Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Chick on October 21, 2010, 08:05:34 PM

Title: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Chick on October 21, 2010, 08:05:34 PM
The following are exerpts from an article that ran in M&F, by Doris Barrilleaux....CIRCA 1982!!

Womens BB just about two years in the making at this point....



"The sport that started on such a high note, seems to have hit a snag Where matters were once rosy, now both the competitors and administrators are becoming increasingly disheartened, and I believe it's largely because we expect too much from athletes and administrators.


Our sport could have gone the direction of men's bodybuilding, and the result would have been identical rules and identical organizations. Naturally, this would have benefited a few. In fact, the vast majority wished to be seperate from the men with different rules...

Those that believe that a woman bodybuilder should be shaped just like a male bodybuilder, are out of touch with reality. They should realize that 95% of women involved in bodybuilding want to look like healthy,well developed athletic WOMEN, not smaller versions of men...

Unhealthy Demands

It's a well known fact that a female naturally carries a higher percentage of bodyfat than a male. Encouraging women to attain the same ultra low bodyfat levels as the men only produces a stringy, emaciated, unhealthy look. Female hips and breasts are acceptable parts of the  anatomy. Why, therefore, should women be urged to strive against nature?

....and what about the use of steroids by some athletes who hope to gain that slight edge over the next person? Already some female athletes have gotten dep voices, male-like baldness and enlarged genitalia, and others need to shave their beards and mustaches. These effects from steroids are permanent.

Too Muscular?

Are striations really that great on a female? Does she really want to look like that in the first place?  I'm closely acquainted with a female bodybuilder who's been training for a number of years, two or three times a day, six days a week. It's obvious she's a dedicated woman who loves her sport.  She tells me she has no desire to become more muscular. Does this mean she's not a real bodybuilder (as some claim), that she should drop out of the sport (as some suggest)?  As far as I'm concerned, she's a better example of a real female bodybuilder than many of the people winning contests...


Doris Barrilleaux, 1982


Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: G_Thang on October 21, 2010, 08:28:42 PM
how about using 250k of that 1M publishing budget and hiring Rosetta Stone to build a photo catalog with instructions for judges and competitors?  obivously...you wouldnt use Rosetta (example) but a company along those lines.

Bikini Template Athlete Examples

Nate Melo
Jessican Anderson
Amanda Latona

Figure "                "

Cheryl Brown
Anja Langer
Erin Stern

WPD
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=352472.0;attach=387729;image)


why are you making this so hard? Take this to the athlete committee.  
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: ~UN_$ung~ on October 21, 2010, 08:31:38 PM
like i mentioned in the other thread, irregardless of how i feel

just like you cant expect a company to keep producing a product that they are losin g money on

its not the IFBB or NPCs job to keep losing money of female bodybuilding, just for the sake of equality......... if they are losing money on it
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: Chick on October 21, 2010, 08:34:17 PM
how about manion using 250k of that 1M publishing budget and hiring Rosetta Stone to build a photo catalog with instructions for judges and competitors?  obivously...you wouldnt use Rosetta (example) but a company along those lines.

Bikini Template Athlete Examples

Nate Melo
Jessican Anderson
Amanda Latona

Figure "                "

Cheryl Brown
Anja Langer
Erin Stern

WPD
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=352472.0;attach=387729;image)


why are you making this so hard? Take this to the athlete committee. 



We will have plenty of examples and specified criteria that leaves no doubt as to what the judges are looking for...

Using current competitors as the "prototype" in any oficial capacity would never be done for obvious reasons...
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Sir Bigness on October 21, 2010, 08:39:51 PM
I love all women!! (well, almost all) They all deserve nurturing and love!! they are life givers!!
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Azure on October 21, 2010, 08:41:24 PM
Hey Bob do you have any updates on Doris...She was truly a pioneer and she was spot on.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: ~UN_$ung~ on October 21, 2010, 08:44:52 PM
i think at the core of this argument, what really bothers me about this issue is ... its the further SELLING OUT of bodybuilding culture........ the reason i liked bodybuilding in the first place, is case its a small subculture unlike mainstream sports

the reason why i liked it in the first place, is cause its counterculture...... meant for a dedicated few who were willing to do crazy things in pursuit of their passion

these days you go to a fucking show and 2/3 of the people are these bikini bimbos walking around with their sweats over their tan and their gymbags LIEK THEY ARE HARDCORE COMPETITORS........ they are walking jokes! Everyone knows it. everyone knows its just a beauty contest.

