Why the paint?

[philat99]

I guess I'm just living in the past, but I always enjoyed gaping at huge muscled BB's. When did they start painting themselves a fake tan for their competitions. Did Weider have anything to do with it. I still prefer the "natural" look.
Mike

[Gene]

Yeah, the bright lights super illuminated the white bodies and they didn't look nearly as good as the darker skins.

Has to do with contrast of the dark skin and bright specular reflections from the oil. Also the white skin just reflects too much light and they just looked washed out and two dimensional regardless of their size.

That was a problem for the audience and besides that, the photographers had fits trying to get both black and white guys in the same photo with proper exposure.

[V.R.Goh]

To shorten what everyone else is saying, white bodybuilders look more pale under bright lights than their darker-skinned counterparts. Add to that mix the photographers constantly snapping pictures, and you come up with Casper the Beefy Ghost.

Personally, I think that any bodybuilder who's going on stage should get a natural sun-powered tan instead of painting themselves with off-color goop. But, that's just me.

[abbraxis]

There is a skin cancer issue for people with weak skin, and if you're doing more then one show a year, you're gonna have problems down the line. And since spray tans look bad (too orangy), the next best choice is the tanner they use.

Honestly *I* don't have a problem with it. It can be applied badly and can look real awful, but a lot of the time, I don't even think about it...

[Hulk2be]

Here are two links to threads that, if you scroll down, contain photos that I think dramatically illustrate the difference the "paint" can make.

http://teenmuscleguys.yuku.com/topic...ts.html?page=6

http://teenmuscleguys.yuku.com/topic...t.html?page=12

[arpeejay]

With respect to skin cancer:

Everyone has weak skins!

Tannning isn't good for anyone, ever.

The goop wouldn't be necessary if they weren't on stage under bright lights.

xoxo

Richard

[abbraxis]

Originally Posted by Hulk2be

Here are two links to threads that, if you scroll down, contain photos that I think dramatically illustrate the difference the "paint" can make.

http://teenmuscleguys.yuku.com/topic...ts.html?page=6

http://teenmuscleguys.yuku.com/topic...t.html?page=12

Great example!

Originally Posted by arpeejay

The goop wouldn't be necessary if they weren't on stage under bright lights.

Then you wouldn't see them - and considering the point of bodybuilding is to be seen and LOOK good, why not display it as best you can?

From Hulk2be's links:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ingLHW_020.jpg

[arpeejay]

Actually, I don't have any problem with the goop.

I have a friend who, in one of his manic moments (after a boyfriend break up), decided to get ripped / compete. Did a great job but he really wasn't the same caliber as the other guys (which wasn't really the point; he got up on the stage and did his stuff, that was the point.) He tans easily and had a really nice one, so he skipped the goop. And under the lights looked as pale as I do! (And, yes, I'm very, very pale indeed!)

Do others recall (as I do) that before about (well, when, 1980 or so?) that IFBB actually had a prohibition against goop. You were supposed to be all natural (well, on the outside, anyway) and while baby oil was OK bodypaint wasn't. I seem to recall it was a scene in "Pumping Iron," although it may have been one of those very rare "Wide World of Sports" bodybuilding episodes.

I guess they wised up, finally!

xoxo

Richard