goddamn, try to keep your responses shorter.
I didn't ask for your definition of conditioning, you idiot. This is the second time now you didn't answer my question. I asked you how do you determine who has better conditioning.
And I have already answered this one several times: grain. When you drop bodyfat and water, it is not only the amount of separations and striaitons that increase, but the texture o the skin also changes. Look at the skin of someone who's morbidly obese and that of a bodybilder in top contest shape. Obviously, the bodybuilder will have a more separated musculature. Now, howwever, ignore the separation and striation lines and ocus exclusively on the skin. What is apparent to the eyes? That the bodybuilder's in top shape skin has a harder appearance to it. The less subcutaeous water one has, the "stonier" a muscle looks. Some bodybuilders show improvements in conditioning more through grain than through an increase in separations and striations.
Since the judges don't have a hydrostatic weighing machine onstage to individually measure each competitor, what visual clues do they look for?
Ronnie Coleman obviously has a better genetics than Dorian for separations. At the 2003 Olympia, he still had clear delt tie-in separations and between the two heads of his biceps. Now, at the 2003 Olympia Coleman was no paradigma of conditioning, and it is obvious that he was at more than 3% bodyfat and clearly holding water. Yet, he still had more separations overral than Dorian at his best, with the exception of his back. But if you ask the judges or bodybuilding writers if Coleman in his 2003 version than the 1995 Dorian Yates, they will laugh at you. Coleman in 2003 was soft with good separations. His coditioin was't great by any means. You asked for a purely visual definition o conditioning, and I'm giving it to you: Dorian Yates is more conditioed even with less separations than his competitors because he looks harder. Period.
Furthermore, I don't care if several writers said that Dorian was the most conditioned bodybuilder ever back in 95 or 96. They aren't taking into consideration Ronnie's physique at the 01 ASC.
Coleman's 2001 ASC shape is by no means an epitome of conditioning. It was the best for Coleman, but that's it. When Dorian stepped ostage during the first call-out of pre-judging at the 1995 Olympia, the contest was over. He wasn't the biggest guy onstage, but it was over. He would have won that contest even if he had nothing besides his conditioning; his coditioning instantly became legendary. Bodybuilding writers were raving about how he set the gold-standard for dryness that has never been equalled. Was the same said about Coleman's 2001 ASC shape? No. The buzz is that it was the best for him, not when compared with others. Please...with all bodybuilders in the World you had to choose Coleman in his 2001 ASC shape to match it with Dorian for coditioning? Shawn Ray was infinitely more conditioned than Coleman at the 1996 Olympia, and he failed to match Dorian or that. And by the way, the comment was made by former NPC President and now I.F.B.B Chairman, Jim Manion, in 2004.
What year are the quotes from? I don't see how Peter McGough contradicted himself if he later changed his stance.
The quote is from FLEX editorial, "Dorian's Delicate Condition", in 2006. I don't recall what issue it was, but I will definitely look it out. Furthermore, even if the quote had been made before 2001, ultimately it doesen't really matter what McGough thinks: his opinions are far more erudite than mine or yours, but ultimately all that matters is what the judges think, and McGough is not one.
that's if we assume that a "grainy" appearance is caused by low body fat and water levels, and not the result of bad skin. In my opinion, Andreas Munzer surpassed Dorian's conditioning yet he didn't look grainy. Flex Wheeler at the 93 ASC was pretty damn dry and shredded but didn't look grainy either.
it doesn't work that way, dumbass. You cannot isolate one variable and say "if this alone doesn't produce the desired effect, then it must not be a factor." Following your logic, dryness must not matter either since an obese person will still look soft even if they are dehydrated.
But it was you who said that looking grainy like Dorian Yates first requires one to drop subcutaneous bodyfat and water, NeoSeminole, not me. If an obese person cannot look grainy like Dorian Yates by just having lots of acne, then obviously Dorian's graininess cannot be explained by bad skin alone. You have said that grain is partially the result of low subcutaneous fat and water levels.
Now, isolating the variables is an efective way to observe if said variables enhances conditioning or not. Let's ask ourselves the question: does a decrease in bodyfat or water, by themselves, cause an improvement in conditioning? The answer in both cases is yes. An obese person who becomes dehydrated will not look hard, obviously, but will look hard
er. That is the key thing. The question is: "Does an alteration of the variable cause an chage in coditioning?" If the answer is yes, then the variable is related to conditioning. If it's not, then it isn't.
Between two bodybuilders who are at 3% bodyat, does the one who has the least subcutaneous water look hard
er? Sure he does. Among two bodybuilders who are dehydrated, but one has 3% bodyfat and the other has 7%, will the one with 3% bodyat look hard
er? Sure. Now, does acne as an independent variable make one look harder? No, it doesen't. Sorry, sport, but you're wrong. But then, since you have already conceded that Dorian's graininess is at least partially the result of low subcutaneous fat and water levels, the discussion is over.
I should have said two people at 0% bf (theoretically speaking) would have the same amount of definition. Earlier, I assumed that 4% was the lowest that a human being can go and still be alive. I realized afterwards this left the possibility for varied subcutaneous fat and water distribution.
This is absolutely irrelevant, and you know it. The key issue here is this: if you control bodyfat and water levels between two individuals making them the same, then the number of overral separations must be identical; if not, then you hypothesis that factors other than sucutaneous fat and water levels do not play a part in muscular separations is wrong. It doesen't matter whether the two individuals still have some fat and water in their bodies or not, as long as they are the same. It could be 4% or 0%, it doesen't matter. If they are at 4% bodyfat and with the same water level, then they will still have more separations in some bodyparts than others due to differences in subcutaneous at and water distributions, but the
total number of separations in the whole body must be identical. If they are at 0% bodyfat, then they must have the same amount of separations in their bodparts as well as in the body as a whole, since here obvioulsy bodyfat and water distrubution is not an issue.
bwahahahahahaha, now I have the physique of someone who doesn't work out? You're correct that I lost both times when I entered a show. I placed 3rd when I competed as a teenager, and I wasn't in the top 6 at my last show. The latter was a level 4 contest open to anyone in Florida. I was 21 yrs old going up against guys in their late 20's and mid-30's. One of the competitors was Sergio Oliva's son. So I don't feel too bad losing.
Judging by your pics, my guess is that you and Pumpy are both Bowflex aficionados...
First of all, what does my personal life have to do with my post? Attacking me personally only goes to show what a low life scum you are.
Oh man, I would love to reply to this one in kind, but I can't even talk about the issue...
Second, I always have multiple tabs open simultaneously. I will leave my computer and come back to browse for new threads. So I'm not surprised that it says I've been logged on Getbig for 10 hrs straight.
It wouldn't call my attention if it was only once in a while. However, you strike me as an individual who is shunned by people. You are under age 30, right? Why is it that you spend every Saturday night on your computer? Also, I have observed that you take everything very literally, and that's a classic sympton of autistic spectrum diseorders. My suggestion that you might have Asperger's Syndrome was only partially a joke: I think it might actually be the case. You social isolation and literal-mindedness are classic symptons o the disorder. Seek help, please.
Third, I have never pretended to be someone that I'm not.
Like saying that you're a competitive bodybuilder, as an example?
I don't need to brag that I go out to clubs (I've been to them and I hate them) or that I have a girlfriend. If you really must know, I'm not looking for a relationship b/c I don't intend to stay here for long. I'm applying to grad school in a few months. Also, I assure you that I've kissed several girls.
But you're still a virgin, correct?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
