I've already explained to you the concept of lat width being limited by the length of the clavicles.
You said that? When? Where? First of all, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. How exactly is this relevant to the fact that the 1995 Dorian had wider lats than Ronnie? Where the lats insert in the tendon is immaterial to the differential in lat development between Dorian and the 1999 Ronnie. The
fact is that, if you got a tape measurer and measured the distance between outernmost part of their left and right lats, Dorian would win. Period. Your commentary about clavicle is completely irrelevant in this context.
This is why Dorian's back is almost as wide as 03 Ronnie's and also the reason why 99 Ronnie's back would be comparable in width to Dorian's.
Width is an absolute mathematical measurement. Ronnie's back in 1999 cannot be as wide as Dorian's, considering that Ronnie in 2003 had clearly superior width to his own 1999 version, and that Dorian was a close match for the 2003 Ronnie in width. Your commentary about most lat growth occurring on the lower part of the back is redundant and absurd, considering that, if this were the case, then a bodybuilder's lat would become wider on the lower part than in the upper part as the muscle developed, and this is
obviously not true. In fact, the amount of muscle fibers in the upper part of the latissus is roughly twice as great as that in the lower part. NeoSeminole, you are an idiot.
Most of the increase in lat size occurs in the lower lats. Both Ronnie and Dorian appear to have nearly identical clavicle width. Unless you directly measured each guy, it's impossible to say who was wider.
You logical proposition is axiomatically flawed, given that the lats do not develop mostly in the lower part, and that, even if this were the case, it would still not be true, because Dorian's clavicle width is obviously different than Ronnie's. Your infered incorrectly that most lat growth occurs in the lower part of the muscle, and also that clavicle width is somehow relevant to lat width. Hence, your dseduction was idiotic.
ha ha ha, after I completely disgraced you in a previous post you call me a retard to try and make yourself feel better. 
Sure, because you got owned by posting a pic of the 1999 Ronnie doing a rear lat spread, in which as I said
his lats, teres major, minor and erectores are clearly less wide and thick than Dorian's . By the way, posting a pic from 1999 and then immediately following that by posting a pic of Ronnie doing the exact same mandatory from 2003 is dishonest. I have owned you so continuosly and severely that I should be claiming property rights over your asshole.
I told you before I'm not switching between 99 and 03 Ronnie. I was merely responding to your comment that Dorian was wider than 99 Ronnie.
And you made a fool out of yourself, since, and pay close attention since you're a slow learner: the 1999 Ronnie was
not a match for Dorian in lat width or thickenss, or thickness of any other back muscle group. Basically, Dorian destroys Ronnie from the back at anything except separations - and I'm not even bringing proportions into this. Your only claim to fame, the only thing that makes you believe that you've "disgraced" me, would be if I didn't know that pic you posted was from Ronnie in 1999, but rather from 2003. In this case, I would have made a fool out of myself - when, in reality, it was you who got owned continuously by yours truly. However, since I have posted this same pic before on a thread about the 1999 Olympia and since it is common knowledge that pic is from 1999, you've got nothing on me, boy.
Surely I'm allowed to defend him. What did you expect me to do? Post pics of Ronnie in 03? Then you would say I can't read.
Sure, go ahead and post pics of Ronnie in 1999 to show taper and separations, and then post those from the 2003 Olympia to show how Ronnie dominated Dorian for size.
Sorry, but it's not my fault you are a dumbass.
Since I'm clearly more intelligent than you but also a dumbass, then what does that make you...?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
