2023 California Pro

[Beti ona]

Doesn't Regan Grimes have to qualify for the O this year? Not that I think he is a threat (at all) but guys like Regan, Antoine, Martin (head case), and others need to win a show to qualify. Waiting until late year shows doesn't bode well for them. I anticipate dudes flying to all corners of the Earth chasing the qualification win - while shows like this one are extremely getable

I think Martin is taking this year to grow with no plans to compete.

[Beti ona]

It's the same thing all us old guard have been bitching about for the last few years. Bodybuilding is turning into too-strategic of a stress match, all in an attempt to avoid fierce competition and just get to the O stage, with little focus on winning titles.

Well, now they have to win the title if they want to qualify.

But this comes from a pro

"With many competitors the standard of having accomplished something has changed. I train with a few other MP pros and classic pros and simple being pro isn't enough. The Olympia qualification is almost the new "pro status". So I do agree with some of the points being made here but we as competitors also see it."

That can explain the strategic part, many look for easy shows to win the pro card, so now they would be waiting or looking for easy pro shows to qualify for O.

Point is that I don't think that in the open or 212 (In bikini, classic and physique there must be about 50 pro shows so there are easier options) there are many options for so many athletes who want to qualify, so I don't see an easy path.

[Bestia]

I think Martin is taking this year to grow with no plans to compete.

He wasnt making top 10 at the O anyway

[lifepulse]

Well, now they have to win the title if they want to qualify.

But this comes from a pro

"With many competitors the standard of having accomplished something has changed. I train with a few other MP pros and classic pros and simple being pro isn't enough. The Olympia qualification is almost the new "pro status". So I do agree with some of the points being made here but we as competitors also see it."

That can explain the strategic part, many look for easy shows to win the pro card, so now they would be waiting or looking for easy pro shows to qualify for O.

Point is that I don't think that in the open or 212 (In bikini, classic and physique there must be about 50 pro shows so there are easier options) there are many options for so many athletes who want to qualify, so I don't see an easy path.

All understood.

I just don't understand the mindset of "simple being pro isn't enough, the Olympia qualification is the 'new pro status'".

New pro status -- in what sense? I mean, you're still not going to be able to support yourself financially from getting to the O, OR from winning multiple shows. And it has always been that way in bodybuilding -- the sport isn't designed to allow people to make a living and live off of it, so if you want to really earn, you use the sport to "leverage yourself" and make money/support yourself in other ways (coaching, training, endorsements, building a following and reach -- all of which boils down to "helping other people who also want to get in shape, like you").


I competed from 07 through 16. I have been a trainer since 04, and still am.


During all the years I trained in-person, clients would ask "if I wanted to turn pro". To which my response was, "I don't really have the genetics to go pro, or make for a good pro -- and I earn more money as a trainer than any other pro bodybuilder in this state, so kinda' who gives a shit?"


You may say "the point isn't to earn money, it's to be accomplished", or something like that. Fair enough -- but if the "goal" is to get to the O stage, and you place poorly, you're still not "all that accomplished", as I see it. And if you ARE a great pro, you should be able to do all of the smaller shows, and dominate the fuck out of them -- thus proving you ARE in fact a great pro.


Meaning: getting to the O stage, kinda' who gives a shit, unless you are COMPETITIVE on the O stage -- and if you are, well, you should be able to rack up wins at smaller shows.


So I understand what this guy is saying -- but it still seems circular and not well thought-out. You're either dominant as a competitor, or you are not. If you are, you should be able to rack up wins AND be able to go to the O and place well. If you're not dominant as a competitor, you might get to the O stage, but you'll look like an asshole compared to the actually dominant competitors.


Standing on the O stage has no intrinsic value other than "saying I stood on the Olympia stage". As I see it, that's the same as a local competitor who looks like crap, getting nationally qualified and then bragging, "I'm a nationally qualified athlete". Yes, technically you are -- but you still lack the qualities of a REAL national competitor, so kinda' who cares, other than your fantasy of how great you are?

[Beti ona]

All understood.

I just don't understand the mindset of "simple being pro isn't enough, the Olympia qualification is the 'new pro status'".

New pro status -- in what sense?

In the sense of belonging to a more distinguished elite.

Competitors recognize that there are more pro cards, so getting one is an achievement, but of less value than before. So they look for some higher goal to distinguish themselves from the pack.

So I understand what this guy is saying -- but it still seems circular and not well thought-out. You're either dominant as a competitor, or you are not. If you are, you should be able to rack up wins AND be able to go to the O and place well. If you're not dominant as a competitor, you might get to the O stage, but you'll look like an asshole compared to the actually dominant competitors.

There is a problem with this reasoning, the best Olympia competitors do not compete throughout the year, thus allowing other athletes to win pro shows. But winning a pro show and qualifying doesn't mean you're going to be competitive.

