New MD Cover: Jay Cutler Bodybuilder of the decade

[mvsf1]

Guys, I see this issue this way:

1) Ronnie (AGAIN) is the best BB ever. Therefore, at their primes, he is better than Jay Cutler. Period.
2) (And this is no debatable) Jay won more pro contests than anyone in this past decade (2002-2011). In fact, he never came worse than 2nd.

So, Jay being the bodybuilder of these past 10 years doesn't seem a lie to me.

so we cant call Roger the best of last decade because he loses head-to-head record against Rafa... and we cant call Rafa the best of last decade because he loses the head-to-head against Djoko... and Djoko cant be it either because he loses head-to-head aginst Roger.... effen Tennis hasnt had a true champion then according to your rationale!

What a great point. Props for that.

[The King Of Lurkers]

Someone needs to buy the damn magazine to see wich time period their talking about ROFL!!!!!!

[Flex]

Arnold Classic wins Jay would have if Ronnie Coleman decided to compete every year = 0

[mvsf1]

Arnold Classic wins Jay would have if Ronnie Coleman decided to compete every year = 0

You know that's not a valid point.

[pakiman]

Arnold Classic wins Jay would have if Ronnie Coleman decided to compete every year = 0

Yessss Yoda, true must be what you have pulled out of your arse...

[Natzo]

Someone needs to buy the damn magazine to see wich time period their talking about ROFL!!!!!!

THIS LOLOLOL

[Natzo]

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/t...-comeback.html

[tim290280]

Seriously??
ASC is a "Mr I Showed Up in Florida Open"? And your Darem Charles example would be true if anyone was calling Jay the best of the decade based ONLY on the years that he won ASC... but no one is! Ronnie not competing in the the 4 or 5 years that MD is considering doesnt take anything away from Jay's achievements! When Jay got beat he kept coming back... what about your Champ Ronnie? Since no one had a gun to to his head to stay away from competetion in the years he wasnt the "king" anymore then why take away Jay's achieved during those years... and MDs is acknowledging the fact that Jay competed more often, took most runner-ups at O, won O, defended his title, lost it only to regain it for the first time in the history of BBing ... kept coming back in face of defeat and then ended up beating the great Ronnie Coleman twice... DID NOT REQUEST Ronnie not to compete against him for the following years and went on to add 2 more titles to his list of "Mr I Showed Up in Florida Open" wins!!! And MD is acknowledging his collective effort spanning 10 years, during/after the Ronnie career...
And as for your head-to-head rationale... so we cant call Roger the best of last decade because he loses head-to-head against Rafa... and we cant call Rafa the best of last decade because he loses the head-to-head against Djoko... and Djoko cant be it either because he loses head-to-head aginst Roger.... effen Tennis hasnt had a true champion then according to your rationale!

You have not understood my statment at all, nor my annalogy, and it seems you don't understand sports.

Arnold Classic wins Jay would have if Ronnie Coleman decided to compete every year = 0

At least someone understood. Spot on Flex!

[dilatedmuscle]

Both sides have good arguments but nobody will win because its a subjective matter. The way i look at it; In this decade we witnessed the greatest bodybuilder of all time hit his stride and completely dominate, should that be overshadowed because he didn't compete as often as jay did? You guys have to understand that Jay was competing in those ASC's because he wasn't winning the Olympia. He was competing in the ASC because he wasnt the best, racking up the the wins whithout competing against the best in the world.... He stopped competing in the ASC before he even became the best. Does consistency = greatness or the domination = greatness?

The title of Bodybuilder of the Decade was given to Jay by MD so this is a title given by them. Only they can determine what the criteria is for a title given by them.

Someone needs to buy the damn magazine to see wich time period their talking about ROFL!!!!!!

LMAO the irony is, most people who buy the magazines barely know **** about bodybuilding.

[pakiman]

.... and it seems you don't understand sports....
At least someone understood. Spot on Flex!

Ahh the classic Tim-mix of self-delusion, arrogance and mutual ass kissing in one post... when everyone had been on a well observed "Attack the Argument, Not the Person"... you (as per usual) had to "do-the-Tim"!
I was 3rd-down batsman for the cricket team that won UAE intercollegiate championship (19 colleges), I was runner up in my class at our National BBing championships, I represented my Uni in table tennis in inter-uni games (37 Unis) and made it to QFs ... but hey between you & the other couple of oldies of the board you've got the whole world figured out like no one else! So no use to even ask who is to say Ronnie's muscle degradation (quad, tricpe & lat) would not have come about years early because of doing more shows (and what it takes to do more shows) and who is to say he would have even won the Os he did let alone eat into Jay's ASC titles... .
.
.
I eagerly await some tweedle dee to the rescue of tweedle dum!

