England,
I did not attend any of those shows. I agree that pictures
can be very deceiving. Video on the other hand is very close
to the real thing. In some ways it is actually better because
being there live gives you a one shot analysis. On video
you can review things as many times as you like and at variable
speeds. Video can not create, as well as pictures - Shape, Separation, striations
ect. that are not already present. The lighting for the 1998 and 1999 Olympias
are very similar. The same can not be said for the 2001 AC. If you've seen
that DVD everyone looks smoother than they probably were in person. Luckily,
there is enough backstage footage to get a good idea of what Coleman's true
condition was. It was different than 98 and 99 in that he was not that full so
he looked a little smooth until he flexed. When he flexed though; all hell broke lose!
Kinda reminded me of how Samir Bannout was in 1983. A little smooth until he flexed
and then BAM! Seperation, striations like crazy. Anyway, I know your likely to disagree
with my assessment of video but I think it tells enough of the story for me to come to my own
conclusions. I don't like to talk about myself but I have had national success in 3 different
art forms and state success in designing houses so I do have alot of confidence in my
assessments of physiques.
