SUCKMYMUSCLE-
- I completely agree that we need an objective criteria against which we can evaluate physiques. However, are you asserting that the IFBB judging criteria is objective? Any criteria is subjectively and arbitrarily formed- consider the process involved of the IFBB assembling their own. MY point is that, whilst it may be quite possible to get close to objectively judging a physique relative to a set of criteria, that criteria can never be better than subjectively formed. As it is, bodybuilding could be considered a visual sport, not one involving mathematical measurement (perhaps unfortunately). So, visual perception is highly entangled in the judging process, and comes along with all of its usual potential errors.
First, of course bodybuilding is a visual sport; I never argued otherwise. My contention is that, while muscles might appear to as big or bigger than they really are, this is immaterial to measuremrnts, which are mathematical and, thus, indisputable.
The I.F.B.B and other federations have a criteria that was subjectively deviced, yes, but my contention is that this subjectivity was an attempt to be as objective as possible. They took into consideration all possible things that is relevant to how a bodybuilder looks, like the size, separations and conditioning of his muscles, the structure that is universally considered to be the male ideal, and so forth. They also gave relevance to all the muscles that compose the human body, not giving preference to any of them especifically, so that no bodybuilder with one or two great bodyparts and everything else sub-par would win. It was an attempt to remove bias as much as possible. It is also very much stable across time, which gives us a yardstick to compare physiques. It's not like a judge can pick a physique he likes one day and then another that he likes another day: he has an evaluating procedure to follow.
What does this mean, in context? It means that when the chaps sat down and thought out what they held a good bodybuilder to be- as you say, one that embodied muscularity, symmetry, proportionality and conditioning- this is where the problem lay; it's what they held what a good bodybuilder should be. Perhaps, if you asked a group of people from a different continent and social group, they would have come up with a set of different criteria.
I duisagree with this, and my argument is biological. It is hard to imagine a human culture that would consider an obese or underweight man to represent the male ideal better than a muscular man. Now, there are tribes in Africa that consider obesity attractive in men, because since food is so scarce, only the rich can get overweight. However, this is an exceptional case; if food were abundant, it would change. English aristocrats of the 19th Century regarded the male ideal as that of the pale, slim man. Again, the reason for this is that paleness and lack of muscular development were sifgns that a man didn't need to do manual labor.
Now, the problem here is that all of these characteristics are exceptional in alpha-male status. In practically all human cultures throughout time, muscularity is regarded as the primary male attribute, so men who are more muscular are regarded as more masculine. Symmetry is also an important consideration, since even toddlers are biased in favor of symmetrical faces, and symmetry indicates a strong immunological syste. So muscularity and symmetry are regarded as primary indications of alpha-maleness, as well as stature and a skeletal frame characterized by narrow hips and wide shoulders.
So when they created the criteria, they were being subjective, of course, but they were thinking in terms of properties that are almost universally regarded as conditione sine qua non for a man to be regarded as physically dominant. You seem to be relying on a post-modern, deconstructionist argument for the subectivity of bodybyuilding, while I beleive that it is actually very much an innate criteria that we human have to evaluate the fitness and dominance of a man.
- I'm not going to debate the process of judging itself as you showed because I think there is a high chance that you could be right- and I do agree with you, for hte most part. Deferring to any notion of politics or bias is speculation at best- we have nothing solid to go on, so the best thing we can do is assume an element of fairness involved. However, the one, major problem involved as I alluded to earlier, is that bodybuilding is judged visually. For all the knowledge and the trained senses of the bodybuilding judge, he/she is still subject to the same potential errors in perception as anyone else. It would be quite contentious to say that bodybuilding is judged objectively, or according to objective criteria (this I touched on above), and because you would be proposing that perception is objective- something you seem to argue against in your other posts (re the arbitrariness of logic).
No, no, no, I argued that perception is subjective "outside" axiomatic systems that are internally closed. In this case, "closed" means that it is a problem into itself, which means that it is resolved, because the problem "contains" the solution. Get it? This has nothing to do with bodybuilding perception. Logic is very much real in our reality, otherwise it couldn't function coherently, ot at least we wouldn't perceive it as such.
This means that we can define what "causes" a physique to be great, and then deduce if the bodybuilder if the bodybuilder has it. Now, the criteria is not entirely objective, but my contention is that the margin that judges have to exercise their subjectivity is slim, and it is already factored in my predictions. For instance, I'm sure that many judges prefered Shaw Ray's physique over Dorian's, but they couldn't give the nod to him because the criteria determined that, since Dorian's frame and muscular symmetry were close to flawless, and since he carried 55 lbs of muscle more than Ray, it would sbe too much of a stretch for Ray to win, because muscularity is an objectively judged part of the criteria, and the bottom line is that Dorian dwarfed Ray. Get it?
- Insofar as your assessment is concerned, I think that is a very fair evaluation.
Thanks.
I think that whoever won, it would be a very, very close contest- do you agree or disagree with this?
I completely agree! I think Ronnie's 1998 physique is one of the top ten ever, and I consider Ronnie one of the great bodybuilders. My contention, however, is that, since Dorian carried more and more symmetrical mass than Ronnie on a close to perfect frame, and since he had the highest qulity of muscularity ever displayed onstage - in my opinion -, odds are that Dorian would win. I actually think Ronnie 1998 was better, and Ronnie 1999 wouldn't be that much of a threat, because Ronnie already had some pretty severe symmetrical liabilities then. But regardless, the two are great. Compare this to Hulkster&Poopster, who think that Dorian was an overrated construction worker. The way they about him, it seems like Dorian would have a hard time placing in the top five at the NPC Nationals, let alone win the Wimbledon of bodybuilding siz times.
I think that Dorian's 95/93 shape is utterly jaw-dropping,
Many, including myself, consider Dorian's 1995 package the best ever onstage. Here is a guy who, close to 260 lbs at 5'10, had a flat stomach with incredibly etched serratus and abs, almost perfect muscular symmetry on an almost perfect frame, and muscles that looked like they were sculpted from granite. Incredible. Unbelievable. While I don't expect others to consider this the best package ever, you need to be fanatically anti-Doze to not consider his physique that year at
least "outstanding".
as Ronnie's 1999/2003 package is, too.
1999 was good, but I don't think it was that great. 2003 he has Dorian beat in overrall muscularity, but his gut and severe muscular imbalances would make him lose the symmetry round flat out. It evens out.
I'm a fan of Ronnie (at least, his earlier victories); however, if he turned up in 1999 shape tomorrow, and was beaten by Dorian '95, I would certainly not be complaining. Both are great bodybuilders who deserve their plaudits- the margin between the two is quite tight. Hence, this debate.
I have sustained, and will reiterate this claim ad infinitum, that Dorian's 1995 Olympia package could defeat any version of any bodybuilderr who ever stepped onstage. I'm not saying that he would win, but there's no bodybuilder in any version that would defeat Dorian with striaght-firsts scores. None.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
