Paco, Paco, Paco

Training Bodybuilding
121

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Why are you hating on Branch? His flaws are no where near the extremes that Paco’s are, I don’t see how you can even draw that comparison.

Oh wait, Branch is white…ahhhhhhhhhh now it all makes sense.

The trend continues, Carry on.[/quote]

Glad I’m not the only one that noticed.[/quote]
Both these posts are so dumb it’s making my mind hurt.

Making a thread about a white guy not getting enough recognition is RACIST? Saying that another white guy deserves his placings/wins and does indeed look better than the first guy is HATING?
[/quote]

Both of us noted an ongoing trend that extends far beyond this thread. No one made any mention of racist or hating. Good job reading.[/quote]
Since you are clearly struggling here, I have highlighted the salient points for you.

Ah I see now, obviously someone saying the word “hating” is NO MENTION of the word “hating”. And bringing up the fact that someone is hating someone because they are white is NOTHING TO DO with race. My mistake.

I would like to thank you though, I am actually laughing so hard right now and I always appreciate a good laugh.

122

spaniards have superior conditioning…

don’t hate brah

123

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why do you generally not like white BBers?

[/quote]

I’ve never seen you defend a black person on this board, just sayin…

Anywho, I would say that Black dudes have the “tan” advantage, other than that it is based on individual genetics not race differences.

The stage tan and oil really makes a huge difference. If you look at pics of the pale ass mofo’s like Wolf etc a couple weeks out v. say a Kai or Phil a couple weeks out, it is much easier to appreciate what Phil is bringing rather than a Wolf or other ghostly white BB’er…

At least that is what I tell myself all the time, I’d actually look like I lift with a good tan. :wink: I mean shit, there is a reason the T is in GTL.

As to the thread: I don’t really like Paco, kinda like “too much” for me. I love Branch’s attitude and demeanor. And in pics standing alone I like his build, but once you stand him next to a Dexter or Phil it really brings out what I don’t like about him… But that is just my personal preference.

124

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Why are you hating on Branch? His flaws are no where near the extremes that Paco’s are, I don’t see how you can even draw that comparison.

Oh wait, Branch is white…ahhhhhhhhhh now it all makes sense.

The trend continues, Carry on.[/quote]

Glad I’m not the only one that noticed.[/quote]
Both these posts are so dumb it’s making my mind hurt.

Making a thread about a white guy not getting enough recognition is RACIST? Saying that another white guy deserves his placings/wins and does indeed look better than the first guy is HATING?
[/quote]

Both of us noted an ongoing trend that extends far beyond this thread. No one made any mention of racist or hating. Good job reading.[/quote]
Since you are clearly struggling here, I have highlighted the salient points for you.

Ah I see now, obviously someone saying the word “hating” is NO MENTION of the word “hating”. And bringing up the fact that someone is hating someone because they are white is NOTHING TO DO with race. My mistake.

I would like to thank you though, I am actually laughing so hard right now and I always appreciate a good laugh.[/quote]

And you clearly didn’t read waylander’s post. You read what you wanted to read. And you didn’t read my other posts about how it isn’t an accusation of racism.

“Making a thread about a white guy not getting enough recognition is RACIST?
Saying that another white guy deserves his placings/wins and does indeed look better than the first guy is HATING?”

No, he made a thread about how bad a guy looks and since guys like branch are rewarded for that, shouldn’t this guy be too? None of that is complementary to either guy.

It is a fact that X has a verifiable trend of preferring Black BBers to white ones. You guys can make of that what you will. Get mad at that fact all you want.

125

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I don’t think that I’m the one not admitting the difference. 3 to 9.

Branch looks amazing. The fact that you throw out these references with paco is what’s juvenile.[/quote]

Because it caused a discussion? Bodybuilders don’t win just based on body shape or esthetics alone so I am not sure why you posted last years Olympia results as if I didn’t watch the show. Branch is always in great conditioning which is one reason he places as high as he does, not because he has better shape overall than the other people on stage. In fact, this is the first time I have even had someone act as if Branch is as esthetic as someone like Freeman or Flex Wheeler…but you apparently don’t see things this way.

In your eyes, Flex Wheeler and Branch are interchangeable as far as esthetics…right?

