James Smith Conference Call

Training Powerlifting
21

[quote]teamstaley wrote:
You know- again, you write: It just seemed as if you were claiming that James was copying your conference call idea"

Honestly, I must be losing my mind as I don’t see any claims made where I said James was copying our idea. Where was that written in my post? I would really like to know.
And if I wrote EXACTLY - then, hell yes, it is EXACTLY what we have been doing over here for years. I also did not think when I wrote that that I was setting an all around tone toward accusing someone of theft.

James, it is a great big world- go and get your piece of it and if you would like Charles on one of those calls let me know and I will help to set it up-Jules
[/quote]

[quote]teamstaley wrote:
Squatting600 wrote:

You know- again, you write: It just seemed as if you were claiming that James was copying your conference call idea"

Honestly, I must be losing my mind as I don’t see any claims made where I said James was copying our idea. Where was that written in my post? I would really like to know.
And if I wrote EXACTLY - then, hell yes, it is EXACTLY what we have been doing over here for years. I also did not think when I wrote that that I was setting an all around tone toward accusing someone of theft.

James, it is a great big world- go and get your piece of it and if you would like Charles on one of those calls let me know and I will help to set it up-Jules
[/quote]

You missed my point. I wrote “It just seemed as if you were claiming that James was copying your conference call idea” to highlite how the tone of your post lead to the misunderstanding. That is all. Through the clarification of your previous post, I realized that I may have misinterpreted your post. Hence the apology.

22

[quote]bigTR wrote:
This sounds great:

(taken from elitefts)
"I am seriously considering setting up a conference call on a weekly basis. The call would last 60 minutes and the topic would be introduced by me spontaneously and completely randomly.
[/quote]
That’s just like Staley’s gig…only about few years behind his.

That’s just like Staley’s gig…only his is about the business of coaching as well as athlete development.

That’s just like Staley’s gig…only he’s already interviewed a lot of those guys along with others like Louie Simmons, Stuart McGill, Lonnie Lowery, John Davies, Alwyn Cosgrove, TC, Dave Barr, Mike Boyle, Lyle McDonald, Dan John, John Powell, Bud Jefferys, John Berardi, Gray Cook, Fred Hatfield, Clarence Bass…etc etc etc.

Like Staley.

ahhhh…like Staley you mean?

Staley doesn’t do that…but you can just ring him up during business hours and bug the shit out of him then if you feel the need.

I’ll tell you who else does that…Staley.

Now I think you get the idea by now…Iwas going to do it every paragraph BUT I’ll shorthand it…like Staley, like Staley, like Staley.

Yes…it could be a ‘unique event’ but it won’t be.

[quote]
Let’s make this happen!"

I think this would be a great opportunity, do James a favor and at least answer the poll.[/quote]

23

[quote]bigTR wrote:
teamstaley wrote:
The format of this sounds EXACTLY-EXACTLY like our coaching group Guest Calls which we have been doing for years- Jules

Jules,
Apparently you are fond of this set up as your coaching group does “exact” same thing. If this is the case, I don’t see the problem with doing this type information session with a list of great coaches. I’d like to hear your thoughts because I don’t see the issue.[/quote]

Mate do you not remember writing…ahhh…something about a ‘unique event’…what’s unique about something that has been going on for years? Shall I go on?

24

[quote]squattin600 wrote:
yeah i’m unsure about the backlash. James is a good guy, and the names on the list are, for the most part, awesome.

I mean frikin defranco, francis, myslinski, morris, val… I’m sure james could pull a few more out of the hat

And aparently Staley has the patent on paid conference calls. Hmm… Crossfit puts them on for free. I’m not a crossfitter but if you wanna throw stones…[/quote]

I don’t think Staley or Crossfit are Thomas Edison as far a conference calls but if you want to crap on about a ‘unique event’ that’s a bit rich…who ever posted could of just said that ‘James is doing a Staley’ and everybody would of got it and it could have saved all that time cutting and pasting.

25

[quote]zynot wrote:
What has James contributed to S&C?

-overhead lifting = evil
-Rep work for intermediate lifters (SE haha)

and who does James trained? and dont tell me high school kids because they make gains on any non-retarded programmes.

