[quote]CLUNK wrote:
He is NOT muscular. The media sees athletic as muscular.
[/quote]
This is starting to sound like the pissing match about Hugh Jackman deadlifting 400 pounds for a couple reps.
I’m pretty sure Becks isn’t worried whether men on a bodybuilding site think he’s muscular, but just because someone isn’t ready to step on a bodybuilding stage, or a powerlifting platform, doesn’t mean you have to shit on them for not being muscular the way you want the word to be used. I mean, do you feel better about yourself because you right this wrong, clarifying that David Beckham is “athletic” instead of “muscular” when you, in fact, are more “muscular” than he is?
It’s just a figure of speech. Would you have been happier if the media said that Bechkam covered his athletic physique…?[/quote]
Not what I was saying either. All I’m saying is the media needs to get their adjectives correct.
And for the record, I defended Jackman in that thread.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
This is starting to sound like the pissing match about Hugh Jackman deadlifting 400 pounds for a couple reps.[/quote]
Jackman, who’s a few years older and a little taller, looks like an NFL player (you know, real football, ha) compared to Beckham.
That aside, I understand that Beckham is at the highest caliber in his sport, and he’s lean, and has what lots and lots of guys (and gals) would call an admirable/goal physique. But I find it difficult to reconcile calling a guy “muscular” when he has stick thin arms and zero, literally zero, pec development. Those are Muscular Guy Basics 101.
Also, regarding “looking athletic”, that’s kind of relative to the viewer. If I saw Beckham at the beach, my first thought wouldn’t be “that guy must be a professional athlete.” It’d be “that guy’s got nice tattoo work, some abs, and a charming smile.” Not trying to nitpick or hold non-bodybuilders to bodybuilder standards, just how I sees it.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
This is starting to sound like the pissing match about Hugh Jackman deadlifting 400 pounds for a couple reps.[/quote]
Jackman, who’s a few years older and a little taller, looks like an NFL player (you know, real football, ha) compared to Beckham.
That aside, I understand that Beckham is at the highest caliber in his sport, and he’s lean, and has what lots and lots of guys (and gals) would call an admirable/goal physique. But I find it difficult to reconcile calling a guy “muscular” when he has stick thin arms and zero, literally zero, pec development. Those are Muscular Guy Basics 101.
Also, regarding “looking athletic”, that’s kind of relative to the viewer. If I saw Beckham at the beach, my first thought wouldn’t be “that guy must be a professional athlete.” It’d be “that guy’s got nice tattoo work, some abs, and a charming smile.” Not trying to nitpick or hold non-bodybuilders to bodybuilder standards, just how I sees it.[/quote]
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Saying David Beckham is muscular is like saying Michael J Fox is tall. [/quote]
Well, Marty McFly is tall compared to a 3 yr old.
But for real, no one of note is mistaking Beckham from being hyoooge. That article came from the tabloid section of the Daily Mail publication not from the routine section of Flex Magazine or whatever.
I really think you need have a little bit of humor when discussing this. The world will not end because some tabloid said Beckham is hiding his muscular frame under a black tank leaving his cycling session. Also, the ladies will not all of a sudden ONLY date dudes that are carbon copies of Mr. Posh Spice.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
I bet the sort of people who’d consider Beckham muscular would say Jackedman (seewhatIdidthere?) was “too big”[/quote]
Or tell everyone he’s on the roidz. [/quote]
I mean, I’m a huge Jackman fan (huge fan), but he probably is. Dude is like 50 and fucking ripped…
Let’s not forget what he looked like when he first starred as Wolverine. [/quote]
That’s probably true actually. I forgot to take into account his age, also the fact he looks dramatically different without the lifestyle and years it takes of training. Whatever he might be on seems to be doing a good job at least. I hope I look half as good at that age.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
I bet the sort of people who’d consider Beckham muscular would say Jackedman (seewhatIdidthere?) was “too big”[/quote]
Or tell everyone he’s on the roidz. [/quote]
I mean, I’m a huge Jackman fan (huge fan), but he probably is. Dude is like 50 and fucking ripped…
Let’s not forget what he looked like when he first starred as Wolverine. [/quote]
That’s probably true actually. I forgot to take into account his age, also the fact he looks dramatically different without the lifestyle and years it takes of training. Whatever he might be on seems to be doing a good job at least. I hope I look half as good at that age. [/quote]
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
This is starting to sound like the pissing match about Hugh Jackman deadlifting 400 pounds for a couple reps.[/quote]
Jackman, who’s a few years older and a little taller, looks like an NFL player (you know, real football, ha) compared to Beckham.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I guess I brought up the Jackman thing again just to make the point that we shouldn’t really expect media (especially not tabloids) to be particularly accurate in their descriptions of the strength/physique of celebrities. I see your point that Beckham really doesn’t much meet the definition of “muscular” - I just have zero expectations for the media to be accurate in such descriptions (which might say something about the state of media, haha).
