Sure, this is probably the reason why McGough prefers Ronnie's 2001 ASC form over 1999, or why Uncle Joe himself stated that Ronnie looked his best in 1998. Let's face it: the only reason why you push so hard the blatantly false argument that Ronnie's conditioning in 1999 was as good as 1998 is because you want a version of Ronnie where he has Dorian's size besides the conditioning, because if you acknowledged that 1998 was Ronnie's best, it would allow us to claim that, sure, he had conditioning as good as Dorian's, but he is inferior in size, so he loses anyway. You want the cake and eat it too, but that's not possible.
your post makes no sense.
where do you get the idea that I think Ronnie was in as good of shape in 99 as in 98 ONLY because I want him to have the added size too?
here is a hint:
what I WANT means NOTHING.
What ACTUALLY WAS DISPLAYED ON STAGE IS WHAT COUNTS and that
I have no control over..
McGough has publicly documented that he feels that 99 was better than 98 (by omitting 98 from his article and focusing in on 99) but he also thinks that 2001 AC was even better.
so, McGough thinks that:
2001 AC> 99 O. >> 98 O.
So, why do you keep insisting that 98 was Ronnie's best?
clearly, it is NOT - and few people seem to think it is anymore.
I can't help it if 99 was an effective blend of the sort of detail displayed at the AC combined with added size that was absent at the AC.
its not my fault:
ask this man:
you are acting as if I am making up the fact that Ronnie was just as hard in 99 as he was at the AC but with 10 pounds more weight.
here is a lesson for you Sucky:
compare for yourself:

first two shots from 99, last one from AC.
its right here for your (blind) eyes and mind in denial..
