Author Topic: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982  (Read 16060 times)

JP_RC

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #25 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.

Chick

  • The Pros
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12899
  • sometimes you get the elevator, somtimes the shaft
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #26 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

Ex Coelis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8075
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2010, 09:26:59 AM »
too muscular?


JP_RC

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1966
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2010, 09:46:32 AM »
Doris....is a woman

My bad........didn't know.  ;D

Chick

  • The Pros
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12899
  • sometimes you get the elevator, somtimes the shaft
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #29 on: October 22, 2010, 11:41:43 AM »
too muscular?



Nope, right on the money...

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

MB

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #30 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^^

HDPhysiques

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • "Hi-Def Bodies in Hi-Def Video"
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #31 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.
JOIN HDPhysiques!!!!

Chick

  • The Pros
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12899
  • sometimes you get the elevator, somtimes the shaft
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2010, 04:34:18 PM »
Ava who?  That's Laura Creavalle.

My bad, could pass for Ava...same answer applies

Reeves

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2010, 04:40:25 PM »
too muscular?



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."

flexingtonsteele

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5653
  • The new age pussy Punisher!
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #34 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?

MB

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #35 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. 

disco_stu

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4953
  • I'm a llama!
Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
« Reply #36 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?

~UN_$ung~

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 5248
  • Been real, been nice...but it hasnt been Real Nice
Re: SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE...
« Reply #37 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 :-[ :-[ :-[

~UN_$ung~

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 5248
  • Been real, been nice...but it hasnt been Real Nice
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #38 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

Boat Ox

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Getbig!
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2010, 04:25:50 AM »
If Laura Creavalle is an example of WPD.... ?????  :-X

MAXX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16942
  • MAGA
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #40 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.

Howard

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15401
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #41 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.

MB

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2312
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #42 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.

The_Punisher

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7296
  • The Unrighteous Shall Pay
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #43 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.

Reeves

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #44 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.


tonie thompson

  • Pros
  • Getbig I
  • *****
  • Posts: 2
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #45 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.

erics

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
Re: Womens BB - Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #46 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.

jude2

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10971
  • Getbig!
Re: Some interesting perspective from 1982
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2010, 06:35:00 PM »
My bad, could pass for Ava...same answer applies
Laura has alot more muscle than Ava.