95, 96, 97 and 98.
I know his back detail lacked against the other top competitors those years but I think he more than made up for that in all bodyparts and angles and with his overall size.
actually Bigbobs, i think Nasser's back had the detail. it DEFINITELY had the width and thickness.
i think what may have caused the appearance as "less detail" was actually a bit of holding water/thicker skin/not being as dry in the upper back.
for some this is a genetic predisposition and no matter how low their body fat , there is one area that doesnt get as well seperated/defined. for eg lee priest never had ripped glutes/hamstrings
as we all know Nasser never came in less than 100% shredded condition and was one of the best conditioned/ripped BB's. and to do that as Nasser did on a consistent basis @ his MASS MONSTER SIZE is truly phenomenal.
also, as you astutely pointed out, Nasser's total package and combination of SIZE, SHAPE, SYMMETRY, CONDITION, AESTHETICS, should have definitely won 1995, 1996 AND 1997.
MANY PPL forget that Nasser , in his prime years 1995-1999 is/was the only Mass monster to have a tiny waist and no gut distention and classic V taper/aesthetics