[quote]600lb Gorilla wrote:
Freaky, freaky body parts everywhere…[/quote]
Insane.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
A good ol’ fashioned parody thread - “Taco, Taco, Taco” would be a good addition to this nonsense. You know, before I decided to ban parody threads.[/quote]
tacos are from mex not from spain
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
But you dont hear very often that someone is in good condition, but they didnt nail their aethletics.
[/quote]
Of course you dont. Because ‘aesthetics’ is not part of the criteria of bodybuilding. Aesthetics is COMPRISED of conditioning, size, etc.
Conditioning is on the scorecard. Aesthetics is not. [/quote]
But I do not think that on the pro bodybuilding stage conditioning compromises someones aesthetics. Flex will always be seen as a bodybuilder with good aesthetics. He might have come into shows more conditioned or less, but never does anyone say “well, he didn’t have good aesthetics tonight.” Cutler on the other hand, no matter how conditioned he is, people will always say something about his refrigerator look. (I do think he deserved every Olympia)
[/quote]
Yea. Iheard you the first time. You didnt realy understand what I was saying, I maybe I didnt explain it clear enough.
Flex Wheeler competing at 3% bodyfat vs Flex Wheeler competing at 6% bf (literally competing against himself for the sake of this example). Who wins? Obviously Flex at 3% because his aethetics will be superior.
You can be the most perfect guy in the world but if youre carrying too much fat you will lose points. The points on a scorecard are a numerical representation of how aesthetically pleasing the judge finds the competitor. [/quote]
LOL!
Yes, because there are people entering the Olympia contest with pounds of extra fat to lose.
Dude, seriously? At that stage, “conditioning” has much more to do with manipulation of body water. It does NOT usually come down to huge differences in the levels of body fat someone is carrying…because no one is going into a contest like that out of shape. Even Greg Kovacs didn’t get on stage FAT even though his proportions and shape were fucked.
There are pics of Flex NOT in contest shape but near it held as some of the most ideal images of bodybuilding. Conditioning WILL help you win a contest…but when history has the last word, it does not define who is seen as the more ideal representation of bodybuilding.
Most of the images people see of past “Golden Era” bodybuilders are off stage but near contest shape. Arnold was NEVER as lean as pros today but is STILL held as an ideal.
But then…you will probably call this “pathetic” or some other name even though it would appear I am not the only one with this opinion.[/quote]
I also heard YOU the first time as well.
I’ve already made my point. Conditioning is a SUB-PART of aesthetics. You have yet to acknowledge this because you know it isnt wrong. And youre not allowed to be wrong. Fallibility is a concept beyond your grasp.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I also heard YOU the first time as well.
I’ve already made my point. Conditioning is a SUB-PART of aesthetics. You have yet to acknowledge this because you know it isnt wrong. And youre not allowed to be wrong. Fallibility is a concept beyond your grasp. [/quote]
? Conditioning is a part of the judging criteria, but when all of the people on stage are about as lean as humanly possible with the only thing causing “conditioned” differences being mostly body water manipulation, claiming that this is what helps define “aesthetics” is a little off. The reason why has been explained…simply put, the bodybuilders considered the most “aesthetic” through out history do NOT seem to be the absolute “driest”, veined up “conditioned” freaks.
If we were comparing fat people to lean people, THEN you would have a point…but we aren’t doing that.
Also, what is with this desire to prove me wrong all of the time? You just had one jackass claim that Keith Williams had fake pictures on his own website and not one of you tried to correct him or demand he admit he was wrong. Why is that?
If people admitting they were wrong was so important to you, his performance here would have caught your attention…but it didn’t.
Oh, and guys, if you really want to get scientific, we can discuss the Golden Proportion. “Aesthetics” is about mathematical balance, symmetry and proportion. The Egyptians and Greeks figured this out a long time ago…long before Dorian Yates.
I don’t know, but Paco’s midsection just seems to kill his physique. It overpowers his lats, making them look small. His midsection also seems to be too big for his hips and thus makes his legs look underwhelming as well.
TL;DR he needs to take a page out of Ronnie’s book and squat with a belt
[quote]jak3_dude wrote:
TL;DR he needs to take a page out of Ronnie’s book and squat with a belt[/quote]
And how would that make his waist narrower?
Well I think you gotta say, you can’t have both nd branch is better
Nice thread, but what a shame about the racist allegations.
From what I understood esthetics have to do with balance and proportion between muscle groups. I am not sure if this is judging criteria, but I think it is. Conditioning, I think, has nothing to do with it. So you can actually ruin your esthetics by becoming too big, which might cause some bodyparts to dominate over others.
I have read many times that this is what happened to Jay Cutler when he was chasing Coleman for size. Indeed some believe that even Ronnie Coleman got too big for his frame and was actually at his best at the 1999 O and 2001 or 2002 (forgot) Arnold.
As far as the OP question is concerned. I think Paco does a lot worse than Branch in competitions is that he probably looks worse on stage than he does off stage. Kind of like Dennis James, who looks amazing in gym shots.
it seems that his thicker waist takes away from the total package. other than that he looks amazing. all you guys saying you wouldn’t want to look like him, don’t worry you couldn’t even if you wanted to.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
A good ol’ fashioned parody thread - “Taco, Taco, Taco” would be a good addition to this nonsense. You know, before I decided to ban parody threads.[/quote]
idiot
[quote]600lb Gorilla wrote:
More muscle…[/quote]
His shoulders are the size of basket balls…
This man is not a mortal, holy shit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I also heard YOU the first time as well.
