Paco, Paco, Paco

BONEZ217 · February 2, 2011, 7:00pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^ is conditioning not a part of that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t consider it specifically because like we all just noted in THIS THREAD Paco has GREAT conditioning all of the time on stage…yet no one considers him aesthetic.[/quote]

learn to logic plz

edit.

excuse me. the reasoning is only semi-circular. prior knowledge is required for it to really be circular.

but anway. cause and effect are clearly being confused

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

Iron_Dwarf · February 2, 2011, 7:11pm

Branch Warren looks like crap, Paco looks like crap, and a LOT of crap was stated in this thread… including my statement.

If BBing is indeed an art, there there needs to be an aesthetic criteria beyond freaky size and proportions. As long as “Refrigerator Cutler” keeps winning, that aesthetic remains out of reach, and thus hideous guys like Paco will always be on the tip of everyone’s tongue.

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:18pm

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^ is conditioning not a part of that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t consider it specifically because like we all just noted in THIS THREAD Paco has GREAT conditioning all of the time on stage…yet no one considers him aesthetic.[/quote]

Here we go.

HOnestly. Stop making posts in 30 seconds and give some thought to what youre saying.

No one considers him aesthetic becuase he has horrible lines, muscle bellies, joint size, bone structure. His conditioning is great. It doesnt matter how many categories play into the judgement of ‘aesthetically pleasing’. Conditioning is certainly one of them. If you used some damned common sense and logic youd realize that someone at 25% doesnt look at good as someone at 10%. Thats about a simple an explanation as it gets. His conditioning is greatly outweighed by the fact that he looks like piece of horse shit.

Conditioning is a factor. The same way muscle proportion is. Its not an ‘either or’ situation. [/quote]

Who the fuck is getting on a pro stage at 25% body fat?

No one disagrees that conditioning is a factor in what decides the overall winner.

Conditioning can be so variable that it single handedly kept Dennis James from being more of a heavy hitter several times in his career. He can’t change his bone structure. He worked to get those muscles in balance and tried to get as much symmetry as possible, but minor differences in conditioning, while definitely what goes into the final choice of a winner, are not what defines the AESTHETICS of someone on a pro stage…BECAUSE NO ONE IS FAT. They award conditioning in terms of veins showing, striations, “grittiness” of the skin.

Further, did someone piss in your fucking protein drinks lately? You are like a little kid with this shit. You aren’t impressing anyone with the attacks or the attitude here.

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:19pm

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Branch Warren looks like crap, Paco looks like crap, and a LOT of crap was stated in this thread… including my statement.

If BBing is indeed an art, there there needs to be an aesthetic criteria beyond freaky size and proportions. As long as “Refrigerator Cutler” keeps winning, that aesthetic remains out of reach, and thus hideous guys like Paco will always be on the tip of everyone’s tongue.[/quote]

LOL.

Racist!

SteelyD · February 2, 2011, 7:21pm

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
If BBing is indeed an art, there there needs to be an aesthetic criteria beyond freaky size and proportions. As long as “Refrigerator Cutler” keeps winning, that aesthetic remains out of reach, and thus hideous guys like Paco will always be on the tip of everyone’s tongue.[/quote]

I’ve been lurking during the trainwreck, but regarding the above-- Aren’t the Mr. Olympia judges by default the ones who drive the criteria of “a winning physique”? If they keep electing the Cutler/Warren/Monster physiques as top 3, then why wouldn’t that filter down the line as the goal?

I mean folks on T-Nation can argue all day about “what is aesthetic”, but it seems that the only opinions that matter are the Mr. O judges’ opinions.

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:22pm

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
. Obviously you could have kept it completely neutral by simply making a thread about Paco but you had to shit on a 2 time top 3 olympia competitor in the process. What did you THINK was going to happen[/quote]

Also, I didn’t “shit on” Branch at all in this thread. I didn’t insult him at all. If you can’t handle someone talking about the differences of bodybuilders the moment someone mentions a white guy, maybe you are the one with the problem.

