A pretty good existing method - Mew Indicator Line:

In long skulled people the OP's mode of measurement would make it seem dolichocephalic people have more "forward" growth (I am getting sick of that term). 

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCnaGjE_T7h157BK45moQuc_u_2CUfF6FC4Fn98PQ_5ANpjzM

Vin Diesel above "seems" to have more maxillary development than The Rock. By all ways of telling , The Rock clearly has the better jaw development however. I am long skulled myself so my distance will appear greater. Vin is also clearly recessed judging by his turkey neck and weak profile. So this is why such a method is not ideal.

@admin I wonder if the method you posted accounts for teeth tipping. Surely if someone's teeth tip forward it would indicate their maxilla moved when in fact no such thing happened.  

Posted by: TGW

A pretty good existing method - Mew Indicator Line:

 

I wish I could find something as clear as above to explain the vertical growth angle indicator.

This is the best I could find and I understand how to place the lines but have no clue how the angle came out 112 degrees on this example. Looks to me like 50 or degrees.

I would go by gonial angle to be honest. Recessed faces always seem to have high gonial angles. Look at Quentin Tarantino who has the textbook recessed look.

@eddiemoney

In my opinion Diesel does not have better maxillary development than Dwayne. Not even seemingly so. To me it seems that the difference is less a matter of isolated maxillary development, and more about overall skull development

Look at the difference in how their soft tissue is supported. Look at the difference in occipital curvature. Curving occipital is a  defining characteristic of an undeveloped skull. A skull that has grown adequately by the base/occipital will have similar linearity to Dwayne's neck. Imagine the tongue pushing deep into Diesel's skull. With proper anatomical function his skull would respond with a rotation like this:

Likewise, we could make The Rock's skull mimic the undeveloped characteristics of Diesel  by rotating it to the opposite direction:

Where did you get the idea that a curved occiput is due to an underdeveloped skull? The same skulls of our ancestors that everyone here loves to claim as ideal have occipital buns and are curved. 

Also, West Africans mostly have curved occiputs. It is a dolichocephalic trait and dolichocephalic peoples develop this as a result of being from hot climates. The longer frame dissipates heat more effectively.

Also, neck muscle development will determine occipital protuberance. The more developed the neck is, the "flatter" the rear profile. But I have never seen anything regarding how curved occipital bones are part of being underdeveloped. Do you have sources?

Posted by: EddieMoney

In long skulled people the OP's mode of measurement would make it seem dolichocephalic people have more "forward" growth (I am getting sick of that term). 

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCnaGjE_T7h157BK45moQuc_u_2CUfF6FC4Fn98PQ_5ANpjzM

Vin Diesel above "seems" to have more maxillary development than The Rock. By all ways of telling , The Rock clearly has the better jaw development however. I am long skulled myself so my distance will appear greater. Vin is also clearly recessed judging by his turkey neck and weak profile. So this is why such a method is not ideal.

@admin I wonder if the method you posted accounts for teeth tipping. Surely if someone's teeth tip forward it would indicate their maxilla moved when in fact no such thing happened.  

 

 

I'm confused as to how a skull's length has any bearing on the distance between cheekbone advancement and the ears. I think it's a pretty decent system to go by. Obviously people who are recessed should tend to have a shorter gap between the points I've shown. How else would it make sense?

Notice how even in the guy below who has a picture taken much farther away and less quality, he still appears to have a larger gap.

I attached a picture below showing the measurements. Keep in mind that the first picture of the more recessed guy was taken closer up vs. the other guy who had his taken farther away. Even so -- and tying to crop them equally together -- the recessed guy still has a shorter distance with his photo taken closer up and which you would think should appear more larger/forward grown with the guy who had his taken a distance away and is actually bigger.

If you put these two guys together at the same distance & took the profile as they were in these photos, you'd see the dramatic difference more I would think.

Posted by: Keengo

Posted by: EddieMoney

In long skulled people the OP's mode of measurement would make it seem dolichocephalic people have more "forward" growth (I am getting sick of that term). 

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCnaGjE_T7h157BK45moQuc_u_2CUfF6FC4Fn98PQ_5ANpjzM

Vin Diesel above "seems" to have more maxillary development than The Rock. By all ways of telling , The Rock clearly has the better jaw development however. I am long skulled myself so my distance will appear greater. Vin is also clearly recessed judging by his turkey neck and weak profile. So this is why such a method is not ideal.

