“The 39-year-old gave a glimpse at the results of his consistent exercise regime as he covered up his muscular frame…”
…
I see this kind of thing all the time – it’s not just the Beckham example.
Beckham’s physique is… eh… I wouldn’t use the word ‘muscular’ at all… I’m not even sure about ‘frame’.
Yet, media, and a good portion of the general public praise this.
Why? Is it just a side effect of Beckham’s celebrity status? Or is it because of the incredibly low standards that the general public has w.r.t. fitness, strength, athleticism and muscle (visible biceps = hyoooge in many circles)?
Also, does a ‘normal guy’ with the same physique as Beckham ever get praise? For some reason, I don’t think so…
He’s a soccer player. Most soccer players are all slim and athletic. Face the facts though, that is what the majority of girls or women want. No homo, but the dude is a good looking guy so I think girls would swoon to him no matter what.
That dude could literally eat shit for a living and women would still want him. So the media says he is musuclar, fit, blah blah blah to help justify why women want him. The fact of the matter is that most people on this site will be more muscular than him. Guess what? Nobody gives a shit about you, because you aren’t this hot creamsicle looking mother fucker. People want Abercromie & Fitch, not super roidz I live in the weight room…bitch. If you want to work out to get laid then try to look like Brad Pitt from Fight Club, or this no talent tattooed Brit. Ya I said no talent. Nobody should give a shit about sports anyways, let alone soccer.
[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
That dude could literally eat shit for a living and women would still want him. So the media says he is musuclar, fit, blah blah blah to help justify why women want him. The fact of the matter is that most people on this site will be more muscular than him. Guess what? Nobody gives a shit about you, because you aren’t this hot creamsicle looking mother fucker. People want Abercromie & Fitch, not super roidz I live in the weight room…bitch. If you want to work out to get laid then try to look like Brad Pitt from Fight Club, or this no talent tattooed Brit. Ya I said no talent. Nobody should give a shit about sports anyways, let alone soccer.
/Mind Vomit[/quote]
Haha, that’s pretty funny. But nobody gives a shit about sports?
No he is not muscular, and I’m not sure he’s more than lean in that photo.
But don’t forget that the English give Beckham Demi-God status. He would have to mow down a bus load of school kiddies with a machine gun before people would be upset. Possibly two busloads before they took the gun away.
You know, that’s not a physique I personally prefer (I’d rather on the heavy/dense side than on the slender side) but to suggest that he is lacking in muscle or fitness when he’s a world class athlete seems silly to me. To decide based on someone’s photo caption that this is the look “women today” prefer is also silly. They would have captioned someone with considerably more muscle mass similarly. It’s just a celebrity photographer, captioning one photo of a guy whose claim to fame is sport. The dude is fit. He’s muscular. What he is NOT is a bodybuilder or power lifter. So what?
It’s like the post I saw once suggesting that white women “hate” Asian women because they’re so hot. But no, until I read that it had never occurred to me to concern myself with competition from Asian women. There are plenty of men who want exactly my body type, as there are apparently many men who prefer Asian women as the “body ideal.” Luckily there are a lot of people, so everyone can be different without being threatened by someone else who is found attractive by some portion of the population.
Check out the shoes he’s carrying. He must have done a spin workout which leads me to believe he was looking to increase conditioning without increasing impact. Or, maybe he’s got an injury.
Media outlets know people worship at the altar of celebrity, and use this remain in business because actual news which impacts the day-to-day lives of individuals does not generate sales. The focus on celebrities is extremely vapid, so they’re given glowing portrayals so editors can legitimize continuously publishing their boring lives.
Clicked the link, and in skimming the article I see it has little to do with his muscularity. It’s a selling point to get page views and generate interest in a cleverly inserted product. This is partially an ad, and Beckham is a walking advertisement.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Check out the shoes he’s carrying. He must have done a spin workout which leads me to believe he was looking to increase conditioning without increasing impact. Or, maybe he’s got an injury.[/quote]
based on his shoes, i’d say he’s rocking about 8% BF
That limey redcoat ball kicker is not muscular. I am sure if you could separate him from his fame and status the number of women would think he is sexy would be the same as the number that don’t. Women are fickled creatures. There is a women in my office who married a guy with the same physique as Beckham, but she goes gaga over guys all over the map from “toned” to plump. There is no rhyme or reason to it.
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Puny. Plain and simple.
But compared to the average fat American, he looks “athletic.”[/quote]
Dude’s athletic regardless with whom he is compared - his body comp reflects this
If you compare him to ANY fat person from ANYWHERE he’ll look athletic. If you compare him to any athletic person he’ll still look athletic b/c he’s athletic. If you compare him to a peak body builder, he’ll look smaller and less muscular but none-the-less he’ll still be and look athletic. Dude’s athletic.
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Puny. Plain and simple.
But compared to the average fat American, he looks “athletic.”[/quote]
Dude’s athletic regardless with whom he is compared - his body comp reflects this
If you compare him to ANY fat person from ANYWHERE he’ll look athletic. If you compare him to any athletic person he’ll still look athletic b/c he’s athletic. If you compare him to a peak body builder, he’ll look smaller and less muscular but none-the-less he’ll still be and look athletic. Dude’s athletic.[/quote]
Of course, but you kind of missed my point.
