Size vs. Shape

[Eddie]

I'm coming with one more survey question here and see what opinions will follow from athletes, trainers, and fans alike.

And that is, Which do you believe plays a bigger role in the success of competitors in these prestigous national events and even pro events.

Is it the Size or is it the Shape??

To me it seems that the athlete with the most size of all the weight classes winners is the one that always claim the overall title. And with so many asking for weight classes to be re-installed into the pro ranks, I'm really up in arms as how successful competitors like Lisa Bickels and Jaime Troxel can be if they take what they have now straight to the next level.

In the shots below....both Jaime and Lisa represent excellent Shape.

While Lora Ottenad and Beverly Direnzo are definately what Size is all about.

And just seem that Lora and Beverly would be instant champions on the pro level,
before Jamie and Lisa would taste victory.....at least in my opinion.

[bthomas77]

size v shape is definatly a debate. though size is impressive, shape is the ideal. as an outsider of the industry, i would hope that shape would over come. or, if an idividual could show both it would be grand. being a huge fan of the afformentioned Lisa Bickels, I would hope shape is the biggest determining factor. This is also a very good reason for the IFBB to have weight classes. the two weight classes at some of the shows will definatly help the new pros Lisa and Jamie Troxell. but who knows...

Basically, size is initially more impressive, it is what will draw the eye. you actually have to look and examine to see shape, and definition. so the woman with more impressive size is gonna catch the eye first. which will lead to a smaller competitior with better shape to be over looked. Now that i have throughly comfused myself, and anyone who actually tries to read this. i will summarize. Size draws ones attention. Shape is probably more impressive feat. Multiple weight classes and the pro level would be a good thing.

[Echo]

...Shape is probably more impressive feat. Multiple weight classes and the pro level would be a good thing.

If you want "shape" to be the predominant factor in scoring a physique contest then you would not want weight classes. Instead, you would want height classes. Weight classes, by their very nature, inherently encourage a "culture" which emphasizes mass. Competitors often like to lose weight in order to enter contests at or near the upper limits of a weight class because they believe that their "mass" will give them an edge in that weight class. Weight classes provide nothing that assists in the asssessment of "shape." On the other hand, height classes provide a much better means of assessing "proportion," which is a very important corollary of "shape."

[diggs]

Shape. It's a no-brainer.

Let's continue to use Lora Ottenad as the example. That woman's been on the stage for YEARS and she's only just now slamdunking her pro card, and I'll put American money on her being the biggest woman on stage more than half the time she's ever walked onto one. So what gives? Historically, she's been wide in the waist and it's taken away from her upper body: not much of a taper going on. Now, after years of working with what the güd lawd gave her, she's the total package - and lawd, is it ever güd!

(Plus - way better hair now. That Marie Antionette thing she used to sport just wasn't cutting it.)

But for my money, while shape has the edge it's not necessarily the size or the shape that's the key to success - it's having the right combination of judges that are looking for what you got on the day that you got it! :banghead:

[bthomas77]

If you want "shape" to be the predominant factor in scoring a physique contest then you would not want weight classes. Instead, you would want height classes. Weight classes, by their very nature, inherently encourage a "culture" which emphasizes mass. Competitors often like to lose weight in order to enter contests at or near the upper limits of a weight class because they believe that their "mass" will give them an edge in that weight class. Weight classes provide nothing that assists in the asssessment of "shape." On the other hand, height classes provide a much better means of assessing "proportion," which is a very important corollary of "shape."

i dont know if height is the answer, just looking at the nationals, Debi Laszewski, Lisa Bickels, and Jamie Troxell are all about the same hieght, all about 5'2/5'3. so would you measure them all differently on proportion? you also have Cindy Phillips who competed in the middle weight class in the Canadian nationals at 5'1. shes gonna have different shape then a 5'1 light wieght.

weight classes is the way to go, becase they all have the a smililar amount of mass.....whether at the top or bottom of a class. its just how you shape that mass to fit your frame.

[anseln]

All I can say about size vs. shape is

LORA, LORA, LORA, LORA :banana:

The women looked AWESOME!!!

[genex]

Shape but balanced.

[kiM]

Shape but balanced.
I think that is called symmetry!!
A taller girl can handle more mass than a shorter and still look balanced.

I say, bring what you've got and just hope that is what the judges are looking for on that particular day.

All four ladies mentioned above are beautiful... each has a different body structure, but what they've got works for them.

[Titania]

I think you have to look at the very name of the sport to determine ultimately what it is about... bodybuilding. While I agree that in female bodybuilding, the women should be recognisable instantly as being women (as the above athletes all do), it is still about building the body.
Figure and fitness competitions are more about shape IMHO.

Having said all that, if I had to choose between a huge woman who had very poor shape or a smaller (but still very big) woman who had awesome shape, the latter would be my preference.
If I had to choose between a huge woman who had very good (but not outstanding) shape and a smaller woman who had outstanding shape, I would choose the bigger woman.