Look, there seem to be quite of few of you who love to tell me how to make a post…and what have noticed about just about all of you is that you yourselves aren’t known for making a thread that draws any attention. What makes you think I need your assistance?[/quote]

The actual underlying sentiment in your posts/threads like these (the toney freeman gets shafted type posts) is that you value conditioning MUCH MUCH less than EVERYTHING else. You talk about Branch’s conditioning as if the judges are making a blasphemous decision by reqarding his ability to get lean. Youve said it multiple times before, you dont like how lean these guys have to get. So that warps your opinion and makes you mad that guys like Victor Martinez dont place higher than they do. You completely devalue a HUGE part of the scoring in Bodybuilding, almost as if it shouldnt matter.

And the difference between Flex and Branch aesthetically is a smaller difference than between Branch and Paco.

lol @ you valuing other forum members’ posts by how many ‘attention grabbing’ threads they start. Please rejoin real life.

126

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why do you generally not like white BBers?

[/quote]

I’ve never seen you defend a black person on this board, just sayin…

Anywho, I would say that Black dudes have the “tan” advantage, other than that it is based on individual genetics not race differences.

The stage tan and oil really makes a huge difference. If you look at pics of the pale ass mofo’s like Wolf etc a couple weeks out v. say a Kai or Phil a couple weeks out, it is much easier to appreciate what Phil is bringing rather than a Wolf or other ghostly white BB’er…

At least that is what I tell myself all the time, I’d actually look like I lift with a good tan. :wink: I mean shit, there is a reason the T is in GTL.

As to the thread: I don’t really like Paco, kinda like “too much” for me. I love Branch’s attitude and demeanor. And in pics standing alone I like his build, but once you stand him next to a Dexter or Phil it really brings out what I don’t like about him… But that is just my personal preference.[/quote]

I defend them as much as white ones. But the tan thing is a good point. See I’m not fat, I’m just pasty.

127

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
DD you need to either read the thread or read it again. At the very least read the post you quoted again. X wasn’t accusing you of anything, he was asking whether you agreed with what SOMEONE ELSE wrote - hence the question mark; “right?”. It’s a fairly typical indicator of a question.[/quote]

You’re going to have to be more specific about which post you are referring to.[/quote]
Well there are quite a few. Like I said you are better of reading the whole thread because you seem to have come in and noticed a few words here and there and started talking about irrelevant things. Here are a couple of posts that seem to be directly or indirectly comparing Warren’s aesthetics to those of others known for aesthetics of those who place very highly (I’m not saying these represent my opinion or even the opposite):

[quote]nik133 wrote:
in the words of Shawn Ray “I think anybody can be big, but to be big AND beautiful is another thing.” Not commenting on his facial beauty, but his body is just an expirement gone horribly awry: Huge legs and arms, no chest or back whatsoever. The only thing that Warren lacks is good arms and even though their shape isn’t great on stage he doesn’t look out of place.
[/quote]

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
I am puzzled beyond belief when someone questions [Brach Warren’s] aesthetics. Does he not have an X-frame? Does he not look well put together with very few body parts out of place? His belly nowhere near extends like Paco’s does (and I love the guy for his freakishness and his superb conditioning). Personally I enjoy his look almost more then any other bodybuilder. Especially in the last two years.

Paco, as a freak, has all my respect but as a competitor he looks nowhere near top 10 material yet Branch most certainly does. I agree Heath and Cutler should place ahead of him but quite frankly, unless Kai comes in amazing shape, no one else.[/quote]

The main issue though was that you responded to a question in a very defensive way (calling it an accusation!) that showed you didn’t actually read posts like these or if you did you ignored them.

For my money (and to actually respond to X’s question) I don’t think Warren’s aesthetics come close to someone like Freeman. But I don’t necessarily think he is a worse bodybuilder for that - for reasons which tie in to the original question of this thread; he deserves the credit he gets for mass, conditioning and stage presence. I think maybe Paco lacks that presence element when on stage? Pure speculation.

128

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
DD you need to either read the thread or read it again. At the very least read the post you quoted again. X wasn’t accusing you of anything, he was asking whether you agreed with what SOMEONE ELSE wrote - hence the question mark; “right?”. It’s a fairly typical indicator of a question.[/quote]

You’re going to have to be more specific about which post you are referring to.[/quote]
Well there are quite a few. Like I said you are better of reading the whole thread because you seem to have come in and noticed a few words here and there and started talking about irrelevant things. Here are a couple of posts that seem to be directly or indirectly comparing Warren’s aesthetics to those of others known for aesthetics of those who place very highly (I’m not saying these represent my opinion or even the opposite):

[quote]nik133 wrote:
in the words of Shawn Ray “I think anybody can be big, but to be big AND beautiful is another thing.” Not commenting on his facial beauty, but his body is just an expirement gone horribly awry: Huge legs and arms, no chest or back whatsoever. The only thing that Warren lacks is good arms and even though their shape isn’t great on stage he doesn’t look out of place.
[/quote]

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
I am puzzled beyond belief when someone questions [Brach Warren’s] aesthetics. Does he not have an X-frame? Does he not look well put together with very few body parts out of place? His belly nowhere near extends like Paco’s does (and I love the guy for his freakishness and his superb conditioning). Personally I enjoy his look almost more then any other bodybuilder. Especially in the last two years.

