Author Topic: Did Steeve Reeves pose for COLT? (Read 10334 times)

brianX · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:41:30 AM »

brutal ribs

rocket · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2006, 03:28:20 AM »

I find that incredibly disgusting.. that waist is horrible.

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2006, 03:44:43 AM »

that looks fucked up and the eyebrows are wrong

Tombo · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2006, 04:20:26 AM »

its just weird.. other than that the guy lookd awesome

fathead · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:05:39 AM »

Now why does everybody think this guy has perfect aesthetics?

BroadStreetBruiser · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:30:21 AM »

Thank Allah for steroids

bmacsys · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:40:49 AM »

Come on guys, look at the width of his shoulders vs his miniscule waist. He is ripped. Hasn't got an ounce of fat on him. That was in the 1940's for Christ sake. Which one of you guys currently has a build like that?

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:59:12 AM »

who touched up that picture

gibberj2 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:32:54 AM »

If you do a vacuum and twist your waist it can look like that... at least Reeves' could.

rocket · « **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:36:56 AM »

Quote from: bmacsys on March 30, 2006, 05:40:49 AM

Come on guys, look at the width of his shoulders vs his miniscule waist. He is ripped. Hasn't got an ounce of fat on him. That was in the 1940's for Christ sake. Which one of you guys currently has a build like that?

I think what we're trying to say is more than anything the picture is what we dislike.

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2006, 07:02:34 AM »

Quote from: rocket on March 30, 2006, 06:36:56 AM

I think what we're trying to say is more than anything the picture is what we dislike.

the pose isnt very masculine. that 'type' pose in the history of western art is normally for women.

bmacsys · « **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2006, 10:12:01 AM »

Quote from: rocket on March 30, 2006, 06:36:56 AM

I think what we're trying to say is more than anything the picture is what we dislike.

It didn't come off that way.

bmacsys · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2006, 10:13:06 AM »

Quote from: bigdumbbell on March 30, 2006, 07:02:34 AM

the pose isnt very masculine. that 'type' pose in the history of western art is normally for women.

The pic looks downright fruity but it doesn't change the physique he brought to tha table.

alexxx · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2006, 10:22:41 AM »

Quote from: Bast175 on March 29, 2006, 11:47:06 PM

I saw this thumbnail before but didn't click it cause I though it was a fruity pose. But now that I see the big picture.. like WOW he looks awesome.

KTMckay · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2006, 11:55:19 AM »

I don't understand whats so good about him.... V-taper wow! Impressive but not all hes hyped up to be.

body88 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2006, 11:58:48 AM »

Quote from: KTMckay on March 30, 2006, 11:55:19 AM

I don't understand whats so good about him.... V-taper wow! Impressive but not all hes hyped up to be.

Ever hear of a bad picture?

18 inch arms 18 inch neck 50 inch chest 28 inch waist and 18 inch calves was pretty sick in frekin 1950

Kwon · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:00:09 PM »

This was the shit back in the day, but nowadays, a pose like that (with the feet/toes) would be considered a bit feminine.

Things change with time.

Back then, that was the epitome of greatness!

brianX · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:11:55 PM »

No, I'm pretty sure that would've been considered fruity in the late 40's.

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:16:34 PM »

Quote from: brianX on March 30, 2006, 12:11:55 PM

No, I'm pretty sure that would've been considered fruity in the late 40's.

timeless fruity

KTMckay · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:17:21 PM »

Quote from: body88 on March 30, 2006, 11:58:48 AM

Ever hear of a bad picture?

18 inch arms 18 inch neck 50 inch chest 28 inch waist and 18 inch calves was pretty sick in frekin 1950

18 inch thighs....

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:17:55 PM »

ive always beena fan of reeves but that pic has always puzzled me. it just doesnt look right. theres no way a man's waist could be that small, he looks like an auschwitz victim. skinny all over.
either he purposely starved himself and got bone thin for that pic or its not real, or someone else. that is not the normal steve reeves.

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:21:43 PM »

what pose came next, the recline and the legs spread?

Bast175 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:23:02 PM »

bigdumbbell · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2006, 12:32:23 PM »

Antonio Canova, Pauline Borghese(napoleon's sister) as Venus, 1808. Marble, life size. Galleria Borghese, Rome ....who caused a scandal when she agreed to pose in the nude .....