oh f*ck off, you idiot. You don't know shit. Dorian may have looked 'harder' but that doesn't mean he carried less body fat and water. Even you must agree that Dorian displayed more separations and striations when he was dieted down than when he was off season. It makes absolutely no sense that his body would suddenly decide "hey, I'm at 8% body fat. There's no more need for me to improve my definition beyond this point."
It make slots of sense, and the evidence for this is that he didn't have as many separations as other bnodybuilders who had no less fat than him. Nothing hapopens without a reason, so the fact that he's as lkow as you can get in int erms of bodyfat and water and still didn't look as separated and striated as other bodybuilders is prima fasce evidence thjat m,y contention ios correct.
SemenHole, do you really thing that Dorian Yates, or any other bodybuilder for that matter, would step onstage at 8% bodyfat? Dorian was notorious for dieting down to the extreme during pre-contest.
if your contention that fat and water ar ethe solke factors responsible for separations and striaions, then how do you explain that lots of people never get many straitions no matter how low in fat and water they are? How could Branch Warren be regarded as the most conditionined bodybuilder at the New York Pro event hough Denis Wolfe had far more separations?
And stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that separations are genetic; I said that they are partially genetic. The word "partially", here, is important, because it validates my statement. I know that this is a stretch when it comes to you, but are you familiar with a mathematical concept called correlation? There are two kinds of correlation: linear and non-linear. Linear correlation occurs when a given variable causes a change in a sytem that is proportional. Non-linear correlation occurs when a variable causes change is a system that is not proportional. The correlation between separations and bodyfat and water levels should be linear, but it isn't. Why? Because genetics plays a part, too. A guy at 3% bodyfat will have a six-pack, while another guy at 3% bodyfat will have a mere four-pack.
I don't care if Peter McGough said Dorian is the hardest, driest bodybuilder ever.
But let me guess: you do care when he says that Ronnie is the best ever? ::)Pot...kettle...black.
The lady in the pic below looks 'harder' than me even though I guarantee I'm much leaner than her.
No, she is gooey and flacid. How exactly lots of skin hanging out makes one look "harder" in your retarded book is beyond me.
I truly believe Dorian's bad skin contributed to his look. He probably tanned a hell of a lot more due to his lighter skin color. Excessive UV exposure dries the skin out and gives it a leathery appearance.
I can use the argument that the lights coming from above and the photographic camera used made 1999 ronnie look far more impressive then he really looked.
If you put Dorian under those same lights and stage, he would destroy Coleman there. And by the way, you're wrong. Dorian did have acne in his back at the 1993 Olympia, but at the 1995 olympia his skin was as clear as ever and he looked better.
Separations and striations are a better indicator of overall conditioning.
separations and striations are very good indicators of bodyfat and water levels, but they are not excellent indicators due to genetics. Furthermore, you keeep ignoring that muscle hardness also corrrelates strongly with bodyfat and water levels, and the reaon you ignore it is because Dorian is better there.
SemenHole, my arguments are better than yours. My logic destroys your and you have no idea what fuck you're talking about. I have made you officially my board whore. Aslso, you have parroted many of my argumentative techniques throughout this thread. They say that imitation is the sinverest form of flattery, so thank you for conceding that I'm your master and the true alpha male betwen us both.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
