yes, it does matter.
Like I said before, I'm not sure if the lats can only grow 3 or 4 inches to each side. Secondly, even if true, that would still be a massive difference in size. Your argument is stupid for a simple reason: bodybuilders of similar weights are called out for comparisons and the rear lat spread is involved. If the difference in lat width between bodybuilders of similar weights were insignificant, then there would be no point in comparing them. Look at the 1995 Olympia, and Dorian's lats were clearly wider than Nasser's, even the latter was heavier. This completely debunks your claim that bodyweight is somehow relevant to back development.
The only reason you are now saying it's not important is b/c you are looking for any reason to argue with me.
Not at all. The reason why I'm saying it's not important is because it's true.
If Dorian added 7 inches per side, then he would be 14 inches wider. This is physically impossible.
Prove it. Regardless, I never claimed he did. I said that "it seems like he added six or seven inches to his lats." Like I've said to you before many times, visual assessments are far from accurate, exactly the reason why this could only possibly be solved by getting a tape and measuring their lat widths. At least, my theory is more plausible than yours.
Take out a ruler and see how much a foot is. You're saying that Dorian looks like he added 2 more inches than this.
No; I guesstimated that he did. Have you seen the video of the 1995 Olympia? Have you seen Dorian's lat width?! Have you seen how skinny he was when he started? Again, visual assesments are shit, but from a purely visual assesment, seven inches to each side is not completely impossible.
Furthermore, Nasser was wider than Dorian you dipshit.
No, he was wider than Dorian from the front, due to his massive delts. From the back, he seemed like an amateur compared to Dorian in overrall back development. Again, check out the video and you'll see that Dorian simply destroys Nasser in the rear lat spread. I think you're a retard for having said that.
I'm not sure why you say he "didn't even come close to his lat width."
Because he didn't...
wow, ladies and gentleman, Sucky can add 4 plus 4!!! 
But apparently, you can't. You also seem to be unable to subtract.
excuses excuses. You said one thing, and now you're changing your story to avoid further embarrassment. Just admit that you are wrong.
Wrong about what? Because I saw one source in a magazine years ago that stated that his arms were 52 centimeters? Well, I've seen it in full print several times that Dorian's arms were 21". In fact, in those black&whites from 1993, Dorian's arms actually tapered at 22".
Since I never use the decimal scale, I assumed that 52 cm was 21". In any case, it's close enough - only one centimeter off. So, if it makes you feel better about yourself that I got a conversion wrong by one centimeter, then so be it. Observe that this is not even a discussion about Dorian's arms, which were probably 22" at their best and not 21"; he is criticizing me from mistaking a conversion from inches to centimeters by one centimeter! The real question here is: Who cares? Especially considering that I don't remember exactly what the number in print was: 52 cm is what I recall. Secondly, that there are tons of figures showing that Dorian's arms, at their pre-tear best, were actually closer to 22". And thirdly, above all, who cares about overrall arms size since it is only visible in the front double biceps?
Dorian's arms were closer to 20" than 21".
Actually, they were 21" and probably closer to 22". In the pre-contest pics from 1993, they were 22".
Let's just say his arms were 20.5" for argument's sake. 23 - 20.5 = 2.5 which is greater than 2
Nope. 23" - 21" = 2". And you bet 2.5 is more than 2. Were Ronnie's arms 2.5" bigger than Dorian's? No. Even if they were, would that make that much a difference? No.
Also, the only pose Dorian's arms could match Ronnie's in was the side triceps. Ronnie's arms destroyed Dorian's in the:
front double biceps
I agree. This is Ronnie's major royal flush. In this pose, his superior biceps are entirely visible - unlike in the back double biceps, where they are obscured by delt and triceps mass - and Ronnie's small advantage in inner and medial triceps heads are visible too. But then, I've never denied that Ronnie is better at this mandatory.
rear double biceps
Nope. Talking exclusively about arms, Dorian's lateral triceps head is visible here, and it is plain better than Ronnie's. Dorian's delts are just as big as Ronnie's, bt with the added bonus that his three delt heads are more proportionally developed.
front lat spread
Excuse me, but I assume that you are joking. In what way, exactly are arms relevant here, since the biceps is not contracting, the triceps is not visible and the only that is visible, the forearsms, are a clear advantage to Dorian?
rear lat spread
Ronnie might have a small advantage in triceps here, but it is minimal. How many points would this small advantage give Ronnie, considering that Dorian's lats spread wider, and that Ronnie had large, unmanly glutes, and huge hams that only emphasize how small his claves were?
most muscular
Ok, but just for the record, this was not officially a mandatory in Dorian's era, and Dorian's crab shot was fantastic.
you have yet to own me kid.
I have owned you too many times to even count. Several people have quoted my replies to you and told you, in full print, that I owned you. You didn't reply to several of my posts on the ground that they were too long. Guess what? It's far more tiresome to write them!
In fact, all you have accomplished is making yourself look stupid.
I have made you look stupid so many times, and yet you come back for more. Poopster getsd owned by me continuously but at least he's an old member who genuinely follows the sport. What about you?
You claimed that you never said Dorian's arms were 52 cm. I posted the exact quote where you did.
Wrong! I never denied that! I confirmed that I said that I saw the number 52 cm in that magazine article, but that it could also have been 53. That's all I said. I saw this article many years ago, so I don't remember for sure. Regardless, 20.47" is pretty fucking close to 21", and you make a big deal over it. And againm the joke's on you, because Dorian's arms were probably not only 21" but close to 22" at their best, and the only wrong thing I said was that Ronnie had 24" arms.
You asked me where I got Dorian's arm measurement of 20.47" when all I did was convert the number you gave me from cm to inches.
Well, 21" is 53.34 centimeters, so it's not far off from that number. Regardless, you're making a big deal out of this because it's the only thing you have to hang to.
You also threatened to call me a bitch if I didn't respond to your post, which I did the same day. However, you have yet to address my response to your post (over 3 days ago) in the religious board. I guess that officially makes you my bitch now.
I have no intention of posting another reply at that thread. I replied to that post because usmokepole complimented me and asked for my opinion on some matter. Then, you posted an incredibly stupid think - that the law of cause and effect is not explained by logic -, I laughed and just had to reply to that. Read the TOE by Christopher Michael Langan and, if you need elucidation about some point, then I will help you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
