[quote]Avoids Roids wrote:
If your 5’ tall and a muscular 175 pounds, you are big but short. If you are 6’7" tall and 220 pounds, you are tall but not big.
Arnold once compared himself to Frank Zane. He based it on height and how much each would likely have weighed without working out. He then divided their current contest weight by their “no training” weight to determine the % of muscle each added.
Arnold’s conclusion was that Zane was actually the “bigger” man because he had added more relative muscle to his natural physique than Arnold had.
Moral of the Story;
Being short or tall, results from unchangeable genetics.
Being small or big, results from how hard an individual is willing to work.
Not everybody can be BIG and TALL but everybody can be BIG.
Note: Excluded from my definition of ‘big’ are fat people with no musculature. Being tall (or short) and a lard ass does not make you “big” in my book. [/quote]
Dumbest. Post. Ever.
Who said that a short guy can’t be “big”? No one here would say Franco Columbo was not big.
So I’m not sure what your point was.