August 1, 2006

Competing for Better Reasons than Just Winning

Figure, fitness, and bodybuilding competitions fall into the category of what authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner call "tournament play." Levitt and Dubner wrote a book called Freakonomics; and tournament play involves a scenario where many people will compete for very few prizes. Bodybuilding, figure and fitness events are exactly like that. Levitt and Dubner also lump things like pageant modeling, positions on professional sports teams, and crack dealing as "tournament play" activities. The whole gist of the idea of tournament play is that there are few winners and many losers. Quite simply, winning is hard!

But even before I heard of Levitt and Dubner’s book, I knew that winning was difficult, and that competing just to win was a very bad idea. Forget the fact that winning is very tough with so many other competitors around; in order to win first place in a subjectively judged sport, you must relinquish all control to a very small group of individuals, best known as "the judges." In other words, you’re trusting your future to this small group of people you probably don’t even know. And you’re also hoping that they’re going to be unbiased and that you’ll be judged fairly. That, as we know, isn’t always the case with any subjectively judged sport – there are countless stories of corruption, even in the Olympics.

I always like being in control of the things I do, so the notion that I must hand over full control of something so important to a group whom I know little about seems completely absurd. I’d rather run on a track with a stopwatch as a judge – it seems much more sensible and fair, since the watch either works or it doesn’t, and normal human biases don’t enter into the equation. But whether subjective judging is fair or not, or whether you’re in control or not, doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t compete in these sports. It just means that perhaps you should recognize the limitations of this type of judging process, and you should re-evaluate why it is you compete.

For example, in June and July, I went to four physique events. In that time, I saw about 300 women competing, many of whom had the hope of winning the first-place trophy in their event. The problem, though, was exactly what Levitt and Dubner call attention to: there are not 300 trophies to go around. In other words, there will always be a few winners and many losers. Furthermore, I also witnessed some judging decisions at one event that were questionable to say the least.

That’s why at almost all these contests, I talk at length to many competitors about why they compete, and these four contests were no exception. A few of those that I talked to were actually winners this time around, but mostly I talked to those who didn’t win and were rather disappointed as a result. But whether they win or lose, I always say the same thing: Compete for better reasons than just winning. At first they’re taken aback by this comment, particularly if they just won, but then I clarify what I mean.

First, I explain that there will always be many people competing to get to the top. If there are not many competing, that means the rewards aren’t sufficient to entice enough people to compete. Frankly, in physique-type competitions the monetary rewards are almost non-existent but the promotional opportunities are good, so many women compete to win to achieve just that. But still, there’s only going to be one winner in an event and many more that lose. It’s just not a positive situation for most, and if you lose, at least you can rest assured that you're with the majority.

I also go into how subjective these sports are, and how often someone who’s a winner through the eyes of one judging panel might not be a winner if the panel were changed. (On the other hand, a stopwatch tells time the same way race after race.) Then there's the whole bias and corruption thing.

Finally, I also touch on the fact that even if you win one competition, chances are you’ll lose the next one for all the same reasons I just mentioned. For example, I’ve often seen competitors win one level of competition only to get slapped with a poor placing at the next. It’s kind of like one step up, two steps back.

Given these facts, you might think I’m dead set against competing, but that’s not so. I’m dead set against competing only to win. For many people, I think competing can be a good thing, but only if they have other reasons to compete apart from grabbing a first-place trophy.

For example, I’ve seen some people get onstage as a more or less "personal challenge" – they’re seeing if they can accomplish competing and getting up on the stage to stand with the rest. I think this is an admirable reason to compete and great motivation to get involved in these types of competitions. In fact, I have firsthand experience with this because fitness model and figure competitor Natalie Waples first competed in figure with the goal to "fit in" – I’m her trainer.

However, it’s often novices who go into competitions with this attitude, so once someone has a competition or two under their belt, the idea of a "personal challenge" wears off. In Natalie’s case, she more than fits in now – she’s won three of her first four competitions, and she placed second in the one she didn’t win. If you’re at this point, the personal challenge of going further might still be valid, but you’ll more than likely need to find other reasons to compete too.

One other reason might be to please others – for example, sports stars often say they compete for "the fans." This happens in physique sports as well. In fact, competitors I often admire onstage are those who march to the beat of their own drum, presenting a package that may not be first-place in the judges’ eyes, but is the number-one choice of fans.

But approval from others, like judging, is something that comes from someone else, making it beyond your control once more. That, again, can be frustrating. And besides, does it always matter what other people think?

Ultimately, I think the best reason to compete is for yourself – quite simply, presenting something you’re happy with, regardless of what the judges, fans, or others think. This gives you the most freedom and, as well, the most control. One competitor that I know well who competes like that now is Emmanuela Pintus.

Emmanuela used to compete in bodybuilding; she actually won her class at the CBBF National World Qualifier in 2001, making her a national-level champion. In the last few years, she has turned her talents to figure. In figure, she’s never won a national title, although she came close in 2005 by placing second in her class at the CBBF Canadian Figure Championships. This year, she only mustered fourth place at the same event. I know that Emmanuela would like to win a top figure title, but she’s competing these days to please herself as well, and I encourage her to keep going with precisely that attitude.

When you compete to please yourself, not others, the power rests firmly back in your own hands. Furthermore, by competing for yourself, you’ll likely never again ask, "What do the judges want? What do the judges think?" In fact, you might not even care – you’re now the judging panel. Instead, you’ll be presenting the physique you want for reasons that you feel are important to yourself, not others. And while some may argue that having this attitude won’t land you in the first-place spot, I’ll argue otherwise.

I have found that, over the long term, athletes who compete for their own reasons and present their own version of the ideal physique often have better competitive longevity and success than those who play by others’ rules. Just think about "tournament play": few winners, many losers, regardless of whether you have the "right look." If you have your own look, you’ll at least stand out.

Furthermore, those who compete by setting their own standard aren’t copycats and can often become the standard others follow in years to come. For example, earlier in his career, Canadian figure skating legend Elvis Stojko had mixed success, mostly because his skating style was too unorthodox for what was currently happening. Over time, though, Elvis kept doing his own thing, marching to the beat of his own drum, and he finally became a world champion. Had Elvis sold out and tried to emulate others, I doubt that he would have had the same success. On the other hand, had he never quite reached the top, I suspect he would still be revered as a competitor who led rather than followed.

Likewise, in physique-type competitions, I’ve seen competitors come in with a look that’s not right for the moment, but then, over time, tastes and attitudes change and that person’s look becomes the right one in the judges’ eyes. For example, a few years ago slender Mary Elizabeth Lado might not have been able to crack the top five in a professional physique event because she wouldn't have been "muscular enough." Mary's quite slim, and back then women with bigger muscles were taking home the first-place trophies, even in figure. These days, though, lean with nice lines is in style for figure, and Mary took first place at the prestigious 2006 Figure International competition (we interview Mary this month). Perhaps the same thing can happen to you. And if not, remember, there are better reasons to compete than just winning.

...Doug Schneider
das@seriousaboutfitness.com

• Go Back