ABSURD!

[archive_FitnessChick]

IFBB MANDATES REDUCTION IN MUSCULARITY!!
In what looks like a direct response to the heat being put on steroids in basball, the IFBB has put out a notice to female competitors mandating a reduction of 20% in muscularity and that judges will be made to follow this as well.

" For aesthetics and health reasons, the IFBB Professional Division requests that female athletes in Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure decrease the amount of muscularity by a factor of 20%.

"This request for a 20% decrease in the amount of muscularity applies to those female athletes whose physiques require the decrease regardless of whether they compete in Bodybuilding, Fitness or Figure.

"All professional judges have been advised of the proper criteria for assessing female physiques."

It will be interesting to see how this will be measured and how this applies to people who may have just started competing and are able to add lean muscle mass, but prevented from it. Voice your opinion to Jim Manion (Vice Chairman of the IFBB professional division) His email is: ifbbprodivision@aol.com

[archive_HULK1550]

First off, i dont know what some of the figure girls will look like if they lose 20% of thier muscle. they would look like skinny cardio chicks. And as far as bodybuilding goes, isnt it called bodybuilding. I mean now they want you to break down your body. i feel bad for women competitors as if they had no clue what the judges were doing before this, they really wont now.
H

"Everybody wants to be a body builder but don't nobody want to lift no heavy ass weight"
-Ronnie Coleman

	ASS Nelson Montana

[archive_FitnessChick]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HULK1550:
i feel bad for women competitors as if they had no clue what the judges were doing before this, they really wont now.
H
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya' don't say!!!!!!
???????????

[archive_xtinct]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FitnessChick:
"This request for a 20% decrease in the amount of muscularity applies to those female athletes whose physiques require the decrease regardless of whether they compete in Bodybuilding, Fitness or Figure.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is that supposed to mean? Who determines whether your physique requires the decrease?

[archive_Bjaarki]

I got your email about this, FC, and I must admit I am at a loss to explain any of it. As xtinct says, who's to say who needs to reduce their muscularity by 20% in order to conform to a new esthetic? Is muscularity the only thing? What about vascularity? Limb proportion? Breast size? You gals are really whipsawed, because you have to be beautiful as well as physically awesome. There are conflicts in all this that are built in to the system. I don't know what I would do in your shoes.

I also saw the email from Muscles12's husband, saying, in effect, that if health is one reason for reducing gear use among women BBrs, then by implication it must be okay for guys to kill themselves, since no one is bitching about their muscularity. That, I'm sure, is an unintended irony of this IFBB ruling.

Do you really think any of this has to do with the current steroid stories in baseball?

The only other thing I would say is that I do think a governing board has a right to mandate an esthetic when a sport is one with a high esthetic component. Rugby players and linebackers can look however they want, but gymnasts, figure skaters, and other athletes who are judged on the appearance of things have to conform to esthetic ideals that should be codified and that should not be allowed to "drift" too much, so that athletes at all levels of the sport aren't trying to hit a "moving target." (Has womens' BB drifted toward grotesque muscularity in, say, the HW division, as mens' BB obviously has? I don't know. My only interest in the sport is you.) However, whatever esthetic ideals are arrived at, the process should be one of consensus of the entire community of sport - athletes, coaches, judges, etc. - and not just imposed from on high, as it sounds like this was.

Bjaarki

First, say to yourself what you would become.
Then, do what you have to do.

[Bones]

GEE, my first figure show I was told i looked great but too lean and not enough muscle, now 4 cycles later and 15 pounds I may be told i am a MAN! went to the doc today for a yearly and he shit his pants and accused me of being on roids and told me it was not his cup of tea and i looked better skinny, wow good thing I didn't spend all those hours in the gym to get my docs approval, LOL! but this truly does suck for woman, its always too much or not enough

[Curious George]

I personally think that's a crock of shit. Every year for the women, it seems like there are new rules amd standards. I have no idea how you do it. I don't think that THEY even know what they want.

