Author Topic: Why not a weight class at the O.? (Read 9311 times)

newdumbell303 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:36:06 PM »

Tall and Short class would be best. If not divide them by height I think putting them into something like

190-225lbs
226-255lbs
256lbs +

three classes, cuz theres no possible way you can put them into 2 classes. I seriously dont think theyll have classes though, which is why theyre all trying to play the mass game, hopefully that will change shortly though. There needs to be more guys looking like Dexter out there thats for sure.

gtbro1 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:49:15 PM »

when and why did they do away with the two classes they had in Arnold's time?

LuciusFox · « **Reply #27 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:50:57 PM »

Quote from: gtbro1 on April 26, 2006, 05:49:15 PM

when and why did they do away with the two classes they had in Arnold's time?

Done away with at the 1980 Mr. Olympia.

Chick · « **Reply #28 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:54:11 PM »

Quote from: gtbro1 on April 26, 2006, 05:49:15 PM

when and why did they do away with the two classes they had in Arnold's time?

Because most of the time, everybody was in the short class. There were Olympias with 2-3 guys in the tall class...one year Arnold was the ONLY guy in the class.

Height classses don't work as the average height in B is probably 5'7-5'9...same problem as years ago.

I think weight classes as outlined by NEWDUMBELL303 in this thread is about right...

LuciusFox · « **Reply #29 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:56:14 PM »

Quote from: newdumbell303 on April 26, 2006, 05:36:06 PM

Tall and Short class would be best. If not divide them by height I think putting them into something like

190-225lbs
226-255lbs
256lbs +

three classes, cuz theres no possible way you can put them into 2 classes. I seriously dont think theyll have classes though, which is why theyre all trying to play the mass game, hopefully that will change shortly though. There needs to be more guys looking like Dexter out there thats for sure.

This is a great idea. I would add a Sex Appeal class that would be 170-189 pounds and it would be judged by women and gay men.

Oliver Klaushof · « **Reply #30 on:** April 26, 2006, 05:59:23 PM »

Short class - 5'6'' and below.

Chick · « **Reply #31 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:04:13 PM »

Height and weight generally go together...2 height classes simply don't work no matter how you cut it.

a guy 5"7 is not going to weigh above 230-40 in contest shape

Lift Studios · « **Reply #32 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:07:37 PM »

Light Heavyweight - Under 220
Heavyweight - 221-250
Super Heavyweight - Over 250

http://bodybuilding2006.com

Chick · « **Reply #33 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:10:01 PM »

Thanks for link, Lift...

I think Larry pepes article pretty much sums it up....better for all.

newdumbell303 · « **Reply #34 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:18:15 PM »

Thank you for aknowledging(sp?) me Chick, mighty cool of you.

As for height, as all have said average height of bodybuilders is very short. I mean its bad when you would put Jay Cutler in the tall class at 5'9 is he? I'd say Tall Class would be 5'8" or 5'9" and up. Henry and Priest would definetely have much better chances this way.

As I said in my last post I personally dont think the IFBB will have classes any time soon, funding is too low as previous posts have said. Perhaps in the future

FREAKgeek · « **Reply #35 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:25:34 PM »

You'll have too many winners with weight classes, nobody is going to care. And if you have an overall winner, you're still comparing with everybody again.

Oliver Klaushof · « **Reply #36 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:28:25 PM »

Quote from: Chick on April 26, 2006, 06:04:13 PM

a guy 5"7 is not going to weigh above 230-40 in contest shape

A 5'7'' inch guy has a chance to beat heavier guys. Besides, isn't Gustavo like 5'7''? Make short class 5'6'' and below.

"Height and weight generally go together...2 height classes simply don't work no matter how you cut it."

That doesn't matter. There are other factors being judged besides weight

Only extremes (like Priest) prevent someone from having a chance at winning.

LuciusFox · « **Reply #37 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:28:59 PM »

Quote from: FREAKgeek on April 26, 2006, 06:25:34 PM

You'll have too many winners with weight classes, nobody is going to care. And if you have an overall winner, you're still comparing with everybody again.

I think that's why they got rid of split classes in the first place

candidate2025 · « **Reply #38 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:43:58 PM »

the weight class idea is idiotic. thr bigger the better. the more symetrical the better....its jduging that you would want to reform. but i dont think there really is a problem..i mean, mark dugdale placed over mustafa muhammad, for gods sake.

looko at it like this....the bigger you are, the more points you get, the more symetrical you are, the more points you get. if your lacking size, you get less points, if you not very aesthetic you lose points. the person with the most points win. so if your big enough you can get away with a little bit of a gut, or maybe being a little top or bottom heavy. or if your symetrical enough, you can get away with being a little smaller.

im sure all of you already knew all this,...im just letting you recognize it.

LuciusFox · « **Reply #39 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:46:07 PM »

Quote from: candidate2025 on April 26, 2006, 06:43:58 PM

the weight class idea is idiotic. thr bigger the better. the more symetrical the better....its jduging that you would want to reform. but i dont think there really is a problem..i mean, mark dugdale placed over mustafa muhammad, for gods sake.

looko at it like this....the bigger you are, the more points you get, the more symetrical you are, the more points you get. if your lacking size, you get less points, if you not very aesthetic you lose points. the person with the most points win. so if your big enough you can get away with a little bit of a gut, or maybe being a little top or bottom heavy. or if your symetrical enough, you can get away with being a little smaller.

im sure all of you already knew all this,...im just letting you recognize it.

