I'd like to know that judges have at least competed at or near the level they are judging at some point in the past, although they need not have super-impressive physiques (currently).
This is the case, for instance in academia: You don't have people teaching Master's level courses who don't have at least that level of education. Someone judging poems should have written, not just read poetry, IMHO. They needn't have been a world famous prolific writer, but they should have at least attempted it...
Previous competitive experience is one thing that I personally think should color a judge's subjective evaluation of a physique. Someone who has indeed attempted to get amazing conditioning, or develop massive legs or fully develop high insertion / short muscle-belly calves will evaluate athletes w/ these aspects of their physiques differently than someone who has never been 4% body fat or who has never felt the agony of 20 rep squats, etc.
This is not to say that this experience should be (IMHO) the #1 overriding force (which athlete suffered the most, for instance) in a judge's decision-making, but I think it should be a part of the picture.
I have done shows where I've been beated by larger, but much less conditioned athletes (apples and oranges). Those judges who were actively competing judged me higher than those who hadn't competed, b/c, in part, I think they value conditioning more so b/c they know what it takes to get that. Those judges certainly value size, but perhaps feel that that size is not as important, or may even be considered "false" size, b/c the whole package (with conditioning) was not presented (and that size might not have been there if the athlete had been more conditioned)...
-R
.gif "IP Gear")