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:35pm

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
If BBing is indeed an art, there there needs to be an aesthetic criteria beyond freaky size and proportions. As long as “Refrigerator Cutler” keeps winning, that aesthetic remains out of reach, and thus hideous guys like Paco will always be on the tip of everyone’s tongue.[/quote]

I’ve been lurking during the trainwreck, but regarding the above-- Aren’t the Mr. Olympia judges by default the ones who drive the criteria of “a winning physique”? If they keep electing the Cutler/Warren/Monster physiques as top 3, then why wouldn’t that filter down the line as the goal?

I mean folks on T-Nation can argue all day about “what is aesthetic”, but it seems that the only opinions that matter are the Mr. O judges’ opinions.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that because at the end of the day “history” is what decides what is aesthetic. Flex Wheeler is known by many for being one of the most aesthetic bodybuilders ever on stage…but his winnings didn’t match Arnold, Haney, Coleman, Jackson, or Cutler.

SkyNett · February 2, 2011, 7:29pm

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
You chose to repsond to ONLY that section of ANY of my posts, prentending the substantive sections of my posts on topic didnt exist. (I mean you just did again by only quoting the last line of the post I made)

You wont catch me twisting words, because I dont need to. EVERY SINGLE PERSON sees the methods you use to make yourself visible on this forum. Its getting more comical with every reply.

But yea, everyone else is the reason your threads deviate miles away from the original topics. Its definitely not you. Can’t be.

[/quote]

True. You do that to me (and lots of others) all the time. Bonez isn’t trolling - he’s just telling it like it is.

anonym · February 2, 2011, 7:31pm

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
You chose to repsond to ONLY that section of ANY of my posts, prentending the substantive sections of my posts on topic didnt exist. (I mean you just did again by only quoting the last line of the post I made)

You wont catch me twisting words, because I dont need to. EVERY SINGLE PERSON sees the methods you use to make yourself visible on this forum. Its getting more comical with every reply.

But yea, everyone else is the reason your threads deviate miles away from the original topics. Its definitely not you. Can’t be.

[/quote]

True. You do that to me (and lots of others) all the time. Bonez isn’t trolling - he’s just telling it like it is. [/quote]

Do you only post nowadays to point out how much Professor X doesn’t like you?

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:34pm

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
You chose to repsond to ONLY that section of ANY of my posts, prentending the substantive sections of my posts on topic didnt exist. (I mean you just did again by only quoting the last line of the post I made)

You wont catch me twisting words, because I dont need to. EVERY SINGLE PERSON sees the methods you use to make yourself visible on this forum. Its getting more comical with every reply.

But yea, everyone else is the reason your threads deviate miles away from the original topics. Its definitely not you. Can’t be.

[/quote]

True. You do that to me (and lots of others) all the time. Bonez isn’t trolling - he’s just telling it like it is. [/quote]

Dude, you know what…you and everyone else with this much of an issue with everything I type should put me on “ignore” and save the wasted internet bandwidth needed to sustain these mega bitch sessions.

PLEASE do that.

MEYMZ · February 2, 2011, 7:38pm

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’ve been lurking during the trainwreck, but regarding the above-- Aren’t the Mr. Olympia judges by default the ones who drive the criteria of “a winning physique”? If they keep electing the Cutler/Warren/Monster physiques as top 3, then why wouldn’t that filter down the line as the goal?

I mean folks on T-Nation can argue all day about “what is aesthetic”, but it seems that the only opinions that matter are the Mr. O judges’ opinions.[/quote]

I think that everyone who has big money put in the industry has his interests defended. I know freaks will be rejected by the rest of the world, but within the industry people seems to love them. Since the Dorian era (even Lee haney was huge in his last contests) all that is needed is to see if the physique with potential can also be a good ambassador for the sport. Jay may be more quiet and boring than most of the top pros, but he seems to be making big business for bb and gaining popularity. Sometimes when you see an unfair decision in a top contest of the Olympia you can change to this point of view and understand what were the “judges” really thinking.

BONEZ217 · February 2, 2011, 7:38pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^ is conditioning not a part of that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t consider it specifically because like we all just noted in THIS THREAD Paco has GREAT conditioning all of the time on stage…yet no one considers him aesthetic.[/quote]

Here we go.

HOnestly. Stop making posts in 30 seconds and give some thought to what youre saying.

