The NEW Jay Cutler

[digger]

This thread bugs me for the same reason the "I don't like female bodybuilders" thread bugs me. Competitive bodybuilders do not do what they do for the sake of turning people on. It is a sport. Sure, this forum is about the eroticism of muscle. And bodybuilders are only human: they want to look sexy as much as the next guy. But the sport is not about looking sexy. The whole "Branch looks like a man but Jay looks like a Ken Doll" thing is about aesthetics that have nothing to do with competing. So is the hair thing. So is the ink thing. Or Eric Fankhouser's teeth.

Sorry if I'm being a bitch. I'm laid up with a cold/cough that will not go away and not feeling particularly charitable.

[mordre_t]

This is not so much a forum about the sport of bodybuilding as it is a forum about a specific fetish.

[digger]

agreed, but people seem to think that things like hair style or hair color have some bearing on who should have won the Olympia.

[Uskathoth]

Originally Posted by digger

The sport is not about looking sexy.

Competitive bodybuilding is a sport that's entirely based on subjective judgments of aesthetics. There are no objective measurements in a bodybuilding competition - the biggest biceps, the heaviest lift, etc aren't criteria for winning. And the criteria that are spelled out e.g. "balance", "proportion", etc are interpreted significantly differently from contest to contest and from judge to judge. Look at similar contests in other disciplines that have some subjective judging (gymnastics for instance) and you don't see nearly as many "the judges are all on crack!!!" comments that have been made in reference to Mr. O over the years. So the supposition that there is some bodybuilder ideal form that everyone in the sport acknowledges and agrees on is very questionable to me. Certainly the public at large doesn't have one opinion on what is or is not a physically ideal appearance.

And you only have to look at the ads in bodybuilding magazines to see that at least someone in bodybuilding things that bodybuilders are supposed to be sexy. I think sex appeal is a pretty obvious part of what makes competitive bodybuilding interesting to people.

So since competitive bodybuilding is subjective and it is entirely appearance based it seems pretty obvious that people are going to comment on BB's appearances. Especially on a fetish site like this. Having said that there is a lot of material that I've seen here that is not remotely appealing to me and I usually just don't comment on that stuff. But since JC is a big, hunky guy and just seems to purposefully make himself look plastic I chimed in on this thread.

[Bull]

What we have going on here is a divide between the fans of bodybuilding as a sport, and those who are only interested in muscle as a sexual turn on. I see both points of view. But I wish people here would stop confusing the two issues. It is ridiculous to say so-and-so shouldn't win because you don't find them sexy. That is a seperate issue entirely. The fact that sexiness is obviously a criterion used in selecting a model to use in advertising is also irrelevant to the sport.

It is true that there is no universally agreed-on standard of what constitutes a good physique, and that is why judging is so inconsistent, sometimes even within the same contest. I have been advocating for years for a single set of standards and a method of judging that reflects that. That way the athletes would know what to aim for. Now, they never know if the judges are going to reward size, condition, proportions, or what. They are flying blind.

But that will never happen unless the athletes themselves get organized and form a union, so they can insist on sensible changes. Right now, it is all run by a network of insiders who are only interested in how much money they can make off the athletes. Just look at the pathetic amounts of prize money offered. In most cases, they wouldn't even cover the airfare and hotel room fees.

That is why I get so annoyed when people dismiss these men over irrelevant things. Most of us can't even begin to conceive of the labor and sacrifice that is involved in this sport, and for no reward at all most of the time. The least we owe them is a modicum of respect.

Having said that, I can't agree that things like hairstyles, tattoos, teeth, etc. are entirely beside the point. The point of bodybuilding is to create a "complete package," an ideal picture of power, beauty, and grace. Everything that affects that picture must be considered. It isn't only about muscle. I can remember a time when "grooming" was one of the factors taken into consideration, and rightly so. I don't think the judges do the athletes any favors by pretending that they aren't affected by such things. That only encourages them to indulge in self-destructive things that greatly diminish their chances of having a successful career in the sport.

[Erpelding]

Originally Posted by DragoniteXY

De gustibus non est disputandum .

Yet so many fans can't be wrong:

[monkeybwoy]

Meh, none of those 'rebuttal' pictures have changed my view at all. I'm not going to talk about his hair or his looks, since we're focusing on the body and muscles. For me as I lacks the compact, sexy, sculpted mid-section which impresses me about big bodybuilders - it creates contrast and grace. He is TOO wide at the waist and hips with no shape; it's almost like he's a fat short guy but instead of fat, he's got muscle filling in the space. His waist is almost the same width across as his hips, which from the back is almost the same width his two legs put together, no tapering in at the middle - that's just unattractive to me regardless of how much actual muscle he's carrying or how low his bodyfat % is. Is it the drugs that does that to him, or just genetics? There are so many other bodybuilders out there who have way better lines and proportions.

[Lucas88]

Originally Posted by monkeybwoy

Meh, none of those 'rebuttal' pictures have changed my view at all. I'm not going to talk about his hair or his looks, since we're focusing on the body and muscles. For me as I lacks the compact, sexy, sculpted mid-section which impresses me about big bodybuilders - it creates contrast and grace. He is TOO wide at the waist and hips with no shape; it's almost like he's a fat short guy but instead of fat, he's got muscle filling in the space. His waist is almost the same width across as his hips, which from the back is almost the same width his two legs put together, no tapering in at the middle - that's just unattractive to me regardless of how much actual muscle he's carrying or how low his bodyfat % is. Is it the drugs that does that to him, or just genetics? There are so many other bodybuilders out there who have way better lines and proportions.

