His back is less detailed than Wheeler's there, but is more massive. Just like apply85, Sherief and I have been saying - his back isn't as bad as he got scrutinized for, and he did scrutinized for it more than others did for their flaws.
And why do you always make reference to bodyweight when comparing Nasser? Since when has one of the judging criteria been size as a ratio of bodyweight? Do they announce bodyweights of each and use that when judging - lower bodyweight (as an individual factor) giving an advantage? The fact that you keep saying that just shows your bias. Shawn Ray held his own against Dorian in many poses, and he weighed a lot less too. You never bring that up. When discussing Jay vs. Phil does anyone compare their bodyweights as part of the judging criteria? Just shows your anti-Nasser bias when you keep bringing up his bodyweight in particular to dampen the argument "yeah his back is more massive here but he also weighs more so it should be" LOL. Guess Ronnie Coleman in 2003 wasn't so impressive because one has to consider that he also weighed more than his competitors 
And like I said, if Nasser was crowned the O in 97 you would be arguing that he was the fair winner, because all of your arguments are always based on your belief that contest results are perfect.
His back is less detailed than Wheeler's there, but is more massive. Just like apply85, Sherief and I have been saying - his back isn't as bad as he got scrutinized for, and he did scrutinized for it more than others did for their flaws.
It's more massive? it's supposed to be more massive he outweighs Flex by probably 60lbs and he's only 1" taller , more massive means , more fat , less dense muscle. his type of ' more massive ' isn't what the judges are looking for.
You can't seem to grasp how much of a MAJOR flaw this is , the back is one of the biggest muscle groups in the body and it's lacking severely , this isn't a torn bicep it's an entire missing back , until you can grasp this concept then you will always be scratching your head wondering why he never won
And why do you always make reference to bodyweight when comparing Nasser? Since when has one of the judging criteria been size as a ratio of bodyweight? Do they announce bodyweights of each and use that when judging - lower bodyweight (as an individual factor) giving an advantage? The fact that you keep saying that just shows your bias. Shawn Ray held his own against Dorian in many poses, and he weighed a lot less too. You never bring that up.
Oh the irony of you of all people bitching about making reference to his bodyweight , Mr 300lbs with abs
and I'll tell you exactly why I keep referencing his bodyweight , because it has to do with his back NOT being in proportion with the rest of his massive parts , when your rear latspread is as wide as a guy who is 60lbs lighter it's clearly highlighting why he's losing contests despite a clear advantage in PART of the judging criteria , muscular bulk
Muscular bulk is part of the judging criteria not bodyweight per sa , but conditioned muscular bulk , and Nasser's back was LACKING in this area severely which is why he lost more than won. And Shawn Ray held his own against Dorian in MANY poses?
lol with your irrational train of thought I'm sure you believe this but Shawn got crushed utterly in almost every pose , in terms of muscular bulk AND density AND dryness AND balance AND proportion AND posing AND presentation , Shawn like Nasser was never ever close to Dorian , the ignorant lament to the contrary
When discussing Jay vs. Phil does anyone compare their bodyweights as part of the judging criteria? Just shows your anti-Nasser bias when you keep bringing up his bodyweight in particular to dampen the argument "yeah his back is more massive here but he also weighs more so it should be" LOL. Guess Ronnie Coleman in 2003 wasn't so impressive because one has to consider that he also weighed more than his competitors
Again the point isn't so much the weight , it's more to do with Nasser's lack of proportionate back in relation to the rest of his physique , weight is meaningless if it's not conditioned quality muscle , if weight were a great consideration Kovacs would be a multiple Mr Olympia winner.
Anti-Nasser bias? I posted a pic of him in the another thread in the ab-thigh from the 1995 Huston Pro at 268lbs , I said he has among the best ab-thighs of all-time and infinitely better than any pro competing today , is this anti-Nasser? of course not and why? because it's applicable , he sucks from the back and why? it's applicable. His back is supposed to be more massive than Flex and in that pic it's more massive per sa and soft as fuck and holding water it's NO ADVANTAGE at all , dry Nasser completely out like 1995 and his back would be even smaller , it's not a plus and it's the same reason he lost to Flex in that contest as he did to Dorian in 1997 , because he sucked from the back
Nasser was two different bodybuilders , Mr Olympia from the front , and Mr 12 weeks out from the back , his conditioning from the front was very good and soft as hell from the back , you will NEVER escape this fact
