NO, this man had the best back
in certain poses... but view him at a different angle and his lats disappear and you see how freaking THIN his back is.
alllllll illusion. detail in the inner-back, rhomboids, lower part the of traps, ect... draws your eyes to the center and then the round delts draw them out, gives the illusion of a big back... but it's actually pretty damn thin.
it tends to be either A or B.
A- great big, separated back with thick, heavy, hanging lats.... combined with weak, smaller, medicore arms/bi's.
or
B- high, thin lats, lacking detail and top-to-bottom separation... combined with big, round full arms/biceps.
it's a rare thing that a guy with a great back had great arms. guys with great arms seemed to let their arms do a lot of work in back movements, whereas guys with shitty arm genetics were able to use the muscles in their backs better (when training back).