and figure isnt much different.....

fitness is disappearing........

female bodybuilding is gone

and now there is fuckig "male figure" ::) ::)


what the fuck happened to the 'hardcoreness' of bodybuilding ...........sucking down dry chicken breasts and trying not to kill yourself with prep drugs

now, its becoming a bunch of cardio queens walking around like they made some kind of sacrifice.......... which real bodybuilders find laughable

i shouldn't be surprised ........anymore,.........selling out is not only accepted.............its REWARDED ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Vince B on October 21, 2010, 08:54:17 PM
Have a look at the woman used to represent someone's ideal re physique. The costume doesn't flatter her body. Notice the area above the bikini. No muscle there. The midsection is covered so you can't see the abs. Typical bullshit in these pageants. I could care less if the women agree with the costumes. They don't flatter most female bodies.  
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: dyslexic on October 21, 2010, 09:06:44 PM
I guess it all depends on the eye of the beholder...



It's the voice...






I freakin love Debbie Bramwell... no, I couldn't live with her, probably couldnt get off on her, but I could watch her pose all day.

Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Howard on October 21, 2010, 09:08:31 PM
Have a look at the woman used to represent someone's ideal re physique. The costume doesn't flatter her body. Notice the area above the bikini. No muscle there. The midsection is covered so you can't see the abs. Typical bullshit in these pageants. I could care less if the women agree with the costumes. They don't flatter most female bodies.  

I think me, you, Bob and Ron should wear one of those figure costumes and pose down on the Olympia expo stage next yr.   I think the cut would flatter my figure, how about you? ok, You with me Vince? Bob?, Ron?
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: G_Thang on October 21, 2010, 09:09:02 PM

We will have plenty of examples and specified criteria that leaves no doubt as to what the judges are looking for...

Using current competitors as the "prototype" in any oficial capacity would never be done for obvious reasons...

you really have no interest in smoothing out this process...do you...chick?  let me do this in another way.  go to brasil and take a pool of 200 bikini type girls you are looking for, have them sign model releases so they dont ever compete in the ifbb or npc, cut their damn heads of the photos and use their physiques for the catalog.  this can be done for figure and wpd.  there are girls out there who have the physique types but will not compete in the organization.  you have tons of old school or retired women. it's not like gladys portugese or cris alexander are coming out of retirement.  you are being like the old farts that run the IFBB n NPC.  i remember shawn complaining about using computers for scoring.  have they changed that or still use pencils?
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: ~UN_$ung~ on October 21, 2010, 09:12:04 PM
i actually think that, of late, they have been doin ga good job of streamlinig FBB

shelila bleck, kathy priest, nicole ball


Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Ron on October 21, 2010, 09:19:39 PM

Quote
Those that believe that a woman bodybuilder should be shaped just like a male bodybuilder, are out of touch with reality. They should realize that 95% of women involved in bodybuilding want to look like healthy,well developed athletic WOMEN, not smaller versions of men...

When I started to go to various shows because of my ties with supplement companies, i enjoyed women's bodybuilding.  Lenda Murray, Laura Creavalle looked great. Not too muscular, and just enough symmetry and the look that made it more mainstream.  Then, the look started to go more hardcore, more muscular, to the point in which 95% of the audience, mainstream or not, just does not care for it.

Yes, you can keep it hardcore and a tiny niche, but sponsors bring the money to the table for these shows.  At the local level, there are very few female bodybuilders, and the women I talk to just don't feel like competing with the 'muscular' chicks that make it too extreme.

Do I still enjoy women's bodybuilding. Sometimes on the local level, when you have a few competitors that look good, and balance symmtery with some muscularity, and still look feminine.  It went too far to the extreme, and hence, it is almost gone.

Will Women's Physique overtake it. I talked to a few competitors, and they seemed happy to get out of the 'I have to be way muscular' to even do well.  Bring back the cool looking symmterical competitors. 

Doris was right - I just wished people would not have rewarded the crazy muscular look over conditioning and symmtery.

Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: G_Thang on October 21, 2010, 09:31:11 PM
you lost women's bbing right here.  she should have defeated cory and her physique should have been the template for women's bbing for generations to come.



a woman's body is about curves not being athletic looking.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Vince B on October 21, 2010, 09:45:10 PM
Ron, without doubt the female bodybuilders look great in the off season when they are smoother. The condition at contests robs many of nicer lines. When they turn around they had better have firm butts or they won't place in contests. Get rid of the drugs and start all over again is my suggestion. And no fake boobs. This isn't rocket science.
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: Chick on October 21, 2010, 09:52:28 PM
you really have no interest in smoothing out this process...do you...chick?  let me do this in another way.  go to brasil and take a pool of 200 bikini type girls you are looking for, have them sign model releases so they dont ever compete in the ifbb or npc, cut their damn heads of the photos and use their physiques for the catalog.  this can be done for figure and wpd.  there are girls out there who have the physique types but will not compete in the organization.  you have tons of old school or retired women. it's not like gladys portugese or cris alexander are coming out of retirement.  you are being like the old farts that run the IFBB n NPC.  i remember shawn complaining about using computers for scoring.  have they changed that or still use pencils?

yeah..oK...WE GOT IT THE FIRST 3 TIMES
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Wiggs on October 21, 2010, 10:08:49 PM
Great article Bob.  I look forward to seeing this changes and hopefully within 2-3 years these she-beasts will be a distant memory.
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: G_Thang on October 21, 2010, 10:13:02 PM
yeah..oK...WE GOT IT THE FIRST 3 TIMES

sure.  in 3 yrs i'll be looking for the complete mess they make of figure and wpd. 
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: dyslexic on October 21, 2010, 11:22:12 PM
I look forward to the Barry White voices with the Fake tata's....
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Chick on October 22, 2010, 05:46:00 AM
Great article Bob.  I look forward to seeing this changes and hopefully within 2-3 years these she-beasts will be a distant memory.

I think it amazing that this article is 28 YEARS OLD!  Womens BB in its first two years having a tough time keping them from getting "too masculine"...got to wonder what they would think of todays standard?

While times may have certainly changed in many ways, the public's perception of whats feminine, pretty and ultimately acceptable, hasnt much at all...
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: erics on October 22, 2010, 06:18:34 AM
While times may have certainly changed in many ways, the public's perception of whats feminine, pretty and ultimately acceptable, hasnt much at all...

Interesting, isn't it?

I never really understood why the woman's side went for the male look. Men's bodybuilding is a kind of exaggeration of stereotyped masculine qualities so why didn't they go for an exaggeration of women's stereotyped qualities?

Slightly softer versions of Anja Langer and Juliette Bergmann were, I think, the perfect female look for women's bodybuilding.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Chick on October 22, 2010, 06:24:43 AM
Interesting, isn't it?

I never really understood why the woman's side went for the male look. Men's bodybuilding is a kind of exaggeration of stereotyped masculine qualities so why didn't they go for an exaggeration of women's stereotyped qualities?

Slightly softer versions of Anja Langer and Juliette Bergmann were, I think, the perfect female look for women's bodybuilding.

I understand it completely...it's the natural progression of BB, men or women...BB is BB.  Keeping it in check isnt difficult....it's impossible.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: erics on October 22, 2010, 06:37:24 AM
I understand it completely...it's the natural progression of BB, men or women...BB is BB.  Keeping it in check isnt difficult....it's impossible.

And look what happened to as a result...

Personally, I think it isn't 'impossible' but that's how I see it.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Fallsview on October 22, 2010, 06:44:56 AM
I remember those years and Bev Francis was always looked down upon as a "freak".  Now, it's the norm.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: JP_RC on October 22, 2010, 07:08:40 AM
Great article, thanks for posting it Bob.

I hope the changes that are spoken about really take place and the female aspect of BB goes the direction it was meant by people as the man who wrote this article.

Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: JP_RC on October 22, 2010, 07:12:07 AM

Those that believe that a woman bodybuilder should be shaped just like a male bodybuilder, are out of touch with reality. They should realize that 95% of women involved in bodybuilding want to look like healthy,well developed athletic WOMEN, not smaller versions of men...

