'Full House' ???

Training
501

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[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 :frowning:

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.[/quote]

LOL.

No, you just have people ready to fuss no matter what gets written.

502

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[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]

That’s how we looked side by side. Ct is big but he wasn’t bigger than me at the time.

503

[quote]cueball wrote:

So you agree then that what a woman says about contest shape being “EWWWW” doesn’t really hold any water.

[/quote]

I agree that even arguing what women want is retarded here…because most women DO NOT WANT a guy who is in the gym everyday. They want ME time and attention and will often complain if a guy dedicates the time it takes to be REALLY FUCKING HUGE AND REALLY FUCKING LEAN.

They will hardly ever pic a guy just based on looks unless this is like a first date or something. Women don’t think like men…therefore arguing what they like (when most are nowhere near in shape themselves) is a waste of time.

Women choose what makes them feel better,. not what looks the best.

504

Um, the “public” has already chose Brad Pitt, Shia LeBueff, and skinny bitch vampires, so not sure what any of this means anyway.

505

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Um, the “public” has already chose Brad Pitt, Shia LeBueff, and skinny bitch vampires, so not sure what any of this means anyway.[/quote]

Exactly…and not one of them is in “contest shape”…and no one who simply looks like them is getting the same amount of ass…because women like WHO those guys are, not really so much what they look like alone.

506

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

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]

I didn’t say anything about contest condition. The combination of size and leanness looks better than a full house look, even if the full house guy is bigger.

507

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

I didn’t say anything about contest condition. The combination of size and leanness looks better than a full house look, even if the full house guy is bigger.[/quote]

This again is NOT about what looks better.

Frank Zane in his prime may LOOK better than Ronnie Coleman…but Coleman will get more of a response in public due to sheer size.

In public, size beats all in most situations unless literally talking about someone who is obese or has a gut hanging.

508

[quote]Waittz wrote:
This thread is so dumb. Can we just make two subforums? One called Bigger Stronger Leaner and one called Bigger Stronger Softer and everyone can go their seperate ways instead of arguing why their opinion or their preference is better than other peoples?

Seriously, you guys aren’t even debating anything at this point, just trying to justify your own preference of physique. Simply say I prefer full house or i prefer lean. Not ‘you are wrong because your opinion is differnt then mine on personal preference’.

It’s like watching a bunch of children argueing if batman could kick spider-man’s ass and vice versa. [/quote]
Thats the best assessment of this thread and maybe half a dozen more if truth be told

509

X how much would you say your physique has changed since that time in Colorado.

510

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

I didn’t say anything about contest condition. The combination of size and leanness looks better than a full house look, even if the full house guy is bigger.[/quote]

This again is NOT about what looks better.

Frank Zane in his prime may LOOK better than Ronnie Coleman…but Coleman will get more of a response in public due to sheer size.

In public, size beats all in most situations unless literally talking about someone who is obese or has a gut hanging.[/quote]

LOL at you getting mad at people with the opposite opinion because it’s “just their opinion” and then projecting your own opinion onto the general public.

In a sweatshirt you look more impressive than CT, I’ll give you that.

511

786×589 85.3 KB

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
X how much would you say your physique has changed since that time in Colorado.[/quote]

Dropped more inches off my waist and am about the same weight as then.

I started training like we did there twice a day.

512

Mind you I was told that I am 25% body fat though by Brick.

513

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

I didn’t say anything about contest condition. The combination of size and leanness looks better than a full house look, even if the full house guy is bigger.[/quote]

This again is NOT about what looks better.

Frank Zane in his prime may LOOK better than Ronnie Coleman…but Coleman will get more of a response in public due to sheer size.

In public, size beats all in most situations unless literally talking about someone who is obese or has a gut hanging.[/quote]

LOL at you getting mad at people with the opposite opinion because it’s “just their opinion” and then projecting your own opinion onto the general public.

In a sweatshirt you look more impressive than CT, I’ll give you that.[/quote]

?? I’m not projecting.

Are you really saying that if Frank Zane in his prime and Ronnie walked into a Grocery store that more people would stare at Frank?

Please. That’s not reality.

514

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

I didn’t say anything about contest condition. The combination of size and leanness looks better than a full house look, even if the full house guy is bigger.[/quote]

This again is NOT about what looks better.

Frank Zane in his prime may LOOK better than Ronnie Coleman…but Coleman will get more of a response in public due to sheer size.

