these 2 must have been seperated at birth:

Pumpster?
That you?

[Necrosis]

haha, cant beleive he won the olympia looking like that, wow look at that amazing proportion. claves too big for quads. lower body to small for torso. arms and delts to small for torso. back much to large for entire body. yup amazing "balance". dry as a bone to with no detail, cuts nor seperation betwen groups.

[Iceman1981]

ND is having a meltdown. Let him keep posting these pics of Dorian until he tires out.

That's exactly what he does when he is melting down. He post pics of yates like it's his boyfriend or something.

[NeoSeminole]

1) here is the definition of symmetry
1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See Synonyms at proportion.
2. A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3. Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

the constituents of dorians body namely the biceps are not equivalent nor do the resemble bilateral symmetry. thus since one bicep is shorter and smaller then the other this rules on dorian having anything but poor symmetry. you cant nor should win the symmetry round with glaring imbalances. just like ronnie should not have won for having his left side smaller then the other, which he did not. thus you dont know what symmetry is whatsoever.; i suppose the bodybuilding community have come up with a new use for the word symmetry that does not imply mirror images. your ignorance knows no bounds. i have been easy on you, but your stupidity is starting to annoy me. there is also, top bottom symmetry, while this is a poor use of the word, a weak bicep also ruins this criteria if you like.

2)Definition:
Indicates the degree of muscularity brought about by the absence of subcutaneous body fat. Defined muscularity is necessary to fully display the development of the physique. Definition is only of value when it allows massively developed muscles to be displayed.

this is taken from the bodybuilding criteria, in which proportion, symmetry, are also important. smooth implies bodyfat, which also can include water. however, your not using the word definition properly when you refer to dryness etc.. dryness is not even mentioned. his legs arent dry, and they arent low in bodyfat. see paco batista for details on both detailed or defined quads with low bodyfat and dryness you covet. if his legs were dry they wouldn't look so smooth, his back is dry hence the seperation and detail. the lack of seperation, cuts, striations, vascualrity etc indicate he is not dry in the quads nor is extremly low in bodyfat. people can be dry in some areas, and not in others, its not a global thing as you'd have us beleive.

3)i refered to that picture, dont post the pic if you dont like the way it looks. from the pic his quad looks uber narrow and his calves are much to big for his quads. this is called proportion.which  Implies an even balance of muscular development in comparison to each muscle group. Theoretically, a "strong body part" can be just as detrimental as a "weak body part". Bodybuilders must strive for equal development between all muscle groups. dorians great calves are to strong for his shit quads hence the inbalance and poor proportion.

4) this is a blanket statement "Dorian's arms as a whole have much better balance & proportion , Dorian's biceps are okay ,  his triceps smoke Ronnie's in terms of shape and separation and his forearms are better shaped and match the rest of his arms , learn this" what do you mean by proportion.are you using balance as a symmetry statement? if so refer to above to learn what the word symmetry means. if your using it for another word for proportion you have repeated yourself in only three words and that is the sign of a retard. both his biceps and triceps are below average and if there was a side forearm i would comment on the forearm argument. but since it is only flexed in ancillary movements for other poses its hard to tell. which parts of the forearm are you talking about? it isnt a group in so far as the arm is a group.

5)agian im not sure what balance is or in what context your using it for, is it something different then proportion, because your paragraph implies they are one in the same. proportion goes for muscle groups as well as globally. his bicep being shorter and smaller, then his tricep subsequently ruins his proportion those muscle groups not to mention his forarms. his glutes are not overdeveloped and are in proportion with his massive quads and hams, it would not be in proportion if his quads werent massive nor his quads but they are hence he should and correctly does have larger glutes. small glutes would ruin proportion just as much, see above for details.

6) you cant be serious, ronnie is not defined(a criteria) and has better symmetry(see above) with more mass in 03, he would dwarf dorian. if he is more defined(better condition) and appears dryer, less water would equal more striations as muscle fibers are more easily seen, hence the more striated coleman is dryer based on this logic which is correct. ronnies chest, delts, and arm complex are in great propotion. he is not holding water, hence the more striated less obscured muscular detail that is not impeded by water blurring defintion(detail is the main factor based on criteria).

so far your argument is non-exsistent symmetry, and balance(proportion?, or are you refering to bottom top symmetry hence proportion? clarify, the criteria has a few differences in which balance is used twice), density(ronnie obviously had more mass(not even arguable) and some factor called dryness(which is a correlate of defintion which in turn is a direct reference to detail.

ROUND 3 SIZE AND SHAPE

A) The size of the muscles.We are talking about the size of the muscular development in relation to the size of the bones or skeletal structure.

B) The shape of the muscles.We are talking about the shapeliness of the muscles which should be pleasing to the eye.