What I see in him is someone who fails to communicate adequately to his audiences (powerlifters, athletes) and is overly obcessed with “soviet secrets”; when it comes to real world ideas, I don’t know anyone who has gotten much outta his work.

Charlie Francis, Buddy morris etc… are cool though

[/quote]
Before people start spitting chips…I think James is great…love his work and I’d listen to him interview his mum if it was training related.

26

[quote]Jumanji wrote:
James~

Yep, although your mind might be using bigger words than mine, LOL.

Didn’t you realize that your eastern education would be held against you?

I have been there. Remember two HR meetings for the Fortune 100 Compnay I worked for that were centered around my using the words in a presentation: rudimentary, and modicum. Both were beyond the understanding of middle menagement, thus inappropriate. Apparently, not even the context was enough… too funny. Not really.

Seriously, actually scoring well on your SAT is not a good thing depending on the field and audience. I can tell you two things: 1) the fact that our educational system does not require debate and logic is literally a travesty. All HS and college kids should be required ot take these courses. 2) All things learned in these classes should immediately be forgotten upon leaving school for success in the real world.

For one, I would love to hear what Tom has to say. I would love a compilation of all of his stuff, posts, etc. Any contact info for him save for through his front office?

Anyway, I will check your site for updates on the idea.

Remember: your audience is full of guys who kept blocking the wrong guy on 234 Power back in HS (like me!!). Keeping it simple would be good, as I am not the brightest. Seriously, maybe 10 or 15 watts max for me…I just don’t sleep much so I can work through tons of info…

Talk soon.

J
[/quote]

Unecessarily using big words, relying on the passive voice and just generally trying to make your writing sound “smart” does not make one a good writer. I have no quibble with James’ ideas but he is in serious need of an editor. Just because his ideas are complicated, that does not mean that his presentation of them has to be.

27

zynot,

Please do not rip on someone for working with high school kids, thus assuming they aren’t as wise as someone who works with pro’s.
I have working in minor league baseball and the nfl for short stints. I may eventually go back, but right now I work at a high school as a S & C coach only (not a p.e. teacher) and let me tell you, this is much harder of a job than the formers.
Also people do what they love, I really love working with high school kids. I could and have worked with pro athletes (and to some extent still do). So please don’t judge someone by who they work with. Just read what they have to say, try it, and then go from there.

28

Burt~

Using passive voice is a no-no. I am assuming you mean James there, but I often do it also. My education was poor, so I never maxed the SAT… damned verbal portion. Probably why I started out at a state school as opposed to an Ivy… oh well, I am simple anyway. Always have been.

So you are saying that James is using long words and the passive voice to try and sound educated? Implying that educated people would use long words, or?

I need to get a consulting session with you to see if I have the ability to read other people’s minds and their motivations. My wife drives me nuts at times.

Maybe James learned S&C not from someone who actually thought the NSCA or ACSM test was difficult, but rather learned the trade from experience and consulting Russian works. In this case, his language would make perfect sense.

Now, he is no Kelly Bagget. Kelly takes the complex and Cliff Notes everything for the simple among us… like me.

But, good writing or poor writing is not judged by big words or by whether it uses simple words… so in either case we cannot judge. We frankly do not know the audience he is writing for… maybe he thinks that someone needs to expand the level of audience upward as opposed to article after article of: eat your fruits, eat protein, eat good fats, here’s a little trick I saw to make this exercise a hair different, and so on…

Now, directed at the mass of the S&C world? Probably not. James could probably work on that a bit.

It is always assumed that the bright need to dim it down for the rest, and not the other way around. Hell, in Florida we have this huge push to get our kids to read… my father in law is supposed to take 15 minutes out of 55 every day to integrate reading skills into his marine biology… awesome… apparently, by this conversation, we are a couple generations late.

I find James and his writing to be far easier than any of the philosophy texts I have, or for that matter, any of the classics on my shelves…hmmm.

But, this is a common area, so we must communicate as commoners… or something along those lines, yes?

