It really is quite simple: If you have a program, theory or system, and you are convinced that it’s the mutt’s nuts, and you are trying to convince me as well, you had better have some form…ANY form of credentials to back it up. Pictures of self or trainees will do.
Simplicity itself.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Going back to Dave vs Ronnie, from what I know I would say yes, Dave worked harder/smarter than big Ron. Not many guys in the world can get big or maintain that size eating cornbread and cheesy grits as a staple of their diet.
Monopoly
Did you really just write that? I have all of Ronnie’s vids and even his first one done years ago shows how he eats. Before the cornbread comes about 5lbs of chicken breasts and a few protein shakes. You aren’t giving that man enough credit at all, especially since Ronnie came from being COMPLETELY IGNORED on stage to winning the Olympia. If anything that shows nothing was handed to him. He came from basically coming in last in the pack to suddenly winning every contest…yet you think he had it easier?
?[/quote]
Yes, I did write that. I was trying not to get sucked into this thread and should have just stayed away. For the record, I have not seen all his videos, I have only seen one and it does not show him eating like that.
I am not trying to discredit Ronnie! With all that said I just spent 30 minutes trying to the a picture of a VERY young Ronnie looking like he had been training for a long time. The guy won the overall and HW class in the first show he ever entered.
X, you of all people should agree with some of this. With the way you train and eat and how long it has taken you to get to your size?
Some people were born to do things, other people have to work their ass off. Champions have both.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Think if Dave Pulambo (sp?) Not my ideal hero but the guy has tried everything under the sun and killed himself in the gym to try and make it. Was NEVER going to happen with what he had to work with. That said, I’d rather take advice from him than someone like Ronnie or Jay. Get my drift?
No.
How does Palumbo having genetic disadvantages for winning contests at the very top level – which it doesn’t seem to me had anything to do with overall ability to acquire muscle – say anything whatsoever about or have anything to do with making him a better person to take advice from?
Working with more bb’ers as a trainer could be a logical reason for that, some personal intellectual gifts could be a logical reason for that, but not his genetics for winning big contests not being quite there. That just makes no sense.
[/quote]
I guess I am doing a poor job of explaining myself. My point with coaches was this.
I would rather work with and listen to the guy that did everything he could, tried every method and just flat outworked everyone else only to finish behind his other competitors.
My other point was just because a person is at the top of their field does not automatically make them someone you take blind advice from.
Does that make more sense?
[quote]Monopoly19 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Going back to Dave vs Ronnie, from what I know I would say yes, Dave worked harder/smarter than big Ron. Not many guys in the world can get big or maintain that size eating cornbread and cheesy grits as a staple of their diet.
Monopoly
Did you really just write that? I have all of Ronnie’s vids and even his first one done years ago shows how he eats. Before the cornbread comes about 5lbs of chicken breasts and a few protein shakes. You aren’t giving that man enough credit at all, especially since Ronnie came from being COMPLETELY IGNORED on stage to winning the Olympia. If anything that shows nothing was handed to him. He came from basically coming in last in the pack to suddenly winning every contest…yet you think he had it easier?
?
Yes, I did write that. I was trying not to get sucked into this thread and should have just stayed away. For the record, I have not seen all his videos, I have only seen one and it does not show him eating like that.
I am not trying to discredit Ronnie! With all that said I just spent 30 minutes trying to the a picture of a VERY young Ronnie looking like he had been training for a long time. The guy won the overall and HW class in the first show he ever entered.
X, you of all people should agree with some of this. With the way you train and eat and how long it has taken you to get to your size?
Some people were born to do things, other people have to work their ass off. Champions have both.
[/quote]
Dude, I have been as heavy as nearly 300lbs. Do you think ANYONE is looking at me like it took me a long time to do this? No. Everyone acts like this comes easy to me simply because I am bigger than they are. NO ONE accepts that I used to be skinny or that my hard work is why I look like this now. They ALL act like it was just handed to me or that I just have good genetics…because that is what people do and it is exactly what you are doing to guys like Ronnie.
Ronnie may have turned pro relatively easily but they treated him like he wasn’t even worth the top 5 for years until he kept working hard until he blew everyone else on stage away…but people like you don’t see the hard work, you only see the end product.