It's a well known fact that a female naturally carries a higher percentage of bodyfat than a male. Encouraging women to attain the same ultra low bodyfat levels as the men only produces a stringy, emaciated, unhealthy look. Female hips and breasts are acceptable parts of the  anatomy. Why, therefore, should women be urged to strive against nature?

....and what about the use of steroids by some athletes who hope to gain that slight edge over the next person? Already some female athletes have gotten dep voices, male-like baldness and enlarged genitalia, and others need to shave their beards and mustaches. These effects from steroids are permanent.

Are striations really that great on a female? Does she really want to look like that in the first place?  I'm closely acquainted with a female bodybuilder who's been training for a number of years, two or three times a day, six days a week. It's obvious she's a dedicated woman who loves her sport.  She tells me she has no desire to become more muscular. Does this mean she's not a real bodybuilder (as some claim), that she should drop out of the sport (as some suggest)?  As far as I'm concerned, she's a better example of a real female bodybuilder than many of the people winning contests...


Great points made here....an article written 28 years ago.

People should've listened to him back then in the first place.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Chick on October 22, 2010, 07:15:44 AM
Great article, thanks for posting it Bob.

I hope the changes that are spoken about really take place and the female aspect of BB goes the direction it was meant by people as the man who wrote this article.



Doris....is a woman
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Ex Coelis on October 22, 2010, 09:26:59 AM
too muscular?

(http://www.fitwisewell.com/fitness/guests/laura-creavalle-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: JP_RC on October 22, 2010, 09:46:32 AM
Doris....is a woman

My bad........didn't know.  ;D
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Chick on October 22, 2010, 11:41:43 AM
too muscular?

(http://www.fitwisewell.com/fitness/guests/laura-creavalle-2.jpg)

Nope, right on the money...

I think Ava would be a great example of the level being considered...
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: MB on October 22, 2010, 02:34:15 PM
i think at the core of this argument, what really bothers me about this issue is ... its the further SELLING OUT of bodybuilding culture........ the reason i liked bodybuilding in the first place, is case its a small subculture unlike mainstream sports

the reason why i liked it in the first place, is cause its counterculture...... meant for a dedicated few who were willing to do crazy things in pursuit of their passion

these days you go to a fucking show and 2/3 of the people are these bikini bimbos walking around with their sweats over their tan and their gymbags LIEK THEY ARE HARDCORE COMPETITORS........ they are walking jokes! Everyone knows it. everyone knows its just a beauty contest.

and figure isnt much different.....

fitness is disappearing........

female bodybuilding is gone

and now there is fuckig "male figure" ::) ::)


what the fuck happened to the 'hardcoreness' of bodybuilding ...........sucking down dry chicken breasts and trying not to kill yourself with prep drugs

now, its becoming a bunch of cardio queens walking around like they made some kind of sacrifice.......... which real bodybuilders find laughable

i shouldn't be surprised ........anymore,.........selling out is not only accepted.............its REWARDED ::) ::) ::)

^^this^^
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: HDPhysiques on October 24, 2010, 02:43:24 PM
Nope, right on the money...

I think Ava would be a great example of the level being considered...

Ava who?  That's Laura Creavalle.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Chick on October 24, 2010, 04:34:18 PM
Ava who?  That's Laura Creavalle.

My bad, could pass for Ava...same answer applies
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Reeves on October 24, 2010, 04:40:25 PM
too muscular?

(http://www.fitwisewell.com/fitness/guests/laura-creavalle-2.jpg)

Yup.  Nice man-arms and shoulders.  Sheesh, what is it with these "women" that want to look as mannish as they can?  If you think normal people are going to attend a show featuring this sort of tripe, then click your heels three times and say, "There's no place like Schmoe. There's no place like Schmoe.  There's no place like Schmoe."
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: flexingtonsteele on October 24, 2010, 04:59:55 PM
Lenda Murray should come back and win the first WPD olympia.

I couldnt find a recent pic of her, but she looks like she could take one of these shows with the new criteria with just a few weeks of dieting right now.

Anyone have any recent pics of lenda?
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: MB on October 24, 2010, 05:10:48 PM
Lenda Murray should come back and win the first WPD olympia.

