
Ronnie has the better taper and width, Dorian has a little better detail.
I would give the advantage to Ronnie because his taper (and arms and esp. delts from the back)
is much better. Also, we cannot really see his hams and glutes in that shot, and we know that Ronnie had better hams and glutes than dorian when he was just 14 years old.
However, This just goes to illistrate how much better Ronnie was in 98 and 99 than he was in 96.

here is how he looked in 1998.
Now compare the two shots.
Its obvious that ND's crazy argument that Ronnie was just as good in 96/7 as he was in 98/99 is totally retarded.
the standards simply progressed. Not taking anything away from Dorian, its just that the bar was raised.
Here is a shot from 99:

Ronnie was even wider in 1999.
Ronnie in 1996 was not the Ronnie of 98/99.
ronnie at his peak would have crushed ND's favorite construction worker.