Is bodybuilding as a "sport" just about how big you can get or aesthetics?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Explain bodybuilding for me
Is bodybuilding as a "sport" just about how big you can get or aesthetics?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
worst sport in the world and i love lifting, it’s grotesque and mocks nature.
It's not really a sport any more than Miss America is. Rhythmic gymnastics is unironically more of a sport than bodybuilding.
Unironically.
It used to be about aesthetics. Now it's about how big and grotesque you can get.
I think the problem is that it's veered too much from real sport. Bodybuilding was initially just an outlet for the vainer strongmen to show off.
Bodybuilding, powerlifting, and weightlifting used to have a lot more cross over. The British Weightlifting governing body used to cover bodybuilding and powerlifting back in the 70s, it all came under the general idea of physical culture.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was national level weightlifter in Austria (a mediocre one, but there's still a prerequisite of athleticism to getting that far).
The epitome of the bodybuilder as an athlete was reached with Tommo Kono who set multiple olympic world records in weightlifting. Post Kono, no one could look better and lift more. Resultingly bodybuilding began its degeneration into homosexual and plasticized mass-monstery. And olympic lifting became purely focused on meat-grinding eastern european serfs with steroids and super-human weights.
There's probably someone on here looking at Tommy Kono and about to write
> asian small dick manlet
but he also cleaned 175kg back when you weren't allowed to make contact with the bar. He'd still be elite today.
how did he lift a weight this high wirhout even touching it???
As in no hip or thigh contact
Kono was the proto-chad
I agree. All of the golden age guys used to powerlift too.
How close do you think a natty can get to the golden age styled physique?
>V2TRTN
Bros the captcha is trying to communicate with me again
>how big you can get OR about aesthetics
that literally explains the modern split in bodybuilding. mr olympia is basically how large you can get whereas the more aesthetic realm is about how good and aesthetic you can look.
depends ENTIRELY on YOUR genetics and insertions (if you were to compare between 5 different people doing the same optimal routine and having the same optimal diets)
from history we can tell that aesthetic physiques are definitely possible for everyone.
from what I can tell their beauty ideal was a low bodyfat % with good general muscle in the arms, legs, torso (well that's basically the whole body lmao) with quite little muscle in the lats. the chest in particular tends to be sculpted.
roid physiques appeal exclusively to homosexuals, no sane person thinks having thin dick skin or vascularity looks good.
zane looks kind of gross already but at least he aged well.
>kind of gross
>aged well
he's now the upper echelon of elite octogenarians
lifting and coaching at 80 and going strong
i mean just look at him there at 65-70? amazing
>zane looks kind of gross already
Post body right fricking now.
This. Aesthetics and making your body the most "fit" it could be in the greco-roman sense. Modern builders look like prolapses and heart attacks waiting to happen. That's not maximizing your god-given potential, it's an affront to your humanity.
>iT uSeD tO bE
if 70s bodybuilders had the same access to the drugs of today, you honestly think it would be about “””””aesthetics”””””? You are delusional
Yeah, they would. The biggest guy around at the time was Arnold and he was still only 235 lbs on the stage and that was by choice. You think they couldn't have gotten bigger with test, primo, deca and dbol? You're delusional.
Honestly, I don't get it either. I admire athleticism and fitness, someone who can throw a spear, run fast, lift heavy weights etc., but this? Those are completely roided up men who try to look a certain way by putting their bodies through an obscene amount of unnecessary stress. And by the standards of everyone besides a small circle of other men, everyone finds them grotesque looking. It's a perversion of fitness, really.
Bodybuilding is too divorced from real sports and takes itself far to seriously. My proposal to fix it:
> Require that all body building competitors have competed in a sanctioned sporting competition within the last 6 months (weightlifting, powerlifting, sprinting, football, etc). The jury will consist only of horny milfs who have a thing for fit men. There will be no judging criteria.
Professional bodybuilding as a "sport" is RIDICULOUS.
The "athletes" are not athletic, there is no clear goal, the judging is subjective as hell, it is a fake competition. It's more akin to a beauty contest than a real sport and there isn't even beauty there.
Their bodies are ugly and deformed, their health is suffering and declining (this is a fact, no arguing), it's a total shitshow.
Their deformed bodies are a testament of their work ethic, determination, willpower and consistency though, nobody can take that away from them.
Still, professional bodybuilding is a disgrace. Amateur bodybuilding activity outside competitions though is an entirely different thing.
