beckles and robinson weighed what 220-230 back when they were on stage with Lee and neither one of them carried lee's mass, not even close. Robbie was close to lee's structure but when asked after winning the 1988 Niagra Falls pro invitational if he was gonna really go after lee he said "Well, Lee is lee. For me to compete with him I'd have to put on 30 pounds and that would destroy the symetry" word for word. See Symetry used to matter..not anymore. Another thing...Robbies legs were worse than lee's
Absurd-Rob's only weakness on thighs was cuts, not a lack of size like Haney-not the same, which you haven't even noticed. Maybe it's time for you to invest in glasses. On top of that, Rob had huge hams, which you'd only have noticed in person, as I did in the 70s. His best shape wasn't in the late 80s, it was in the late 70s.
Again you're completely mezmerized by numbers, in this case instead of measurements you're confused with bodyweights, so i'll repeat again. Forget the numbers: bottom line Beckles, Rob and early Coleman all had great arms with a small waist, something you claim impossible as an excuse for Haney's mediocre balance.
As far as what one said about the other, Haney was equally complementary, knowing that there was NO way that he deserved 8 Olympias while Robinson, arguable better than Haney, had none. Robinson had the same unusually good density as Haney, but with great arms and far better overall balance. None of the glaring weaknesses Haney always had.