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

[Necrosis]

  Oh man...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

i couldnt bare to read it all, he ignores all points made by opposing sides and wont listen to reason.

i can be swayed from my views but he is making false claims and thinks dryness or hardness are a criteria while striations are not infinitely more important.

[NarcissisticDeity]

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.

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.

Again the symmetry round means balance & proportion NOT left/right exactness , Dorian's biceps were never exactly symmetrical in terms of left/right exactness to begin with yet he still managed to win every symmetry round with straight firsts how can this be?

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.

No you attempted to show me why my statement about glutes is ignorant and you failed and in the process you made yourself look like a complete moron by stating Dorian's calves are to big for his quads thats retarded , your an idiot for suggesting this and even more dense for sticking to it , and Dorian doesn't have symmetrical issues thats Ronnie's domain and as far as your OPINION that NOT bodybuilder should win with glaring tears , thats your personal opinion and you're entitled to it , however to the people it mattered the most you know the IFBB judges  it made what?

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

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.

Dryness is obvious , the lack of water in the muscle to prevent them from showing their development & detail , and again where is the better separation of the calves? midsection? back? side head triceps? how soon we forget Dorian's advantages . quadsweep is a straw for you to grasp onto , like the x-frame , spoken like a true Coleman-fan , Ronnie has bigger muscles , sure he's also carrying more water & fat in those bigger muscles hence why his benchmark shape is the much harder & drier 2001 ASC and NOT his bloated 2003 form and stop posting the criteria in which YOU think the judges would chose Ronnie , x-frame , ass-striations , more waterlogged size , great logic , here is the criteria

The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.

Dorian advantage in bulk depending on the year
Dorian advantage in balanced development all years
Dorian advantage density
Dorian advantage definition which is conditioning all years except 01ASC and perhaps 1998 O

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.

I already have countless times on this thread and you know this already 

[NarcissisticDeity]

i couldnt bare to read it all, he ignores all points made by opposing sides and wont listen to reason.

i can be swayed from my views but he is making false claims and thinks dryness or hardness are a criteria while striations are not infinitely more important.

Says you , striations are a straw and Dorian has striations in his , chest , his glutes , his obliques and intercostals , his x-mas tree , his lower lats YOU think because Ronnie has more that means he's better conditioned and its nonsense , Ronnie has striations in 2000 yet he was clearly holding water , I.E. NOT dry

I don't ignore ANY point I addressed ALL your points , some wont be entertained like Dorian's calves are to big for his quads thats garbage , just like 2003 Ronnie is better conditioned than Yates at his best , its not worth any more effort

[NarcissisticDeity]

Dorian's midsection clearly showing better separation/definition that Ronnie

[NarcissisticDeity]

Dorian's calves CLEARLY in proportion with his quads , and showing the vascularity you think means anything

[NarcissisticDeity]

Dorian's lower lats & x-mass tree clearly showing better separation and detail compared to Ronnie

[NarcissisticDeity]

Dorian's triceps clearly showing better separation than Ronnie along with the whole midsection.

[NeoSeminole]

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

completely irrelevant. Surely you agree that a large bilateral asymmetry is worse than a small one. Dorian had a torn bicep. If you want to nitpick at minor imbalances such as Ronnie's calves, then Dorian had a whole host of imbalances. His traps don't line up, each bicep is shaped differently (pre-tear), his abs are uneven, and one side of his Christmas tree is asymmetrical to the other. It may be true that nothing in nature is perfectly symmetrical, but in bodybuilding the judges reward physiques that display greater symmetry. Flex Wheeler was often referred to as "the sultan of symmetry" b/c each side of his body was a mirror half of the other.

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

Nobody said that Ronnie's calves were proportionate to his quads. As for his glutes, they are balanced with his equally huge thighs and upper body. His arms do not dwarf his delts. In fact, they are actually perfectly balanced if we use other legendary bodybuilders as a model. Larry Scott had arms that were just as big, if not larger, than his delts. Arnold had arms that were just as big, if not larger, than his delts. Shawn Ray, Flex Wheeler, and Kevin Levrone were also the same. Regarding his front and side delts overpowering his pecs in the side chest, this is an issue of posing. Most of the shots you see of him in the side chest are taken immediately after he hits this pose before he has time to rotate his torso. I can post a pic of Dorian hitting a side chest with his delts obscuring his pecs too. It's due to posing style - NOT a balance issue.

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

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

I agree that Dorian was more conditioned than 03 Ronnie. However, the difference wasn't that much. Ronnie carried more water than usual in his back and midsection, but the rest of him appeared dry and shredded. The definition in his arms and legs actually improved from previous years (not including 01 ASC). His hamstrings were even striated, which is something I've never seen anyone else have.

