[quote]boondoc holiday wrote:
BOSS wrote:
It’ ludicrous, who cares who’s right. There both competent coaches whose methodontics work.
Some advice for the coaches get on the phone to each other and works this out like men!
methodontics? ha, sweet. that’s a new one on me. good word strong bad.
[/quote]
Haha, sounds like a DB word.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
diggers04 wrote:
i agree with you about this argument but i will say that this entire issue was instigated by CF and BM not JD…they have his phone number, email and whatever else they need. JD has stated on this numerous times that if anyone would like to discuss matters they can call him. if he doesn’t post a response at CF then he is a coward. IMO hiding behind public forums to gain sympathy and support is cowardly
I’m confused. JD’s put himself out there to solve it, but if he doesn’t go over to the forum/web site of a guy that’s spreading lies about him he’s a coward? Is that what you’re saying?
[/quote]
nah…i’m saying that if he doesn’t participate in a public forum in defense of himself then he is labeled a coward by those who oppose him. whereas, IMO the “opposers” who belittle him are the true cowards by hiding behind support in these public forums when JD has put himself out there to solve any problems
Hah!
For all you conspiracy nuts, strange shit happens sometimes.
Maybe one of the people I went to school with eons ago will remember my name and ask me to look into a situation for them.
Perhaps it will be someone I worked with once, who knows someone, who heard a good thing about me from someone.
Who knows? Who cares! Sometimes the pencil goes outside of the lines of the little box.
Does any of this really matter to any of us? All I can think is that the burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim. I’m not trying to defend anyone in particular, but that is the way it has to be.
Why? Because any wing nut can spread any crazy theory about anyone, including themself. Show me the proof or shut up – I don’t have time to worry about who did what or why.
If you don’t have proof, but you were wronged or did something great, well, welcome to life pal, join the club. Try not to let it happen again. Get it in writing and bring a camera.
Anything I’m missing around here?
[quote]dookie1481 wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
Eric and Speed,
I understand why he has to write under the “X”, no problem at all with that. I just think it’s a bit crappy to then attack another strength coach while under and anon. name. That was my complaint…lookin at my post, I didn’t make that clear enough, sorry bout that.
If you do a little (and I mean a tiny bit) of digging, it’s pretty damn clear who Coach X is. It’s not some big secret.[/quote]
I dont care if you can dig it up with a spoon, he posts as X and ripped someone. It was just as possible to reply to the guy’s question about Davies with, “I don’t agree with Mr. Davies methods.” That’s it. Not “Renegade my ass.” Yawn.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hah!
For all you conspiracy nuts, strange shit happens sometimes.
Maybe one of the people I went to school with eons ago will remember my name and ask me to look into a situation for them.
Perhaps it will be someone I worked with once, who knows someone, who heard a good thing about me from someone.
Who knows? Who cares! Sometimes the pencil goes outside of the lines of the little box.
Does any of this really matter to any of us? All I can think is that the burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim. I’m not trying to defend anyone in particular, but that is the way it has to be.
Why? Because any wing nut can spread any crazy theory about anyone, including themself. Show me the proof or shut up – I don’t have time to worry about who did what or why.
If you don’t have proof, but you were wronged or did something great, well, welcome to life pal, join the club. Try not to let it happen again. Get it in writing and bring a camera.
Anything I’m missing around here?[/quote]
I think you got it Vroom, nice work.
[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
dookie1481 wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
Eric and Speed,
I understand why he has to write under the “X”, no problem at all with that. I just think it’s a bit crappy to then attack another strength coach while under and anon. name. That was my complaint…lookin at my post, I didn’t make that clear enough, sorry bout that.
If you do a little (and I mean a tiny bit) of digging, it’s pretty damn clear who Coach X is. It’s not some big secret.
I dont care if you can dig it up with a spoon, he posts as X and ripped someone. It was just as possible to reply to the guy’s question about Davies with, “I don’t agree with Mr. Davies methods.” That’s it. Not “Renegade my ass.” Yawn.
[/quote]
My point was there really is no fucking anonymity. It’s pretty common knowledge who he is. It’s a lot different than having IL Cazzo rip someone. No one knows who you are.
[quote]Snoop wrote:
vroom wrote:
Hah!
