Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive[/quote]
If we were to ask the general public/average gym member, I do believe they’d say these guys are nearly identical.
If we ask someone with any serious experience lifting, it’s a straight-up coin toss. Thib is clearly leaner, but it would be a serious stretch of the definition to consider X’s condition some kind of “fat.”
Prof, if you’d prefer this pic disappear, no prob. I’m just following this train wreck/circular logic thread from a slight distance and I don’t have a dog in the fight.[/quote]
No prob with the pic.
Just stating what I have seen throughout my own life.
CT is in great shape…but when dealing with what makes people take a step back in public, size gets more attention in most situations.
This isn’t about winning a bodybuilding contest. Unless but naked or someone is so fat they have a gut hanging, most people won’t even try to pick a “body fat percentage” mentally.
Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive[/quote]
If we were to ask the general public/average gym member, I do believe they’d say these guys are nearly identical.
If we ask someone with any serious experience lifting, it’s a straight-up coin toss. Thib is clearly leaner, but it would be a serious stretch of the definition to consider X’s condition some kind of “fat.”
Prof, if you’d prefer this pic disappear, no prob. I’m just following this train wreck/circular logic thread from a slight distance and I don’t have a dog in the fight.[/quote]
No prob with the pic.
Just stating what I have seen throughout my own life.
CT is in great shape…but when dealing with what makes people take a step back in public, size gets more attention in most situations.
This isn’t about winning a bodybuilding contest. Unless but naked or someone is so fat they have a gut hanging, most people won’t even try to pick a “body fat percentage” mentally.
They just see muscle.[/quote]
Is that not a good example to refute your point though.
Thib weighs less yet looks as big if not bigger than you.
Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive[/quote]
If we were to ask the general public/average gym member, I do believe they’d say these guys are nearly identical.
If we ask someone with any serious experience lifting, it’s a straight-up coin toss. Thib is clearly leaner, but it would be a serious stretch of the definition to consider X’s condition some kind of “fat.”
Prof, if you’d prefer this pic disappear, no prob. I’m just following this train wreck/circular logic thread from a slight distance and I don’t have a dog in the fight.[/quote]
No prob with the pic.
Just stating what I have seen throughout my own life.
CT is in great shape…but when dealing with what makes people take a step back in public, size gets more attention in most situations.
This isn’t about winning a bodybuilding contest. Unless but naked or someone is so fat they have a gut hanging, most people won’t even try to pick a “body fat percentage” mentally.
They just see muscle.[/quote]
So you think CT would look more impressive to the general public if he were to gain nothing but fat?
Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive[/quote]
If we were to ask the general public/average gym member, I do believe they’d say these guys are nearly identical.
If we ask someone with any serious experience lifting, it’s a straight-up coin toss. Thib is clearly leaner, but it would be a serious stretch of the definition to consider X’s condition some kind of “fat.”
Prof, if you’d prefer this pic disappear, no prob. I’m just following this train wreck/circular logic thread from a slight distance and I don’t have a dog in the fight.[/quote]
Interesting CT weighs less and is leaner… yet you can’t tell a difference in size. If anything, CT looks bigger.
Just stating what I have seen throughout my own life.
CT is in great shape…but when dealing with what makes people take a step back in public, size gets more attention in most situations.
This isn’t about winning a bodybuilding contest. Unless but naked or someone is so fat they have a gut hanging, most people won’t even try to pick a “body fat percentage” mentally.
They just see muscle.[/quote]
So you think CT would look more impressive to the general public if he were to gain nothing but fat?[/quote]
X what if you were covered in urine, but had a sweet sport coat and CT had a perfect mohawk and awesome sunglasses. Who would the general public favor then?
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Thib weighs less yet looks as big if not bigger than you.
[/quote]
Looking at the top pic, I’d say just the opposite. They’re both in the same shot and PX looks much bigger than CT.
[/quote]
I would agree with that comparison but Thib looks just as big in the bottom one, PX looks noticeably taller in the first one.
Hard to gain a clear comparison unless they were both doing a mandatory in the same clothing.
Since bodybuilding is about visual representation only does it not make sense to be leaner since most people would agree that the person LOOKS bigger at a lower bf%?