That is what is being said to you here. You are not going to know by looking at someone how hard they had to work to get to where they are and writing off the ones at the very top as simply “genetic freaks” is retarded. No one becomes one of the best by fucking accident. Michael Jordan practiced as hard as he could…but people will simply remember when he could fly and not all of those years when he was just trying to get off the ground.
[quote]Monopoly19 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Think if Dave Pulambo (sp?) Not my ideal hero but the guy has tried everything under the sun and killed himself in the gym to try and make it. Was NEVER going to happen with what he had to work with. That said, I’d rather take advice from him than someone like Ronnie or Jay. Get my drift?
No.
How does Palumbo having genetic disadvantages for winning contests at the very top level – which it doesn’t seem to me had anything to do with overall ability to acquire muscle – say anything whatsoever about or have anything to do with making him a better person to take advice from?
Working with more bb’ers as a trainer could be a logical reason for that, some personal intellectual gifts could be a logical reason for that, but not his genetics for winning big contests not being quite there. That just makes no sense.
I guess I am doing a poor job of explaining myself. My point with coaches was this.
I would rather work with and listen to the guy that did everything he could, tried every method and just flat outworked everyone else only to finish behind his other competitors.
My other point was just because a person is at the top of their field does not automatically make them someone you take blind advice from.
Does that make more sense?[/quote]
You are missing his point AND mine. Polumbo didn’t work any harder than most of the other guys on stage. I am not even what is giving you that impression. He didn’t win because he is shaped wrong for bodybuilding. He looks funny…and even Polumbo knows this. Trying to attach some significance to how hard someone worked based on their FAILURE is completely illogical especially since you don’t seem to really know much about these guys other than a very shallow passing understanding of what they have done.
I would think Ronnie’s efforts actually in the gym far surpass Polumbo’s but apparently because Ronnie was successful, you see him as having it easier.
[quote]Monopoly19 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Think if Dave Pulambo (sp?) Not my ideal hero but the guy has tried everything under the sun and killed himself in the gym to try and make it. Was NEVER going to happen with what he had to work with. That said, I’d rather take advice from him than someone like Ronnie or Jay. Get my drift?
No.
How does Palumbo having genetic disadvantages for winning contests at the very top level – which it doesn’t seem to me had anything to do with overall ability to acquire muscle – say anything whatsoever about or have anything to do with making him a better person to take advice from?
Working with more bb’ers as a trainer could be a logical reason for that, some personal intellectual gifts could be a logical reason for that, but not his genetics for winning big contests not being quite there. That just makes no sense.
I guess I am doing a poor job of explaining myself. My point with coaches was this.
I would rather work with and listen to the guy that did everything he could, tried every method and just flat outworked everyone else only to finish behind his other competitors.
[/quote] Fair enough, but the thing is… None of the people we’re talking about are in that situation. Some hate bbing, most have likely never tried to get big in the first place, etc. Yet they run their mouths.
Besides, about Ronnie again: He did not really have it easier than Tate. It took Ronnie a long time to get to his present size, that particular incident you’re referring to (I think he was 210 lbs then)… He won becaue he simply looked better at that size than most of us would. That does however not affect his training.
He worked his way up from a 1354 or whatever bench to 49510 or so over the years.
Tate also certainly didn’t train smartly, at least not until very recently.
He has the most ridiculous injury-history ever. He also commented (in a crossfit seminar vid I think) on Ronnie’s training style and technique and how Ronnie managed to keep his joints surprisingly healthy etc…
Plus Tate’s diet was a joke. He messed his body up pretty good and had to do his string of diets/transformations due to that…
(Ronnie’s only really bad injury is not even training related, but a nerve-issue likely caused by sleeping on the side/shoulder)
I’m not really saying that either of the two went at it with less of a vengeance than the other.
Tate has perfect genetics for Powerlifting, joint-wise etc. Ronnie’s were better in the muscle-shape department → Bodybuilding.
I don’t know how anyone could improve Ronnie’s training much. What do you want him to do, change his routine every 4 weeks or something equally ridiculous? I can guarantee you that he would never have gotten were he is now if he’d followed the advice given in the vast majority of internet articles.
[quote]
My other point was just because a person is at the top of their field does not automatically make them someone you take blind advice from.
