I rarely comment on the articles here, and while this may not be the most useful comment in the world…
Today’s article was garbage. I read every article every day, and I have read a large percentage of the archives from the years before I was familiar with this site. I have to say that I can’t think of a single article that struck me as so utterly useless, pompous, humorless, arbitrary and divisive. Controversy is great, and a good example of that is basically everything Bret Contreras puts out. I can’t think of any advice I’ve ever actually implemented from hi. Whenever I see a Contreras article come up, I roll my eyes and think, “Oh great, more glute bridges.” But he’s got a distinct perspective, and he’s pushing what he believes in, and I will always read what he has to say. Whether or not I incorporate that into my own training is irrelevant. I can at least respect what he’s doing. He’s put a ton of work/research into strength training, and anyone should be commended for that. And as a side note, he happens to be stronger and more accomplished than most members here want to give him credit for.
Aside from the fact that I flat-out disagree with what Blewett has to say here, there is nothing that anyone can actually ‘use’ in this article. It’s more or less a click-bait piece of fluff that’s sure to attract arguments on both side, arguments which have been rehashed to death on forums like these. And it’s not even an interesting perspective.
A good article, in my opinion, should do at least 1 of 3 things.
-
Provide training information/perspective, whether it be related to a specific sport, or simply strength-training in general.
-
Offer some sort of galvanizing thought for the community of T Nation. Something to bring brothers in iron together. Something with the potential to be unifying or inspirational.
-
Provide a controversial talking point that can further our endeavors, potentially to make us better people, better competitors, better gym rats. Whatever it is we do.
None of that is present here. The take home points from this article came down to: if your sport doesn’t have fans, and if you can’t make money at it, you’re not an athlete. COOL STORY BRAH.
Bullshit. Making money full time while playing a sport has more to do with marketability of an athlete in many instances than it does actual athletic prowess, particularly in fringe sports. Many, many Olympic athletes have to retain jobs to support their training.
Beyond this, native country isn’t taken into account. A high level sprinter from a first world country may very well be taken care of financially, and not have to worry about income. A sprinter capable of running exactly the same times as said first world athlete may have to work 10 hours a day in a field to support his family. Does this make one runner an athlete and one not? I’ll leave it at that.
Side note: I know several amateur baseball players/former college baseball players (somewhere between 10 and 20). For whatever reason, these guys (all of them) are some of the most conceited people I know, and they all take very similar attitudes to what is presented here. Just an observation.