No one considers him aesthetic becuase he has horrible lines, muscle bellies, joint size, bone structure. His conditioning is great. It doesnt matter how many categories play into the judgement of ‘aesthetically pleasing’. Conditioning is certainly one of them. If you used some damned common sense and logic youd realize that someone at 25% doesnt look at good as someone at 10%. Thats about a simple an explanation as it gets. His conditioning is greatly outweighed by the fact that he looks like piece of horse shit.

Conditioning is a factor. The same way muscle proportion is. Its not an ‘either or’ situation. [/quote]

Who the fuck is getting on a pro stage at 25% body fat?

No one disagrees that conditioning is a factor in what decides the overall winner.

Conditioning can be so variable that it single handedly kept Dennis James from being more of a heavy hitter several times in his career. He can’t change his bone structure. He worked to get those muscles in balance and tried to get as much symmetry as possible, but minor differences in conditioning, while definitely what goes into the final choice of a winner, are not what defines the AESTHETICS of someone on a pro stage…BECAUSE NO ONE IS FAT. They award conditioning in terms of veins showing, striations, “grittiness” of the skin.

Further, did someone piss in your fucking protein drinks lately? You are like a little kid with this shit. You aren’t impressing anyone with the attacks or the attitude here.

[/quote]

How bout this explanation.

“Aesthetics” is not a criterium on a judge’s card.

Muscle size, symmetry (left and right), balance (upper body vs lower body), proportion (muscle groups compared to each other), conditioning, and presentation (posing) ARE criteria.

Conditioning is a PART of aethetics. All of the things right there ^ are how ‘aesthetics’ are determined.

It doesnt matter that no one competes at 25%. No one competes at 10% either. My statement is still valid. And you know it is. And you cant invalidate it so you simply commented and shot down an irrelevant aspect. What you just did is called a ‘straw man’. (thats a poor route to take if youre trying to make a valid point, btw)

Your whole post about Dennis James is irrelevant. Step on stage then tell me theres no difference between 3% and 5%.

BONEZ217 · February 2, 2011, 7:39pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
. Obviously you could have kept it completely neutral by simply making a thread about Paco but you had to shit on a 2 time top 3 olympia competitor in the process. What did you THINK was going to happen[/quote]

Also, I didn’t “shit on” Branch at all in this thread. I didn’t insult him at all. If you can’t handle someone talking about the differences of bodybuilders the moment someone mentions a white guy, maybe you are the one with the problem.[/quote]

I have never said one thing about race. Youre a damned fool for thinking that I care about something like that. YOU care about that stuff, but not everyone is like you, thank goodness.

SteelyD · February 2, 2011, 7:40pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
If BBing is indeed an art, there there needs to be an aesthetic criteria beyond freaky size and proportions. As long as “Refrigerator Cutler” keeps winning, that aesthetic remains out of reach, and thus hideous guys like Paco will always be on the tip of everyone’s tongue.[/quote]

I’ve been lurking during the trainwreck, but regarding the above-- Aren’t the Mr. Olympia judges by default the ones who drive the criteria of “a winning physique”? If they keep electing the Cutler/Warren/Monster physiques as top 3, then why wouldn’t that filter down the line as the goal?

I mean folks on T-Nation can argue all day about “what is aesthetic”, but it seems that the only opinions that matter are the Mr. O judges’ opinions.[/quote]

I wouldn’t say that because at the end of the day “history” is what decides what is aesthetic. Flex Wheeler is known by many for being one of the most aesthetic bodybuilders ever on stage…but his winnings didn’t match Arnold, Haney, Coleman, Jackson, or Cutler.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
If Branch Warren can win top spots, why not Paco? [/quote]

Fair enough, and I don’t disagree, but then the thread is confusing to me (but I’m easily confused).

I’m just guessing, but I think most will agree about the better aesthetics of those ranking lower historically (as you typed above). If that’s historically the case, then I’m not sure there’s any logical answer to the question you pose.

Mr. O Judges opinions of aesthetics <> Historical popular opinions of aesthetics.

So, if they’re choosing unpopular aesthetics as Mr. O winners, which one would think would be largely about aesthetics, then how could anyone possibly know what the Hell they’re thinking choosing anyone over anyone else?

