Here is the thing: the shorter the guy and the bigger the muscles, the more ridiculous he looks. Stature is a sign of masculinity. Men are 15% taller than women. Height is associated with alpha maleness. Throughout history, the taller men beat smaller men for status competition and became the leaders. This is why men are on average taller than women, since genes that code for height are in the "Y" chromosome.
A man who is of average stature with huge muscles strike people as a beta male trying to be something that he is not: an alpha male. Case in fact, his huge muscles only emphasize his lack of stature even further. A short man with huge muscles looks like a freak of Nature, since he is not even a beta male in people's eyes. Big muscles are associated with masculinity just like stature, and short stature is associated with femininity or poor health. Hence, a 5'4 midget, like Priest, looks like a geneticlly defective troll with something wrong with him ok..
It is perhaps sad that the men who look the best with huge muscles are the men who need big muscles the least: tall guys. In the tall guy, the huge muscles only makes him look more like an alpha male, since the big muscles call the height into attention and vice-versa. It is the opposite of a 5'10 guy who's huge muscles call into attention his average stature, adn therefore his beta maleness, even more. People are always poiting out Silvester Stallone's Napoleon complex in his huge muscles, on how ridiculous for a man who is 5'8 to have the muscles of a 6' 6 true alpha male. In Dolph Lundgren, though, the huge muscles look great and when he dieted down for his later films he was criticized by how he lost some of his alpha maleness. So if you are under 6'3, getting big muscles only makes you look more beta male ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