I will work on utilizing more double negatives and improper use of contractions, and maybe I will throw in a dangling participle or two just to spice things up a bit. (I can only imagine the googling of that one…)

So James, damnit, bring it down a notch. Stop using terms that are very common in the texts you (and many others) educated yourself with. Maybe a glossary for me to reference…?

This is America, and in America we never teach to the brighter kids. Write for me, so I can just gloss over your writing and never have to stop, re-read, and address what is being said.

I am busy, you know.

Damned verbal skills, they were always my downfall.

Burt, I do agree with what you said… but, who determines the level that we should write at…? And who were the comments directed at? (Damn, I ended my sentense with a preposition! Back to school for me!!!) I am going to turn on PBS this morning and start all over. I will say hi to Ernie for you… (another punctuation issue…doggone, I just need to stop typing

29

Jumanji,

I wasn’t referring to your writing. I was referring to James’ writing, which regardless of the audience for which he is aiming is bad. Bad writing is bad writing. It’s not an issue of accessibility, it’s that he is simply a poor writer. I surmise from the fact that he’s a bad writer using big words when he doesn’t need to that he’s trying to sound smart. I don’t think that means he isn’t smart, or that his ideas aren’t good, just that he should try to write more in his normal voice.

30

[quote]Jumanji wrote:
Burt~

Using passive voice is a no-no. I am assuming you mean James there, but I often do it also. My education was poor, so I never maxed the SAT… damned verbal portion. Probably why I started out at a state school as opposed to an Ivy… oh well, I am simple anyway. Always have been.

So you are saying that James is using long words and the passive voice to try and sound educated? Implying that educated people would use long words, or?

I need to get a consulting session with you to see if I have the ability to read other people’s minds and their motivations. My wife drives me nuts at times.

Maybe James learned S&C not from someone who actually thought the NSCA or ACSM test was difficult, but rather learned the trade from experience and consulting Russian works. In this case, his language would make perfect sense.

Now, he is no Kelly Bagget. Kelly takes the complex and Cliff Notes everything for the simple among us… like me.

But, good writing or poor writing is not judged by big words or by whether it uses simple words… so in either case we cannot judge. We frankly do not know the audience he is writing for… maybe he thinks that someone needs to expand the level of audience upward as opposed to article after article of: eat your fruits, eat protein, eat good fats, here’s a little trick I saw to make this exercise a hair different, and so on…

Now, directed at the mass of the S&C world? Probably not. James could probably work on that a bit.

It is always assumed that the bright need to dim it down for the rest, and not the other way around. Hell, in Florida we have this huge push to get our kids to read… my father in law is supposed to take 15 minutes out of 55 every day to integrate reading skills into his marine biology… awesome… apparently, by this conversation, we are a couple generations late.

I find James and his writing to be far easier than any of the philosophy texts I have, or for that matter, any of the classics on my shelves…hmmm.

But, this is a common area, so we must communicate as commoners… or something along those lines, yes?

I will work on utilizing more double negatives and improper use of contractions, and maybe I will throw in a dangling participle or two just to spice things up a bit. (I can only imagine the googling of that one…)

So James, damnit, bring it down a notch. Stop using terms that are very common in the texts you (and many others) educated yourself with. Maybe a glossary for me to reference…?

This is America, and in America we never teach to the brighter kids. Write for me, so I can just gloss over your writing and never have to stop, re-read, and address what is being said.

I am busy, you know.

Damned verbal skills, they were always my downfall.

Burt, I do agree with what you said… but, who determines the level that we should write at…? And who were the comments directed at? (Damn, I ended my sentense with a preposition! Back to school for me!!!) I am going to turn on PBS this morning and start all over. I will say hi to Ernie for you… (another punctuation issue…doggone, I just need to stop typing

[/quote]

At some point, you just have to agree that this guy’s articles are nearly impossible to read. I am an English major, but I’m not trying to be an elitist; he is seriously a horrendous writer.

Here is a sentence from his “Questioning Training Methodology” article. In it, he is explaining why he no longer focuses on trying to increase his dumbbell pressing strength:

“Again, my specific preparedness level is what is providing context to this material and through trial and error I have found that making a training directive out of increasing pressing strength with dumbbells is no longer a wise undertaking relative to the lack of transference that I am yielded at this stage of my development.”