Damn what a bunch of healthy individuals... i am sure they will al live long lives.
Modern professional bodybuilding is a label that let's mentally ill addicts & junkies legitimize their self destructive behavior.
This too - BB has become a drug abuse & body dysmorphia contest with a lot of gay muscle fetishist undertones. I'm not sure if it could get any further from real sporting competition if it tried
It's about injecting your body with hormones so you can look appealing to some homosexual israeli judges with a muscle fetish.
Joe Weider turned it into homosexual mass monster shit by giving everyone roids in exchange for gay4pay and letting him watch while they fricked his wife. Before that, it used to be health focused and a symbol for men to look up to. They even awarded points for feats of athleticism, such as weightlifting, strongman, hand balancing or gymnastics.
this thread singlehandidly proves that fighting is the greatest sport and everything else is either gay or weird or both
I think it is a decent sport but boxing professionally is completely fricking moronic and always has been. Corruption is rampant, record-building is the norm, ducking opponents is condoned, promoter moronation, rampant cheating, gambling, a couple of fights a year from these guys maximum. What a shit sport it is in reality kek- literally probably the worst of the real sports which is a shame because it has great potential.
Also at the end of the day a good team sport is best imho. If I had to pick the best sport around at the moment even though it has its problems I'd probably say American football. It really has everything you are looking for in a sport.
American football is a moronic sport.
American football is probably the most complex sport from a mental standpoint. It is complex almost to the point of absurdity.
>Get out there and hit 'em!
Kek fricking moron that is literally what boxing is. The sheer number of formations, plays, reads, etc. is daunting in football and you have 11 guys on each side of the ball with unique jobs that have to come together perfectly on any given play for it to not be a disaster.
It's so complex it's played by people with brain damage. Come on man.
Football requires a full staff of coaches, assistants, guys in the box and on the field to try and figure out what to do and convey it to the morons on the field. Although at some positions the players may genuinely be smart. Kek they are up there looking at film reading charts and shit frantically trying to get messages to coordinators.
You ever see a basketball or soccer coach on the sidelines? Just sort of leisurely strolling around? Basketball coach with a chew in? Boxing coach just screaming motivational bullshit? Compare that to a football coach who looks like thwy are about to have a fricking stroke at any given time kek.
Baseball coach with a chew in*
So you are essentially agreeing with what I said, that it's a sport for morons. It's two groups of morons(many of whom have brain damage) running at each other. It's ridiculous, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
All sports are basically filled with morons for the most part- but getting 11 of them on the same page to do a very specific job on any given play is alot harder than just telling them to go run around and score a goal kek. and yes you can watch what a football coach is doing on the sidelines for two seconds and see that it is much much more involved. A fricking fence post could see that much. Soccer coaches literally look like they are taking a stroll during their lunch break. All they do is make general strategy calls and depth chart decisions kek that's it.
Rugby, soccer, basketball are all continuous-play sports. This means that there is no real time for actual strategy. No actual formations, no real playbook, no reads, nothing. Just very general strategy.
Interrupted play means the complexity level is expanded by about a factor of 10 or so. The ability to set up before each play, choose formations, respond to the opponent's formations etc. communicate plays in, make reads, make substitutions etc. It isn't even close. Interrupted play necessarily makes a game much more cerebral.
Soccer, rugby, etc are literally glorified children's games. Football isn't some mystical and complex thing but compared to Soccer, rugby, hockey, basketball etc. it is in a different tier from the strategy perspective.
You keep harping about how it is supposedly so complex when, in the end, it's about brain damaged morons running at each other. It's a ridiculous sport.
>Interrupted play necessarily makes a game much more cerebral.
interrupted play makes it less cerebral, bc you get more time to think. in football tactical and formational decisions have to be made in the heat of the moment by the players and the coach (which amerimutts ofc weren't capable off, so they had to invent american football).
Kek holy shit. Continuous play just turns the entire thing into a bag yard game. There is no time to strategies, so there is no strategizing.
There are no real formations, there can be no pre snap reads, there are no substitutions. Kek in soccer and basketball they basically just say "ok guys go at it" for 10 mins at a time kek. There is no room for actual strategy beyond very basic things.
>Kek holy shit. Continuous play just turns the entire thing into a bag yard game. There is no time to strategies, so there is no strategizing.
