Now this is bloated maybe preggers
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I actually think that Vic’s condition in those pics is the perfect level of leannes to walk around with in everyday life. Shoulder striations, abs, pec separation and tight obliques without the intense vasuclarity is a very good look. [/quote]
Agreed.
And to any newbies unaware of it, if the only time you have ever seen someone like this is when they are in a mag or internet photo with perfect lighting at 6% body fat or less and you have never seen someone that large in person, gee, seeing them again at even 10% body fat would look different to you.
Like Bone wrote, you don’t compare some guy who weighs damn near 300lbs in the off season to someone who doesn’t break 200lbs on a good day. If you gain 100lbs of lean body mass, your body will not look the same as it did when you were little.
This is why every clueless troll calls everyone “bloated” if they aren’t in perpetual contest shape.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Game Time wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Come on man. You are 6’1 180 at “8-12%” bf. Stop comparing yourself to guys that are 100 pounds heavier than you at similar bodyfat levels. You sound foolish. Admitting that you ‘lean out’ at your current height and weight is damning enough to your argument but just understand that carrying the amount of muscle that top pros carry dramatically alters the aesthetics of ones physique. [/quote]
I always get the feeling your yelling when you post haha. Regardless, point taken.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Is it just me but did anyone notice that the Big Nasty’s back is sorta gone? Looked like he was pulling a Brewer in one of those shots. [/quote]
People need to stop judging body parts based on one photo when that pose shown isn’t even emphasizing that body part. You don’t know if that pic was snapped in mid pose or not and judging back development from a front shot is just wrong.
[quote]Game Time wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Game Time wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Come on man. You are 6’1 180 at “8-12%” bf. Stop comparing yourself to guys that are 100 pounds heavier than you at similar bodyfat levels. You sound foolish. Admitting that you ‘lean out’ at your current height and weight is damning enough to your argument but just understand that carrying the amount of muscle that top pros carry dramatically alters the aesthetics of ones physique.
I always get the feeling your yelling when you post haha. Regardless, point taken.
[/quote]
Lol na I’m not yelling, nor am I mad. Good pics but the whole “offseason BBers are fat” schtick is getting old and needs to stop. That’s all.
Here is another of Tony.
Has anyone had gyno removed? Would that result in an indent, similar to what Tony has in the pic. It’s hard to tell because the picture gets pixilated/shrunk down due to the forum
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Like Bone wrote, you don’t compare some guy who weighs damn near 300lbs in the off season to someone who doesn’t break 200lbs on a good day. If you gain 100lbs of lean body mass, your body will not look the same as it did when you were little.
[/quote]
^^^Not even with a hard on, wearing XXL Fubu jumpsuit thats soaking wet, and sporting size 16 work boots. LMAO!
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Is it just me but did anyone notice that the Big Nasty’s back is sorta gone? Looked like he was pulling a Brewer in one of those shots. Or maybe he wasn’t hitting them. None of those guys are bloated. You can’t say Vic looks fat. You just cant! [/quote]
The first pic of RC looks like he’s not quite hitting the pose yet, but I agree, even in the 2nd pic it looks like he’s lost some size to it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Is it just me but did anyone notice that the Big Nasty’s back is sorta gone? Looked like he was pulling a Brewer in one of those shots.
People need to stop judging body parts based on one photo when that pose shown isn’t even emphasizing that body part. You don’t know if that pic was snapped in mid pose or not and judging back development from a front shot is just wrong.
[/quote]
One of the pics does look like a front lat spread of sorts. Thats basically what I was using to make my assumption.
[quote]Game Time wrote:
Here is another of Tony.
Has anyone had gyno removed? Would that result in an indent, similar to what Tony has in the pic. It’s hard to tell because the picture gets pixilated/shrunk down due to the forum[/quote]
Dude, stop judging pictures. You would be better off surrounding yourself with people who either are that big or are trying to be. You are nitpicking certain images based on shadows and lighting and jumping to conclusions.
Ronnie still looks damn impressive, and always will.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
… judging back development from a front shot is just wrong.
[/quote]
I can tell this guy (whoever he might be) has a very wide back front this front shot.
[quote]Game Time wrote:
Here is another of Tony.
Has anyone had gyno removed? Would that result in an indent, similar to what Tony has in the pic. It’s hard to tell because the picture gets pixilated/shrunk down due to the forum[/quote]
Well considering the amount of money someone would need to spend on aromatase inhibitors to prevent gyno over the course of a pro career, it would probably be cheaper, in the long run, to pay for surgery to get the gland removed. I doubt anyone knows for certain who has or hasn’t had surgery. If done well there shouldn’t be any noticeable scars.
Or even this front shot.
I’m just saying, maybe it’s the pose, but it does appear as if he’s lost some size in his back. It’s not even an insult to him or anything. He really has nothing left to prove and is still gigantic.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
… judging back development from a front shot is just wrong.
I can tell this guy (whoever he might be) has a very wide back front this front shot.[/quote]
…and you could still be off about how far he can spread his lats if that was the only shot of him available. We all know how big his back was then so no one is in doubt based on that photo…however, if you were to start judging every bodybuilder you see from front shots as far as back development, you would often be wrong.
This is the same as judging Centopani’s trap development from one photo that isn’t even a crab shot.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Game Time wrote:
Here is another of Tony.
Has anyone had gyno removed? Would that result in an indent, similar to what Tony has in the pic. It’s hard to tell because the picture gets pixilated/shrunk down due to the forum
Well considering the amount of money someone would need to spend on aromatase inhibitors to prevent gyno over the course of a pro career, it would probably be cheaper, in the long run, to pay for surgery to get the gland removed. I doubt anyone knows for certain who has or hasn’t had surgery. If done well there shouldn’t be any noticeable scars.[/quote]
He was trying to say there was a DENT where his nipple is based on that one shot…as if there aren’t thousands of pics of the man to show that to not be the case.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
BONEZ217 wrote:
Game Time wrote:
Here is another of Tony.
Has anyone had gyno removed? Would that result in an indent, similar to what Tony has in the pic. It’s hard to tell because the picture gets pixilated/shrunk down due to the forum
Well considering the amount of money someone would need to spend on aromatase inhibitors to prevent gyno over the course of a pro career, it would probably be cheaper, in the long run, to pay for surgery to get the gland removed. I doubt anyone knows for certain who has or hasn’t had surgery. If done well there shouldn’t be any noticeable scars.
He was trying to say there was a DENT where his nipple is based on that one shot…as if there aren’t thousands of pics of the man to show that to not be the case.[/quote]
I don’t believe you!! Prove it. Provide sources… At least 2000 pics please.
ha
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is the same as judging Centopani’s trap development from one photo that isn’t even a crab shot.[/quote]
Man, you’d have to be a real asshole to do that.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Is it just me but did anyone notice that the Big Nasty’s back is sorta gone? Looked like he was pulling a Brewer in one of those shots.
People need to stop judging body parts based on one photo when that pose shown isn’t even emphasizing that body part. You don’t know if that pic was snapped in mid pose or not and judging back development from a front shot is just wrong.
One of the pics does look like a front lat spread of sorts. Thats basically what I was using to make my assumption. [/quote]
He wasn’t flaring the lats in that shot.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is the same as judging Centopani’s trap development from one photo that isn’t even a crab shot.
Man, you’d have to be a real asshole to do that.
[/quote]
Like, I KNOW!!