ha ha ha, oh boy! How am I unable to apply my own logic to judging physiques? I'd like to hear you explain that statement. Also, Ronnie's arms in 04 had amazing cuts. So I don't know wtf you are talking about "big arms with little cuts."
Here is your argument in a nutshell:
"I like the arms of bodybuilder A cut and small but the arms of bodybuilder B big and soft, so comparing the arms of bodybuilder A when they are at their smallest and cuttest to those of bodybuilder B when they are not at their biggest and softest is biased in favor of bodybuilder A."
Yes, nice convoluted logic. I like it. You do not even apply the same criteria to determine what is "best" for the bodybuilders, so how can we get to any meaningful conclusion? By your logic, I meant that Ronnie's arms should be at their best when around 1998 Olympia according to the criteria you used to judge when was Dorian's arms were their best, since they were both at their smallest and cuttest there. Since you prefer cuts on one bodybuilder but size on the other, you have no standards and your point is mute.
nope. Ronnie's arms look like that in almost every pic.
Except, of course, that they were far more defined at lighter bodyweights than at 290 lbs. Going by your logic, then Ronnie's arms were at their best in the time when Ronnie was an amateur, or, at best, at his first Olympia.
Dorian's arms in 93 had less peak, worse definition, and worse proportion between the biceps and triceps. That's my reasoning for why his arms looked better in the shot you posted. You're the moron who keeps insisting that size is everything - NOT me.
Ronnie's arms at 290 lbs had less definition and worse proportion between biceps/triceps than they had in 1998 or from the time when he was an amateur, so what's your point?
