Paco, Paco, Paco

Training Bodybuilding
161

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
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)

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.

[/quote]

True. You do that to me (and lots of others) all the time. Bonez isn’t trolling - he’s just telling it like it is. [/quote]

Dude, you know what…you and everyone else with this much of an issue with everything I type should put me on “ignore” and save the wasted internet bandwidth needed to sustain these mega bitch sessions.

PLEASE do that.[/quote]

Says the guy that isn’t ignoring posts. Why don’t you put me and Bonze and Way and anyone else you disagree with on ignore? Save the bandwidth.[/quote]

? I was waiting on you to answer the QUESTION I asked you pages back that you tried to skirt around.

Plan to keep skirtin’?[/quote]

You need to be more specific, I answered the ones I didn’t think were rhetorical.
The interchangeable one? I answered No.

The needing help one? I though was rhetorical, because I never offered help. You definitely make a lot of popular threads unlike myself. But what does that have to do with anything?

You also never answered my direct question to you. So how about it? Plan to keep skirtin’?[/quote]

You aren’t very good at this. I asked you if you believed that someone like Flex Wheeler had equal “aesthetics” to someone like Branch.

Now, I know I typed that clearly that time.

162

Also, to answer your “direct question”…no, I won’t be putting you on ignore…because you aren’t doing shit right now but causing this thread to be viewed more.

Uh…thanks.

163

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
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)

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.

[/quote]

True. You do that to me (and lots of others) all the time. Bonez isn’t trolling - he’s just telling it like it is. [/quote]

Dude, you know what…you and everyone else with this much of an issue with everything I type should put me on “ignore” and save the wasted internet bandwidth needed to sustain these mega bitch sessions.

PLEASE do that.[/quote]

Says the guy that isn’t ignoring posts. Why don’t you put me and Bonze and Way and anyone else you disagree with on ignore? Save the bandwidth.[/quote]

? I was waiting on you to answer the QUESTION I asked you pages back that you tried to skirt around.

Plan to keep skirtin’?[/quote]

You need to be more specific, I answered the ones I didn’t think were rhetorical.
The interchangeable one? I answered No.

The needing help one? I though was rhetorical, because I never offered help. You definitely make a lot of popular threads unlike myself. But what does that have to do with anything?

You also never answered my direct question to you. So how about it? Plan to keep skirtin’?[/quote]

You aren’t very good at this. I asked you if you believed that someone like Flex Wheeler had equal “aesthetics” to someone like Branch.

Now, I know I typed that clearly that time.[/quote]

You meant the part in my previous post where I asked if you were asking about the interchangeable question and told you that I had answered “no”?

Now I know i typed clearly.

164

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You meant the part in my previous post where I asked if you were asking about the interchangeable question and told you that I had answered “no”?

Now I know i typed clearly.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but your doublespeak got in the way. I will ask again, do you think Flex Wheeler has equal “aesthetics” to someone Like Branch.

You can answer the question…or keep being a bitch.

165

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, to answer your “direct question”…no, I won’t be putting you on ignore…because you aren’t doing shit right now but causing this thread to be viewed more.

Uh…thanks.[/quote]

LOL at measuring yourself by the popularity of threads. whatever floats your boat man.

But that wasn’t the question I was talking about. I asked you why you think it is that you are always negative about white BBers and always defensive of black ones. I laid out some suggestions for how this could be and everything. I even related it to Paco. All of which was ignored from my postings.

I was asking how you thought racial genetics (beyond skin color) affect aesthetics. Muscle shape, muscle length, muscle texture, vascularity, est. Some of these characteristics are different between the races. I was asking what you think is responcible for your trend towards preferring black guys.

166

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You meant the part in my previous post where I asked if you were asking about the interchangeable question and told you that I had answered “no”?

Now I know i typed clearly.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but your doublespeak got in the way. I will ask again, do you think Flex Wheeler has equal “aesthetics” to someone Like Branch.

