I agree ronnie looked great in 1996, but ironically back then, he was all front.his back wasn't that great yet at all. and that made a HUGE difference by the time it caught up with his crazy most muculars and arm shots..he added so much size and thickness it was crazy.and of course his glutes/hams tightened way up. he lost a bit of detail in the delts from the rear. but other than that it was all up.
HahahaYeah, you truely are a bind retard. Yup, ND and I are the ONLY Dorian supporters in this thread.I forgot how Hulkster world really works, you only see what you want, you fucking nimrod.Im done here its obvious you were born with some sort of brain defect.
I love that dorian pic because it shows just how piss poor his quads really were.fully flexed and extended they have no cuts, no seperation and are way too small for his massive calves.its a great pic. please keep posting it!
Ho can you judge that if his quads are seen sideays and not from the front? Look at pictures of Dorian flexing his quads from the 1997 Olympia, hen he as 270 lbs, and you'll see that his quads ere just as separated as Ronnie's at the 1999 Olympia, but ith superior size and hardness. Your argument that Ronnie's quads are more separated is complete nonsense. Also, Dorian's quads ere in proportion to his claves but Ronnie's calves ere too small for his quads.SUCKMYMUSCLE
I asked where were his cross-striated quads in 1999?
and ironically YOU posted many pics unknowingly from 1996 claiming it would destroy Dorian and they were back shots too lmfao now his back sucks LMFAO
they were probably hidden by the super deep cuts he attained by 99 that he didn't have in 96/7 fact is, ronnie lost the striations but gained the deep deep seperation and massive sweep that he hever had before.his quads were much more impressive in 99 than in 96, even without the bit of cross striations.
it sucks compared to what it turned into by 1999:
LOL!!! Youre actually trying to make shit up about the human anatomy to explain why Ronnie's didnt have the cross striations.HE WASNT AS DRY. those things dont just disappear. Just ask Munzer.
yes, his quads WERE much better in 99 even without the cross striations:are you really that stupid that you ignore the shitty sweep and crappy seperation compared to 99?
who is arguing they were better in 99? I asked a simple question you still can't answer , where are the cross-striations in his quads? where are they in his delts? his mid-section in 1996 is eons better than it was in 99 you think diverting from the topic is saving you from explaining?
they were not there. duh. its no different than comparing dorian's 92 midsection and chest detail to 93.he lost detail but gained some size.this is nothing new, but if you are clueless like you are, I guess you might think it is..
you think you accomplished anything by posting a pic that his detail is washed out by lighting and scanning compared to one that isn't?
LOL everyone take note of the massive excuses being made to a known fact.. subtle admission of defeat. I love it.
Watch this moron Look Ronnie 99 didn't have the same detail in his back like he did in 98
the diff. in details between the 2 pics. is mainly due to the diff. lighting!!..
Yeah sure he did , this is 1996 BTW and he looked outstanding then too where's the cross-striations in Ronnie's quads in 99? his mid-section in 99 looks NO WHERE near as good as this , look at the striations in the deltoids , 99 ain't like this , he improved sure but in some ways digressed
look at the striations in the deltoids , 99 ain't like this
at the same bodyweight, dorian never had lats this thick:
