here's what you said earlier.
"You can add 20 lbs of muscle tissue to you lats and you'd still not gain 4 inches to each side."
It doesen't matter, because even a single inch is visible to the eyes when it comes to width. How many inches did Ronnie have over Cutler in lat width at the 2001 Olympia? One inch to each side? And the bottom line is that it was visible and gave Ronnie an edge. The fact that Dorian's taper from the back was still better than Ronnie's despite his obviously thikcer waist goes to show that the difference in width is significant. Imagine that by adding 10 lbs of muscle to the lats, 5 to each, means an increase of 2 inches in lat width to the sides. Well, that would be clearly very easy for the eyes to see, and there's no reason toa ssume that Dorian didn't have 10 lbs more of lat mass than Ronnie, considering that Ronnie's quads were clearly bigger and yet they weighted the same.
this is what I've been trying to convey to you the whole time. I never said lat width is not measured using the upper part of the lats. My point is that you cannot add more than 3-4 inches each side, which means the difference between Dorian and Ronnie when they weighed the same was negligable.
First of all, I think that this claim of yours is bullshit. So the lats can only grow 4 inches to each side, huh? Well, I've seen pics of Dorian from before he starter training and it seems that he added six or seven inches to each side. Regardless, even if you're correct, you are wrong about the difference being neglegible: even one inch can be significant. And who said that bodyweight has anything to do with it? Mass is not distributed symmetrically, even if the muscles are rleatively proportional in relation to each other. Look at Nasser, who outweighed Dorian by 30 lbs at the 1996 Olympia, and yet didn't have even close to his lat width. Ronnie's back in 1999 is clearly closer to Dorian's than Nasser's, but I think that, considering Dorian's taper with a thicker waist, it is reasonable to assume Dorian's lats were wider.
You even said yourself that a person can add 20 lbs of muscle to each lat and only gain 4 inches per side.
The thing is: four inches to each side is a
gigantic increase in width. Get a ruler and, measure 4 inches with your fingers and then put this to the sides of each lats. That's...wow...eight inches increase in total back width: almost the difference between a Mr.Olympia and someone who never lifted weights.
This is why Ronnie in 03 was only slightly wider than Dorian who weighed 30 lbs less.
No, Ronnie was only slightly wider although being 30 lbs heavier because most of the weight he gained in the off-season that year was quadriceps and gluteal mass increase, but abdominal distension. Dorian's back was simply too thick and wide to be convincingly surpassed in size by anyone, including Ronnie in his 2003 form.
here is the exact quote where you said Dorian's arms were 52 cm.
52 cm = 20.47" (there's your proof)
Ok, I wasn't obsessed with precision when I wrote that quote. The specific article I mentioned said that Dorian's arms were 52 cm; but that is a single source where I saw that number using the metric system. I have seen tons of times Dorian's arms being refered to as posessing 21". Well, let's see. 21" is equivalent to 53.34 centimeters. That's slightly over one centimeter from what I claimed. I just don't see how this is even relevant. Regardless, talking about a precise assesment, I think Ronnie's arms were much closer to being 2" bigger than Dorian's instead of three.
After I called you out for rounding up to 21", you suddenly change your story - "umm, I never said Dorian's arms were 52 cm. I said they were either 52 or 53 cm. I'm not sure" 
Ugh..the quote is from a magazine I saw a long time ago, and I dont remeber the exact number quoted. But yes, I did change what I said. I recalled that number from memory anyway, so I could be wrong.
I also highlighted the part where you said Ronnie's arms were 24" at the 03 Mr. Olympia. However, you claim that his arms were only 2" larger. Let's do the math. I'll even round up Dorian's arms to 21" to make it easier for you. 24 - 21 = 3 which is greater than 2.
Actually, I have been proven wrong about this. Delta send me the scanned article from FLEX, reviewing the 2003 Olympia, and Ronnie's arms are in quote as tapering at 23". Others told me that Ronnie's arms were 24" and I believed them, because his arms were truly huge. Anyway, let's do the math again: Dorian's arms were much closer to 21" than to 20". So: 23" - 21" = 2". Where is my math wrong, kid
Anyway, this is all irrlevant, because Ronnie's advantage in overrall arm size is only visible in the front double biceps. From all other angles, Dorian's arms actually stack very well agains Ronnie's. For instance, when standing relaxed, Dorian is helped by his phenomenal lateral triceps head and more proportionally developed three deltoid heads.
Once again, you have owned no one but yourself.
You're right that I'm the only one who could own myself. But you? Kid...you have been owned by me more times than a port tart on Fleet Day.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