And it’s not unique to Jackman - humorously, at the bottom of ESPN articles, there’s often some link that says “check out Peyton Manning pressing 80 pound dumbbells!” or something similar.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
This is starting to sound like the pissing match about Hugh Jackman deadlifting 400 pounds for a couple reps.[/quote]
Jackman, who’s a few years older and a little taller, looks like an NFL player (you know, real football, ha) compared to Beckham.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I guess I brought up the Jackman thing again just to make the point that we shouldn’t really expect media (especially not tabloids) to be particularly accurate in their descriptions of the strength/physique of celebrities. I see your point that Beckham really doesn’t much meet the definition of “muscular” - I just have zero expectations for the media to be accurate in such descriptions (which might say something about the state of media, haha).
And it’s not unique to Jackman - humorously, at the bottom of ESPN articles, there’s often some link that says “check out Peyton Manning pressing 80 pound dumbbells!” or something similar. [/quote]
Rare is it the media ever describe something accurately.
Enjoying the discussion thus far – particularly Chris Colucci’s post – he wins internetz for voicing my ‘concerns’ perfectly.
To the few who called me ‘insecure’ or said something along a similar vein; chill, seriously. I have absolutely no hate for Beckham – dude’s accomplished much in his field and deserves the praise. Nothing made me ‘unhappy’ – I was just rather taken aback to see a man with a physique that looks (arguably) untrained to be described as being ‘muscular’ and thought it would be interesting to see what Tnation thought about the phenomenon. As I said, it wasn’t just the Beckham example – I see this all the time.
It’s kind of funny really – when an average guy has a physique as developed as Beckham’s, odds are, the physique will go unmentioned – ‘muscular’ would be completely off the table. But, the second a celebrity hits the gym twice, they’re suddenly gods of fitness. I’ve seen articles calling Bieber muscular because Calvin Klein photoshopped some abs onto him for their latest campaign. Because the layperson has so little (read 'none) context about fitness/training, etc., they tend to believe it.
[quote]Fyzjin2 wrote:
It’s kind of funny really – when an average guy has a physique as developed as Beckham’s, odds are, the physique will go unmentioned – ‘muscular’ would be completely off the table. But, the second a celebrity hits the gym twice, they’re suddenly gods of fitness. I’ve seen articles calling Bieber muscular because Calvin Klein photoshopped some abs onto him for their latest campaign. Because the layperson has so little (read 'none) context about fitness/training, etc., they tend to believe it. [/quote]
Of course, you’re right. And if you want to see a prime example of T-Nationers bitching about whether a celebrity gets to be called ripped, or whether they made an impressive transformation, or whatever…find the Bradley Cooper/American Sniper thread.
Just a dumb adjective used by a magazine editor who probably knows little about what’s actually muscular. I doubt Beckham would describe himself as muscular and he played a sport and particularly a position where adding more upper body mass would have made little sense.
Dudes been retired for 2 years now but it looks like he’s staying lean at least. Compared to an average guy his age who’s probably 27% body fat, he looks better whether he’s actually muscular or not.
I think muscular fits. He appears to be comprised of bone, muscle, skin, and presumably his internal organs. Though obviously his upper body development is lacking in comparison to lower.
I don’t think the term muscular fits. To me, the term “muscular” connotes a certain amount of muscle size. I would say lean, fit, athletic fits Beckham. But while we all have muscles, only those who have developed them to a certain size would be called “muscular” in my book.
