Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: che on July 23, 2010, 04:38:56 PM

Title: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: che on July 23, 2010, 04:38:56 PM
Who has/had the worst structure ?

(http://www.bodybuilding-pics.com/53/images/Art_Atwood_119.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb192.jpg)

(http://www.artatwood.com/gallery/images/62b.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb436.jpg)

(http://www.dutchbodybuilding.com/gallery/data/642/RH9K3568.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb477.jpg)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sWkb28E8HIE/R_dbnFDyXRI/AAAAAAAAAhM/SqR9yi7xvTI/s320/aa22.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb125.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OwjlM7QTyok/R_QwqKKPScI/AAAAAAAAAoc/OqRO1Tp8KAo/s400/ART+ATWOOD+050.jpg)

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb11.jpg)
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: SF1900 on July 23, 2010, 04:40:48 PM
Definitely Paco.  Look how long his torso is. Plus, he is a perfect square. At least Atwood has some shape to him, not much, but still better than Paco.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 23, 2010, 04:43:27 PM
Add that Greek dude Mike Kilifoclo-whatever his name is.
People say Art had a big chest, I don't see it, I mean, it may be big, but on his stucture it is not. They both look odd as hell, like some blind muscle schmoe just sewed together bodyparts
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: oldman on July 23, 2010, 04:46:53 PM
then u better add Dennis James in that mix...
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Skeletor on July 23, 2010, 04:47:20 PM
Who has/had the worst structure ?

(http://www.bodybuilding-pics.com/53/images/Art_Atwood_119.jpg)

Atwood looks horrible in this pic. Droopy chest (and also a bump on his left pec, wth), small forearms plus the ridiculous thong (looks like he was going to a G4P session) and brutal baldness.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: che on July 23, 2010, 04:48:57 PM
Definitely Paco.  Look how long his torso is. Plus, he is a perfect square. At least Atwood has some shape to him, not much, but still better than Paco.
I agree

Add that Greek dude Mike Kilifoclo-whatever his name is.
People say Art had a big chest, I don't see it, I mean, it may be big, but on his stucture it is not. They both look odd as hell, like some blind muscle schmoe just sewed together bodyparts
Big chest in the side tri
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HL4X_TvPDsw/S_6vsBXik3I/AAAAAAAAJlM/AxwZyyfDOs0/s1600/Art_Atwood_13.jpg)

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb424.jpg)
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Shockwave on July 23, 2010, 04:53:57 PM
Atwood actually has wide lats and some sort of taper. Paco has nothing, hes a box. I dont know why people called Cutler the fridge when Paco is competeing.
Seriously, gotta hand it to Paco that he did the best with what hes got. But hes flat out the worst structure and aesthetics ive ever seen on a BB. What a waste of muscle.  :-\
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: SF1900 on July 23, 2010, 04:59:36 PM
I agree
 Big chest in the side tri
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HL4X_TvPDsw/S_6vsBXik3I/AAAAAAAAJlM/AxwZyyfDOs0/s1600/Art_Atwood_13.jpg)

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb424.jpg)

His the first pic photoshopped? His hamstrings look unreal  :o :o
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Shockwave on July 23, 2010, 05:03:04 PM
No its not, Atwoods muscle literally hung off his bone, his muscle was odd looking too, very pumped up looking, like his chest and traps. The man was a monster.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 23, 2010, 05:03:25 PM
I agree
 Big chest in the side tri
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HL4X_TvPDsw/S_6vsBXik3I/AAAAAAAAJlM/AxwZyyfDOs0/s1600/Art_Atwood_13.jpg)

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb424.jpg)
Artwood's hams look odd in that shot, like they are lower than his quads, look at Paco's versus his. Even though Artwood's pop out, they (the hams) should be exactly opposite of the quads

and whoever said Dennis James, DJ has a excellent structure, he looked his best when he turned pro back in 1998.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Mr Nobody on July 23, 2010, 05:08:56 PM
Paco wins.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 23, 2010, 05:20:22 PM
They both have structures adapted for lifting heavy objects. I can imagine Paco as some sort of 14th century stonemason or woodsman.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: affeman on July 23, 2010, 05:25:36 PM
That conditioning is just unbelieveable. Seriously, I think that guy has surpassed Munzer when it comes to being shredded and dry.

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb477.jpg)
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: BayGBM on July 23, 2010, 06:19:09 PM
Bay likey!  :P
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: IceCold on July 24, 2010, 12:32:26 AM
That conditioning is just unbelieveable. Seriously, I think that guy has surpassed Munzer when it comes to being shredded and dry.

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb477.jpg)


nah.

no one is more ripped than mr. ripped.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rw_U1LlrOFE/STW9X-ITKDI/AAAAAAAABQM/WoyeeGgx2A4/s400/andreas)
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 24, 2010, 12:46:38 AM
Bay likey!  :P
For a gay black man, you like the most unsymmetrical, unbalance white men. I swear you ARE like a stereotypical straight black man who likes ugly white women.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: WillGrant on July 24, 2010, 01:49:23 AM
For a gay black man, you like the most unsymmetrical, unbalance white men. I swear you ARE like a stereotypical straight black man who likes ugly white women.
;D
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 24, 2010, 02:01:32 AM
;D
For real, man. Dude likes those genetically handicapped men, the ones borne from a cesspool of discarded genes. A hodgepodge of misfit bodyparts and extra chromosomes.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: WillGrant on July 24, 2010, 02:09:28 AM
For real, man. Dude likes those genetically handicapped men, the ones borne from a cesspool of discarded genes. A hodgepodge of misfit bodyparts and extra chromosomes.
Yes Bays taste does seem rather odd no homo  ;D
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Silverback Gorilla on July 24, 2010, 02:14:31 AM
For real, man. Dude likes those genetically handicapped men, the ones borne from a cesspool of discarded genes. A hodgepodge of misfit bodyparts and extra chromosomes.
Damn bruh', that's cold  :D
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 24, 2010, 02:47:51 AM
Damn bruh', that's cold  :D
Have you seen the dudes, i mean I think Bay fantasizes about a muscular Elephant Man..."Ohhh the lump on the side of his head....if only he had trunk."

