Professional Rankings System

[Eddie]

Since the last few posts in the Jan Tana Returns thread has been about weight classes and athletes getting a fair shots at the Olympia, I decided to take that as a related post and separate it into its own discussion thread which this will be about.

I noticed Ed Pariso making great points about qualification spots being taken away by these weight classes, and it got me thinking about something I wanted to bring up when I first joined the forum, and now I have been reminded of it.....and it seems like a good time to post it now.

I always believed it would be great if the IFBB had an official pro ranking system - where athletes would qualify based on how consistant they were throughout the competitive season.

Rankings points would be determined by where the athlete finished in each contest they participated in and would be tallied up after the last qualifier show before the Olympia.

If for example the Jan Tana has a total of 25 competitors, then the winner would recieve 25 points in the rankings,
1 pt for participation + 24 pts for being better than 24 other athletes.

And the points would trickle down in that order from 25 to 1.

So after all the qualifiers are done and the total points are tallied, then the Top 15 ranked athletes should been the ones the compete at the Olympia.

Of course they'd have to go back to one class again for this to work, but it seems like it would be the best outcome for everyone, because it would not be limited to finishing in top 2 or 3 of a certain contest, but it would be about athletes who show up the most throughout the year and consistantly place in the Top 10 or 15 at least of the qualifiers.

So what's everyone else's opinion on this idea??

[gymdiva1222]

for competitors that tend to do more than one show I think this could work but so many only do maybe two shows a year...maybe a requalifier if they need one...could lead to burnout for some ladies I'm sure trying to rack up as many points as they can, you know?

[Eddie]

for competitors that tend to do more than one show I think this could work but so many only do maybe two shows a year...maybe a requalifier if they need one...could lead to burnout for some ladies I'm sure trying to rack up as many points as they can, you know?

Yeah, I agree that a "burnout" as you so eliquently put it ( :D ) is possible.

Then again on the flip side, as it currently stands there are only 3 open qualifiers on deck for them to choose from. So after doing at least 2 shows, they'd already be more than halfway done with season, and only the Olympia would be left. But at least they'll know that they earned their spot in the big dance.

I'm sure athletes like Vicki Nixon and Betty Pariso would not mind it thought since they have that competitive spirit where it seems they could do every show on the schedule with no problem at all.

Be interesting though if this was brought to the voting table.... :headscrat

[Echo]

Your idea needs to be fleshed out further before it could be brought up for a vote. Currently, the IFBB policy is to grant automatic requalification for the top place finishers in the Ms. Olympia. Therefore, they can remain competitively inactive for an entire year and re-enter the Ms. Olympia.

It does not appear that your formula factors that in with respect to the top 15 scorers that you would allow into the Ms. Olympia under your proposed system. So, are you going to retain the current IFBB policy and award "bonus points" for the top Olympia finishers, or do you propose abolishing the current policy and require that all athletes compete throughout the competitive season to earn their Olympia qualification?

[Tre]

There's not enough of a payoff to justify 'requiring' pros to do more than one show in a year.

[Eddie]

So if there was an increase in prize money and in the number qualification spots, would that allow this system to be effective?

[Tre]

So if there was an increase in prize money and in the number qualification spots, would that allow this system to be effective?

Fans can rate the pros - or amateurs - any way they want.

[Eddie]

I know that. But I'm talking about making it an official system that the organization would use??

Then maybe there would be no more complaints about lack of qualification opportunities.

[Scott]

Well actually the points could be totaled over say a four year span. It doesnt have to be any certain number of shows requirement. In Golf they have a 2 year points qualifying system for their Ryder Cup. (sure the pga golfers has a gazillion more opportunites to gain points but still...) This could benefit some competitors that always seem to be close but no cigar in gettin an Olympia invite. Its something to debate about i think.

Or why we are on the subject how about a point system in the NPC this kind of system done right would reward Pro worthy competoitors such as Michelle Brent and Elena S among a few others.

[Tre]

I know that. But I'm talking about making it an official system that the organization would use??
Ok, you've got bodybuilding confused with sports like basketball or tennis.

What value would such a system hold for the organization? As I understand the present setup, if a person qualifies for the Olympia this year, but chooses not to compete for personal or health reasons, then that qualification is good for the next calendar year, which certainly seems reasonable.

Maybe Ed or one of the pros can confirm this for us.

[Tre]

Or why we are on the subject how about a point system in the NPC this kind of system done right would reward Pro worthy competoitors such as Michelle Brent and Elena S among a few others.
Both should have long since qualified for pro status, given the number of 'points' they've racked up in the top NPC events.

You'll get no argument from me there.