For all you conspiracy nuts, strange shit happens sometimes.
Maybe one of the people I went to school with eons ago will remember my name and ask me to look into a situation for them.
Perhaps it will be someone I worked with once, who knows someone, who heard a good thing about me from someone.
Who knows? Who cares! Sometimes the pencil goes outside of the lines of the little box.
Does any of this really matter to any of us? All I can think is that the burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim. I’m not trying to defend anyone in particular, but that is the way it has to be.
Why? Because any wing nut can spread any crazy theory about anyone, including themself. Show me the proof or shut up – I don’t have time to worry about who did what or why.
If you don’t have proof, but you were wronged or did something great, well, welcome to life pal, join the club. Try not to let it happen again. Get it in writing and bring a camera.
Anything I’m missing around here?
I think you got it Vroom, nice work.[/quote]
God don’t tell him that, he’ll never shut up now!!!
!
I enjoyed both the men?s work. That being said, this article only appeared a few days after Eric Cressey ripped John a new one on the Legs Think Tank Dialogs, which pissed John off so much that he stopped replying on the thread, coincidence? Maybe, am I a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps;)
[quote]ccardill wrote:
Donzi,
This is completely ignorant. Someone works there whole life obtaining a goal and becomes one of the greatest traning minds we’ve ever seen. Then you have someone pawn off (and not even the right way) what you’ve done to make money! Its unethical and thats the point of this whole thing. Comparing Davies and Francis isn’t the point because there is no comparison. Its like comparing a pro athlete to a a high school athlete. The point is Davies has lied about his “resume” to get further in his career. Is whole code of honor is a fraud.[/quote]
Perhaps, I did venture out a little by trivializing the matter. But that was the point. Its not ignorant to question the link between actions in one field and actions on another. And I didn’t answer that question, I left it open. It would have been ignorant of me to assume I knew the answer without knowing all the facts involved. But, I guess you don’t have to follow the standards you set for others. Because, you perfectly demonstrated how to put ignorance into print. And I never trivialized honor and its importance, but thats beside the point and not relevant to ‘x’ coach being good at his job.
And by the way, where do all these brilliant coaches get their fundamental training guidelines and principles from which they formulate their routines? Do they have fully equiped phys labs at home? With three techs and two overworked grad students to pump out the papers? NO, they don’t. Those brilliant coaches also get their fundamental information from those in the scientific trenches. Who often get little or no credit for BRILLIANT research questions and findings; aside from being able to search themselves on PubMed(ask me how I know).
If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, unless its pattented, its fair game and subject to whims of marketing strategy. And if CD sucks then people would find out pretty quick without the peanut gallery’s help.
I think its honorable to work hard, and strive for excellence without taking shortcuts which undermine your integrity. I also think its honorable to take things like a man. Pissing and moaning cause someone used your ideas makes you look like a weak little girl throwing a temper tantrum. Get a patent or shut up. Like I said earlier, there’s lessons to be learned by all involved.
[quote]BOSS wrote:
There both competent coaches whose methodontics work.
[/quote]
To be honest I disagree with this statement…
[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
dookie1481 wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
Eric and Speed,
I understand why he has to write under the “X”, no problem at all with that. I just think it’s a bit crappy to then attack another strength coach while under and anon. name. That was my complaint…lookin at my post, I didn’t make that clear enough, sorry bout that.
If you do a little (and I mean a tiny bit) of digging, it’s pretty damn clear who Coach X is. It’s not some big secret.
I dont care if you can dig it up with a spoon, he posts as X and ripped someone. It was just as possible to reply to the guy’s question about Davies with, “I don’t agree with Mr. Davies methods.” That’s it. Not “Renegade my ass.” Yawn.
[/quote]
In that case. I dont agree with Renegade methodics.
Would anyone care to discuss them?
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
BOSS wrote:
There both competent coaches whose methodontics work.
To be honest I disagree with this statement…[/quote]
is it because you don’t understand it?
[quote]dookie1481 wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
dookie1481 wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
Eric and Speed,
I understand why he has to write under the “X”, no problem at all with that. I just think it’s a bit crappy to then attack another strength coach while under and anon. name. That was my complaint…lookin at my post, I didn’t make that clear enough, sorry bout that.