C) The muscles should be developed from it's belly (center) out to the extremities of that muscle.


with rounder fuller muscle bellies coleman would win this round, dorian has a less pleasing physique and less size comapared to 03 ronnie.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEPARATION AND DEFINITION

A) Separation would constitute the clear border line between adjoining muscles known as "Tie-Ins".

B) A distinct visible separation between muscles of what is commonly known as "CUTS".

C) Definition would refer to the distinct muscular detail within each muscle which would appear

D) The appearance of muscular development while displaying the quality of separation of adjoining muscle groups


dont see dryness here, i see what me, hulkster and neo have been saying but not your phantom graniness or dryness. dryness is a direct correlation to definition which is cuts and detail. dorian for instance has poor cuts in his quads(little detail) and little seperation.


you have been owned.

f*cking brilliant post bro. Good job!

[ribonucleic]

That's exactly what he does when he is melting down. He post pics of yates like it's his boyfriend or something.

"Ah... Ah!...MASS ON THE BACK!" 

[NarcissisticDeity]

1) here is the definition of symmetry
1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See Synonyms at proportion.
2. A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3. Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

the constituents of dorians body namely the biceps are not equivalent nor do the resemble bilateral symmetry. thus since one bicep is shorter and smaller then the other this rules on dorian having anything but poor symmetry. you cant nor should win the symmetry round with glaring imbalances. just like ronnie should not have won for having his left side smaller then the other, which he did not. thus you dont know what symmetry is whatsoever.; i suppose the bodybuilding community have come up with a new use for the word symmetry that does not imply mirror images. your ignorance knows no bounds. i have been easy on you, but your stupidity is starting to annoy me. there is also, top bottom symmetry, while this is a poor use of the word, a weak bicep also ruins this criteria if you like.

2)Definition:
Indicates the degree of muscularity brought about by the absence of subcutaneous body fat. Defined muscularity is necessary to fully display the development of the physique. Definition is only of value when it allows massively developed muscles to be displayed.

this is taken from the bodybuilding criteria, in which proportion, symmetry, are also important. smooth implies bodyfat, which also can include water. however, your not using the word definition properly when you refer to dryness etc.. dryness is not even mentioned. his legs arent dry, and they arent low in bodyfat. see paco batista for details on both detailed or defined quads with low bodyfat and dryness you covet. if his legs were dry they wouldn't look so smooth, his back is dry hence the seperation and detail. the lack of seperation, cuts, striations, vascualrity etc indicate he is not dry in the quads nor is extremly low in bodyfat. people can be dry in some areas, and not in others, its not a global thing as you'd have us beleive.

3)i refered to that picture, dont post the pic if you dont like the way it looks. from the pic his quad looks uber narrow and his calves are much to big for his quads. this is called proportion.which  Implies an even balance of muscular development in comparison to each muscle group. Theoretically, a "strong body part" can be just as detrimental as a "weak body part". Bodybuilders must strive for equal development between all muscle groups. dorians great calves are to strong for his shit quads hence the inbalance and poor proportion.

4) this is a blanket statement "Dorian's arms as a whole have much better balance & proportion , Dorian's biceps are okay ,  his triceps smoke Ronnie's in terms of shape and separation and his forearms are better shaped and match the rest of his arms , learn this" what do you mean by proportion.are you using balance as a symmetry statement? if so refer to above to learn what the word symmetry means. if your using it for another word for proportion you have repeated yourself in only three words and that is the sign of a retard. both his biceps and triceps are below average and if there was a side forearm i would comment on the forearm argument. but since it is only flexed in ancillary movements for other poses its hard to tell. which parts of the forearm are you talking about? it isnt a group in so far as the arm is a group.

5)agian im not sure what balance is or in what context your using it for, is it something different then proportion, because your paragraph implies they are one in the same. proportion goes for muscle groups as well as globally. his bicep being shorter and smaller, then his tricep subsequently ruins his proportion those muscle groups not to mention his forarms. his glutes are not overdeveloped and are in proportion with his massive quads and hams, it would not be in proportion if his quads werent massive nor his quads but they are hence he should and correctly does have larger glutes. small glutes would ruin proportion just as much, see above for details.

6) you cant be serious, ronnie is not defined(a criteria) and has better symmetry(see above) with more mass in 03, he would dwarf dorian. if he is more defined(better condition) and appears dryer, less water would equal more striations as muscle fibers are more easily seen, hence the more striated coleman is dryer based on this logic which is correct. ronnies chest, delts, and arm complex are in great propotion. he is not holding water, hence the more striated less obscured muscular detail that is not impeded by water blurring defintion(detail is the main factor based on criteria).

so far your argument is non-exsistent symmetry, and balance(proportion?, or are you refering to bottom top symmetry hence proportion? clarify, the criteria has a few differences in which balance is used twice), density(ronnie obviously had more mass(not even arguable) and some factor called dryness(which is a correlate of defintion which in turn is a direct reference to detail.

