what do you mean "not quite big enough," he was already bigger, harder and more defined than yates in 96. His legs, chest and arms were bigger and his back at that time as equally as large if not larger.
Traps, I am on the Ronnie side but I think Ronnie was about the same size as he was in 1997
just more defined in 1996. If we take a few pics and a little bit of video footage a case could
be made for Ronnie. It is just a guesstimate that he was not carrying the size yet in 96 to beat Yates.
I think 1999 is when he really filled out his physique to almost perfection for his frame (meaning maximizing
his mass without losing what asthetics he had which in my opinion are pretty good.)
He has one of the best shoulder to waist ratios ever.
I'll compare a 1999 GP shot where RC was holding a little water compared to the 1999 O
against the 2003 Olympia side chest and it is clear to see that alot of his weight gain was in legs,
abdomen, glutes and to a less extent back. Regarding the 1996 Olympia. This is just my opinion and I respect yours if it differs, especially if you were there or have a good video of the contest that shows Ronnie was better
than Yates in 1996.
1. Incredible shoulder to waist ratio 1999 O.
2. Same
3. 2003 O/1999 GP SC
4. Incredible BLS from 99 GP...