The Davies Debate

[quote]CharlesStaley wrote:
Diagonal Summation

The macrocycle we’ve been looking at, when taken too literally, is an example of what I call “horizontal summation.” In other words, you work on one quality for a while, then the next quality for a while, etc. Horizontal summation is predicated on the correct assumption that you can only work on so much stuff at any given time. It’s kind of like packing for a trip ? you can only get a limited about of stuff in the suitcase, so it better be the most important stuff.

If you’re a contrarion, out-of-the-box thinker like I am, you might feel compelled to do exactly the opposite – vertical summation. But in this case anyway, “doing the opposite” has it’s own drawbacks. Specifically, when you try to develop every imaginable quality at the same time, you can’t really do adequate justice to any of them.

What’s the answer? Diagonal summation of course! All this means is that you’ll always work on everything, but with varying degrees of emphasis depending on which phase you’re in at the time. So as an example, during a maximal strength phase, about 1/2 of your time and energy will be spent focusing on maximal strength, and the remaining 1/2 will be devoted to maintain the remaining relevant qualities.
[/quote]

What you explained as diagonal summation is exactly what CF has been doing for 25 years. How can you say otherwise???

I suppose I’ll throw in my opinion.

Right off the bat I’d like to say I could give a shit about the CF he said she said debate. I don’t care who Charlie trained, I don’t care who Davies trained or will train! I try to learn from people to help my training and my athletes training. (I strength and conditioning coach high school athletes).

The only “beef” I’d have with Davies is I don’t agree with his ideas.

Let me present some of Davies “ideas.”
I realize this is probably not everything he does, but are some of the highlights of his T-Nation articles.

  1. One armed everything-- Argubably pretty worthless (it’s been mentioned by Christian, and various others as to why this really doesn’t have a lot of grounds for performing.) The two handed versions are easier to perform, and more effective, so why you’d spend time doing a one handed clean is beyond me.

  2. Balance training- Performing cleans on a swiss ball? Doing squats on wobble boards? MOST of the smarter minds in the S&C world are not having their athletes perform these circus type movements. There is no research that shows this helps you on a playing surface, it’s generally assumed that this just helps you balance on said apparatus! Eric Cressey called Coach D out on this a few weeks ago, and was agreed with by Christian, Chad, etc.

  3. His programs- His programs on here are poorly written in my opinion. They are unbalanced for the most part, and would require overtraining for most it would seem. His work your ass off always concept is a nice one, but my high school athletes would die on almost every program of his I’ve ever seen.

I don’t think Davies is the devil like some on here seem to think, but he doesn’t offer me much, and he’s the one T-Nation contributor I DON’T look forward to seeing articles from. Just look at his last few things…the 4 renegade challenges article…yeah those might make nice party tricks but does that make you a functional athlete? Also his junk training responses…look at it he says nothing!

For me, like Chris Aus was asking, Davies just doesn’t bring anything to the table for me. I’m glad there are people who have had success and I’m not hoping Davies fails in any of his endeavors it’s just in my opinion he doesn’t have anything for me and my athletes, unlike other T-Nation writers.

[quote]doogie wrote:
From Charlie Francis’ site:

Whatever positions I hold on training, anyone is able to post about their methods here. Look how often Berardi has been mentioned here. We also had an extensive thread about Charles Poliquin, but the guy who posted it contacted me and told me he was in trouble with Charles because he didn’t have permission to release it. For that reason and no other, I dropped the thread- which was too bad because it was very popular. It is not CF.com that censors debate.[/quote]

I’m not going to get into the whole debate about Davies, but I must say that this statement by Charlie is completely false. I myself was prevented from posting on his site shortly after posting about specificity of training as well as a seminar with Dr. Verkhoshanski and Dr. Yessis.

I requested a reason for why my posting privledges had been revoked and got no response. As someone who edited and contributed to two of the books he sells on his site, I believe I deserved at least a reply. However, I have never received one explaining what happened, and to this day I am still banned from posting on his website.

This is tangential to the main arguement taking place here, but please realize that CF.com does not truly permit a free and open discussion of ideas, no matter how much they claim to.

