[quote]whatsyourexcuse wrote:
I can’t make up my mind on Wolf, [/quote]
Yeah, this.
I’m happy for the guy, particularly how upset he looked last year. But I just don’t know.
He was much better than last year, much better, but… Who knows about top 6.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Scott M wrote:
Who should have placed above them(Rockel and Wolf) that didn’t? This isn’t some challenge, I’m just curious.
[/quote]
VIC MARTINEZ should have been top 5. How the hell did both of those guys beat him out?[/quote]
Vic Martinez’s conditioning warrants his placing.
Vic
C’mon, this is a no contest. We all know how important conditioning is in this competition, and so do the competitors.
Cant argue those photos…
Bob Chic mentioned a new rule change that had a lot of people scratching their heads.
Basically the top 6 were set during pre judging. Those 1-6 could change within that range but wouldn’t fall out, and the same with 7-15. This ruins people’s ability to work there way up if they didn’t hit that cutoff to begin with.
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Cant argue those photos…[/quote]
Why not? They aren’t side by side. We can pull up individual photos all night long but I hope I’m not the only one to realize that the pics alone do not give the full story of how these guys looked on stage. Watching it on line showed things that can be washed out or less detailed in a picture. Rockel was extremely vascular, but this isn’t about what one aspect is more than another. It’s about the whole package.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Cant argue those photos…[/quote]
Why not? They aren’t side by side. We can pull up individual photos all night long but I hope I’m not the only one to realize that the pics alone do not give the full story of how these guys looked on stage. Watching it on line showed things that can be washed out or less detailed in a picture. Rockel was extremely vascular, but this isn’t about what one aspect is more than another. It’s about the whole package. [/quote]
I did watch online, and was really amazed with Rockel’s aesthetics, he has a lot of size, was much more grainy than Vic. Vic’s conditionong is what did him in, wish he could nail it as he is one of my favorite pros and definitely has the most classic lines…I thought Rockel’s placing over Vic was fair.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Cant argue those photos…[/quote]
Why not? They aren’t side by side. We can pull up individual photos all night long but I hope I’m not the only one to realize that the pics alone do not give the full story of how these guys looked on stage. Watching it on line showed things that can be washed out or less detailed in a picture. Rockel was extremely vascular, but this isn’t about what one aspect is more than another. It’s about the whole package. [/quote]
I watched it online too and these pictures are exactly what I saw from the video. Rockel just stood out more, and the announcers thought so as well so it’s not just a case of certain poses or stances, or bad lighting, etc. Rockel just nailed his conditioning and had much more separation.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Cant argue those photos…[/quote]
Why not? They aren’t side by side. We can pull up individual photos all night long but I hope I’m not the only one to realize that the pics alone do not give the full story of how these guys looked on stage. Watching it on line showed things that can be washed out or less detailed in a picture. Rockel was extremely vascular, but this isn’t about what one aspect is more than another. It’s about the whole package. [/quote]
I watched it online too and these pictures are exactly what I saw from the video. Rockel just stood out more, and the announcers thought so as well so it’s not just a case of certain poses or stances, or bad lighting, etc. Rockel just nailed his conditioning and had much more separation.[/quote]
Please. Rockel had more veins showing, that’s about it and much of that is genetic. He is also short and that is what stood out the most when they were all side by side. Rockel may have deserved a top ten placing, but top six? Get serious.
It’s obvious Vic spilled over or just wasn’t in shape. He has no separation anywhere! Nothing in the arms, nothing in the stomach (although I admit this could be due to the way he flexed) and his legs have almost none. Vic fucked up and payed for it just like Kai.
At that level the difference in Vic’s and Rockels conditioning is HUGE and I felt they were placed fairly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Cant argue those photos…[/quote]
Why not? They aren’t side by side. We can pull up individual photos all night long but I hope I’m not the only one to realize that the pics alone do not give the full story of how these guys looked on stage. Watching it on line showed things that can be washed out or less detailed in a picture. Rockel was extremely vascular, but this isn’t about what one aspect is more than another. It’s about the whole package. [/quote]
I watched it online too and these pictures are exactly what I saw from the video. Rockel just stood out more, and the announcers thought so as well so it’s not just a case of certain poses or stances, or bad lighting, etc. Rockel just nailed his conditioning and had much more separation.[/quote]
Please. Rockel had more veins showing, that’s about it and much of that is genetic. He is also short and that is what stood out the most when they were all side by side. Rockel may have deserved a top ten placing, but top six? Get serious.[/quote]
I watched it online as well.
