well then all your quotes are irrelavant. who cares if dorian was "ripped from head to toe" he might have been but compared to ronnie? NO. pictures show this. dorian may have been ripped but ronnie took it to another level with better shape, size and structure.
you posted quotes like they were proof that dorian was better conditioned then ronnie, they are relevant to this argument, the ronnie side quotes are however since they are after the fact and dorian had already been at his peak.
your owned at your own game. quotes mean shit all. the pics show ronnie is winning, and the quotes back that up. dorian loses. what arguments do you have left?
the argument is over dorian loses on the pics, so much so you asked us to take into account dorians metamorphosis in person. ahhha.
you truly are ignorant. when we argued you jumped from argument to argument until you were left arguing about lighting and skin tones hahaha. if dorian skin tone is poorer then ronnies, that is a fault. just like genetic shape is.
dorian was great ronnie is greater get over it. the only thing im willing to concede is a better lower back and calves. quads are not even up for debate nor arms. delts, and chest are ronnies, being more striated and seperated. hams and glutes are ronnies as the pics showed.
well then all your quotes are irrelavant. who cares if dorian was "ripped from head to toe" he might have been but compared to ronnie? NO. pictures show this. dorian may have been ripped but ronnie took it to another level with better shape, size and structure.
No the quotes are irrelavant to you because they contradict your nonsense of Dorian being ' smooth ' and care to explain how Ronnie can be more than ' ripped , ripped from head to toe ' ? he can't this isn't 1940's ' ripped ' we're talking about Dorian ushered in the new era of size & CONDITIONING he started the trend and Ronnie was never able to match Dorian for size & condition at the same weight , Dorian was 257 pounds in 1993 and 260 pounds in 1995 and on both occasions he was bone dry & rock hard , now compare this to Ronnie who was bone dry & rock hard in 1998 at 249 pounds and 2001 Arnold Classic at 247 pounds and whenever Ronnie went up in weight his conditioning suffered for it , case in point 1999 he was the same weight as Dorian in 1993 257 pounds and he wasn't as bone dry or rock hard as he was in 1998 , same thing in 2000 he was 264 pounds and holding a ton of water , hence McGough's comments that Ronnie is better at lighter weights , Ronnie didn't show ANYTHING new in terms of conditioning that Dorian didn't already show years earlier , and your comment about better shape is not 100% accurate , better shape in some parts yes all NO and entertaining your nonsense he has much better ' shape ' does that mean Dorian couldn't beat him? NO sorry Flex had much better shape than both Ronnie & Dorian and he lost to Yates and ironically why? Yates' had better conditioning , size? I assume you mean 2003 Ronnie did have a big advantage in size in 03 , does this mean Dorian couldn't beat Ronnie 2003 ? NO and why? because he beat plenty of much bigger guys than him , Nasser 285 pounds , Ferrigno 318 pounds , Ian Harrison 280 pounds , Fux 285 pounds etc , etc , etc , and structure?
give me a break Ronnie's structure isn't that great he has narrow waist and hips and good clavicle width but he doesn't that much of an outstanding structure in the classic sense like Chris Cormier or Bob Paris , and lets say he does have a better structure once again is this unbeatable? NO its not
you posted quotes like they were proof that dorian was better conditioned then ronnie, they are relevant to this argument, the ronnie side quotes are however since they are after the fact and dorian had already been at his peak.
I post quotes to prove Dorian is as conditioned as one can humanly get and and Ronnie was as well but NOT as heavy as Dorian and Dorian had better conditioning than Ronnie even at at weight of around 285 pounds Ronnie's 2003 showing , proof Kevin Horton's quote from this site
Kevin Horoton GetBig Dec 30th 2006
The photo is technically terrible, fortunately the physique is awesome.
I'd agree with Kris about Dorian showing up on stage how he looked a few weeks out.
There are some shots of him at around 280 - 285 shredded. That conditioning has not been surpassed.
So this quote is after the fact in fact after all of Ronnie's eight Sandows , and his opinion carries more weight than yours
your owned at your own game. quotes mean shit all. the pics show ronnie is winning, and the quotes back that up. dorian loses. what arguments do you have left?
You've just been proven wrong by ME via Kevin Horton and the quotes mean much more than some internet-bodybuilding-fans does and why? because he was an eyewitness and YOU were not and nothing trumps being there live and in person , and its been stated picture's aren't always accurate , so once again you're owned by me using quotes which you claim mean nothing , and all the pics show Ronnie winning? lol no they don't its your OPINION and very limited one at that , that shows in all the pics Ronnie is winning , you see what you want to see I see something different , you see Ronnie 2003 as better conditioned than Dorian at his best , I see Ronnie 2003 with acceptable conditioning NOT on par with his previous showings and NOT on par with Dorian's I can verify my OPINION with an eyewitness account and you're left with zero , you're left with crying about how quotes mean nothing , because you can't rely on them as verification of your opinion , so what do you have left? Ronnie was better because pics don't lie? and my opinion is more valid than eyewitnesses lol thats not much kid
the argument is over dorian loses on the pics, so much so you asked us to take into account dorians metamorphosis in person. ahhha.
you truly are ignorant. when we argued you jumped from argument to argument until you were left arguing about lighting and skin tones hahaha. if dorian skin tone is poorer then ronnies, that is a fault. just like genetic shape is.
The argument isn't over because of your opinion he ' loses ' on pictures you see what you want to see , I see Ronnie getting soundly beaten using the criteria and again its been stated many times Dorian looks much better live than in person , I don't care of you disagree or not , or if it doesn't seem logical to you , its a FACT a fact I verified via at least 5 different people , have you verified it to the contrary? have you brought out one single person saying that Dorian looks just as good in print & video as he does in person? NO you haven't and NO you can't , so for you to base any opinion on Dorian's conditioning knowing this is NOT 100% accurate or honest , you are limited an unbiased person would admit this but you have an agenda and need this not to be true lol it shows your lack of honesty and objectivity
dorian was great ronnie is greater get over it. the only thing im willing to concede is a better lower back and calves. quads are not even up for debate nor arms. delts, and chest are ronnies, being more striated and seperated. hams and glutes are ronnies as the pics showed.
Typical Coleman fan things having the best parts make up the best whole , much , much more to bodybuilding contests than having a collection of parts , and you're willing to concede Dorian has a better lower back and calves lol you're NOT conceding ANYTHING thats painfully obvious among other things you're not doing me a favor by stating the obvious lol once again striations are genetic , striations are NOT a great indicator of conditioning because one can have them and still be soft and holding water , and a collection of parts don't make for the greater whole which is exactly why despite not having a greater taper and smaller waist & hips Dorian simply looks better in the front latspread , same with the ab-thigh , same with the side trieps , side chest , rear latspread , back double biceps ,
Bottom line is this , I'm of the opinion Dorian at his best would beat Ronnie at his best , I'm more than winning to admit Ronnie is quite capable of beating Dorian and vice versa , both at their bests showed great overall packages different from one another but better than their contemporaries , both have relative strengths and weaknesses and at the end of the day in my opinion it would be a close call either way , anyone who disagrees with this is NOT honest or objective , you can disagree and say Ronnie would beat Dorian and thats fine but most of you are of the opinion that Dorian shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Ronnie and its a joke , another trend with the Coleman fans is basing their opinions on THEIR personal preferences and NOT the judging criteria , I was guilty of this in 1993 when Flex lost to Dorian and then I learned the criteria and realized I was wrong , its called being objective . learn the word
