Louie Simmons
Dan John
Dave Tate
Mike Burgener
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bendo13 wrote:
guru
Definition:
influential expert: somebody who has a reputation as an expert leader, teacher, or practitioner in a particular field
Not sure where you got your definition but it is very incomplete.
A Guru (Sanskrit: गुरू), is a teacher in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, as well as in many new religious movements. Based on a long traditional line of philosophical understanding as to the importance of knowledge, the guru is seen in these religions as a sacred conduit, or a way to self-realization. The importance of finding a true guru is described in the scriptures and teachings of religions in which a guru plays a role.
“Guru” also refers in Sanskrit to Brihaspati, a Hindu figure analogous to the Roman planet/god Jupiter. In Vedic astrology, Guru or Brihaspati is believed to exert teaching influences. Indeed, in many Indian languages such as Hindi, the occidental Thursday is called either Brihaspativaar or Guruvaar (vaar meaning day of the week).
In contemporary India, “guru” is widely used within the general meaning of “teacher”. In Western usage, the original meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion. In a further metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise.
What was the point of this post?
The term “guru” has a negative connotation.
I do not like s&c gurus. I like s&c coaches. Most of the guys listed here are great coaches but not “gurus”.
Paul Chek is a “guru”.[/quote]
Based on the definition you gave, I don’t see how guru could have a negative connotation.
[quote]Florida Titan wrote:
Based on the definition you gave, I don’t see how guru could have a negative connotation.
[/quote]
In Western usage, the original meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion. In a further metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise.
I do not want a strength coach to have authority over me. I am not a follower or a lemming.
Referring to a strength coach is often a combination of compliment and insult to him and his followers.
Jeez people read something besides T-Nation.
Mark Rippetoe, Bill Starr, Mark Vergesten, Pavel, Louie Simmons, John Peterson, Dan John.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Based on the definition you gave, I don’t see how guru could have a negative connotation.
In Western usage, the original meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion. In a further metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise.
I do not want a strength coach to have authority over me. I am not a follower or a lemming.
Referring to a strength coach is often a combination of compliment and insult to him and his followers.[/quote]
Good Lord. Chill. It’s a forum, not the G8 summit.
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
Charles Glass I agree is phenomenal. Have you ever seen him train? Its mesmerizing!
“Hey you over there stick this needle in your ass then and we can work on your 20 rep leg extensions and 1 arm dumbell rows with 200lbs and a 5inch ROM.”
Anyone who almost exclusively trains juicers is a piece of shit.[/quote]
Bravo! Way to paint with broad brush strokes!
If you could find even one olympia-caliber bodybuilder who doesnt juice I’d be shocked. But not all juicers win the olympia. For that matter not all olympia-winners are charles glass trained, nor are all charles glass trainees olympia winners. But it WOULD be possible to have an intelligent discussion at to WHY, if his training ideas have no merit, he seems to have several very successful clients
[quote]Bendo13 wrote:
Spamming? I put up three to get insight on them and to keep the discussion itself on T-Nation.[/quote]
Riiiight. You could have posted everything here with no link to a blog if you wanted discussion. How are those Google Page Ranks working out for ya?
[quote]Florida Titan wrote:
You mean his PWO Miller Lite? When did you train with him?[/quote]
Miller Lite? Is he on some type of diet now? I trained with him for a bit during his stay in Redmond.
Listen to what he says and you’ll learn a lot.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bendo13 wrote:
guru
Definition:
influential expert: somebody who has a reputation as an expert leader, teacher, or practitioner in a particular field
Not sure where you got your definition but it is very incomplete.
A Guru (Sanskrit: गुरू), is a teacher in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, as well as in many new religious movements. Based on a long traditional line of philosophical understanding as to the importance of knowledge, the guru is seen in these religions as a sacred conduit, or a way to self-realization.
The importance of finding a true guru is described in the scriptures and teachings of religions in which a guru plays a role.
“Guru” also refers in Sanskrit to Brihaspati, a Hindu figure analogous to the Roman planet/god Jupiter. In Vedic astrology, Guru or Brihaspati is believed to exert teaching influences. Indeed, in many Indian languages such as Hindi, the occidental Thursday is called either Brihaspativaar or Guruvaar (vaar meaning day of the week).
In contemporary India, “guru” is widely used within the general meaning of “teacher”. In Western usage, the original meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion.
In a further metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise.
[/quote]
Haha yeah, those would be the other meanings. I only put up the meaning that would make sense to its use in my title. Since people claim they don’t follow gurus.
Is there anyone out there whose advice I would blindly follow? No. Therefore, I do not view anyone as a guru.
There are people whose views I consider as expert and therefore would respect and would consider to be valuable - much more valuable than average. But that is quite different from “guru-worship.”
I find it amusing that so many have listed the same names - the power of marketing. Writing an article for a site does not make a person a “guru.” It just makes the person someone with a byline.
In terms of people who actually write or used to write for this very site, by far the two most “guru-status worthy” people are Cy Willson, TC Luoma, Tim Patterson, and Bill Roberts. (I doubt any of them would admit as much, though.) This is by a long shot. There are other solid experts writing for T-Nation; but no one has the comprehensive knowledge (or raw intellect) of these four.
I realize they do not “market” themselves as such. But those in the know would place them at the top of any list. Even among those four, I’d put Luoma or Willson at the top of any “guru” list.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Is there anyone out there whose advice I would blindly follow? No. Therefore, I do not view anyone as a guru.
