Anyone watch the HodgeTwins on YouTube?
- Thread starter jaylav_
- Start date
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Don't bother, them nikkas don't do squats or deadlifts
For Real?
No Squats...?
I can somewhat understand deadlifts, but no squats?
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
That's the excuse for anyone that doesn't fukk with deadlifts, I know someone that pulls 525 and squats 475, they needed surgery for a bulging disc 3 years ago.
Their backs are fine when they do T-bar rows and leg presses, just using excuses. They can't beat you up bruh, don't let the muscles fool you.
For Real?
No Squats...?
I can somewhat understand deadlifts, but no squats?
They don't do either, they have the mythical "bad back" that doesn't prevent them from doing all other sorts of lifts that puts stress on their backs.
BuyandSave
All Star
Who cares about who can lift more? I'd much rather have a nice looking body. If I can do that without squats and deads, why not? And honestly, fukk legs. Some people have big legs to begin with and no bytches look at your quads when they're checking you out. If you're working out for strength - good for you, but a lot of people do it for looks. And no offense to somebody like @MMSex but I would much rather take advice on lifting from the Hodge Twins because they actually look like they lift. 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who cares about who can lift more? I'd much rather have a nice looking body. If I can do that without squats and deads, why not? And honestly, fukk legs. Some people have big legs to begin with and no bytches look at your quads when they're checking you out. If you're working out for strength - good for you, but a lot of people do it for looks. And no offense to somebody like @MMSex but I would much rather take advice on lifting from the Hodge Twins because they actually look like they lift.
Last edited by a moderator:
BuyandSave
All Star
So what do you disagree with exactly? Legs are not important for looks, and some people are already naturally bottom heavy. A lot of people don't work out to be strong but to look good - what's wrong with that?
So what do you disagree with exactly? Legs are not important for looks, and some people are already naturally bottom heavy. A lot of people don't work out to be strong but to look good - what's wrong with that?
Legs ARE important for looks...chicken legs aren't a good look.
BuyandSave
All Star
Legs ARE important for looks...chicken legs aren't a good look.
A lot of people don't have chicken legs - hence the "naturally bottom heavy" part of my post. Upper body is way more important for an overall good looking physique.
A lot of people don't have chicken legs - hence the "naturally bottom heavy" part of my post. Upper body is way more important for an overall good looking physique.
Symmetry is the most important thing, if you're walking around looking like Johnny Bravo it throws off the look. Sure, some people have naturally big legs, but when you go from a 38" chest to a 44" chest, and your legs stay relatively the same you're going to look weird.
Also, you will run into lower back problems later in life if you're packing on muscle up top and not strengthening your lower back + hamstrings which is what the deadlift hits. Your body has a balance, and if you don't keep that balance you're fukked.
BuyandSave
All Star
Symmetry is the most important thing, if you're walking around looking like Johnny Bravo it throws off the look. Sure, some people have naturally big legs, but when you go from a 38" chest to a 44" chest, and your legs stay relatively the same you're going to look weird.
Also, you will run into lower back problems later in life if you're packing on muscle up top and not strengthening your lower back + hamstrings which is what the deadlift hits. Your body has a balance, and if you don't keep that balance you're fukked.
fukk it, I'm young and I'll think about that balance shyt when I'm 45 - no biggie. As far as Hugh Jackman, how many people actually realized he had chicken legs? How often does he even wear shorts? See my point? Your upper body is constantly on display - legs almost never are.
fukk it, I'm young and I'll think about that balance shyt when I'm 45 - no biggie. As far as Hugh Jackman, how many people actually realized he had chicken legs? How often does he even wear shorts? See my point? Your upper body is constantly on display - legs almost never are.
People notice breh, women subconsciously see symmetry.
legs are really not needed though the other posters are right. i never met a woman who likes big legs besides huge quads make your dikk look tiny. i almost gag when i see a dude nude in real life not just in photos with big ripped quads its nasty
i have big legs from work and years of playing hockey plus i walk hard all day so they get plenty of work out. id rather use my protein for my biceps and shoulders thank you
i have big legs from work and years of playing hockey plus i walk hard all day so they get plenty of work out. id rather use my protein for my biceps and shoulders thank you
Who cares about who can lift more? I'd much rather have a nice looking body. If I can do that without squats and deads, why not? And honestly, fukk legs. Some people have big legs to begin with and no bytches look at your quads when they're checking you out. If you're working out for strength - good for you, but a lot of people do it for looks. And no offense to somebody like @MMSex but I would much rather take advice on lifting from the Hodge Twins because they actually look like they lift.
if you dont have any kind of base with your legs, you just look disproportional and weird
noone is saying you gotta squat 500 and DL 600and fwiw i get more compliments than my friends who definitely look like they lift
but everyone has their own standard 
so if you 170, you should be able to do 340lb squat for atleast 1 rep
if you can do that, i dont think its all that necessary to go higher
but thats just me
Last edited by a moderator: