Why ESR is overrated, and why MFR is more important

Futura

Futura

1 PSL
Joined
Sep 15, 2024
Posts
593
Reputation
584
ESR is often regarded as one of the most important ratios in this site, i don't think it's a completely meaningless ratio but it's overrated and the ideal ratio isn't the same on everyone

MFR is a better way to identify eye spacing

ESR is overrated at indentifying if eyes are close/wide set because the midface ratio is what actually matters
Just look at Marko Jaric vs Charlie Kirk, you would probably think Jaric has closer set eyes right?

Download 1

Kirk charlie image


WRONG, jaric has a 0.4 esr while kirk's ESR is 0.38 (JFL)

Another example is how barret's eyes actually look pretty wide set even tho his esr is low (0.435)
GettyImages 1151276685

This brings me to my next point

People with high posterior facial depth usually have a lower ESR (Drago, Barret, Stepanov etc)

SInce the distance between the ear and the lateral canthus is higher, the sides of the face look longer and in a front picture the increased length is flattened, causing the eyes to look closer together, this is especially true if the person has prominent cheekbones (barret in the pic above for example)

Downloadfile5


Now compare it to chico who isn't as forward grown and has non existent zygos

2991393 images   2022 06 15T081305362


This basically means the more forward grown you are the more you can afford to have a lower esr (YOU STILL NEED AN IDEAL MFR)

Obviously IPD still matters since it's what determines your MFR

TLDR
ESR is overrated, MFR is what actually makes eyes look close or far set and forward growth influences how your eye spacing is percieved
 
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: 5'7 zoomer, PRIEST Sv3rige, Thebuffdon and 13 others
Cool. What is MFR, how do you calculate it?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 75672 and thecel
what is the lowest you can go with ipd measurements
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel
what is the lowest you can go with ipd measurements
Anything under 62 -63 mm is subhuman trait even if you have ideal ESR becoz it means you are skullcel .
 
I have never taken seriously ESR is too vague as ratio also influenced by bigonial width
 
ESR is often regarded as one of the most important ratios in this site, i don't think it's a completely meaningless ratio but it's overrated and the ideal ratio isn't the same on everyone

MFR is a better way to identify eye spacing

ESR is overrated at indentifying if eyes are close/wide set because the midface ratio is what actually matters
Just look at Marko Jaric vs Charlie Kirk, you would probably think Jaric has closer set eyes right?

View attachment 3173738
View attachment 3173737

WRONG, jaric has a 0.4 esr while kirk's ESR is 0.38 (JFL)

Another example is how barret's eyes actually look pretty wide set even tho his esr is low (0.435)
View attachment 3173757
This brings me to my next point

People with high posterior facial depth usually have a lower ESR (Drago, Barret, Stepanov etc)

SInce the distance between the ear and the lateral canthus is higher, the sides of the face look longer and in a front picture the increased length is flattened, causing the eyes to look closer together, this is especially true if the person has prominent cheekbones (barret in the pic above for example)

View attachment 3173788

Now compare it to chico who isn't as forward grown and has non existent zygos

View attachment 3173801

This basically means the more forward grown you are the more you can afford to have a lower esr (YOU STILL NEED AN IDEAL MFR)

Obviously IPD still matters since it's what determines your MFR

TLDR
ESR is overrated, MFR is what actually makes eyes look close or far set and forward growth influences how your eye spacing is percieved
tye on wider skulls, but on longer ones this doesnt and cant apply
 
Everything matters
 
ESR is often regarded as one of the most important ratios in this site, i don't think it's a completely meaningless ratio but it's overrated and the ideal ratio isn't the same on everyone

MFR is a better way to identify eye spacing

ESR is overrated at indentifying if eyes are close/wide set because the midface ratio is what actually matters
Just look at Marko Jaric vs Charlie Kirk, you would probably think Jaric has closer set eyes right?

