how about several?
You have tried and failed miserably. Try again. Dorian's distension is minimal there, especially when compared to the fat Santa known as Coleman.
You heard it here folks, Sucky thinks Ronnie's arms were only 2" bigger than Dorian's. 
I don't care how their arms "look" when compared to each other, since the issue here is mathematical and not visual. Take out the tape measurer and you'll see that Ronnie's arms were about 23" while Dorian's were 21". Two inches. Besides, like I said before, it doesen't really matter, since Dorian has the better arms in the side triceps, back double biceps and while standing relaxed.
hell, even 96 Ronnie had noticably bigger arms than Dorian. Ronnie's arms in 03 would have put his arms in 96 to shame.
Only in the front double biceps.
yeah, no shit about where lat width is measured. I never stated otherwise. Your constant reminder only goes to show that you misunderstand what I'm saying. Put it this way: if the arm grows 2" around the middle, does the arm also grow 2" around the elbow? No. The upper part of the lats don't grow as much b/c they are situated closer to the insertion.
What an annoying little turd you are. You claimed something that was incorrect and are now trying to save face by manipulating semantics. Try to understand this, bitch:
The lats might grow more in muscle tissue in the lower part, but this is irrelevant since the upper part always remains wider. DUH!
You argued that Ronnie's lats were wider because his lower lats were thicker. Well, duh, I replied that this is irrelevant to who has the widest lats because any growth of the lower lats is concomitant with a proportional growth of the upper part and the upper part is where the width is measured. I
never argued that the growth in absolute muscle tissue was proportional; I argued that the
visual growth of the muscle is the same throughout the muscle. Stop trying to save face by stealing my argument and pretending to make it as your own, guy!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
