Tattoos and BBing

[Dakota]

What do you guys think about tats on Bodybuilders? I find it a distraction and that is takes away from the ability to see the definition and vascularity.

I could care less if someone has them, I just think for competing it should be a deduct.

[A1food4u]

I can tell you from having both arms covered, the arm with the color tat shoes better than the black and grey for sure. I would agree that you lose some of the definition if a solid dark line runs through the crease... but deducting for them seems double jeopardy, they will probably get judged differently if the definition is washed out by the tat..

[Friggemall]

Back in the day it was a huge no-no to have tatts
It was considered the opposite of what bodybuilding represented a perfect physique.

[GoldLine]

i remember back if the day judges didnt favor guys with tats.

[liftsiron]

I think it hurts definition in most cases.

[Big B]

I don't know. I thought this for years. It just doesn't seem to interfere with their placing. I remember one year this one guy was absolutely covered but yet he won overall in a big southeast competition. Like Lifts said, harder to see how well defined for someone like that guy but yet still managed to get overall...

[chicken_hawk]

Agreed, it you want them then realize that it may wash out some definition. IMO I would prefer that top level competitors stayed away from large areas like full sleeves just so they had equal footing. I know he's not a competitor but I follow Him Stoppani and his right arm is a full sleeve and as lean as he is it's just hard to see any detail.

Hawk

[theprince]

Definitely don't think deductions should be allowed just for the sole reason that there are many people who loved tattoos or got a lot before they became passionate about bodybuilding. That being said I have none myself. Never really was into putting ink on my body unless it was really representative of something tribal in nature. Aka The Chief was always the most tattooed because he was the most beastly, most kills in war, accomplishments, etc.

Instead I see loser douchebags covered in them because they did not have any sizeable real confidence or their self-esteem was pitifully low. Not knocking tattoos though.

[Dakota]

If you are serious about bodybuilding especially if you are going to compete, to me it is like putting a coat of paint on an antique tiger oak chest of drawers.

And Black guys that get tats I REALLY don't understand. That is like skywriting at night.

[theprince]

all for the ladies right ^^ ? lol

[Rot-Iron66]

They did a decent job of covering most of Lee's in his last Universe win...

[wallyd]

I think it’s gotten totally out of hand. I hate seeing women covered in tats. It’s too much imo, it’s lije a contest to see who can have the most.

[Dakota]

Nowadays if you’re a dude you have to have two full sleeves or you’re not cool....it’s quantity over quality for a lot of people...especially those who are insecure about their own natural physique.
Hey don’t look at my lopsided boobs or my beer belly...just check out my awesome tats!!!
Also, guys who think that having a lot tattoos makes them a tougher fighter.
Sorry bro, ink doesn’t win fights.

I think at one time there was an intimidation factor that came with tats. Mostly because the characters that had tats weren't Dr.s and Lawyers.

That is long gone now that you can have a man bun, skinny leg jeans AND tats.

[Paramuscle]

I disagree that it should be a deduction but I can see how it is a distraction. And yes, times are definitely changing and now every yuppie with a credit score can have a Harley and a man bun and tattoos. I personally have a lot but I also worked in an industry where intimidation was a crucial component psychologically. In most of the places I worked, being big and scary by the local standards at any rate, helped keep you alive as much as the weapons did.

I think having ink is different for everyone and mine tell a story and have memories tied to them and they are important to me. But, I don’t have a dolphin tattoo on my ankle either so.... I get both sides.


~PM

[theprince]

I disagree that it should be a deduction but I can see how it is a distraction. And yes, times are definitely changing and now every yuppie with a credit score can have a Harley and a man bun and tattoos. I personally have a lot but I also worked in an industry where intimidation was a crucial component psychologically. In most of the places I worked, being big and scary by the local standards at any rate, helped keep you alive as much as the weapons did.

I think having ink is different for everyone and mine tell a story and have memories tied to them and they are important to me. But, I don’t have a dolphin tattoo on my ankle either so.... I get both sides.


~PM

Interesting, which industry were you in sir? But yeah....I'm not gonna lie. On some individuals perhaps because of their energy/persona tattoos can amplify intimidation I guess because on the back of the observer's mind their is this psychological belief that this person put himself through pain all over his body deliberately to send a message.

I don't know how much it hurts. Never had one...

I got pulled over a couple years ago at 2am and when I got out this big ass 300 pound marine bald headed tattoo'ed cop got out and I was like "man this dude is not gonna be nice"

By the end of the deal we shook hands and I got off light lol.