Paco, as a freak, has all my respect but as a competitor he looks nowhere near top 10 material yet Branch most certainly does. I agree Heath and Cutler should place ahead of him but quite frankly, unless Kai comes in amazing shape, no one else.[/quote]

The main issue though was that you responded to a question in a very defensive way (calling it an accusation!) that showed you didn’t actually read posts like these or if you did you ignored them.

For my money (and to actually respond to X’s question) I don’t think Warren’s aesthetics come close to someone like Freeman. But I don’t necessarily think he is a worse bodybuilder for that - for reasons which tie in to the original question of this thread; he deserves the credit he gets for mass, conditioning and stage presence. I think maybe Paco lacks that presence element when on stage? Pure speculation.[/quote]

How is mass and conditioning not part of aesthetics?

And a question can be an accusation. Do realize how wrong you are?

129

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
I don’t think Warren’s aesthetics come close to someone like Freeman. But I don’t necessarily think he is a worse bodybuilder for that - for reasons which tie in to the original question of this thread; he deserves the credit he gets for mass, conditioning and stage presence. I think maybe Paco lacks that presence element when on stage? Pure speculation.[/quote]

I think Branch comes off as more “likable” too. Or at least markets himself better than Paco.

I mean, I’m not an expert or anything of the sport, but I’ve seen quite a few Branch vids, and not so much with Paco.

People disagree with me, see the O threads we had, but I feel like off teh stage stuff makes a difference in judging.

130

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Jab1 wrote:
I don’t think Warren’s aesthetics come close to someone like Freeman. But I don’t necessarily think he is a worse bodybuilder for that - for reasons which tie in to the original question of this thread; he deserves the credit he gets for mass, conditioning and stage presence. I think maybe Paco lacks that presence element when on stage? Pure speculation.[/quote]

I think Branch comes off as more “likable” too. Or at least markets himself better than Paco.

I mean, I’m not an expert or anything of the sport, but I’ve seen quite a few Branch vids, and not so much with Paco.

People disagree with me, see the O threads we had, but I feel like off teh stage stuff makes a difference in judging.[/quote]
I think this is a really good point. Everyone has experienced finding some less attractive when you like them less, or the opposite. Judging isn’t about attraction in the carnal sense (well I hope not anyway!) but there are probably similar things at play when it comes to judging how someone looks.

131

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

lol @ you valuing other forum members’ posts by how many ‘attention grabbing’ threads they start. Please rejoin real life. [/quote]

You are REALLY slow if that is what you got from that statement. If someone is going to tell me how I should post in regards to what topics, or like happens so very often, people telling me how ineffective my posts are (like in the last thread I made in this forum), I would expect those people to have a record of making posts that anyone gives a shit about.

Aside from you and a few others coming into this thread and basically trolling for no damned reason, there was actually a decent discussion.

The factor in the equation not needed…was you and friends.

132

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How is mass and conditioning not part of aesthetics?

And a question can be an accusation. Do realize how wrong you are?[/quote]

I’m sorry, but you are making no sense here. No one accused you of anything. I asked you a question…since you seem to be unable to tell what a question is.

Aesthetics involve size, SHAPE, balance and symmetry.

133

^ is conditioning not a part of that?

134

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^ is conditioning not a part of that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t consider it specifically because like we all just noted in THIS THREAD Paco has GREAT conditioning all of the time on stage…yet no one considers him aesthetic.

135

I was more asking if it was a part of a judges “criteria.” Got it.

136

IMHO, conditioning can indeed be an aesthetics constituent, seeing how certain muscle groups just stand out more than they would at higher bf levels.

ProX, your original post in this thread posed a question:

'If Branch Warren can win top spots, why not Paco? ’

Something really seems off with Paco’s physique. His conditioning is great. His extremities are impressive. But if you stack all of his body parts together, it looks off. It’s not just that’s he’s stocky.