We have the top 5 who qualify directly, then there is another group of 5-8 pro show winners who can break into the top 10. I don't know how many more winners there will be in a contests season, but none of them have a realistic chance of breaking into that top 10.

[lifepulse]

There is a problem with this reasoning, the best Olympia competitors do not compete throughout the year, thus allowing other athletes to win pro shows. But winning a pro show and qualifying doesn't mean you're going to be competitive.

We have the top 5 who qualify directly, then there is another group of 5-8 pro show winners who can break into the top 10. I don't know how many more winners there will be in a contests season, but none of them have a realistic chance of breaking into that top 10.

Understood.

I just don't get why "having to belong to a more elite pack" is a "needed element" -- meaning, can you not look in the mirror and SEE if you are at a certain level? Do you need some arbitrary judge who controls the entire industry to "tell you as much", when there is no clear-cut objective criteria in the first place to determine who wins and who does not?

I guess I just don't understand that pact mentality and never will. You either look like Ronnie Coleman, or you don't -- and you should be able to tell the difference without being told by a third arbiter.

The top 5 don't compete in other shows -- but the rest of the top guys do. (And now, within the last 1-2 years specifically, the top 5 seems fairly locked down, and then placings 6-12 are the REAL competition between the rest.) So for open at least, it still doesn't make sense to me -- if somebody went out with no big name, but cleaned up at 3 smaller shows (like, if Tonio Burton is able to repeat this weekend, plus get one more win), that assuredly sways the judges. (Just see what Andrew Jacked did last year.) So if they can't do that same thing, then they're not going to be competitive anyways, it's a moot point. Either you have what it takes to win multiple small shows -- in which case you will likely be competitive at the O -- or you do not have what it takes to win multiple small shows, in which case, you won't be competitive at the O. I don't follow the glam divisions enough to know if that holds true there as well, so maybe I just don't see their point of view/perspective.

[leigh]

Sergio and Mo are in!!

[Bestia]

Sergio 3rd here at best.

I'm actually surprised he wouldn't arrive in the US and then give himself a few weeks until the Chicago Pro. He has ties to Chicago and would probably be looked at favorably by the crowd and judges.

But, this way he has his built in excuses should he place poorly - he flew over last minute and jumped into the fire, not at his best, etc

Sorry, my negativity is taking over

[bigmikecox]

Sergio 3rd here at best.

I'm actually surprised he wouldn't arrive in the US and then give himself a few weeks until the Chicago Pro. He has ties to Chicago and would probably be looked at favorably by the crowd and judges.

But, this way he has his built in excuses should he place poorly - he flew over last minute and jumped into the fire, not at his best, etc

Sorry, my negativity is taking over

Im taking Sergio for the win!!! He is bigger than everyone and I think he will shock some people. Like him or not, he is polarizing. Sergio at the O would make the show exciting. Can you imagine the smack talk between him and Nick?

[Beti ona]

Understood.

I just don't get why "having to belong to a more elite pack" is a "needed element" -- meaning, can you not look in the mirror and SEE if you are at a certain level? Do you need some arbitrary judge who controls the entire industry to "tell you as much", when there is no clear-cut objective criteria in the first place to determine who wins and who does not?

I guess I just don't understand that pact mentality and never will. You either look like Ronnie Coleman, or you don't -- and you should be able to tell the difference without being told by a third arbiter.

The top 5 don't compete in other shows -- but the rest of the top guys do. (And now, within the last 1-2 years specifically, the top 5 seems fairly locked down, and then placings 6-12 are the REAL competition between the rest.) So for open at least, it still doesn't make sense to me -- if somebody went out with no big name, but cleaned up at 3 smaller shows (like, if Tonio Burton is able to repeat this weekend, plus get one more win), that assuredly sways the judges. (Just see what Andrew Jacked did last year.) So if they can't do that same thing, then they're not going to be competitive anyways, it's a moot point. Either you have what it takes to win multiple small shows -- in which case you will likely be competitive at the O -- or you do not have what it takes to win multiple small shows, in which case, you won't be competitive at the O. I don't follow the glam divisions enough to know if that holds true there as well, so maybe I just don't see their point of view/perspective.

You forget that these athletes are quite insecure, and at the same time, they need the approval of the judges to place well and win contests.

The rules say if you win a pro show you're prepared to compete at the Olympia. We only hope that the number of classifieds is reduced so that there is not poor level.

In any case, this can help to understand why athletes are more strategic, because qualifying anyway is the goal. I don't agree but it is what it is.

[Bestia]

Im taking Sergio for the win!!! He is bigger than everyone and I think he will shock some people. Like him or not, he is polarizing. Sergio at the O would make the show exciting. Can you imagine the smack talk between him and Nick?