If you want to come to Vic’s defense that Rockel’s vascularity is genetic, then I’m coming to Rockel’s defense that his "shortness is as well. You’re saying he should be slighted for that?
That aside, Vic just wasn’t on. Rockel was.
^^
Isn’t being short/tall genetic aswell then? Atleast judging by your own criteria…?
[quote]NuYi wrote:
^^
Isn’t being short/tall genetic aswell then? Atleast judging by your own criteria…?[/quote]
That’s what I’m saying. Doc mentioned Rock’s vascularity being a genetic “gift”.
He also mentioned his height in a negative context (as if a good short man stands no chance against a pretty good tall man). I defended his shortness as genetic as well with emphasis on the fact that it should have no impact on the outcome of his placing.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Cant argue those photos…[/quote]
Why not? They aren’t side by side. We can pull up individual photos all night long but I hope I’m not the only one to realize that the pics alone do not give the full story of how these guys looked on stage. Watching it on line showed things that can be washed out or less detailed in a picture. Rockel was extremely vascular, but this isn’t about what one aspect is more than another. It’s about the whole package. [/quote]
I watched it online too and these pictures are exactly what I saw from the video. Rockel just stood out more, and the announcers thought so as well so it’s not just a case of certain poses or stances, or bad lighting, etc. Rockel just nailed his conditioning and had much more separation.[/quote]
Please. Rockel had more veins showing, that’s about it and much of that is genetic. He is also short and that is what stood out the most when they were all side by side. Rockel may have deserved a top ten placing, but top six? Get serious.[/quote]
I watched it online as well.
If you want to come to Vic’s defense that Rockel’s vascularity is genetic, then I’m coming to Rockel’s defense that his "shortness is as well. You’re saying he should be slighted for that?
That aside, Vic just wasn’t on. Rockel was.
[/quote]
Vic never has veins showing much because they just don’t show on him the same way they do on someone who is simply more vascular overall. Phil was nowhere near as “vascular” as Rockel…that doesn’t mean Phil was off at all. Phil just doesn’t show all of those veins no matter how dry he is.
That is what is meant by mentioning genetics. I am also not sure why this wasn’t understood or why people related this to height.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
It’s obvious Vic spilled over or just wasn’t in shape. He has no separation anywhere! Nothing in the arms, nothing in the stomach (although I admit this could be due to the way he flexed) and his legs have almost none.
[/quote]
It’s not just the way he flexes. When have you ever seen Vic with veins everywhere like Rockel showed? It isn’t much different than us differing in how we may show vascularity. If you show more veins than me even when at the same body fat levels, that is a GENETIC difference that neither of us can do much about.
[quote]NuYi wrote:
^^
Isn’t being short/tall genetic aswell then? Atleast judging by your own criteria…?[/quote]
Thinking. Do more.
I explained this above but I am still laughing because THIS is what you got from what was written. As far as his height, his overall structure is “compact”. It isn’t like Priest where you couldn’t really tell how short he was if you saw a pic of him alone.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]NuYi wrote:
^^
Isn’t being short/tall genetic aswell then? Atleast judging by your own criteria…?[/quote]
That’s what I’m saying. Doc mentioned Rock’s vascularity being a genetic “gift”.
He also mentioned his height in a negative context (as if a good short man stands no chance against a pretty good tall man). I defended his shortness as genetic as well with emphasis on the fact that it should have no impact on the outcome of his placing.[/quote]
You are taking offense because of your own height. I just explained this. His height IS a factor if his proportions are affected.
I don’t think (at least in my case) that vascularity is the real issue. I’m looking for separation, definition, and skin thickness. Rockel would still have been in better condition that Vic even without his vasculartity.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]NuYi wrote:
^^
Isn’t being short/tall genetic aswell then? Atleast judging by your own criteria…?[/quote]
That’s what I’m saying. Doc mentioned Rock’s vascularity being a genetic “gift”.
He also mentioned his height in a negative context (as if a good short man stands no chance against a pretty good tall man). I defended his shortness as genetic as well with emphasis on the fact that it should have no impact on the outcome of his placing.[/quote]
You are taking offense because of your own height. I just explained this. His height IS a factor if his proportions are affected. [/quote]
No, I wasn’t.
If vascularity is a genetic trait that should be overlooked as a “gift” that varies from person to person (and one that is outside of what one can do about it), then stature should be as well. Vic can’t make himself more vascular, and Rockel can’t make himself taller. I only wanted to level the playing field.
That’s another reason I chose Phil to win. Jay is broader, naturally. He didn’t make his clavicles wide through hard work, yet most people who defend him only see his basic outline and use that as the single most important criteria.
