density & dryness win and lose contests and many claim Ronnie won 1998 because his glutes & hams where more dry and separated ( density & dryness ) , Ronnie's conditioning that day was unmatched again until 2001
I doubt 2003 would beat 1998 maybe , I doubt it. Maybe Ronnie would beat Dorian from the 1993 Olympia but again maybe not , maybe on size alone he would win , but I think Dorian from the black & white photoshoot at 269 pounds would beat any version of Ronnie because he wouldn't be dwarfed by 03 and would have better conditioning and balance and he would dwarf a 249 pound Ronnie with the same advantages already mentioned
I know a lot of people feel 2003 is his best and it simply isn't because his density & dryness pale in comparison to 98/01 as does his balance & proportion which is exactly why a majority of experts feel those showings are his best and may be the best ever
Dumb Neo posted a quote from Shawn Ray which states the obvious he won that show on pure size and nothing more his conditioning for that size was very good for that weight and here is another quote which touches on what I'm talking about
Wayne Demilla " I've said to Ronnie , " What you've got to realize is that in 98-99 you were probably in the best proportion you could be for your frame . Those muscles have gotten bigger. Just cos you're bigger , doesn't make you better . "
which lends credence that his density & dryness and balance & proportion progressively got worse when he became heavier which McGough mentions as well
Quote Peter McGough Flex Magazine Jan 2001
RONNIE COLEMAN : ( 264lbs As big as a house , but holding water. In '98 , he was shredded and bone dry at 250 pounds. Last year ( 1999 ) he was 257 pounds but NOT as sharp as '98. This year ( 2000 ) at 264 pounds , he's not as sharp as 99 , which would seem to say that Ronnie is better at a lighter weight .
I mean it's stating the obvious well to some of us 
Okay well fair point that it could go either way. I think if you look at the video's it's apparent that although 257 dry pounds was pretty massive at the time, that he dwarfed his competition (apart from later on backless monsters Dillet, Nasser etc), there is absolutely no doubt that Ronnie has a much more impressive physique as far as raw power - something which at one point was Dorian's strength. This basic first impression aspect would no longer be in Dorian's favour. No more "Dorian was 1st from the minute he walked out" type stuff like what people said in '93.
The last place people lose fat is the glutes and hams, Ronnie had the craziest glutes and hams in that show since Gaspari had at like 180lb years before. Quotes about balance and proportion being better at lower bodyweights are kind of redundant when you consider Bob Paris's balance+ proportion then consider his Olympia placings. As Jay found out in 2006 when he did what it took it takes size as well as pure condition. Shawn Ray was certainly more aesthetic/better balance/proportion/shape than Dorian, but side by side it was father and son stuff size-wise. I believe Ronnie's extra 30lb would have this same effect on Dorian, even if a few of those pounds are water, that's still a significant difference. Check the leg split, muscle fullness etc. Nasser had no back, Flex was too small. Dorian had these basic advantages over his contemporaries onstage, but 2003 Ronnie was bigger and thicker all over including back, more insane hams and glutes, still better aesthetics than Dorian (as you've conceded in past posts).
Dorian's dryness was combined in his day with being bigger than everyone, and/or with a better back than everyone else. But when he was smaller Haney beat him, and when his back was less developed Momo beat him. 2003 Ronnie is bigger, including the back, just not as dry, but Haney and Momo still beat Dorian mostly on size/back development.
I'm not sure quotes from before 2003 mean a whole lot, as Ronnie's condition in 2003 was better than 2000/2001, so the point Mr McGough was making isn't taking 2003 into account as it hadn't happened yet. What year is the Demilia quote from?
Vis a vis Dorian photoshoot '93, he looks absolutely insane, it's just so hard to be objective cos everyone looks so good backstage, the lighting is that much lower, it's so bright on a stage it washes out everything and suddenly the lower back and glutes/hams look more blobby and watery. Dorian is probably beter than most condition-wise in the '93 photoshoot, but still 12lb heavier than onstage so surely carrying a little more water than at the show? If he'd got onstage at that point with the 12 extra points he'd look fuller but not vintage lower back/ham dryness.
