Roy Keane- topped poll of the physique most men would like

Hanley

estebancambias wrote: »

De Rossi is built like a brick.

This guy?

estebancambias

Yeah, but if you actually see him without a shirt, he is not skinny, but full muscle. He was sort of fat, then got really skinny, and then got into great shape.

MrJoeSoap

estebancambias wrote: »

De Rossi is built like a brick.

He's no Alex Ostlund, thats for sure!

estebancambias

http://f9.img.v4.skyrock.com/f9c/moglie-azzurri/pics/1033026974.jpg

Back when he was sort of fat..on the left.

PeakOutput

hanley if you were refering to amateur athletes like yourself in the posts your making i would completely agree with you but the fact you are seriously trying to say that professional athletes are somehow better than another profession who are getting paid the same obscene amounts of money for getting in shape / looking good completely baffles me.

especially comparing it to acting which along with sport has to be the most cutthroat and unrewarding business out there.

imo the 300 actors were, for those 4 months or whatever, professional sports people. they were being paid to look their best and do the work that that took. they did it and they deserve the same respect for that as anyone else who does their job as well as they do.

i would also like to add that it sickens me the seeming "acceptance" of drugs in some sports be it cycling or whatever. if you start taking drugs you cease to be an athlete and start to be a product of someones scientific brain and you deserve **** all reward for it.

it seems that although this forum is lucky to have such top athletes posting and offering the great advice they do it is also its biggest downfall as whenever a normal joe soap who has simple aspirations compared to some of the people here makes a post about admiring one type of thing that is not an elite over another they are so quickly attacked im suprised there are still noobs posting tbh.

Hanley

PeakOutput wrote: »

hanley if you were refering to amateur athletes like yourself in the posts your making i would completely agree with you but the fact you are seriously trying to say that professional athletes are somehow better than another profession who are getting paid the same obscene amounts of money for getting in shape / looking good completely baffles me.

My point was that the absolute vast majority of atheletes are not in it for the money. Both pro and am.

i would also like to add that it sickens me the seeming "acceptance" of drugs in some sports be it cycling or whatever. if you start taking drugs you cease to be an athlete and start to be a product of someones scientific brain and you deserve **** all reward for it.

How is that tho? Is all the training and dedication for the decades previous suddenly negated because of the drugs?

Maybe it's becuase I train with both tested and non-tested lifters that I feel so strongly about this, but I would quite happily tell anyone who thinks that lifters who compete in a non-tested division aren't as "true" to the sport as tested guys, to go fcuk themselves. And I would imagine if you said it to their face you'd be looking at them from the ground.

Maybe things are different in other sports because they claim to be drug free (cycling, sprinting, NFL, Baseball etc etc) but they're not something I've very knowledgable on so I'm not in a position to comment. I will say that again, the top guys will ALWAYS be the top guys. Steroids might add an extra 5-10%. They won't make a donkey into a race horse. Hell the won't turn a middle of the pack guy into a world champion either. Especially considering the prevelance of doping. What they might do is give the no.1 and no.2 guys the chance to swap places or push even harder.

it seems that although this forum is lucky to have such top athletes posting and offering the great advice they do it is also its biggest downfall as whenever a normal joe soap who has simple aspirations compared to some of the people here makes a post about admiring one type of thing that is not an elite over another they are so quickly attacked im suprised there are still noobs posting tbh.

This all started because somebody said that not everyone can attain the 50 cent style physique. I don't give a damn what anyone wants to look like. It's their choice. But to make a blanket statement that is pretty much dead wrong is something that I think someone deserves to be called on.

PeakOutput

Hanley wrote: »

How is that tho? Is all the training and dedication for the decades previous suddenly negated because of the drugs?

imo yes as far as i can see strength sports and bodybuilding(i heard recently the nfl is untested but im not positive) are the only sports were drugs are actually encouraged not to mind not being banned. i meanam i wrong in sayig that body builders are permitted to take drugs that are illegal in their country and still be permitted to compete in the comps?

