Muscle Growth: Roland Kickinger's humble beginnings

[GrowthMaster]

More Comparisons

[omelissokomos]

Here's the morph I made based on a couple of pics here.

[muscl4life]

I loved seeing how he developed so well (AND HOT!)

Thanks for another great work.

Take care

[ljobenza]

Wouldn't it be better to merge all you topics into one like all the other image collection topics? Sorry, just some common forum ethics.:P

[GrowthMaster]

Originally Posted by ljobenza

Wouldn't it be better to merge all you topics into one like all the other image collection topics? Sorry, just some common forum ethics.:P

I preferred posting these as individual threads which would allow me to group them by individual, and would allow me to add additional images of the person down the road with minimal confusion for thread readers.

I didn't want to create one huge Before & After thread since this forum *is* named Muscle Growth Photos, and I figured it was appropriate for me to make these individual threads, which are most definitely on-topic. If it were any other forum theme, I'd probably have approached it differently.

I apologize if you feel it's in violation of "ethics" -- I think you mean to say "etiquette" perhaps, but I don't personally agree with that interpretation either. I am, however contributing some actual *muscle growth* images which are frankly few-and-far-between on a picture board named specifically for this topic.

[deetrakt]

I'm not getting into the separate threads/one thread issue. I mainly enjoyed two of the posts: Roland Kickinger (because it's interesting to see his "ups and downs") and "Joe", because I enjoyed looking at him. My problem with some of the other guys is that while I commend their hard work and progress, I didn't like looking at them.

A thread someone--not me--should start is "ups and downs" about guys like Kickinger, Frank Sepe and Kevin Levrone who've been both "enhanced" and "natural" and guys like Stan McQuay who've competed both ways. I thought Stan McQuay looked good regardless, but I have to say the other three look kind of "deflated" to me. Is it just because I know how they used to look--or what? (It's not like I only like to look at huge guys. Dan Decker looks fine to me; I don't have a burning desire to see him bulked up.) Has anyone else pondered this?

I noted GrowthMaster's comment that pictures iluustrating muscle growth--before and after comparisons--are "few and far between" here. I've wondered--since I do a lot of the posting --whether others mind a less than strict interpretation of "muscle growth". While I enjoy the before/after stories and pics of our members, I could care less what most bodybuilders looked like before--I'd rather look at "after". So I've defined "muscle growth" as "guys whose muscles have grown". Curious about others' opinions.

[falseyedee]

i actually love to see "before and after" and progression pictures. for me the growth itself is as exciting as the big muscles at the end...infact often more exciting. it's the growth scenes that i most enjoy writing as well as reading.

not that i don't like looking at huge muscle guys, it's just a different part of the fetish.

[TheMM]

Originally Posted by GrowthMaster

I preferred posting these as individual threads which would allow me to group them by individual, and would allow me to add additional images of the person down the road with minimal confusion for thread readers.

I didn't want to create one huge Before & After thread since this forum *is* named Muscle Growth Photos, and I figured it was appropriate for me to make these individual threads, which are most definitely on-topic. If it were any other forum theme, I'd probably have approached it differently.

I apologize if you feel it's in violation of "ethics" -- I think you mean to say "etiquette" perhaps, but I don't personally agree with that interpretation either. I am, however contributing some actual *muscle growth* images which are frankly few-and-far-between on a picture board named specifically for this topic.

I suppose that's true, but then again I suppose if you don't do this a ton, no one will mind. The point being is that although posting seperate threads is fine and well, it still does push down all the other threads that are active here as well.

The choice is yours, and we can't stop you, stop or continue with the threads, either way.................damn hot pics.

[ljobenza]

All I say is, this encourages topic bumping. There are other active threads that might get buried through all the threads you make (like O's O'Zone topic for example, someone bumped it bec. it went sraight into the second page). A simple topic named "Before and After" or something similar would have been aproppriate.

[calhoun]

Originally Posted by deetrakt

I'm not getting into the separate threads/one thread issue. I mainly enjoyed two of the posts: Roland Kickinger (because it's interesting to see his "ups and downs") and "Joe", because I enjoyed looking at him. My problem with some of the other guys is that while I commend their hard work and progress, I didn't like looking at them.

A thread someone--not me--should start is "ups and downs" about guys like Kickinger, Frank Sepe and Kevin Levrone who've been both "enhanced" and "natural" and guys like Stan McQuay who've competed both ways. I thought Stan McQuay looked good regardless, but I have to say the other three look kind of "deflated" to me. Is it just because I know how they used to look--or what? (It's not like I only like to look at huge guys. Dan Decker looks fine to me; I don't have a burning desire to see him bulked up.) Has anyone else pondered this?

I noted GrowthMaster's comment that pictures iluustrating muscle growth--before and after comparisons--are "few and far between" here. I've wondered--since I do a lot of the posting --whether others mind a less than strict interpretation of "muscle growth". While I enjoy the before/after stories and pics of our members, I could care less what most bodybuilders looked like before--I'd rather look at "after". So I've defined "muscle growth" as "guys whose muscles have grown". Curious about others' opinions.

I agree with you, Deetrakt. I love to look at this site mainly because of the pics of hot, muscular bodybuilders, and the "before" pics are not of interest for me. But I also like other postings, such as MuscleMike's "muscle talk," as well as some of the drawings, and I don't mind if there are some "before and after" posts as long as they aren't the predominant type on the site. It seems to me there is room for all kinds of posts as long as the central focus is on serious muscle.

[GrowthMaster]

Originally Posted by calhoun

I love to look at this site mainly because of the pics of hot, muscular bodybuilders, and the "before" pics are not of interest for me.

The "before" photos themselves are obviously meant to be seen in the context of the "after". What I like most about seeing before and after photos and other bodybuilding progress photos are that they are truly a visual depiction of the muscle growth process. These images are what the stories posted on this forum are all about, except it's happening in real life. I think it's hot!

Originally Posted by calhoun

It seems to me there is room for all kinds of posts as long as the central focus is on serious muscle.

I love looking at muscle pics myself, but obviously not as much as seeing someone get bigger and bigger. It's the visual transformation that's a big turn on for me. For general muscle images I normally go to some of the picture sharing forums on Ezboard, since our forum here offers a uniquely different blend of content -- from morphs to illustrations... to before and after photos.

I really do like the mix here, and I hope my posts don't seem like an intrusion.

I won't be posting as many all-at-one like a did a few days ago, but I'll be honest in saying that this is something I find hot, relevant, and would be of interest to some members who enjoy the central themes of this site.

[deetrakt]

In a recent rant, I invoked the names of both Roland Kickinger and Dan Decker. Then I came across this pic: