Sucky, I am still not with you at all. Greatness is not endowed on someone who was a butcher. Infamy is, that is where your reasoning is askew.
Once again, you make a value-judgement and pass it as fact. Also, you are wrong. Greatness is not a derivation of ethics, but rather a value bestowed upon someone who did great deeds, characterized by their uniqueness and intrinsic difficulty. Alexander the Great butchered thousands - if not millions -, and he's the most famous secular person in history. If you read Suetonius', Arrian's and Plutarch's accounts of Alexander's campaigns, you'll see that he was little more than a very, very clever butcher. And yet, he has been praised, since Roman times, as a great man. Why? Because he conquered the World, that's why, and imposed his will on millions of people. Osama might be a scoundrel and butcher to you, but he's seen as a great leader and warrior to many Arab Muslims, who perceve themselves as being oppressed by the infidel West. In
their values, he qualifies as great.
You seem to follow John Stuart Mill's famous assertion, that value is a funtion of ethics, and that, therefeore, the greatest value comes from doing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The basis of utilitarianism. The problem is that Humans are not utilitarian: they are personal and grant value to that which holds relevance to them.
Going by the arguments you present, even the average medical doctor has much greater value than an Olympic gold medalist, because he does greater good to a greater number of people than the medalist. Yet, the Olympic medalist ahieves much greater "value" in the eyes of most people than the average M.D. Why? Because of the uniqueness of his achievement and the difficulty in getting there: it is much more difficult to get an Olympic gold medal than it is to pass a medical course and through a medical internship; the "wow" factor is much greater in regards to the Olympian. To most people, "greatness" is determined by the uniqueness and difficulty in being something. And being an Olympic gold medal champion is something that is very difficult to achieve and very unique: there's only one in the World!
"Greatness" is relevance, but it is a subjective value-judgement of what is relevant to most people. Richard the Lionhearted was a war-monger, but to many, he's seen as a great man who forged the nation of Great Britain as it exists and saved Europe from turning into a Morrocan colony. Again, relevance. And it is funny that you think that "value" shouldn't be bestowed upon those who do unethical things, because, throughout history, the greatest value has been ascribed to men who were butchers. But these men are remembered as the unifiers of nations, the expanders of civilizations and the heroes who conquered territory, wealth and glory to their peoples and nations. It doesen't matter what "I" or "you" think is great, because "greatness" on a grand level, is the result of the value-judgments made by a great number of people, and men who did very nasty things, but which resulted in accomplishing goals which were unique, difficult and of great value to a great number of people, have gone down in the history books as "great". Get over it.
Ted Budny, William Gacey, and other serial killers (including O.J. Simpson who never got the same level of notoriety with his playing career than when he was tried for murder) were on the news daily and known by millions. They were "unique" in that they slaughtered people without impunity. They were "great" to the few lost souls who reveled in their treachary, but what would make them a great man.
The sociopaths who did these things were powerless, pitty little men and what they did was not special in any way. Anyone can get a machine gun and gun down a bunch of people in public, or grab a few women or adolescent boys - like in Bundy's case - and rape, torture and then cold-bloodedly kill them. And yet, you proved my point: it is the uniqueness of the cruelty and sadism of these monsters that made them notorious. Just like winning an Olympic gold medal, being this depraved is very rare; hence, these men ahieved notoriety. Of course, their notoriety is of a purely infamous nature, because it was easy to do and without purpose. Richard Lionheart tortured and killed far more people and just as cruelly, and yet he's regarded as one of the great men of history. George W Bush has ordered the torture of many defenseless men in the Guantanamo Bay prison, yet is not regarded as vile: to many Americans, he's seen as a great man, the defender of the realm and the savior of America's children. "Value", on a grand scale, is bestowed upon those who accomplish what is deemed as valuable by a large number of people. Everyone knows who George W Bush is, not only because he became President of the United States - an exceedingly difficult thing to achieve, evident in that there's only one out of three hundred million Americans -, but also because he is relevant to an immense number of people: his economic and militar decisions affects the lives of billions world-wide. The average medical doctor, conversely, hold much lower value to most people, because his achievements are far less extraordinary and his actions have no great repercussions outside his circle of patients.
The man who cures AIDS or cancer will be great.