You can answer the question…or keep being a bitch.[/quote]

To answer the question for the 4th time. No. There is nothing interchangeable about them. I am dumbfounded as to how you arrived at even asking the question. And for the record Flex kicks branches ass. But again, what does this have anything to do with?

167

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, to answer your “direct question”…no, I won’t be putting you on ignore…because you aren’t doing shit right now but causing this thread to be viewed more.

Uh…thanks.[/quote]

LOL at measuring yourself by the popularity of threads. whatever floats your boat man.

But that wasn’t the question I was talking about. I asked you why you think it is that you are always negative about white BBers and always defensive of black ones. I laid out some suggestions for how this could be and everything. I even related it to Paco. All of which was ignored from my postings.

I was asking how you thought racial genetics (beyond skin color) affect aesthetics. Muscle shape, muscle length, muscle texture, vascularity, est. Some of these characteristics are different between the races. I was asking what you think is responcible for your trend towards preferring black guys.[/quote]

I don’t care about the color of them. I mention Evan just as much as I mention Dexter Jackson.

I agree with the other poster…I don’t remember you EVER even saying anything positive in defense of any black bodybuilders.

Why is that?

I think we should look into why you don’t do this as well. maybe you can make your own thread about it and really get down to some answers.

168

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You meant the part in my previous post where I asked if you were asking about the interchangeable question and told you that I had answered “no”?

Now I know i typed clearly.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but your doublespeak got in the way. I will ask again, do you think Flex Wheeler has equal “aesthetics” to someone Like Branch.

You can answer the question…or keep being a bitch.[/quote]

To answer the question for the 4th time. No. There is nothing interchangeable about them. I am dumbfounded as to how you arrived at even asking the question. And for the record Flex kicks branches ass. But again, what does this have anything to do with?[/quote]

It has to do with what this thread is about…that Branch is NOT one of the most esthetic bodybuilders on a pro stage and that he wins anyway.

I was using him in relation to someone like Flex or Freeman and comparing it to the relation of Paco and Branch.

Funny how you weren’t able to put that together yourself. Probably spent too much time worrying about who’s black and who’s white.

169

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You meant the part in my previous post where I asked if you were asking about the interchangeable question and told you that I had answered “no”?

Now I know i typed clearly.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but your doublespeak got in the way. I will ask again, do you think Flex Wheeler has equal “aesthetics” to someone Like Branch.

You can answer the question…or keep being a bitch.[/quote]

To answer the question for the 4th time. No. There is nothing interchangeable about them. I am dumbfounded as to how you arrived at even asking the question. And for the record Flex kicks branches ass. But again, what does this have anything to do with?[/quote]

It has to do with what this thread is about…that Branch is NOT one of the most esthetic bodybuilders on a pro stage and that he wins anyway.

I was using him in relation to someone like Flex or Freeman and comparing it to the relation of Paco and Branch.

Funny how you weren’t able to put that together yourself. Probably spent too much time worrying about who’s black and who’s white.[/quote]

Uh, I didn’t know we were discussing flex and freeman and paco and branch as being interchangeable. I don’t think anyone is interchangeable. Noting that, Flex has nothing to do with anything.

170

171

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, to answer your “direct question”…no, I won’t be putting you on ignore…because you aren’t doing shit right now but causing this thread to be viewed more.

Uh…thanks.[/quote]

LOL at measuring yourself by the popularity of threads. whatever floats your boat man.

But that wasn’t the question I was talking about. I asked you why you think it is that you are always negative about white BBers and always defensive of black ones. I laid out some suggestions for how this could be and everything. I even related it to Paco. All of which was ignored from my postings.

I was asking how you thought racial genetics (beyond skin color) affect aesthetics. Muscle shape, muscle length, muscle texture, vascularity, est. Some of these characteristics are different between the races. I was asking what you think is responcible for your trend towards preferring black guys.[/quote]

I don’t care about the color of them. I mention Evan just as much as I mention Dexter Jackson.

