[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
Chris (or anyone else with kip experiance), is there any advice you can give for developing the skill beyound, “practice, practice, practice”?[/quote]
Start a new thread on that. I’ll add in what I can. And maybe we can debate the “athletic test” thing too without it getting nasty. (But what fun would that be?!)
Maybe a person’s past record means nothing to you, Chris. But in every professional field in life, your past is very relevant.
Count me as 1 of those “6 people in the world [that] give a shit”.
I, personally, do not know what the “Renagade” methodology is, not do I care. What does interest me is whether you a well known contributor to T-Nation has used unethical means to achieve his status, be it lying or training athletes into the ground.
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, im not familiar with the term “strawman” what does it mean? [/quote]
a “strawman” is a common logical fallacy in which you misstate someone’s position in a weaker or incorrect form and then knock down the misstated position instead of addressing the actual argument.
Here’s a more precise definition:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm
STRAW MAN
Definition:
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.
Examples:
(i) People who opposed the Charlottown Accord probably just wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada.
(ii) We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.
Proof:
Show that the opposition’s argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.
References
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 138
[quote]
Strawman argument. If I wanted to say it I’d say it. But I don’t think that so I didn’t. Come on, Aus, the stuffing is flying ere. [/quote]
You do realise that there are/can be multiple interpretations of any dialogue/text dont you?
And surely you must realise that when you say stuff like this [quote]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]
You are infact implying something… The very wording (I was going to say tone but thats probably not the best word) of it is leading… If we are to take things exactly as the wording is and there is to be no room for interpretation then we remove most of the meaningout of a text…
I wasnt trying to put words into your mouth… They were my interpretations and I honestly think that they are valid interpretations…
It was T-Mag that decided to publicize this… Also plagarism is very serious, so is fraud… Despite any of those things, I just happen to value integrity and would like to know the truth…
If I do call and they say “What, our organisation did no such thing?”
Will T-Mag post a retraction and concede that Davies pants are on fire?
Also before when you adressed Cresseys professionalism baited or not how would you describe this?
[quote]Seriously “not to rock the boat” doesn’t mean shit to me. I’ve rocked the boat my whole career and the only complainers are those who can’t keep up. I don’t think half the people who have studied unstable situations know shit about performance enhancement and should stay inside of there pretty little tests - they may get hurt in the real world. Maybe they can’t see shit from a lab coat or the predictablity of the weight room - just the same but that’s the difference between being a lab rat and actually making people perform at highest levels.
In faith,
Coach Davies [/quote]
Professional? yes or no?
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
Did Davies mess that up somewhere? It happens. Dave Tate misspells deadlift sometimes, but I think he knows how to train for a big one, don’t you? Every great coach in the world has missed one of the “b’s” in dumbbells, but they all know how to use them. Shall I go dig up unedited copies of your favorite contributors and point out their mistakes? I edit Francis and Cressey too. Nah, that would be wrong.
Any mistake that gets through is an editor’s fault. In some cases, the mistakes occur when rewriting articles under deadline. Yes, TC and I totally rewrite some articles. Some of the best coaches in the world can’t communicate their genius in writing very well. That’s okay, it gives me a job!
[/quote]
Have to agree with Chris here. If any of you have ever worked as an editor, or even done significant amounts of editing for people (like lawyers) you would know how incredibly easy it is to make mistakes on words even if you are being extremely anal about it – and most authors of articles care a lot more about their main ideas than about being meticulous in their edits.
To paraphrase from a William F. Buckley Jr. example, I am perfectly capable of writing the sentence “As George Washington said in his Gettysberg Address,” in a piece on some related topic, reading it over, and sending it on, all the while knowing full well that Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysberg Address. But since that detail wasn’t the point on which I was focusing, I might not notice it – hopefully the editor will catch it.
Believe it or not, it most likely doesn’t say anything about the point the author is making, or the author’s intelligence – just about how much he or she cares about details, combined with how tired he is that day, how many times he’s already read over the piece, and about a hundred other little factors.
Gettysberg = Gettysburg 
I still dont get this strawman thing…
Firstly you say
I reply with
and then you claim that Im putting words in your mouth…
Excuse me for assuming that if you are well read it might show and that your methods might be somewhat founded in science (or experience other than your own)…
Now if that is an unacceptable assumption then please tell me where im going wrong…
Does it even matter if hes read a “few books” if he doesnt use any of the knowledge? I was implying (yes implying) that Davies doesnot appear to be well read… whats the point in reading and researching if you are going to ignore it?
Sure Davies may have read 45 million strength training books and researched Western and European literature extensively but his effective reading (ie stuff he actually uses) appears to be low…
Chris is my communication really this bad? Surely you understood my point before this post? I will try to spell things out more clearly in the future though…
I really dont see how I put any words into your mouth once again this is effectively what happened…
Me:Reading is important
You: Davies proably reads
Me: It doesnt show his methods arent based on the reading material
You: Stop putting words in my mouth strawman, I never said that they were…
Do you see my predicament?
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
DavidL wrote:
That is hilarious how Eric Cressey all of a sudden becomes the ‘college kid’.
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!
[/quote]
If Eric were just some “college kid,” I doubt you’d be running his articles. He’s a graduate student in a related subject area who works directly with athletes and has documented accomplishments in the powerlifting world. The use of the term here is intended to be derisive for whatever reason.