I think it's a combination of the routines being used and the drugs. Back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's you were more likely to see the classic physiques (Frank Zane, Bob Paris, etc.) where the waists were tight and narrow vs a heavier upper torsos and thicker looking legs. In general, there were two pretty distinct workout programs: lift super-heavy with low reps (6-8) for bulk and strength (powerlifters) and lift moderately heavy with higher reps (12-15) for the pump and the sculpted muscle (classic bodybuilders). With the shift toward sheer muscle mass and bulk as opposed to aesthetics, bodybuilders today are lifting more like powerlifters and with that comes the thicker waist to support the heavier weights. One of the programs that shifted the thinking was Mike Mentzer's HIT program (can't remember the meaning of the acronym other than High Intensity something) that started pushing heavier weights and lower reps for bodybuilders. He was one of the first bodybuilders that I noticed with a thicker waist (than the bodybuilders with the classic physiques) and bulkier, more dense muscles.

I'd love to see a shift more toward the middle ground where the waists aren't nearly as thick and the proportions are more dramatic, myself.

Just an observation.

[Bull]

I agree that the emphasis on size over proportions is unfortunate. There are very few men who can carry the kind of size that gets rewarded now without also developing a thick waist. The irony is, men with smaller waists LOOK much bigger than the mass monsters do, but no one seems to care. Just look at poor Dennis Wolf; the only guy in this years 'O' with a small waist, and he placed 16th!

In Jay's case, I would say he does have a genetic tendency toward a thick waist; I mean, his bone structure is just that way. But ten years ago, his waist was far smaller than it is now, and he looked better. But he knows what it takes to win these days, and he can't be blamed for giving the judges what they clearly want.

I don't think training methods have so much to do with it. Jay, for example, has always been a moderate-weight, moderate-reps, multiple-sets trainer; yet his waist has still ballooned. I think it has much more to do with the combined used of GH and insulin, which causes the retention of deep visceral fat in the midsection, even while in a state of severe calorie restriction. That is why you never see a vacuum pose anymore; it just isn't possible for these guys. It can't be a coincidence that the so-called "roidgut" made it's appearance at the same time this combination began to be widely used.

If it were up to me, points would be rewarded like this:

Proportions - 50%
Aesthetics (Shape and Symmetry) - 25%
Conditioning - 15%
Presentation (Skin condition and color, Posing, Grooming, ) - 10%
Size - tie breaker (all else being equal, the bigger man would win.)
A visible tattoo would be an automatic 10% penalty.

This would put the emphasis back where it belongs. If I had the money, I'd start a contest using just these criteria. It could be a demonstration project within the IFBB. If the popularity of these criteria spread, good. If not, at least there would be a place where the traditional values of bodybuilding are preserved and rewarded.

[Lucas88]

Bull, I see your point and agree that Jay always tended toward a wider waist and he did look a little more classically proportioned in his earlier years than he does today, BUT, here's a question...does visceral fat impact the WIDTH of the waist which impacts the visual proportions or does it effect the DEPTH of the waist? ROIDGUT, to me, usually implies that bulge toward the front, not to the sides where the obliques and other muscles contributing to the width of the lower torso just seem thicker and more dense these days. Looking at that last picture of Jay: even with his lats spread, there is still a much thicker and meatier appearance to the muscles of the side torso than in more classically symmetrical bodybuilders. I still see that as more from the combination of drugs AND the different style of lifting for sheer mass these days than in early years of the sport. The observation that "Jay...has always been a moderate-weight, moderate-reps, multiple-sets trainer..." makes sense if you're comparing his lifting style to the mass giants of today, but how does that style compare to the lifting styles of a Frank Zane or a Bob Paris?

I don't argue drugs have a definite effect on the thickness and density of the muscles all over the body including the waist and Jay couldn't pull off the vacuum pose of a Frank Zane if he wanted to, but, I still think the width of the waist results from an issue of genetics, different mass goals/lifting styles, AND the drugs. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point.

I am with you on the scoring. Proportion should DEFINITELY be 50% of the points rewarded and tatts are a penalty. I'm all for tattoos if that's what you're into, but a bodybuilder is putting his physique on display for judgement and tattoos are a distraction for me...I want to see MUSCLE, clear and without distraction.

Good discussion!

FYI...another man that had AMAZING proportions in his early years was Lee Priest; the V-taper was FANTASTIC about the age of 22 and he looked HUGE at 5'4" with that chest and those shoulders.

[Bull]

Point taken about the width versus depth of the waist. Obliques have definitely gotten thicker as well. I can't think of any lifts bodybuilders do that affect them directly, but the combination of years of high dose test and GH might affect them as well. And it's true that since Dorian Yates, bodybuilders have tended to do deadlifts and bent-over barbell rows more than they used to. Straining against very heavy weights on moves like that would certainly stress the obliques.

On the other hand, Ronnie Coleman trained MUCH heavier that Jay ever has, and he didn't develop a wide waist, so there's genetics for you.