What you've done is selectively allocate more weight to things you personally prefer, especially in bringing up aesthetics that (1) are subjective and (2) which Yates was never known for.
Then you decided that Yates has some advantages in the lower back, something quite debatable, while completely neglecting to mention Coleman's advantages and Yates' drawbacks. Coleman had huge advantages in taper, width, waist and traps. Personally i also think Coleman had better aesthetics given Yates' bad skin and folds not to mention the lesser taper and blocky waist.
In addition, Yates' imbalance in arm size relative to torso and in comparison to Coleman is a negative in the back lat spread, for those who pay attention. 
No, I'm not talking about aesthetics, but about completeness and development, which are not included in part of aesthetics. Dorian's back is superior because the attachment point of his lats in the tendom is lower, which means that he has more muscle fibers in the lower part of his back to develop, which means that his back is more symmetrically developed than Ronnie's.
Ronnie's back is lacking in the sense that, because his lats attach high, he has little muscle in the lower part of his back, which gives his back a less proportional development in relation to Dorian's. Look at Ronnie's infra-spinatus and you'll see what I'm talking about. In fact, one of the reasons why Ronnie has better taper from the back than Dorian is not because his waist is smaller, but because the muscles around the erector spinae are less developed than Dorian's. Besides, Dorian's middle back muscles are more developed than Ronnie's, and this is evident in Dorian's superior christmas-tree.
How does the lower back come into play as far as a bodybuildign contest goes? Well, there is the back turn during the symmetry round, and the two mandatories. If you assume that each one of the three angles in the symmetry round accounts for 33% of the round, and that the symmetry round accounts for 50% of the total score, then that is around 16.5% of the point right there. Then add 2 out of the 7 mandatories, and that is around 30% of the muscularity round, or 15% of the total score. So Dorian wins 31.5% of the totaql points judged in a contest only because of his lower back and calves, which makes him more complete from the back in the back part of the symmetry round and in the 2 back mandatories.
You need to comprehend that we are evaluating very objective properties here. The development of a muscle is apparent to the eyes, and we can properly access who has the more developed of it between two bodybuilders. It is not merely an artistic evaluation. The "superior" aesthetics of Ronnie's back to you will not be seen as such by the judges, but rather as the result of poor development of the lower back muscles when compared to Dorian.
Bodybuilding judging is composed of the evaluation of two properties of physiques: the amount of muscle contained herewith, and how proportional is the symmetrical distribution of said muscle throghout the skeleton. Aesthetics is usually confused with symmetry, but they are distinct phenomena. Symmetry in regards to bodybuilding refers to proportionality of size between muscles, while aesthetics infers properties in the shape of the muscle itself which makes it to cause contemplation in thos obsering it - like one contemplates a masterpiece by Rembrandt. That the two words are analogous only lexicographically but not denotatively is obvious in that one can have a physique that is both symmstrical and unaesthetic. A good example is Nasser's physique from the front, which was very symmetrical, but yet was lacking in aesthetics due to the poor shape of the muscles.
As for the aforementioned advantages that you cite for Coleman, most are false and those that are not are simply not germaine to the discussion. Coleman does not have superior latissimus dorsi width compared to Dorian, and it only appears as such due to Coleman's smaller waist and lack of development of the lower back muscles. You might proposition that the judges would relevate this as an advantage, while in reality the importance of said advantage would be mitigated by the fact that said advantage is partly the result of inferior development of the lower back muscles.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
