I already told you why, dipshit. Pay attention instead of flapping your gums. Maybe next time I won't have to repeat myself. I was merely pointing out that it's very unlikely 01 ASC Ronnie carried less muscle than in 99, like you suggest. I never claimed that he did in fact gain 10 lbs of lean mass. For all I know, he might have only put on 1-2 lbs. I highly doubt that he actually shrunk.
This is impossible. If he gained 2 lbs of muscle, then you have 15 lbs of weight difference to explain exclusively through water loss. Since Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat in 1999, and since you can't go any lower than that, and also since the weight of bones and internal organs don't vary, then all there is to explain the 15 lbs that made him weight 13 lbs less in 2001 is water. I highly doubt that Ronnie had 15 lbs of water in his entire body to lose at the 1999 Olympia, let alone under his skin.
If I did indeed say that 01 ASC Ronnie had more lean mass than 93 Dorian (according to you), then I gracefully take back what I said. Allow me to explain. Upon closer scrutiny, I realized that Dorian may have had equal or even slightly more muscle than Ronnie. I personally feel that Ronnie had better conditioning than 93 Dorian. Even if it means he was carrying only 3-4 lbs less fat and water combined, it adds up. His waist was significantly smaller. I would guess Dorian's midsection weighed 4-6 lbs more. Ronnie also has a smaller bone structure. Dorian has a larger rib cage, wider hips, and thicker joints. However, the difference here wouldn't be much due to racial bone densities. Let's just say that Dorian's entire skeletal mass weighed only 1 lb more. If we assume the lowest values for each part (I'm being generous here) and add them up, then we've already accounted for 8 lbs. At the most, they would add up to 11 lbs. The difference in muscularity between Ronnie and Dorian wouldn't have been that great. In fact, you probably wouldn't even be able to tell any difference at all.
Your speculation is nonsensical. Dorian did not have 3 or 4 lbs more of fat and water than Coleman at the 1993 Olympia; he arguably had 3 or 4 lbs of water less. Bodyfat is a non-issue, because they were both at 3% bodyfat. However, 3% of 257 lbs is a little more than 3% of 244 lbs. Regardless, I still think that Dorian had 1 or 2 lbs less of water/fat(fat + water) than Ronnie. Even if we assume that Dorian's frame weighted 1 lbs more than Ronnie's(unlikely, but let's assume), then you'd still have 13 lbs to explain. Where did it come from? Dorian's midsection did not weight 6 lbs more than Ronnie's, but let's assume. In this case, Dorian would still have 7 lbs more of bodyweight than Ronnie which is not accounted for.
So what is it? If Ronnie weighted less than Dorian in 2001 because, according to you, his quads were smaller and he had less fat and water than in 1999, and his other measurements were similar, then you're agreeing with me that Ronnie in 2001 had
less overral mass than he had in 1999. Conversely, if he added mass to his delts, chest and triceps and yet his bodyweight still went down by 13 lbs, then you'd have more than 13 lbs weight to explain via water loss. If the amount of mass added to his delts, pecs and tris was greater, in sum, than the amount of mass that he lost in his quads, then you'd have more than 13 lbs(13 + X lbs of muscle mass) of weight to justify exclusively via water loss. It is a defeating proposition. Give up. You got
owned 
SUCKMYMUSCLE