Does that make more sense?[/quote]
I see your point. However, look at the things Phil Hernon’s trainees are accomplishing? Or hey, what about Levrone’s (the few guys he’s helping, anyway). There’s no universal truth here, but if you think that listening to the NPC guy who supposedly tried everything and still needs 3 grams of test a week to weigh in at a sloppy 260 tell you that gear is where it’s at is better than listening to Ronnie tell you to get as strong as you possibly can for enough reps… Well.
And here’s something to think about:
While a football coach may not have to be a good player himself in order to teach his team tactics, maneuvers
etc, with training the whole thing is a different story imo.
You know how every single wanna-be author/guru criticizes Ronnie’s form/technique.
Well, guess what. The one author who’s actually moved heavy weight himself, Tate, tells people to look past the body-english part and consider how Ronnie is largely injury free and all that (compared to other pros who use the same drugs etc, level playing field).
The difference between Tate and Ronnie compared to some internet guru moron here is that they’ve, at some point in their training career, did Bent-Over rows or whatever and realized “oh, right, it’s not just “row the bar into you”, the whole backthickness thing is more about the scapulae and getting the shoulders back and chest out on the lifting portion, and reversing that on the lowering portion. And, when staying tight via abs, it’s actually somewhat easier on the low-back to move a little at the hip-joint, plus you can use more weight. Cool.” (this is terribly simplified, it’s stuff you have to experience yourself in order to truly understand it)
Now, the internet-guru guy weighs a buck fifty to eighty or so and tries to lift everything with textbook form (which is bullshit, as it was pretty much invented by other buck-fifty guys who wrote the damn textbook in the first place). This pretty much prevents him from ever achieving the kind of insight that Tate and Coleman have, and it wouldn’t fit in with his view of the world anyway.
He sees Ronnie train and thinks “oh, he’s cheating, and look at those half-reps, fool, all wrong.”
Focusing on the wrong thing due to inexperience.
So a good bodybuilding or powerlifting coach/trainer simply must have a great deal of experience from having trained with the respective style himself (and achieved the right results).
It has nothing to do with whether he has the world’s highest ever total or whether he’s won the olympia multiple times in a row, but there must have been those results as achieving them makes these special kind of training insights necessary…
(I hope I’m making sense here)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one becomes one of the best by fucking accident. Michael Jordan practiced as hard as he could…but people will simply remember when he could fly and not all of those years when he was just trying to get off the ground. [/quote]
I am a huge fan of Michael Jordan and sometime I pretended I was named after him. That said, he was genetically gifted compared to his older brother Larry in regards to height. His determination, drive, work ethic etc… was all his, but one has to wonder how much his genetic height of 6’5" vs. Larry’s at 5’8" had to do with part of his success.
Tiger Woods is coached from time to time. Obviously his coaches haven’t accomplished the same things as Woods, but the bottom line is that even the best, hardest working, most genetically gifted can benefit from some one that hasn’t been at that level. John Madden? I don’t want to list more 
I think the important thing is to be a student of the relevant endeavor and put your own time in as a practitioner (competitor).
The scholar/practitioner combo is the best way to be credible, imho.
It’s true, you do have to pay your dues and gain the in-the-trenches knowledge, but the books can help.
Hell, last time I checked Dave Tate has written things. Jim Wendler has.
The trouble is, what are the ‘right’ results, CC? Is that benching 600 lbs. raw?
And I may not have accomplished much so far physically, but I know I have been able to help people out with what I have learned.
Are my experiences not worth a thing until I bench 400, squat 500, and deadlift 600? I have to disagree if your answer is ‘yes’.
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No one becomes one of the best by fucking accident. Michael Jordan practiced as hard as he could…but people will simply remember when he could fly and not all of those years when he was just trying to get off the ground.
I am a huge fan of Michael Jordan and sometime I pretended I was named after him. That said, he was genetically gifted compared to his older brother Larry in regards to height. His determination, drive, work ethic etc… was all his, but one has to wonder how much his genetic height of 6’5" vs. Larry’s at 5’8" had to do with part of his success.
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone would argue that if Jordan were only 5’8", he still would have been one of the greatest players ever. Not really sure what was your point.
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Professor X wrote:
No one becomes one of the best by fucking accident. Michael Jordan practiced as hard as he could…but people will simply remember when he could fly and not all of those years when he was just trying to get off the ground.
I am a huge fan of Michael Jordan and sometime I pretended I was named after him. That said, he was genetically gifted compared to his older brother Larry in regards to height. His determination, drive, work ethic etc… was all his, but one has to wonder how much his genetic height of 6’5" vs. Larry’s at 5’8" had to do with part of his success.
[/quote]
Umm, a lot? What is the point of this, to point out that genetics do in fact matter? Holy fucking revelation batman. That doesn’t take away from how hard he worked, it just meant that his hard work would make him god.
[quote]Flow wrote:
Tiger Woods is coached from time to time. Obviously his coaches haven’t accomplished the same things as Woods, but the bottom line is that even the best, hardest working, most genetically gifted can benefit from some one that hasn’t been at that level. John Madden? I don’t want to list more
I think the important thing is to be a student of the relevant endeavor and put your own time in as a practitioner (competitor).
The scholar/practitioner combo is the best way to be credible, imho.
It’s true, you do have to pay your dues and gain the in-the-trenches knowledge, but the books can help.
Hell, last time I checked Dave Tate has written things. Jim Wendler has.
The trouble is, what are the ‘right’ results, CC? Is that benching 600 lbs. raw?
And I may not have accomplished much so far physically, but I know I have been able to help people out with what I have learned.
Are my experiences not worth a thing until I bench 400, squat 500, and deadlift 600? I have to disagree if your answer is ‘yes’.[/quote]
They aren’t worth a thing if my goal is to bench 500lbs. I bench press much more than you and I would not go to you for advice on getting even stronger in that area because you have never been there and don’t have a clue about the challenges one faces when handling that much weight and more. That doesn’t mean all info from you is useless, but lets get serious, no one elite is going to give a shit about what you have to say unless you have trained others to be elite or have been there yourself…period.
Why does everyone say genetics don’t mean shit then?
[quote]Flow wrote:
Are my experiences not worth a thing until I bench 400, squat 500, and deadlift 600? I have to disagree if your answer is ‘yes’.[/quote]
Yes, your opinion like mine, does not mean a thing YET. I am sure you might be able to get those numbers (maybe exceed them) and then your opinions will start to matter, but I doubt I will get those number raw myself.
[quote]hawaiilifterMike wrote:
Why does everyone say genetics don’t mean shit then?
[/quote]
Who the fuck has said genetics mean nothing? However, at the pro level, they ALL have above average genetics so hard work is still the primary issue. If they had poor genetics, they never would have gotten to that level to begin with. What is your point?
Genetics don’t erase hard work. I have the genetics to build big arms. Some guys may never get their arms over 17" no matter how long they train. That doesn’t mean it was EASY for me to build big arms. To reach their current size still took over a decade of hard work that most people would have given up on a long time ago.
Genetics simply get you on the playing field. No one with poor hand coordination is going to make it to the NBA. That doesn’t mean the guys who made it didn’t work hard for it.
Just out of curiousity, do the people that believe it doesn’t really matter what a strength coach/personal trainer, etc looks like also feel it doesn’t really matter what a nutritionist looks like? Does it matter if the nutritionist is fat and overweight or just that they are smart and have a degree?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Monopoly19 wrote:
Think if Dave Pulambo (sp?) Not my ideal hero but the guy has tried everything under the sun and killed himself in the gym to try and make it. Was NEVER going to happen with what he had to work with. That said, I’d rather take advice from him than someone like Ronnie or Jay. Get my drift?
No.
How does Palumbo having genetic disadvantages for winning contests at the very top level – which it doesn’t seem to me had anything to do with overall ability to acquire muscle – say anything whatsoever about or have anything to do with making him a better person to take advice from?
Working with more bb’ers as a trainer could be a logical reason for that, some personal intellectual gifts could be a logical reason for that, but not his genetics for winning big contests not being quite there. That just makes no sense.
I guess I am doing a poor job of explaining myself. My point with coaches was this.
I would rather work with and listen to the guy that did everything he could, tried every method and just flat outworked everyone else only to finish behind his other competitors.
My other point was just because a person is at the top of their field does not automatically make them someone you take blind advice from.
Does that make more sense?
You are missing his point AND mine. Polumbo didn’t work any harder than most of the other guys on stage. I am not even what is giving you that impression. He didn’t win because he is shaped wrong for bodybuilding. He looks funny…and even Polumbo knows this. Trying to attach some significance to how hard someone worked based on their FAILURE is completely illogical especially since you don’t seem to really know much about these guys other than a very shallow passing understanding of what they have done.
I would think Ronnie’s efforts actually in the gym far surpass Polumbo’s but apparently because Ronnie was successful, you see him as having it easier.[/quote]
In a round about way, you just agreed with me regarding Polumbo. Dave did not have the shape (ie genetics) to compete at a top level in pro bodybuilding. From what I have read from Dave and from what I know about Ronnie, I personally would want to listen to Dave. He’s tried more things, abused a shit ton more drugs and did everything he could to try and win a card. I will not say he trained harder than Ronnie however as Ronnie is a freak in the gym and I mean that in the best possible way.
I want to listen to the guy who achieved the most with least! That’s what I’m driving after.
Let’s go back to something I have seen. Phil Heath. I like this guy. He’s got his act together, he’s smart and good for the “sport”. That said, if I trained the way he does I never would have gotten above 220lbs. I’m not saying he does not train hard, he does. It’s just not at the level you would think it should be to build that kind of physique. He has a gift, and no matter what your or I did we could NEVER accomplish that.
I never claimed to know a ton about bodybuilding or anything for that matter. I never said I knew shit because I don’t. I’ve been training for 10 years and I still have boatloads to learn.
Cephalic_Carnage,
Just wanted to say yes I got what you were going after. Good points.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Flow wrote:
Tiger Woods is coached from time to time. Obviously his coaches haven’t accomplished the same things as Woods, but the bottom line is that even the best, hardest working, most genetically gifted can benefit from some one that hasn’t been at that level. John Madden? I don’t want to list more
I think the important thing is to be a student of the relevant endeavor and put your own time in as a practitioner (competitor).
The scholar/practitioner combo is the best way to be credible, imho.
It’s true, you do have to pay your dues and gain the in-the-trenches knowledge, but the books can help.
Hell, last time I checked Dave Tate has written things. Jim Wendler has.
The trouble is, what are the ‘right’ results, CC? Is that benching 600 lbs. raw?
And I may not have accomplished much so far physically, but I know I have been able to help people out with what I have learned.
Are my experiences not worth a thing until I bench 400, squat 500, and deadlift 600? I have to disagree if your answer is ‘yes’.
They aren’t worth a thing if my goal is to bench 500lbs. I bench press much more than you and I would not go to you for advice on getting even stronger in that area because you have never been there and don’t have a clue about the challenges one faces when handling that much weight and more. That doesn’t mean all info from you is useless, but lets get serious, no one elite is going to give a shit about what you have to say unless you have trained others to be elite or have been there yourself…period.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying. Just wanted to make sure the whole coaching at a high level thing was clear.
I’ll be there eventually.
Somewhere in the background I hear… “when you’re a jet, you’re a jet till the end” and maybe a little “Im in love with a girl named Maria.”
ha ha ha
DH
[quote]MODOK wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Hmmmm…“sarcoplasmic hypertrophy”. In 1000+ pages of my Anatomy/Physiology textbook, this is not mentioned even once.
However, Wikipedia defines it as follows: “During sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases with no accompanying increase in muscular strength.”
So, take that for what you will…
Dude, sarcoplasmic and myofibrillic aren’t science terms…they are street gangs, like the greasers and socs. You are either in one, or your a victim of one. I’m myofibrillic baby. Sarcoplasmics are all pussys.[/quote]
Another factor to consider is whether a guy is a realitic example as well. Not to say that having successful intelligent competitor/coaches who use(d) AAS is useless. I’m not saying that necessarily.
But if you want some advice that will likely be more universally applicable, then the best BB writers we have here are probably Thib, Poliquin, as well as Clay Hyght. They’ve been there and done that themselves or with clients.
But I’d like to see Jeff Willet, Skip LaCour, or some other notable naturals here as well. And Milos Sarcev would be nice too, in addition to Shelby and Justin Harris.
Rather than have some guys traded out, I’d like to see a better balance here. More BB specific stuff WITH the quality stuff from other coaches.
DH
Another guy who has my respect, but is not big at all but is lean and an impressive athlete is Kelly Baggett. His knowledge and grasp on hypertrophy is quite good.
And Pavel. To just get big, Pavel has some VERY excellent material even though he himself is thin. His depth of knowledge is absolutely second to none.