Not common knowledge to me. And, I didn’t rip anyone. I just said I disagreed with him. Big difference. But why would I expect “dookie” to understand that…or is it common knowledge who you are as well?
If you do a little (and I mean a tiny bit) of digging, it’s pretty damn clear who Coach X is. It’s not some big secret.
I dont care if you can dig it up with a spoon, he posts as X and ripped someone. It was just as possible to reply to the guy’s question about Davies with, “I don’t agree with Mr. Davies methods.” That’s it. Not “Renegade my ass.” Yawn.
My point was there really is no fucking anonymity. It’s pretty common knowledge who he is. It’s a lot different than having IL Cazzo rip someone. No one knows who you are.[/quote]
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
BOSS wrote:
There both competent coaches whose methodontics work.
To be honest I disagree with this statement…
is it because you don’t understand it?[/quote]
Chris Aus knows plenty. Don’t even go there…
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
BOSS wrote:
There both competent coaches whose methodontics work.
To be honest I disagree with this statement…
is it because you don’t understand it?[/quote]
how about when you try and understand and ask about it, you get nothing but a bunch of gobbledeeguck? case in point the “instability training” ideas from the legs roundtable.
[quote]Tungsten wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Chris Aus wrote:
BOSS wrote:
There both competent coaches whose methodontics work.
To be honest I disagree with this statement…
is it because you don’t understand it?
Chris Aus knows plenty. Don’t even go there…[/quote]
Sorry, should’ve been clearer, I was referring to the term “methodontics”, which I’m not sure is a word! Trying to lighten the mood a bit, should’ve been a little more clear.
Otherwise I would’ve just said “why?”.
I do agree partially with Boodoc here…many times someone will ask Davies a question and his replies are confusing because they have little to do with the question asked. However, that shouldn’t tarnish the entire system.
[quote]IL Cazzo wrote:
I do agree partially with Boodoc here…many times someone will ask Davies a question and his replies are confusing because they have little to do with the question asked. However, that shouldn’t tarnish the entire system.[/quote]
I agree with this. Look at the “Junk Training” roundtable. Davies made me pull my hair out with his answers (even after I edited them.) It kills me because I know he has a lot to offer. As an editor I find myself having to dig through the horseshit to get to the diamonds. But there are diamonds in there.
I’ll agree he has a tough time communicating his ideas in print/net. In person, I hear he’s incredible. (And I may find out this summer if I get to attend a workshop of his.)
I often wonder if it’s because he simply doesn’t like the Internet side of things. I get the impression that he’d rather be out there doing it in the trenches rather than getting into a “study war” with a college kid on the Internet.
[quote] often wonder if it’s because he simply doesn’t like the Internet/print side of things. I get the impression that he’d rather be out there doing it in the trenches rather than getting into a “study war” with a college kid on the Internet.
[/quote]
Can’t blame him. How many different versions of the V-D(iet) are there???
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
IL Cazzo wrote:
I do agree partially with Boodoc here…many times someone will ask Davies a question and his replies are confusing because they have little to do with the question asked. However, that shouldn’t tarnish the entire system.
I agree with this. Look at the “Junk Training” roundtable. Davies made me pull my hair out with his answers (even after I edited them.) It kills me because I know he has a lot to offer. As an editor I find myself having to dig through the horseshit to get to the diamonds. But there are diamonds in there.
I’ll agree he has a tough time communicating his ideas in print/net. In person, I hear he’s incredible. (And I may find out this summer if I get to attend a workshop of his.)
I often wonder if it’s because he simply doesn’t like the Internet side of things. I get the impression that he’d rather be out there doing it in the trenches rather than getting into a “study war” with a college kid on the Internet.
[/quote]
The Junk Training thing was the one I was thinking of. The difference between his books and his replies is amazing. His books are info packed but his replies to questions often veer off on some weird tangents. But, I have a friend who trained with him and he said he has NOOOOO problem getting his point across in person. But then again, not all great writers are great coaches and not all great coaches are great writers.
Take a look at Dan John…one of the best of both worlds if you ask me, yet there are many who would tear his advice apart for not being backed by 312 scientific references…yet he’s been getting results for like 80 years :O)