it's still your opinion, you f*cking dumbass. Others just happen to share the same opinion as you.
If we can't define conditioning precisely and thus make it objective, then anything can be defined as conditioning. The difference is that the judges and bodybuilding writers opinions are more relevant than yours. Obviously, the judges looked at Dorian's physique and saw that he was more conditioned than guys who had more overral separatios than him, becasue they especifically mentioned this on several occasions - Jim Manion and ormer I.F.B.B chairman, Wayne DeMilia, being good examples. My definition o conditinioning is that it referrs to bodyfat and water levels. Going by this defiition, then Dorian is arguably more conditioned. Why? Because several writers are on record for stating that Dorian stepped onstage at 3% bodyfat, and that's the lowest a human beig can go. As or water levels, they also referred to him as the driest ever. Was he? I don't know, but it is extremely unlikely that there is a any other bodybuilder who's drier. Dorian looked like his skin and face looked like they were shrunk, and that's a classical sign o dehydration. Ask any M.D. Speaking of M.Ds, Nicorulez is one and he is on record for stating that Dorian is the driest ever. He could be wrong, but his opinion on this matter is more valid than mine or yours.
What else is it supposed to be? Fact? ha ha ha ha ha. You cannot prove that Dorian was more conditioned than Ronnie anymore than I can prove that 01 ASC Ronnie carried more lean mass than in 99.
As I said, you're right that I cannot prove that Dorian was more conditioned. The point, however, is that odds are that, going by my definition, Dorian was more conditioned, as in having arguably a lower level of subcutaenous fat and water. Now, as for the subjective definition of conditioning, then my opinion or yours is irrelevant, and what only coounts is what the judges say, and the bottom line is that several top pro judges, like Rockell, Manion and Schwabb are on record or statiting that Dorian was the most conditioned man to ever step onstage. Dorian set the gold-standard or what the judges termed as conditioning, and that is what counts. Ronnie never became famous for his conditioning, and I never said any pro judge saying that he's a gold-standard for conditioning. Peter McGough has said that Ronnie was the hardest he's seen at the 2001 ASC, but then he has also stated previously that "no man has ever been as hard or dry as the man who won six Sandows", so he is contradicting himself. And as much as I respect McGough, he's not a judge, so his opinion is ultimately as irrelevant as mine or yours.
As for me not proving that the 2001 ASC Ronnie carried less mass than he did at the 1999 Olympia, sorry, but you're flat out wrong. Even a gain of 1 lbs of lean mass would necessitate that the Ronster lost 8.13 lbs of pure water weight when compared to his 1999 Olympia form, and that's flat out impossible. Both mathematics and physiology tell the clear tale that it's simply not possible, so you can bet your ass that I proved you wrong. If you want to, we can have some medical doctors here to attest whether Coleman could have possibly lost 8+ lbs of pure water weight in the condition he was in at the 1999 Olympia without entering in rigor mortis. That's the physiology part. Sorry, but that was an obvious ownage the likes of which are rarely seen.
Where do you get this shit from? I don't read all of your posts. Almost all of the quotes I used come from your responses to me. Only a few are from reading other people's posts that quoted where you said something stupid.
Bullshit. You have most definitely quoted things I wrote in reply to other people. You have quoted several of my replies to Hulkster before in this thread, so stop lying.
\ For example, I didn't even notice your retarded photoelectric explanation of why Dorian looks better in person than Ronnie until Hulkster and Usmokepole pointed it out.
"Retarded photoelectric explanation".
First of all, it was Hulkster who said that I gave a "photoelectric explanation" for Dorian's grainy appearance in person; I did no such thing. Usmoke asked for an explanation for why Dorian looks harder in person instead of on camera or film, and I answered to him that I don't know, but that maybe the explanation is that some of the colors resulting from light reflection that gave Dorian's grainy look in person are not captured on camera. Can you sincerely say that this is not a possibility? It is completely reasonable and logical, although purely speculative. Furthermore, I don't need to give any explanations. Why? Because we don't need to identify the cause of a phenom to conclude that it's real, if it's effects are obsevable and repeatable. More than one person, including several bodybuilding writers, both Peter McGough and writers from magazines like MuscleMag and Ironman have said that Dorian looks harder in person than on camera or film, so I don't have to prove shit. Again, as an example, just because we don't know what electrogravity is doesen't mean that it's unreal, because repeated experiments have showed that it produces the expected efects every time; the effects prove the existence of the cause.
oh what a load of crap. I already explained why acne wouldn't make a difference in a person who is out of shape. If you want to play dumb, then I guess dryness must not matter either since an obese person will still look soft even if they are dehydrated.
But if obtaining the grainy appearance requires one to drop bodyfat and water levels first, then that's an obvious indication that the cause of the graininess is not acne. You have no way around that. A person who drops subcutaneous fat and water will always look hard; one who has bodily acne will not.
Now, as for your example that a person who is dehydrated but with a high level of bodyfat will look soft, then you're agreeing with my definition of conditioning, namely, that it refers to subcutaneous levels of fat and water. You need to drop both things do get a hard look. However, acne has nothing to do with it. That is my definition of conditioning, not yours - at least not in this case. You postulated that bodily acne results in a grainy appearance, so this factor must work on it's own to produce the desired effect. If Dorian has more subcutaneous fat and water than the 2001 ASC Ronnie and yet looks grainier than him, then obviously low subcutaneous fat and water levels are not, according to your postulation, a necessary factor in producing the grainy look. This is logic and not open to debate.