ROUND 3 SIZE AND SHAPE

A) The size of the muscles.We are talking about the size of the muscular development in relation to the size of the bones or skeletal structure.

B) The shape of the muscles.We are talking about the shapeliness of the muscles which should be pleasing to the eye.

C) The muscles should be developed from it's belly (center) out to the extremities of that muscle.


with rounder fuller muscle bellies coleman would win this round, dorian has a less pleasing physique and less size comapared to 03 ronnie.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEPARATION AND DEFINITION

A) Separation would constitute the clear border line between adjoining muscles known as "Tie-Ins".

B) A distinct visible separation between muscles of what is commonly known as "CUTS".

C) Definition would refer to the distinct muscular detail within each muscle which would appear

D) The appearance of muscular development while displaying the quality of separation of adjoining muscle groups


dont see dryness here, i see what me, hulkster and neo have been saying but not your phantom graniness or dryness. dryness is a direct correlation to definition which is cuts and detail. dorian for instance has poor cuts in his quads(little detail) and little seperation.


you have been owned.

1) here is the definition of symmetry
1. Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis. See Synonyms at proportion.
2. A relationship of characteristic correspondence, equivalence, or identity among constituents of an entity or between different entities: the narrative symmetry of the novel.
3. Beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement.

the constituents of dorians body namely the biceps are not equivalent nor do the resemble bilateral symmetry. thus since one bicep is shorter and smaller then the other this rules on dorian having anything but poor symmetry. you cant nor should win the symmetry round with glaring imbalances. just like ronnie should not have won for having his left side smaller then the other, which he did not. thus you dont know what symmetry is whatsoever.; i suppose the bodybuilding community have come up with a new use for the word symmetry that does not imply mirror images. your ignorance knows no bounds. i have been easy on you, but your stupidity is starting to annoy me. there is also, top bottom symmetry, while this is a poor use of the word, a weak bicep also ruins this criteria if you like.

One NOTHING in natural is symmetrical , nothing at all , hate to break it to you kid so when you say Dorian's biceps aren't symmetrical it means ZERO and why? because NO ONES arms are perfectly symmetrical , do you think Ronnie Coleman's biceps left & right measure 22' 5'16ths each ? NO what does that mean? they're UNSYMMETRICAL , symmetry in the bodybuilding context does NOT refer to left/right exactness thats a misnoma , ever see Ronnie 2002 Mr Olympia? you think his biceps were symmetrical? LMFAO , you think his calves are symmetrical? NO go away and come back when you learn what symmetry means in the context of bodybuilding shows , it means muscle balance & muscle proportion

Lets entertain for ONE MOMENT that Dorian's shorter bicep ruins his  balance , thats ONE muscle compared to Ronnie's two calves that are NOT in proportion with his quads and his grossly overdeveloped glutes all of these imperfections throw off his LOWER BALANCE , now lets add the fact that Ronnie's forearms and NOT in proportion with his biceps & triceps , this throwing off his ARM balance , now factor in that his biceps & triceps dwarf his deltoids in some poses , clearly evident in the back double bicep shot , now how about his overdeveloped front & side deltoids that destroy is pecs in the side chest shot , these are are " SYMMETRICAL " flaws these are all balance & proportion flaws that hurt his over all poses

Ever wonder why despite his advantages in having a small waist & hips Ronnie doesn't beat Dorian in the front latspread? or the ab-thigh ? or the side triceps & side chest shot , Ronnie's mandatories suffer for his balance issues period , you think ( entertaining your nonsense ) that having one bicep shorter than the other is worse than the above mentioned? LMFAO you got another think coming , now lets elaborate on this further lets say for arguments sake Dorian's bicep did hurt his balance and Ronnie calves hurt his balance , what would be worse?

Well I know it wouldn't be a shorter bicep , because this could ONLY hurt him in one pose and thats the front double biceps pose , and Ronnie's weak calves hurt EVERY SINGLE ONE of his mandatory poses , you cannot hide weak calves , weak biceps you can weak calves you're shit out of luck and lets see what a I.F.B.B. judge had to say about Dorian's bicep



Added Rockell: Dorian had a SLIGHT injury but as far as I'm concerned , it had NO bearing whatsoever. He was just so dense it made no overall difference

Wow you're fucked now , straight from the mouth of the Chair of the I.F.B.B. Mens Professional Judging Committee , his shorter bicep which the judges viewed as a ' SLIGHT INJURY made no overall difference ' 