Ok the yakking back and forth between those two would be non stop. I hope youre right about how he looks. Him being a factor going forward would be good for the sport

[lifepulse]

You forget that these athletes are quite insecure, and at the same time, they need the approval of the judges to place well and win contests.

The rules say if you win a pro show you're prepared to compete at the Olympia. We only hope that the number of classifieds is reduced so that there is not poor level.

In any case, this can help to understand why athletes are more strategic, because qualifying anyway is the goal. I don't agree but it is what it is.

Agreed on all counts. And as you know, rules are there to help guide those who can't think without rules being imposed upon them from an external source (ala Nietzsche's overman).

And you're correct, in my experience, the vast majority of competitors are fueled by little more than insecurity. Every huge guy I have met has severe body dysmorphia and hates his body more than enjoys it and appreciates it. I was the oddball on that front -- I would be fat as hell in the offseason, didn't care at all, still loved my body. I was fat before I started lifting, my entire life, so once I built muscular size, even when fat, I was fat and muscular -- which was far better and more enjoyable than how I spent the first 24 years of my life.

[Beti ona]

Agreed on all counts. And as you know, rules are there to help guide those who can't think without rules being imposed upon them from an external source (ala Nietzsche's overman).

Nietzsche said something like that, that there have always been 2 types of men, free spirits and bound spirits. That is why he hated Christianity, for having formed a flock, all following what the priest says in the name of God.

Most humans are fine yielding their will to something more "sacred", be it religion, country, scientific/experts, humanity, gaia or any other phantasmagorical creation.

And you're correct, in my experience, the vast majority of competitors are fueled by little more than insecurity. Every huge guy I have met has severe body dysmorphia and hates his body more than enjoys it and appreciates it. I was the oddball on that front -- I would be fat as hell in the offseason, didn't care at all, still loved my body. I was fat before I started lifting, my entire life, so once I built muscular size, even when fat, I was fat and muscular -- which was far better and more enjoyable than how I spent the first 24 years of my life.

Bodybuilders in the past were more confident but because there are now more experts around them, and the athlete's confidence has been reduced.

Lol, remember the discussion about fat people? Many fat people are happier than many bodybuilders. Bodybuilders are rarely satisfied and are suffering with training and diet.

But surely now you wouldn't want to be so fat in off season, I know I don't want it, but in another time I didn't care and I was OK.

In any case, I have problems with the idea of happiness or that the goal in life is that (nature doesn't give a shit if animals or humans suffer or are happy), my feeling to the life is always a permanent discomfort or mistrust.

David Pearce is one of the experts in transhumanism who want to reduce and eliminate all the pain of life through drugs and manipulation of the natural environment and animal species, for example they want carnivorous animals to be transformed so that they do not need to eat meat. It's crazy shit.

They just want to create an artificial world where everyone is happy and no one suffers for anything. Basically the same stupid idea of heaven from religions.

As Nietzsche would say, they are weak people who do not accept life as it is, full of pain and suffering. My advice to them would be to leave this planet as soon as possible, so they would stop suffering.

[Bestia]

Bodybuilders in the past were more confident but because there are now more experts around them, and the athlete's confidence has been reduced.

Lol, remember the discussion about fat people? Many fat people are happier than many bodybuilders. Bodybuilders are rarely satisfied and are suffering with training and diet.

But surely now you wouldn't want to be so fat in off season, I know I don't want it, but in another time I didn't care and I was OK.

In any case, I have problems with the idea of happiness or that the goal in life is that (nature doesn't give a shit if animals or humans suffer or are happy), my feeling to the life is always a permanent discomfort or mistrust.

David Pearce is one of the experts in transhumanism who want to reduce and eliminate all the pain of life through drugs and manipulation of the natural environment and animal species, for example they want carnivorous animals to be transformed so that they do not need to eat meat. It's crazy shit.

They just want to create an artificial world where everyone is happy and no one suffers for anything. Basically the same stupid idea of heaven from religions.

As Nietzsche would say, they are weak people who do not accept life as it is, full of pain and suffering. My advice to them would be to leave this planet as soon as possible, so they would stop suffering.

This is straight up one of the worst things I have ever heard or read. Pain is a part of life - be it physical it emotional pain. It helps build us and shape us. It also allows us to value joy and fulfillment as pains counterbalance.

The false manipulation of things is the way that society has morphed into a fantasyland disconnected from reality

[bigmikecox]

This is straight up one of the worst things I have ever heard or read. Pain is a part of life - be it physical it emotional pain. It helps build us and shape us. It also allows us to value joy and fulfillment as pains counterbalance.

The false manipulation of things is the way that society has morphed into a fantasyland disconnected from reality

This!!!