[quote]zraw wrote:
Also major LOL @ throwing in the “someone in contest condition will have a bad looking face sometimes” or whatever the crap that silly argument was
SORRY EVERYONE but girls tend to prefer a straight jawline to moonfaces which means that your face will most likely look better if we can see some of its bone/jaw structure aka 8-10% will look better than 20-25%
And if its not the case for you well my bad sorry you have a crappy bone structure maybe ur not just cut out to be good looking
This thread went from sad to pathetic[/quote]
What is with the “moon faces” comment? Most girls see someone in contest shape and say, “EWWWW!” so I am not sure why you would lift for that reason alone.[/quote]
I thought it was the consensus that what women say isn’t an indicator of what they actually want[/quote]
TRUTH.[/quote]
So you agree then that what a woman says about contest shape being “EWWWW” doesn’t really hold any water.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Interesting CT weighs less and is leaner… yet you can’t tell a difference in size. If anything, CT looks bigger. [/quote]
I didn’t want to compare anyone to anyone else honestly, but for the sake of my sanity I have to ask, are you aware that the first picture they are the same distance from the camera and in the second picture, that is actually two separate shots places side by side in which CT is evidently closer to the camera? My buddies and I did this all the time at the Arnold Classic lol. We’d take a pic with like the enormous Mike Jenkins or something, and we’d lean in as close as possible with our arms so that we looked the same size.
Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive
Ok bye
[/quote]
Most people in the general public would see the bigger guy as “more impressive”. I am not sure why you are arguing that.
If you want to talk about what you alone like, do so. CT was wearing a full shirt most of the time and I was in a tank top. I would assume people would look at the guy showing the most skin in that scenario.
Not many people would be able to tell how lean CT was in a shirt.[/quote]
When you’re both in a tank, CT looks better. Sorry broski. You are definitely large, but also carrying a considerable amount of fat. You can see folds above your biceps when you are doing preacher curls. CT has size and leanness.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I would agree with that comparison but thib looks just as big in the bottom one, PX looks noticeably taller in the first one.[/quote]
Friend can you really not tell that the second picture is two shots of different distances placed side by side
This is the age of computers and photoshop. You should be a bit more savvy than this surely.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Interesting CT weighs less and is leaner… yet you can’t tell a difference in size. If anything, CT looks bigger. [/quote]
I didn’t want to compare anyone to anyone else honestly, but for the sake of my sanity I have to ask, are you aware that the first picture they are the same distance from the camera and in the second picture, that is actually two separate shots places side by side in which CT is evidently closer to the camera? My buddies and I did this all the time at the Arnold Classic lol. We’d take a pic with like the enormous Mike Jenkins or something, and we’d lean in as close as possible with our arms so that we looked the same size.[/quote]
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I would agree with that comparison but thib looks just as big in the bottom one, PX looks noticeably taller in the first one.[/quote]
Friend can you really not tell that the second picture is two shots of different distances placed side by side
This is the age of computers and photoshop. You should be a bit more savvy than this surely.[/quote]
No I do realise that BUT px is taller than CT, so he will always look larger to some degree.
When you’re both in a tank, CT looks better. Sorry broski. You are definitely large, but also carrying a considerable amount of fat. You can see folds above your biceps when you are doing preacher curls. CT has size and leanness.
[/quote]
This isn’t about what you think looks better. It was about who looks more “impressive” to the general public (since that discussion came up).
This isn’t about who is closer to contest condition.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I would agree with that comparison but thib looks just as big in the bottom one, PX looks noticeably taller in the first one.[/quote]
Friend can you really not tell that the second picture is two shots of different distances placed side by side
This is the age of computers and photoshop. You should be a bit more savvy than this surely.[/quote]
No I do realise that BUT px is taller than CT, so he will always look larger to some degree.[/quote]
?? Uh, not if the pics are not side by side and the shorter guy is closer.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I would agree with that comparison but thib looks just as big in the bottom one, PX looks noticeably taller in the first one.[/quote]
Friend can you really not tell that the second picture is two shots of different distances placed side by side
This is the age of computers and photoshop. You should be a bit more savvy than this surely.[/quote]
No I do realise that BUT px is taller than CT, so he will always look larger to some degree.[/quote]
My head is exploding.
So you think CT would look more impressive to the general public if he were to gain nothing but fat?[/quote]
CT would look more impressive if his muscles were larger. That is what is being said. If his muscles looked larger when he carried more body fat, then yes.