I couldnt find a recent pic of her, but she looks like she could take one of these shows with the new criteria with just a few weeks of dieting right now.

Anyone have any recent pics of lenda?

Lenda's always in shape, probably could jump on stage with a few weeks of dieting.  How about Juliette Bergmann?  I thought she looked great in her '01-'03 comeback. 
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: disco_stu on October 24, 2010, 07:30:33 PM
like i mentioned in the other thread, irregardless of how i feel

just like you cant expect a company to keep producing a product that they are losin g money on

its not the IFBB or NPCs job to keep losing money of female bodybuilding, just for the sake of equality......... if they are losing money on it

i think you mean "regardless"

unless you are deliberately making up a new word to replace another?..irregardless "would" mean the opposite to regardless wouldnt it?

before acting like an authority, how about learning english?
Title: Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
Post by: ~UN_$ung~ on October 24, 2010, 07:55:04 PM
i think you mean "regardless"

unless you are deliberately making up a new word to replace another?..irregardless "would" mean the opposite to regardless wouldnt it?

before acting like an authority, how about learning english?

yeh, your right,,,,"irr"-regardless  would be a double negative



i think this is the 3rd time you have corrected my grammar in a thread................be cause your obviously a queer who has no other point of contention to debate me on because my logic is so sound

so instead you act like Ms. McHue my 6th grade vocab teacher :-[ :-[ :-[
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: ~UN_$ung~ on October 24, 2010, 07:59:41 PM
Nope, right on the money...

I think Ava would be a great example of the level being considered...



Psssst..........Psssssssssssst.............................that woman is on steroids
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Boat Ox on October 25, 2010, 04:25:50 AM
If Laura Creavalle is an example of WPD.... ?????  :-X
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: MAXX on October 25, 2010, 08:08:54 AM
female bodybuilding is a selfcontradiction.

when they have more male hormones in their system than a man they are no longer female.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Howard on October 25, 2010, 06:33:00 PM
I understand it completely...it's the natural progression of BB, men or women...BB is BB.  Keeping it in check isnt difficult....it's impossible.
Bob c'mon these extreme , androgenic physiques are IMPOSSIB:E without extreme drug use.
Keep that in check via testing and you have your answer.
You are correct that article was 28 yrs old and in all that time did the IFBB ever do ANYTHING to ENFORCE th actual rules or female judging standards? No.

Did the IFBB make sure less androgenic woman won that were ideal standard and in line with official standards? No.

Did the IFBB make a serious effort to enforce their OWN, written rules on banned sunstances ( drugs)? No.

Bob, you are a smart guy and I am sure put a lot of thought into this new WPD.
If they follow your standards and ENFORCE them it will be a success. If not...join the long failed history my friend.
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: MB on October 25, 2010, 07:16:04 PM
The new WPD is going to have an impossible job defining it's criteria.  So far it's anything from I) muscle size doesn't count and taking gear won't help to II) Laura Creavalle is right for the division.  Huh?  Bodybuilding is all about the muscle, if you ask WPD to be anything else, then you're really back to judging a figure competition.
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: The_Punisher on October 25, 2010, 07:24:50 PM
The following are exerpts from an article that ran in M&F, by Doris Barrilleaux....CIRCA 1982!!

Womens BB just about two years in the making at this point....



"The sport that started on such a high note, seems to have hit a snag Where matters were once rosy, now both the competitors and administrators are becoming increasingly disheartened, and I believe it's largely because we expect too much from athletes and administrators.


Our sport could have gone the direction of men's bodybuilding, and the result would have been identical rules and identical organizations. Naturally, this would have benefited a few. In fact, the vast majority wished to be seperate from the men with different rules...

Those that believe that a woman bodybuilder should be shaped just like a male bodybuilder, are out of touch with reality. They should realize that 95% of women involved in bodybuilding want to look like healthy,well developed athletic WOMEN, not smaller versions of men...

Unhealthy Demands

It's a well known fact that a female naturally carries a higher percentage of bodyfat than a male. Encouraging women to attain the same ultra low bodyfat levels as the men only produces a stringy, emaciated, unhealthy look. Female hips and breasts are acceptable parts of the  anatomy. Why, therefore, should women be urged to strive against nature?

