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.
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.
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.