Maybe it's becuase I train with both tested and non-tested lifters that I feel so strongly about this, but I would quite happily tell anyone who thinks that lifters who compete in a non-tested division aren't as "true" to the sport as tested guys, to go fcuk themselves. And I would imagine if you said it to their face you'd be looking at them from the ground.

wow....because they can deck me they deserve my respect.....**** off. i have the utmost respect for any athlete who works as hard as you did for your competition and i find it sad that if you wanted to compete with the absolute cream of the crop you would be forced to take drugs(im assuming the non drug free organisation is the bigger one but i could be wrong). i just think doing it without drugs deserves so much more respect.

i have a million times more respect for the guys who finished the tour de france middle of the field clean to the guy who won it on drugs

What they might do is give the no.1 and no.2 guys the chance to swap places or push even harder.

the number one guy shouldnt feel under threat from anything other than another person beating him fair and square and you can say the fact he can take steroids too if he wants to be on top again makes it fair and square i will never agree with you.

This all started because somebody said that not everyone can attain the 50 cent style physique. I don't give a damn what anyone wants to look like. It's their choice. But to make a blanket statement that is pretty much dead wrong is something that I think someone deserves to be called on.

ye fair enough maybe they can(i personally believe i could if i wanted but then im full of myself) id love to see a pic of 50 before he got signed to see if he was as much of a tank or as ripped before his promoters got hold of him

Hanley

I'm only replying to this now before I go to bed to stop the inevitable sh!t storm in the morning because people are misunderstanding me.

PeakOutput wrote: »

imo yes as far as i can see strength sports and bodybuilding(i heard recently the nfl is untested but im not positive) are the only sports were drugs are actually encouraged not to mind not being banned. i meanam i wrong in sayig that body builders are permitted to take drugs that are illegal in their country and still be permitted to compete in the comps?

The NFL is tested, but the penalties are laughable. What does that tell you? They don't want a clean sport. Fans don't want to see guys 50lb lighter out on the field. If you want to look to the root cause of the prevelance of drug usage in sport today, then look at the fans. Bodybuilders can take whatever they want, and of course they're allowed compete. Considering some of the illicit activities taken to be the norm in Irish society today this point isn't something that should be a major hang up.

wow....because they can deck me they deserve my respect.....**** off. i have the utmost respect for any athlete who works as hard as you did for your competition and i find it sad that if you wanted to compete with the absolute cream of the crop you would be forced to take drugs(im assuming the non drug free organisation is the bigger one but i could be wrong). i just think doing it without drugs deserves so much more respect.

No, they'd knock you down because you're basically saying the one thing they've dedicated their life to means nothing. And I never said you should respect them because they could knock you on your ass. The point was if you went up to them and said the things you've posted now to their face they'd be highly offended.

Can you imagine... "hey you, the last 20 years of training mean NOTHING. You're not worth sh!t because you take steroids. All the training, dedication, pain and self imposed limits on life outside of it are all worth jack sh!t cos you put a needle in your ass".

i have a million times more respect for the guys who finished the tour de france middle of the field clean to the guy who won it on drugs

You have more respect for a loser. Someone who probably wouldn't have been in contention for the top spot anyway, even if everyone else was clean.

ye fair enough maybe they can(i personally believe i could if i wanted but then im full of myself) id love to see a pic of 50 before he got signed to see if he was as much of a tank or as ripped before his promoters got hold of him

50 cent competed in the junior olympics as a boxer when he was younger, I'm sure his physique was just fine before he got signed.

Wibbs

Hanley wrote: »

How is that tho? Is all the training and dedication for the decades previous suddenly negated because of the drugs?

Pretty much. They've become liars and cheats, or simply stupid or naive, simple as that. That's why the testing is there in the first place.

Maybe it's becuase I train with both tested and non-tested lifters that I feel so strongly about this, but I would quite happily tell anyone who thinks that lifters who compete in a non-tested division aren't as "true" to the sport as tested guys, to go fcuk themselves. And I would imagine if you said it to their face you'd be looking at them from the ground.

Lovely images all round.:rolleyes: Must be the 'roid rage.

Maybe things are different in other sports because they claim to be drug free (cycling, sprinting, NFL, Baseball etc etc) but they're not something I've very knowledgable on so I'm not in a position to comment. I will say that again, the top guys will ALWAYS be the top guys. Steroids might add an extra 5-10%. They won't make a donkey into a race horse. Hell the won't turn a middle of the pack guy into a world champion either. Especially considering the prevelance of doping. What they might do is give the no.1 and no.2 guys the chance to swap places or push even harder.