Rugby is continuous but because the tackle is followed by a ruck or maul, there are lots of opprtunities for set plays and formations are extremely important. Because you can't block, the formations are focussed around providing options for the passer and overloading the defence.
That's my point though the ability to stop, set formations etc. creates opportunity for much more hard strategy. So rugby is probably more complex than let's say soccer in that reguard but the play is still far more continuous than in football which is literally interrupted every 5-20 seconds.
Continuous play allows for minimal strategy which is why all backyard sports (soccer, basketball, etc.) are continuous play
>You ever see a basketball or soccer coach on the sidelines? Just sort of leisurely strolling around? Basketball coach with a chew in? Boxing coach just screaming motivational bullshit? Compare that to a football coach who looks like thwy are about to have a fricking stroke at any given time kek.
You are a moron. Looking like you're about to have "a fricking stroke" is not what an intelligent person looks like when they're thinking hard, it's the same as the boxing coach screaming motivational bullshit.
This. I mean coming from Europe I can have some respect for strategy that goes into NFL plays but claiming it is so complex and deep and intelligent is beyond laughable.
Football coaches are so cringe. Let the players play. Go sit in the fricking stands you fat old boomer.
Any sport where the coach could be sitting around eating a chili dog during the game is a child's game.
I get it in high school you couldn't make the cut so now you gravitate towards fat edgelord shit.
Honestly minimal contact sports like soccer are fricking gay.
Not the guys you are arguing with but minimal contact sports require the most skill imho, in full or heavy contact sports there is a possibility of just tanking shit and using brute force to win, which isn’t very fun or magical to watch, for instance the job of most linebackers could easily be replaced by a gorilla, a gorilla in the NFL would literally be the best defensive linebacker in history. Just let it out the cage when the play starts. There is no position in basketball or football where this is true.
It is completely obvious you've never played the game. I mean there are whole schemes built around trapping a defensive lineman and taking them out of the game. Take triple option for example- it wouldn't make a difference if the DE was a gorilla or a human you are going to make him the read man no matter what kek.
Also sport is about a combination of strength, skill, speed, mental toughness, teamwork etc. Also neddle- point takes quite a bit of skill you homosexual that doesn't make it a good sport. And there is no standard rule that less contact means more skill but there is a reasonable thought process to say that a sport requires contact in order to have an exciting and tough game.
>muh big tank on the football field just runs through everybody.
Literally a woman's comment tbqh. Besides what I mentioned above you probably couldn't train the gorilla to not be offsides or something kek, then he probably wouldn't go for the ball carrier or his assignment he would probably just maul the guy in front of him which may or may not help the defense.
I was obviously exaggerating you dunce, it probably applies more to full contact sports where yes a gorilla would reign supreme. But here is another argument for you, imagine American football without steroids, now imagine football. One would be about the same enjoyment to watch as today while the other would become much more boring, guess which one is based more on skill?
Don't make a stupid comparison if you are going to get prissy because someone made your comparison look stupid lol. Obviously a gorilla could not play the game which is why it is moronic to make that argument in the first place - as I pointed out. And I would be thrilled if all sports could police the PED abuse.
Again, a good sport is supposed to be about a combination of factors- skill, speed, strength, mental toughness, etc. so you have to find something that sums these things up into one game better than the rest. I feel that in order for a sport to be a great sport it must be a team sport that entails full contact to check a number of those boxes. So yeah Football, hockey, rugby are on the short list. But non contact sports don't even scratch the surface imho.
American football in its current form wouldn’t exist without PEDs
No sport in it's *current form* could exist without PEDs you idiot.
However I also believe any sport could exist without PEDs and would probably be better. I miss the days of Power I run heavy football etc. I would love to see all sports be rid of PEDs.
Regular football does you moron. Romario used to hit the clubs before WC games and get shitfaced, wake up the next day and be an absolute joy to watch, if your favorite American football player misses his test injection his performance drops 200%.
You could take an American football team from 1960 and they would still make the soccer players look like literal twinks.
Also you're deluding yourself if you don't think those soccer players aren't on all kinds of shit kek.
>You ever see a basketball or soccer coach on the sidelines? Just sort of leisurely strolling around?
lol how many football (soccer) matches have you watched in your life? can't be more than five.
Idk I really couldn't tell you how many- not a ton but more than five. But yeah the coaches pacing around jacking their dicks on the sidelines has always stuck out to me.
