Cool. I'm new to this board layout so you'll have to forgive me for not being able to break your post up in to segments like you have done- I'll content myself with posting in dot points in response to your segments. Cool with you?
- I understand what you're saying by this, and I agree. However, the main problem with this is that a bodybuilding contest is not judged mathematically- as I said before, perhaps unfortunately. I gather, then, that while ND is arguing the Ronnie v Dorian from an IFBB contest perspective, you're arguing it from as mathematical position as you can get- that is, if the two were put in front of you tomorrow, you'd measure them- I guess with tape measures and so on- and use your estimations in this regard to form the basis of your claim that Dorian > Ronnie?
I never denied that bodybuilding is judged visually; I said that lat width is mathematical as a measure, and this cannot properly be assesed visually.
There isn't too much more to add on this, since we both seem to be on agreement (I disagree with your next point, though). Yes, it appears that they attempted to be as objective as possible. However, as we know when dealing with matters of arbitrary criteria, this is always doomed to be subjective in the final analysis.
But this is irrelevant, since the need for an objective analysis of physiques creates an even playing field. You might argue that it is subjective, but it is still better than the absolute subjectivity of fans, who usually don't atake into consideration all muscle groups as well as the fact that they change criterias according to their tastes. Furthermore, even if still subjective, it is objectively fair since everyone is subjected tot he same evaluation, which takes into consideration the largest possible number of variables in analysing a physique. Even if not entirely objective, it's still fair.
- Yes, fair call, SUCKMYMUSCLE, however, do we need to go to that extreme to provide an alternative? Consider the current thrust by 'the True Adonis;' that is, that the physique closest to perfection is the one which embodies the so-called Grecian ideal. Now, I'm not particularly well-versed in this area, at all (that is, just what the Grecian ideal is, exactly), but do you think it is conceivable that a group of bodybuilding exponents could have sat down and formulated a criteria dictating that the physique most embodying this shape is the best? That is, instead of awarding greater and greater muscularity, the physique is somehow limited, or capped, insofar as how much muscularity it can hold? Perhaps this could result from a society emphasising an air of functionality in sculpture.
Obviously, but even in Ancient Greece the most muscular men tended to be preferred for the depictiion in vases, etc. They valorized symmetry above everything else. Or, as they would say it, the ideal for a Greek youth or young men was to be "kalos kagathos"("good and beautiful"). All things considered, among equally symmetrical men, the most muscular were considered more ideal.
Now, I think that muscularity is valorized in men above every other trait, physically - except stature. Like I said, it's hard to imagine a culture where a weaker, smaller man is deemed by his contemporaries as embodying the male ideal better than a muscular man. So, in answering your question, I don't think that it would be possible to device a bodybuilding crietria that didn't consider big muscles better than small muscles. After all, big muscles is what distingueshes a man from a woman, and a bodybuilder from an average man.
Yes, I do think that too much muscle hinders a bodybuildier
if it comes with skeltal and muscular assymetries. If the structure can accomodate it without the structure itself becoming assymetrical in appaearance, and if the bodybuilder maintains his muscular symmetry, then the more muscle, the better. This is not the case for the 2003 Ronnie, because it's obvious that his structure couldn't accomodate it, which resulted in his distsnded gut and muscles ovepowering others. Now Ronnie with the size he had in 2003 with the tiny waist and conditioning that he had in 1998 and better claves would be the ultimate physique.
Yes, I take your point that- at first glance- my post seems to appeal to a post-modernist perspective. However- although I think they make some interesting intellectual points- this is a perspective that I in no way wish to promote or endorse. I think that my post, while emphasising the relativism of elements such as the above, does not completely descend to the self-refuting madness of post-modernism (if you think it does, please point it out so I can rectify this). I think that relativism does not necessarily imply post-modernism for this reason: I am not endorsing any type of ontological or epistemological relativism.
breaking down one's argument and arguing it's semantics and contextual relevance is a typical post-modern tactic to disarm opponents. Sorry, but you did strike me as such.
- Yeah, I think you misread what I wrote. I said that, in your earlier posts, you were arguing that perception is subjective, whereas when you say that bodybuilding is judged objectively, you are promoting the view that perception is objective.
I was talking about conceptual perception at the meta-physical level, not visual perception. Bodybuling is judged objectively, because visual perception is limited in it's plasticity. You can't argue that Wheeler carried more muscle Nasser, for instance. Even if he appears to be as big - not the case - the judges realize that the latter carries far more muscle due to the difference in bodyweight and size of key areas. Likewide, you can't argue that you think Ronnie's gut was not distended in 2003. You could say that it looks flat to you, but in terms of measure, his gut made him look like a nine month pregnant women even when you take into consideration his bodyweight.
Yes, I get what you're saying, and I agree, so long as you acknowledge that whilst it might appear that they are being as objective as possible, the process is still subjective (in the final analysis) given our epistemic conditions 
It doesen't matter, because:
1. It's more complete than that of bodybuilding fans, and is based on an universal consensus of what constitutes the male physique.
2. It's the same for everyone, so it's just.
'I argued that perception is subjective "outside" axiomatic systems that are internally closed.'
I get what you're saying here. However, I would argue that even inside such systems, perception is subjective- it's inescapable. Perhaps you could come up with a basic example to illustrate your claim? That would be great.
Well, the laws of physics are objective. Anything that is thrown from a building will fall down, not up. We could enter into a tautology-bound argument of what is really up and down, or if we only perceive that it falls down, etc, but the bottom line is that it doesen't really matter, because it is stable and non-contradictory.
By the way, I was not talking about the human mind, which was created to use logic in several different contexts and not merely as a derivation of effects. What i mean by this is that the human mind can perceive reality as it wants, but this has nothing to do with the use of the word here.
- LOL yeah, that's a strange position to take. Sure, bodybuilding progresses, but Dorian 95 outside the top 5 at the nationals? PUH-lease... Anyway, this would be saying that the competition Dorian beat in the early-mid 90's (commonly acknowledged to be the best ever) would be weaker than the nationals' top 5. Jerome Ferguson > Kevin Levrone 95? 
I think bodybuilding has regressed since Dorian retired. Ronnie 1998 was great, but that only one year after Dorian's retirement. Now it sucks.
- Yes, even the most die-hard Ronnie fan could not consider himself unbiased if he didn't give credit for Dorian's 95 shape. I like arguing all people, but a claim such as this drastically reduces credibility.
Agreed.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