I would disagree. While of course they won't turn a donkey into a race horse they will increase the chances of an also ran getting to the top. There are too many examples of that. Blood doping alone gives massive increases in performance distance disciplines. Recovery in those same disciplines is also increased. Steroids will increase strength and muscle bulk. On balance drug therapies will give an unfair advantage to mid fielder types. That's precisely why they use them and indeed pay huge amounts of money(that again) to do so. there are enough examples of people making overnight gains that seemed to disappear just as quickly when the beady eye was on them. Remember that Irish distance runner a while back that suddenly started beating all the Kenyans? Out of the 'kin blue. They tested his píss and it lit up the detectors. Says it all. His name thankfully escapes me. There are enough examples from our own shores without having to include the rest of the world.

This all started because somebody said that not everyone can attain the 50 cent style physique. I don't give a damn what anyone wants to look like. It's their choice. But to make a blanket statement that is pretty much dead wrong is something that I think someone deserves to be called on.

OK back to the topic at hand. Yes it is possible, within genetic and physical constraints. Is it healthy? I would say not. As I contended if there was no genetic barrier then women could get to that size with dedication and not have to resort to drug use or an underlying endocrine problem(sometimes found with polycystic ovarian syndrome or other conditions). Real simple. Same can go for men with testosterone in the low range. Normal range would be between 350 to 1000(I forget the measurement)and it drops with age. While heavy exercise can boost that, a guy at 350(or lower) is just not going to get the muscle bulk of a guy at 1000. Hey even a guy at the higher level , depending on the make up of his muscle isn't always going to bulk up either, though he will have less fat issues. Yes we all can improve both our fitness and our "look" and that's the main thing, but in the end a competitive lifter is going to make a crap marathon runner and a competitive marathon runner is going make a crap lifter. Horses for courses.

PeakOutput

Hanley wrote: »

Bodybuilders can take whatever they want, and of course they're allowed compete. Considering some of the illicit activities taken to be the norm in Irish society today this point isn't something that should be a major hang up.

two wrongs dont make a right iv taken drugs but it affected no1 but me. my drug taking didnt harm anyone who decided not to take drugs life in anyway.

No, they'd knock you down because you're basically saying the one thing they've dedicated their life to means nothing. And I never said you should respect them because they could knock you on your ass. The point was if you went up to them and said the things you've posted now to their face they'd be highly offended.

Can you imagine... "hey you, the last 20 years of training mean NOTHING. You're not worth sh!t because you take steroids. All the training, dedication, pain and self imposed limits on life outside of it are all worth jack sh!t cos you put a needle in your ass".

my issue is with no one athlete and therefore i would not say it to one particular athlete in such a way. my issue is that this has become an accepted part of the sports we are talking about. if it was say michelle smith id have no problem insulting her as she did it in a "drug free" sport but for the sports we are talking about with no regulation i dont particularly blame the athletes i just thinks its all a bit of a joke that will end in the complete destruction and hopefully rebuilding of the sport

You have more respect for a loser. Someone who probably wouldn't have been in contention for the top spot anyway, even if everyone else was clean.

the point is we will never know who really is the best because someone or a few people took drugs. you claim that the best will still be the best with or without drugs. so why have drugs? so that someone else can compete with the best? thus creating a vicious circle of crap

50 cent competed in the junior olympics as a boxer when he was younger, I'm sure his physique was just fine before he got signed.

hmmmm funny how he never raps about that bit of his ghetto lifestyle


edit; just realised how ot this is sorry prob my fault

Wibbs

Hanley wrote: »

The NFL is tested, but the penalties are laughable. What does that tell you? They don't want a clean sport. Fans don't want to see guys 50lb lighter out on the field. If you want to look to the root cause of the prevelance of drug usage in sport today, then look at the fans.

Nice shift of blame. Look instead at the money involved, the greed of the sponsors and the greed of the players themselves and take it from there.

Bodybuilders can take whatever they want, and of course they're allowed compete.