[IceCold]

I don't understand how people can penalize Ronnie for having a gut, but ignore Dorian's distended abdomen.

bc ronnie's midsection sucks and dorian's is one of the best ever of anyone over 260 lbs.

also, in most of the poses dorian can keep his gut tight, coleman cant.  

[NeoSeminole]

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

ha ha ha, wtf? How am I lying if I what I said is true?

[Iceman1981]

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.

MELTDOWN................................................................................AGAIN.

[IceCold]

hulkster,

lets take a look at what your 2nd hero thinks of dorian vs. ronnie.

flex wheeler:

in 93, despite winning 3 shows - all with a perfect scores and optaining his best ever condition - he calls dorian untouchable.

in 97, scared to compted against dorian, he makes up a ninja story and doestn compete - despite all the hype from the 97 arnold.


98 - despite ronnie coleman's best ever condition, he beats flex by 2 points.

99 - flex turns his back to the crowd and ronnie displaying his dissapproval of the decision.

he never did that to dorian.

when will you realize that your opinion means nothing - especially compared to guys like ruhl, dillet, flex, shawn, etc. who competed against ronnie and dorian. 

[Iceman1981]

Again the symmetry round means balance & proportion NOT left/right exactness , Dorian's biceps were never exactly symmetrical in terms of left/right exactness to begin with yet he still managed to win every symmetry round with straight firsts how can this be?



No you attempted to show me why my statement about glutes is ignorant and you failed and in the process you made yourself look like a complete moron by stating Dorian's calves are to big for his quads thats retarded , your an idiot for suggesting this and even more dense for sticking to it , and Dorian doesn't have symmetrical issues thats Ronnie's domain and as far as your OPINION that NOT bodybuilder should win with glaring tears , thats your personal opinion and you're entitled to it , however to the people it mattered the most you know the IFBB judges  it made what?

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


Dryness is obvious , the lack of water in the muscle to prevent them from showing their development & detail , and again where is the better separation of the calves? midsection? back? side head triceps? how soon we forget Dorian's advantages . quadsweep is a straw for you to grasp onto , like the x-frame , spoken like a true Coleman-fan , Ronnie has bigger muscles , sure he's also carrying more water & fat in those bigger muscles hence why his benchmark shape is the much harder & drier 2001 ASC and NOT his bloated 2003 form and stop posting the criteria in which YOU think the judges would chose Ronnie , x-frame , ass-striations , more waterlogged size , great logic , here is the criteria

The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.

Dorian advantage in bulk depending on the year
Dorian advantage in balanced development all years
Dorian advantage density
Dorian advantage definition which is conditioning all years except 01ASC and perhaps 1998 O




I already have countless times on this thread and you know this already 

Would you shut up already.

[Hulkster]

I swear these 2 must have been seperated at birth:

hahahahaha

[Hulkster]

when will you realize that your opinion means nothing - especially compared to guys like ruhl, dillet, flex, shawn, etc. who competed against ronnie and dorian. 

when will you realize that most of these guys have publicly stated that Ronnie is the greatest of all time?

[Hulkster]

I don't understand how people can penalize Ronnie for having a gut, but ignore Dorian's distended abdomen.

the dorian side is not exactly known for its brightness...

[Hulkster]

From and I.F.B.B. judge who was there and who knows a hell of a LOT more than you and me 

I.F.B.B. judge Roger Schwab

Man-mountain Dorian Yates was certainly the top gun in the 1993 Mr Olympia shootout. He was much bigger , better and harder than ever , and while his is never the prettiest physique on stage , he's assuredly the most God-awful muscular superman this sport has yet seen. Though Yates was lighter than Lou Ferrigno or Paul Dillett , he appeared to be the biggest man on stage-by far- and the hardest , dominating from beginning to end and every step in between.

You have what again?  yeah I thought so

you are such an idiot.

neo posts a series of pics of dorian getting dwarfed and you come back with a QUOTE and therefore expect everyone to think that he is wrong?

WTF?

god you are stupid

[Matt C]

 

[Hulkster]

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.

great post!

I see that ND has been getting owned badly lately.

[Hulkster]

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.

another great post!

[Hulkster]

i couldnt bare to read it all, he ignores all points made by opposing sides and wont listen to reason.

i can be swayed from my views but he is making false claims and thinks dryness or hardness are a criteria while striations are not infinitely more important.

I hope you are starting to realize what we all have known for a long time:

ND has no fucking clue what he is talking about.

[Hulkster]

Again the symmetry round means balance & proportion NOT left/right exactness , Dorian's biceps were never exactly symmetrical in terms of left/right exactness to begin with yet he still managed to win every symmetry round with straight firsts how can this be?