I mean from a coaching perspective the game just doesn't allow much more than making depth chart decisions and calling time outs and stuff so it isn't their fault I guess.
>calling timeouts
You haven’t played or watched a single match of real football in your life. Any and all of your opinions are discarded. Stop posting immediately.
You tell me then, other than making choices about the lineup what the frick does a soccer coach actually do during the game kek? I mean I understand there are alot of decisions to be made about very general strategy nd matchups in practice but when the game is actually going on there isn't much for a soccer coach to do.
Yes there is, literally everything you said about American football applies to soccer except one has to do it in motion while the other needs breaks. It’s obvious which is the superior sport, and it isn’t the one that is based on roided out field Black folk.
There are no reads in soccer, no audibles, comparatively you have little control over the clock, the formations are extremely limited, there is no actual play calling aside from very general stuff.
Meanwhile in football after the first play of the game you literally have teams of guys in the box frantically reviewing what the defense/or offense just did, analyzing the info info are getting, making charts, drawing out shit on boards, communicating it to the sideline, then the coach or coordinators (as the case may be) has to make a decision about how to respond to it, who to substitute, how to line up, what formations, down to the inch almost, and then make a call about which play to run (out of hundreds if not more) etc etc. and they do this every fricking play.
The level of complexity and activity from a strategic and coaching standpoint is magnitudes greater compared to Soccer. For the most part, once the players are on the field in soccer they are making the decisions. They might be working with some very general "plays" and general strategies from the coach, much like basketball, but at the end of the day the men on the field are the ones making mostly intuitive decisions in real time.
And I wasn't going to go here but there is a reason why there is such a thing as women's soccer and basketball and there is no such thing as women's football.
Didn't see this after I wrote my last post, and actually I shouldn't have bothered. You are a moron beyond belief. I can only hope you're still a teen or something and there is still some hope for you.
>sport
> An average professional football game lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes, but if you tally up the time when the ball is actually in play, the action amounts to a mere 11 minutes.
My shits last longer than action time. I want to see players make decisions, not a chess game
Lmao you just proved my point, American football can’t be played by women because it is solely based on pumping genetic outliers with steroids and then pretend that the autism done on the sideline matters when some 300lbs bubba on enough tren to kill a bull tanks through your “strategy”. Again everything you said about American football happens in football minus the breaks.
Also I didn’t want to go there but one has 2 white goats and the other is dominated by blacks, which do you think requires more IQ to play/coach?
There have hardly ever been any decent black coaches or QBs in pro football history and obviously at high levels sheer physicality can have an impact but it really is not determinative of any given outcome. Again physicality should be incredibly important to any sport- that's why it is called athletics you fricking moron. But you bear that athleticism out in a very strategic and complex game and thats when you get a balanced well rounded sport.
The vast bulk of the game really does boil down to decisions made by the QB and the coaching staff. If you'd played the game you would know this. Games are often lost or won in the film room.
If women can play a game it is not the superior game- simple as.
The interrupted play is a price that must be paid to create a genuinely complex game. You will see more excitement in one drive of football than 40 mins of soccer players piddling around and literally just passing a ball back and forth for 20 mins before anything exciting actually happens.
>to create
Yeah, an artificial stop gap. Less of a sport and more strategy game with physical elements with the only "sport" to have extensive protection
>hur bunch of brain damaged morons
>that's why they wear all that protection
Which is it gonna be m8?
Is pic rel what you call a team of superior athletes playing a superior sport?
>hur bunch of brain damaged morons
>that's why they wear all that protection
They can be both, you know that right? Football has more personal skill expression that can be shown on average compared to American version, there is a good reason it's way more popular worldwide.
I mean yeah it's more complex compared to continuous obviously, but at that point it's more entertainment than a sport. I genuinely don't know any other team game with such a small ratio of actual time:total game time
>has more personal skill expression
This sounds like a phrase a bunch or bureaucrats sat around and came up with. It is not only entirely subjective to say it but I happen to disagree. At the quartback position alone much much more skill is required compared to any soccer position imo.
Also I think only a non football fan would say the time between the whistles is the only actual "game time." The time prior to the play, the line up, audibles, motions, I consider all that shit part of the game.
The only time you have straight up just breaks is during the time it takes the ref to set the ball immediately after the play and when you have the end of a quarter, change of possession, timeout etc.