@admin I wonder if the method you posted accounts for teeth tipping. Surely if someone's teeth tip forward it would indicate their maxilla moved when in fact no such thing happened.  

 

 

I'm confused as to how a skull's length has any bearing on the distance between cheekbone advancement and the ears. I think it's a pretty decent system to go by. Obviously people who are recessed should tend to have a shorter gap between the points I've shown. How else would it make sense?

Notice how even in the guy below who has a picture taken much farther away and less quality, he still appears to have a larger gap.

I attached a picture below showing the measurements. Keep in mind that the first picture of the more recessed guy was taken closer up vs. the other guy who had his taken farther away. Even so -- and tying to crop them equally together -- the recessed guy still has a shorter distance with his photo taken closer up and which you would think should appear more larger/forward grown with the guy who had his taken a distance away and is actually bigger.

I said in my post why the method is flawed. Vin Diesel has a greater distance than the Rock but is nowhere near as developed.

Long skulls include the face, not just the cranium. As such, the length from ear to cheek may be longer than on a person with a smaller skull. You used a pro fighter as an example but clearly his skull is just LARGER in general compared to that Asian teenager. 

But I ask again, what do you actually have to say about the Vin vs Rock picture? Do you think Vin has greater maxillary development? His distance seems the same as The Rock if not further yet his profile looks horrible and very weak. 

This is flawed methodology is all I am saying . Say someone has a naturally smaller skull proportionally. Their distance will be less even with excellent development.

I guess you have a point with Vin Diesel and The Rock. They do seem to have similar forward growth, but The Rock's face looks a little "better" if that's the right way of putting it. I don't think Vin Diesel looks recessed obviously, but it just seems like his cheekbones are lower compared to the structure of his face.

Maybe Vin Diesel should try mewing or face pulling, I don't know. Point being that he is not recessed and he's not unattractive based on this for a guy (even if some may not consider him necessarily attractive either, but I think the point came across). The Rock seems to just have a slightly longer head from the profile view (he's taller) and higher cheekbones, whereas Vin might have some similar growth but lacking in height/angularity or such. Cheekbones can grow forward and a little sloped, while some grow forward and up (relative to ear height). The Rock probably just has a better balance of head length, angle and cheekbone growth relative to the rest of his skull -- and Vin -- while not recessed -- doesn't have all of these things in-line.

You don't think Vin is recessed? He has practically every textbook trait of recession. He also appears to have orthodontic work based on his near flawless dentition combined with his narrow palate.

I don't think Vin Diesel is very facially aesthetic. His lower third distance while dimorphic displays a weak chin, a turkey neck, weak eye support, and very little soft tissue support altogether. I think Vin is haloed by his muscles because if a skinny guy had his face, everyone would comment on lack of aesthetics.

Aesthetic or not, he doesn't have ideal development.

Maybe Vin's issues aren't hard tissue but soft tissue? His weak eye support could be orbital rim issues not related to maxillary advancement or such. His lower third or mandible area could just be genetic (he doesn't have a recessed chin or anything, but everyone doesn't naturally have a square jaw with a prominent chin.). Sure, his chin would look better if it were like an inch forward, but I don't think he's recessed since you can see his forward growth.

The Rock just has the whole package -- hard tissue in check, soft tissue, and probably a good balance of both. Maybe Vin used to mouthbreath and his maxilla grew a little downwards, but it still looks pretty forward too. Every drooping maxilla/cheekbone/etc. isn't necessarily stuck far back in the face -- there is a range. So that again goes back to how Dwayne probably has a steady plane facial growth and Vin grew forward, but also more downward or so other combination of hard/soft tissue deficiency. Also, aesthetics is more than just forward growth -- it's only a fair part of it I suppose.

This male model criminal guy has the similar lower third of Vin Diesel and a questionable profile, but when seen from the front it's quite different, isn't it? Despite this, he still has forward growth. Look where his ear is relative to his chin. His ears are higher than his cheekbones, but he's still obviously not lacking in the distance of my measurement. He is probably right around where I estimated that UFC fighter guy above. The facial aesthetic "package" isn't limited to just the lower third or forward growth or etc., but pretty much how everything works together. How many people will say his face is wrong or not ideal?

You seem a bit all over the place. Meeks doesn't have the same weak profile of Vin Diesel. Meeks has lip projection for one. Vin has no lips. Also, you need to get this forward growth meme out of your head.

