MrSirJoJo argues well and seems to dismiss many of my points. I enjoy a good debate although that seldom happens on Getbig. I would hope that others sense the essence of what I am saying and not try to score cheap points.
I'm not sure if you were saying you enjoyed a debate or if you were saying I was trying to score cheap points....But in any case, you also dismissed some of my points as well. I dislike people using my own quotes out of context, so I'll include your entire post, whether I address each issue or not.
Let me get back to the point about women and male bodybuilders. Well, men and women bodybuilders is similar because most men dislike the look of women bodybuilders. Even most male bodybuilders do not fancy large muscular women. It seems that extremes in both sexes are a turnoff to the majority of the opposite sex. We all know that most people do not appreciate that posing under lights can change how someone looks and that most bodybuilders look very different just walking around or at the beach. I would bet that people do appreciate how bodybuilders look at the gym and the beach. If we say that even Steve Reeves had an ugly body then there is no hope for bodybuilding. The one thing that cannot be denied is that every average guy would feel humiliated to stand in a lineup with bodybuilders. Most average bodybuilders would not want to stand on the Mr Olympia stage except that Pelletier guy.
The thing is Vince, I think the Reeves' statement is true. Even his body is not liked by the general public. It's not just that the guys on drugs are perceived as ugly by the public, it's that even natural bodybuilders are. And that's not even considering their off-season look. To see how much muscle most find attractive, before it becomes repugnant, just look at Hollywood. The average person likes to see a decently muscled Vin Diesel or the Rock, assuming they are in a role where the mucle sreves a purpose. Beyond that level of build, they become one-dimensional, one-liner in jokes, like Drago in Rocky 4 or Arnold in any opf his early movies, (which he then cashed in on by lampooning in his later movies). Notice how in most successful films, a guy with a slightly larger than average build ends up defeating the bad guy with the larger build? People like to see the everyman beat the big bad musclehead. The old David and Goliath we see in movies like Bloodsport, Universal Soldier, Jet Li movies, etc...
If bodybuilders go to some societies they will discover that the people there are impressed by muscles. So the industrial revolution did not change perceptions everywhere. The Pacific Islands, Asia, Africa and parts of South America might still be muscle friendly. The Western countries are not muscle or fat friendly. The ideal seems to be more moderate. I think that a lot of information today is disseminated more rapidly because of TV, newspapers and the internet. If we argue that there are aesthetic male bodybuilders like reeves, Zane, Paris, Jackson and so on then why haven't those guys become ideals for males everywhere? If geniuses are admired for their intellects then why aren't the best physiques admired, too, as being the epitome of physical excellence? Something is wrong here and there must be an explanation.
Great physiques have always been admired. Look at the statue of David, or Da Vinci's Vetruvian Man, among others. And famous paintings of Ulysses, Hercules, Hector, etc..always portray them as muscular. But these men were most likely much smaller than the average amateur natural BB , and more importantly, they all actually
did something. They weren't revered solely for being muscular. As with Ben Johnson, these legendary men were muscular so they could do something better than the average man, not
just be more muscular than the average man. The fact that the muscle is an end in itslef rather than a means to achieve an end is why bodybuilders are perceived as vain. Even men who simulate fights to the death in the UFC are not as muscular as amateur bodybuilders. I think that these fighters are the ultimate benchmark for when too much muscle becomes a hindrance with no real world application. If being that big won't even win you a fight to the death, when else would it possibly serve a purpose?
The amount of muscle that bodybuilders obtain is unnatural looking. I don't mean they achieved the muscle using "unnatural" means, like drugs, it means they have a look that is too far beyond what even the most naturally muscular people (who don't lift) have. I'm sure that in the nations you mentioned, where the indutrial revolution did not change life too drastically, the thin muscular body is admired more than the look of even a natural bodybuilder. The amount of work these people do gives them nice lean bodies, but it doesn't give them even a natural bodybuilder's body. If that type of body was valued in these types of cultures, local eugenics would have produced them by now. For this reason, as
HRDCORE says below, bodybuilding will always be a cult thing. Only a fringe want to see an unnaturally muscular body. Just as only a few men want to see ridiculously large fake boobs on women.
Let us talk about Floyd Landis. What is his name worth now? Nothing, unless he can prove he did not take drugs to improve his cycling performance. I think the media has a good idea that all the Olympia bodybuilders use steroids and who knows what else. Are they mistaken? I doubt it. Therefore the public are right that bodybuilders are drug users and therefore the fruits of that activity cannot be esteemed. That is the bottom line and I can't understand why people here cannot comprehend that there is a direct link here. If bodybuilders use gear they cannot be taken seriously as having anything that any sane, intelligent person would want. Sure, just about every male wants to have a decent physique but who wants to use dangerous drugs to get one? We cannot transcend the current negative impression the public have of us until we clean our act up. Only then can we work on changing beliefs about narcissism, homosexuality, and being musclebound. We have to get back to our roots and be healthy again. There has to be a way that bodybuilding can go mainstream. Heck, they make shows about people losing fat. How about one where they build themselves up?
The circumtances of the Landis case..... to people who know drugs the way you and I do, raise a very serious issue. We both know that one dose of testosterone would have virtually zero effect on a cyclist, so we can safely conclude that it was actually a failure to mask his use that one time that led to the positive test. We could also then assume that the other riders all know the same tricks Landis knows, and simply did not screw up their masking regimens even one time. The general public won't figure that out, and they'll assume that all the cheaters would be caught, since landi was.
Bob and other professionals are not being fair dinkum. They should be demanding that the end of steroids and other drugs has to be achieved. They should collectively be demanding rigid testing and testing during the year. Polygraphs should be used, too, to weed out the cheats. No synthol should be allowed, nor inserts including silicone. Let everyone stand on what muscle they can build in the gym and what nature has given us. If we allow some to win who do not deserve it then the whole sport is contaminated because we are rewarding falseness and that can never be something anyone should admire. Maybe it might take a long time for respect to return to what we do but it should in principle be possible to change attitudes if there is a genuine pursuit of physical excellence that goes hand in hand with fitness and health. As soon as unhealthy practices enter this sport our integrity goes out the back door.
Essentially Vince, I agree with most of what you are saying. The IFBB should be demanding the end of drugs, but as I said earlier, they know that if steroid use is not restricted from the general population too, their athletes will not be much bigger than many amateurs who are willing to do crazy amounts of drugs. Getting drugs out of bodybuilding would require their removal from the general public as well. Imagine if the average State Champion High School track star was only .5 seconds slower than the best sprinters in the world! Who would pay to see the world's best? And imagine now if his times actually dropped as soon as he became a pro and began being tested for drugs!? Law enforement (who themsleves benefit from AAS and turn a blind eye) would have to clean up use among the general population before the IFBB could remove them and stay in business. If the PDI wants to have a chance, they need to petition the law to enforce AAS restrictions in the general population (although this could backfire, since the users would then give up on their hope of attaining even a PDI level physique).
