Usmoke, the next time quote my post instead of re-writting it, since it makes it confusing. Anyway, you're wrong again, because the direction of a correlation does not do any good explaining the causality if it's not absolute for all given individuals and across the bodyfat spectrum. Just because all Humans show an increase in separations as water and fat levels decrease does not mean that all Humans show an equal number of separations for a given level of bodyfat and water, and that the rate of variation in the number of separations is linear all across the bodyfat spectrum.
Separations are not only the result of bodyat and water elvels, but also genetic. So an individual can have more bodyfat and water levels and still be more separated than another. Furthermore, a same individual can increase "X" number of separations when his bodyfat goes rom 15% to 10%, but only 3/4th of "X" when the he goes from 10% to 5% bodyfat, which clearly shows that, since the SIR(separations increase rate) is not a constant for a soingle individual, then it cannot be for two different individuals when diferent genetics show different results. The fact that the correlation is positive means nothing because a correlation does not equate causatlity when there are many other variables that affect the e4nd result.
Because there are bodybuilders that show better separations than others even when they are tested as having higher bodyfat; ergo, separatios are only a reliable indicator of conditioning up to a certain extent. It is foolish to argue otherwise. All bodybuilders improve their separations as their bodyfat and water levels decreases, but there are diferences in muscle attachment points that make certain bodybuilders show more than others. Separations does correlate with a low bodyfat and water level, but so does a hard skin texture, and the bottom line is that Dorian's was harder.
As for bodyfat, McGough is on recored for stating that Dorian has been as low as 2%, but I think that's impossible since the minimum for survival is about 3%. Regardless, the fact is that Coleman did not have a lower bodyfat than Dorian, as the latter had pretty much the lowest level that a Human Being can have beore dying, and Coleman is no exception to that rule. You'd be right if the number of separations were a constant across bodyfat levels for all Humans, but the bottom line is that it isn't, so you're wrong. As for water levels, Dorian's prune-dry skin is a much better indication of low water levels than Ronnie's better separations, so I'm sorry.
Oh, of course there's an objective way of evaluating conditioning: it's called hydrostatic weight measuring Sodium-Potassium balance. What I'm saying is that separations are only reliable to indicate conditioning up to a certain point, because different Human Beings respond differently to bodyfat and water loss, so the correlation is not a rule, and that some bodybuilders show extreme conditioning through markers other than separations...such as grain. 
The only objective way to determine that is through body-composition analysis. Period. If not, it is greatly subjective, as a bodybuilder with better separations due to genetics might be holding more fat and water than other who has less bodyfat and water but has less natural separations. I say that Dorian's prune-like muscle indicate at least as good conditioning as Ronnie's more spearated muscles. Don't make separations an "objective" way of measuring conditioning because it is not except up to some degree.
There are three problems here:
1. He could not possibly have less fat than Dorian, because Dorian dieted down to 3% bodyfat and you can't go any lower than that.
2. It is extremely unlikely that Ronnie had less water than Dorian, since the latter's flat muscles and prune-like appearance indicates less water than Ronnie's full muscles, which are an indication of high intra-muscular water. Game over.
3. Ronnie dis not have better conditioning than Dorian. Neither grain not separations are releiable indications of bodyfat and water levels, and neither is more reliable than the other.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
1) im not sure what your arguing, sep,cuts,striations and hardness are all positively correlated with bf and water levels. your arguing that because not all individuals have the same levels of each factor they arent measures. this is wrong because this is were genetics come into play. perhaps no one could get to the same level of hardness as dorian due to genetics. however, all four factors are criteria for conditioning which is judged. if someone lacks cuts, or seperation that is there problem, not a flaw in the judging. conditioning has ovbjective criteria if the above four arent the main factors that are observed please list them, perhaps were not arguing about the same factors. bf and water levels correlate with the above factors no one is disputing that, genetics obviously play a role but im not sure what your arguing. sep,cuts,and striations are visual criteria that can be quantified that judges use to indirectly measure conditioning which consists or improves with low water and bf. why does the positive correlation mean nothing, in a individual sport with certain standards are meant to be obtained, the way to get in condition is to have low bf and water. your arguement also rules out using hardness since person X will get 3% harder when losing 5 pounds and person Z will get 11% harder when losing the same amounts. genetics play a role, if you dont have certain attachments etc your shit out of luck. the ideals are what people are judged by. perfect symmetry(impossible) but the closest is given the higher score. rock hard, striated,seperated and cut is the ideal some can obtain it some cannot.
2)say dorian was harder, ill give you that. ronnie was more cut, seperated and striated. the other indicators. i would also argue that some of ronnies bottom parts were harder. those being the quads, obviously the biceps, and glutes and delts. dorian was harder in the back and abs. but dorian did have a hard look ill give you that. ronnie was better in the above factors.
3)i disagree with hardness being a better indicator, why? its just an assumption. how did peter test dorian any references to the tests. if not, its conjecture. going by the pics ronnie looks more conditioned based on above factors. i going by the pics not what someone says or i beleive. im not making an assumption. im saying ronnie was more conditioned based on the pics, using the criteria if not show me why. ronnie was more seperated, no arguement. he was more cuts, and he did have more striations. dorians lower back and abs were better then ronnies. ronnies quads, arms, delts, chest, glutes, and hams were better conditioned.
"Oh, of course there's an objective way of evaluating conditioning: it's called hydrostatic weight measuring Sodium-Potassium balance. What I'm saying is that separations are only reliable to indicate conditioning up to a certain point, because different Human Beings respond differently to bodyfat and water loss, so the correlation is not a rule, and that some bodybuilders show extreme conditioning through markers other than separations...such as grain"
my point exactly hardness is only valid to a certain point using your logic, not everyone could get as hard as yates. also bf may be more involved in striations, cuts etc perhaps dorian was dryer but slightly higher in bf, who knows? but the point is that hardness is not the only nor main criteria for conditioning, three other observable criteria are apparent. you cant say seperation arent reliable because of diffferent genetics, hardness also has a correlation. im arguing that sep,cuts,striations are jsut as a reliable indicator fo bf and water as hardness. dont see how they are not. everyone doesnt get the same hardness as they lose water and bf, its also non-linear but because its positive it is a criteria for conditioning like the others. if there was no correlation then people would be gaining weight going into a show and others losing. the fact that it correlates indicates how to get into condition, and how to measure condition. the above four factors.
