I seem to remember the quote being more along the lines of Ian Fleming having Roger Moore as his original choice for James Bond, but he was filming the TV series “The Saint” at the time; hence Sean Connery got the job.
(I think)
[quote]nbutka wrote:
I’ve seen pleanty of huge spec ops soldiers before. What would you do if you were on a boat for 4 years? That’s why most sailors sign up for BUDs anyways. As far as the other branches, bodybuilding is just a hobby in the military.****
watch the discovery channel buds program…no guy there appears much more than 175…some guys look alot less than that
they have a 5mile time limit of 30 minutes, think guys in the 230 range would typically make that? lol, no friggn way unless there way in excess of 6ft…
i don’t believe the military would want it’s soldiers too big for a variety of reasons…one is that it costs more to feed them, clean them, and clothe them…
[/quote]
I have the entire BUDs training video set, there are several huge bodybuilders who passed and became SEALs. The military spends billions each year, food is not a problem. Five miles? They completed a 14 mile run at the end of BUDs, with pleanty of meatheads leading the pack.
I consulted for a business owner who son is a Seal; he and his buddies were jacked. I wouldn’t care to mess with a guy that big who has skills…
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Question is: who was the best bond girl? … What was the best vehicle?[/quote]
Tough call on both questions, but I’m going to go with the combo package from You Only Live Twice: Akiko Wakabayashi behind the wheel of the Toyota 2000 GT.
A tight, sexy little Japanese sports car that will do anything you demand of it, and a tight, sexy little Japanese… well, you get the idea.
Yeah why don’t they make James Bond a jacked 240 lbs with 18 inch arms. He would then blend in perfect with the rest of the playboys sporting his tuxedo at a casino. Everyone knows that James Bond’s job is all about brawn anyway…
Hey, have you guys seen who they have playing Harry Potter? Damn metrosexual anorexic hollywood… That skinny bastard with the round glasses should shut up, finish his beef and do his damn squats.
[quote]Classy_Cojones wrote:
No, the unspoken rule is that Prof x must bitch about things he obviously doesn’t understand.
Acting ability does not lay in the muscles, and a smooth, tuxedo-wearing, gun totin spy is not supposed to look like the hulk.
Tell me Prof, do you get laid a lot in real life with the “Laides, I think you should bulk” attitude?[/quote]
What is UP with all of you Prof X stalkers? Get a life… and some cojones…
[quote]nbutka wrote:
they have a 5mile time limit of 30 minutes, think guys in the 230 range would typically make that? lol, no friggn way unless there way in excess of 6ft…
[/quote]
Your average 6ft 240 pound NFL linebacker could do that no problem.
A good friend of mine is ex navy seal, nearly 50 years old and weighs about 225. His workout routine includes runs of 3 miles in 18 min. Im sure he could do 5 miles in 30 min if he wanted to
Big guys can run, alot better than you’d expect. especially if there big squatters. You’d be suprised, trust me.
My bro is a BIG dude… been working out since a was a baby (he’s 12 years older than me)… so we’re looking at almost 30 years of lifting.
He was also Special Forces for 20 years. He can move, believe me.
[quote]nbutka wrote:
its not realistic to have a huge bond, nor is it practical…
navy seals arent big…sometimes they are fairly muscular but for the most part they rarely hit 200lbs
its not practical too be big and be a spy/soldier[/quote]
[quote]djohns wrote:
dukefan4ever wrote:
Plus, even Ian Fleming said Pierce Brosnan was the closest Bond to the actual character he created.
He did? Pretty cool considering Fleming died in 1964.
[/quote]
Please read my earlier post.
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Yeah why don’t they make James Bond a jacked 240 lbs with 18 inch arms. He would then blend in perfect with the rest of the playboys sporting his tuxedo at a casino. Everyone knows that James Bond’s job is all about brawn anyway…[/quote]
As long as the guy looks a little more in shape than Roger Moore (hahaha, Roger Moore running! How’s that for tongue in cheek Bond humour?) I think he’s good to go. Bond is supposed to look something like NORMAL. He isn’t supposed to look like a bodyguard, he’s supposed to look like the guy being guarded.
[quote]Norwell Bob wrote:
My bro is a BIG dude… been working out since a was a baby (he’s 12 years older than me)… so we’re looking at almost 30 years of lifting.
He was also Special Forces for 20 years. He can move, believe me.
nbutka wrote:
its not realistic to have a huge bond, nor is it practical…
navy seals arent big…sometimes they are fairly muscular but for the most part they rarely hit 200lbs
its not practical too be big and be a spy/soldier
[/quote]
Why would someone think there weren’t big guys in that branch of the military or any other?
[quote]Mr2Geez wrote:
Ryu13 wrote:
Velvet Revolver wrote:
This guy is far and beyond the best built bond in history. Much more built than those before him…
Still skinny though. If you’re “much more built” than a 7 year old girl, would you brag? Don’t expect hollywood to get any better at this kinda thing.
I’m not trying to start anything with anyone in particular with this post. But, it gets old hearing everyone bash the builds of actors. I do not believe that this guy is huge even by hollywood standards, but I have a nagging suspicion that he is bigger than 90% of the people who post on this site based on some of the picture threads I’ve seen.
I’m also willing to bet that of the guys on here who are bigger, 99% of them are about as aesthetically pleasing as a dumptruck. Saying you are bulking (and have been for years) or saying that you are more of a “powerlifter” even though you don’t compete is not an excuse for just not having the dedication or dietary discipline to look good.
