How about your keep that nonsense on the other tread and stick to this one .
because its relevant. You evaluate physiques using non-traditional criteria
ie. you do not emphasize traditional bodybuilding ideals of shape, symmetry, taper, detail, vascularity etc.
instead you emphasize traits that cannot be clearly shown or defined, like "better balance" or "better proportioned"
eg. you say Labrada was "better balanced" than Ray or that Dorian was better balanced than Ronnie.
thats sound good and all, until you view the pics or watch the videos.
Then no one can see what you are saying:

when you see the pics, they both look about the same.
the same can be said about the two guys in the other thread: sure, Ronnie had small calves for his quads, but dorian had small arms for his entire body.
You make an assertion that one guy is better balanced or better proportioned than than the other but you can't show why using pics and videos.
You can only make the claim.
That in itself is not good enough.