What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Lyndsey Vonn- How Hot (1 Viewer)

Ranking

  • 1

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • 2

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 5 3.5%
  • 5

    Votes: 9 6.3%
  • 6

    Votes: 15 10.6%
  • 7

    Votes: 37 26.1%
  • 8

    Votes: 39 27.5%
  • 9

    Votes: 24 16.9%
  • 10

    Votes: 10 7.0%

  • Total voters
    142
Super cute, great body, great personality, tough-chick, world-class athlete....easy 9.5 in my book. I would take her over most 10's.

 
She's more cute than hot. She's also a little larger than I tend to like my ladies, but she's also in great condition and has a nice shape to her.

I'd go with an 8 too.

 
Why do you think the network is going crazy with reports on her status? She's one of the folks they are "banking on" to draw folks in, partially because she's good looking.

 
7 max. (I'd edge closer to 6.5 personally)

----------------------

7: Cute girl at the club, in classes, at work, in apt building. Definitely cute, but not tops locally.

6: Fairly attractive, no major flaws but maybe minor ones

 
6.5 or 7. Her chin is too wide for my liking.
Wide chin? That chick is 160 pounds - I doubt her chin is the only wide body part you would notice in personlemme repeat that for the vast majority voting her an 8 or above

One Hundred Sixty Pounds
She's also 5'10". Target weight of a 5'10' woman is 153.
:goodposting: OK, gb, enjoy
Not saying that makes her ideal - just that it's not like 160 pounds (especially for an athlete) makes her a fatty or anything. I bet her body fat percent is relatively low.
 
she's 5-10 and muscular/athletic. what's so surprising about 160 lb?

ETA: i love the offdee scale

 
Last edited by a moderator:
7 max. (I'd edge closer to 6.5 personally)----------------------7: Cute girl at the club, in classes, at work, in apt building. Definitely cute, but not tops locally. 6: Fairly attractive, no major flaws but maybe minor ones
:goodposting:
 
she's 5-10 and muscular/athletic. what's so surprising about 160 lb?
being 5-10 and 160lbs of muscle is fine if you're a female olympic athlete. But that's not something that most would consider Hot. Saying she's 9+ is absolutely ridiculous.She's cute at best. I voted 7 and that was being generous since there wasn't a 6.5 option.
 
She's a 7, I'd say. Good looking, but not great. I mean, I'd definitely date her because I like athletic women, but just going on looks it's tough to put her higher than a 7.

 
Attractive woman, 7, borderline 8. If she wasn't an athlete you'd give her nary a second glance compared to other photos of wimmens out there on the innernets.

 
For reference I think we need a pole on the heaviest woman (regardless of height) you have ever tapped.

I've never been with anyone over 130 (and she was like 6' or 6'1"). 110-120 is ideal regardless.

I guess you could rationalize muscle mass is denser, weighs more than fatty tissue, etc.

I think you guys that think a 160 pound woman is hot are effing nuts.

 
For reference I think we need a pole on the heaviest woman (regardless of height) you have ever tapped.I've never been with anyone over 130 (and she was like 6' or 6'1"). 110-120 is ideal regardless.I guess you could rationalize muscle mass is denser, weighs more than fatty tissue, etc.I think you guys that think a 160 pound woman is hot are effing nuts.
Off the top of my head, there have been three girls I've been with that I guess were over 160. One was a "man, I am DRUNK" moment. One was a girl who was about 5'9, 160 and was SCORCHING hot. And one was 5'6 170ish the last night of my junior year. (I took guff all summer for that....right until she showed up for the fall semester having lost 25 pounds, adding a tan, and lightening her hair at which point everyone was after her. I like to think of that one as getting in on the IPO. ) Anyway, a woman can be gorgeous at 160. A woman can be gorgeous over 160. I don't see what the deal is - every woman is different. :confused:
 
please repost the whole offdee scale to remind me what each number means.
10: Almost flawless and very rare. Could be a top model, top playboy centerfold, (nationally amazing, the MENSA of hotness)9: The hottest girl at the club, The hottest girl at school, etc (more locally amazing)8: One of the hotter women at the club, one of the hotter girls at school, (upper class of hot women, but not tops locally)7: Cute girl at the club, in classes, at work, in apt building. Definitely cute, but not tops locally. 6: Fairly attractive, no major flaws but maybe minor ones5: Average. starting to be unattractive, but certain qualities work in her favor. Nothing major, but minor problems are more common4.5 and lower: Below Average and no need to rank any lower than this. Major flaws pile up, overweight, blemishes, etc.
 