After rereading the Think Tank: Legs thread, a more productive use of a ‘trial’ that’s now a pissing contest, would be to get Coach Davies to give some hard answers to questions about the Renegade Training protocols. It was my impression the Cressey was asking for an explanation of where the instability training fit within a training cycle, progession of movements and complexity, volume, prioritization, etc…to develop the discuss, a ? which pretty much got ignored. And the point of the Think Tanks was so we regular members could see respected coaches debating their work material, so I don’t know why you’ld ask to make a public discussion about training, on a website all about training, private

From articles and the football we can see the parts, but not the whole, so evaluating Renegade Training as a system is much more difficult. Answering questions with “consider how this (___) included within your athletic training as a whole” or “please contact me so we can discuss this further” doesn’t really contribute much to the intellectual body of knowledge T-Nation has to offer.

[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]

Dookie- Yea, I know. I was just responding to Il Cazzo.

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
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]

Honestly, I think that is exactly it and his training reflects a completely different philosophy than a lot of people may want. People can say what they want about Coach D, but I have the utmost respect for him. Case in point - I e-mailed him yesterday because I was looking to start a totally new approach to my training, something a little more purposeful that would allow me to get ready for the upcoming soccer season at a delightful 32 years old, but also fit into improving my life as a whole (which has a little too much stress). Much to my surprise, he not only e-mailed me back within a few hours, but called me tonight at home to follow up and chat. Pretty refreshing to say the least.

Kuz

  • Return with honor.

[quote]john p wrote:
After rereading the Think Tank: Legs thread, a more productive use of a ‘trial’ that’s now a pissing contest, would be to get Coach Davies to give some hard answers to questions about the Renegade Training protocols. It was my impression the Cressey was asking for an explanation of where the instability training fit within a training cycle, progession of movements and complexity, volume, prioritization, etc…to develop the discuss, a ? which pretty much got ignored. And the point of the Think Tanks was so we regular members could see respected coaches debating their work material, so I don’t know why you’ld ask to make a public discussion about training, on a website all about training, private

From articles and the football we can see the parts, but not the whole, so evaluating Renegade Training as a system is much more difficult. Answering questions with “consider how this (___) included within your athletic training as a whole” or “please contact me so we can discuss this further” doesn’t really contribute much to the intellectual body of knowledge T-Nation has to offer.[/quote]

I totally agree.

[quote]timmwwaa wrote:
john p wrote:
After rereading the Think Tank: Legs thread, a more productive use of a ‘trial’ that’s now a pissing contest, would be to get Coach Davies to give some hard answers to questions about the Renegade Training protocols. It was my impression the Cressey was asking for an explanation of where the instability training fit within a training cycle, progession of movements and complexity, volume, prioritization, etc…to develop the discuss, a ? which pretty much got ignored. And the point of the Think Tanks was so we regular members could see respected coaches debating their work material, so I don’t know why you’ld ask to make a public discussion about training, on a website all about training, private

From articles and the football we can see the parts, but not the whole, so evaluating Renegade Training as a system is much more difficult. Answering questions with “consider how this (___) included within your athletic training as a whole” or “please contact me so we can discuss this further” doesn’t really contribute much to the intellectual body of knowledge T-Nation has to offer.

I totally agree.[/quote]

fucking canadians.
aren’t you the same guy who objects to a powerful image of a couple of Marines?

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
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]

I think it’s just his writing style. It goes with his existential, hippy guy personality, and I think it suits him.

Just like when you let Dan John slip in his god stuff sometimes; it’s just part of who he is.

You’re not a writer until a writer has criticized your writing.

actually I think dan john traveled forward in time with a flux capacitor strapped to his olympic bar to give us great lifting material.

…in that case it’s more like 180 years.

:wink:

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
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]

If you’re referring to Cressey here, you’re off base. He may be a grad student, but he has plenty of time in the trenches. Knows horseshit when he smells it too.

This is not just a pissing contest, don’t try to turn it into that.

Charlie Francis’ body of work speaks dor itself.

