I think your missing the point. I chose an old picture of Jericho because I was comparing Punks size with guys from the attitude era, therefore I needed a picture of Jericho from that time. What good is comparing Punk to the flabby Jericho? That has no relevance to anything. Likewise, where is the relevance in showing pictures of how Punk use to look? We're comparing how Punk looks now with how guys looked in the attitude era.
The relevance is plenty, because it shows that Punk can be, and has indeed been, ripped and added to the fact I cited from his DVD that he can, and has, gotten up to over 240 lbs. Hell, Jericho was usually billed as only 226 lbs. And Punk is as tall as Austin.
So since the argument was a hypothetical
over whether or not Punk could have been a main-eventer in the Attitude Era because of size, and since in that argument you included Jericho, it only logically follows that a guy who has proven he can be just as ripped and also be even bigger than one of those main-eventers (Jericho) can himself also be included in that group.
And this whole ad hoc of "how Punk looks NOW
" is nothing short of a pigeonholing fallacy done ex post facto to try and salvage something from your failed argument.
Not once so far since you made this initial post which sparked this particular exchange
has the ad hoc stipulation of only "Punk NOW
" ever been made. In fact, since your first words there were "Punk didn't" as in "did
not", that implies past
tense, and as we all know- "now"=/=past tense. Your own grammar has betrayed the limited scope of just "now".