[quote]ebomb5522 wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]roguevampire wrote:
why are you guys making franco columbo out to be something big. guys, he was a small dude. sure, he was cut and strong, but size wise, he was a small guy. get real. [/quote]
It’s not really about guys that weigh the same, or even have the same - or bigger - measurements. It’s a QUALITY of physique. Yes, Franco was short and small, but he looked fucking huge and dense because he had a championship physique. No high school kid has that, end of story. [/quote]
yes, i agree with that. if we are talking qaulity of muscle and definition. then i definately agree.[/quote]
Quality of muscle is very similar to the amount of true size one possesses.
If you take a 6’3’’ 285 lb high school heavyweight wrestler at lets say his lean body mass is around 215-220 which is reasonable. Franco Columbo’s lean body mass was around 190 at a heigh of 5’5’'. For the wrestler to be the same lean body mass in proportion to hi height, he would have to be around 260-270 in the same condition that Franco was, which is obviously ludicrous.
You are confusing just pure size with lean body mass. Of course a 6’3’’ 285 lb high school wrestler is “bigger” than a 5’5’’ 190 Franco, but he in no way has more muscle in proportion to his height not is his physique more impressive. [/quote]
see, when everyday average people see you, if your a big 285lb guy, now im talking a guy thats not fat, just not ripped. they don’t say to themselves “gee, his bodyfat is this, and his lean bodymass is really this, so hes really not that big” they don’t reason this out. they just see, "damm that guys huge.
if 2 guys are out at a club, and one guy is ripped at 4% bodyfat, while another guy is wayyy bigger at say 15% bodyfat, in clothes, do you really think anyone can tell who has a lower bodyfat %. 99% of our lives are spend in clothes, so thats where you want to look impressive.