Should conditioning be more important than proportions? Size is also related to proportions. For example, athletes like Dexter with small calves suffer both size and proportion issues. Surely that deficiency is more important than conditioning, all other factors equal?
There just seems to be some sort of acceptance that certain physiques are superior regardless of balance and aesthetics. Gynocomastia has been mentioned as detracting from a physique. Just how does one go about deducting points for that aberration? Coleman won with gynocomastia and poor balance because of suspect calves. I mean, how can a guy be 'conditioned' yet have few cuts or striations in his gastrocnemius muscles?
Seems to me conditioning is the factor most judges can deal with. Assessing physiques on the other criteria can be rather difficult. It is much easier for the head judge to do the hard work and let the judges know who to vote for. This is the reality of most shows and why so many remain controversial.
Vince I'm with ya on the conditioning but I still think Dexter's calves are fine. For me personally, I couldn't tell you there was anything wrong with Dexter's calves, because that never occurs to me when looking at his overall package. Hell for all we know, if he had big calves we might need for something else to be bigger. This may be a pretty unpopular opinion but you've got 2 schools of thought on Dexter, basically: 1) He's perfect, or 2) his calves suck. I'm a member of the first and I think the second just needed to find something to bitch about.
As for judging gyno, well, that just means they aren't ready yet. But as long as you're not giving them first place, you can still place them above a few other guys with much lesser physiques than the guy having the gyno. Gyno shouldn't make you automatically
last, now should it?
Just the way
I see it, perhaps, but maybe you could too.