View attachment 3173738
View attachment 3173737

WRONG, jaric has a 0.4 esr while kirk's ESR is 0.38 (JFL)

Another example is how barret's eyes actually look pretty wide set even tho his esr is low (0.435)
View attachment 3173757
This brings me to my next point

People with high posterior facial depth usually have a lower ESR (Drago, Barret, Stepanov etc)

SInce the distance between the ear and the lateral canthus is higher, the sides of the face look longer and in a front picture the increased length is flattened, causing the eyes to look closer together, this is especially true if the person has prominent cheekbones (barret in the pic above for example)

View attachment 3173788

Now compare it to chico who isn't as forward grown and has non existent zygos

View attachment 3173801

This basically means the more forward grown you are the more you can afford to have a lower esr (YOU STILL NEED AN IDEAL MFR)

Obviously IPD still matters since it's what determines your MFR

TLDR
ESR is overrated, MFR is what actually makes eyes look close or far set and forward growth influences how your eye spacing is percieved
so what’s the end goal of this thread
 
ESR is often regarded as one of the most important ratios in this site, i don't think it's a completely meaningless ratio but it's overrated and the ideal ratio isn't the same on everyone

MFR is a better way to identify eye spacing

ESR is overrated at indentifying if eyes are close/wide set because the midface ratio is what actually matters
Just look at Marko Jaric vs Charlie Kirk, you would probably think Jaric has closer set eyes right?

View attachment 3173738
View attachment 3173737

WRONG, jaric has a 0.4 esr while kirk's ESR is 0.38 (JFL)

Another example is how barret's eyes actually look pretty wide set even tho his esr is low (0.435)
View attachment 3173757
This brings me to my next point

People with high posterior facial depth usually have a lower ESR (Drago, Barret, Stepanov etc)

SInce the distance between the ear and the lateral canthus is higher, the sides of the face look longer and in a front picture the increased length is flattened, causing the eyes to look closer together, this is especially true if the person has prominent cheekbones (barret in the pic above for example)

View attachment 3173788

Now compare it to chico who isn't as forward grown and has non existent zygos

View attachment 3173801

This basically means the more forward grown you are the more you can afford to have a lower esr (YOU STILL NEED AN IDEAL MFR)

Obviously IPD still matters since it's what determines your MFR

TLDR
ESR is overrated, MFR is what actually makes eyes look close or far set and forward growth influences how your eye spacing is percieved
true my esr makes my eyes look wideset
 
My ipd is wide like 68-69mm while my byzygo is about 147mm so I have .46-.47 esr however my midface is normal height of like 63mm making my midface ratio 1.1, yet somehow my philtrim Is still 17mm. I think people with wide faces have a hard time meeting “ideal” ratios. Things just don’t add up fully. If my philtrim was shorter I would have a extremely short midface. And if my nose was longer/taller maxilla with more foreward growth It would look good but my splanctocranium is already far foreward. My eyes are positioned very far foreward when compared to my neurocranum while I still have a relatively flat face. People with wide faces need very good dental arch length and positioning to look good in my opinion or it won’t match the scale of the other development.
 
My ipd is wide like 68-69mm while my byzygo is about 147mm so I have .46-.47 esr however my midface is normal height of like 63mm making my midface ratio 1.1, yet somehow my philtrim Is still 17mm. I think people with wide faces have a hard time meeting “ideal” ratios. Things just don’t add up fully. If my philtrim was shorter I would have a extremely short midface. And if my nose was longer/taller maxilla with more foreward growth It would look good but my splanctocranium is already far foreward. My eyes are positioned very far foreward when compared to my neurocranum while I still have a relatively flat face. People with wide faces need very good dental arch length and positioning to look good in my opinion or it won’t match the scale of the other development.
Can u send a side pic in dms
 
My ipd is wide like 68-69mm while my byzygo is about 147mm so I have .46-.47 esr however my midface is normal height of like 63mm making my midface ratio 1.1, yet somehow my philtrim Is still 17mm. I think people with wide faces have a hard time meeting “ideal” ratios. Things just don’t add up fully. If my philtrim was shorter I would have a extremely short midface. And if my nose was longer/taller maxilla with more foreward growth It would look good but my splanctocranium is already far foreward. My eyes are positioned very far foreward when compared to my neurocranum while I still have a relatively flat face. People with wide faces need very good dental arch length and positioning to look good in my opinion or it won’t match the scale of the other development.
Longer philtrum is better if chin is tall enough
 
I don’t have tall chin unfortunately
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
8
Views
173
Mr.Proper
Mr.Proper
Zenis
Replies
111
Views
2K
Deleted member 59811
D
aspiringexcel
Replies
123
Views
3K
Futura
Futura
monecel
Replies
17
Views
594
sub5pslathlete
sub5pslathlete
Alexanderr
Replies
25
Views
2K
ConfusedBolivian
ConfusedBolivian

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top