I agree with the other poster…I don’t remember you EVER even saying anything positive in defense of any black bodybuilders.

Why is that?

I think we should look into why you don’t do this as well. maybe you can make your own thread about it and really get down to some answers.
[/quote]

I don’t think I’ve ever said much in defense of ANY BBers. So I’m completely even. I did say “branch looks amazing”. But I also just said flex kicks branch’s butt.

I don’t have to defend black BBers if I don’t defend white ones.

172

If you want to talk pure proportion and build, I probably would most want to look like flex or heath our of any BBers out there. BUT, and here is where I think you some times get mixed up, BBing is not about what I like your what you like. It is about doing what you have to to get the most points on a judge’s scorecard. That is BBing. Cutler is a better BBer that Flex. He scores more points. That’s the bottom line. Yes I think flex looks better, but what I prefer has no bearing whatsoever on what BBing is.

Edit:
So, if you are arguing personal preference, then I probably agree with your views of aesthetics most of the time. However, in a BBing thread, talking about the sport of BBing, it should really be about what scores points. Branch scores points. Branch has a great BBing aesthetic even if I don’t think he looks great personally (compared to some others).

But I think the other real bottom line is that you are only as good as what you do on stage. Some of the guys both you and I like simply don’t pull it off on stage where guys like branch do.

173

So X you made a thread where you supposedly were asking a legitimate question. As we are seven
pages in and a couple of people have given answers which you apparently don’t agree with
(i.e. Warren has far superior aesthetics to Paco, Warren has a better personality than Paco,etc
) perhaps you would like to put forth an answer to your own posed question.

Of course if your original question really was “loaded” and you really were just trying to rile up people,
as some have implied here, then I guess you succeeded in doing this. Seems rather pointless though
doesn’t it?

174

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
but then the thread is confusing to me (but I’m easily confused).
[/quote]

You are not alone. I thought this thread was gonna be about Paco, but now there’s Warrens and Cutlers and Wheelers flying around and everyone is calling everyone names and the only think that I managed to understand so far is that Jay Cutler is a refrigerator.

I’m gonna get a sandwich and try to read this again.

175

paco looks like he came straight out of a comic book. he’s very impressive. maybe the reason for him not receiving more accolades is because he is not american, branch does have that blue collar thing going for him that many in this country can relate to. although if you can understand spanish and watch some of paco’s videos on youtube you can tell he likes to have some fun and is a likeable guy, maybe that disconnect is hurting him with the fans

176

[quote]pja wrote:
So X you made a thread where you supposedly were asking a legitimate question. As we are seven
pages in and a couple of people have given answers which you apparently don’t agree with
(i.e. Warren has far superior aesthetics to Paco, Warren has a better personality than Paco,etc
) perhaps you would like to put forth an answer to your own posed question.

Of course if your original question really was “loaded” and you really were just trying to rile up people,
as some have implied here, then I guess you succeeded in doing this. Seems rather pointless though
doesn’t it?[/quote]

? It is a legit question. WTF? If I was making a thread just to get people riled up, how dumb would those people be for continuing to get riled up?

I asked a question…because Paco surprised me by looking pretty damn impressive in that video. I then asked why he can never win anything when guys like Branch often win BECAUSE OF their conditioning above most other traits…when Paco has insane conditioning also.

I compared Branch to guys like Freeman who have a small waist and made the claim that the difference between those guys and Branch is about the difference between Branch and Paco.

Somehow, this led to being called racist and half the board throwing a hissy fit.

I mean, honestly, if my plan was for that to happen, then you would blame the people acting like that at this point seeing as in two different threads in the last two weeks, they act like they are trying to attack for no reason.