No you attempted to show me why my statement about glutes is ignorant and you failed and in the process you made yourself look like a complete moron by stating Dorian's calves are to big for his quads thats retarded , your an idiot for suggesting this and even more dense for sticking to it , and Dorian doesn't have symmetrical issues thats Ronnie's domain and as far as your OPINION that NOT bodybuilder should win with glaring tears , thats your personal opinion and you're entitled to it , however to the people it mattered the most you know the IFBB judges  it made what?

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


Dryness is obvious , the lack of water in the muscle to prevent them from showing their development & detail , and again where is the better separation of the calves? midsection? back? side head triceps? how soon we forget Dorian's advantages . quadsweep is a straw for you to grasp onto , like the x-frame , spoken like a true Coleman-fan , Ronnie has bigger muscles , sure he's also carrying more water & fat in those bigger muscles hence why his benchmark shape is the much harder & drier 2001 ASC and NOT his bloated 2003 form and stop posting the criteria in which YOU think the judges would chose Ronnie , x-frame , ass-striations , more waterlogged size , great logic , here is the criteria

The comparisons of the compulsory poses cannot be overemphasized
as these comparisons will help the judge to decide
which competitor has the superior physique from the standpoint of
muscular bulk, balanced development, muscular density and
definition.

Dorian advantage in bulk depending on the year
Dorian advantage in balanced development all years
Dorian advantage density
Dorian advantage definition which is conditioning all years except 01ASC and perhaps 1998 O




I already have countless times on this thread and you know this already 

I love how ND can ignore dorian's blatant quad, arm and delt smoothness compared to ronnie but then say an advantage like taper or striations that ronnie has over dorian is nothing but grasping at straws..

the guy has no clue..

[Hulkster]

Would you shut up already.

hehe

the problem with ND is that he gets proven wrong by countless different people yet he still goes on posting the same bullshit about dorian's better balance, proportion and definition as if nothing was posted..

[suckmymuscle]

ha ha ha, wtf? How am I lying if I what I said is true?

  What you said is not true by any stretch of the imagination, you dishonest fuck. You did say that the 2001 ASC Ronnie carried more lean muscle mass than the 1999 Ronnie, and you provided as speculation that Ronnie has mentioned that he gained an average of 5 lbs of muscle per year. When I demonstrated through logic, basic knowledge of physiology and simple arithmatic that this is simply impossible, you changed your claim to "he might have gained only 1 pound or 2". Which I also demonstrated that is extremely unlikely. Your quote is there for everyone to read.

  Even Pobrecito, who hates me, pointed out that you did claim that Ronnie carried more lean muscle mass in 2001 than he did in 1999. Your quote was something like "Do you really expect that Ronnie wasn't bigger in 2001 than in 1999?" These are not the literal words, but the message was the same. You then supplied as further speculative evidence for this assertion that "his arms, delts and chest looked fuller in 2001". Again, not the exact words, but the meaning of the oration was the same. If you were arguing that Ronnie lost 13 lbs because he was drier and lost quad mass while his other measurements remained the same, then you'd be simply agreeing with me that he carried less lean muscle mass in 2001.

  To be honest, I'm tired of arguing with a guy who never admits that he committed a logical faux pas, and that grasps at semantics to manipulate every word he wrote to make it seem like he didn't say something that he did. What's the point of continuing this? I'm absolutely, positively convinced that I owned you, and you'll deny it to the very end. There was no double entendre in what you wrote; you're just trying to save face from a losing proposition.

  There is no question in my mind, that the people who read that thread, will clearly see that reason, logic and rationality are on my side and that you got your ass handed to you epically. But go on and keep denying the obvious. I must warn you, tough, that I'll be right there at you everytime, and will take you out all the time you state something retarded - which means all the time. I won't do it because I believe I'll be winning something, but because frankly I don't like guys like you, who lack the dignitas and manhood to gracefully admit and stand by their own words, accept defeat and move on. Hulkster is like you, but at least his arguments are not out of the logical ballpark like yours.

  As for no one reading my posts, this is obvioulsy not true: I'm pretty sure that you read all of them, evidenced by the fact that you unsuccessully try to reply to most of them - you may ignore this one, after reading it, to prove me wrong. I have made posts and threads on all boards here, and I've lost count of the number of times that people complimented my posts for their excellency and intelligence. Even Ron, himself, has already PMed me about one of my thread, and commented how he thought it was excellent. So I sincerely couldn't care less about your opinion. Regards.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Hulkster]

dorian's back is detailed, but it has a very flat and thin apearance compared to ronnie's.

ronnie's back is much more impressive as a result: