but once again, your simpleton uneducated mind misses the crucial difference as always:
*in those instances, no one is arguing that the 300 pound dorian was in better shape than a 250 pound dorian or that Ronnie 2000 was in better shape than other times in his career*
in this case, you are.
please try and use that McBrain of yours to understand that distinction.
Ronnie 99 was more striated because he was sharper. not softer as you are trying to claim (and doing one shitty job of arguing that I might add)
period.
Hulkster you don't get it , striations are NOT a great indicator of overall conditioning because..............one can be striated and still be holding a film of water , one can be striated and still have intramuscular fat
you're stuck in the mode of typing the same shit in this vicious circle and you think the more you post it , it becomes true lol
The general consensus of the people in the know is Ronnie was harder & drier in 1998 compared to 1999 , much like 2001 which is considered his best showing ever and NOT 1999 for a reason and that reason is? he's harder & drier lol if 1999 as you claim he was just as sharp ( which you're not even claiming you're going a step beyond stating in fact he's better conditioned LMMFAO ) that would be considered Ronnie's all-times best and its NOT
facts you can't change em
