LIMITS x2- Bring it on Mofo's!

Training
161

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

X is just fat you cannot tell development if you can’t see where any of the muscle are. No separation at all even in the arms for Christ sake. I have plenty of friends that look big but are carrying way to much fat. You can tell there is msucle there but to say well developed l o fucking l. When you carry that much extra fat who fucking knows how much muscle is actually there
[/quote]

This post is ridiculous. Why be this dishonest when you post here?[/quote]

Looking good, Prof. AWESOME progress since your FAT pics.

And I bet none of your haters will admit that.

It’s all come down to denigrating you because that’s exactly what makes their panties wet around these parts. Not talking about bodybuilding like real, testosterone pumped men do.

Maybe you should get yourself a HD phone so the pics could be a little bit clearer.[/quote]

My iphone was stolen and I will get another one soon…but I do appreciate that.

It seems people don’t even come here to cheer on good progress anymore. It is all a popularity contest where they will flat out lie and make shit up about me to make themselves feel better I guess.

I could see if I really was obese…but I’m not…and that fat pic was taken after a car accident.

Most of these guys wouldn’t have been in the gym at all with those injuries.

162

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And this asshole continues running his sewer and has not a single picture of himself, or his mythical outlier friend?
[/quote]

C’mon Sky, you know how guys jacked out of their minds, who make everyone else look bad without even trying never want their photos taken. One thing I’ve learned from over a decade on this site, is that the people with the self proclaimed best physiques or lifts never seem to have cameras on hand… ever.

MG- all you need to do is provide a pic of your buddy to shut people up arguing whether he’s full of it, or perhaps you just made a minor miscalculation because most people aren’t capable of approximately bf levels by eye (no shame in that). Also, with all your statements lately, it’d also give you a modicum of credibility if you were indeed possessing a respectable physique.

S[/quote]

Doesn’t that mean that Prof X gets a shitload of credibility, because he has reached an extreme level of development?[/quote]

Apparently now I am too fat to see any muscle.

These guys lie because their stance in a debate is so weak.

I have stated before that my roommate in college was the type who looked to be developed on par with many fitness models at a weight of 235lbs but HATED lifting weights. If he want to the gym, he would beat most there in strength and I know he was less than 10% body fat most of the time.

He will never get on a bodybuilding stage…or even reach his own potential in bodybuilding because he wanted to be a police officer or a detective, not a bodybuilder.

Everyone with the best genes for this will not go into bodybuilding. They have an even less chance of specifically going into NATURAL bodybuilding.

163

Good lord X…can you be any more melodramatic?

Every post you bitch about how nobody gives you any respect.

Did ya ever think that have to give respect to get it?

164

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

And I bet none of your haters will admit that.

It all comes down to denigrating you because that’s exactly what makes their panties wet around these parts. Not talking about bodybuilding like real, testosterone pumped men do.[/quote]

About this…you hit it on the head.

If I see someone who has made good progress, I will tell them. I won’t lie about it and literally make things up about them that clearly arn’t true.

I wrote that Brick had good quad development…but get told I am too fat to tell if I am muscular…which in the real world would get that person laughed at and ridiculed for the comment.

Here…it just rallies the troops to lie some more.

165

Guys - let’s try not to stir the pot anymore. It’s not like either side is likely to convince the other, lol.

I’m not trying to be forum police but at this point I think it’s best if we all move on. Shitstorm threads are entertaining at first but I think we’ve all had our fill for a while.

166

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

X is just fat you cannot tell development if you can’t see where any of the muscle are. No separation at all even in the arms for Christ sake. I have plenty of friends that look big but are carrying way to much fat. You can tell there is msucle there but to say well developed l o fucking l. When you carry that much extra fat who fucking knows how much muscle is actually there
[/quote]

This post is ridiculous. Why be this dishonest when you post here?[/quote]

Now this is really fucking developed.

167

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And this asshole continues running his sewer and has not a single picture of himself, or his mythical outlier friend?
[/quote]

C’mon Sky, you know how guys jacked out of their minds, who make everyone else look bad without even trying never want their photos taken. One thing I’ve learned from over a decade on this site, is that the people with the self proclaimed best physiques or lifts never seem to have cameras on hand… ever.

MG- all you need to do is provide a pic of your buddy to shut people up arguing whether he’s full of it, or perhaps you just made a minor miscalculation because most people aren’t capable of approximately bf levels by eye (no shame in that). Also, with all your statements lately, it’d also give you a modicum of credibility if you were indeed possessing a respectable physique.

S[/quote]

Doesn’t that mean that Prof X gets a shitload of credibility, because he has reached an extreme level of development?[/quote]

Apparently now I am too fat to see any muscle.

These guys lie because their stance in a debate is so weak.

I have stated before that my roommate in college was the type who looked to be developed on par with many fitness models at a weight of 235lbs but HATED lifting weights. If he want to the gym, he would beat most there in strength and I know he was less than 10% body fat most of the time.

He will never get on a bodybuilding stage…or even reach his own potential in bodybuilding because he wanted to be a police officer or a detective, not a bodybuilder.

