funny how he avoids the real questions and the ones he responds to it seems as though he cannot comprehend the meaning. perhaps we should try subliminal messages for ND to decipher what people are trying to say
-some of NDS logic
-dorian is even better in person, while ronnie is not, thus the pictures arent accurate, ronnie is the same and yates becomes better
-
Redundant argumentation. You have done nothing to prove otherwise.
pictures of dorian could have been taken better, but not ronnies, the said pretend pictures would show that dorian was better
Most of Ronnie's pics showed throughout the thread were of him from the a few peak cotests, whereas lots of the Dorian pics showned him at his worst Olympias, or on training pictorials when he was a few weeks out from his peak conditioning.
-if yates arms were bigger then they woudnt be small
Who said Dorian's arms were small? 21", and he made it work for him where it counts: in the side triceps, back double biceps ad the back and side trasition rounds, which emphasizes his lateral triceps head and superb delts. Dorian only has weak biceps in the front double biceps - where the whole arm mass is visible - and arguably in the front relaxed round, where it is irrelevant.
-lighting effects have been against yates his whole career while ronnies lighitng has been optimal, hence yates would be better in imaginary land with better lighting
Why not? Statistically, Ronnie competed at more contests with ideal conditions of lighting than Dorian's. I don't see how NarcissisticDeity's argument is far-fetched here. Also, the resolution of the cameras used could be different.
-dryness doesnt equal seperation,cuts,symmetry it is just dryness to which the judges can tell the amounts of water, sort of like bodybuilding meterologists
Dryness
does equal separations, but not to the extent that you suggest. Assume two bodybuilders with a equivalet amount of fat and water i their bodies. Will they show equivalent cuts? Of course not! Due to the attachment of tendons and muscle fiber types, some bodybuilders show greater separations as their bodyfat and water levels decreases. So how ca you tell that Dorian was drier? Due to his stony look and his facial appearance. Decreasing water does not merely improve cuts; it also chages the texture of the skin due to how the muscles beneath it interact with it. All bodybuilders become more stony as they dry out, but Dorian was unparellelled in this regard. The further evidence is that Dorian's face was shrunken like a prume and he looked to be 55 years old at the age of 33 at the 1995 Olympia, which is further evidence of the profound dehydration he had.
-Symmetry ca be measured between non-identical parts
Yes, as a level of degrees. This is not hard to understand. The more far off two things are in relation to each other in shape and size, the more the discrepancy, the lesser teh symmetry. What's your beef here?
-striations are genetic, even though people have gained them at different times in there career, hence rapid gene expression for some unknown reason
But different people gain striations at different rates. Which is genetic, at least to some extent. Striations cannot indicate either bodyfat and water leels accurately because the correlatio between the two things is non-linear.
-people can still be shredded and holding water
Derfine shredded? A guy with very low levels of bodyfat will be shredded, even if he's holding water. This is why bodybuilders still display good separations onstage even when their conditioning is off. Of course, he would even eve more shredded if he were also dry. You're just discussing degrees of shredddedness here, and ot disproving anything.
-the planet is flat
Bad attempt at irony, since Gallileo proved his point, whereas you haven't.
- black and white pics dont make you look better.
I don't think they necessarily do; otherwise, Ronie would look more impressive in black-and-white than Dorian, but I've never seen this effect.
-yates calves werent too big for his quads
Maybe a little. But you're forgetting that Dorian's quads were massive. Conversely, Ronnie's quads are even more massive, and Ronnie's calves are pathetic. The
differential of size between Dorian's quads and cvalves is much lower than Ronnie's. Next!
- a tear wouldnt throw off symmetry.
It does, but to what effect? Dorian's biceps tear is only visible in the front double biceps. Ronnie's gut, conversely, is seen from the front and side in the symmetry round, and ruins the side mandatories.
still wont answer the questoin will ya pumpkin, the funny thing is you wont make an assement becasue you dont know what constitutes conditioning.
Conditioning envolves: separations, striations, hardness, etc. Going by this, Ronnie at his best had great conditioning. But so did Dorian. Maybe even more, because even do he was not as separated as Ronnie, his muscles had a look, as Jim Manion once defined it, of "waxed marble". It is impossible to prove that this quality is increased by gaining either fat or water; it is exceedingly easy to argue that his quality is increased by losing fat and water.
what is the objective criteria for conditioning?
It's not objective, because the loss of bodyfat and water increases separations, striations and muscle tightness to differing degrees among bodybuilders. The grain of the skin chages when you become drier, and Dorian's changed the most, making him look like marble when he was dry.
please pay attention and answer, i dont see what the problem is your lack of engagment of simple questions shows that you either dont know or do and realize you are wrong.
I think that you're being unnecessarily pedantic. This is not a scientific paper on physiochemistry, but an evaluation of physiques.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