Since you're arguing that you must first drop your bodyfat and water levels to look grainy, then grain
must be the result of a low bodyfat and water level to some extent; otherwise, acne would produce the grainy appearance all on it's own. So, ergo, if a person who is obese does not look grainy no matter how much bodily acne they have, then grain cannot be explained by bodily acne to
any extent. Why? Because even if we assume that the grainy look is only partially the result of acne and part that of low subcutaneous fat and water levels, then you'd have to demonstrate that acne plays a part in making one look grainy to
some extent. Again, going back to the obese person example, he doesen't look grainy to any extent as the result of bodily acne, so your example is idiotic. Furtnermore, Dorian is not the only bodybuilder in history to have bodily acne. Funny how none of those other bodybuilders with their bodies covered in acne and pustules has ever been called grainy as a result.
Owned.
The only role genetics plays in separations and striations is determining which areas you are naturally more lean. A muscle that is covered by a thick layer of water and fat will not show definition regardless of that person's genetics. At the other extreme, a muscle has a set limit of separations and striations no matter how dry and shredded you are. So what do you think happens when two people - one with defined quads at 15% bf and one with smooth quads at 12% bf - both diet down to 4% bf? Their quads will show an equal amount of definition. The reason for this is b/c once the person with better leg genetics removes all the water and fat from his quads, his body will just move on to another area meanwhile the person with worse leg genetics will continue losing fat and water from his quads until he catches up.
You're so wrong about this. Genetics does play a definite role in separations. A person who has defined quads at 12% bodyat and another who has smooth quads at 12% bodyfat have a different distribution of fat
and different genetics for separations. It is true that there is a limit to the amount of separations that you display, but since this limit is different for people
overral, it clearly points out that different bodyfat distributions cannot solely explain separations. There is a ceilling for separations, and this proves my point because the ceilling for separations is diferent between people at the lowest at and water levels possible, so it proves my point that subcutaneous fat and water levels cannot solely account for it.
Furthermore, it is obviously not true that two people at 4% bodyfat will have equally defined quads. This is explained by bodyfat distributions as well as genetics or separations, which vary between people. Not only that, but the
total number of separations will also vary for people with the same exact amount of bodyfat and water, which elucidates very clearly that bodyat and water levels cannot account for all the variation in number separatios between people with the same bodyfat and water levels. A regression analyses would celarly demonstrate that.
NeoSeminole, for you to demonstrate that genetics plays no role in separations besides in determining where fat and water are distributed, you'd have to demonstrate that the number of separations is invariable between two people with the exact amount of bodyfat and water. It is the only way to isolate the variable. A guy who has smooth quads at 12% bodyfat when compared to one who has defined ones at 15% bodyfat could simply have much less fat in his quads than in the rest of his body, or he could have more fat in his quads but freakish geentics for separations. It is impossible to know, because there are too many variables at play, so we can't be sure what role each one plays and to what degree. The only way to do that it to equate the other two variables - bodyfat and water levels - between two different bodybuilders or similar bodyparts between two different bodybuilders and see what role the single variable you isolated plays in determining the validity of your conjecture. This is factor analyses, which you learn in the first two years of college in the sciences.
So, this begs the question: Does your premisse hold true? No, it doesen't. While it is impossible to isolate bodyparts for their bodyfat and water levels, it is possible to do that with entire persons. However, if you isolated two quads of different men, both of them with the exact same amount of bodyfat and water there, you'd see that they would have a different amount of cuts to their quads, and that the cuts would vary in depth. Sorry, but it's true. Doing the more realistic experiments with entire persons, you'd see that your conjecture does not hold true: two bodybuilders with the same bodyfat and water percentages will not show the same amount or depth of separations as the other overral, which means that some of the separations must be explained through other means. Case close. Dorian Yates stepped onstage at 3% bodyfat and as dry as the Atacama Dessert, and yet he still did not have as many separations overral as a Flex Wheeler even when the latter was off.
I have the muscularity of a 13 yr old girl? Riiiiiiiiight, then you must live with ogres. By no means do I profess to be huge. However, it's safe to say that I'm more muscular than a teenage girl at my current weight of 190 lbs.
Oh my...so you also have a problem in comprehending hyperboles besides metaphors?
I would estimate my body fat to be around 17% (based on 4% being the lowest a human can attain). This would put me at roughly 165 lbs if I were to be completely dry and shredded. How much does the avg. 13 yr old girl weigh? 100 lbs?
Wow, NeoSeminole, you really took my statment literally...
I said that I would think about competing in the Mr. Getbig. Unlike you, I actually train to enter real bodybuilding contests - you know, the kind where you get up onstage in front of people.
Bullshit. You are a nerd sitting behind your computer screen. You have the physique of someone who doesen't even workout. If you have actually entered real bodybuilding shows, you were defeated, because your physique is not good enough to win even local amateur shows. I attend bodybuilding shows regularly and I have friends who judge in the NPC, and I promise you that your physique wouldn't get a single call-out from the judges.
I have observed that all Saturday nights you are logged in to Getbig. Sometimes, when it's 10:00 PM or so, I turn off my computer and go out to clubs with my girlfriend and friends, and then when I return at 5:00 AM, and log in to Getbig again to see what's new, you're still logged in. It is not one Saturday, mind you, but practically all of them. Then I check out the last time you logged in, and presto, you have been logged in for ten hours or so. Who are you trying to kid? You obvioulsy have no social life. Have you ever even kissed a girl? Pathetic. What's truly sad is that I returned home earlier today only to respond to your post, because I had promissed it and I wouldn't be able to reply to it on Sunday because I have work to do for Monday. I wasted part of my Saturday night because of you.
Dieting for an online competition isn't exactly high on my agenda. It would require sacrificing a few months of gaining mass just to shut you up.
You most definitely would need to gain a lot of mass to even win a local show, that's for sure. As for shutting me up, that won't happen, I assure you: neither on these boards or on a bodybuilding stage.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
