"You're wrong, because the direction and strengh of the correlation is only relevant if it's linear and absolute for all guven specimens, which is nothe the case here. In fact, not only is the correlation not linear between individuals, but it's also not linear for a single individual. Let me give you an example to elucidate what I'm saying. Imagine that a bodybuilder has 20% bodyfat and he drops it to 10% bodyfat. Now imagine that his causes and increase in "X" in muscular separations, in which the incognita "X" is the number of new separations that appeared as a result of the drop in bodyfat. Now, imagine that his bodyfat willn drop another 10% to 0% - just imagine it, hypothetically: Will his number of muscular separations be increased by "X" again? Unlikely. So you're flat out wrong."
-the direction and strength of the correlation is most certainly relevant. nothing is as linear as you propose, that doesnt mean its not valuable, its called correlation for a reason, a good reason why causality cannot be inferred. lets say your right and direction of the correlation doesnt matter, this is wrong. the correlation is always positive for everyone,there is no known human who gains weight and increases, in cuts ,seperations striations etc this is a negative correlation. bf and water are positively correlated, if you can find one example were increasing either results in more cuts, sep etc then my theory is wrong if not your theory is wrong. my moneys on mine. you last sentence is explaining a logarithmic increase which is acceptable, just like frequency the factor is ten fold, i propose something similar. if we varied the bf and water in two different individuals with the exact same shape, and muscular size we would perhaps see the same increase in cuts etc.. your not holding the other varibles constant and proclaiming because different individuals, with dif attachments,size, shape and possible minute differences in bf and water arent exact replicas that they idea doesnt hold. my above example showed that bf and water decrease increase cuts, sep,striations, show me a contrary example.
" But your hypotghesis is flawed because there's no indication that Dorian had either more bodyfat or water than Ronnie in his body. At his best, Dorian was at 3% bodyfat, and this is practically as low as Human Beings can go. There is no evidence that Ronnie was lower. As far as water levels, Dorian was arguably lower at his best than any other bodybuilder in history. All things considered, and since Dorian's bodyfat and water levels were as low or lower than Ronnie's, then he your conjecture is flat out wrong."
-just because you say there is no indication doesnt mean there isnt any. ronnie had more cuts, sep, and striations overall then dorian. what are the markers of definition if these arent? add hardness if you like. they are still the objective criteria. how do you know what both water levels and bf were? you dont your making an assumption that dorian had equal levels with no proof. im basing my proclamation that ronnie was more conditioned on more cuts,sep,and striations. they are how we objectively rate definition. dorians water may have very well been lower the ronnies(do we know scientificly? no we do not, neither did imaging) but we do have the objective criteria of bodybuilding to go by, standards if you will that allow us to infer those levels. your guessing dorian was dryer, and had 3% bf, we dont know, you dont know. going by the criteria and the pics, ronnie is better conditioned for reasons above
And this is what I've been saying. Ronnie had more separations, but Dorian had a tighter skin texture, and you have no way of showing that the variables that you arbitrarily chose to argue that Ronnie had better conditioning are a better indication of fat and water levels than Dorian's hard appearance.
-so what your saying is there is no way to objectively tell who had better conditioning? i disagree. the four criteria i have been talking about, and some minor ones is how we objectively judge definition. might as well not hold a contest if there were no criteria. your correct there is no way of knowing who acutally had lower levels, but lower levels should correlate to some external objective criteria, if not then conditioning would be different for everyone, and without a standard there would be no way to judge. the bf and water correlate positively with the above factors, this makes sense, since they are the external objective criteria you use to infer the internal variables of water and bf. not rocket science.
And no, regression analysis is not the best way to access this; a magnetic ressonance imaging of their bodies at their best ever forms would indicate that much better. put Ronnie and Dorian in the machine and measure the subcutaneous fat levels and water levels and that would tell you whether separations or a hard appearance are better indications of conditioning. Period.
- i was talking about the variables, your correct about the best method, but they never did that, hence there would have to be some external criteria that have validity and reliability to measure objectively these criteria. if not, theres absolutely no way to judge any contest.
Ok, but you said that Ronnie had less fat and water than Dorian because he was more separated, so make up your mind.
-im saying ronnie may have had less fat, maybe equal water. less water, more fat or some combo that resulted in better conditioning then dorian.
