Big Is Inside

THERE’S A NEW SPORT OUT THERE!  IT IS BEING CALLED BODYBUILDING, BUT IT IS WAY MORE POPULAR!

it looks JUST LIKE bodybuilding, but it is about getting huge freaky mass . . . I suppose THAt is why they call it "bodybuilding".

Bodybuilding does NOT equal "get the flesh bigger no matter what." There’s bodybuilding the sport of creating an aesthetically competent physique, then there’s this new game that’s been around for 10-15 years. It’s called "manipulate my flesh".

Now I do not discount the HARD HARD work of the "flesh manipulators." But their standards of success are simple: did I manipulate my flesh? Did I continue to a new level of manipulation? How far can I manipulate my shape? Etc., etc.

Again, if guys want to do that, I actually give them a LOT of credit. it is a CRAZY commitment. it even over-rides "normal life" at times.

These guys are the ones who think that there is no upper limit defined by aesthetics. Theirs is a purely numbers game: how many inches around can my legs measure? How many pounds can I weigh? Chasing endlessly bigger proportions is DEFINITELY hard work and a BRUTAL level of commitment . . . but it ain’t bodybuilding.

So, to claim that by sheer merit of being a bodybuilder the presumption is that getting all dimensions bigger is bullsh1t.

The "flesh manipulation game" is defined by "dimensions." Bodybuilding is defined by "proportions."

"Dimensions" are exactly what they sound like: numbers and measurements. They are perceivable by everyone. They are what they are. They go up and down in absolute terms.

Yet "proportions" are about RELATIONAL dimensions. How do dimensions RELATE to one another, relate to the perceiver, and relate to their context. This is what bodybuilders are as athletes: they build the body’s RELATIONAL dimensions, not just the absolute dimensions.

This is where we enter the concept of "aesthetics" versus "appearances." "Appearance" is the description of a physique in terms of it’s dimensions: how much it weighs, how big it measures, etc. But "aesthetics" is a description of HOW THE PHYSIQUE RELATES.

Aesthetics deal with INTRA-relations, like how legs match the arms, how cuts describe balance, etc., as well as INTER-relations, like how the physique is perceived in terms of density, vascularity, symmetry, etc.

So, of you are a bodybuilder, then you are NOT automatically obliged to chase dimensions. THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF A BODYBUILDER. Sure, you may yourself have that mojo to chase bigger size, and that’s cool. But that interest is NOT what DEFINES you as a bodybuilder.

if the intent to maximize and manipulate dimensions was a defining factor to "what makes a bodybuilder", well then a LOT of athletes heralded as "great bodybuilders’ would have to be removed from the list because these athletes did not chase endless dimensional increase.

in fact, if you look CAREFULLY, even through current days there are probably MORE bodybuilders who LIMIT their dimensions for the sake of aesthetic proportionality. Sure, they may continue to "grow" per se, but the best of the best are careful, and do not demand endless growth at the expense of proportional aesthetics.

A true bodybuilder athlete is ALWAYS aesthetics FIRST, dimensional manipulation second.

And to add some perspective, let me qualify this by saying that in my MIND I absolutely fantasize about absurdist dimensions. That bug has NEVER left me. I would LOVE to be able to become that 320 lb 4% bodyfat impossibly built uber-bodybuilder. However, I also know that, in the end I prefer the chase of the aesthetics over just the dimensions. However, I, too, share the mojo for dimensions; I just temper that interest with my sport: bodybuilding. I don’t so much think that "bigger is better," but just simply that "bigger is more fun."

But in the end, what is "better" is bodybuilding.

And bodybuilding is about relational aesthetics, NOT about absolute dimensions.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under A Bodybuilding Education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.