Fans again no doubt.

Considering some of the illicit activities taken to be the norm in Irish society today this point isn't something that should be a major hang up.

Nice shift in blame and emphasis again. Apples and oranges. In any case this is a fitness forum and anabolics etc are hardly healthy by any stretch. Growing breasts, shrinking testicles, acne, heart valve problems, increased risk of prostrate cancer, baldness etc etc. The blood doping stuff can kill quite easily if not watched. Spot the cyclists chugging aspirin.

No, they'd knock you down because you're basically saying the one thing they've dedicated their life to means nothing. And I never said you should respect them because they could knock you on your ass. The point was if you went up to them and said the things you've posted now to their face they'd be highly offended.

Frankly if they would take it that personally then they have something to hide or there exists more fat between their ears than muscle. Pure dedication is an internal thing that requires, nor should be affected by naysayers. If you take it personal it is personal to you, not the other guy.

Can you imagine... "hey you, the last 20 years of training mean NOTHING. You're not worth sh!t because you take steroids. All the training, dedication, pain and self imposed limits on life outside of it are all worth jack sh!t cos you put a needle in your ass".

Pretty much, simply because they have walked away from that dedication and pain and self imposed limits on life for a false boost. They're to be pitied more than pilloried.

You have more respect for a loser.

You sir are, actually I don't quite know how to put it politely so I won't. I have more respect for a person who is clean. I have more respect for someone who stands for what he feels is right, even and especially if it is a disadvantage to him or her. That takes non enhanced balls in either gender.

Someone who probably wouldn't have been in contention for the top spot anyway, even if everyone else was clean.

If you say that then you have little understanding how some of these drug therapies can work, especially in the distance sports.

Khannie

Hanley wrote: »

You have more respect for a loser.

I have more respect for someone who comes 2nd in the race when the person who came first was cheating. Unquestionably.

If the rules of the game say no drugs and you use them, you're a cheat. That's it. If the rules of the game don't say no drugs....well then....off you go.

Drugs don't necessarily just have the effect of allowing you to win. In full contact combat sports (boxing, MMA, muay thai, etc.) the use of drugs could be a contributing factor in someones death.

Dragan

PeakOutput wrote: »

**** off.

Careful now.

GerryRyan

Going to go with the sprinter physique or any well-conditioned-athletic look.

Can't find it now - but there was a guy on the bodybuilding.com forums (c_money or c-money) and the second I saw his back and leg shots I was sold on weight-lifting. It wasn't an overly muscluar, but ripped to shreds at a decent bf.

Ross Enamait aswell ... now that's a build worth working towards.

Wibbs

A golden oldie, but still pretty good

Not bad after all these centuries and since Leo had an eye for the boys, he probably knew what he was on about.

The various types of the classical physique pretty much nail it IMHO from the smaller size to the bigger. While you can hone it further, as a basic ideal it's pretty good.It's fascinating that while the male ideal has remained quite standard for 100's if not 1000's of years the female varies quite a lot. If leo's guy above walked down a beach today he would get admiring glances, whereas representations of women from the time would not get much of a second look.

Wibbs

Khannie wrote: »

I have more respect for someone who comes 2nd in the race when the person who came first was cheating. Unquestionably.

If the rules of the game say no drugs and you use them, you're a cheat. That's it. If the rules of the game don't say no drugs....well then....off you go.

Agreed.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Have to say, I'd agree that the actors deserve credit for getting in shape like that. I wouldn't give them the same level of respect, however, as a clean athlete or bodybuilder in the same condition.
Anyone who can achieve a body like Bales deserves credit. It's not easy to do at the best of times, and it's incredibly difficult at the worst of times.

Wibbs

^^^ that pretty much sums it up for me too. I would imagine that Bale's extreme weight loss and then gain can't be healthy for you though. Credit where credit's due though. Same with the 300 guys. If you could do the 300 workout, you are at a very high level of functional strength and fitness. The "look" is secondary in some ways.

rubadub

Hanley wrote: »

How about you do all of the above without any real work commitments other than getting in shape. How about you get motivated by hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Of course he had to work hard in the gym but he had very good reasons to and a good coach will keep you going harder and longer than a normal person would. He had somebody holding his hand every step of the way. I'm sorry he doesn't impress me as much as he seems to do you, but in my opinion what he achieved wasn't remarkable and given the same situation and circumstances anybody could have done it.

