Author Topic: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?  (Read 2206 times)

Ex Coelis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« on: December 05, 2009, 06:04:27 PM »
frankly, the IFBB's 202 Division has turned out to be a huge success

it's great to see smaller bbers given a platform where they can be competitive and gain the recognition they deserve

that being said, the "202's" are a bit misleading . . .

Kevin English in the recent MD regarding his weight onstage at the 202 Showdown:

"I weighed in Wednesday night at 8 o'clock Vegas time . . . at 201.8 lbs. My game plan was to carb-up to 210-212 by Saturday morning, but the plan got messed up. So, I was more like 205-206 [onstage], not as full as I could have been."


Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2009, 06:13:00 PM »
The same is true of fighting.  The weigh-in takes place before the actual competition.
Bodybuilding Pro.com

BB

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17755
  • I hope I'm not boring you.
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2009, 06:18:43 PM »
It's like that for most sports. It would be interesting to see how they'd handle it if the weigh in was moved up to just a few hours before the show, like some of the better weightlifting/powerlifting shows have done.

Clancy

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 333
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2009, 06:21:55 PM »
A lot of people say there is No place for Midgets in Pro BB, but it is clear that the 202 is a Perfect place.

Matt C

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12752
  • The White Vince Goodrum
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2009, 06:25:46 PM »
A lot of people say there is No place for Midgets in Pro BB, but it is clear that the 202 is a Perfect place.

Agreed.  It's more of a height class than a weight class.  Ronny Rockel is around 5'5 and 1/2 and he would do well in either class.  A few of these guys who are closer to 5'6 could do well in either class.
Bodybuilding Pro.com

Mr Nobody

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40197
  • Falcon gives us new knowledge every single day.
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2009, 06:27:25 PM »
Who cares bodybuilding is about how you look not how much you weigh, its not boxing or wrestling

LATS

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2009, 09:19:09 PM »
screw the 202.. it is silly.. just make it a short clas (5' 6 and under or so) and let the weight of the guys fall where it may.. let them bring their best package to the stage instead of worrying about making a silly arbitrary number..

njflex

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32176
  • HEY PAISAN
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2009, 10:33:47 AM »
HE CLAIMS 270 OFFSEASON ..

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2009, 10:36:00 AM »
stan mcquay did the 202 at 185 this year

JaggyShortBuff

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Art Work In Motion
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2009, 10:42:27 AM »
screw the 202.. it is silly.. just make it a short clas (5' 6 and under or so) and let the weight of the guys fall where it may.. let them bring their best package to the stage instead of worrying about making a silly arbitrary number..

X2.   I love the fact their doing an 202 class, but it would be more interesting as a short class rather than a weight class.
Watching The Haters

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2009, 10:50:17 AM »
X2.   I love the fact their doing an 202 class, but it would be more interesting as a short class rather than a weight class.
the 202 competitors dont want that, they would find a "5'6 and under class" to be embarrasing. telling people about it, they would say they are competing in the division for short people, and they would feel as if the people would think less of them, or feel pity for them, because they are cometing amongst other short people (semi-midgets). with it titles the way itis, it seems more open and fair, and would make any placing in the 202 class sound more respectable than a placing in the "5'6'' and under class"... since a 202 competitor could say, well if you think youd look better than me since your not short like me, then compete against me, you dont have to be short to do the 202.."

Bobby

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5219
  • is da lordes plan
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2009, 10:55:14 AM »
stan mcquay did the 202 at 185 this year

that's what it should be, normal heighted people that weigh under 200. now it's just a place for the midget freaks.
tank u jesus

JaggyShortBuff

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Art Work In Motion
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2009, 10:56:23 AM »
the 202 competitors dont want that, they would find a "5'6 and under class" to be embarrasing. telling people about it, they would say they are competing in the division for short people, and they would feel as if the people would think less of them, or feel pity for them, because they are cometing amongst other short people (semi-midgets). with it titles the way itis, it seems more open and fair, and would make any placing in the 202 class sound more respectable than a placing in the "5'6'' and under class"... since a 202 competitor could say, well if you think youd look better than me since your not short like me, then compete against me, you dont have to be short to do the 202.."

I understand exactly what you are saying, but it really would make it more interesting to bring the short class back and allow the winner, if they chose to, compete against the finalist in the tall class. I am a short man myself and don't have hangups about it. I mean shit if your short your short, there ain't to much shit that you can do about it. The shorter competators need to get over it.
Watching The Haters

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2009, 11:00:18 AM »
I understand exactly what you are saying, but it really would make it more interesting to bring the short class back and allow the winner, if they chose to, compete against the finalist in the tall class. I am a short man myself and don't have hangups about it. I mean shit if your short your short, there ain't to much shit that you can do about it. The shorter competators need to get over it.
i agree with you id much rather see it be a height division. weight class doesnt make any sense to me, as you could have a 6 foot guy and a 5 foot 3 guy and they would be polar opposites.

GetItOnNY

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Getbig!
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2009, 05:28:21 PM »
I think bodybuilders are so stupid to think your going to gain 10lbs by carb loading.You cant gain 10lbs and carb load and look hard.
Either your hard or your not.If you gained 10 lbs while carb loading you did something wrong.As a superheavy my weight never went up more then 4 lbs after weigh ins and thats tops.Your going to tell me he is going to eat 10 lbs of food? Because if he drank 2 gallons of water he might gain 10lbs, but anybody who is smart doesn't drink alot of water when they take in carbs.
The whole carb load thing is stupid anyways.To many guys fu#$# it up.If your body looks good stick to what your doing, just throw in some extra carbs the day before the show.I seen guys look great then screw up because they carb loaded???????
The only time you carb load is to eliminate the subcutaneous waterbetween the skin.If your not holding any water and your hard why would you carb load and carb deplete??.Why not just add some carbs and fat at the end to fill you out, and not take any chances.
This is just my opinion

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 61607
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Regarding the "202's" - Misleading?
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2009, 08:08:25 PM »
stan mcquay did the 202 at 185 this year

Where did he place at again?