Mansur
Every Cope has an End
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2024
- Posts
- 5,171
- Reputation
- 8,635
1. Deviation between the Ipselateral Alar Angle and the Jaw Frontal Angle
Just because these 2 angles look similar doesnt mean they should be equal in measurements
And we can also see this with the majority of faces having an average of 10 degrees +- deviation, should signal something
Its also contradictory to the Ideal of each Ratio as they range from 84 all the way to 95 degrees for both
Now you could say well if one eye wouldve been 5.2 degrees positive and the other one 7.5 ( both being the ideal ), wouldnt that create assymmetry
Youre mostly right but the deviation isnt about symmetry in this case, in addition to that, the subnasale is often hard to detect.
Especially from a 6ft distance without proper evaluation Its pretty much invisible to the human eye as Its a connection of skin tissue
Placements also differ, someones subnasale could be hidden behind the nose same with extending very far down, making the ratio inaccurate
2. Cheekbone height
This also contradicts the ideals for the male face
Protrusive Zygomatic Bones are always located lower on the midface as they face stronger muscle pull
Bigger, more prominent bones have a wider lower edge. This creates more surface that angles toward the jaw.
A larger bone means a stronger masseter attaches to it. This heavy, daily downward pull shapes the growing bone into a downward slope.
Besides that, its also pretty hard to evaluate the placement on individuals with a flatter Zygo structure, which literally applies to 95% of the human population
Wouldnt also have any impact on the location with a flatter cheekbone structure as the entire area is flattened out which would make it impossible to detect
Also doesnt have a significatn impact on facial attractiveness at all in my opinion, unless the ratio would be lower than 50-60%
Again despite this ratio being super low on Lebron James ( guessing about 30% ) it still doesnt throw off facial harmony that much
Ljungberg has 66% for reference
A lower Cheekbones height could also benefit you if you would suffer from a close-set eye spacing.
It would make the comparison more irrelevant inbetween, as your eye-line would be closer to your tempolar width, making the facial width being perceived as more narrow compared to the eyes
Tell me what you think
Just because these 2 angles look similar doesnt mean they should be equal in measurements
And we can also see this with the majority of faces having an average of 10 degrees +- deviation, should signal something
Its also contradictory to the Ideal of each Ratio as they range from 84 all the way to 95 degrees for both
Now you could say well if one eye wouldve been 5.2 degrees positive and the other one 7.5 ( both being the ideal ), wouldnt that create assymmetry
Youre mostly right but the deviation isnt about symmetry in this case, in addition to that, the subnasale is often hard to detect.
Especially from a 6ft distance without proper evaluation Its pretty much invisible to the human eye as Its a connection of skin tissue
Placements also differ, someones subnasale could be hidden behind the nose same with extending very far down, making the ratio inaccurate
2. Cheekbone height
This also contradicts the ideals for the male face
Protrusive Zygomatic Bones are always located lower on the midface as they face stronger muscle pull
Bigger, more prominent bones have a wider lower edge. This creates more surface that angles toward the jaw.
A larger bone means a stronger masseter attaches to it. This heavy, daily downward pull shapes the growing bone into a downward slope.
Besides that, its also pretty hard to evaluate the placement on individuals with a flatter Zygo structure, which literally applies to 95% of the human population
Wouldnt also have any impact on the location with a flatter cheekbone structure as the entire area is flattened out which would make it impossible to detect
Also doesnt have a significatn impact on facial attractiveness at all in my opinion, unless the ratio would be lower than 50-60%
Again despite this ratio being super low on Lebron James ( guessing about 30% ) it still doesnt throw off facial harmony that much
Ljungberg has 66% for reference
A lower Cheekbones height could also benefit you if you would suffer from a close-set eye spacing.
It would make the comparison more irrelevant inbetween, as your eye-line would be closer to your tempolar width, making the facial width being perceived as more narrow compared to the eyes
Tell me what you think
Last edited:
