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.
you either don't know how to read or you don't want to understand anything. First I never said Robbie was small...his frame, Like Alberts was small compared to Haney. Take Robbies arms and put them on Haney's body and they would look out of proportion. It's not that hard to understand really. Robbie's frame was close to Lee's, wide shoulders, small waist but the problem was Lee was BIGGER than robbie. Try to understand what I'm saying. Lee's torso was enormous, that's why his arms looked small.
I'm not caught up in numbers, and I don't get where that's coming from. It's a simple fact: a guy that weighs 255lbs and is 5'10" is gonna need bigger arms than a guy who is 5'8 and 220, it's simple math. Lee's arms were over 20" and they looked small, not cause they were small but because his torso was soooo big they looked small.
This has to be the dumbest arguement I've ever had on this site...it's worse than talking to alexxx for God's sake.