2)Definition:
Indicates the degree of muscularity brought about by the absence of subcutaneous body fat. Defined muscularity is necessary to fully display the development of the physique. Definition is only of value when it allows massively developed muscles to be displayed.

this is taken from the bodybuilding criteria, in which proportion, symmetry, are also important. smooth implies bodyfat, which also can include water. however, your not using the word definition properly when you refer to dryness etc.. dryness is not even mentioned. his legs arent dry, and they arent low in bodyfat. see paco batista for details on both detailed or defined quads with low bodyfat and dryness you covet. if his legs were dry they wouldn't look so smooth, his back is dry hence the seperation and detail. the lack of seperation, cuts, striations, vascualrity etc indicate he is not dry in the quads nor is extremly low in bodyfat. people can be dry in some areas, and not in others, its not a global thing as you'd have us beleive.

This is an accurate term for dryness HOWEVER your assessment that his legs aren't dry is just garbage period . I've read every single contest report from all of Dorian's contests in the I.F.B.B. and never once did the associate him with holding water or fat , period , I read every Coleman Mr Olympia contest report and with the exception of 1998 they comment on his conditioning being off in terms of carrying excess water or fat I can post the quotes to back this up , in fact I've posted some of them already , so your assessment that Yates' quads were carrying fat is ignorant , the ONLY problem Dorian had with his quads were the separation of his rectus femoris which wasn't that great even post 1994

And what is 1994 ? Dorian along with tearing his bicep , tore his rotator cuff and his QUADRICEP muscle , so while his quads may appear ' smooth ' they're NOT its torn , either way he's NOT holding any subcutaneous fat or water , Dorian even at his worse showings 1994/1997 was in bodybuilding terms dry & hard , please do some research before you post this nonsense , now on to the other claims

Dorian's quads are separated you can clearly see the separation of the vatus medialis & the vatus lateralis his quads even pre-tear had mediocre separation of the rectus femoris , however two areas that he has clearly better separation than Ronnie is in the satorius and the tensor fasciae latae however I'm sure that means nothing to you because you think the quads are just tear-drops and sweep

Cuts is just another term for separation another synonym

Vascularity I can post pics of Dorian's legs with veins this doesn't mean one is superior conditioned , like striations , vascularity is GENETIC hence why some guys have more veins than others and why Munzer and Hamdullah Aykutlu had more than anyone else and Munzer like Ronnie has them despite not being hard and day as they could be

Recap - Dorian was dry & hard all over and always was , any nonsense to the contrary will NOT be entertained just corrected

3)i refered to that picture, dont post the pic if you dont like the way it looks. from the pic his quad looks uber narrow and his calves are much to big for his quads. this is called proportion.which  Implies an even balance of muscular development in comparison to each muscle group. Theoretically, a "strong body part" can be just as detrimental as a "weak body part". Bodybuilders must strive for equal development between all muscle groups. dorians great calves are to strong for his shit quads hence the inbalance and poor proportion.

This isn't even worth responding to in all honesty , it's a retard assessment , you're to used to looking at Ronnie's piss-poor calves and think thats HOW they're supposed to be and its NOT and the irony of you saying his calves are to big for his quads it boogles the mind , it may appear they are in that picture however if you did the bare minimum of research and looked at other pictures you would have NEVER typed that nonsense , hell all you had to do is look at a few pics on this thread and low & behold you would have saved yourself from looking like a complete moron , Dorian's calves are in complete proportion in relation to his quads UNLIKE Coleman who has two sticks for calves and to top it off gigantic quads , I'm still shaking my head at this one lol

And you bring up a point I've made hundreds of times , a strong bodypart can be a weakness if its main purpose is to showcase a weaker one , you know like Ronnies calves compared to his quads , Ronnie's glutes , Ronnie's insanely massive biceps & triceps and his sticks for forearms lol kid heed this information and then apply it and then come to your fucking senses Dorian's legs are unbalanced and Ronnie's aren't

4) this is a blanket statement "Dorian's arms as a whole have much better balance & proportion , Dorian's biceps are okay ,  his triceps smoke Ronnie's in terms of shape and separation and his forearms are better shaped and match the rest of his arms , learn this" what do you mean by proportion.are you using balance as a symmetry statement? if so refer to above to learn what the word symmetry means. if your using it for another word for proportion you have repeated yourself in only three words and that is the sign of a retard. both his biceps and triceps are below average and if there was a side forearm i would comment on the forearm argument. but since it is only flexed in ancillary movements for other poses its hard to tell. which parts of the forearm are you talking about? it isnt a group in so far as the arm is a group.

