I never said that all bodybuilders that weigh the same have identical lat width.
No, you tried to make the case that, because they weighted the same, somehow Ronnie's and Dorian's lats must be about as wide. That's what you said. Obviously, this is incorrect, since there's no obvious logical relationship between the two things. Just because bodybuilders who weight more tend to have wider lats does not mean that it's a rule set in stone. Correlation does not equate causation.
Also, I never implied that bodyweight is directly relevant to back development. Take for example Paul Dillet. I said that Ronnie in 03 was slightly wider than Dorian b/c he carried 30 lbs more of muscle distributed on his frame.
Well, the latter sentence completely anulates the former. First, you prove my point right by saying that Paul Dillet weighted more than Dorian and yet had narrower lats. Then, you claim that Ronnie had wider lats because he weighted more. Duh! You're so fucking dumb! Imagine that Ronnie in 2003 had quads, hams and ass the size of Dorian's. What would happen? He would weight about the same as Dorian. Why? Because his advantage in muscle back mass was close to non-existent! This proves that Ronnie's advantage was mostly gut, quads and ass. You'd have a point if the development were symmetrical, which it was not. Ronnie's back in 2003 was only slightly wider than Dorian's not because the lats only grow so much - duh! -, but because he added mass disproportionally. In general, a bodybuilder who outweights another by 30 lbs of symmetrically developed mass has considerabley wider and thicker lats. An example? Dorian outweighed Flex by about that much, and his lats were consirably thicker and wider than Wheeler's.
I would like to point out that bodyweight is positively associated with lat width. I guarantee that you will find the majority of heavier bodybuilders are wider than their lighter counterparts.
Yes, it is. But correlation does not equal causality. In general, when a bodybuilder develops his muscles, the growth is symmetrical and, thus, a larger overrall physique equates to larger lats. This is not, however, relevant in the case of Ronnie Coleman, because his growth from 2002 to 2003 was not symmetrical, being mostly the result of abdominal, quadriceps and gluteal development.
Moreover, Nasser at his prime was wider than Dorian.
No, he was not. And posting pics does not change that. Nasser could not possibly be wider than Dorian from the back, you fucking retard, because Dorian defeated him both in the rear lat spread and back double biceps with straight-firsts scores. NeoSperminole: you are a moron.
I'm not talking about overall back development, you dipshit. You claimed that Nasser wasn't even close to Dorian's lat width. This is simply not true.
Well, when the back developes, the lats become wider. So back development correlates with width. But speaking only about width, Dorian was wider than Nasser both in the rear lat spread and the back double biceps. Wow, you really overdid yourself in stupidity for claiming that Nasser was wider than Dorian from the back. You should delete your account to save face.
show me 1 example where you owned me.
A good one is when you claimed that Ronnie only had a distended gut during transition, and that his gut was under control most of the time. I then wrote several multiple-paragraph posts replying to that claim of yours, explaning how his distended gut would make him lose the symmetry round flat out at an unbiased bodybuilding contest, and several of these posts were quoted by people saying that I owned you. Then, to further increase your humiliation, several pics were posted that clearly demonstrated that Ronnie's gut was not merely distended, but visible from
all angles, even from the front.
I can provide several examples where you made yourself look stupid.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! I never made myself look stupid, but keep trying. You corrected me on an inch to centimeter conversion which I got wrong by one centimeter, and you claimed that I said something I never did! Those are your only two "examples" where you only made yourself look stupid, by picking at straws for lack of content, and accusing me of saying something I never did. Go ahead, idiot, because I'm actually having great fun. I look forward every day to owning you.
Go ahead, I challenge you. What ever happened to that list of spelling errors you said you would come up with?
Why? Because you can go back and edit your posts? Besides, you're seriously deluded if I'm going to waist my time with a worthless internet fanboy moron who doesen't even know how to evaluate a bodybuilding physique, and actually has the galls to believe that he knows anything about what he's talking about. I grow tired of your stupid claim like that the lats can only grow four inches to each side - where's the proof? -, that Nasser was wider from the back than Dorian, when we all know that Dorian defeated Nasser flat out in the rear lat spread.
