#1 utilizes the structural design of the cross best as does #2, but #2 is telling me that she is going to have her legs angled too much to enable her to push into the ‘up’ position. I don’t like to see a victim’s knees to protrude way out. #2 is also telling me that when she does get in the ‘up’ position her arms will go bent and limp, or if they remain taunt, she will have to lean forward to accommodate the narrower spread. Some leaning forward is OK, but too much and the boobs take on that ‘sagging’ look.
Now, if she arches her back out instead of leans out, that is a different story. A bulging chest, flat stomach and protruding ribs is the real meat and potatoes of crucifixion in my eyes! I always try for that in my crucifixions. So, #1 can best achieve that in the up position and avoid the protruding knees in the down position. The only way protruding knees works for me is if they protrude off to the side with the victim straddling a sedile.
None of the #4-8 positions utilize the architecture of the cross properly. #4-7 could use a much shorter crossbeam and #8 needs no crossbeam at all. The arms wrapped back over the top of the cross beam do appeal to me, but on more of a post rather than beam style cross and maybe a short cross where the victim is being tortured. #3 is great for carrying the crossbeam, but doesn’t seem right for crucifixion.
GR