The exact reason I am not agreeing with your theory is because how "forward " the maxilla projects from the ears is completely irrelevant . In my profile, my maxilla projects similar to Vin's and I know I am recessed. Turkey neck isn't genetic my friend. It is lackluster development and bad posture. His jaw is small not through genetics but through bad habits. Your skin around your mandible shouldn't sag if you have low bodyfat like he does. This is how I am trying to explain to you how to tell the difference between a naturally small jaw and an actual deformity caused why environment.

Vin's face looks tired. His profile is unnatural. He looks old as hell from side view with that sunken upper lip. Soft tissue support is brought on by bone support. 

This again is why we should not just look at things like distance from cheek to ear. 

Understand that "forward" growth is relative to the individual. Comparing skulls in people who realistically have nothing to do with each other isn't a great way to judge bone development. Especially with how some phenotypes have naturally more robust cheekbones than others. The way they are recessed isn't the way another would be recessed.

Recession is all relative to the individual and that is what I am trying to convey. The fact that Vin looks very recessed shows that his own personal measurement for "forward" growth is relative to HIM. You don't know what his actual potential is. 

Just consider that someone with a 24 inch skull will probably have a llonger distance to cheeks than someone with a 19 inch skull. That doesn't mean the 24 inch skull can't be relatively underdeveloped. Quentin Tarantino for example has a big head (thus a long ear to cheek length) but he is extremely recessed. 

Just consider that someone with a 24 inch skull will probably have a llonger distance to cheeks than someone with a 19 inch skull

Not really. I have a 23.5 inch skull and my distance is 3.5 inches. I'm sure it's because of not the skull size, but the relative distance the face with grow forward from the point of the ears. Skull size doesn't tell you much about forward growth. The ear height doesn't matter because almost everyone's ears are on the same area on the sides of their head -- so forward growth is somewhat estimable based on this measure.

As I said, get measuring and report back here. I'm sure there is some correlation with recession and project distances between the tragus and the zygo process

I showed you an example of the theory not panning out. If you feel the need to continue believing it while I am not convinced then I guess it just leaves us no further discussion. 

Also if Vin has such a developed maxilla why is his mandible all tucked back there with an invisible gonion ? I can't even tell the dude has a mandible to be honest since it looks mostly like skin and little bone.

Understand bones don't mmove in isolation. I think your confusion on these matters come from the fact that this hasn't been made clear. If the maxilla moves forward, the mandible simply juts to close the bite and this is why gonial angles decrease when maxillary development happens. The type of joint the mandible is allows it a ton of flexibility to rotate to meet new maxillary positions. This is why the gonial angles lessen. Your mandible is NOT going to stay back there all slack jawed like some drooling derelict. 

Wishful thinking at this point. I've had maxillary advancement from face pulling along with zygo too but zero difference in mandible that I can tell at least.

I don't have any old profile pictures of myself from 1+ year ago to clearly see. All pictures are front facing or 3/4-ish side turned but not enough to really get a glimpse of the ramus length/angle/chin projection/etc. I've always had a meh chin, but it doesn't seem to have changed as it should with CCW rotation that apparently should occur with enough maxilla and forward growth. I don't really know what to say about the "ante face" phenomenon though

Have you seen a change in your mentolabial fold?

What is that exactly? The space between the lower lip and the chin? I can't notice any difference prior to mewing and now with that area.

What differences should face pulling or mewing make with this?

If this is the space between the lip and chin, I'd expect that CCW rotation of the mandible (if face pulling can do this) would make this gap fall back in and bring the chin forward as the mandible swings more down (my idea of trying to make sense of this).

You said you've been at this for just months right? Realize stuff like this can take years. What was your previous posture like? An underbite?

Also yes that is the fold

My chin has become more pronounced via the palate widening leading to more mandible jutting. But it is only something I have noticed because i took pics. Pics help. 

Posted by: @keengo

I just notice lots of good profiles have noticeably big distances between the zygo process and the ear's tragus area

Does anyone agree with this? I haven’t noticed much difference.

I believe that the Mew Indicator Line is the best. Maybe it can't measure forward growth per se, but it's the most reliable way to measure overall development and harmony. I had my own skepticism and "what ifs" (e.g. what if someone has a nasolabial angle too acute, what if someone's nose is overprojected) but I realized that a well-developed face isn't likely to have either. A protruding maxilla (not sure if that's the right word) like Vin's is nowhere near ideal, of course.