Do you think they should weigh and measure the guys?

gtbro1 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:50:07 PM »

Quote from: candidate2025 on April 26, 2006, 06:43:58 PM

the weight class idea is idiotic. thr bigger the better. the more symetrical the better....its jduging that you would want to reform. but i dont think there really is a problem..i mean, mark dugdale placed over mustafa muhammad, for gods sake.

looko at it like this....the bigger you are, the more points you get, the more symetrical you are, the more points you get. if your lacking size, you get less points, if you not very aesthetic you lose points. the person with the most points win. so if your big enough you can get away with a little bit of a gut, or maybe being a little top or bottom heavy. or if your symetrical enough, you can get away with being a little smaller.

im sure all of you already knew all this,...im just letting you recognize it.

define "lacking size"...it is all subjective and a bodybuilder should never have a gutwhen on stage....period.

candidate2025 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 26, 2006, 06:51:15 PM »

Quote from: gtbro1 on April 26, 2006, 06:50:07 PM

define "lacking size"...it is all subjective and a bodybuilder should never have a gutwhen on stage....period.

well compared to the others, obviously. and yes, a bodybuilder can have a gut and still win, if his size and conditioning blows another out of the water.

gtbro1 · « **Reply #42 on:** April 26, 2006, 07:02:41 PM »

Quote from: candidate2025 on April 26, 2006, 06:51:15 PM

well compared to the others, obviously. and yes, a bodybuilder can have a gut and still win, if his size and conditioning blows another out of the water.

If he has a gut he can win....look at Ronnie...but I was saying that he SHOULDN'T have a gut period. If so many guys weren't playing the size game I think we would see less king kong bellies

War-Horse · « **Reply #43 on:** April 26, 2006, 07:57:04 PM »

Quote from: FREAKgeek on April 26, 2006, 06:25:34 PM

You'll have too many winners with weight classes, nobody is going to care. And if you have an overall winner, you're still comparing with everybody again.

I dont agree. Boxing has many world champs. They all have a fan base cuz people relate to certain builds or abilities.
Chic's example of David Henry, "world champion" versus David Henry 12th place olympia, is a good example of how the sport could reach a broader fan base. Right now almost NO ONE wants to look like coleman.......Makes people want to puke. Henry is reachable

Vegas wasnt proud to be hosting the Olympia, no signs no nothing on the strip.....It was like the national conference of librarians was in town and they were humiliated. Hoping no one would notice lol
A banner was on the expo....but finding the building first was a challenge.

Realistic is what we need.

onlyme · « **Reply #44 on:** April 26, 2006, 08:58:56 PM »

I don't understand why it's just not like the NPC. Every Pro competed and was brought up in the NPC and the weight classes they have. Why change. In baseball you have the minor leagues and when you make it to he majors the rules don't change. It's still baseball and it's 90' to first and 60'6" from the mound to the plate. I really think it all came down to finances too. It is very expensive to have that many weight classes and give everyone prize money. Just in trophies alone it triples.

Wombat · « **Reply #45 on:** April 26, 2006, 09:16:53 PM »

3 classes

1. 199 and under

2. 200 to 230

3. 230 and over

the 200 to 230 would be stacked...

candidate2025 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 26, 2006, 09:18:24 PM »

Quote from: Wombat on April 26, 2006, 09:16:53 PM

3 classes

1. 199 and under

2. 200 to 230

3. 230 and over

the 200 to 230 would be stacked...

give 1 dollar in prize money to weight class 1 & 2, and the rest to weight cclass 3.

LuciusFox · « **Reply #47 on:** April 27, 2006, 04:35:24 AM »

Quote from: onlyme on April 26, 2006, 08:58:56 PM

I don't understand why it's just not like the NPC. Every Pro competed and was brought up in the NPC and the weight classes they have. Why change. In baseball you have the minor leagues and when you make it to he majors the rules don't change. It's still baseball and it's 90' to first and 60'6" from the mound to the plate. I really think it all came down to finances too. It is very expensive to have that many weight classes and give everyone prize money. Just in trophies alone it triples.

The rules do change from college to pro football though.

FREAKgeek · « **Reply #48 on:** April 27, 2006, 12:23:59 PM »

Quote from: War-Horse on April 26, 2006, 07:57:04 PM

I dont agree. Boxing has many world champs. They all have a fan base cuz people relate to certain builds or abilities.
Chic's example of David Henry, "world champion" versus David Henry 12th place olympia, is a good example of how the sport could reach a broader fan base. Right now almost NO ONE wants to look like coleman.......Makes people want to puke. Henry is reachable

Vegas wasnt proud to be hosting the Olympia, no signs no nothing on the strip.....It was like the national conference of librarians was in town and they were humiliated. Hoping no one would notice lol
A banner was on the expo....but finding the building first was a challenge.

Realistic is what we need.

I want to see Ronnie Coleman.
Pro Bodybuilding isn't large and popular enough like boxing, IMO. It's fine enough to just add more contests, not weight classes.

MB · « **Reply #49 on:** April 27, 2006, 02:18:02 PM »

When weight classes were introduced for the women, it didn't work out very well. In 2000, Valentina Chepiga won the HW and Andrulla Blanchette won the LW Ms. O and they didn't have an overall. The audience was left wondering who the real Ms. O was? They then started having a posedown for the overall title, but that still didn't work well because sometimes the 2nd place HW was better than the LW winner, but was left out of the posedown.