Bear

31

[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
Jumanji wrote:
Burt~

Using passive voice is a no-no. I am assuming you mean James there, but I often do it also. My education was poor, so I never maxed the SAT… damned verbal portion. Probably why I started out at a state school as opposed to an Ivy… oh well, I am simple anyway. Always have been.

So you are saying that James is using long words and the passive voice to try and sound educated? Implying that educated people would use long words, or?

I need to get a consulting session with you to see if I have the ability to read other people’s minds and their motivations. My wife drives me nuts at times.

Maybe James learned S&C not from someone who actually thought the NSCA or ACSM test was difficult, but rather learned the trade from experience and consulting Russian works. In this case, his language would make perfect sense.

Now, he is no Kelly Bagget. Kelly takes the complex and Cliff Notes everything for the simple among us… like me.

But, good writing or poor writing is not judged by big words or by whether it uses simple words… so in either case we cannot judge. We frankly do not know the audience he is writing for… maybe he thinks that someone needs to expand the level of audience upward as opposed to article after article of: eat your fruits, eat protein, eat good fats, here’s a little trick I saw to make this exercise a hair different, and so on…

Now, directed at the mass of the S&C world? Probably not. James could probably work on that a bit.

It is always assumed that the bright need to dim it down for the rest, and not the other way around. Hell, in Florida we have this huge push to get our kids to read… my father in law is supposed to take 15 minutes out of 55 every day to integrate reading skills into his marine biology… awesome… apparently, by this conversation, we are a couple generations late.

I find James and his writing to be far easier than any of the philosophy texts I have, or for that matter, any of the classics on my shelves…hmmm.

But, this is a common area, so we must communicate as commoners… or something along those lines, yes?

I will work on utilizing more double negatives and improper use of contractions, and maybe I will throw in a dangling participle or two just to spice things up a bit. (I can only imagine the googling of that one…)

So James, damnit, bring it down a notch. Stop using terms that are very common in the texts you (and many others) educated yourself with. Maybe a glossary for me to reference…?

This is America, and in America we never teach to the brighter kids. Write for me, so I can just gloss over your writing and never have to stop, re-read, and address what is being said.

I am busy, you know.

Damned verbal skills, they were always my downfall.

Burt, I do agree with what you said… but, who determines the level that we should write at…? And who were the comments directed at? (Damn, I ended my sentense with a preposition! Back to school for me!!!) I am going to turn on PBS this morning and start all over. I will say hi to Ernie for you… (another punctuation issue…doggone, I just need to stop typing

At some point, you just have to agree that this guy’s articles are nearly impossible to read. I am an English major, but I’m not trying to be an elitist; he is seriously a horrendous writer.

Here is a sentence from his “Questioning Training Methodology” article. In it, he is explaining why he no longer focuses on trying to increase his dumbbell pressing strength:

“Again, my specific preparedness level is what is providing context to this material and through trial and error I have found that making a training directive out of increasing pressing strength with dumbbells is no longer a wise undertaking relative to the lack of transference that I am yielded at this stage of my development.”

Bear

[/quote]

Agreed.

32

[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
At some point, you just have to agree that this guy’s articles are nearly impossible to read. I am an English major, but I’m not trying to be an elitist; he is seriously a horrendous writer.

Here is a sentence from his “Questioning Training Methodology” article. In it, he is explaining why he no longer focuses on trying to increase his dumbbell pressing strength:

“Again, my specific preparedness level is what is providing context to this material and through trial and error I have found that making a training directive out of increasing pressing strength with dumbbells is no longer a wise undertaking relative to the lack of transference that I am yielded at this stage of my development.”

Bear

[/quote]

That is definitley a subjective point. When I was reading that article for the first time everything made sense. I guess it is just your ability to make the associations quickly when reading. The only problem I could see someone having problems with James’ writings is that, and this is especially true when reading their Q & A, is that once you become familiar with his philosphy(prepardeness provides context and managing/consolidating CNS stressors) you can pretty much predict a lot of his answers/articles. Again, I do not mind this, but I am saying that people who seem to nitpick a lot may get iritated at this. Ah well

33

[quote]Tags wrote:
Mr. Bear wrote:
At some point, you just have to agree that this guy’s articles are nearly impossible to read. I am an English major, but I’m not trying to be an elitist; he is seriously a horrendous writer.