In public, size beats all in most situations unless literally talking about someone who is obese or has a gut hanging.[/quote]

LOL at you getting mad at people with the opposite opinion because it’s “just their opinion” and then projecting your own opinion onto the general public.

In a sweatshirt you look more impressive than CT, I’ll give you that.[/quote]

?? I’m not projecting.

Are you really saying that if Frank Zane in his prime and Ronnie walked into a Grocery store that more people would stare at Frank?

Please. That’s not reality.
[/quote]

I’m not using Frank and Ronnie as an example. I’m using you and CT. And you sir, are no Ronnie Coleman.

515

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

I didn’t say anything about contest condition. The combination of size and leanness looks better than a full house look, even if the full house guy is bigger.[/quote]

This again is NOT about what looks better.

Frank Zane in his prime may LOOK better than Ronnie Coleman…but Coleman will get more of a response in public due to sheer size.

In public, size beats all in most situations unless literally talking about someone who is obese or has a gut hanging.[/quote]

LOL at you getting mad at people with the opposite opinion because it’s “just their opinion” and then projecting your own opinion onto the general public.

In a sweatshirt you look more impressive than CT, I’ll give you that.[/quote]

?? I’m not projecting.

Are you really saying that if Frank Zane in his prime and Ronnie walked into a Grocery store that more people would stare at Frank?

Please. That’s not reality.
[/quote]

I’m not using Frank and Ronnie as an example. I’m using you and CT. And you sir, are no Ronnie Coleman.[/quote]

Ronnie had way more muscle obviously than zane, he wasn’t anymore “full house”.

If Frank Zane in his prime walked in with Frank Zane fatter and in “full house” mode who would get more stares?

516

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

I’m not using Frank and Ronnie as an example. I’m using you and CT. And you sir, are no Ronnie Coleman.[/quote]

Uh, not claiming to be…but even here many of you ignore pictures are taken at different distances and choose what you want to believe.

Unless me and CT were standing side by side, which you only see in ONE picture there, then you are wasting time.

In general, most people are more “impressed” with the bigger guy unless so fat that the body fat takes first attention.

Since I’m not that fat, what is your point other than to tell us again you like him better?

You do that all of the time…tell us who you like better.

Anyone else notice that? I mean, damn, it is always some issue with who you like better.

517

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

Ronnie had way more muscle obviously than zane, he wasn’t anymore “full house”.

If Frank Zane in his prime walked in with Frank Zane fatter and in “full house” mode who would get more stares?
[/quote]

Are you serious with this?

Zane weighed all of 200lbs in his BEST condition and size.

There is no way in hell Zane would EVER look bigger than Ronnie.

518

LOL

519

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

Ronnie had way more muscle obviously than zane, he wasn’t anymore “full house”.

If Frank Zane in his prime walked in with Frank Zane fatter and in “full house” mode who would get more stares?
[/quote]

Are you serious with this?

Zane weighed all of 200lbs in his BEST condition and size.

There is no way in hell Zane would EVER look bigger than Ronnie.[/quote]

I never said he would…can you read? I even explicitly said he had more muscle (HENCE BIGGER)

I thought, correct me if I am wrong, that your definition of full house was carrying more fat to allow more muscle to be carried?

If so using Coleman and Zane is a bullshit example as Coleman was in a different size league with muscle alone, he did not need the extra fat to look bigger.

No one here would argue that a guy at 200lbs is bigger than a guy at 280lbs in similar conditioning…

520

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

Ronnie had way more muscle obviously than zane, he wasn’t anymore “full house”.

If Frank Zane in his prime walked in with Frank Zane fatter and in “full house” mode who would get more stares?
[/quote]

Are you serious with this?

Zane weighed all of 200lbs in his BEST condition and size.

There is no way in hell Zane would EVER look bigger than Ronnie.[/quote]

I never said he would…can you read? I even explicitly said he had more muscle (HENCE BIGGER)

I thought, correct me if I am wrong, that your definition of full house was carrying more fat to allow more muscle to be carried?

If so using Coleman and Zane is a bullshit example as Coleman was in a different size league with muscle alone, he did not need the extra fat to look bigger.

No one here would argue that a guy at 200lbs is bigger than a guy at 280lbs in similar conditioning…
[/quote]

I was making a point about size being more impressive than how someone looks. It was not some definition of what full house. I already said many times that Kennelly shows that best.

Once again, for the people not able to follow along, it doesn’t matter if many people say ZANE “looks better” than Coleman. If Coleman walks in the room, more people will stare at Coleman even if Zane “looks better”.