[quote]gojira wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Also, there is no way your arms are 18.5" in that pic. Stop fooling yourself. They might be 17.5", but no way are they over 18.
Aww come on Prof. I love ya, but I don’t see how the hell you can tell how big this guys arms are within a half inch from a photograph.
That’s just kinda silly.[/quote]
I could be wrong, but his arms don’t look bigger than mine were back then. In fact, in those pics, we are very similar in development aside from my trap development and upper chest. In that aspect, you are right that arguing a difference of 10lbs or .5" is retarded.
[quote]Classy_Cojones wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Also, there is no way your arms are 18.5" in that pic. Stop fooling yourself. They might be 17.5", but no way are they over 18.
Please notice arm size compared to head size or fist size. That’s the easiest way to tell…that you are wrong. [/quote]
Irrelevant. Everyone doesn’t have the same sized hands or head. However, I am still wiating on you to explain how I have shitty arm genetics with arms over 20" at 260lbs and how this means I am obese.
im know T-Nation is a site concerned with the male physique but cant you guys duke it out in a face off somewhere else. i cant believe off topic threads cant even stay off topic.
[quote]Chris Jayne wrote:
so … how about that james bond then.
im know T-Nation is a site concerned with the male physique but cant you guys duke it out in a face off somewhere else. i cant believe off topic threads cant even stay off topic. [/quote]
[quote]Chris Jayne wrote:
so … how about that james bond then.
im know T-Nation is a site concerned with the male physique but cant you guys duke it out in a face off somewhere else. i cant believe off topic threads cant even stay off topic. [/quote]
I’ll have to reserve my judgement until I see the movie. James Bond is all about attitude and content; a photograph cannot communicate that. How jacked his is or how big his arms are is not the issue. It’s how he comes across on the screen and how well he portrays the character.
And I gotta say Sean Connery will always be my favorite. Roger Moore was the worst.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Chris Jayne wrote:
so … how about that james bond then.
im know T-Nation is a site concerned with the male physique but cant you guys duke it out in a face off somewhere else. i cant believe off topic threads cant even stay off topic.
Apologies. James Bond is great. There.
[/quote]
What’s funny is that if James Bond came on T-Nation, his cocky and arrogant attitude would earn him uber-troll status in no time.
I guess some things that work in the movies should definetly be kept out of real life, eh humble boys?
sorry if i was short but it just seems impossible for threads to stay on topic no matter what they are about.
brosnan is the bond of my generation so i have a special place for him. he was also in goldeneye which, despite being a pretty naff film, spawned the best computer of the 1990s and had sean bean in.
roger moore had some naff films and some great ones. i just thought he was very similar to the bonds in the book (just with slightly less charisma)
connery was good, undeniably, and set a great precident for the others to follow but he just didnt play bond the way flemming had written him.
as a fan of the bond genre i am excited to see what craig can do. hopefully the plot will be gritty, witty and very masculine.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Classy_Cojones wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Also, there is no way your arms are 18.5" in that pic. Stop fooling yourself. They might be 17.5", but no way are they over 18.
Please notice arm size compared to head size or fist size. That’s the easiest way to tell…that you are wrong.
Irrelevant. Everyone doesn’t have the same sized hands or head. However, I am still wiating on you to explain how I have shitty arm genetics with arms over 20" at 260lbs and how this means I am obese.[/quote]
Most people can get 20 inch arms at around 230 lbs. The rest, therefore, must be something else. Either that or you’ve got four calves.
Now seriously, about my arms, for god’s sake man. Be serious for a bit here. I know one of them is at a funny angle and doesn’t look big, but please, look at the other one and tell me how many triceps like that you’ve seen measuring in an 17 inches.
brosnan is the bond of my generation so i have a special place for him. he was also in goldeneye which, despite being a pretty naff film, spawned the best computer of the 1990s and had sean bean in.
connery was good, undeniably, and set a great precident for the others to follow but he just didnt play bond the way flemming had written him.
[/quote]
I believe you’re talking about Goldeneye 007 for the N64. Once again, because I was born in '88, Brosnan has pretty much been Bond for me. The Sean Connery movies were a bit awkward for me, but goddamnit was Connery a good Bond. I even have a Sean Connery Fact Generator on my site.
[quote]Classy_Cojones wrote:
Most people can get 20 inch arms at around 230 lbs. The rest, therefore, must be something else. Either that or you’ve got four calves.
[/quote]
I will respond to this and that will be it because you are a serious nutcase. Most people do NOT have 20" arms at 230lbs unless they are in contest condition on a bodybuilding stage. Why would I be in contest condition?
Most people don’t have 20" arms PERIOD and never will so what the fuck are you talking about? Simply having arms over 18" without a shitload of drugs puts you in a very small class as far as overall genetic potential, especially for someone under 6 feet tall. For you to say anything else just shows how ignorant you are.
sorry if i was short but it just seems impossible for threads to stay on topic no matter what they are about.
brosnan is the bond of my generation so i have a special place for him. he was also in goldeneye which, despite being a pretty naff film, spawned the best computer of the 1990s and had sean bean in.
roger moore had some naff films and some great ones. i just thought he was very similar to the bonds in the book (just with slightly less charisma)
connery was good, undeniably, and set a great precident for the others to follow but he just didnt play bond the way flemming had written him.
as a fan of the bond genre i am excited to see what craig can do. hopefully the plot will be gritty, witty and very masculine.
[/quote]
You weren’t short. I was wrong for engaging in battle with someone most consider a troll on this board. I apologize for that. I do disagree with Moore being even one of the top three Bonds.
[quote]brucevangeorge wrote:
And the new bond looks badass. Maybe he can do more in the new movies and actually kick some ass, instead of always depending on his fancy gadgets.[/quote]
Bonds character isn’t the same unless he has his gadgets. It would just be an action film otherwise.
I was never that much of a Pierce Brosnan fan, always found him a bit cheesy. I did like the two films that Timothy Dalton made though, and made a convincing enough super spy.
I heard on a radio talk show the other night that Bond was supposed to have been an “ex-boxer with thuggish good lucks” and all the other Bond characteristics. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Also, i’ll take Daniel Craig as Bond before Clive Owen, regardless of how good or bad of an actor he is.
Clive Owen as Bond? Were they serious in even considering him?
I’ve heard the new one is supposed to be truer to the style of the books- less gadgets, darker character, etc. This will be a nice change from the recent Bonds which have gone progressively further off the deep end with the CG and have had the looks and plots of video games. I assume the new Bond will have more of the Dalton feel which is fine because nobody can pull off the Connery Bond.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
He’s definitely a lot bigger than little “I-wanna-be-as-cool-as-Ryu”.
Calling him skinny clearly shows that that he has no clue about physiology and is probably very young or insecure.
Again, James Bond should not be played by a huge guy with 18’’ arms. And I think most people will agree with that.
[/quote]
How would you know? Have you seen my pictures? You weigh 185, at 5’11, at about the same bodyfat as me. I can tell you, from the last time I weighed myself, I weigh over 30lbs more than you, and I am still bulking, so you can drop that arguement.
18 inch arms are not huge by any means, that just goes to show you how underdeveloped you are when you concider 18 inch arms “huge”. Quit attacking me and use common sense when trying to prove a point.
I consider this guy small, if you disagree, then say why, no need to call me a skinny little kid.
Kill Clive Owen!
Ruined Sin City!
Kill Clive Owen!
Actually it wasn’t his fault, but I hated his section in sin city. I hate any cookie-cutter “chick with a katana that kills everybody” movie.