And yes it has a much more comparatively broken up and interrupted game than any other sport but that is the price you pay to make for a highly strategic and explosive game. So far we have been talking about what interrupted play means for strategic complexity, but it should also be mentioned that interrupted play makes a game much more explosive- more of a series of sprints than a marathon. I find that pacing preferable myself.
It's a great game, but it's just an American entertainment, it's literally in the name. The fact is, it is not included in Olympics, so it's more of a geographical fad.
To me game time means time during which the outcome of the game can be changed. Set up is important but it's what it is, a set up
A great deal of any play is determined by what happens pre snap though. And certain things pre snap could in fact affect the game directly.
And the Olympics are a fricking joke. In fact at this juncture a sport being included in the Olympics strikes AGAINST it being a real sport. Also regionalism is a good thing. That's where the richness of the world comes from.
And look I'll be blunt, soccer is a good team sport obviously millions if not billions all over the world are funs, but in my opinion it is just far inferior to football. Obviously many people feel differently- I'm not trying to convince you otherwise either I'm just trying to make the case for the game as far as some of the more cliche criticisms go. There are so many cliche criticisms of the game from yuros that are honestly just really low brow and a bore at this point I occasionally can't resist wasting my time arguing with them.
All games are "created" by their rules bozo. Allowing each side the ability to line up and get in different formations, communicate with each other, call plays etc etc. before each play is a sensible idea that while off-putting to the consoomer with a very limited attention span, accomplishes the goal of creating a more complex and strategic game than can be done with continuous play rules.
The only letitimate criticism of football is that when watching on television they have extended these natural breaks in the game to shoehorn commercials in. That is a fair criticism and they have taken every opportunity to extend some breaks for this purpose which is sad, and no sport is perfect, but like I said interrupted play is a just a price you have to pay to get some things.
Also thats pretty rich for you to say considering you probably have a Ngubu jersey on rn. I don't have time to watch many sports these days but the idea that these soccer twinks flopping around when they get so much as touched while playing a literal childrens' backyard game is the "superior sport" is nothing less than deranged.
That's ridiculous. They tell the players what to do all the time, this player stay out on the wing more, change the defensive line position, you watch that player man mark him, get the ball out to the wing more. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about and I think you're starting to be self-aware you're just talking shit at this point.
You sound delusional anon. It's a sport where two groups of morons run at each other.
You sound like a moron that got bullied by the football chads. So once you got a little older you found some fedora shit like a bjj gym full of fat 30-40 yos to help convince yourself you aren't a loser kek.
The best boxers in the world would ge beaten by highschool wrestlers in MMA.
t. Fricking moron who has never boxed or practiced MMA
>seething
Boxers suck at MMA, deal with it.
Lmao you do realize one of the victims of fatass John Wayne Gacy was one of these high school wrestlers you burgers keep bragging about. Literally got manhandled and groped by a fricking fatty.
Goddamn, I love fighting so much its unreal. Got a fight end of october, wish me luck bros.
And yes, I've tapped bodybuilders twice my size on the ground and standing up. No way I can take them down, but their cardio is crap on the feet and their flexibility/speed is garbage on the ground. I thought it was a joke that their idea of "cardio" is fricking WALKING on a threadmill for 30 minutes on an incline, until I watched Cbum's vids and see his "cardio" session.
>All they are dead
It's not a sport
Walking up on stage and doing poses isn't a sport
It is more accuratly described as a lifestyle
It's actually better described as a beauty patent. Except you don't have to answer any questions or have any talent.
Definitely not a sport, but it is a competition among athletes. What makes the competitiors athletes is the strength and endurance that must be cultivated to win the competition.
Similarly, baseball, golf, billiards, pool, shooting, and a bunch of other competitions are not sports, but are simply competitions or games and the competitors may or may not be athletes.
>Definitely not a sport, but it is a competition among athletes. What makes the competitiors athletes is the strength and endurance that must be cultivated to win the competition.
As pointed out bodybuilders are not "athletes" - they can't be described as "athletic". Strength alone is not enough to be considered an athlete, you would need speed and stamina.
What do you mean body have endurance? Body builders have zero endurance. The only thing vaguely similar to endurance bodybuilders have is endurance at being autistic in their eating and workout schedules, is that what you mean? They have almost no endurance in a physical sense, even worse than the general population.
>Similarly, baseball, golf, billiards, pool, shooting, and a bunch of other competitions are not sports, but are simply competitions or games and the competitors may or may not be athletes.
