Ronnie's back that year was supposed to be the widest ever but look at the difference in lat width , Ronnie's look smaller than Haney's just look at how much of the lats can be seen and look at how his lats insert into his torso there is a natural transition and Ronnie's looks like they've been stopped no flow and look at the difference in pecs
haney by a long shot
The hugeness of Coleman's back in 2003 is a myth. Sure, it was enormous, but it had no more size than Dorian's at 270 lbs or so or that of Jean-Pierre Fux. I have a picture from the 2004 Olympia when Ronnie's back was even wider of Ronnie and Jay doing the rear lat spread and Jay is more than holding his own against Coleman even though he was 272 lbs vs Ronnie's 296 lbs. Here is Peter McGough's statement regarding the rear lat spreads of Ronnie and Jay in that contest:
""What's it gona be, Big Man?", Triple H inquires. "Rear-lat lghts-out-game-over spread", the reigning champ asserts. Many in attendance immediately realized the tactical error Coloeman had made. Could he win the pose? He could. Was it a garanteed "game over"? Not by a long shot." If Cutler can give Coleman at his biggest ever a run for his money in terms of lat width, then Dorian at 260lbs could certainly match Ronnie 2003 in this criteria as well. Frankly, Dorian and Jay are roughly the same in terms of lat width, so you need to be deluded to believe that Ronnie 2003 would make Dorian look small in the lat department. Dorian's lats would give Ronnie's a run for their money in terms of width just like Jay's, but with the added bonus of having vastly superior definition and hardness. Ronnie's back looks wider than it truly is because his waist is smaller and also because his lats attach higher. The higher attachment gives the lats more sweep, which, oddly enough, adds to the illusion of size to the lats. Remember that Coleman's massive size increase from 2002 to 2003 was mostly quads and gut.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