177

[quote]gangstpmp3 wrote:
paco looks like he came straight out of a comic book. he’s very impressive. maybe the reason for him not receiving more accolades is because he is not american, branch does have that blue collar thing going for him that many in this country can relate to. although if you can understand spanish and watch some of paco’s videos on youtube you can tell he likes to have some fun and is a likeable guy, maybe that disconnect is hurting him with the fans[/quote]

I do agree with that.

178

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pja wrote:
So X you made a thread where you supposedly were asking a legitimate question. As we are seven
pages in and a couple of people have given answers which you apparently don’t agree with
(i.e. Warren has far superior aesthetics to Paco, Warren has a better personality than Paco,etc
) perhaps you would like to put forth an answer to your own posed question.

Of course if your original question really was “loaded” and you really were just trying to rile up people,
as some have implied here, then I guess you succeeded in doing this. Seems rather pointless though
doesn’t it?[/quote]

? It is a legit question. WTF? If I was making a thread just to get people riled up, how dumb would those people be for continuing to get riled up?

I asked a question…because Paco surprised me by looking pretty damn impressive in that video. I then asked why he can never win anything when guys like Branch often win BECAUSE OF their conditioning above most other traits…when Paco has insane conditioning also.

I compared Branch to guys like Freeman who have a small waist and made the claim that the difference between those guys and Branch is about the difference between Branch and Paco.

Somehow, this led to being called racist and half the board throwing a hissy fit.

I mean, honestly, if my plan was for that to happen, then you would blame the people acting like that at this point seeing as in two different threads in the last two weeks, they act like they are trying to attack for no reason.[/quote]

Fair enough. Would you like to give your opinion as to why Branch places so much
higher than Paco?

179

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Who the fuck is getting on a pro stage at 25% body fat?

No one disagrees that conditioning is a factor in what decides the overall winner.

Conditioning can be so variable that it single handedly kept Dennis James from being more of a heavy hitter several times in his career. He can’t change his bone structure. He worked to get those muscles in balance and tried to get as much symmetry as possible, but minor differences in conditioning, while definitely what goes into the final choice of a winner, are not what defines the AESTHETICS of someone on a pro stage…BECAUSE NO ONE IS FAT. They award conditioning in terms of veins showing, striations, “grittiness” of the skin.

Further, did someone piss in your fucking protein drinks lately? You are like a little kid with this shit. You aren’t impressing anyone with the attacks or the attitude here.

[/quote]

How bout this explanation.

“Aesthetics” is not a criterium on a judge’s card.

Muscle size, symmetry (left and right), balance (upper body vs lower body), proportion (muscle groups compared to each other), conditioning, and presentation (posing) ARE criteria.

Conditioning is a PART of aethetics. All of the things right there ^ are how ‘aesthetics’ are determined.

It doesnt matter that no one competes at 25%. No one competes at 10% either. My statement is still valid. And you know it is. And you cant invalidate it so you simply commented and shot down an irrelevant aspect. What you just did is called a ‘straw man’. (thats a poor route to take if youre trying to make a valid point, btw)

Your whole post about Dennis James is irrelevant. Step on stage then tell me theres no difference between 3% and 5%.

[/quote]

I’m sorry, but you are now going to TELL ME what my opinion should be? This is a fucking discussion. You and a few others seem to be the only ones literally TRYING to have an argument.[/quote]

It is not an opinion that conditioning is a factor in determining what is aesthetically pleasing. You dont know what youre saying anymore.

Why dont you just man up and respond to the substance of my posts instead of getting all butt hurt that people are picking on you. Its getting pathetic. Seriously

180

No doubt conditioning is a huge factor in bodybuiding. thats why cutler and warren can beat freeman and dexter who might look prettier(aesthletics).

Not to say Cutler and Warren dont have aesthletics.

I just dont think conditioning is that much of a factor regarding aesthletics on the pro level. they are all conditioned enough to allow their symmetry and proportion show through. You hear many times that guys like freeman have good aethletics, but they didnt “nail it” regarding conditioning. But you dont hear very often that someone is in good condition, but they didnt nail their aethletics.