Would you rather have good front or side profile

[๕ඞChick3ncu1ry]

.

 

[Chicken Curry]

good side profie tbh

 

[MaherGOAT]

Very good vs mid will always beat good vs very bad lol. Doesn't matter if its side or not side. To balance this out, make it:

Very good side but very bad front or
Very good front but very bad side

 

[heightmaxxing]

Very good side but mid front people normally look at you from 3/4 and hard to have a 3/4 with bad side

 

[depressionmaxxing]

Side is easier to correct than front

 

[albe.ORG]

Very good vs mid will always beat good vs very bad lol. Doesn't matter if its side or not side. To balance this out, make it:

Very good side but very bad front or
Very good front but very bad side

its balanced because front is more important greycel

 

[Ryan]

Good front but very bad side profile​

oxymoron

 

[Infinite]

Hold up, if you have an insanely good front, you're bound to have at the least a slightly below average side
I would chose the front any day, no one takes photos of your side most of the time anyways

 

[๕ඞChick3ncu1ry]

Hold up, if you have an insanely good front, you're bound to have at the least a slightly below average side
I would chose the front any day, no one takes photos of your side most of the time anyways

 

[๕ඞChick3ncu1ry]

@Xangsane @pneumocystosis @Iasacrko @Orc @kebab @Eli

 

[LancasteR]

Just look at Orb and how he does on Tinder experiments for example.
Dude has a chadlite tier front but laughable side profile.
Meanwhile he cleans up the DM‘s of Stacies on tinder.

 

[MaherGOAT]

its balanced because front is more important greycel

I'll agree that my example was bad, because I agree that front is more important. However I still believe that being average + very good - regardless of front vs side - is superior to having good + very bad.

Just as an example:

Good face + very bad height (5'5)
or
Mediocre face + very good height (6'5)

Not that this comparison fits 1:1, but the idea I'm trying to convey is that its more important to avoid having a major failo (like a "very bad side profile") than it is to have a major halo. Like some dude with fantastic height (6'5) with giga failo like subhuman face or morbid obesity is way worse off than someone with average height (5'10 where Im from) and honestly average everything, not to mention good face or other halo to supplement his avg. height.

edit: with all that being said, I agree that saying "average + very good > good + very bad" was redacted af by me because obviously the weighting of each quality is the end all be all, not whatever adjective you use for it.

 

[๕ඞChick3ncu1ry]

I'll agree that my example was bad, because I agree that front is more important. However I still believe that being average + very good - regardless of front vs side - is superior to having good + very bad.

Just as an example:

Good face + very bad height (5'5)
or
Mediocre face + very good height (6'5)

Not that this comparison fits 1:1, but the idea I'm trying to convey is that its more important to avoid having a major failo (like a "very bad side profile") than it is to have a major halo. Like some dude with fantastic height (6'5) with giga failo like subhuman face or morbid obesity is way worse off than someone with average height (5'10 where Im from) and honestly average everything, not to mention good face or other halo to supplement his avg. height.

edit: with all that being said, I agree that saying "average + very good > good + very bad" was redacted af by me because obviously the weighting of each quality is the end all be all, not whatever adjective you use for it.

If we go by your logic everyone would choose the first option.

Your school of thought is good in theory but in reality it sometimes doesn’t work like that.

 

[MaherGOAT]

If we go by your logic everyone would choose the first option.

Your school of thought is good in theory but in reality it sometimes doesn’t work like that.

I voted second option (mediocre + good) because I believe that a failo side profile would simply ruin your chances with women once they see you IRL. Because you're obviously recessed and have bad genetics. None of them are ideal, but at least with the other option you'll look better IRL than you do on pictures. I kinda feel like this boils down to IRL vs picture looks. Superior front will get more matches on tinder, but get rejected IRL. Other guy will get less matches on tinder but when he does meet up, he's smashing on first date.

 

[๕ඞChick3ncu1ry]

I voted second option (mediocre + good) because I believe that a failo side profile would simply ruin your chances with women once they see you IRL. Because you're obviously recessed and have bad genetics. None of them are ideal, but at least with the other option you'll look better IRL than you do on pictures. I kinda feel like this boils down to IRL vs picture looks. Superior front will get more matches on tinder, but get rejected IRL. Other guy will get less matches on tinder but when he does meet up, he's smashing on first date.

Do girl care more about front or side, that would be a big question.


You see Lucky blue smith and Sean opry with bad af side profile And very good front who are supermodel but you don’t see supermodel with bad front and giga insane side profile.

 

[Deleted member 50511]

Front and 3/4 is all that matters, profile is cope.

Chico, opry, jordan and gandy all have dogshit profiles.

 

[lowiqNormie]

mental masturbation at its finest but front > profile

 

[MaherGOAT]

Do girl care more about front or side, that would be a big question.


You see Lucky blue smith and Sean opry with bad af side profile And very good front who are supermodel but you don’t see supermodel with bad front and giga insane side profile.

I don't think O'pry or LBS have bad side profiles to be honest. They are not comparable to prime Chico side profile for sure, but they are not bad. Compared to their front, sure. But compared to the average guy? Far from it.

Tyler Maher has a comparitively "bad" side profile:

https://looksmax.org/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fimages3.imgbox.com%2Fee%2F5d%2F5PVn2n4F_o.jpg&hash=ffc2991825711dbb1931004d84011fbc

but then you get him from 45 deg angle:

https://mediaslide-europe.storage.googleapis.com/uno/pictures/832/50410/large-1566908427-5265f214b3963c178f4318fcb7c92ee2.jpg

I guess this begs the question: Is it even possible to have good / very good front but sub human side?

I'm personally one of those guys who, IMO, has a very good front and 45 deg, but poverty side. I look legit retarded from the side unless I hardcore jut my jaw out.

 

[gigell]

Amazing side and Amazing front

 

[Infinite]

I don't think O'pry or LBS have bad side profiles to be honest. They are not comparable to prime Chico side profile for sure, but they are not bad. Compared to their front, sure. But compared to the average guy? Far from it.

Tyler Maher has a comparitively "bad" side profile:

https://looksmax.org/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fimages3.imgbox.com%2Fee%2F5d%2F5PVn2n4F_o.jpg&hash=ffc2991825711dbb1931004d84011fbc

but then you get him from 45 deg angle:

https://mediaslide-europe.storage.googleapis.com/uno/pictures/832/50410/large-1566908427-5265f214b3963c178f4318fcb7c92ee2.jpg

I guess this begs the question: Is it even possible to have good / very good front but sub human side?

I'm personally one of those guys who, IMO, has a very good front and 45 deg, but poverty side. I look legit retarded from the side unless I hardcore jut my jaw out.

This tbh