And it definitely doesn’t give you the right to bash a guy with a decent physique who makes millions of dollars because he is attractive to women. He’s not a bodybuilder, but is more built than the average guy. Get over it.[/quote]
Where are all these fatasses who claim they are bulking for powerlifting? They’re constantly brought up by skinny dudes who want to bash people who are bigger than them, yet I see no evidence that they actually exist on these forums. The only people I could think that you would be referring to are perhaps the Westside guys, but of course no on has the balls to bash them. Fat T-man doesn’t count, as he is clearly a troll.
And velvet revolver, 5 mile runs do not require strength. Look at the people who do well at five mile runs, then try and tell me that a big squat leads to better distance ability.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Norwell Bob wrote:
My bro is a BIG dude… been working out since a was a baby (he’s 12 years older than me)… so we’re looking at almost 30 years of lifting.
He was also Special Forces for 20 years. He can move, believe me.
nbutka wrote:
its not realistic to have a huge bond, nor is it practical…
navy seals arent big…sometimes they are fairly muscular but for the most part they rarely hit 200lbs
its not practical too be big and be a spy/soldier
Why would someone think there weren’t big guys in that branch of the military or any other?[/quote]
Of course there’s big guys in those branches too. But is it the average?
If you look at logics, why would you want to carry that extra mass when you know you often have to cover large distances on foot?
What about "cost efficiency? Large muscles need more food and these guys sometimes have to go for long periods with limited food supply.
If the physical requirements mainly are for running, shooting and passing obstacles, why have the extra mass?
To the original topic: Why do you guys think James Bond need more mass? What is the purpose?
He was just on TV saying how it was important that he got into shape for the role, and “apparently” is doing stuntwork.
I really think he will be good. He is porbably the “best” established actor to go into a bond role. The rest were “off of that tv programme, you know, the one with the car” (the saint, remington steele etc.)
Hi sbond girl seemed to like him.
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Norwell Bob wrote:
My bro is a BIG dude… been working out since a was a baby (he’s 12 years older than me)… so we’re looking at almost 30 years of lifting.
He was also Special Forces for 20 years. He can move, believe me.
nbutka wrote:
its not realistic to have a huge bond, nor is it practical…
navy seals arent big…sometimes they are fairly muscular but for the most part they rarely hit 200lbs
its not practical too be big and be a spy/soldier
Why would someone think there weren’t big guys in that branch of the military or any other?
Of course there’s big guys in those branches too. But is it the average?
If you look at logics, why would you want to carry that extra mass when you know you often have to cover large distances on foot?
What about "cost efficiency? Large muscles need more food and these guys sometimes have to go for long periods with limited food supply.
If the physical requirements mainly are for running, shooting and passing obstacles, why have the extra mass?
To the original topic: Why do you guys think James Bond need more mass? What is the purpose?[/quote]
So he could blend in when BB take over the world.
Protein shake, shaken not stirred (?)
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Of course there’s big guys in those branches too. But is it the average?
If you look at logics, why would you want to carry that extra mass when you know you often have to cover large distances on foot?[/quote]
What the hell are you arguing about? You are of very little use if the only thing you can do is run for long distances. What if one of your men fall and needs to be carried? They are fucked, huh? Who gives a shit about the average? The average person in the military is statistically becoming fatter just like the general population. Does that mean they are now looking for fatter people? It is like you are upset that there are muscular people in special forces. Why?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SirPhisticated wrote:
Of course there’s big guys in those branches too. But is it the average?
If you look at logics, why would you want to carry that extra mass when you know you often have to cover large distances on foot?
What the hell are you arguing about? You are of very little use if the only thing you can do is run for long distances. What if one of your men fall and needs to be carried? They are fucked, huh? Who gives a shit about the average? The average person in the military is statistically becoming fatter just like the general population. Does that mean they are now looking for fatter people? It is like you are upset that there are muscular people in special forces. Why?[/quote]
Is the average SF soldier getting fat too? How much muscles does it take to carry or drag a guy? If most of your group is smaller than you, would you feel great when they have to carry your heavy body while in potential danger. The point is that if it was required to have that amount of muscle they’d probably be trained that way. Look at how they train. What is your opinion on the efficiency? Seems you commented on half of my post only.
I’m by no means upset with the fact that there’s big people in the SF. Would I be on a bodybuilding board if I was against muscles?
I’m obsessed with training myself but I don’t try to suck others into my world or belittle people with different views.
Oh and btw, this is not a personal attack on you. It seems you take it as that based on your reaction…
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Is the average SF soldier getting fat too? How much muscles does it take to carry or drag a guy? If most of your group is smaller than you, would you feel great when they have to carry your heavy body while in potential danger. The point is that if it was required to have that amount of muscle they’d probably be trained that way. Look at how they train. What is your opinion on the efficiency? Seems you commented on half of my post only.][/quote]
I commented on all I felt needed a comment. You have no point. If these men couldn’t perform, they wouldn’t be going on missions jeopardizing anyone else. Are you mad that muscular people are not a liability?
[quote]
I’m by no means upset with the fact that there’s big people in the SF. Would I be on a bodybuilding board if I was against muscles?
I’m obsessed with training myself but I don’t try to suck others into my world or belittle people with different views.
Oh and btw, this is not a personal attack on you. It seems you take it as that based on your reaction…[/quote]
What different view are you presenting? It has been stated to you that there are muscular people in special forces. You are now going on about being a liability due to being bigger. It is a dumb position because if they were a liability, they wouldn’t be on a mission. I mean, are you trying to convince me that they SHOULD be a liability? Are you trying to get muscular people ejected from special forces? What is your goal? Is it too difficult to believe that muscular people could do their job better than the others?
Anyone seen/read “The one the got away” the story of Chris Ryan the British SAS guy? Basically on a mission in Iraq during the gulf war he had to walk and evade for like 2 weeks without food and very little water. It was his muscle mass that saved his live, when he got back he was skin and bone, he’d burnt all his muscle to stay alive.