Yes Bays taste does seem rather odd no homo  ;D
Bay is cool dude no doubt, intellectually engaging, i just wish he'd engaged the aesthetic side of his brain. it might be a good thing that he was never a judge. Otherwise, Flex Wheeler, Shawn Ray, Milos, Richard Jones, Kev Levrone, Vince Taylor would never have won a contest. Instead  Greg Kovac, Fux, and the current melted iteration of Ronnie Coleman would be winning.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Meso_z on July 24, 2010, 05:24:53 AM
PACO ALL DAY.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: oldman on July 24, 2010, 07:13:27 AM
They took their physiques to the limit, good or bad structure.

What is Atwood up to these days...I bet he is smaller...hint hint
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: George Whorewell on July 24, 2010, 07:19:21 AM
For a gay black man, you like the most unsymmetrical, unbalance white men. I swear you ARE like a stereotypical straight black man who likes ugly white women.

LMAOOOOOO
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: BayGBM on July 24, 2010, 08:14:35 AM
That conditioning is just unbelieveable. Seriously, I think that guy has surpassed Munzer when it comes to being shredded and dry.

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb477.jpg)

No one can be like Munzer (unless you want to be dead).  But you are right: this is unbelievable conditioning!
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Figo on July 24, 2010, 12:14:20 PM
Paco looks like De Mayo with a very wide waist, and poor quad shape (compared to De Mayo), pity he can do zero bout his waist, really a perfect square, no taper

Atwood actually had great shape and taper in his younger days, a real freak. Ever seen hams like that? Much like Haney, a huge chest, but in relaxed poses appears very droopy
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: LatsMcGee on July 24, 2010, 12:31:54 PM
Paco has worse shape,  Atwood is a fucking narc who can't go two weeks without tearing a muscle but will still say he doesn't believe in overtraining,  some folks never learn. 
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Figo on July 24, 2010, 12:32:37 PM
2 great role models of what can be achieved through hard work and dedication.

giving natural bbers everywhere inspiration!
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: affeman on July 24, 2010, 12:47:06 PM
2 great role models of what can be achieved through hard work and dedication.

giving natural bbers everywhere inspiration!

2 great role models of that drugs can't create a champion.

I wasn't familiar with that Atwood guy, but that guy looks HORRIBLE. Not one bodypart fits to another.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OwjlM7QTyok/R_QwqKKPScI/AAAAAAAAAoc/OqRO1Tp8KAo/s400/ART+ATWOOD+050.jpg)
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: BayGBM on July 24, 2010, 12:56:10 PM
This pic has to be photoshopped. I do not believe anyone owns or would wear posing trunks that look like this!  :-\
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Mr Nobody on July 24, 2010, 01:55:29 PM
This pic has to be photoshopped. I do not believe anyone owns or would wear posing trunks that look like this!  :-\
Looks like he got the short end of the stick BAY.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: arce1988 on July 24, 2010, 02:50:21 PM
  Disgusting. ALL PED.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Immortal_Technique on July 24, 2010, 03:25:09 PM
I really think Paco looks a lot better structurally. His arms and legs are actually big enough to start balancing out his unfortunately large waist. Atwood's arms and quads are both too small, insane hams and back though, he is quite a-symmetrical from left to right, abs much weirder and worse than Paco, droopier oversized tits than Paco. Paco looks great in a number of poses, Atwood only looks remotely bearable in back poses. I can see everyone's hoping to annoy Kyomu however haha.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Parker on July 24, 2010, 03:38:10 PM
Looks like he got the short end of the stick BAY.
Unfortunately, all his bodyparts look like they don't belong, including that one.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Mr Nobody on July 24, 2010, 03:55:47 PM
Unfortunately, all his bodyparts look like they don't belong, including that one.
;D
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: BayGBM on July 24, 2010, 09:14:51 PM
Looks like he got the short end of the stick BAY.

Maybe, but that area of the photo looks photoshopped.  No one has a thong/trunks that look like that!  :(
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: JBGRAY on July 25, 2010, 02:14:24 AM
They brought the freaky to the show, and thats what people liked to see.  Something different.  Size and conditioning should be rewarded more than "pleasing to the eye."  Bodybuilding is a freakshow, not who would look best at the beach.  A pro physique should make women recoil in horror and scream in terror.
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: closeline on July 25, 2010, 02:24:21 AM
That conditioning is just unbelieveable. Seriously, I think that guy has surpassed Munzer when it comes to being shredded and dry.

(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/bautista/pb477.jpg)

you re wrong, paco is shredded but not that defined, if you know what i mean

paco, atwood, james = all have a unbeliveable bad structure

kefelianos has bad proportions baut the best muscle quality of todays pros (reminds me of the 90s class)
Title: Re: Paco vs Atwood
Post by: Figo on July 25, 2010, 03:12:00 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OwjlM7QTyok/R_QxkKKPSiI/AAAAAAAAApM/bx2aozwsKtc/s400/ART+ATWOOD+126.jpg)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OwjlM7QTyok/R_QxkqKPSjI/AAAAAAAAApU/KHFQhjNHSks/s400/ART+ATWOOD+129.jpg)