Everyone with the best genes for this will not go into bodybuilding. They have an even less chance of specifically going into NATURAL bodybuilding.[/quote]

I knew a North Indian guy like that more than a decade ago. He would laugh at us for lifting weights as we were still scrawny and he was already so developed. Had the belief that weightlifting created “unnatural muscle”.

Looking back, it was simply not a possibility that he would have embarked on a bodybuilding lifestyle even if he wanted to given the fact that most of us were not financially well off at the time.

I think a lot of people here would have a heart attack if they heard what we ate just to get the calories in when we reached above average bodyweights.

168

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Guys - let’s try not to stir the pot anymore. It’s not like either side is likely to convince the other, lol.

I’m not trying to be forum police but at this point I think it’s best if we all move on. Shitstorm threads are entertaining at first but I think we’ve all had our fill for a while. [/quote]

For the love of God, this!

169

[quote]dt79 wrote:

I knew a North Indian guy like that more than a decade ago. He would laugh at us for lifting weights as we were still scrawny and he was already so developed. Had the belief that weightlifting created “unnatural muscle”.

Looking back, it was simply not a possibility that he would have embarked on a bodybuilding lifestyle even if he wanted to given the fact that most of us were not financially well off at the time.

I think a lot of people here would have a heart attack if they heard what we ate just to get the calories in when we reached above average bodyweights.[/quote]

I think some here just don’t have much experience with different cultures or people from drastically different backgrounds.

I have seen too mny gifted people in my life to believe the numbers I have seen thrown around here.

I am not sure why some are making a joke of this though. It is a given that no matter what anyone here has done, somewhere, someone can do better. To believe otherwise is just biased opinion.

170

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

X is just fat you cannot tell development if you can’t see where any of the muscle are. No separation at all even in the arms for Christ sake. I have plenty of friends that look big but are carrying way to much fat. You can tell there is msucle there but to say well developed l o fucking l. When you carry that much extra fat who fucking knows how much muscle is actually there
[/quote]

This post is ridiculous. Why be this dishonest when you post here?[/quote]

How am I dishonest. I gave my HONEST opinion. You look the same as all of your pics. How are we supposed to judge progress. X-ray vision through your shirt and fat? Start taking at least shirtless pics and then comparing them. Other than that these weird MM pose pics look the same I will give credit you look Better and larger than your pics at 290. Now lose another 20-30lbs then we can see a vein and some separation. That will be even better

171

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Like prof x and his pictures? The guy is massive, extremely well developed and blantantly not obese yet he’s caught more shit than I’ve ever seen after putting himself out there. People will shit on anything regardless of whether its real or not. And you say prof x is what brings these forums down?
[/quote]
I am not trying to take anything away from Professor X but I must ask, Hoe do you know he is extremely well developed?
As far as I can remember, he has only posted one photo that would be considered a “mandatory” pose.
I know this isn’t bodybuilding section but a compliment of those poses best displays development.
I have never seen a front or rear double biceps, lat spread, side triceps, etc.
Is he really big? Yes.
Is he extremely well developed? I have no idea because he has never posted photos that support that claim.
So does your 5’7 225 pound natural friend look like that 6% bodyfat photo? Only much more muscular?[/quote]

You serious with this? I doubt many other people here have posted as many pioctuyres as I have over the years.

How does he know I am extremely developed?

Really?

People think like this?[/quote]

Professor X,
Did you read my entire post?
I never insulted you and I said I had no idea of you were extremely developed or not because of the limited photographs I’ve seen.
You have posted one “rear relaxed” pose and several semi most muscular poses.
How is one supposed to judge development, not just size of the four muscle groups showcased (bi’s, delts, traps and lats), based on two poses?
I said that in order to make that distinction, “extremely developed”, I would need to see more photos.
I did not put you down or say you were just fat. I said you were very large.

I will echo what Dark Ninja said; you look one million times better than your fat picture (great job) and you should invest some of your doctor money in a phone with a good camera :wink: I love my iphone5 for photos.
Cheers, Professor.

172

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Guys - let’s try not to stir the pot anymore. It’s not like either side is likely to convince the other, lol.

I’m not trying to be forum police but at this point I think it’s best if we all move on. Shitstorm threads are entertaining at first but I think we’ve all had our fill for a while. [/quote]

For the love of God, this![/quote]
Agreed with this As well.
Civil and constructive posts and discussions are welcome but rehashing this same thing again is tiresome.

173

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

How am I dishonest. I gave my HONEST opinion. You look the same as all of your pics. How are we supposed to judge progress. X-ray vision through your shirt and fat? Start taking at least shirtless pics and then comparing them. Other than that these weird MM pose pics look the same I will give credit you look Better and larger than your pics at 290. Now lose another 20-30lbs then we can see a vein and some separation. That will be even better [/quote]

Like I said, ridiculous. The majority of the shots in my log are shirtless front facing nonflexing pics that have been posted over the last 2-3 years.

You are just wrong here…and apparently can’t admit it. That is a vein running down my right biceps an that is seperation in my delts and pec tie in.

