I never agreed with you, dumbass. Let's recapitulate: you claimed that I said something that I never did. I never said that the lats grow more in the upper part in terms of muscle mass, but rather visually. You would have owned me if I had said that the as much muscle tissue is added to the upper lats as to the middle and lower one. You made a charge that I'm willing to prove wrong. As Cicero would say it, the burden of proof lies with those who make the accusation. Again, let's get Ron to search the board's database - because I can't edit my posts there -, and, if he finds a post where I especifically wrote that the upper lats grow as much in terms of muscle mass as the lower part, then I will apologize to you and agree that I was mistaken. The thing is, yous see, that deep down you know I never said that, and you keep insisting on it because that would be the only claim you'd have for having owned me.
here's what you said earlier.
"You can add 20 lbs of muscle tissue to you lats and you'd still not gain 4 inches to each side."
this is what I've been trying to convey to you the whole time. I never said lat width is not measured using the upper part of the lats. My point is that you cannot add more than 3-4 inches each side, which means the difference between Dorian and Ronnie when they weighed the same was negligable. You even said yourself that a person can add 20 lbs of muscle to each lat and only gain 4 inches per side. This is why Ronnie in 03 was only slightly wider than Dorian who weighed 30 lbs less.
Ugh...So now is 23" - 21" not equal to 2". You picked at straws by making a big deal out of half an inch, and it is clear that I said that the article where Dorian's arms measurement appeared said either 52 centimeters or 53. The fact is that I don't recall if it was one or the other. The bottom line is that either 52 or 53 cm are pretty fucking close to 21". And furthermore, I'm still waiting for your proof that Dorian's arms were 20.5". You lost the argument completely, but I will allow you to feel better about yourself by just typing that I'm delusional and that I said something I never did in the first place.
here is the exact quote where you said Dorian's arms were 52 cm.
Ronnie himself, FLEX and Jim Schmaltz reported that Ronnie had 24" arms onstage at the 2003 Olympia. Considering that he was over 280 lbs, it's believable; I'll take it de facto evidence of his arm size. And the British Muscle&Fitness magazine repoted that Dorian's right arm flexed tapered at 52 centimeters in circumference for the 1995 Olympia. That's about 21".
52 cm = 20.47" (there's your proof)
After I called you out for rounding up to 21", you suddenly change your story - "umm, I never said Dorian's arms were 52 cm. I said they were either 52 or 53 cm. I'm not sure"
I also highlighted the part where you said Ronnie's arms were 24" at the 03 Mr. Olympia. However, you claim that his arms were only 2" larger. Let's do the math. I'll even round up Dorian's arms to 21" to make it easier for you. 24 - 21 = 3 which is greater than 2. Once again, you have owned no one but yourself.