And for any body comparing the 300 actors to professional sports men, it disgusts me that you don't even realise how insulting you're being.

If this was posted in an acting forum it might be just as insulting to some actors. I am sure a lot of the extras who trained up for the role are not on $100,000's. Amatuer actors who train for roles could express the same view of not being impressed by sportsmen who have the free time & dieticans, coaches etc, which they cannot afford, and might be holding down other jobs etc in the meantime. I have respect for the effort anybody puts in. Some actors will just resort to makeup or plastic surgery, e.g. pec implants.

I have more respect for someone who comes 2nd in the race when the person who came first was cheating. Unquestionably.

I see this as similar to formula one teams who might cheat. Of course the cars are still good, of course the guy has trained hard and is a good driver, but if the car is knowingly altered and outside the spec it is simply cheating. If I was powerlifting and came in 3rd place since 2 guys ahead of me beat me, both lifting the same amount, I would have more respect for the drug free guy who did it. I would still think the drugged guy is good, but would question if he would have beat me without the drugs, or if I would have beat him if I had used drugs.

Roper

PeakOutput wrote: »

imo the 300 actors were, for those 4 months or whatever, professional sports people. they were being paid to look their best and do the work that that took. they did it and they deserve the same respect for that as anyone else who does their job as well as they do.

I think you need to grab a dictionary and look up what a sport is. So some guys got in shape? I know lads who are in better physical condition than that lad from the 300 so should I give you his address to send them fan mail?

For my money, anyone can get in good shape- anyone with enough dedication. And fair play to them if they do however if to compare someone who is training to appear in a film to someone who lives that life as a sportsman is for Heat readers.

Vegeta wrote: »

So are you saying Roy Keane's physique is equal to that of the dude in 300?

No, just that Keane was built for what he did- be a phenomenal athlete, 300 guy was built for what he did- to look good.

PeakOutput

Roper wrote: »

I think you need to grab a dictionary and look up what a sport is.

my point was they were doing it professionally obviously

Roper

Being a professional fitness instructor doesn't mean you're a sports coach, and being a professional fitness enthusiast doesn't mean you're a sportsman either.

Look I see the point you were trying to make, and to get into that sort of shape takes a hell of a lot of dedication, but my bugbear is with people who respect someone like that over a dedicated athlete.

Dragan

What bus me is people get hung up on Butler with regard to 300, they forget they had a whole team of guys from all sorts of backgrounds. Mathieu and Sammy from the Slow Time Crew out of Montreal are both professional mountain climbers, Kaos from the Ryoku Stunt Team is a pro boxer and former CFL All Star.

There was lots of good strong athletes in there from day one, but people get hung up on Butler because he walked in fat and walked out lean.

rubadub

Some lines are blurred these days, and presumptions are being made. You might have actors doing it for the love of acting, and not the money, same with pro atheletes, and vice versa some from both camps are only doing it for the money.

What if some actor trained up for a role and then found he was actually at a level where he can compete and decided to ditch the acting and take part in sport the next day. Is he suddenly going to be respected by some athletes who would have dismissed him the day before as "just an actor"?

Then you have lads like Beckham, some saying he is now only in it for the money, and is probably making more money now doing ads and posing for ladies mags with his top off. And some atheletes are now going into movies in the same way, are they now not to get the same respect.

You have people who cannot sing or act well, but still do, and get by solely on their looks and training regime, they could possibly be competeing in sport but can make a better living acting/modelling/singing. Some "celebrities" with no talent/selling point other than their bodies could be seen as competing with other celebs at a professional level and train hard to do so.

Vegeta

Roper wrote: »

Look I see the point you were trying to make, and to get into that sort of shape takes a hell of a lot of dedication, but my bugbear is with people who respect someone like that over a dedicated athlete.

I see what you're saying, athletes spend years training before they ever get a full time coach, chef etc etc and these guys just come in off the street did 4 months intensive training and that was that.

