If you say the earth is flat without proof, that must be true too. 
No, it is you who never provides any evidence for anything, just like when you go on an on about your conspiracy theories.
Doesen't Dillet's weak lats represent a liability in the front lat spread? Yes, it does. Isn't Dorian's chest thicker and wider than Dillet's? Yes, it is. Paul only had ugly varicose veins in his chest without any mass to speak for. Dorian has the thicker pectoralis and the better vastus lateralis, calves and serratus, thus giving him the side chest shot. So, your argument about Dillet winning from the sides is moronic. The only thing Dillet had on Dorian were taper and biceps&triceps size - but Dorian had the better quality triceps which, when combined with his better proportions from the sides, gives him the side triceps shot.
Utter domination of Yates from most angles, with very few weaknesses relative to Yates. His only negatives are back detail and posing.
His negatives include: defective pectoralis muscularity, weak calves, overrated delts and lack of both
width&thickness of the latissimus, teres major, teres minor, infra-spinatus and erectores. You're a moron for assuming that the only thing Paul lkacked, in the back department, were details.
He's known for delts, you idiot, the exact opposite of another of your unproven claimsTake a look for a change-Yates by comparison looks like he doesn't have delts let alone traps or arms.
Actually, I never agreed with this. It's obvious that Dillet's front delts overpowered his other two. This aqain, is one of the reasons why he sucked so badly from the sides. So what do you do? You post a pic of Dillet from the front, where mostly his front delts are visible. Dorian's delt was more evenly developed, which is obvious in the side triceps shot. I own you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