Why not just be an ass but an ass that lies?

174

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Did you read my entire post? [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]
I never insulted you[/quote]

Bullshit. Writing that someone who has put the time in tht I have and built the size I have and posted the progress pics that I have is questionable on how muscular they are would be an insult to most.

Unless you need a new computer, saying you can’t tell how muscular I am in the 100’s of pictures posted over the years is insane.

[quote]
and I said I had no idea of you were extremely developed or not because of the limited photographs I’ve seen.[/quote]

No, you questioned someone else…when you apparently missed all of those pictures.

[quote]

You have posted one “rear relaxed” pose and several semi most muscular poses.
How is one supposed to judge development, not just size of the four muscle groups showcased (bi’s, delts, traps and lats), based on two poses?
I said that in order to make that distinction, “extremely developed”, I would need to see more photos.
I did not put you down or say you were just fat. I said you were very large.

I will echo what Dark Ninja said; you look one million times better than your fat picture (great job) and you should invest some of your doctor money in a phone with a good camera :wink: I love my iphone5 for photos.
Cheers, Professor.[/quote]

For people who criticize me this much to not know I had a log on here with all pictures in it means people are just piling on to be seen.

175

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

How am I dishonest. I gave my HONEST opinion. You look the same as all of your pics. How are we supposed to judge progress. X-ray vision through your shirt and fat? Start taking at least shirtless pics and then comparing them. Other than that these weird MM pose pics look the same I will give credit you look Better and larger than your pics at 290. Now lose another 20-30lbs then we can see a vein and some separation. That will be even better [/quote]

Why not just be an ass but an ass that lies?[/quote]

hahaha…don’t you ever change X.

Just keep telling yourself that it’s everybody else’s fault.

176

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Did you read my entire post? [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]
I never insulted you[/quote]

Bullshit. Writing that someone who has put the time in tht I have and built the size I have and posted the progress pics that I have is questionable on how muscular they are would be an insult to most.

Unless you need a new computer, saying you can’t tell how muscular I am in the 100’s of pictures posted over the years is insane.

[quote]
and I said I had no idea of you were extremely developed or not because of the limited photographs I’ve seen.[/quote]

No, you questioned someone else…when you apparently missed all of those pictures.

[quote]

You have posted one “rear relaxed” pose and several semi most muscular poses.
How is one supposed to judge development, not just size of the four muscle groups showcased (bi’s, delts, traps and lats), based on two poses?
I said that in order to make that distinction, “extremely developed”, I would need to see more photos.
I did not put you down or say you were just fat. I said you were very large.

I will echo what Dark Ninja said; you look one million times better than your fat picture (great job) and you should invest some of your doctor money in a phone with a good camera :wink: I love my iphone5 for photos.
Cheers, Professor.[/quote]

For people who criticize me this much to not know I had a log on here with all pictures in it means people are just piling on to be seen.[/quote]

Again, did you read my post?
I never said that you weren’t muscular or had not built size.
You know the difference between being a muscular big guy and being well developed?
Again, I did not insult you and even complimented you.
Strange response to my polite, civil post in which I complimented you.

177

Professor,
Throughout your 100+ photographs that you have posted, how many rear front or rear double biceps shots were there?
How many side triceps?
How many front lay spreads?

I have not seen a full compliment of photos that prooperly show off your overall development (size/symmetry) in order to properly asses whether or not I PERAONALLY would classify you as “extremely developed”.
That is all I have ever said about this topic.
You are big. Yes.
Cheers.

178

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Professor,
Throughout your 100+ photographs that you have posted, how many rear front or rear double biceps shots were there?
How many side triceps?
How many front lay spreads?

I have not seen a full compliment of photos that prooperly show off your overall development (size/symmetry) in order to properly asses whether or not I PERAONALLY would classify you as “extremely developed”.
That is all I have ever said about this topic.
You are big. Yes.
Cheers.[/quote]

Answer…none.

And lol at 100+ photos.

179

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Professor,
Throughout your 100+ photographs that you have posted, how many rear front or rear double biceps shots were there?
How many side triceps?
How many front lay spreads?

I have not seen a full compliment of photos that prooperly show off your overall development (size/symmetry) in order to properly asses whether or not I PERAONALLY would classify you as “extremely developed”.
That is all I have ever said about this topic.
You are big. Yes.
Cheers.[/quote]

My side chest, back and leg shots are in that log.

My front double biceps was the first pic poosted on this forum with me kneeling in my parents back yard…so to say it never happened is just odd.

180

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Professor,
Throughout your 100+ photographs that you have posted, how many rear front or rear double biceps shots were there?
How many side triceps?
How many front lay spreads?

I have not seen a full compliment of photos that prooperly show off your overall development (size/symmetry) in order to properly asses whether or not I PERAONALLY would classify you as “extremely developed”.
That is all I have ever said about this topic.
You are big. Yes.
Cheers.[/quote]

My side chest, back and leg shots are in that log.

My front double biceps was the first pic poosted on this forum with me kneeling in my parents back yard…so to say it never happened is just odd.[/quote]

You look great in that pic. I remember it.