Still, if i was offered Roy Keanes physique or the lead dude in 300 I know which I would choose. If I was offered either persons fitness level I know which one I'd choose.

Nothing to do with respect for me i suspose as I respect them both, but without professional help I see the 300 body shape as harder to achieve and therefore aspire to it more than that of Roy Keane's

Roper

rubadub wrote: »

What if some actor trained up for a role and then found he was actually at a level where he can compete and decided to ditch the acting and take part in sport the next day. Is he suddenly going to be respected by some athletes who would have dismissed him the day before as "just an actor"?

Thats just fantasy land mate. Everytime an actor trains for a role as a boxer or football player, their trainers always say nice things like "if he wanted to he could be a pro" but they're being nice.

Also, I think we're talking about the physiques of people and respect due as opposed to the culture of celebrity sportsmen and their money.

Vegeta

Dragan wrote: »

There was lots of good strong athletes in there from day one, but people get hung up on Butler because he walked in fat and walked out lean.

I suppose we can relate to him more....the fat part that is

Roper

Vegeta wrote: »

I see what you're saying, athletes spend years training before they ever get a full time coach, chef etc etc and these guys just come in off the street did 4 months intensive training and that was that.

Still, if i was offered Roy Keanes physique or the lead dude in 300 I know which I would choose. If I was offered either persons fitness level I know which one I'd choose.

Nothing to do with respect for me i suspose as I respect them both, but without professional help I see the 300 body shape as harder to achieve and therefore aspire to it more than that of Roy Keane's

Thats it in a nutshell. I'd prob pick the 300 guys physique if I was looking to impress a lady! But I'd take Keane's ability, work ethic etc. for the long term please!

justsomebloke

Roper wrote: »

Thats it in a nutshell. I'd prob pick the 300 guys physique if I was looking to impress a lady! But I'd take Keane's ability, work ethic etc. for the long term please!

see this is it in a nutshell (i don't know how this nutshell got inside ropers nutshell but it did).
Actors are generally purely going for an aesthetic look hence why they have a more appealing figure, where as sports stars all have to develop the body in a manner that suits there sport as oppose to purely looking for aesthetic (well except for bodybuilders and darts palyers). Also Actors don't have to worry about building up their skill base so they have more time to focus on just being cut and as said already they don't have to put in the years of dedication to reach a high enough level where they have the ability to take on full time trainers etc.

edit: this is why so many people here have sckewered views as they work hard at what ever sport that is there main interest and cause of this their view of the type of body is generally not that of the bloke from 300 as it is not functional for their needs, where as the average bloke on the street isn't pushing himself hard enough for any goal so the bloke from 300 looks like the type of look they want

Dragan

Just to clarify by the time they lads for 300 finished working with MFT every one of them was in solid nick, not just looks wise, but ability wise.

They were crushing well known Crossfit Benchmark workouts to a very, very good level......some of them posting times and loads that would match any of the big name Crossfitters from Coach Glassmans site.

Just because somebody is doing something to build a body does not mean that machine underneath is poor.

The take home message is for me, no matter what your goals, or why your training.......if your training i can at the very least respect that.

Roper

I got a pistachio the other night there and it had 2 shells, so it must have been that one.

PeakOutput

jsb wrote: »

(well except for bodybuilders and darts palyers).

phil the power taylor



what an athlete

Vegeta

That dart in the picture looks photoshopped in or is the power just using "The Force"

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

Thats just fantasy land mate. Everytime an actor trains for a role as a boxer or football player, their trainers always say nice things like "if he wanted to he could be a pro" but they're being nice.

I dont think it is fantasy, it is perfectly feasible. There could be athletes out there who started as actors, and moved across and vice versa. Lance Armstrong did not start out competing at cycling, I think it may have been running, then he got into triathlons at a good level and then discovered he was better at cycling than the rest and switched, it wasnt until he was competing at it that he realised he was so good. People may not know their true athletic prowess/skill until they train somewhat for it. Some do blur the line and have credit for both professions (usally more credit for athletic ability! but can be paid more for acting), like Bruce Lee, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris etc.

Of course you will get trainers claiming actors could be pros for marketing reasons and for a nice magazine quote, but it is not impossible.

