dude i cant even argue with you, you take everything out of context, misinterpret the meaning of posts and wont beleive that people can be influenced by others opinions, bias, beleif preserverance,bystander effect etc....
people are not machines, emotions and feelings can convalute opinions and judement. i said dorian had a magical quality if he was the only one who possesed this quality, not what you said(agian you mis-interpret or miss the meaning of posts). it is more logical that this special quality, with no name, quantification,articulation and somehow is missed by the camera(if you realized optic technology, the camera captures things as they are, lighting,depth,angle they are accurate, surveillence cameras,confession tapes, photos in court are primary evidence) is ridiculous. logic would hold that all bodybuilders would appear more impressive in person then print. due to lack of standardization(reference to objects,the norm) they would appear more impressive. if dorian was the only one who had this quality it is just a ridiculous argument, unless you offer some sort of prediction, test etc to prove it.
im sure an elephant is bigger in person then on print due to the above factors. everything is more impressive in person, dont you realize this. life is defined by polarity black/white big/small. cameras and pics reduce this polarity and reference, in person the reality is evident. havent you ever went somewere and said "this looks bigger then the pic, or more impressive" i have, im sure everyone has. however, a picture would show the same qualities eg(a stadium) green grass, same amount of chairs, same angles, same number of walls. but in person reference, and standards in reference to yourself(polarity again) make it more impressive.
to argue that dorian would look better in person while ronnie would not, or that dorian becomes more seperated, cut is ridiculous. from the above analogy dorian would the same walls(cuts) the same grass(shape) the same number of chairs(seperations) and same angles(size) however as is obvious he would(along with others, as this is my argument) appear better in person but not different. the not different is your problem. he wouldnt be larger in relation to other competitors, have more cuts, or be more seperated. this just doesnt make sense.
however, granted your argument about improvments in technology may make pics better, but i dont think the one year or two allowed for a paradigm shift in optics to the point were ronnie had an advantage. hmm.. lets see 95,96,97,98,99 not a big gap there in picture time comparison, one year at the minimum, 3 at the most. agian another empty argument by you, to claim that ronnie in 98 or 99 had better picture resolution is ridiculous. agian you cling to moot arguments,did picture quality revolutionize betwee oct 97 and oct 98 i dont know, you dont know, but i think its safe to bet that it never, unless your a moron. are you a moron?
dude i cant even argue with you, you take everything out of context, misinterpret the meaning of posts and wont beleive that people can be influenced by others opinions, bias, beleif preserverance,bystander effect etc....
You're damn right you can't argue with me , especially when you claim Dorian's calves are to big for his quads and 2003 he was better conditioned than Dorian , I don't take things out of context either you claim that Dorian doesn't have some magical property that makes him look better in person than in print or video so therefore the claims that he looks better in person have to be dismissed because they're , illogical are based on people's subjective opinions that can be influenced by bias , preference , context , etc , and its all nonsense
I posted at least 5 different quotes all first hand accounts from independent sources that all come to the same conclusion , he simply looks much better in person than he translates into video or print , now entertaining your half-baked theory a person can be influenced by bias or preference it still leaves us with at least 4 more independent sources saying the same thing , what is the likelyhood of all falling under the same claim of preference ? get serious , what would be their motivation for lying? NONE I mean I can't believe I'm typing this lol its that insane and I've read contest reviews of everyone of Dorian's and Ronnie's Mr Olympia's wins and over and over I seen the claim specific to Dorian and NOT Ronnie , I mean in a general sense all bodybuilders will look better in person , however all of these accounts state Dorian in particular doesn't translate as well in print and video and in some cases people look better like Shawn Ray , because you disagree or it doesn't seem logical doesn't mean its not real
Now you've tried to refute these claims and have failed , and why? because you don't have anything to contradict these claims and you don't have any of these claims saying the same about Ronnie , so what are you left with? not much and why does all this matter? because you attempted judge Dorian's conditioning against Ronnie's based solely on pictures & videos which has been shown to NOT be an honest and accurate representation of Dorian as he appeared live and in the flesh , so in the end you make a matter-of-fact statement that Ronnie has better conditioning than Dorian and you wouldn't have a clue if it is , you just think it is based on two inaccurate means of judging , one pics & vids and two by Ronnie having more striations which in itself isn't an accurate means of ascertaining true conditioning proven with the example of Flex Wheeler having striated quads while carrying excess water and fat
people are not machines, emotions and feelings can convalute opinions and judement. i said dorian had a magical quality if he was the only one who possesed this quality, not what you said(agian you mis-interpret or miss the meaning of posts). it is more logical that this special quality, with no name, quantification,articulation and somehow is missed by the camera(if you realized optic technology, the camera captures things as they are, lighting,depth,angle they are accurate, surveillence cameras,confession tapes, photos in court are primary evidence) is ridiculous. logic would hold that all bodybuilders would appear more impressive in person then print. due to lack of standardization(reference to objects,the norm) they would appear more impressive. if dorian was the only one who had this quality it is just a ridiculous argument, unless you offer some sort of prediction, test etc to prove it.
People are not machines , emotions and feelings can intervene to and extent and dependent on the context , and this is true in bodybuilding but it doesn't apply to Dorian looking better in person than on print/video and why? because one , its corroborated by more than one person and what is the probability they all suffer from your claim of preference? not likely at all and why? because what would be their motivation for the claim in the first place? what does one gain by saying Yates looks better in person , nothing at all , they don't benefit from it . and I don't care if you think its ridiculous that Yates looks better in person than in print or video or its NOT logical to you , because you raise and opposition to it doesn't mean its not true no matter what route you took to get to that conclusion , and I don't have to prove its true , although it being corroborated by more than one person is good enough for anyone who isn't motivated by an agenda , its YOU who finds it illogical or not probably seeing YOU think the claim is bogus YOU prove its wrong and you'd be working with something if you attended the show and saw the pictures after the fact and came to the conclusion that Dorian looks exactly the same but even then you'd be one against five so the odds aren't in your favor , and taking your nonsense into consideration and peoples opinions can be swayed by , bias , preference and context , etc YOU yourself is subject to your only ideal that people's opinions can't be trusted , so either way you're fucked
however, granted your argument about improvments in technology may make pics better, but i dont think the one year or two allowed for a paradigm shift in optics to the point were ronnie had an advantage. hmm.. lets see 95,96,97,98,99 not a big gap there in picture time comparison, one year at the minimum, 3 at the most. agian another empty argument by you, to claim that ronnie in 98 or 99 had better picture resolution is ridiculous. agian you cling to moot arguments,did picture quality revolutionize betwee oct 97 and oct 98 i dont know, you dont know, but i think its safe to bet that it never, unless your a moron. are you a moron?
I said this was PART of the reason , among others such as VHS , and magazine scans , and compressed video all don't help to begin with but its a moot point anyway because according to more than one source these DO NOT do Yates justice anyway but it would help me to a better degree , you ever see some of the pics these guys post of Yates? that 1992 most muscular is terrible , most people don't know how to scan pictures properly and since I've been online I've personally scanned a LOT of Dorian and Ronnie pics and much better resolution than whats been out there but in the end its all again a moot point and why? because they're not the most accurate way to gauge what he looks like anyway so in the end you're still behind the 8-ball with your assessment he's not better conditioned that Ronnie 2003 and I can post pics and video to help me with my claims the parts I can't possibly comment on 100% accurately I couple with firsthand accounts to confirm and verify what I've said which in the end is better and more complete than what you have to offer