Not a blanket statement , use the criteria of balance & proportion NOT ' symmetry ' as in left/right exactness thats garbage , Dorian's biceps are okay nothing special , however his triceps are awesome and his forearms are as well , his arms as a whole have better proportion , you know when all the muscles of the arms compliment each other as a whole without one getting dominated by the others , like Ronnie's biceps & triceps that are way out of proportion in relation to his forearms thus throwing off his whole ARM BALANCE

5)agian im not sure what balance is or in what context your using it for, is it something different then proportion, because your paragraph implies they are one in the same. proportion goes for muscle groups as well as globally. his bicep being shorter and smaller, then his tricep subsequently ruins his proportion those muscle groups not to mention his forarms. his glutes are not overdeveloped and are in proportion with his massive quads and hams, it would not be in proportion if his quads werent massive nor his quads but they are hence he should and correctly does have larger glutes. small glutes would ruin proportion just as much, see above for details.

Yes there is balance & proportion , proportion is how one muscle relates to the other in terms of size to create a great overall balance , You know Kris Dim has poor lower balance as did Tom Platz with upper balance overall , Ronnie's calves are NOT in proportion with his quads throwing off his lower-leg balance , Ronnie's forearms are NOT in proportion with his biceps/triceps throwing off his arm balance and his overall balance , and Ronnie's glutes are overdeveloped and why? because you can fucking-see them in front poses thats NOT proportionate and his hams are NOT in proportion in relation to his quads , check out his side poses and see how much of the shot is dominated by quads and how little in relation is hams , just like Ronnie's back double biceps shot his delts are dwarfed by his biceps/triceps not good proportion , his front & side delts are so overdeveloped they mess up his side chest shot and obscure his pecs , this is NOT great proportion and this effects his overall balance , see the shilouette I posted at the bottom

6) you cant be serious, ronnie is not defined(a criteria) and has better symmetry(see above) with more mass in 03, he would dwarf dorian. if he is more defined(better condition) and appears dryer, less water would equal more striations as muscle fibers are more easily seen, hence the more striated coleman is dryer based on this logic which is correct. ronnies chest, delts, and arm complex are in great propotion. he is not holding water, hence the more striated less obscured muscular detail that is not impeded by water blurring defintion(detail is the main factor based on criteria).

so far your argument is non-exsistent symmetry, and balance(proportion?, or are you refering to bottom top symmetry hence proportion? clarify, the criteria has a few differences in which balance is used twice), density(ronnie obviously had more mass(not even arguable) and some factor called dryness(which is a correlate of defintion which in turn is a direct reference to detail.

You're high and stupid if you think Ronnie 2003 is better conditioned than Dorian at his best its empty , take NOTE Ronnie Coleman's high-water mark is the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic and why? because he was at his all-time best in terms of a total package , size , density , and conditioning , ROCK HARD and BONE DRY ! Ronnie never looked like this again in his career , you compare Ronnie 2001 V 2003 and its night & day its NO CONTEST for you to argue otherwise proves you know very little and are delusional or both either way this topic is dead

ROUND 3 SIZE AND SHAPE

A) The size of the muscles.We are talking about the size of the muscular development in relation to the size of the bones or skeletal structure.

B) The shape of the muscles.We are talking about the shapeliness of the muscles which should be pleasing to the eye.

C) The muscles should be developed from it's belly (center) out to the extremities of that muscle.


with rounder fuller muscle bellies coleman would win this round, dorian has a less pleasing physique and less size comapared to 03 ronnie.

With Rounder fuller meaning carrying more water and fat its empty whats the sense of being rounder & fuller if its at the expense of DRIER & HARDER? and stop trying to sell Ronnie as being aesthetic because he's NOT and never has been , he's NOT Flex Wheeler or Bob Paris both shame Coleman in terms of aesthetics and while Ronnie may be more ' aesthetic ' than Dorian its an empty edge because Dorian crushed Flex in 1993 and it wasn't because he's was more aesthetic either , and again the irony of you picking Ronnie 2003 as having a physique thats ' pleasing ' that showing his is worse by far , worse in terms of shape , the man looked 10 months pregnant and his balance is at his all-times worse as is his conditioning , 2001 Arnold Classic is as good as it good for Coleman NOT 2003

SEPARATION AND DEFINITION

A) Separation would constitute the clear border line between adjoining muscles known as "Tie-Ins".

B) A distinct visible separation between muscles of what is commonly known as "CUTS".