Also, I think we're talking about the physiques of people and respect due as opposed to the culture of celebrity sportsmen and their money.

Yes, but I am mentioning actors who trade solely on their looks/body and are in competition with fellow actors. I see this as being similar enough to body builders, who may not be overly concerned about athletic ability, just really looks.

Some member here, (Hanley or Dragan I think) was in some ad posing/acting as a rugby player and probably got some freebies or cash, and why not. Casting people might go cruising gyms to pick out extras for parts, why not get some cash due to all the effort you put in.

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

Thats just fantasy land mate. Everytime an actor trains for a role as a boxer or football player, their trainers always say nice things like "if he wanted to he could be a pro" but they're being nice.

I dont think it is fantasy, it is perfectly feasible. I expect most athletes had some trade/job before becoming professional. There could be athletes out there who started as actors, and moved across and vice versa. Lance Armstrong did not start out competing at cycling, I think it may have been running, then he got into triathlons at a good level and then discovered he was better at cycling than the rest and switched, it wasnt until he was competing at it that he realised he was so good. People may not know their true athletic prowess/skill until they train somewhat for it. Some do blur the line and have credit for both professions (usally more credit for athletic ability! but can be paid more for acting), like Bruce Lee, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris etc.

Of course you will get trainers claiming actors could be pros for marketing reasons and for a nice magazine quote, but it is not impossible.

Also, I think we're talking about the physiques of people and respect due as opposed to the culture of celebrity sportsmen and their money.

Yes, but I am mentioning actors who trade solely on their looks/body and are in competition with fellow actors. I see this as being similar enough to body builders, who may not be overly concerned about athletic ability, just really looks.

Degsy

Will Smith got in shape to play Ali in the film of the same name and a few people remarked that he could've turned into a pro boxer.The answer is NO ****ING WAY!No actor can become a pro boxer after a few months of training,you can be a boxer who acts maybe but an actor whose job is to act simply cannot become a professional sportsman simply because he might look like one.

Khannie

Degsy wrote: »

Will Smith got in shape to play Ali in the film of the same name and a few people remarked that he could've turned into a pro boxer.The answer is NO ****ING WAY!No actor can become a pro boxer after a few months of training,you can be a boxer who acts maybe but an actor whose job is to act simply cannot become a professional sportsman simply because he might look like one.

Yeah, +1 for that. Lean, fit and strong is not the same as being skilled. Not even the same ball park. Professional boxers are of a tremendous standard. The amount of time they have spent building up their skill level is enormous. ENORMOUS. Fitness is only part of being a boxer. In important part for sure, but only a part.

Roll on Saturday!

rubadub

Degsy wrote: »

Will Smith got in shape to play Ali in the film of the same name and a few people remarked that he could've turned into a pro boxer.The answer is NO ****ING WAY!No actor can become a pro boxer after a few months of training,you can be a boxer who acts maybe but an actor whose job is to act simply cannot become a professional sportsman simply because he might look like one.

I agree there, it is all marketing hype. But there are probably some cases where some mediocre struggling actor might have trained up for a role in a few months, got OK at it, and then gave up the acting and trained for years, went through the ranks and became a pro athlete. I dont think that is an incredible possibility. Just as a mediocre stuggling athlete might have tried their hand at acting, was seemingly good, and so trained until he was good enough to be a pro actor.

Will Smith might be a money man, and has no interest in giving up his current career to train for the years it could possibly take to become better at boxing. He is a bit old to start now anyways, it is not so impossible that if he trained in his teens to play the part of a young ali, and his coach saw potential that he could have done it. I cannot see why it is so hard to accept that a pro athlete could have once been an actor, they could have been an accountant or carpenter before being a current pro athlete, so why not an actor?

Roper

rubadub wrote: »

I dont think it is fantasy, it is perfectly feasible. I expect most athletes had some trade/job before becoming professional. There could be athletes out there who started as actors, and moved across and vice versa. Lance Armstrong did not start out competing at cycling, I think it may have been running, then he got into triathlons at a good level and then discovered he was better at cycling than the rest and switched, it wasnt until he was competing at it that he realised he was so good. People may not know their true athletic prowess/skill until they train somewhat for it. Some do blur the line and have credit for both professions (usally more credit for athletic ability! but can be paid more for acting), like Bruce Lee, Schwarzenegger, Van Damme, Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris etc.