Let me use an example from recent Miss O events. I need to state here that both of the athletes I am going to mention get my utmost respect for their dedication and this is simply my opinion.
Two Miss O's that I have watched transform themselves over the past decade are Kim Chisevsky and Yaxeni Oriquen. Both of them have Miss O titles and both have a completely different 'look'.
In their title winning years, Kim had a more muscular physique while Yaxeni had a much more appealing shape (my opinion). Both of these athletes are very muscular but if Kim and Yaxeni were up against each other for the crown in their peak condition, I would prefer Yaxeni's physique to Kim's.

Another example -
If you were to put Renne Toney up against Yaxeni, although I think Yaxeni has a more feminine physique, I would give the title to Renne. She has done an outstanding job pushing the boundaries in female bodybuilding and has done so without ruining her feminine appeal.
Now I know that is a hotly debatable point and many people will disagree with me but it is my opinion.

[Eddie]

I found that this statement by you Bernie is what caught my eye...(no pun intended.)

Can you elaborate on why you believe this to be true??

I'm not saying your right or wrong, but just wonder what you think makes it
the case as to why society seems to be more in awe of size rather than shape.

For the record, I'm more impressed with shape and detail too.

Which is why I would love to see the Vicki Nixon's and Carla Salotti's of the world win championship on the amateur and pro level, and I'm talking about overall best in the entire show titles, and not have to just settle for weight class victories.

size v shape is definatly a debate. though size is impressive, shape is the ideal. Basically, size is initially more impressive, it is what will draw the eye.

[Wildangel]

Eddie,
Again thank you for saying such nice things about me!! It would be so nice to see a smaller package win BIG shows:) Its not always who's bigger...its the Overall package, condtioning and symetry. Thats why I was so shocked when I beat Collette Nelson at the Team Universe to get my Pro card! The little girl took all....thats Very rare! I just happened to be in the best overall condition that day:)) I really appreciate all the posts where u have mentioned me and my hard work:))
Love ya!!
Vicki Nix
www.vickinixon.com :sprite10:
So glad that you like my look!!

[eseiple]

What your missing is that the bigger girls also have shape. Just because you have size doesn't mean you don't have shape. The point is to have both.

[Eddie]

Those qualities together are what makes a championship winning physique.

But just from what I'm seeing for the last decade or so, is athlete who specialize in having more size than they do shape. I would think that athletes like Vicki Nixon and Angela Debatin do have both as strong points, but yet they seem to place low in pro competitions, so that's why I wondered, which asset many people in this forum thought was really more important.

And maybe everyone could see why I believe weight classes in amateur
and pro events didn't make a difference in terms of deciding an overall champion.

Cause as Vicki just said here, its rare for the "little girls" to take the whole show.

Martha Sundby has great combination of both.


What your missing is that the bigger girls also have shape. Just because you have size doesn't mean you don't have shape. The point is to have both.

[Echo]

i dont know if height is the answer, just looking at the nationals, Debi Laszewski, Lisa Bickels, and Jamie Troxell are all about the same hieght, all about 5'2/5'3. so would you measure them all differently on proportion? you also have Cindy Phillips who competed in the middle weight class in the Canadian nationals at 5'1. shes gonna have different shape then a 5'1 light wieght.

weight classes is the way to go, becase they all have the a smililar amount of mass.....whether at the top or bottom of a class. its just how you shape that mass to fit your frame.

I am trying to understand the post captioned above, but little of it makes sense when the individual points are taken to their logical conclusion. Historically, the sport of bodybuilding started with height classes, and there was very good reason for this. Later, in the early 80's, Ben Weider initiated efforts to get the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to recognize bodybuilding as as Olympics eligible sport. Ben wanted bodybuilding to appear like the other IOC recognized sports such as boxing, wrestling, and Olympic lifting, so height classes were abandoned in favor of weight classes.

In terms of evaluating physiques in the sport of bodybuilding, there is no advantage in using weight classes instead of height classes. Amateur figure competition doesn't utilize weight classes. Did you ever wonder why? Weight classes also offer less safety for the athlete because there are some athletes that will employ extreme measures in order to "make weight." Height classes, instead, emphasize bringing your best look, whatever that may be, to the contest.

Although varying opinions have been expressed, the general consensus of competitve female bodybuilders seems to be that they want their physiques judged on the basis of shape, proportion, muscle development/size, and condition, and probably in that order of importance. If that is true, and if the athletes want the scoring of their physique to more heavily emphasize aesthetic shape and proportion, then height classes would more efficiently accomplish this than weight classes.

Athletes do not have similar amounts of mass. Moreover, "shape" is largely a genetic attribute. Therefore, one does not "shape that mass to fit your frame."

[Titania]

What your missing is that the bigger girls also have shape. Just because you have size doesn't mean you don't have shape. The point is to have both.
I typed a short essay to convey my thoughts and you just summed it up perfectly in three simple sentences :D

[hans]

Size and shape is like chicken and egg in women's bodybuilding. You need both. The point is you need to add size in the right way and in the right places so it improves your shape - for example in your lats to improve your v-taper or in your quads to improve your sweep - while keeping your waist small. That's why - as Elena said - size and shape aren't mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand.

Hans