Here is a sentence from his “Questioning Training Methodology” article. In it, he is explaining why he no longer focuses on trying to increase his dumbbell pressing strength:

“Again, my specific preparedness level is what is providing context to this material and through trial and error I have found that making a training directive out of increasing pressing strength with dumbbells is no longer a wise undertaking relative to the lack of transference that I am yielded at this stage of my development.”

Bear

That is definitley a subjective point. When I was reading that article for the first time everything made sense. I guess it is just your ability to make the associations quickly when reading. The only problem I could see someone having problems with James’ writings is that, and this is especially true when reading their Q & A, is that once you become familiar with his philosphy(prepardeness provides context and managing/consolidating CNS stressors) you can pretty much predict a lot of his answers/articles. Again, I do not mind this, but I am saying that people who seem to nitpick a lot may get iritated at this. Ah well

[/quote]

I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense. And, also, I am not nitpicking. I usually agree with most of the things he writes, and this particular point actually resonates with me.

That sentence is beyond unacceptable, though. If you tried to relay that point in a more confusing way, I’m not sure that you could.

Bear

34

Bear and others.

Fair enough, the point is well made.

J

35

[quote]Tags wrote:
That is definitley a subjective point. When I was reading that article for the first time everything made sense. I guess it is just your ability to make the associations quickly when reading. [/quote]

Everything made sense to me too…then I realized (multiple times) that I had just read 200 words when 50 would have sufficed. And then there is the usage of some of the terminology. When talking about how he determined his speed on lifts, he mentioned it was through the usage of video and a “timing device”. That is just horrible. Perfectly accurate and precise, but a horrible way of getting info across.

Then there was the whole “SE” thing itself. He basically tried to relabel a very common methodology to make it “his”. He even said that the use of SE terminology was semantically pointless, yet he still felt the compulsion to use it. It’s shit like that that just rubs a reader the wrong way.

The S&C field is full of scam artists and those who survive only through intellectual dishonesty. So when someone starts using these tactics (renaming already established concepts, trying to make the simple sound complicated, etc.) red flags go up.

36

Actually the SE thing was adopted from Buddy Morris and Tom Myslinski.

They initially called them “prilipen based cycles” or something of the sort. James even mentions it in the article

37

[quote]RickJames wrote:
Tags wrote:
That is definitley a subjective point. When I was reading that article for the first time everything made sense. I guess it is just your ability to make the associations quickly when reading.

Everything made sense to me too…then I realized (multiple times) that I had just read 200 words when 50 would have sufficed. And then there is the usage of some of the terminology. When talking about how he determined his speed on lifts, he mentioned it was through the usage of video and a “timing device”. That is just horrible. Perfectly accurate and precise, but a horrible way of getting info across.

Then there was the whole “SE” thing itself. He basically tried to relabel a very common methodology to make it “his”. He even said that the use of SE terminology was semantically pointless, yet he still felt the compulsion to use it. It’s shit like that that just rubs a reader the wrong way.

The S&C field is full of scam artists and those who survive only through intellectual dishonesty. So when someone starts using these tactics (renaming already established concepts, trying to make the simple sound complicated, etc.) red flags go up. [/quote]

Hey, I am not saying the man is not an overly verbose writer. I personally do not care how an article is written, as long as I can pull something useful from it. So, basically, referencing the article above, it makes clear that we should be aware of our prepardness level, and adjust our training accordingly. A lot of words to get that across? Yes. But hey, I didnt pay anything for it!

I guess what these opinions of him come down to is whether or not his intention is to purposley confuse the reader with “big, not commonly used words/diciton” or if that is mereley how he learnt the info and organized it within himself. I, for one, believe the latter, and it is clear you believe the former.

Take Care,

P.S. You never answered my previous question

38

From an analytical standpoint, trainers who work with the highest level athletes more often than not must “not screw things up” more than actually finding ways to make huge improvements in performance. This was definitely my experience in the track world.