....and what about the use of steroids by some athletes who hope to gain that slight edge over the next person? Already some female athletes have gotten dep voices, male-like baldness and enlarged genitalia, and others need to shave their beards and mustaches. These effects from steroids are permanent.

Too Muscular?

Are striations really that great on a female? Does she really want to look like that in the first place?  I'm closely acquainted with a female bodybuilder who's been training for a number of years, two or three times a day, six days a week. It's obvious she's a dedicated woman who loves her sport.  She tells me she has no desire to become more muscular. Does this mean she's not a real bodybuilder (as some claim), that she should drop out of the sport (as some suggest)?  As far as I'm concerned, she's a better example of a real female bodybuilder than many of the people winning contests...


Doris Barrilleaux, 1982




I'd love to read more articles like that in these popular bodybuilding magazines these days......wouldn't it be nice if BB magazines these days would tell their READERS Facts that  matters.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: Reeves on October 25, 2010, 07:37:22 PM
I understand it completely...it's the natural progression of BB, men or women...BB is BB.  Keeping it in check isnt difficult....it's impossible.

So allowing drug bloated toads and toadettes on a stage under the guise of "bodybuilding" is impossible to prevent?  With those words quoted above, you have lost all credibility.  It is far from "impossible".  It is easily done, but then the crowds of schmoes and schmoettes would not attend your bodydoping comparisons.  Test for drugs.  Check BMI.  Test for drugs.  These walking pharmacies are turgid with dope.  Their BMI is way off.  Did I mention that you should test for drugs?  You know, steroids, HGH, HCG, Synthol,  Diuretics, etc.  All that performance enhancing garbage.  Ban their use.

And don't lie about the test results.

Bodydoping lost all credibility and character many years ago.  The Weiders, et al,  willingly threw it away.  Ponder this, if you will:  Character is much easier kept than recovered.   It is not that stopping this poop is impossible, rather it is an improbability due to the obvious fact that nobody in charge cares.  You?  You're not in charge but you really don't care either, do you?

It's not your job to care.

Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: tonie thompson on October 26, 2010, 06:09:12 PM
So allowing drug bloated toads and toadettes on a stage under the guise of "bodybuilding" is impossible to prevent?  With those words quoted above, you have lost all credibility.  It is far from "impossible".  It is easily done, but then the crowds of schmoes and schmoettes would not attend your bodydoping comparisons.  Test for drugs.  Check BMI.  Test for drugs.  These walking pharmacies are turgid with dope.  Their BMI is way off.  Did I mention that you should test for drugs?  You know, steroids, HGH, HCG, Synthol,  Diuretics, etc.  All that performance enhancing garbage.  Ban their use.

And don't lie about the test results.

Bodydoping lost all credibility and character many years ago.  The Weiders, et al,  willingly threw it away.  Ponder this, if you will:  Character is much easier kept than recovered.   It is not that stopping this poop is impossible, rather it is an improbability due to the obvious fact that nobody in charge cares.  You?  You're not in charge but you really don't care either, do you?

It's not your job to care.



I agree some people say "we only judge what we are given"  I beg to differ.  Some of us gave the 20% less and were never judged.  The sport of BB is out of control because everyone wants to be a winner and being winner is the person who is being rewarded.  So why not emulate the person winning.  So women take more gear to achieve that.  I really don't give a damn what people or judges think of me.  I love competing and I try to improve on my physique not compete with the biggest person on stage.  I know I will never be that big so I don't worry about it.  My other careers pay the bills and thats that!!  We need to get over the changes that need to occur with BB and let them happen.  It's long over due.  I have talked to several women pros and they are happy!  Soe may even come out of retirement.
Title: Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: erics on October 26, 2010, 06:30:07 PM
Bodybuilding has to decide if it wants to be a sport or a spectacle.

If the judging rewards lines, proportion and a fullness to the physique, and given that such a criteria is 'sexier' and more 'woman-like', then how is that women's bodybuilding cannot become a much easier sell?

Reward physical idols, not physical freaks. Sometimes the two will crossover but as long as you focus on the former, the latter will be kept in its rightful place.
Title: Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
Post by: jude2 on October 26, 2010, 06:35:00 PM
My bad, could pass for Ava...same answer applies
Laura has alot more muscle than Ava.