He will be great to those who have cancer or human imunodeficieny syndrome; to most people, he will be just a blip on the news. How many people remember Sabin, who saved millions of children from paralyses? Very few. Furthermore, you have proved my point again: curing AIDS is very difficult and unique, so the guy who achieves that is extraordinary. Again: difficulty, uniqueness and relevance. Nevertheless, Kobe Bryant will still make the news far more and more often than him. in the values of lots of people, a sport's hero stands higher than an academic who made a medical breakthrough.
He will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. BTW, if you evaluate the list of people who have won the "Nobel Prize for medicine" a great deal of these individuals do not practice clinical medicine; the majority are PhD's who work in a lab.
If you ask me, the greatest man in America at this moment is Bill Gates.
But that is your
opinion. To you, or to people who work developing software or in the business world, Gates would qulaify as "great". But to most people, Gates is just an un-cool, un-sexy but very rich nerd. The reason why he's famous is because he has achieved, to an extraordinary degree, a value that most people would like to have: his immense wealth. Yet, while nearly everyone would love to have Gates' fortune, very few guys would actually want to be
him. He was probably that guy who never got tail in high school, due to his dorkiness and butt-ugly face. Most guys would much rather be Pitt or Stallone, the former for his handsomeness and the latter for his macho image; in the scale of values of most men, Stallone and pitt rank as "greater" than Gates: they are the kind of guys that most guys would like to be themselves. Again, value-judgements are just that: a determination of what is relevant to
you.
He is a genius who started up one of the largest companies in the world. He has amassed billions of dollars. Instead of being a prima donna and asshole like so many elite (especially Hollywood types like Cruise, Pitt, etc)
But the prima dona assholes are considered to be far more attractive and to lead far more interesting lives than Gates: they party more, get more tail and are far more better known than Gates. The only value that he has that, on a scale of values is desired by most guys, is that he's even richer than Cruise or Brad. In everything else, the two latter are considered to be far "greater", by most people, than Gates. And Gates became famous because he achieved two very unique, very difficult things: he became the World's richest man and created the most successful computer operating system in the World; he didn't become famous for being a philantropist.
he has put his money to good use. He has donated billions of dollars toward humanity. Before he dies, he will have left almost 99% if his fortune to charities. That is a great man. Now, dudes like Stallone (in his youth), Vin Diesel, The Rock, Paul Walker and others are definitely cool; they make good movies that provide escapism from the real world. However, to in anyway classify them as great is erroneous.
As far a Coleman 2003 to Dorian 1993, there really is no comparison. In the mandatory poses, Coleman's gut was under very good control.
No, it wasn't. Coleman was sucking in his belly in all the mandatories. And when he turned to the sides, his midsection was clearly concave. Funny that you think Dorian should have lost in 1997 for his gut distension, despite the fact that it was far less severe than Coleman's in 2003, but still think that Coleman looked great in 2003 when it comes to symmetry. That is called
biasmy friend! The only reasons why Coleman won the symmetry round, in 2003 were: out of tradition and that, since his muscularity was so dominant, the fans would get pissed off at the judges if they didn't give Coleman straight-firsts in all categories. The 1993 and especially the 1995 Dorian was far more complete and with less flaws than the 2003 Coleman. Just the fact that Dorian had a flat stomach and visible serratus, at 260 lbs, makes him the winner in my opinion. Ronnie's lower-body discrepancies and horrible midsection - both in distension and abdominal separations - are just not my cup of tea. Interesting that you think Ronnie's muscularity from that year, by itself, would be enough to defet Dorian, but think that Flex should have won in 1993.
This despite the fact that Dorian outweighed him by some 30 lbs and was
far more muscular. It goes both ways. But yes, it is only my own value-judgement that Dorian was better, just like it's only yours that Ronnie would win.
With his superior shape and size, it would have been a walk IMO.
The shape of a pear is not superior, even though I do think it's taste is superior to that of most fruits...
However, Dorian was very grainy and dense in 1993 (his best year by far); the judges may have gone with his look. Unfortunately, we will never know. You will never know and neither will Hulkster. We can only take our best guesses. If you don't agree that is fine; it is just annoying when you disparage others for their "opinions." Sucky, you have your "opinions" and they are only just that. If someone disagrees with you, big deal. You guys agree to disagree.
Funny that you should mention the word "opinion", because you've given nothing but yours when it both to the values of greatness and of Coleman's physique, yet pass it as fact...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
[/quote]
