Please watch the video of the 1999 Mr Olympia and stop it at exactly 02.28 and you will see this picture 
you remember the one you said " he's not even done flexing yet " your usual excuse , as you can see its the exact same frame that is stopped in the above pic and guess what slick , he's fully flexing 
so much for that excuse !! and WoW look at the difference between his hardness/dryness vs 1998 its night & day anyone with an ounce of knowledge can clearly see Ronnie 1998 is much sharper in 98 this can be clearly seen in the separation of the teres major & minor , the traps , and the lats as well as his lower back which is all much tighter , in 1998 his skin looks shrink wrapped around his muscles and 1999 it looks softer and fuller , and watch the 1998 footage again and pause it at 03.25 and compare how dry his back is to 1999 a very noticeable difference , now combine that with these pics and quotes and you're out of luck !!
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 .
you are missing the entire point.
the prejudging shots show a rock hard lower back, and upper back up close.
the posing shots up close show it softer.
BUT they show his back rock hard from a distance (see the screen cap which I will find and post again)
now, what you fail to comprehend is that you can't have it both ways.
Ronnie can't be hard as nails one moment and then soft in the other a few minutes apart.
this is what you are claiming.
it doesn't work that way.
Hell, you can tell just by looking at his LOWER BACK that he was not flexing yet in the posing shot. It is soft in that shot, yet hard as nails in the prejudging shot.
just look:
let me ask you ND: was Ronnie both hard and soft at the same time at the same contest?
because this is exactly what the shots show:
this isn't rocket science ND. If he shows up hard in a few shots he was hard.
Plain and simple.
What exaclty are you trying to say?
that he only looks hard because of the quality of the pic?
no, its because he was not flexing fully when the camera was close. You can see in the video he does not complete the pose until the camera pans out and shows the shot from a distance.
ps and this is JUST the back. he was at least as hard in all other areas (except the tummy) and harder in the quads.
