just curious to see what some say about this. I mean, is bodyfat calculations all relative to the persons mass and weight, or would 5% on one guy look the same as 5% on a bigger guy???
just curious to see what some say about this. I mean, is bodyfat calculations all relative to the persons mass and weight, or would 5% on one guy look the same as 5% on a bigger guy???
not a big difference between 5 & 6...the bigger guy would smoke him, unless his posing is poor
What makes a difference is the heigth of the two guys. If the 180 pound guy is 5'4" and the 210 guy is 6'2". I say the 180 guy if he is balanced and the total pack would easily beat the bigger guy.
I just competed in the North American as a middle weight. I' 5'6 1/2" at 176#. I had 3 other guys in the class at the same weight but were 5'4" and 5'3". They looked 15 pounds heavier then I. That would explain my 4th place finish. My wheels just coudn't compete with theirs. Upper body hung. Point being the heigth is a big factor of any body builder.
Yeah, height can play into it to a point, but I would think at 5'9" and 210lbs vs. 5'2" and 160lbs the judges would lean more towards you for an overall finish, thats if you were blanced out. The short guys usually have good quad sweep, yes I'll give you that. But they also have short legs, or decent size legs with a short torso, one of the two. In this case it hurts them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kdtl61
You have to work a lot harder to get to 220 @ 6% than 170 @ 5%, so I'd say if the 220lber had good symmetry and could pose then he would look much better.
Well, i assumed you were talkin bout the same height...as these guys said, that could make a big difference...
Are we talking about the same person at different stages in their development. Bone structure would play a part IMHO.
There are too many variables.
I agree, i would rather be shorter than taller as a bodybuilder however.....:icon_rollQuote:
Originally Posted by IBdmfkr