C) Definition would refer to the distinct muscular detail within each muscle which would appear

D) The appearance of muscular development while displaying the quality of separation of adjoining muscle groups


dont see dryness here, i see what me, hulkster and neo have been saying but not your phantom graniness or dryness. dryness is a direct correlation to definition which is cuts and detail. dorian for instance has poor cuts in his quads(little detail) and little seperation.


you have been owned

Again you pick and choose what muscles on Ronnie YOU THINK are better separated and ignore the ones on Dorian , Ronnie does have better pec-delt tie-ins than Dorian I've always admitted this , who cares? Dorian has better separation in the following muscles

retus abdominals
intercostals
serratus anterior
tensor fasciae latae
satorius
erector spinae
latissumus dorsi
teres major
terse minor
trapezius
infraspinatus
gastrocnemius outer head
gastrocnemius inner head
soleus
tibialis anterior
triceps lateral head

Now these are just the muscle Dorian clearly shows better separation in and NOT muscles he ties in with Ronnie for separation , like your other assessments it was premature and not accurate

to recap your assessment is junk , 2003 Ronnie is a joke especially compared to 2001 and compared , Dorian conditioning was in all probability was never matched by Ronnie with the exception of 2001 and 1998 , 2003 isn't even in the ball park , everyone one of your lame points was met and addressed and shot down you had the balls to claimed you ' owned ' me but in reality you owned yourself lol especially with the 2003 Ronnie is better conditioned than Dorian nonsense lol like all the other ignorant Nutt-Huggers who came before you nice try , but thanks for playing game over.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Like you always say: MELTDOWN

Your silence speaks volumes 

[delta9mda]

haha, cant beleive he won the olympia looking like that, wow look at that amazing proportion. claves too big for quads. lower body to small for torso. arms and delts to small for torso. back much to large for entire body. yup amazing "balance". dry as a bone to with no detail, cuts nor seperation betwen groups.

watch the tape you will change your mind

[RocketSwitch625]

Where was Ronnie Coleman when this was going on? At the bottom of the pile where he belonged. LOL



Full size link:

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k181/gravityx2002/1993MrOlympia.jpg

[NarcissisticDeity]

dude, stop with the whining, the best possible situation, what in better condition and shape, or size or what? this the equvilent to saying what if dorian had bigger arms, more seperated quads and so on.

your arguments are straw men that you set up, such as dryness and then attack and dismantle. while it makes for an interesting ploy to a moron the intelligent see your tactic and your utter defeat in this thread.

Whining? he's in a gym untanned , no oil and no complementary lighting and thats the best possible situation to showcase his best package?  thats your idea of whining? your logic is simple like how thats the ' equvilent ' of saying if Dorian has bigger arms its NOT the equvilent its not even close I'm not asking for anything to due with his physique just how its presented , Dorian has everything in those black & white pictures he needs nothing from a physical standpoint

and dryness & hardness is a strawmen? much to learn kid  its called conditioning something that Ronnie lacks especially in 2003 and ONLY a moron would believe that 2003 Coleman is better conditioned than Dorian at his best , that nonsense won't be entertained just corrected 

[NarcissisticDeity]

Where was Ronnie Coleman when this was going on? At the bottom of the pile where he belonged. LOL



Full size link:

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k181/gravityx2002/1993MrOlympia.jpg

Great shots , exactly why Dorian walked all over everyone in 1993 and why he was so dominating they didn't need to call him out in the muscularity round

[Necrosis]

ND what is dryness and hardness, it is not a criteria. it is obviously a direct correlate to a criteria. which one is it. symmetry, definition, performance or stage presence, or size and shape.

[suckmymuscle]

nice try fagg*t, here is my exact quote.

please show me where I said that 01 ASC Ronnie did in fact carry 2 lbs of more lean mass than 99 Ronnie. This is why nobody on getbig takes you seriously anymore. Your posts are full of shit that is easy to refute.

  What a lying loser...and a sore one at that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  

[suckmymuscle]

  Dorian Yates at 260 lbs looks better than Coleman at 260 or 290 lbs. I just wanted to chip in page 900!

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Necrosis]

there is a round called symmetry ND read about it. how can symmetry of two non duplicate bodyparts be measured. i never said someone was perfect, the idea is close to perfection as possible, dorians totally unequal biceps throws off right to left symmetry. a smaller bicep also equals a smaller arm when compared to the other.

ive already showed why your statement about glutes is ignorant i wont repeat myself. dorians calves are way to big for his quads but you choose to ignore this. no bodybuilder should win with glaring tears and symmetrical issues.

dryness again is a correlate of detail the main criteria called definition. read about that too. so more cuts, better seperation,more striations is the criteria not hardness, its the same as quad sweep, whilst not a criteria on its on it adds to the size and shape round. ronnie wins on size, bigger muscles, he had larger arms, back,quads,delts,and bodyweight. he also wins on shape, with rounder fuller muscle bellies and an x-frame which is like dryness to the shape round.

provide proof of your multiple claims of better seperation between groups please if you will. for one his quads have little seperation between the four muscles as does his biceps and triceps. his delt tie-ins are poor and his delt is one blob of muscle. he has great seperation in his back.

agian provide proof of your claims.

