IS BODYBUILDING REALLY A SPORT?

 

Some Detractors Say No---But Physique Competitors
With Their Eyes On The Olympic Games Have
A Very Different Answer!

By Bill Dobbins


When it comes to public recognition and acceptance, bodybuilding has come a long way in the past few decades. In the 1960s, a movie like "Don't Make Waves" featured Tony Curtis making a fool out of a big, dumb bodybuilder (played by the Blond Bomber, Dave Draper) in order to slip into his girlfriend's bed. Can you imagine such a thing happening today in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film? Even an alien predator can't terminate Arnold the movie star, so a pencil-neck pretty boy would hardly offer much competition.

Bodybuilding competition has also achieved a remarkably high profile in a very short time. All the major networks have featured top-level physique contests, and a whole range of IFBB and NPC events are regularly telecast on cable sports networks like ESPN. The IFBB World Amateur Championships have been stage with the sponsorship of governments such as those of Malasia, Jordon, Egypt, the Philippines and others. After many years of effort, Ben Weider, President of the International Federation of Bodybuilders, has met with success in achieving his lifelong goal to persuade the International Olympic Committee to include bodybuilding in the Olympic Games. But in spite of all this progress bodybuilding, there are still those that refuse to accept bodybuilding on the most fundamental of grounds---they don't believe bodybuilding is really a sport at all! Instead, they contend it's some sort of theatrical exhibition, or a muscle-oriented beauty contest.

The gist of this argument goes like this:

(a) In a bodybuilding contest, all the competitors do is flex and pose. They are judged almost entirely on how they look, not on the basis of any athletic performance. There is nothing inherently athletic about flexing and, while posing make take a lot of skill, it is not that athletically demanding.
(b) The athletic effort that bodybuilders make is done when they train with weights in the gym. But they are not judged directly on the basis of that effort---on how much weight they can lift or how many reps they can do with a given weight. Any increase in strength, power, speed, endurance, agility or coordination they might achieve---all of which are legitimate athletic qualities--- is strictly an incidental by-product of the workouts, not the primary goal.
(c) The real point of bodybuilding training is to change body shape, proportion and conformation, which may result in the development of an aesthetically outstanding body, but does not constitute a sport in the traditionally accepted meaning of the word.
But are the meanings of concepts like "sport" and "athlete" really all that clear and well-defined? People use these words as if they know exactly what they mean, but when you look at the etymology of these terms it becomes evident that they don't really denote precisely what popular opinion thinks they do.

For example, here are some definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary, which not only gives definitions, but describes how the meanings of words have changed over the course of history:

ATHLETE - (derived from words meaning "to contend for a prize")
A competitor in the physical exercises---such as running, leaping, boxing, wrestling---that formed part of the public games in ancient Greece and Rome.

ATHLETIC
(1) Pertaining to an athlete, or to contests in which physical strength is vigorously exercised.
(2) Of the nature of, or befitting, an athlete; physically powerful, muscular, robust.

SPORT
(1) Pleasant pastime; entertainment or amusement; recreation, diversion. (Particularly associated with the taking or killing of wild animals, game or fish.)
(2) Participation in games or exercises, especially those of an athletic character or pursued in the open air.
(3) To engage in, follow, or practice sport, esp. field-sport; to hunt or shoot for sport or amusement.

Obviously, when we speak of "sport" nowadays we rarely include "field sports," that is hunting and fishing. Sport, in the modern sense, usually refers to "contents in which physical strength is vigorously exercised." But there are plenty of exceptions. Look in the sports pages of any daily newspaper and you'll see coverage of golf, bowling, table tennis and even motor racing. Not really the stuff you'd expect to the ancient Greeks to include in the Olympic Games.
The modern Olympic Games also involves some events the ancient Olympians might easily fail to recognize. Synchronized swimming? Rhythmic gymnastics? What's next---competitive cheerleading?

In point of fact, the modern definition of sport is extremely flexible and includes a wide-range of competitive events involving physical skill. Some of these demand high levels of traditional athletic abilities such as strength and speed; some do not. The standard of performance in sports like basketball and football, for example, have risen dramatically over the years due to improvements in our knowledge of physical training. The athletes in these sports are therefore bigger, stronger, faster and have more endurance, so they play that game that much better. In baseball, on the other hand, experts feel that today's players aren't really that much better than those of several decades ago. Why? Because baseball is much more a game of special skills and split-second timing than generalized athletic ability, so the fact that modern baseball players are usually better overall athletes than their counterparts in the past has made relatively little difference in the level at which the game is played.

Sports can be ranked according to what degree of fundamental athletic ability they demand of their participants. Basketball, soccer and hockey are types of athletic competition which require a wide-range of athletic skills. Sports like weightlifting or shotputting involve more sheer strength. World-class bowlers and golfers need an incredible degree of talent when it comes to hand-eye coordination. Featherweight boxers and competitors in table tennis need to be quick as cats. But sports can also be categorized another way. There are sports of objective measurement---how many, how much, how far, how high, how fast---and sports of form---such as gymnastics, diving, or synchronized swimming. In measured events, if you cross the finish line first, nobody cares how good you looked doing it. Proper technique may help you to throw a javelin farther, but you win or lose based on the length of the throw, not on the beauty of your execution of the throw. But in sports of form, how high you go, how far, how wide, how fast and other "measurement" considerations are not evaluated directly, but only to the degree that they contribute to the grace, beauty and aesthetics of the physical movements of the athlete's body.

