New James Bond Guy - Not Too Shabby

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Velvet wrote:
Still skinny though. If you’re “much more built” than a 7 year old girl, would you brag?

a person who writes this is either
a)dumb
b)a fatass
c)14 years old
[/quote]

For one, I wrote that, not velvet. I’m sorry I offended you, I had no clue that you felt so strongly about this new metrosexual ladies man. Got a problem with the way I view hollywood actors? Suck a lemon.

I can’t believe you actually took time away from masturbating to fight club to insult me.

[quote]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. [/quote]

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]Classy_Cojones wrote:
A “laides” is a mistype. You still got the meaning, though. Very perceptive.

Get as worked up as you want, fatso (20 inch arms at 280 pounds? good god), the fact of the matter is some of you folks simply can’t come to terms with the fact that, for certain roles, very muscular isn’t the key.

The thread was started by someone saying that Craig is the most muscular Bond to date, by far. He is. The bandwagon followed with accusations of him being barely more muscular than a 6 year old girl, and thus, unfit for the role.

You drive the bandwagon, you take the heat. [/quote]

Who is 280lbs? Fatso? You haven’t even seen a picture of me taken recently in the past year and a half so what the fuck are you talking about? When was I a “fatso”? You keep running your mouth and you keep showing just how retarded you really are. Thanks for dumbing down an entire thread. You are getting pretty good at it.

[quote]Leeuwer wrote:
Professor X wrote:

I just think the writers and directors they were choosing were beginning to suck.

Yeah. Bond movies were way too much about the action, and were losing more and more of the subtle plots that made the novels and early movies great.
I absolutely loved Goldeneye, but more as an action movie than as a Bond movie.

dukefan4ever wrote:

Plus, even Ian Fleming said Pierce Brosnan was the closest Bond to the actual character he created.

Now that quote you have to show.
Most of what I encounter about the “true” Bond actor said it was Timothy Dalton, who was the more cold, calculated but witty man that Bond really was according to Ian Fleming.[/quote]

Either way, they need to stop making movies simply because they make money and spend more time on giving the character more depth with a much more intriguing story line or plot. The shit they came out with last time was pure fluff designed to make some producers rich.

[quote]Ryu13 wrote:
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.

Mr2Geez replied:
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]

He’s definitely a lot bigger than little “I-wanna-be-as-cool-as-Ryu”.
Calling him skinny clearly shows that that he has no clue about physiology and is probably very young or insecure.

Again, James Bond should not be played by a huge guy with 18’’ arms. And I think most people will agree with that.

Classy_Cojones, you aren’t done posting, are you? I am waiting on you to show me the “fatso picture” of myself. Please find it. Please inform me of how I weigh 280lbs when I don’t. Don’t give up now. I mean, we do get to see a picture of YOU, right?

I highly doubt that Ian Fleming said that Brosnan was his favorite bond…considering he died in 1964. The writings have been carried on by new writers…here is a little quote about the bond he really loved…

“Fleming had expressed doubts about Sean Connery in his role as Agent 007. Fleming’s choise was the sophisticated David Niven, but after From Russia with Love he said that the actor was much as he had imagined Bond.”

Here is a quote about the current writers (Raymond Benson) favorite bond…

"Most Bond fans probably know the character from his many films, as opposed to the books. Sean Connery is Benson?s favorite Bond actor, but the identity of the actor who Benson believes best portrayed Fleming?s version of 007 may surprise you.

The actor who comes the closest to me was Timothy Dalton, Benson says of the Brit who starred as Bond in just two movies, The Living Daylights and License to Kill. `He had that sort of hard-edged, brooding personality. The literary Bond is very different from the film version. Bond in the books is a killer.

He?s very serious and cold-hearted. He?s not a nice guy. And Dalton played him that way. But,Benson adds,Connery will probably always be my favorite.` "

There you go…I will throw my lot in with Connery…sophisticated and sexy as hell. I know this eludes many of you men how us women find a man his age sexy…but sexy is an attitude not how you look or how old you are but how you carry yourself, speak and the eyes…

okay I am done now…carry on.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Classy_Cojones, you aren’t done posting, are you? I am waiting on you to show me the “fatso picture” of myself. Please find it. Please inform me of how I weigh 280lbs when I don’t. Don’t give up now. I mean, we do get to see a picture of YOU, right? [/quote]

You stated you have 20 inch arms and 260 or 280 pounds, can’t remember.

As for a photo of me, here it is. You can guess the weight and arm size.

Everyone considers Connery the best. I don’t think anyone did it better than him as far as his play with women and the action. Brosnan didn’t do a bad job though at all. As far as the character goes, I would put him after Connery even though some might not agree.

[quote]Classy_Cojones wrote:

You stated you have 20 inch arms and 260 or 280 pounds, can’t remember.

As for a photo of me, here it is. You can guess the weight and arm size. [/quote]

Guess the weight? Why don’t you tell us? You are developed but you are like where I was 5 years ago or more. You accused me of being a “fat so”. I am waiting for verification of this. You gave false info about my weight. Why?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Everyone considers Connery the best. I don’t think anyone did it better than him as far as his play with women and the action. Brosnan didn’t do a bad job though at all. As far as the character goes, I would put him after Connery even though some might not agree.[/quote]

i really liked roger moore. he was english through and through. saying that, moore had some really weak films plot wise.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Classy_Cojones wrote:

You stated you have 20 inch arms and 260 or 280 pounds, can’t remember.

As for a photo of me, here it is. You can guess the weight and arm size.

Guess the weight? Why don’t you tell us? You are developed but you are like where I was 5 years ago or more. You accused me of being a “fat so”. I am waiting for verification of this. You gave false info about my weight. Why? [/quote]

Ok…I hover around 200 pounds, with 18.5 inch arms cold.

I can’t get any bigger because I compete at 170 pounds in MMA…lots to cut.

Did you or did you no say your weight is 260 or 280? Yes, if you are 260 pounds with 20 inch arms, you either have incredibly shitty arm genetics (uncommon for black men), or you are a fatso.

This is the earliest pic I could find back when I was anywhere near your current level of development. It was taken back in 2001 I weighed 210lbs in this pic with 18" arms, clearly bigger than you are now. You are accusing me of what again?

[quote]Chris Jayne wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Everyone considers Connery the best. I don’t think anyone did it better than him as far as his play with women and the action. Brosnan didn’t do a bad job though at all. As far as the character goes, I would put him after Connery even though some might not agree.

i really liked roger moore. he was english through and through. saying that, moore had some really weak films plot wise. [/quote]

I remember him, but didn’t like the character much. You could tell that Connery was playing Connery. You could tell that Brosnan was adding much of his own personality to the role as well. Moore was “flat” as far as character…but that’s just my opinion.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is the earliest pic I could find back when I was anywhere near your current level of development. It was taken back in 2001 I weighed 210lbs in this pic with 18" arms, clearly bigger than you are now. You are accusing me of what again? [/quote]

I just realised that pic is too damn small. I blew it up a bit, shitty quality, but what the hell.

As stated before, I’ve got half an inch on my arms more than you in this pic. And I stay “at this level of development” because I’m a fighter, not a bodybuilder. When, and if, I decide to fight lighheavy, I will go up to 230-235.

Also, there is no way your arms are 18.5" in that pic. Stop fooling yourself. They might be 17.5", but no way are they over 18.

I’m just curious as to why someone would choose a screen name synonymous with “sophisticated nuts”.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, there is no way your arms are 18.5" in that pic. Stop fooling yourself. They might be 17.5", but no way are they over 18.[/quote]

Please notice arm size compared to head size or fist size. That’s the easiest way to tell…that you are wrong.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, there is no way your arms are 18.5" in that pic. Stop fooling yourself. They might be 17.5", but no way are they over 18.[/quote]

Aww come on Prof. I love ya, but I don’t see how the hell you can tell how big this guys arms are within a half inch from a photograph.

That’s just kinda silly.

Classy Cojones is a long-term troll on this site whom just about everyone dislikes, he adds absolutely nothing of value ever, and has an IQ that is approaching three digits.