[NarcissisticDeity]

ND what is dryness and hardness, it is not a criteria. it is obviously a direct correlate to a criteria. which one is it. symmetry, definition, performance or stage presence, or size and shape.

its called ' definition ' dryness of water & fat from the muscles , muscle hardness & dryness and the hallmarks of outstanding conditioning.

[suckmymuscle]

One NOTHING in natural is symmetrical , nothing at all , hate to break it to you kid so when you say Dorian's biceps aren't symmetrical it means ZERO and why? because NO ONES arms are perfectly symmetrical , do you think Ronnie Coleman's biceps left & right measure 22' 5'16ths each ? NO what does that mean? they're UNSYMMETRICAL , symmetry in the bodybuilding context does NOT refer to left/right exactness thats a misnoma , ever see Ronnie 2002 Mr Olympia? you think his biceps were symmetrical? LMFAO , you think his calves are symmetrical? NO go away and come back when you learn what symmetry means in the context of bodybuilding shows , it means muscle balance & muscle proportion

Lets entertain for ONE MOMENT that Dorian's shorter bicep ruins his  balance , thats ONE muscle compared to Ronnie's two calves that are NOT in proportion with his quads and his grossly overdeveloped glutes all of these imperfections throw off his LOWER BALANCE , now lets add the fact that Ronnie's forearms and NOT in proportion with his biceps & triceps , this throwing off his ARM balance , now factor in that his biceps & triceps dwarf his deltoids in some poses , clearly evident in the back double bicep shot , now how about his overdeveloped front & side deltoids that destroy is pecs in the side chest shot , these are are " SYMMETRICAL " flaws these are all balance & proportion flaws that hurt his over all poses

Ever wonder why despite his advantages in having a small waist & hips Ronnie doesn't beat Dorian in the front latspread? or the ab-thigh ? or the side triceps & side chest shot , Ronnie's mandatories suffer for his balance issues period , you think ( entertaining your nonsense ) that having one bicep shorter than the other is worse than the above mentioned? LMFAO you got another think coming , now lets elaborate on this further lets say for arguments sake Dorian's bicep did hurt his balance and Ronnie calves hurt his balance , what would be worse?

Well I know it wouldn't be a shorter bicep , because this could ONLY hurt him in one pose and thats the front double biceps pose , and Ronnie's weak calves hurt EVERY SINGLE ONE of his mandatory poses , you cannot hide weak calves , weak biceps you can weak calves you're shit out of luck and lets see what a I.F.B.B. judge had to say about Dorian's bicep



Added Rockell: Dorian had a SLIGHT injury but as far as I'm concerned , it had NO bearing whatsoever. He was just so dense it made no overall difference

Wow you're fucked now , straight from the mouth of the Chair of the I.F.B.B. Mens Professional Judging Committee , his shorter bicep which the judges viewed as a ' SLIGHT INJURY made no overall difference ' 




This is an accurate term for dryness HOWEVER your assessment that his legs aren't dry is just garbage period . I've read every single contest report from all of Dorian's contests in the I.F.B.B. and never once did the associate him with holding water or fat , period , I read every Coleman Mr Olympia contest report and with the exception of 1998 they comment on his conditioning being off in terms of carrying excess water or fat I can post the quotes to back this up , in fact I've posted some of them already , so your assessment that Yates' quads were carrying fat is ignorant , the ONLY problem Dorian had with his quads were the separation of his rectus femoris which wasn't that great even post 1994

And what is 1994 ? Dorian along with tearing his bicep , tore his rotator cuff and his QUADRICEP muscle , so while his quads may appear ' smooth ' they're NOT its torn , either way he's NOT holding any subcutaneous fat or water , Dorian even at his worse showings 1994/1997 was in bodybuilding terms dry & hard , please do some research before you post this nonsense , now on to the other claims

Dorian's quads are separated you can clearly see the separation of the vatus medialis & the vatus lateralis his quads even pre-tear had mediocre separation of the rectus femoris , however two areas that he has clearly better separation than Ronnie is in the satorius and the tensor fasciae latae however I'm sure that means nothing to you because you think the quads are just tear-drops and sweep

Cuts is just another term for separation another synonym

Vascularity I can post pics of Dorian's legs with veins this doesn't mean one is superior conditioned , like striations , vascularity is GENETIC hence why some guys have more veins than others and why Munzer and Hamdullah Aykutlu had more than anyone else and Munzer like Ronnie has them despite not being hard and day as they could be

Recap - Dorian was dry & hard all over and always was , any nonsense to the contrary will NOT be entertained just corrected