Here is why. Every high level athlete that I have worked with already had the hardest traits to train: reactivity and a fairly high degree of stiffness. These are neural traits, which the old NSCA, or any other S&C Org for that matter don’t address in a systematic way. So the training with a high level athlete is mostly correcting imbalances, usually involving high amounts of restorative, ROM type stuff, and strength work / energy system work… as they are very proficient at converting strength to usable power.

Now, that all being said, I have no experience with Olympic level athletes, only Div I collegiate athletes. I do know at the elite level, the analysis of performance is fa mor ein depth, and many training stimuli have already been exhausted… but, I think our friends JoeD and Parisi show time and again that maybe some good old fashioned solid training can make up for 4 years in a collegiate S&C setting… the 4- 6 month gains these guys make is amazing, and I am not sure they hook up a bunch of elctrodes… video analysis yes, but don’t “lab it up” from what I know. Just damn good coaching, and a sound system. (Where was the the past 4 years? Hmmmm.)

The lower level coach actually sees a much wider range of genetic traits, since the recruiting process hasn’t weeded out the non-reactive kids yet… plus everyone is weak. So the lower level coach much slowly develop these reactive and stiffness qualities along with strength. So the Standard Deviation of strength and neural qualities is much greater.

In this way, the HS / Club level coach has a far more difficult job in terms of developing a system, or systems where each athlete, and their weaknesses are addressed…again, since these needs are far more varied.

I realize this is simplifying the issue a bit, and I also realize that with a single current Div I soccer team I am consulting with, I have 15 athletes with 15 different sets of issues (due to having such poor backgrounds, and not having a guy like James developing them during their more formative years).

From a slightly more cynical point of view, I actually chose to move down to the club level. The collegiate S&C world, along with much of the coaching world has very little to do with fulfillment, or quest for knowledge IMO, and frankly shows this by the level of pay involved, save for the most elite guys. My current 8-week Speed Camp brought in 175 athletes, and generated more gross revenue than 95% of the S&C coach’s salaries in America… or higher… and I have almost zero overhead.

I get to actually see changes in performance, see young athletes make gains, see athletes enjoy training sessions, and hear from parents who had been paying for soem dumbass down at Bally’s charging more than double what I do… hmmm.

This is not at all bragging, because I still don’t command the session rates of a Parisi, or Mike Boyle, but is merely a way to show that you can do what you love and not be a “slave” to the system found in colleges.

In my view, if you don’t suck, then why are you working for $20k? You are always paid what you deserve, for one reason or another. Always. You deserve what you get… capitalism. So, the college is saying you are worht as much as a hostess or part-time trash man. End of story.

Now, if there weren’t so many jock-sniffer S&C kids out there, the system would have to change, but each year, there is a new batch of wanna-be’s.

So, I chose to continue training athletes who read at the 7th grade level… but these athletes are actually chronologically fairly close to 7th grade…

The rate per hour just altered in a big way, but with a system, it is still easy to make a couple hundred bucks per hour… easily.

So I would understand James’s decision perfectly. Now, he went into the HS setting, which I never would have, but… he may be establishing a name for himself… which I already have done in my area. Basically, being at a HS or College is just a power trip deal IMO, where the school will always underpay for the services they receive… but you get to say: I am the head guy at _________… blah, blah, who cares.

So do I look down at James for his level of client? Not at all. His issues are in some way far simpler, and in some ways far more complex than the elite guys. I would beg him to be entrepreneurial, but that is my nature, and maybe not his.

Just adding some perspective.

J

39

Jumanji,
Great post. I too (currently) got really sick of all the crap that goes on with (higher up training). It does really come down to what you love doing. Currently I love working with high school age kids even though they make me want to rip my hair out sometimes. I’ve learned a lot about being a “coach”.
I would love to talk to you on how you bring in such a large amount of money in KY.

Again, it really comes down to loving what you do. I like working at a high school. The personalities, etc, make it fun as I work at honing my craft.
I look forward to talking to you more about this.

40

Kaz~

PM me and we can talk.

J