[Line]

I eagerly await some tweedle dee to the rescue of tweedle dum!

Ahh, the classic pakiman mix of self-delusion, paranoia, and prescience all in one post: When any other dialectic approach would allow for an organic, forum-based flow of open conversation and discourse, you, as per usual, had to "do-the-paki"! Now if anyone else responds to your ramblings, you can easily dust off their riposte by claiming this forum is a mere boys' club, a place where the mistakenly elite congregate for self-congratulating and back-patting. I'll leave Tim to actually address your points, but I'd be remiss if I failed to compliment you on the above quote, a masterwork of rhetoric and postural savviness alike!

[pakiman]

smiling because you with this reply, proved me right...
I admit I get into these worthless fights a lot but I also almost always try to get the threads back to the origional topics... I think! Please go and check if you will the fights mostly start after some off the cuff casually made derogatory remark that you & friends () make about the person & not their argument!
Regardless of what Tim says here now I wont be posting any more to this thread because obvisouely one guy's shouldve-couldve-wouldves are considered more important & pertinent compared to the factual stats provided by the other... so no use, right?

[Line]

smiling because you with this reply, proved me right...

Not really, as I didn't come to the "rescue" of anybody. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy and flaws in the rhetorical defense mechanisms that you so liberally employ. I even conceded that I would not be addressing the ongoing debate with Tim, which hardly constitutes acting the part of savior; I just got tired of your thick-headedness.

I admit I get into these worthless fights a lot but I also almost always try to get the threads back to the origional topics...I think!

But this isn't the nature of discourse, at least not through this medium. Rather, forum-based conversations are, by nature, tangential entities, ones in which variable perspectives and differing cultural vantage points contribute to the overall value of the discussion. There's a reason that one of the, albeit facetiously designed, "Rules of the Internet" states that topics, by default, stray further off course with each successive post. Reverting to the original topic can only take a conversation so far. I'm not saying that attempting to keep talks on task isn't an admirable avenue, I am, however, saying that it isn't the only or most admirable way to approach such things.

Please go and check if you will the fights mostly start after some off the cuff casually made derogatory remark that you & friends () make about the person & not their argument!

This doesn't sound very pragmatic. Searching "pointless pakiman arguments" probably won't yield much in way of results. I think, though, that others don't rely so much on ad hominem attacks against you, but instead, get frustrated by your misinterpretations or setting up of straw men. If I ever stoop to insulting you, it's simply because I can't suffer the way you make contentions lacking good sense and tact. Rather than assume the role of victim, do you ever stop to wonder what you might be saying -- or how you're saying it -- that causes others to take issues with what you're saying?

Regardless of what Tim says here now I wont be posting any more to this thread because obvisouely one guy's shouldve-couldve-wouldves are considered more important & pertinent compared to the factual stats provided by the other... so no use, right?

So does this make my response all for naught?

[Beau]

Sick cover for sure

[Arcane1129]

I didn't read any of what Tim, Line, or Paki wrote, but I'll side with Tim and Line.

[tim290280]

Ahh the classic Tim-mix of self-delusion, arrogance and mutual ass kissing in one post... when everyone had been on a well observed "Attack the Argument, Not the Person"... you (as per usual) had to "do-the-Tim"!
I was 3rd-down batsman for the cricket team that won UAE intercollegiate championship (19 colleges), I was runner up in my class at our National BBing championships, I represented my Uni in table tennis in inter-uni games (37 Unis) and made it to QFs ... but hey between you & the other couple of oldies of the board you've got the whole world figured out like no one else! So no use to even ask who is to say Ronnie's muscle degradation (quad, tricpe & lat) would not have come about years early because of doing more shows (and what it takes to do more shows) and who is to say he would have even won the Os he did let alone eat into Jay's ASC titles... .
.
.
I eagerly await some tweedle dee to the rescue of tweedle dum!

Yawn.

I wasn't questioning your sporting background, I was questioning your understanding of the competitive nature of sports. No one would think that they are the best unless they have beaten the best. If the best field is not present, then the title you have won is nice, but nothing more. Hence, if you are to compare who is the greatest in any one era, you have to compare when the best have competed against one another.

So if you want to talk about who was the best bodybuilder in the '00s then you have to look at the competitions that Ronnie competed in (until he retired) and how many Jay won head to head. After that time period you can count Jay wins when Branch, Kai and Phil were on the same stage.

This really isn't that hard to understand, yet you seem to want to take it so personally and then seek to insult anyone who disagrees or points out the faulty logic you are using. Oh, and of course I will compliment good posts and acknowledge rational statements, it is called being friendly.