X, black, and delta, all huge leg measurements, good job.
Black, you’r legs would prob look great dieted down.
[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
Since we’re doing pics, guess I’ll throw one up.
Idk what they measured here. [/quote]
This makes me want to train legs much harder to achieve what you have. Big ups.[/quote]
Same here. Damn! those are some sick ass quads!
Where do you guys measure? Thickest part?
Just took this shot now… Got nothing on you guys but I think my legs are a strong point for me. Leg press for 20 or 30 rep sets makes them grow.
Just measured mine right now and they are just under 29 inches. I weigh 225 and am 5’10.5 for reference.
I don’t see any HUGE 26" quads yet.
Well my quads in that picture were probably around 26.5-27.
I don’t believe anything you say about a measurement since you don’t even take measurements. I also seriously doubt your legs being less than 27 in that pic. You wouldn’t know anyway.
Lol whatever you say.
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
Well my quads in that picture were probably around 26.5-27. [/quote]
I can believe it…if your legs measure around 29 now and you competed at what 195?, thats about 1.5-2 inches growth adding 30lbs of bodyweight…seems reasonable.
If you read back, I said that I haven’t measured since my contest and that pic is from 1 day out. They were measuring just under 27 at that time, so say what you will. Bodybuilding is about creating the illusion in many ways…a lean muscle can appear much larger than it is.
H4M had huge 27 inch legs at some point.
[quote]kakno wrote:
H4M had huge 27 inch legs at some point. [/quote]
Ya, he did.
Like I said, measurements are just one small part of it. This is bodybuilding, it’s about how the muscle appears…that’s the most important thing.
Actually, we seem to just be reinforcing the fact that most people with legs that appear “big” seem to be at or around 27" or more.
^then why the attitude when I said my legs were around that?
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
^then why the attitude when I said my legs were around that?[/quote]
? You insisted that your legs had a “smaller measurement” as if they were not 27". The truth was, your legs are bigger than average and you really don’t measure them. Being just slightly below 27" when dried out in contest shape doesn’t mean much because you would be back over 27 in a heart beat.
The bottom line is, since the 60’s we’ve known what that general measurement was so when someone asks, if the only answer is “measurements don’t matter much” it would be missing the point of the question.
Yeah, measurements alone do not paint the full picture…but they sure do help give a general idea of that picture in MOST cases.
I posted a pic of a guy who competed in NPC who weighed UNDER 200lbs at 6’2" but who LOOKED like he weighed 230lbs or so. yeah, he is an extreme case…but we can still say that most people under 200lbs at that height aren’t “SWOLE”.
Well, they weren’t 27 at that time…u didn’t specify condition. Also, the way you phrased it was as if 27 was the minimum to be considered big, and I was giving an example of legs smaller than that which were big. And I truly believe that measurements really are ignificantly less important than pictures because those tell the whole story…bodybuilding is a physique comp, not a measurement one.
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
I truly believe that measurements really are ignificantly less important than pictures because those tell the whole story…bodybuilding is a physique comp, not a measurement one.[/quote]
^^This.
how does the old saying go? “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
that pic is from 1 day out. [/quote]
That makes me feel a bit better about myself… I thought you just snapped that pic yesterday and were walking around with that kind of leanness/separation haha
[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
Well, they weren’t 27 at that time…u didn’t specify condition. Also, the way you phrased it was as if 27 was the minimum to be considered big, and I was giving an example of legs smaller than that which were big. And I truly believe that measurements really are ignificantly less important than pictures because those tell the whole story…bodybuilding is a physique comp, not a measurement one.[/quote]
…and you are saying this to a room filled with bodybuilders as if we don’t know that it isn’t just about a measurement.
Unless you plan to do away with all arbitrary lines in the sand that we have used for decades as signs that you are actually reaching a goal in this, I don’t understand the stance against a general measurement.
In GENERAL, you had better have arms over 15" to look like you have big arms.
This is not a false statement just because we all know that arm shape and condition have much to do with how an arm looks.
All this means is if some skinny kid is out there with 22" quads, he now has a general idea of how much more growth he will need to really look “big”.
Why make this more than that?
This is shit you usually see people smaller than those measurements do.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I posted a pic of a guy who competed in NPC who weighed UNDER 200lbs at 6’2" but who LOOKED like he weighed 230lbs or so. yeah, he is an extreme case…but we can still say that most people under 200lbs at that height aren’t “SWOLE”.[/quote]
Sorry for the derail, mind posting that pic? or just letting me know the dude’s name??