ND, I usually agree with most of your arguments. But not regarding Ronnie 97 vs 98. For those of us that were at both shows, it was obvious that Ronnie was ‘transformed’ (as is obvious when studying pics and movies). He was bigger, fuller and sharper. I think the comparison picture you provided only underscores this. It shows improvements almost all over, that is sum is significant. His delts and traps were clearly bigger. So was his back and thighs (and stomach). Look at the chest as well, fuller and thus slightly improved. It was almost felt like Yates 92 vs 93 (I said almost).
The numbers regarding bodyweight are clearly misleading as ‘evidence’ (and not the least because they are seldom trustworthy). Take Lee Haney 90 vs 91 as an example. In 90 he said his weight was approximately 259, and in 91 it was around 248. Take a look at pics and movies, or ask those being there. It is clear that he looked smaller and almost ‘skinny-fat and flat’ in 90 as compared to 91, where his condition made him appear much bigger even though he weighed less. Same goes with Ronnie. More muscles/thickness in the right places despite a (slightly) lighter weight.
That aside, I strongly agree with you that if Ronnie 98 showed up in 93 or 95, he would not have beaten Yates. One legacy that Ronnie has provided to judging is the neglecting of calf developments. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, you were damned if you totally lacked calf development. I remember many good bodybuilders that were (perhaps rightfully) overlooked and held back for that reason. I also remember comments on Ronnie; that he had great bodyparts but that he would not reach the top due to lacking calves. If calves were weak it was worse than if other bodyparts were weak. It was considered to throw off the balance and symmetry (which is totally correct). After Ronnie’s reign this is aalmost not an issue anymore. It is clearly much more tolerance among judges and some fans for weak calves.
Had Ronnie showed up in 93 with his 98 version, he would not be good enough to dethrone an improved Yates. If you put both out of context though, it could have gone both ways. With the judging criteria of the early 90s, I think Yates would have won. With the judging criteria of the 2000s, Ronnie would perhaps have won. The judging criteria (how it is interpreted and used) have ‘evolved’ to the worse.
