I recently read Ruth Silverman’s comments in the March 2005 Pump & Circumstance twice and take time to digest what was written.  I still cannot believe what I read.  Since when is blatant discrimination good for anything?  The IFBB has had a record of discriminatory practices in the past.  The 20% solution is just another example. 20% of what, exactly?  What are the criteria for this?  Is it 20% per athlete, per contest or all athletes at large?  By what objective standard can you measure a 20% decrease in muscularity?  And next year, is it going to be another 20%?  Are we really going to go back to the 70s when the first women stepped on stage with the men in " Bikini or swimsuit" contests?

As mentioned this does not include the men.  Could you imagine on your job that your employer said only women had to take urine tests?  Or how about all the Hispanic people?  Or Native American?  These are professional athletes.  They earn money(?) for what they do.  There might even be grounds for legal action.  Many states have strong anti-discrimination laws on the books.

Whereas there have been areas where the women's side of the physique sports has made progress, there have been many areas where there has been much retrenchment.  The expansion of the bodybuilder’s weight classes to four is one positive.  There seems to be renewed interest in women's bodybuilding at the local and regional level.  Now all the pro divisions have athlete representatives with all positions filled.

As many know, I have been following this sport for a long time.  I used to get almost every muscle/fitness magazine on the market.  In the mid 90s women were plentiful as both subjects and writers of the articles in the magazine.  The mags used to have fun with the women's side of the sport.  Though women have never been dominant they were very present especially competitors.  Now almost every major publication, including Ironman, has practically excised women from their pages, except of course a few "fitness models" or hot babe.  Ruth’s P & C survives but Steve Wennerstrom's 'Flex & Femme' is gone. Many of the mags have created women's magazines.  The only one that takes the competitive side of the sport seriously is "Oygen".  “M & F Hers” was once pretty good but is now just another variation of "Shape". "Women's Physique World" is struggling.  "Fitness Rx" and "Energy" are not bodybuilding magazines.  You would think that women are only interested in silver or brightly colored dumbbells, not those nasty old black ones. 

AMI taking over the Weider publications does not leave me with much confidence.  After all they publish the "Star" and "National Enquirer".  Are they to be the new stewards of bodybuilding?  David Pecker is not a bodybuilding person.  I have found that many people from outside the sport know nothing really about the sport.  Why is he any different? 

To lose either bodybuilding or fitness would be a terrible blow.  The women have come so far.  They have even improved the men's side of the sport.  I love the figure athletes but I am not so sure about the figure "Competition".  I have many friends and acquaintances among the athlete ranks and I highly respect them as athletes but is Figure, as it stands now, the best showcase for them?  How long are these talented, hard working people going to stand an event where they essentially do nothing?  I am familiar with many of their backgrounds and they usually are highly competitive people.  Is Figure competition enough?  When Fitness was introduced over a decade ago, it brought music to prejudging and excitement too.  Are we going back to the silent boring prejudging of yesteryear?

Any comments please>

Bill

Wfs63@hotmail.com