I've been following the sport for 7 yrs. I also compete in bodybuilding competitions, and I have a degree in exercise physiology.
Really, "dipshit"? How interesting, because I have been following bodybuilding since 1989, and I have been to over 200 contests both amateur and pro! And I think that everyone here can agree, I'm more intelligent than you and know far more bodybuilding facts, history and how to evaluate a physique than you do. You're probably some college kid. Were you even potty trained the last time Dorian won a Sandow?
What have you done?
For starters, I have owned you brutally at this thread, and will continue to do so ad infinitum. I have also benched in excess of 500 lbs - although I was taking sauce back then -, have earned degres in several academic disciplines and have a six year-old son.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're some insecure little fagg*t who likes to hide behind his computer and threaten people online.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're a 100 lbs pencil-necked geek who's never worked out in his entire life and who's only seen Coleman in videos and magazine pics.
yes you did. Here's the quote to prove it. 
Oh, I'm sorry that I got a conversion from inch to centimeters wrong by one fucking centimeter! Damn! I mean, I never use centimeters and I did the conversion mentally, but still you da man! Wow! You corrected me for mistaking a conversion by one centimeter! How relevant in the big sheme of things!
so which is it?
This: Dorian's arms were probsbly not 52 cm or 53, but rather closer to 55.8 centimetes. My bad!
<<yawn>> how convenient for you. 
the only reason you won't respond is b/c you know I will destroy you in an intellectual discussion
.
The nerve that this retard has! Yeah, you'll destroy me at an intellectual discussion even though I own you in a discussion on bodybuilding! You'll destroy me at an intellectual discussion even though you say things such as "the law of cvause and effect is not explained by logic". Wtf? How stupid can you be.
You didn't even bother to read my earlier objections to the law of cause and effect, which usmokepole has yet to refute. And I would say he is more intelligent than you.
No one at this board is more intelligent that me. No one.But even if he's more intelligent than me, it still doesen't matter because I'm more intelligent than you.
All you did was disagree with me (without offering any proof may I add) and then run off like a scared bitch.
Actually, I didn't even read your reply for days after, and I laughed out loud when I did. And "scared"? Wtf?! Like I said, I will continue to reply to your bullshit continuously for as long as you post on this thread. I'm not going anywhere, little boy.
Obviously, you think you are right b/c you didn't even bother to stick around for a rebuttal. You are like a little kid who tries to get the last word in and then covers his eyes and ears while shouting to drown out the other person.
You want a rebuttal? So here goes: the law of cause and effect cannot possibly be explained by logic because it is a tautology in itself. Logic is a process of identification of patterns within systems that are axiomatic. Think of mathematics. All assumpstions of mathematics are based on the premise that the numbers zero and one exists. Since logic is a descriptive language of relationships between variables withing axiomatically sound systems, it cannot explain itself because it is accepted, a priori, that the language is an intrinsec part of the system. If you asume that the axioms that describe a system to be true, then the language used to describe their interaction must also be true. This is the reason why I believe that logic doesen't really exist globally, but is actually a form of local perception. Think of the theory of relativety. In herit contradiction exist in it, since global coherence cause a change in space and time itself to maintain the universal axiom that light has the same speed always. The contradictions between general relativity and quantum mechanics arse, I believe,because there are more than one Universe. If we accept that there's only one universe, than either quantum mechanics or general relativity must be wrong, because there is an inherit contradiction in the system. This problem can be solved easily by assuming that our universe is simply one aspect of a larger global univrse, and that light maintains it's speed in relation even to an individual going at at the spped of light minus one m/ph because velocity itself changes the properties of the Universe around the observer by slowing down time globally, which results in the velocity, itself, "meaning" less in the global Universe, making the addition of the speed of light plus the speed of light minus one mile per hour exactly equyivalent to the speed of light. Again, all a matter of definition, description and perception. Was my answer suffice?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