That’s all I got. I’ll take Paco’s arms.

DoubleDuce · February 2, 2011, 7:41pm

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
You chose to repsond to ONLY that section of ANY of my posts, prentending the substantive sections of my posts on topic didnt exist. (I mean you just did again by only quoting the last line of the post I made)

You wont catch me twisting words, because I dont need to. EVERY SINGLE PERSON sees the methods you use to make yourself visible on this forum. Its getting more comical with every reply.

But yea, everyone else is the reason your threads deviate miles away from the original topics. Its definitely not you. Can’t be.

[/quote]

True. You do that to me (and lots of others) all the time. Bonez isn’t trolling - he’s just telling it like it is. [/quote]

Dude, you know what…you and everyone else with this much of an issue with everything I type should put me on “ignore” and save the wasted internet bandwidth needed to sustain these mega bitch sessions.

PLEASE do that.[/quote]

Says the guy that isn’t ignoring posts. Why don’t you put me and Bonze and Way and anyone else you disagree with on ignore? Save the bandwidth.

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:41pm

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^ is conditioning not a part of that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t consider it specifically because like we all just noted in THIS THREAD Paco has GREAT conditioning all of the time on stage…yet no one considers him aesthetic.[/quote]

Here we go.

HOnestly. Stop making posts in 30 seconds and give some thought to what youre saying.

No one considers him aesthetic becuase he has horrible lines, muscle bellies, joint size, bone structure. His conditioning is great. It doesnt matter how many categories play into the judgement of ‘aesthetically pleasing’. Conditioning is certainly one of them. If you used some damned common sense and logic youd realize that someone at 25% doesnt look at good as someone at 10%. Thats about a simple an explanation as it gets. His conditioning is greatly outweighed by the fact that he looks like piece of horse shit.

Conditioning is a factor. The same way muscle proportion is. Its not an ‘either or’ situation. [/quote]

Who the fuck is getting on a pro stage at 25% body fat?

No one disagrees that conditioning is a factor in what decides the overall winner.

Conditioning can be so variable that it single handedly kept Dennis James from being more of a heavy hitter several times in his career. He can’t change his bone structure. He worked to get those muscles in balance and tried to get as much symmetry as possible, but minor differences in conditioning, while definitely what goes into the final choice of a winner, are not what defines the AESTHETICS of someone on a pro stage…BECAUSE NO ONE IS FAT. They award conditioning in terms of veins showing, striations, “grittiness” of the skin.

Further, did someone piss in your fucking protein drinks lately? You are like a little kid with this shit. You aren’t impressing anyone with the attacks or the attitude here.

[/quote]

How bout this explanation.

“Aesthetics” is not a criterium on a judge’s card.

Muscle size, symmetry (left and right), balance (upper body vs lower body), proportion (muscle groups compared to each other), conditioning, and presentation (posing) ARE criteria.

Conditioning is a PART of aethetics. All of the things right there ^ are how ‘aesthetics’ are determined.

It doesnt matter that no one competes at 25%. No one competes at 10% either. My statement is still valid. And you know it is. And you cant invalidate it so you simply commented and shot down an irrelevant aspect. What you just did is called a ‘straw man’. (thats a poor route to take if youre trying to make a valid point, btw)

Your whole post about Dennis James is irrelevant. Step on stage then tell me theres no difference between 3% and 5%.

[/quote]

I’m sorry, but you are now going to TELL ME what my opinion should be? This is a fucking discussion. You and a few others seem to be the only ones literally TRYING to have an argument.

BONEZ217 · February 2, 2011, 7:42pm

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Branch Warren looks like crap, Paco looks like crap, and a LOT of crap was stated in this thread… including my statement.

If BBing is indeed an art, there there needs to be an aesthetic criteria beyond freaky size and proportions. As long as “Refrigerator Cutler” keeps winning, that aesthetic remains out of reach, and thus hideous guys like Paco will always be on the tip of everyone’s tongue.[/quote]

Your post would make sense if “aesthetically pleasing” WASNT the epitome of subjectiveness.

Professor_X · February 2, 2011, 7:42pm