A youtuber by the name of Tomn8er made a video discussing why he thinks the current judging criteria is flawed, and i think he made some fantastic points.
Judging shows only on the basis of who won the most mandatorys is an inherently problematic method of judging. It allows Bodybuilders with MASSIVE flaws to get away with it by just playing to their strengths & ignoring their weaknesses. This moves bodybuilding away from "The most COMPLETE bodybuilder should win", which has always been considered the standard rule of bodybuilding.
Dorian Yates explained it best, he said something along the lines of: It didn't matter if my front double bicep was the worst in the whole line up, because i knew i'd win the other poses anyways. It was a calculated decision. I didn't NEED to have good biceps from the front to win, so i didn't.
-
This is the mentality that's ultimately lead to the bubble guts we see everywhere today. I think it's undeniable that all of Phil Heaths front poses have barely been top 6 worthy, let alone worthy of 1st place, but he gets 1st place anyways because he wins the majority of poses.
Compare this to the era of Frank Zane, where Zane won because ALL of his mandatories were worthy of being top 3, even if he didn't dominate any specific pose (aside from arguably abs & thighs).
Frank Zane won because the judging criteria allowed the most complete bodybuilder to win. Someone who placed well with each & every one of his mandatory poses, even if he didn't blow everyone out of the water with any specific one.
-
With Shawn winning this years Olympia, do you think the judges are finally moving back to the old mentality of awarding completeness instead of dominance?
And if they are, do you personally think it's a good decision?
[link] [comments]
from Muscle and Bodybuilding http://bit.ly/2Oc5eL8
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment