Wrong again. I did say that the 98 O Ronnie had great detail and an incredible taper, but I also said that Dorian, at his best, is better. So you compare a shitty pic of Dorian to a good one of Ronnie and we're supposed to draw conclusions based on that?
The FACT is that Ronnie never matched Dorian for density, etchiness and dryness when they were competing at the same bodyweight. Ronnie only maches Dorian for that when he balloons to 280+ lbs. Which is irrelevant, because at that weight he loses his two greatest strenghs: his taper and detail. Ronnie never looked as good as this. Just compare them both.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
but what you are not realizing is that for all the supposed dryness and etchiness than dorian had, Ronnie was STILL MORE DETAILED from head to toe (except for the lower back).










pose after pose, angle after angle, ronnie displayed more striations and seperation that Dorian ever did (except for the lower back and probably abs).
But as far as the entire rest of his physique goes (quads, glutes, hamss, chest, biceps, triceps, deltoids, you name it) Dorian was lacking in detail compared to Ronnie.
so, what difference does it make if Dorian was "harder" than Ronnie if he didn't have the genetically blessed detail to show off?
I mean, look at the shots I posted, for all the dryness that dorian supposedly had, ronnie is more detailed in EVERY ONE of them. When you compbine this with fact that ronnie had a superior taper while still displaying the same size and width that dorian had, its no contest.
so, dryness is a silly argument. It doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of pics and videos.
sure, it may sound good on paper, but without pics and videos, it means nothing.
And when you look at the pics and vids, you quickly see what I am saying.