Big Baby in the best shape he's ever been in?

[crownsy]

All I'm saying is, if your a professional athlete you should know when to lay off the Count Chocula. Why not just have Captain Crunch! The man needs to show some discipline. Not something he has shown much of off the court.

Baby looks in decent shape to me.  If he loses too much weight, he won't be as effective.  We don't need a scrawny undersized player.  His size is what gives him an advantage.  Stay the way you are, Baby!

Yes. If he loses belly fat he will obviously be scrawny and undersized. There is no way a guy could be physically huge like BBD but yet not have that 30 lbs of extra blubber around the middle. It just isn't possible.


I am sure that this guy would just be shoved around in the paint. Let's go ahead and stick 30 lbs of fat around his middle so that he is strong. Who cares about being 2 steps slower than they would be without it...

Not to derail your rant, and i know this was said half in jest, but how on earth does a pic of Arnold from the days when he has admitted he did more steroids and PED's than he thought was humanly possible reflect on big baby?

Unless of course your advocating for him to take more roids than the entire east German swim team like Arnold did back in the day.

Yes because steroids give you a body with no belly fat whatsoever. Or is that a good diet… You got my point completely...

If your going to try to pass off a picture of a steroid freak as an inspirational example of what baby could do with his body, i don't understand why i'm supposed to dismiss him questing your analogy out of hand. It was a bad analogy, use someone who didn't do more horse testosterone than barry bonds.

but i mean, mabey he should go with this guys exercise plan, seemed to work out for him, i'm sure it was all natural as well  




vs.



Scott also dropped alot of belly fat, argument won!

[Spilling Green Dye]

Crownsy, you still didn't understand his reasoning for the Arnold picture, and no-one is advocating Davis take 'Roids.

You tried to initially argue that Davis needs his fat-tire around his stomach to enable him to still be difficult to push around in the post.  The Arnold picture was used to show that having fat around someone's waist is not necessary for someone to be tough to push around.  Also, it is highly possible for Davis to still be muscular and lean w/o taking Steroids.  The point would be the same - He doesn't need the fat to be tough to move.

Taking a look at that rookie picture and then the 2010 picture, I don't really see a difference.  In that 2010 picture posted you can literally see the fat tire around his waist still... 

Honestly Davis' best picture was the one someone took posing with him.  He looked fairly lean there, which I think was the beginning of last season.  If that's the case then he looks fatter now, unfortunately.

[crownsy]

Crownsy, you still didn't understand his reasoning for the Arnold picture, and no-one is advocating Davis take 'Roids.

You tried to initially argue that Davis needs his fat-tire around his stomach to enable him to still be difficult to push around in the post.  The Arnold picture was used to show that having fat around someone's waist is not necessary for someone to be tough to push around.  Also, it is highly possible for Davis to still be muscular and lean w/o taking Steroids.  The point would be the same - He doesn't need the fat to be tough to move.

Taking a look at that rookie picture and then the 2010 picture, I don't really see a difference.  In that 2010 picture posted you can literally see the fat tire around his waist still...  

No i understood the analogy just fine, i just think it's flawed.

his point was you don't need belly fat to be tough to move, which i agree with, but then his anology was that a roid freak didn't have fat on him and was tough to move.

what on earth does that prove? It certainly didn't prove the point for which it was offered, since the person in question was more a horse than a human, based on testosterone levels  

I understood the analogy just fine, as did the original person who replied, we just think is a terrible one and doesn't prove the point the way you think it does.

you can get someone's point, and even agree with it,  and disagree with the crummy analogy they use to prove it, the two are not mutually exclusive.