Take a look at Gustavo Badell: he’s stocky, he’s not the most aesthetic professional bodybuilder, but he doesn’t look so off in total. Didn’t he place 3rd at the O, once? Must’ve been 2004. I’m too lazy to look it up.

I guess, to really satisfy the original question, we’d have to dig up comparative posing shots of both Paco and Branch. Should they be each other’s equals physique-wise (which I strongly doubt), we might look further (IFBB politics, racism, w/e).

Who’s up for that? I’m too lazy.

137

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
why do you generally not like white BBers?

[/quote]

I’ve never seen you defend a black person on this board, just sayin…

Anywho, I would say that Black dudes have the “tan” advantage, other than that it is based on individual genetics not race differences.

The stage tan and oil really makes a huge difference. If you look at pics of the pale ass mofo’s like Wolf etc a couple weeks out v. say a Kai or Phil a couple weeks out, it is much easier to appreciate what Phil is bringing rather than a Wolf or other ghostly white BB’er…

At least that is what I tell myself all the time, I’d actually look like I lift with a good tan. :wink: I mean shit, there is a reason the T is in GTL.

As to the thread: I don’t really like Paco, kinda like “too much” for me. I love Branch’s attitude and demeanor. And in pics standing alone I like his build, but once you stand him next to a Dexter or Phil it really brings out what I don’t like about him… But that is just my personal preference.[/quote]

I agree. As for Branch, well i don’t really care for his look at all. Would i want to look like him? Yes, it would be a dream…but looking good and looking good on stage are different things.

138

Branch also has the underdog/blue collar working thing going for him. Watching Branch come on stage first at the olympia you could see he had the wow factor. wow in the freaky sense and wow in the sense that it made you say “I want to look like that.”

I dont agree that conditioning has anything to due with aesthletics.it’s definatly behind shape(bodytype?) and symmetry. You can change your level of conditioning rather easily, but you cant really do shit about height, wide hips, narrow clavicles, etc.

139

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

lol @ you valuing other forum members’ posts by how many ‘attention grabbing’ threads they start. Please rejoin real life. [/quote]

You are REALLY slow if that is what you got from that statement. If someone is going to tell me how I should post in regards to what topics, or like happens so very often, people telling me how ineffective my posts are (like in the last thread I made in this forum), I would expect those people to have a record of making posts that anyone gives a shit about.

Aside from you and a few others coming into this thread and basically trolling for no damned reason, there was actually a decent discussion.

The factor in the equation not needed…was you and friends.[/quote]

Yea, Im slow. Good call there. Doc lol

Love the implication that I make posts that no one gives a shit about. Thats the funniest thing your humourless self has ever posted.

IM TROLLING? I posted ONE SENTANCE off topic, over a span of 5 posts. You chose to repsond to ONLY that section of ANY of my posts, prentending the substantive sections of my posts on topic didnt exist. (I mean you just did again by only quoting the last line of the post I made) Dont make mistakes if you dont want to get them brought to your attention. This is the internet.

Youre a loser. And youre arguing with the wrong person. You wont catch me twisting words, because I dont need to. EVERY SINGLE PERSON sees the methods you use to make yourself visible on this forum. Its getting more comical with every reply.

But yea, everyone else is the reason your threads deviate miles away from the original topics. Its definitely not you. Can’t be.

And to add some substance to the thread. Its obvious you were trying to instigate a certain type of discussion. You made this thread based on the one on the MD forum about Paco. Obviously you could have kept it completely neutral by simply making a thread about Paco but you had to shit on a 2 time top 3 olympia competitor in the process. What did you THINK was going to happen

140

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
^ is conditioning not a part of that? [/quote]

I wouldn’t consider it specifically because like we all just noted in THIS THREAD Paco has GREAT conditioning all of the time on stage…yet no one considers him aesthetic.[/quote]

Here we go.

HOnestly. Stop making posts in 30 seconds and give some thought to what youre saying.

No one considers him aesthetic becuase he has horrible lines, muscle bellies, joint size, bone structure. His conditioning is great. It doesnt matter how many categories play into the judgement of ‘aesthetically pleasing’. Conditioning is certainly one of them. If you used some damned common sense and logic youd realize that someone at 25% doesnt look at good as someone at 10%. Thats about a simple an explanation as it gets. His conditioning is greatly outweighed by the fact that he looks like piece of horse shit.

Conditioning is a factor. The same way muscle proportion is. Its not an ‘either or’ situation.