no, you are right.
round muscles don't win contests by themselves....
however, when you take a 257 pound frame with narrow hips and wide lats, stick in some round muscle bellies, throw in some super detail and vascularity, and you get this:
an unbeatable combination.
note the word 'combination'
you guys never seen to understand that traits in bodybuilding do nothing by themselves. the traits must complement other traits.
so, we know dorian beat guys with rounder muscles...but none of those guys ALSO had size and width like Ronnie...
advantage: Ronnie:
Hulkster, the bottom line of a bodybuilding show is assessing muscularity&symmetry from different angles, and the bottom line is that Dorian in his 1995 form is more muscular&symmetrical than Ronnie from more angles and in more poses. The judges wouldn't look at Coleman and decide that, since he had round muscle bellies and size, that he's better.
First, like I said, round muscles are not a universal taste among judges, so that's a stretch. Secondly, that Dorian at 260 lbs would defeat a 257 lbs Ronnie in muscularity is a given, since Dorian defeated 280 lbs guys in that category. Dorian is not missing any muscles in his body except for his torn biceps, and Ronnie is lacking in calves, so there goes symmetry. That would be a tie.
Basically, your whole argument boils down to size with shape, but that's nonsense because shape is a taste, and although the 1999 Ronnie is roughly as big as the 1995 Dorian, the latter is still bigger and looks more muscular. So, in essence: shape wouldn't necessarily tip the scales in Ronnie's favor, Coleman still gets out-muscled by Dorian and Yates is more complete from more angles. What do you have left? Dorian defeats Coleman in the symmetry round and in most mandatories in the muscularity round, and shape is arbitrary.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