So where does this leave bodybuilding? It isn't a sport of objective measurement, like powerlifting. Nor is it a sport involving the execution of a series of aesthetic movements. (Even the "free posing" round of a bodybuilding contest doesn't really involve the evaluation of the movement of the body; rather the judges are charged with evaluating the body while it's in motion.) Therefore, if bodybuilding is really a sport, exactly what kind of sport is it? The answer is that it is indeed a sport of form---just a different kind of form than we are used to dealing with. The form associated with gymnastics is dynamic, a form of movement. But the form involved in bodybuilding is a plastic one.

The term "plastic" in this case, means the molding, shaping or sculpting of physical form. Bodybuilding is often described as the sculpting of the muscles of the body, and this is exactly what it is. When the bodybuilding takes place as part of a sports competition, the ultimate result is judged according to aesthetic standards, just as gymnastics or diving is. This result is achieved by athletic means, a lot of hard, difficult and intense physical training. In fact, the demands upon the body of training and diet programs followed by world-class competition bodybuilders are so incredible that only highly gifted, superbly-conditioned athletes could be expected to bear up under stresses of this magnitude.
World-class bodybuilders are, and have to be, exceptional athletes. Bodybuilding training in the gym is a demanding athletic activity. And it is this training that is directly responsible for shaping and sculpting the body into the final plastic form that will be judged on stage in a bodybuilding competition. The mass, shape, proportion, symmetry, and definition of the physique, the degree of muscle separation, the low body fat and resulting display of striations and "cuts," are all the result of highly strenuous athletic workouts in the gym plus the discipline of following an eating and nutrition program designed to yield maximum muscle mass with a minimum of body fat.

Bodybuilders are sometimes criticized because they become so muscular, develop so much bulk, that other of their athletic abilities suffer. But this simply means they are specialized, just as all elite athletes tend to be. As far as athletic bodies are concerned, "form follows function." You look like what you do. Bodybuilders may not be good marathon runners, but long-distance runners generally can't lift much weight, either. Gymnasts tend to be small, compact and muscular. Discus-throwers are beefy and powerful. Golfers do not succeed because of the height of their vertical leap, and are rarely slam-dunk artists, while all the physical power in the world doesn't help sink a three-foot putt on the final hole of the U.S. Open with the tournament at stake.So bodybuilders are indeed athletes, the training they go through is highly athletic, the ultimate result, the competition-prepared bodybuilding physique, is a direct consequence of that training, and the plastic form of this physique is what the competitors are judged on in a bodybuilding contest. Therefore, while competition bodybuilding is artistic, it's not an art form; and while it has theatrical and dramatic elements, it is not theater. It's a sport. And it satisfies every criterion as to what an athletic contest or a sport ought to be.

*************************************************

 

sidebar:

WHAT BODYBUILDING JUDGES LOOK FOR:

(1) SYMMETRY - the overall shape of the body. The best bodybuilders have wide shoulders, flaring lats, a torso that tapers down to a small waist, thighs that flare dramatically between hip and knee.
(2) PROPORTION - the balance of one part of the body to the others, of particular body parts to the rest. Is the development of the upper body proportionate to the rest? Is the size of the arms in proportion to the chest and shoulders? Is calf size balanced compared to thighs and arms?
(3) INDIVIDUAL BODY PARTS - how well each body part is shaped and developed. Is there a line between the upper and lower pectorals? Is there a split between the biceps? Are all three heads of the triceps distinct and well-developed? How about the various muscles of the shoulders, the back, the quadriceps and hamstrings? Which body parts are outstanding and which are weak points?
(4) DETAIL AND QUALITY - definition, separation, striations, cross-striations, hardness and muscle detail. How muscular and well-defined is the physique? Is there distinct separation between the pectorals and deltoids, the delts and the arms, the four heads of the quadriceps and the line between the quads and the hamstrings viewed from the side? Are striations and cross-striations clearly visible? Is there "anatomy chart" detail showing in all the important muscle groups?
(5) PRESENTATION - comparison posing and free posing. The ability of the bodybuilders to display physical development to its best advantage both in comparison posing---hitting the compulsory poses during prejudging---and how well designed and executed is the free posing routine.
(6) OVERALL ASSESSMENT - factors such as attitude and comportment on stage, skin tone and quality, grooming, the fit and appropriate design of theposing suit.

***************************************************************

sidebar

DON'T CALL ME "MUSCLE BOUND!"

You hear the term "muscle bound" all the time, but many bodybuilders don't realize it is actually a pejorative term, an insult, a put-down. When you call somebody muscle-bound you're denigrating their athletic ability. You're saying that having big muscles makes you slow, inflexible, uncoordinated and clumsy. And probably slow-witted as well.

It dates back from the days when coaches refused to let their athletes work out in the weight room. But those days are past. Just look at athletes like Bo Jackson. Anyone care to describe him as muscle-bound? If so, try to tackle him in the open field or get a fast ball by him. Lee Haney, Mr. Olympia, is heavyweight boxing champ Evander Holyfield's strength coach. If you think Holyfield is muscle-bound, you might try asking Buster Douglas.
Muscle-bound is also a phrase used by insecure, 98 pound weaklings to rationalize their own insecurities, their fear of individuals who are bigger and stronger than they are. Of dealing with memories of schoolyard bullies. If you can't lick 'em, make fun of 'em.
Calling a bodybuilder or other athlete muscle-bound is like calling an African-American a nigger, an Italian a wop or a Latino a spic. It's a disparagement, a belittlement, a smear, a slander, a slap and a slur.

So next time you hear somebody called muscle-bound, don't let it pass. Speak up. Put in your two cents. You probably won't have much trouble. Whoever uses the term will probably be some kind of pencil-neck anyway.