LMAO.
That's exactly the same thing with Ronnie 98/99.
He was bigger, more proportionned, more separated the year after, that's why I say he was more complete in 99 while you talk about oxymore.
Did you calculated his muscle mass at both contests? 
Flex 99>FLex 93.
And no 1993 was not his pinnacle in term on size, seriously is their one person in the world who think Flex had more size in 93 than in 99??
LMAO.
That's exactly the same thing with Ronnie 98/99.
He was bigger, more proportionned, more separated the year after, that's why I say he was more complete in 99 while you talk about oxymore.
NO he was not , all you do is assert things , offer up NO explanation of your assertions.
Did you calculated his muscle mass at both contests? 
Flex 99>FLex 93.
And no 1993 was not his pinnacle in term on size, seriously is their one person in the world who think Flex had more size in 93 than in 99??
You missed the point entirely ( why am I not surprised? ) it doesn't matter if Flex was heavier in 99 totally irrelevant , was he better? NO why? because he wasn't as hard or as dry and because he was injecting oil by the quart , because his lines were compromised , because got caught up in playing the size game with Ronnie which he was destined to lose
More size doesn't equate to more muscle , more size 99% of the time is at the expense of conditioning. Which is why Ronnie at his lightest is regarded as his best and the best of all time.
DO NOT equate bigger/heavier as better
Flex 93 was better than Flex 99 because? NO oil , he wasn't trying to play the size game , much better density & dryness while retaining his lines and aesthetics.