see, you didn't answer the question. You used the 2004 Ronnie as a comparison to show how Dorian's dryness and conditioning is a virtue.
Problem, is, the 2004 Ronnie looks like this:
and the 1998 Ronnie looks like this:
big difference.
so, you didn't really answer the question at all.
No one is talking about the 2004 Ronnie.
We are talking about Ronnie at his best.
You are absolutely correct in saying that dryness and conditioning is certainly a muscular quality.
BUT in order for this to be a major advantage, this dryness and conditioning must facilitate the appearence of details that lie beneath the skin.
ie. cuts, striations, vascularity etc.
In Dorian, large parts of his body lacked these details in comparison to Ronnie.
Thus, the dryness he displayed would not be much of an advantage at all.
Striated muscle always looks better than smooth muscle for the most part.
The 1998 Coleman? No problem. So, let's compare him to Dorian's 257 lbs version from either 1993 or 1995:
Muscularity - Dorian destroys him. No contest. Dorian simply had flat out more muscle than Ronnie in the key areas, such as chest and back, to flat out beat him on muscularity. The
only one of Coleman's bodyparts which were a match for Dorian on muscularity, when comparing them in these respective years, were his quadriceps. At everything else, Ronnie gets destroyed. The difference in lat and christmas-tree thickness in favor of Dorian, alone, would make it very, very difficult for Ronnie to get the nod over Diesel. Even in his 1999 version, Ronnie was still no match for Dorian in the back department, so his 1998 version gets blown away. Like I've mentioned previously, Dorian could still hold his own, when it comes to back, even against the 2003 version of Ronnie; the 1998 Ronnie looks like an small and flat from the back, when compared to Dorian.
Symmetry - This is a tough one: Ronnie has the better taper; Dorian, the better abs and lower body balance. In fact, Dorian's structure is superior to Ronnie's, because Dorian's quads are longer and his waist is torso is shorter. Many people go on and on about Ronnie's superior genetics. Not true: his only genetic edge, over Dorian, is that his hip bones are narrower, which is the case for most Black bodybuilders. Dorian, for instance, has genetically superior calves, abs and teres major. The symmetry round could go either way: Ronnie has a slightly better taper, but Dorian has the better abdominals; Ronnie has longer muscle bellies on his upper-body, but Dorian has a more balanced lower body.
Conditioning - You go on and on about Ronnie's superior conditioning, in relation to Dorian, but nothing could be further from the truth. You are correct that Ronnie has more separations on some bodyparts and has more overrall striations. What you're forgetting, though, is that, even though Dorian is heavier, he still has tons of striations on his chest and his abdominal separations are actually better than Ronnie's. Coleman has a little bit more upper-back separations than Dorian; but Dorian is thicker, wider and denser.
You try to make Coleman's conditioning, from 1998, appear as something special, which it was not. In fact, Ronnie was no dryer or harder than Flex; he defeated Wheeler do to his greater muscularity with great taper, not because his density or dryness gave his musculature a preter-human quality...like it did to Dorian. You have asked what's the point of having great conditioning without anything to show for it. Well, I've demonstrated that Dorian did have a lot to show for it, in the form of incredible back separations and a six-pack abs - at a greater level of muscularity1 Now, what you're forgetting is that conditioning is
a quality into itself: it gave Dorian's overrall musculature an appearance of having being sculpted in rock which Ronnie simply lacked. This counts. As for vascularity, I'll give that to you. but the thing is that vascularity is a matter of taste, and I've never seen a pro being marked down for not having a lot of it; but I've seen pros being marked down for having too much of it. Ronnie is more vascular, but I don't think it's relevant, to be completely honest with you.
Now, how would they compare in the mandatories? Let's see...
Front double biceps - Ronnie wins it, in virtue os his better biceps and better front quadriceps separations. His waist is also smaller, although Dorian has the better abs.
Abs-and-thighs - Dorian wins. Ronnie's better front quadriceps separations are not as visible on this mandatory, and Dorian has the superior abdominals and serratus.
Front lat spread - Dorian wins again: his waist is not as tiny as Ronnie's, but his taper is more dramatic because his lats flare out so much more. Both in muscularity and symmetry, Dorian takes Ronnie out.
Back double biceps - Debatable. Ronnie has superior biceps. Ok. But the purpose of this pose is to show all the muscles of the back contracting. Now, Ronnie has slightly better upper-back separations, but Dorian takes him out in lat width and thickness. He also takes him out in lower back striations and crhistmas-tree thickness. Point for Dorian. His hams and glutes are just as striated as Coleman's...and Dorian has calves. I'll give Coleman a tie
only due to his superior biceps. But in everything else, Dorian destroys him.
Rear lat spread - Dorian wins. His lats are much wider than that of the 1998 Ronnie, and his middle back is much thicker. His overrall back is also denser...and he has calves.
Side chest - Tie. Dorian's chest is thicker, but Coleman's is more striated. Ronnie lacks calve mass from the sides, and that's a symmetry liability.
Side triceps - Dorian has greater triceps mass and his outer triceps head is longer and more shapely. Dorian's monster calves also add to the pose, giving hi better symmetry when compared to Coleman. Dorian wins this mandatory flat out.
Ok, Hulkter, I compared Dorian to the 1998 Ronnie and deonstrated that Dorian had the superior musularity and conditioning, and would win most mandatories. Ronnie only takes Dorian out in taper and separations in a few areas. Game over.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
