greekblondechic said:
Makes sense now as to WHY they use it, but I still don't get why that look is preferred for figure as they go higher up?? Is it because it's harder to achieve?
It's an interesting question.
In Canada it even seems to vary from province to province exactly 'what' the judges are looking for, for example in Alberta the judges appear to like a harder more cut look, here in BC at the novice and provincial level they prefer a softer look.
It can be very frustrating.
Our BC head judge is a 'by the book' type of guy... here is part of a post of his I pulled from a forum regarding the criteria for figure, it makes for an interesting read...
"Regarding Figure criteria, if anyone wishes to read the IFBB/CBBF/BCABBA rules & regulations (check out bcabba.ca), be my guest. I am baffled as to the number of conversations in which this topic is discussed and often debated.
The criteria is very clear. To separate this segment of our sport from bodybuilding, several points of criteria have been established.
Figure competitors are to possess an 'athletic physique,' with round, firm muscles, and an overall pleasing muscle tone. They are not to have an 'excessively muscular or extremely lean' physique. Their bodies are to be 'free of deep muscle separation and striations.' These qualities are to be marked down. In addition, facial beauty, skin tone, poise, grace, presentation, hairstyle, and suit style are to be considered.
However, the most important element is shape. The ideal Figure competitor has an 'hourglass' shape, with wide shoulders, narrow waist, and flaring hips and quads. This is to ensure the athlete maintains a feminine appearance and does not resemble a block. Also, like bodybuilding, a pleasing Figure physique has a shorter torso with longish legs. This of course is genetic, and those of us who have long torsos and narrow clavicles are cursed!
During round two (the one piece), judges are to approach viewing the athletes with a 'fresh perspective.' During this round, as the one piece can hide physique flaws, judges look for other factors such as facial beauty, hair, how well the suit flatters the physique, and so on.
Is the smoke clearing now I'm a bodybuilder, and have been training for twenty years. I love hard, yet feminine physiques, to which anyone who knows my fiancee can attest.
Now, for those of you who have noticed that National level Figure competitors display sparkling muscularity and rock hard physiques, I argue that it is they who 'aren't judging right,' and not we. The judging at lower level shows is not 'way off.' In fact, it is bang on because I am following the criteria-something not being done at higher level shows.
So, why is the judging different there? First of all, the expectations are greater as it is a National event. The calibre is higher, and the physiques on stage look like lightweight bodybuilders. The few who do show up in 'proper condition' do not place well. Why?
If you were presented with twenty athletes, and eighteen of them were rock hard and two were 'soft' in comparison, what would you do? Also, you know that whoever does well and moves on to the pro's needs to be rock hard, so would you reward a softer physique?
I will continue to stick to my beliefs-that at lower level shows we will follow the criteria and try to encourage a more 'attainable' look. At the same time, we will ensure that competitors who move on realize how National level Figure shows are judged."
"Kerry Macdonald-as stated before in another post, she has an awesome hourglass shape, but is too hard for Figure criteria as I interpret it. Also, because of her height, she could fill out a little." (
)