How is 20 percent going to be inforced? From what standard are they going by? If you only reduce it by 10 percent is that enough? Come On!

Jeesus I hate the politics of that sport.

Cg

[JaySee]

The mandate would make perfect sense to me if you replaced the word "muscularity" with "masculinity" .

FC, I honestly don't see this as a problem for you. If anything it just opens the door wider.
Good luck!

[This message was edited by JaySee on 12-09-04 at 08:19 AM.]

[Jonny Organon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bones:
GEE, my first figure show I was told i looked great but too lean and not enough muscle, now 4 cycles later and 15 pounds I may be told i am a MAN! went to the doc today for a yearly and he shit his pants and accused me of being on roids and told me it was not his cup of tea and i looked better skinny, wow good thing I didn't spend all those hours in the gym to get my docs approval, LOL! but this truly does suck for woman, its always too much or not enough<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, your doc sounds like a waste of med school. 1. It's not his posistion to cast what he feels is "a good look". 2. Any good medical proffesional should know that accusation is not something that should be used. 3. If he understood what he was talking about or pointing fingers at number 1 and 2 may not have been brought up.

That really struck me, what you said. I would have called him on it right there on the spot. I'm sorry you have to deal with such pis-poor doc. I mean, "work with me, not against me."

[Pharm Animal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bjaarki:
Has womens' BB drifted toward grotesque muscularity in, say, the HW division, as mens' BB obviously has?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is a blatant matter of your own personal opinion, B. Don't contribute to the underlying problem.

Bodybuilding, in its pure sense (although open for argument), is the biggest, best conditioned, aesthetic combination of human musculature wins. Although subjective in nature, bodybuilding should still hold to these ideal purities.

And no B, you cannot argue this point with me. I'm right.

[Monster]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaySee:
The mandate would make perfect sense to me if you replaced the word "muscularity" with "masculinity".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But its NOT a beauty contest, its a physique contest. If they are truely judging a competitor by their physique, you should be able to wear a bag over your head and not have that affect your standing.

As if the politics were not enough, now you have to deal with the latest arbitrary rule set handed down by these fucking bozos.

20%?

If someone like Yaxiini (I cant spell her last name ) lost 20% of her muscularity, she would STILL be far more muscular than most of the women before dropping 20% of their muscle.
So what the fuck kind of a guideline is that?

But this is nothing new for female competitors, its just the latest slap in the face.

BTW, I looked at the pictures from the show FC, and politics must have been at play, because you were robbed out of at least a couple slots in placing. You were easily top five.

-------------------------


"You can kill the revolutionary,
but you can't kill the revolution."


I used to not believe in god, till I realized he was me.

[archive_Ulter]

IF this is true the only positive I can say about it is that it was thoughtful of them to announce it. In the past, when rules changed, like when Men's went from the biggest guy to the driest guy, they didn't tell anyone. They just started judging differently. So if they are going to try and "clean up" the sport, as the president has asked in baseball, at least they are giving warning.
But my position on this as a rule is pretty well documented so I won't go into it.

[Pharm Animal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monster:
But its NOT a beauty contest, its a physique contest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>word

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As if the politics were not enough, now you have to deal with the latest arbitrary rule set handed down by these fucking bozos.

20%?

...what the fuck kind of a guideline is that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. I posted more about this on a similar thread FC started in the Competitor's forum. Basically everything you've covered monster. Only mine was more "angry"...LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But this is nothing new for female competitors, its just the latest slap in the face...you were robbed out of at least a couple slots in placing. You were easily top five.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>word (again). Try top 3. WTF were they looking for in the winner...the most "average" physique?

[Cocktails]

Monster, I was thinking the same thing about Fitness Chicks placing. She looked as well, if not better than her competitors. Maybe it's a bit of whose doin' who, but she definetly was robbed. And FC, you want to pass any of that glorious muscle on, I'm here waitin!