Those are sports because they require physical dexterity, you are right that for the shooting ones etc. they may or may not be athletes.
I'm not sure why you decided to add baseball there as baseball is full of running and batting as far as I know (from europe). Perhaps it is a trolling remark reflecting your opinion about baseball, well you can shut the frick up because nobody was talking about any of this shit only you pulling it out of nowhere for no reason.
Are you ok dude? Are you seriously ok? Like why are you talking so dumb? Get a grip.
Strength is one of several constituent parts that defines "athletic" Lean is probably another, but there are outliers (heavyweight combat athletes, for example)
The endurance parameter of which I speak is the endurance they have, not to run a 10k, (which is probably what you mean), but to endure the lengthier 20 rep sets that come with hypertrophy training; the ability to overcome and push through the lactic threshold, the endurance to keep training when in a caloric deficit for months while training for a compeititon. The endurance to complete 2 hour leg workouts, The endurance to do AM fasted cardio. Etc. This attribute, skill, adaptation or whatever you call it is certainly one that a lot of athletes have.
Baseball pitchers just throw the ball. They dont bat or run. Some ball players are more multifaceted but many are one trick ponies.
>bodybuilders endurance is just doing 20 rep sets in the gym while on every steroid known to man
>This is unironically comparable to real athletes
How can you say this with a straight face
>The endurance to complete 2 hour leg workouts
>The endurance to do AM fasted cardio
This is where I know you have never done a real sport in your life and definitely have no idea what goes into training for one
Everything bodybuilders do is things other athletes do on the side of their actual sport, and bodybuilders not only focus entirely on it but are also taking enormous amounts of drugs which make all of it drastically easier. By far the most remarkable thing about bodybuilding is that anyone is dumb enough to throw their life away pursuing it
>The endurance to complete 2 hour leg workouts,
They're only actually using their legs for maybe 5 to 10 minutes of that 2 hours though. The rest of the time is sitting around/checking their phone, that's not "endurance".
This is the only point you make that I can bare to even dignify with a response.
Leanness isnt an athletic trait though, it's just often the by-product of being athletic. And defining endurance by training is just dumb- you think any athlete doesn't do punishing or difficult workouts? or follow strict diets? By your definition, models are athletic because they have the endurance to starve themselves for long periods of time.
tldr
bodybuilding is not a sport
bodybuilders are not athletes
it's basically a modern freakshow
>Is bodybuilding as a "sport" just about how big you can get or aesthetics?
Use your eyes.
>those 2 guys wish they were black
Kek.
>A mentally ill trannoid appears
They would bleach themselves if pasty white skin looked good but it don't
im pretty sure bodybuilding got this bad because of the judges, they're all former steroid using morons and they can't properly judge anything because they have steroid vision when it comes to bodies
no, it's about who can look the most disgusting and unnatural
The first is the case at the moment, the second was the case a long time ago. For me at least.
To the fans, their perception of aesthetics is filled with much more muscle and gleaming brown skin.
Is weightgaining seen as a sport anywhere? Like they forklift a bunch of fatties on a reinforced stage and a bunch of fetishists grade their fatdisposition or something? Grease them up in lard to highlight all the molding skin and stuff? That has to exist already by this point.
Oly lifting is pretty respected, apart from being kicked out of the actual olympics lol. I would argue its the most sport like out of all the strength sports because it requires technical proficiency and some cardio or endurance.
There is Strongman too, but that's too much spectacle and hazily defined rules.
its not a sport
This is literally why bodybuilding is a terrible sport--- because it emphasizes sheer mass and definition, there's very little room for competing without steroids and the criteria for success are incredibly binary
Bodybuilders have insane muscle work capacity. It might require no skill at all, but it will transfer best to manual labour (if they train their back muscles and forearms just as much as they do their chest and biceps).
So in that sense it is not useless at all.
The starving yourself to step on stage part is weird, but that is the point, it is about showing the pinnacle of bodybuilding to the majority even though they have no intention of competing themselves.
If models that are 10/10 pose in clothing for Calvin Klein, do you avoid buying from that brand because you are not a 10/10?
So bodybuilding as in stepping on stage is only for the best of the best, and the rest is about building maximum muscle work capacity which will hypertrophy the muscles. Just the right amount of volume and intensity.
So bodybuilding is in no means useless, and that would be weird because muscles look masculine (if you are not roided). Why the evolutionary trait if it serves no purpose?
it politics