Staley, Charlie does give credit where credit is due. You seem to be of the opinion that nobody is really coming up with anything new in this field. That doesn’t mean you should regirgitate a man’s work and claim it as your own. Charlie goes to great lengths in Speed Trap to give credit where he learned certain ideas that he has incorporated into his system. He gained most of his knowledge first hand as an Olympic sprinter and as a coach working for next to nothing, when he could have pursuited his business career. He did this for the sake of his athletes, he cared too much. He wouldn’t forsake responsibility if they were weak and overtrained, and their performance was trashed. Pitt

I can sense that many of you like most North Americans feel that track is inferior to football. That does not matter. I don't need to defend track, it's simplicity speaks for itself. Athletics is the purest representation of speed and power. CF was brilliant at developing strength, speed, and power. 

Isn’t that what a S&C coach is supposed to do? Or is he supposed to do kettebell snatches on an indo board or front squats on a swiss ball? Davies posseses the amazing ability to claim a stake in every popular training device out there now (bands, stability balls, indo boards, kettlebells, xvest,…) and still be stuck in the stone age regarding volume, work ethic, mental toughness.

 An article from Louie Simmons talks about how Davies implementing his "enormous volumes" of GPP work yielded an average improvement of .25 seconds for the 40 yd dash in 8 weeks. He also believes that all athletes would benefit form high volumes of such work. Guess where this experiment was conducted, you guessed it Pitt. I know exactly how he achieved these numbers as well. Some improvement is going to occur no matter what in Spring, as most players don't do much in the Winter except lift and recover from the past season. But the main reason is the 1st test was conducted after an "enormous volume" GPP workout. The second test was conducted after a period of lowered volume an while the players were rested.

GPP work is good when used correctly, but it is by name general, as in not specific. Hey Davies, you know the best way to improve football specific conditioning. It’s called football practice! Most football players already have the base/work capacity needed to play the game optimally. The goal of a good S&C coach is to get the athletes stronger, faster, more powerful and prevent injuries, that’s it! You greatly overstate the effect your non-specific training can effect a football player’s performance. An football player doesn’t gain toughness from doing squat thrusts until they puke, they get it from playing football!

Charlie Francis is one of the great minds in speed and strengh development who is willing to share his knowledge. You try to paint him as a beligerent malcontent always accusing others of claiming credit for his work. Put yourself in his position.

John Davies on the other hand is a here today gone tomorrow guru who just follows the trends. His resume is full of questions and the only reason he is so highly regarded by many here is because he writes for this publication. That is a vicious cycle if I ever saw one!

In Truth,
Eric Larson

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
I’ll agree he has a tough time communicating his ideas in print/net. In person, I hear he’s incredible.
[/quote]

Hate to be a cynic, but it’s probably because he’s getting paid.

EDIT: I am referring to the posts answering questions on the forum. I realize he is paid for articels, books, etc.

A lot of you guys are making this a debate over training methodologies. As in any science there will be conflict and disputes between schools of thought and neither side in this arguement is going to be able to reasonably convince the other side that they are wrong in a short forum where the stakes are almost religous in nature. Whatever works for you works for you.

I appreciate Coach Davies(as well as Shugart, Tim, Staley, TC, CT, Waterbury, and too many more to name) who contribute pieces, and, run this site free of charge.

If you disagree with something that someone prints, you are free to run a comment with a rebuttal. Possibly a discusion will ensue, but if it does not, they[the authors] are under no obligation to answer to you, just as you are under no obligation to use his articles. You guys seem to be seeking this debate with Davies to prove just how smart you are, pump your chest a little bit and sit at your keyboard feeling better about yourselves.

Now I’ll go back to the barely legal site so I can sit at my computer feeling good about myself.

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
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]

That is hilarious how Eric Cressey all of a sudden becomes the ‘college kid’.

If the roles were switched?

[quote]slimjim wrote:
A lot of you guys are making this a debate over training methodologies. As in any science there will be conflict and disputes between schools of thought and neither side in this arguement is going to be able to reasonably convince the other side that they are wrong in a short forum where the stakes are almost religous in nature. Whatever works for you works for you.