[bigbrother]

the idea is great!!!!

For bodybuilding it is not an option because there is no Pro status for women so far.

Pro means, you can compete in very nice events with people who achieved a very high level in the sport of bodybuilding.

The mean thing about being a Pro is missing ..... MONEY.

How can you have women prepairing for a full season of Pro shows with let us say 10 events, if there is only 1500 USD prize money for first spot (as it is now) in regular events?

For a european girl it barely covers the prize of the plane ticket.

need to work on another scheme, i am afraid

[Eddie]

I disagree about a system being used in the amateur ranks.

Too many local and regional shows and too many competitors to keep track of a just single year alone.

As as points over a span of years, I think that would be unfair because that would still take spots away from newcomers who join the pro ranks.

If someone can't compete during that year for some reason, it would not be right to hold everyone else accountable and put them on the backburner because of that person's no show. That athlete should requalify herself just as the others, and that's why the system should be done on a single season basis. Its only fair when everyone truly earns their spot and the so-called "big dance" of the federation.

Tre' - you are indeed right that its not like basketball or tennis.

I still think it could be that same class of sport if this system was to be implimented.

Just seems like its too much of a series of pagents.

Especially when the Olympia champion is allowed to just show up once a year.:fitz:

And yes prize money is also an issue, its has been since the beginning and seems that it always be a problem.

[Eddie]

Surprised that only one 1 competitor has given some perspective to this...:headscrat

This system is meant to help them afterall.

Be nice if some more would chime in here.:confused:

[Tre]

I disagree about a system being used in the amateur ranks.

Too many local and regional shows and too many competitors to keep track of a just single year alone.

As as points over a span of years, I think that would be unfair because that would still take spots away from newcomers who join the pro ranks.

No way.

A person who shows up for Nationals and makes the top-5 *every* year for, say, 5 straight years, should be rewarded in some way, don't you think?

Can you honestly look at Elena Seiple and say that she's *not* worthy of being a pro?

Ranking the amateurs is fun.

In the pros, I would rank Heather Armbrust at 1, and Kim Perez at 2.

[Scott]

Well the truth is no one MAKES Tiger Woods show up and play golf tournaments, no one makes Serena Williams play tennis. Tiger could if he wanted to choose to only play the Masters, Serena could just play Wimbledon....of course it would piss a lot of people off but the point is its the athletes choice not the IFBB's am i correct Tre? The amatuer ranking sytem is a very good idea!

I disagree about a system being used in the amateur ranks.

Too many local and regional shows and too many competitors to keep track of a just single year alone.

As as points over a span of years, I think that would be unfair because that would still take spots away from newcomers who join the pro ranks.

If someone can't compete during that year for some reason, it would not be right to hold everyone else accountable and put them on the backburner because of that person's no show. That athlete should requalify herself just as the others, and that's why the system should be done on a single season basis. Its only fair when everyone truly earns their spot and the so-called "big dance" of the federation.

Tre' - you are indeed right that its not like basketball or tennis.

I still think it could be that same class of sport if this system was to be implimented.

Just seems like its too much of a series of pagents.

Especially when the Olympia champion is allowed to just show up once a year.:fitz:

And yes prize money is also an issue, its has been since the beginning and seems that it always be a problem.

[dogbump]

No way.

A person who shows up for Nationals and makes the top-5 *every* year for, say, 5 straight years, should be rewarded in some way, don't you think?

Can you honestly look at Elena Seiple and say that she's *not* worthy of being a pro?

Ranking the amateurs is fun.

In the pros, I would rank Heather Armbrust at 1, and Kim Perez at 2.

I'm not sure what you are saying Tre.....that Heather and Kim would be your number 1 and 2 for the Olympia this year?

My fave is Antoinette Norman....symmetry, conditioning, posing.....the lady has the total package.

[Amazon Doll]

My fave is Antoinette Norman....symmetry, conditioning, posing.....the lady has the total package.
She is my favorite also!!! I just like everything about her and she is what fbb is all about to me!

[bigbrother]

Well the truth is no one MAKES Tiger Woods show up and play golf tournaments, no one makes Serena Williams play tennis. Tiger could if he wanted to choose to only play the Masters, Serena could just play Wimbledon....of course it would piss a lot of people off but the point is its the athletes choice not the IFBB's am i correct Tre? The amatuer ranking sytem is a very good idea!

wrong Scott.
I don't know about golf, but as far as tennis goes, all pro's are bound by contract towards the ATP to participate in 12 tournements per year. If they don't they are fined. And they have to play not only majors or world series, but need to enter 2 minors at least per year.