So, Lance Armstrong was an ATHLETE who specialised in a different but related disclipline to become an ATHLETE. He didn't star in a cycling movie and discover he was good. Please name me one actor who discovered his athletic prowess while on the job and went on to have a sports career. Man you need to stop reading those magazines in the doctor's office! You have no idea how far away from the average man a real athlete is.

Equally, I would say that all of the guys you mentioned were ****e actors, so they just stood in front of a camera and did their schtick. They hardly discovered their true calling whe acting now did they? Or did I miss the Oscars when Seagal won his for The Glimmer Man? Equally, bar Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee none of those guys were athletes.

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

Please name me one actor who discovered his athletic prowess while on the job and went on to have a sports career.

I cannot, and that is part of the point I am making. If you know the name of an actor and have read he has trained for a part then he is probably being paid a fortune. He will have no reason to give up, at that stage he is a pro actor.

I could simply lie and say "John Smith" was an actor who went on to be a division 4 hockey player in the US. Who is to know. Or does professional have to mean making millions and be famous?

I am not that interested enough in sports to know what people did in their previous careers, is it really so incredible to think that one of the extras in 300 could be a struggling athlete and could then go on to be a pro. It was already mentioned some were quite fit. And as I said I imagine casting people cruise gyms for such extras. Extras in films are professional actors if they are making a living from it no matter if they are on 20,000 a year or 20m.

Would you be utterly amazed if a pro soccer player in the 3rd division was a trained accountant?

Roper wrote: »

Equally, I would say that all of the guys you mentioned were ****e actors,

And I mentioned that too, which again is part of my point, a failed athlete can become an actor, just as a failed actor could become a pro athlete who is still not great and not famous but pro nonetheless.

Roper

I'm not trying to be rude here but...

What the fvck are you trying to say! "Hey average people can be more or less average at whatever they do"

Jesus!!

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

I'm not trying to be rude here but...

What the fvck are you trying to say! "Hey average people can be more or less average at whatever they do"

Jesus!!

Maybe you simply have a different idea of what professional means than me. Some people seem to equate it with being famous and worth millions, and at the top of their game, I don't to me it means making your main living from a particular activity.

you said

Equally, bar Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee none of those guys were athletes.

What is your definition of "athlete"? I bet some BBers would like to think of themselves as ahtletes, and arnie was at the top of that game at one time.

looking on wikipedia Van Damme was won the European Professional Karate Association's middleweight championship and a Mr. Belgium bodybuilding title.

pwd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja_warrior

Have you seen this show? Professional athletes compete in it seriously, as well as actors. Some of the most successful competitors in it have been actors.

Roper

LOL listen lads its been a break from work but boy is it ever getting old so I'm quitting.

Who would win in a fight Bruce Lee or Muhamed Ali?

Enjoy!

Dragan

Roper wrote: »

Who would win in a fight Bruce Lee or Muhamed Ali?

Enjoy!

Fight fans!

Vegeta

Roper wrote: »

Who would win in a fight Bruce Lee or Muhamed Ali?
!

Which ever one of them brought a gun.

rubadub

Roper wrote: »

LOL listen lads its been a break from work but boy is it ever getting old so I'm quitting.

Please at least give your definition of "athlete". I think no matter who I did mention you would claim they are not an athlete. In my mind "professional athlete" would simply mean somebody who earns there main income from their athletic ability over intellectual or whatever other skill they may poses, e.g. artistic. This could be a PE teacher or gym instructor. I have no doubt your defintion would be far more restrictive, and just wonder how restrictive.

Hanley

Roper wrote: »

LOL listen lads its been a break from work but boy is it ever getting old so I'm quitting.

Who would win in a fight Bruce Lee or Muhamed Ali?

Enjoy!

That's such a stupid question.

Chuck Norris. Clearly!!!!

Wibbs

This we agree on.:D

GerryRyan

Lads, in my mind, achieving this physique would be the pinnacle of fitness for me ...





God knows it'd take me years - but at 6' and 170ish lb and plenty of years ahead of me it can be done.