Oh, sorry guys....let me SUPERSIZE that pic of her throwing out the first pitch at Wrigley.

Oh, yeah, smoking hot....gonna need an ll for this one.
That's not helping you position.
:thumbup: How you coming along with your comprehension?
So you changed your mind and now agree 160 pounds on a woman isn't bad?
No, but it looks good on you.Abraham - you're right, takes all kinds to make the big blue marble spin around.

NFW for me, but whatevs.

 
Oh, sorry guys....let me SUPERSIZE that pic of her throwing out the first pitch at Wrigley.

Oh, yeah, smoking hot....gonna need an ll for this one.
That's not helping you position.
:thumbup: How you coming along with your comprehension?
So you changed your mind and now agree 160 pounds on a woman isn't bad?
No, but it looks good on you.Abraham - you're right, takes all kinds to make the big blue marble spin around.

NFW for me, but whatevs.
Seems to me you're the one with the comprehension problem.
 
Oh, sorry guys....let me SUPERSIZE that pic of her throwing out the first pitch at Wrigley.

Oh, yeah, smoking hot....gonna need an ll for this one.
That's not helping you position.
:thumbup: How you coming along with your comprehension?
So you changed your mind and now agree 160 pounds on a woman isn't bad?
No, but it looks good on you.Abraham - you're right, takes all kinds to make the big blue marble spin around.

NFW for me, but whatevs.
I just find it weird that people think a specific metric of any type can fit women in general. I've known some women that have ""near perfect" measurements and could not be less attractive if you covered them in mud. And I've known women that look awful on paper who completely captivate every man in a 3 block radius every time they walk in the room. Lindsey Vonn would be attractive on a city street. She would be gorgeous as your cocktail waitress at a club. And if you were in to athletic girls, met her, and then she flew down the slopes for a gold medal you'd be hooked for life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems to me you're the one with the comprehension problem.
I'll type slowly...lemme know when you get lost.
1:21 post by BL - this was sarcasm; it may not have been obvious to you, but I was hoping 1:34 post by BL would clear it up
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just find it weird that people think a specific metric of any type can fit women in general. I've known some women that have ""near perfect" measurements and could not be less attractive if you covered them in mud. And I've known women that look awful on paper who completely captivate every man in a 3 block radius every time they walk in the room. Lindsey Vonn would be attractive on a city street. She would be gorgeous as your cocktail waitress at a club. And if you were in to athletic girls, met her, and then she flew down the slopes for a gold medal you'd be hooked for life.
The weight limit is merely a minimum standard starting point before factoring in anything else.Big sea...lots of fish...never compromise.Not that complicated.
 
I just find it weird that people think a specific metric of any type can fit women in general. I've known some women that have ""near perfect" measurements and could not be less attractive if you covered them in mud. And I've known women that look awful on paper who completely captivate every man in a 3 block radius every time they walk in the room. Lindsey Vonn would be attractive on a city street. She would be gorgeous as your cocktail waitress at a club. And if you were in to athletic girls, met her, and then she flew down the slopes for a gold medal you'd be hooked for life.
The weight limit is merely a minimum standard starting point before factoring in anything else.Big sea...lots of fish...never compromise.Not that complicated.
This is where I trick you by asking if you think Marilyn Monroe is attractive before deftly revealing that she was a big girl...
 
Seems to me you're the one with the comprehension problem.
I'll type slowly...lemme know when you get lost.
1:21 post by BL - this was sarcasm; it may not have been obvious to you, but I was hoping 1:34 post by BL would clear it up
Your comprehension is still lagging, Bobby. I understood that you were being sarcastic. I understood it because I read your prior posts. You posted a pic that you thought supported your position that she was overweight but oh-so-cleverly took the opposite position in your post. However, the pic you posted did not help your position. It shows a well-proportioned woman no matter what her actual weight is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you think that picture of Lindsey throwing out the first pitch at Wrigley is a well-proportioned woman, and you don't think she has objectionably fat thighs and noticeable unsightly bulges in her hips and baby fat gut, then Christo, I am afraid we have no basis for having a discussion.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top