But again, the ATP is not the IFBB, and the money involved in tennis is not to be compared to bodybuilding.

[Scott]

ok thanks i guess i dont follow tennis very closely, the PGA probab;y has something like that too then.

[Tre]

I think it's 15 tournaments a year for the PGA Tour, but if Tiger said he only wanted to do the Masters and the British every year, believe me, the organizers of those events would make certain he was there, even if he was not an active member of the Tour.

Like you said already, the money is the issue.

Individual events have sponsors, but then the PGA Tour has annual sponsors, too, and it's those companies that the Tour cares about. Requiring a minimum number of events helps to ensure that most tournaments will have a reasonably competitive field and will have a few big names in the field to help draw viewers.

IFBB doesn't have that kind of drawing power because, unlike other cult activities like the UFC, the IFBB has never made any attempt to market its stars or the product since losing the NBC Sportsworld broadcasts back in the 80s.

[Tre]

I'm not sure what you are saying Tre.....that Heather and Kim would be your number 1 and 2 for the Olympia this year?

Don't really care about the Olympia - I'd list them as the #1 and #2-best female bodybuilders in the world.

[Amazon Doll]

IFBB doesn't have that kind of drawing power because, unlike other cult activities like the UFC, the IFBB has never made any attempt to market its stars or the product since losing the NBC Sportsworld broadcasts back in the 80s.
I don't think it is for the lack of marketing. I think the saturation level of interest by the general population is pretty low. There are only just so many people interested in BBing or FBB. No matter how much marketing they do, there is only so many viewers.

The UFC, Golf & Tennis has a much wider market appeal in the general population.

[dogbump]

Don't really care about the Olympia - I'd list them as the #1 and #2-best female bodybuilders in the world.


Believe me....I'm a big Perez fan and don't mind Heather but over Iris????? NO. Not a chance. Not even over Yaxeni and Dayana.

Definately not over Antoinette Norman who is seriously overlooked with her perfection.

When's Kim upper and lower body are more N Sync then WATCH OUT! :woot:

[Tre]

I don't think it is for the lack of marketing. I think the saturation level of interest by the general population is pretty low. There are only just so many people interested in BBing or FBB. No matter how much marketing they do, there is only so many viewers.

The UFC, Golf & Tennis has a much wider market appeal in the general population.

The bodybuilding viewers were there before, though. People may not travel to shows or buy tickets to see it, but if it's on TV, they will stop and watch. Whether they like it or are disgusted by it, people are intrigued by it when they see hyper-developed muscle.

Intrigue = ratings and ratings = cash.

The UFC is a great example of how marketing can make an unpopular activity a huge commercial success. UFC is basically human cockfighting. Back in the day, when a UFC event was planned the people of certain towns would go nuts and try to get it shut down. They were successful on many occasions, but the UFC people were undaunted.

The UFC markets its stars. For example, I've seen Chuck Liddell on magazine covers and he's even been on Letterman and other shows. For years, the IFBB had its own in-house media company and never made more than a token effort to market its product and in the last quarter-century has made zero changes.

Other people have their own theories, but my opinion is that the IFBB doesn't want 'another Arnold' and intend for competitive bodybuilding to be propped up totally from within ($$).

[Eddie]

I don't think it is for the lack of marketing. I think the saturation level of interest by the general population is pretty low. There are only just so many people interested in BBing or FBB. No matter how much marketing they do, there is only so many viewers.

The UFC, Golf & Tennis has a much wider market appeal in the general population.

What does any of this have to do with this thread?

Come on . . lets try and stay on topic here people.:rolleyes:

[Echo]

The UFC is a great example of how marketing can make an unpopular activity a huge commercial success. UFC is basically human cockfighting. Back in the day, when a UFC event was planned the people of certain towns would go nuts and try to get it shut down. They were successful on many occasions, but the UFC people were undaunted.

The UFC markets its stars. For example, I've seen Chuck Liddell on magazine covers and he's even been on Letterman and other shows. For years, the IFBB had its own in-house media company and never made more than a token effort to market its product and in the last quarter-century has made zero changes.


Tre, the recent success of UFC underscores the very point you are making. It is particularly important to point out that if professional boxing had not eschewed network television in favor of cable and network TV, if it had continued to "market" it's athletes and their product, if it had fostered competition and encouraged athletes to compete instead of dodging fights, and if it had not allowed the quality of it's product to go downhill and be splintered into various boxing federations, then the UFC would not have gained any foothold because any public "appetite" for mixed martial arts competitions would have already been satisfied by boxing.

Tre is correct. There must be an ongoing effort toward effective marketing of bodybuilding.