FITNESS OLYMPIA REPORT
Actually, this is not exactly a contest report - since I don't really know how to explain why any fitness contest comes out the way it does, and I'm not sure anyone else can either. You can look at the Fitness Olympia scoresheet, but it won't tell you much, either. For one thing, there is no way to know what criteria are being used in any given round. What are the judges looking for in the one or two-piece swimsuit rounds? What is the difference in the criteria for these two rounds? Why? It is not only difficult for us to know what standards they are using, but I have never figured out how THEY know what stardards they are using, how they come to any agreement among themselves as to what standards to apply. Or whether there is any close agreement among the judges at all.
The problem is that the individual judging scores are not published. We get cumulative scores, but the scoresheets don't tell us how many judges there were, who the judges were, what the range of scores was or what the high and low scores that were eliminated were. And since two of the rounds involve "performance" of some sort, there is no way to know who is in contention or totally out of contention simply by looking at the physiques on stage - even assuming you knew what kind of physiques the IFBB was looking for.
Actually, the scoresheets don't even tell you which round is which. It works like this:
ROUND ONE: 45 sec routine featuring black "cat" suits and mandatory moves.
ROUND TWO: Bikini swimsuits
ROUND THREE: Individual routine to music.
ROUND FOUR: One-piece swimsuits
Here's what limited info is available from the scoresheet: In the first round , Kelly Ryan placed first. This isn't hard to understand since she is such a good gymnast. Susie Curry, also a fine gymnast, finished 4th - behind Jenny Worth (gymnast) and Timea Majorova (non-gymnast). Not a promising placing for the eventual winner. Kelly also won round 3, which is the individual performance round, with Susie placing 2nd. But in the two figure rounds, Susie placed higher than Kelly. On what basis exactly? I'm not saying she shouldn't have, but what criteria were being used? It couldn't be that Kelly was too muscular, since the rounds were won by Timea Majorova, who is almost as muscular as the two other competitors put together - even when she is trying not to be. But Kelly has been training with Craig Titus and does have more of a physique than she did last year. A factor? Not a factor? Anybody following this so far? No? Me neither.
When it comes to the swimsuit rounds, as a real fan of female physique, I tend to like Timea Majorova (who should probably be a bodybuilder), and am extremely impressed with Lena Johannesen (who is a former bodybuilder). Lena is not a gymnast and so is probably not going to win a pro fitness contest. But why is she placed so low in the swimsuit rounds? She has arguably the most beautiful face and figure in fitness (assuming you have nothing against shapely muscle), not just in my opinion but also in the view of the Weider organization, which has her under contract. If she is "too muscular," why would Weider use her to sell magazines and products to the "general public"? Doesn't sound logical. (For those who are still convinced that Joe Weider somehow controls the outcome of these contests, here is evidence to the contrary.) But impressive or not, when it comes to the swimsuit rounds in pro fitness, Lena can't seem to break into the top five.
One controversy that I heard discussed a great deal was the fact that something like seven of the top 10 women were managed by JM Manion, whose father happens to be the IFBB head judge. A lot of women are becoming very reluctant to compete under these circumstances, because it SEEMS as if this might be a factor in the results. I'm not saying that it is, only that the subject came up so often I would be remiss to at least not mention it. Certainly the IFBB will have to address the situation, if only to assure the competitors and audience that who manages whom places no part in the outcome of fitness contests.
Whatever the criteria being used in whatever rounds, my problem with fitness continues to be that it isn't really a sport, but is - or ought to be - a way of creating "stars" who can become spokesmodels for the fitness industry. A number of fitness women who win or do well in contersts are perfectly nice, attractive and personable, but lack the looks and charisma to become successful cover models, be in demand by advertisers to sell products in ads or attract a lot of attention to a booth in a fitness expo. Anybody seen the traffic that Monica Brant or Debbie Kruck generate when they are in a booth at a trade show? If winners don't have these qualities, there is not a lot they can with titles in terms of establishing a thriving career. And that makes it a shame that the titles don't go to those who could make better use of them.
Of course, since the IFBB and NPC are considering banning tumbling from fitness routines because of the potential danger to the competitors, and this might well change the balance of the contests and make physique a somewhat more important element. We'll jsut have to wait and see what happens.
****************