He is NOT muscular. The media sees athletic as muscular.
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Puny. Plain and simple.
But compared to the average fat American, he looks “athletic.”[/quote]
Dude’s athletic regardless with whom he is compared - his body comp reflects this
If you compare him to ANY fat person from ANYWHERE he’ll look athletic. If you compare him to any athletic person he’ll still look athletic b/c he’s athletic. If you compare him to a peak body builder, he’ll look smaller and less muscular but none-the-less he’ll still be and look athletic. Dude’s athletic.[/quote]
Of course, but you kind of missed my point.
He is NOT muscular. The media sees athletic as muscular.
[/quote]
That wasn’t what I was responding to. You compared him to “the average fat American” saying he was athletic compared to that body type - to which I responded the way I did pointing out a lot of irrelevancies in your comparison. Fat is fat regardless of geographical location … it’s actually a little interesting why you chose to compare him to fat Americans rather than fat Brits (since he’s British), but that’s a different conversation.
I couldn’t give a fuck less what the media thinks what is and isn’t muscular but I am aware of the media’s inconsistencies regarding levels and types of fitness and to whom they assign which labels.
And as for whom missed the point - I would say that falls on you. The point was I was really just nitpicking and being a dick … Dude is puny, on that we can both agree
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Puny. Plain and simple.
But compared to the average fat American, he looks “athletic.”[/quote]
Dude’s athletic regardless with whom he is compared - his body comp reflects this
If you compare him to ANY fat person from ANYWHERE he’ll look athletic. If you compare him to any athletic person he’ll still look athletic b/c he’s athletic. If you compare him to a peak body builder, he’ll look smaller and less muscular but none-the-less he’ll still be and look athletic. Dude’s athletic.[/quote]
Of course, but you kind of missed my point.
He is NOT muscular. The media sees athletic as muscular.
[/quote]
That wasn’t what I was responding to. You compared him to “the average fat American” saying he was athletic compared to that body type - to which I responded the way I did pointing out a lot of irrelevancies in your comparison. Fat is fat regardless of geographical location … it’s actually a little interesting why you chose to compare him to fat Americans rather than fat Brits (since he’s British), but that’s a different conversation.
I couldn’t give a fuck less what the media thinks what is and isn’t muscular but I am aware of the media’s inconsistencies regarding levels and types of fitness and to whom they assign which labels.
And as for whom missed the point - I would say that falls on you. The point was I was really just nitpicking and being a dick … Dude is puny, on that we can both agree[/quote]
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
He is NOT muscular. The media sees athletic as muscular.
[/quote]
This is starting to sound like the pissing match about Hugh Jackman deadlifting 400 pounds for a couple reps.
I’m pretty sure Becks isn’t worried whether men on a bodybuilding site think he’s muscular, but just because someone isn’t ready to step on a bodybuilding stage, or a powerlifting platform, doesn’t mean you have to shit on them for not being muscular the way you want the word to be used. I mean, do you feel better about yourself because you right this wrong, clarifying that David Beckham is “athletic” instead of “muscular” when you, in fact, are more “muscular” than he is?
It’s just a figure of speech. Would you have been happier if the media said that Bechkam covered his athletic physique…?
[quote]CLUNK wrote:
Puny. Plain and simple.
But compared to the average fat American, he looks “athletic.”[/quote]
Dude’s athletic regardless with whom he is compared - his body comp reflects this
If you compare him to ANY fat person from ANYWHERE he’ll look athletic. If you compare him to any athletic person he’ll still look athletic b/c he’s athletic. If you compare him to a peak body builder, he’ll look smaller and less muscular but none-the-less he’ll still be and look athletic. Dude’s athletic.[/quote]
Of course, but you kind of missed my point.
He is NOT muscular. The media sees athletic as muscular.
[/quote]
That wasn’t what I was responding to. You compared him to “the average fat American” saying he was athletic compared to that body type - to which I responded the way I did pointing out a lot of irrelevancies in your comparison. Fat is fat regardless of geographical location … it’s actually a little interesting why you chose to compare him to fat Americans rather than fat Brits (since he’s British), but that’s a different conversation.
I couldn’t give a fuck less what the media thinks what is and isn’t muscular but I am aware of the media’s inconsistencies regarding levels and types of fitness and to whom they assign which labels.
And as for whom missed the point - I would say that falls on you. The point was I was really just nitpicking and being a dick … Dude is puny, on that we can both agree[/quote]
So you admit you were just being a dick.
Okay.
[/quote]
For the most part…it’s really kind of difficult to take a conversation like this TOO seriously.
I mean we are talking about a tabloid assigning muscularity to David Beckham. Its avid consumers wouldn’t know muscular if they fell into it and drowned.
Also, what women find attractive varies so greatly from location to location and across age groups it’s an exercise in futility to argue one way or the other or to generalize, imho.
… Dude is puny, on that we can both agree