Comments on: Andy Roddick: Then or Now?

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 03:21:28 +0000

MMMMMM… either please

By: jeff

jeff — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:42:59 +0000

I love the then shot as well as the now shot

By: Willy Fog

Willy Fog — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:27:05 +0000

NOW, NOW, NOW!

By: cassanova

cassanova — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:00:49 +0000

NOW

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:44:43 +0000

what he’s like 12 in 2001?

By: Emma

Emma — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:21:41 +0000

now

By: Tanya

Tanya — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:01:16 +0000

i go with now!!

By: Geo

Geo — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:47:41 +0000

so hot either way, but I have to with Then.

By: AndyEmersonn

AndyEmersonn — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:56:09 +0000

I must confess that I find him more appealing now.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:16:51 +0000

LUCKY is guy who snaps Andy with his Rod showing at least a million USD

I’m just sayin’

By: stacey

stacey — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:24:56 +0000

love the new improved andy!!!

By: everythingimnot

everythingimnot — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:08:55 +0000

everythingimnot.wordpress.com

By: Indiana

Indiana — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:01:41 +0000

Both pictures are good – people will change, but this guy only gets better!!!! Love both.

By: tmpr

tmpr — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:18:29 +0000

well, since he was probably 18 in the first picture and 25 or 26 in the second picture, it’s not too surprising, given that there were 7 years of athletic conditioning in the middle, that he’s gotten meatier. i’d much prefer the “now”, since he’s rather skinny and way too young in the “then” pic.

why would anyone prefer the “then” pic, i ask myself. well, taste is relative. but i just hate those young modern gay men who think any muscle or body fat is less attractive than all these scrawny little twinks. ick. like a man at 26 is less attractive, due to his age, than any little stick of a twink without a brain in his head.

By: K

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:04:41 +0000

Then