bwahahahaha, obviously it's not apparent to the eyes b/c several people have said that Ronnie looks more conditioned than Dorian.
Really? Then why did Dorian become famous for his conditioning and Ronnie didn't? Why did so may bodybuilding writers like McGough, Jim Schmaltz, Joe Montana and even trainers like Stuart McRobert besides bodybuilding federation presidents, like Jim Manion, remark how incredible Dorian's conditioining was but not Ronnie's? You are a moron, and once again you got
owned.
Usmokepole even asked what criteria you use to indirectly determine conditioning. The best answer you could come up with is "hardcore muscle." 
I have already given my definition of conditioning: it refers to subcutaneous fat and water levels. Period. Dorian never had great overral separations - at least when comapred to guys like Wheeler, etc -, and yet judges have always regarded him as supremely conditioned, so usmoke's definition of conditioning sucks.
You two make the mistake of assuming that conditioning is separations, which is only partially true. Wheeler always had better separations and striations than Dorian even when he was off, because separations are to a large extent genetic. The fact that he could be holding a visible film of water and still have good separations is evidence that one thing does not necessarily follow from the other. If a man at 7% bodyfat and holding water has better separations than a man at 3% bodyat and dehydrated, then does the former have better conditioning?
No.
To me, Ronnie looks harder in the arms, delts, pecs, glutes, quads and hamstrings b/c he has more visible separations and striations. You can't say that Dorian has better conditioning without at least offering a plausible explanation why.
Because Dorian's bodyfat and water levels were at least as low if not lower than Ronnie's, and separations are evidence of genetics as much as they are of subcutaneous fat and water levels. Bodyfat/water levels correlate with separations, but it is only one variable that affects it. Funny that you say that Ronnie "looks harder" because he has more separations, because even at the 2003 Olympia he had at least as many separations as Dorian, despite the fact that he was obviously not at 3% bodyat and was holding water. He looked soft when comapred to Dorian, yet he was just as separated. All the rest is just your opinion. A man with separated muscles can still look soft.
I've heard people say that Arnold looks harder than Ronnie in this pic.
Whoi cares? It's only an opinion.
Mind you, the difference in conditioning between them is even greater than the difference between Dorian and Ronnie. So no, I don't buy your excuse that evaluating hardness from pics is so "simple that even a child can do" it.
I said about evaluating hardness in person. My point is that evaluating who looks harder between two bodybuilders is simpler then evaluating who is the better bodybuilder overral, because the latter involves knowledge that lay people lack.
Ask anyone who looks harder in these comparisons. Let's start a poll, shall we?
I only cares about who looks harder in person.
this coming from the pussy who's too afraid to post a pic of himself. Yeah, that really hurt my feelings.
It's not my fault that you have the face of a nerd and the muscularity of a 13 year-old girl. By the way, I'm entering this year's Mr.Getbig, so I challenge you to defeat me there. Put up or shut up, bitch.
Peter McGough - "Ronnie sporting that (01 ASC) look would, in my opinion, be unbeatable."
Did he say it would be a tie? No.
Peter's opinion, and as much as I respect it, has no bearing as what would actually transpire if Dorian and Ronnie would face each other at their respective bests. That is something that
only I.F.B.B judges are qualiied to comment on, and Jim Manion has already stated that he regards Dorian as the greatest ever.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
