did I say Dorian's gut looks worse than Ronnie's, dumbass? No. You asked me to find 1 pic where Dorian's gut looks half as bad as Ronnies. Allow me to repeat myself. You asked me to find 1 pic where Dorian's gut looks half as bad as Ronnie's. I answered your challenge and then some. Furthermore, I have never ingored Ronnie's liabilites - ever. We've already had this discussion.
No, you haven't. Dorian midsection looks like that of Michaelangelo's David in comparison. I simply don't agree with you. Dorian's gut is so much flatter than Ronnie's that you're embarassing yourself with this stupid ass argument.
made up what numbers? If you're referring to Ronnie's arm measurement in 97, I got that from Pobrecito.
He's probably wrong, although I can't say for sure.
Why don't you ask him where he got it from?
Because I don't care, because even if true, it doesen't discredit one iota of anything I said.
Maybe you can have a back and forth argument with him. Even if Ronnie's arms were 23" in 03, this is still more than 2" bigger than Dorian's. Once again, your inability to perform elementary math is brutally obvious. 
My ability with math is quite good, actually. The last time I checked, 23 - 21 = 2.
actually you did.
No, you agreed with me, since I never claimed what you said I did!
I said that the lats grow as much
visually in the upper part as in the lower one. You'd only be right if I had said that the lats increase as much in
mass in the upper part as in the lower. I
dare you to prove that I said that! Let's bring in the moderators! Ron has all the posts made at this board archived in the database without alterations. Let's ask him to see if there's any post of mine there where I claimed that the lats grows as much in
mass in the upper part as in the lower one.
By the way, pat yourself in the back! You're so brilliant! You have figured out that a muscle grows more between the tendons that attach it than close to the tendons. Wow! You're the only one to know that! Let's call a conference with the World's most prestigious physiologists and break in the news to them!
I have already outlined my anatomical argument and used pictorial evidence to demonstrate why I think Ronnie was just as wide as Dorian.
Pictorial evidence sucks to demonstrate this, because Ronnie's waist is smaller and his lats rounder, so he appears to be wider than he really is. Of course, my argument, although infinitely better than yours, is not perfect either. I still think that there is enough factual evidence to suggest that Dorian was wider, but of course I could be wrong. Again, the only way to settle this once and for all would be with a tape measurement. Unfortunately, this can't be done. Regardless, you assume that Ronnie is just as wide, but the evidence suggests that Dorian's lats were bigger and thus, that they spread wider.
Pobrecito also made a comparison that shows Ronnie and Dorian were the same width. So you can't say it was biased in favor of Ronnie. I even posted a video from 96 where they were both onstage, and you can see they had the same width. Honestly, if you can't see that they had the same width, then I feel sorry for you.
Excuse me?! 1996? Ample evidence has been posted showing that Dorian's back was much thicker, wider and even more detailed than Ronnie's in 1996.
your argument sucks ass b/c you are selectively choosing where the "missing" weight came from. You limit it to one bodypart and then pick lats to support your argument. The difference most likely came from Dorian's thick waist, hamstrings, and calves.
No, no, no. I've already factored in the other bodyparts. Hamstrings? Ronnie's are bigger, so I don't know what you're talking about. Dorian's calves are bigger, granted, but the calves are too small a bodypart to make the difference. Even if Ronnie had no calves whatsoever, Dorian would still not weight as much as Ronnie considering how much bigger Coleman's quads were. Waist? Ha ha ha ha ha! Ronnie's overrall gut is much bigger, you fool! Again, I didn't say that my theory was foolproof, only that it's more reliable than photographic evidence, which can be skewed by several factors. Think Wheeler. His quads were obvioulsy smaller than Dorian's yet appeared to be just as big, because the narrowness of his upper body and his dramatic sweep made his quads appear much bigger than they really are.
I find it hard to believe so many people would compliment you when you sound like a rambling idiot when you type. Normally, I wouldn't have that big of a problem if you just mispelled a word, but you used the wrong word all together.
Yeah, ok. Whatever you say. You made a monstrously irrelevant comment when you brought up muscle insertion points and where most of the growth of the muscle occurs. Everyone knows that, you idiot! And I'm supposed to be criticized for mispelling a few words? Again, spelling is no indication of intelligence, because there's a spell-checker here that anyone can use.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