I’ve already made my point. Conditioning is a SUB-PART of aesthetics. You have yet to acknowledge this because you know it isnt wrong. And youre not allowed to be wrong. Fallibility is a concept beyond your grasp. [/quote]
? Conditioning is a part of the judging criteria, but when all of the people on stage are about as lean as humanly possible with the only thing causing “conditioned” differences being mostly body water manipulation, claiming that this is what helps define “aesthetics” is a little off. The reason why has been explained…simply put, the bodybuilders considered the most “aesthetic” through out history do NOT seem to be the absolute “driest”, veined up “conditioned” freaks.
If we were comparing fat people to lean people, THEN you would have a point…but we aren’t doing that.
Also, what is with this desire to prove me wrong all of the time? You just had one jackass claim that Keith Williams had fake pictures on his own website and not one of you tried to correct him or demand he admit he was wrong. Why is that?
If people admitting they were wrong was so important to you, his performance here would have caught your attention…but it didn’t.[/quote]
That keith williams kid is that kid who was wearing the ‘9/11 is fake t shirt’ who claimed that ced mcmillan is natty, I dont know if you remember all of that stuff, he’s a troll. Like a real troll. I dont really know if those pictures are photoshopped or not. I dont really have time to investigate that either. To be honest, I didnt read any of those posts.
I dont agree that all competitors compete at the same level (read: a level not distinguishable from each other) of bodyfat.
The part about the historically aesthetic guys doesnt prove or disprove what Im saying. At all. All Ive said is that conditioning is a part of aesthetics, that they cant be separated.
And I got in on the discussion in the beginning because of the implication that Branch Warren doesnt present a pretty enough physique to place well in big shows. Obviously I dont agree.
[quote]gangstpmp3 wrote:
all you guys saying you wouldn’t want to look like him, don’t worry you couldn’t even if you wanted to.[/quote]
whoa. thats a revelation thats going to cause thousands of sleepless nights for TNation readers
I luv bonezy
[quote]gangstpmp3 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
A good ol’ fashioned parody thread - “Taco, Taco, Taco” would be a good addition to this nonsense. You know, before I decided to ban parody threads.[/quote]
idiot[/quote]
Surely, a gangsta pimp from Michigan like you can dougie way better than that.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The part about the historically aesthetic guys doesnt prove or disprove what Im saying. At all. All Ive said is that conditioning is a part of aesthetics, that they cant be separated.
And I got in on the discussion in the beginning because of the implication that Branch Warren doesnt present a pretty enough physique to place well in big shows. Obviously I dont agree.
[/quote]
First, the historically aesthetic guys are exactly what prove you wrong. There is a science to aesthetics. Any plastic surgeon or even cosmetic dentist knows this in detail. That was why I mentioned the Golden Proportion. People find certain proportions…scientifically the same proportions in majority as the Golden Proportion…aesthetic. That is why the Golden Era bodybuilders are still held as an ideal for many even though they are the LEAST lean in comparison to guys today.
Aesthetics has everything to do with the shape, size and proportion of a physique. “Conditioning” is a variable, one that has only recently (within the last 30 years) been enforced to the degree it is reaching a high point now with the “shredded glutes” bullshit.
The bottom line is that 30 years from now, when guys in their 20’s and 30’s and looking back at this time period, they will not base what they find as “ideal” on whether someone had more veins showing instead of the overall proportions and shape of the person.
That is why Flex Wheeler is seen as ideal despite not ever reaching conditioned levels like Branch.
I mean, it isn’t like I am making this shit up. I actually had to learn all of this in more detail than you seem to want to believe.
Also. we just proved that here two times over because SEVERAL claimed they appreciated Keith Williams off season CONDITION over his contest prepped CONDITION. The reason why is size, proportion and shape.
[quote]jak3_dude wrote:
I don’t know, but Paco’s midsection just seems to kill his physique. It overpowers his lats, making them look small. His midsection also seems to be too big for his hips and thus makes his legs look underwhelming as well.
TL;DR he needs to take a page out of Ronnie’s book and squat with a belt[/quote]
I’m actually glad you put the pictures together like that. I respect Paco more now.
Yeah I thought most people took it for granted that bodybuilding is less about aesthetics in the traditional sense nowadays. Someone like Steve Reeves pretty much had the “ideal” Grecian ratios - although he had a slimmer waist. Those ratios don’t exist in Branch or Jay… But it doesn’t mean they are “worse” bodybuilders, just less aesthetic.
Conditioning absolutely is a part of aesthetics… But becomes a marginal one when a person is sub 10% IMO. This is because when someone is very lean you can tell what their shape is like and that (their shape) isn’t going to change as much from 4% to 8% as it would if your talking 25% down to 10%. OBVIOUSLY someone at 4% deserves to win a bodybuilding competition more than someone at 8% because the criteria for extreme leanness exists - but that is different than their aesthetics.