Eric is a friend of mine. I’ve told him that his tactics in that debate could have been better and I think if he had it to do all over again, they might be. The fact remains that Davies never really answered the direct questions. Since Eric’s stature is certainly greater than that of some anonymous “college kid” on the Internet, Davies should have made a well-grounded effort to defend his methods or at least engage in a fruitful discussion.
Think of it this way, if you’re asking people to pay for your training methods, you should at the very least be able to defend them to anonymous college kids on the Internet (who might become customers) – let alone other coaches. Not doing so is a caveat emptor message if there ever was one.
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
… I can do ALL of those tests and am relatively uncoordinated, also I can not run fast or jump high, or do anything really (to a high level) … [/quote]
Could it be because you are a troll?
Seriously man, get a life.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I want to know why it is a big deal if Davies doesn’t divulge his client list? For all anyone knows, his major clients could insist on anomynity. Or maybe Davies just doesn’t feel like it.
ChrisAus, you implied there was some ethical dimension to “having no resume,” by which I think you mean not disclosing clients’ names. While I understand if you want to critique this as a marketing technique, I really don’t understand how this gets to ethics?
Also, there is seemingly no shortage of individuals who post on here who have experience with Davies’ programs – working directly from him, not just articles on T-Mag – who go to bat for him and brag about the results they’ve achieved. It would seem anecdotal evidence from them would suffice if it’s anecdotal evidence you want.
Basically, I just don’t understand the vehemence of the attacks on Davies – especially the personal attacks. I agree he seemed irrascible in the debates, and I agree that I would like to see longer explanations from him in forum posts – but honestly, given I’m getting all this stuff for free, I’m hardly going to attack him for short answers or wanting to work with people individually rather than handing out general precepts as answers to specific inquiries.
This whole thing reminds me of martial artists arguing about the top fighters in their respective schools and the politics of who fights whom – or junior high, whatever…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gettysberg = Gettysburg :)[/quote]
Damn it Zap, now everyone will know I’m stoopid. =-)
I believe that Davies did state that his belief in his unstable training methods was based on empirical data. You do realize that “exercise science” is a rather soft science don’t you? Its not like chemistry where I generate a paper synthesis, cary out said experiment in the lab and then hand the material over to the analytical department to determine if I have made the correct compound or not.
ES does not have that level of analytical sophistication, yet.
Furthermore when I am going to optimize the process I use a statistical designed experiment where I can alter any and all of the inputs precisley and determine with input or combination of inputs will give me the desired effects that I want. I did this with a 40 yr old process that was only capable of achieving 45% yields and bumped it up to greater than 95%!
You cant do that with exercise science. There are way too many biological processes occuring and far too much variation within the population. Certainly ES has made some great strides in their testing and abilty to analyze data and one day they will be able to pin things down more.
have to go to lunch be back later!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gettysberg = Gettysburg
Damn it Zap, now everyone will know I’m stoopid. =-)
[/quote]
Sorry. Just a pet peeve. Everyone spells Gettysburg, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh wrong. Especially the PA natives.
"I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I want to know why it is a big deal if Davies doesn’t divulge his client list? For all anyone knows, his major clients could insist on anomynity. Or maybe Davies just doesn’t feel like it. "
There is of course the other possibility… that there is a lack of athletes and results
[quote]Chris Aus wrote:
Here is a quote from a Davies article… Tell me honestly what you think?
The one-arm pull-up is a tremendous test of upper body strength. However, well beyond the ability to eccentrically perform a one-arm pull-up is the ability to control the concentric lowering of your body.
Now, sinse when is concentric the lowering part?
Also sinse when is the lowering part the harder part?
Has Davies ever done a one arm chin? How would he know if he hasnt?[/quote]
you don’t understand the lift. try lowering yourself as slow as possbile with one arm. its harder than pulling up with 2 arms which is how you do it.
btw. you can’t do the Rx with 60 sec holds and you can’t brdige to a stand either…so quit kidding yourself
As one reads this thread and travels down the pavement of its posts I can’t help but wonder at the road signs that state:
“Hell - 666 miles, No Food, No Gas, No Service”
Curious those.
What is being debated is simply an unprovable issue and worse than that is the fact that both sides don’t even have the sense to see that they are unsatisfiable regardless of the counter-argument presented and have busied themselves with the pedantic fingering of minutia like Golem rubbing one out before bed.
Good freakin grief!
That being said, it’s been a while since I’ve been around and it’s comforting (in a sandbox kinda way) to see that not much has changed.
Hi everyone…nice to be back.
“You say TaHmato, I say TamaHto, lets call the whole thing off”
~ In the schoolyard
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, there is seemingly no shortage of individuals who post on here who have experience with Davies’ programs – working directly from him, not just articles on T-mag – who go to bat for him and brag about the results they’ve achieved. It would seem anecdotal evidence from them would suffice if it’s anecdotal evidence you want.
[/quote]
Are any of these people world class athletes? Even the crappy trainers at my local gym get good results with the sheep they train. There is a world of difference in getting Joe Bob (who sits on his ass reading T-mag all day) in shape and training a professional athlete.
My hero can beat up your hero!
Retards.
vroom nuh uh nuh uh!!!
sweety (cup and vroom) you don’t have to read this thread. welcome back…for the second time this thread.