I appreciate Coach Davies(as well as Shugart, Tim, Staley, TC, CT, Waterbury, and too many more to name) who contribute pieces, and, run this site free of charge.

If you disagree with something that someone prints, you are free to run a comment with a rebuttal. Possibly a discusion will ensue, but if it does not, they[the authors] are under no obligation to answer to you, just as you are under no obligation to use his articles. You guys seem to be seeking this debate with Davies to prove just how smart you are, pump your chest a little bit and sit at your keyboard feeling better about yourselves.

Now I’ll go back to the barely legal site so I can sit at my computer feeling good about myself.[/quote]

Its deeper than beating our chests, its the integrity of the people that others are listening to. Its whether someone buying a book is spending there money well or not. Its about someone making their living fraudulantly…

it’s about whether a couple of guys are lying about another guy or not…

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Its about someone making their living fraudulantly…

it’s about whether a couple of guys are lying about another guy or not…[/quote]

Its been asked what Davies would gain by associating with Ben when a major clientelle group of his is apparently (according to Atomic Dog) soccer mums… (Why hed brag about dragging athletes through there own vomit when they are the people interested in him I have no idea).

What on earth does Francis have to gain by lieing about Davies?

Post one reasonable theory…

While your at it do the same for coach X…

I see no reason for either of them to lie…

[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Its about someone making their living fraudulantly…

it’s about whether a couple of guys are lying about another guy or not…

Its been asked what Davies would gain by associating with Ben when a major clientelle group of his is apparently (according to Atomic Dog) soccer mums… (Why hed brag about dragging athletes through there own vomit when they are the people interested in him I have no idea).

What on earth does Francis have to gain by lieing about Davies?

Post one reasonable theory…

While your at it do the same for coach X…

I see no reason for either of them to lie…
[/quote]
Because it’s already been noted that CF is kind of a conspiracy paranoid sort?

[quote]DavidL wrote:
That is hilarious how Eric Cressey all of a sudden becomes the ‘college kid’.

[/quote]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but is Eric not a guy under 25 years old attending college? Seriously, I may be wrong.

Look, I realize it’s just loads of fun to pick a side in an Internet drama and play “us vs. them” – whether it’s powerlifting vs. Olympic lifting, college kid vs. 50 year old coach, HIT vs. volume training etc. But in reality it’s never that black and white. It’s like the old web log article I wrote about politics, where I said I was a member of the Radical Center because extremists and people with agendas on either end of the political spectrum are both embarrassing.

Same thing here. Above I wrote about the good and bad side I can see of Charlie Francis. Then I did the same with Davies. And the same is true in the Cressey/Davies Think Tank debate.

Davies needed that. His non-answer answers drove me nuts too. As an editor, I’ve totally cut him out of roundtable discussions in the past. I was cheering for Eric about half the time.

But since I have no agenda and can see both sides, I can also see that Eric baited Davies so he could attack him. A lot of his argument was great, but in some of it he also came off as a snot nose punk – a college kid throwing studies at an older coach who bases his work not on lab experiments but on his 30 (?) or so years working in the trenches with athletes. Eric has real world experience too, but how much can you actually have if you’re in your 20’s and not out of school yet?

In short, Davies needed that wake up call and Eric came off at times as an unprofessional showoff. Davies didn’t want to debate with a kid throwing studies at him so he “lost.” Eric “won” but now many experienced pros in the field regard him in a more unfavorable light – except of course those who hate Davies for whatever reason. In the end, I think (hope) that Davies will see the common criticisms and improve. And I think that Eric will look back in ten years and realize he didn’t go about that in the best way. Both could probably learn a great deal from someone like Charles Staley.

But again, we need every type of contributor here: smart grad students and grizzled football coaches, lab coat Jedis and real world gurus, powerlifters and Olympic lifters, bodybuilders and endurance athletes. This is a Think Tank and I personally like hearing from a variety of experts. Remember, T-Nation publishes the works of Davies, Cressey, Staley and Francis: everyone involved in The Days of Our Lives, er, I mean, this particular debate.

I apologize profusely for this injection of reality. Back to the keyboard drama!