This isn't even worth responding to in all honesty , it's a retard assessment , you're to used to looking at Ronnie's piss-poor calves and think thats HOW they're supposed to be and its NOT and the irony of you saying his calves are to big for his quads it boogles the mind , it may appear they are in that picture however if you did the bare minimum of research and looked at other pictures you would have NEVER typed that nonsense , hell all you had to do is look at a few pics on this thread and low & behold you would have saved yourself from looking like a complete moron , Dorian's calves are in complete proportion in relation to his quads UNLIKE Coleman who has two sticks for calves and to top it off gigantic quads , I'm still shaking my head at this one lol

And you bring up a point I've made hundreds of times , a strong bodypart can be a weakness if its main purpose is to showcase a weaker one , you know like Ronnies calves compared to his quads , Ronnie's glutes , Ronnie's insanely massive biceps & triceps and his sticks for forearms lol kid heed this information and then apply it and then come to your fucking senses Dorian's legs are unbalanced and Ronnie's aren't


Not a blanket statement , use the criteria of balance & proportion NOT ' symmetry ' as in left/right exactness thats garbage , Dorian's biceps are okay nothing special , however his triceps are awesome and his forearms are as well , his arms as a whole have better proportion , you know when all the muscles of the arms compliment each other as a whole without one getting dominated by the others , like Ronnie's biceps & triceps that are way out of proportion in relation to his forearms thus throwing off his whole ARM BALANCE


Yes there is balance & proportion , proportion is how one muscle relates to the other in terms of size to create a great overall balance , You know Kris Dim has poor lower balance as did Tom Platz with upper balance overall , Ronnie's calves are NOT in proportion with his quads throwing off his lower-leg balance , Ronnie's forearms are NOT in proportion with his biceps/triceps throwing off his arm balance and his overall balance , and Ronnie's glutes are overdeveloped and why? because you can fucking-see them in front poses thats NOT proportionate and his hams are NOT in proportion in relation to his quads , check out his side poses and see how much of the shot is dominated by quads and how little in relation is hams , just like Ronnie's back double biceps shot his delts are dwarfed by his biceps/triceps not good proportion , his front & side delts are so overdeveloped they mess up his side chest shot and obscure his pecs , this is NOT great proportion and this effects his overall balance , see the shilouette I posted at the bottom


You're high and stupid if you think Ronnie 2003 is better conditioned than Dorian at his best its empty , take NOTE Ronnie Coleman's high-water mark is the 2001 Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic and why? because he was at his all-time best in terms of a total package , size , density , and conditioning , ROCK HARD and BONE DRY ! Ronnie never looked like this again in his career , you compare Ronnie 2001 V 2003 and its night & day its NO CONTEST for you to argue otherwise proves you know very little and are delusional or both either way this topic is dead


With Rounder fuller meaning carrying more water and fat its empty whats the sense of being rounder & fuller if its at the expense of DRIER & HARDER? and stop trying to sell Ronnie as being aesthetic because he's NOT and never has been , he's NOT Flex Wheeler or Bob Paris both shame Coleman in terms of aesthetics and while Ronnie may be more ' aesthetic ' than Dorian its an empty edge because Dorian crushed Flex in 1993 and it wasn't because he's was more aesthetic either , and again the irony of you picking Ronnie 2003 as having a physique thats ' pleasing ' that showing his is worse by far , worse in terms of shape , the man looked 10 months pregnant and his balance is at his all-times worse as is his conditioning , 2001 Arnold Classic is as good as it good for Coleman NOT 2003


Again you pick and choose what muscles on Ronnie YOU THINK are better separated and ignore the ones on Dorian , Ronnie does have better pec-delt tie-ins than Dorian I've always admitted this , who cares? Dorian has better separation in the following muscles

retus abdominals
intercostals
serratus anterior
tensor fasciae latae
satorius
erector spinae
latissumus dorsi
teres major
terse minor
trapezius
infraspinatus
gastrocnemius outer head
gastrocnemius inner head
soleus
tibialis anterior
triceps lateral head

Now these are just the muscle Dorian clearly shows better separation in and NOT muscles he ties in with Ronnie for separation , like your other assessments it was premature and not accurate

to recap your assessment is junk , 2003 Ronnie is a joke especially compared to 2001 and compared , Dorian conditioning was in all probability was never matched by Ronnie with the exception of 2001 and 1998 , 2003 isn't even in the ball park , everyone one of your lame points was met and addressed and shot down you had the balls to claimed you ' owned ' me but in reality you owned yourself lol especially with the 2003 Ronnie is better conditioned than Dorian nonsense lol like all the other ignorant Nutt-Huggers who came before you nice try , but thanks for playing game over.

  Oh man...

SUCKMYMUSCLE