There are people whose views I consider as expert and therefore would respect and would consider to be valuable - much more valuable than average. But that is quite different from “guru-worship.”
I find it amusing that so many have listed the same names - the power of marketing. Writing an article for a site does not make a person a “guru.” It just makes the person someone with a byline.
In terms of people who actually write or used to write for this very site, by far the two most “guru-status worthy” people are Cy Willson, TC Luoma, Tim Patterson, and Bill Roberts. (I doubt any of them would admit as much, though.) This is by a long shot. There are other solid experts writing for T-Nation; but no one has the comprehensive knowledge (or raw intellect) of these four.
I realize they do not “market” themselves as such. But those in the know would place them at the top of any list. Even among those four, I’d put Luoma or Willson at the top of any “guru” list.[/quote]
I wouldn’t blindly follow anyone, honestly you guys are too hung up on the semantics. There’s more than one meaning to a word and in this instance I don’t mean reliious following… blindly following… worshiping.
I mean who do you trust, who has show results for themselves and others and I HOPE has given you results from trying their methods yourself.
[quote]Bendo13 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Is there anyone out there whose advice I would blindly follow? No. Therefore, I do not view anyone as a guru.
There are people whose views I consider as expert and therefore would respect and would consider to be valuable - much more valuable than average. But that is quite different from “guru-worship.”
I find it amusing that so many have listed the same names - the power of marketing. Writing an article for a site does not make a person a “guru.” It just makes the person someone with a byline.
In terms of people who actually write or used to write for this very site, by far the two most “guru-status worthy” people are Cy Willson, TC Luoma, Tim Patterson, and Bill Roberts. (I doubt any of them would admit as much, though.) This is by a long shot. There are other solid experts writing for T-Nation; but no one has the comprehensive knowledge (or raw intellect) of these four.
I realize they do not “market” themselves as such. But those in the know would place them at the top of any list. Even among those four, I’d put Luoma or Willson at the top of any “guru” list.
I wouldn’t blindly follow anyone, honestly you guys are too hung up on the semantics. There’s more than one meaning to a word and in this instance I don’t mean reliious following… blindly following… worshiping.
I mean who do you trust, who has show results for themselves and others and I HOPE has given you results from trying their methods yourself.
[/quote]
We just favor precision in our language. And this is T-Nation. Everybody gets a hard time here.
Joe Weider.
Arthur Jones.
Richard Simmons.
[quote]Bendo13 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Is there anyone out there whose advice I would blindly follow? No. Therefore, I do not view anyone as a guru.
There are people whose views I consider as expert and therefore would respect and would consider to be valuable - much more valuable than average. But that is quite different from “guru-worship.”
I find it amusing that so many have listed the same names - the power of marketing. Writing an article for a site does not make a person a “guru.” It just makes the person someone with a byline.
In terms of people who actually write or used to write for this very site, by far the two most “guru-status worthy” people are Cy Willson, TC Luoma, Tim Patterson, and Bill Roberts. (I doubt any of them would admit as much, though.) This is by a long shot. There are other solid experts writing for T-Nation; but no one has the comprehensive knowledge (or raw intellect) of these four.
I realize they do not “market” themselves as such. But those in the know would place them at the top of any list. Even among those four, I’d put Luoma or Willson at the top of any “guru” list.
I wouldn’t blindly follow anyone, honestly you guys are too hung up on the semantics. There’s more than one meaning to a word and in this instance I don’t mean reliious following… blindly following… worshiping.
I mean who do you trust, who has show results for themselves and others and I HOPE has given you results from trying their methods yourself.
[/quote]
I don’t think those “semantics” are as trivial as you seem to think. There seem to be many people on this site who just blindly follow every single word they read. These are the ones who type, “best article ever!” after every damn article. For a site that promotes individualism and aggressive searches for knowledge, there seem to be a shitload of weak followers logging in.
Other than that, I would have to agree with CLaw. Cy Wilson presented some of the most well thought out articles I have seen outside of medical journals. I wouldn’t call any of these men a “guru” and simply writing out a routine doesn’t even deserve as much respect as it seems to garner here now.
I respect CT because of his goals and his approach. I still wouldn’t just accept everything he writes because I’m not clueless myself.
I honestly think people should spend more time learning real info and getting in a gym for a while before they worry about “Guru’s”. If that wasn’t the case, these followers and disciples would be showing a hell of a lot more progress.
I don’t mean to sidetrack your thread, but I get the feeling that more than a few people are thinking the same thing.
I just do whatever’s in Flex or Muscular Development this month.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We just favor precision in our language. And this is T-Nation. Everybody gets a hard time here.[/quote]
Oh ok… fair enough.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
Charles Glass I agree is phenomenal. Have you ever seen him train? Its mesmerizing!
“Hey you over there stick this needle in your ass then and we can work on your 20 rep leg extensions and 1 arm dumbell rows with 200lbs and a 5inch ROM.”
Anyone who almost exclusively trains juicers is a piece of shit.
Bravo! Way to paint with broad brush strokes!
If you could find even one olympia-caliber bodybuilder who doesnt juice I’d be shocked. But not all juicers win the olympia. For that matter not all olympia-winners are charles glass trained, nor are all charles glass trainees olympia winners. But it WOULD be possible to have an intelligent discussion at to WHY, if his training ideas have no merit, he seems to have several very successful clients [/quote]
I dont give a shit if every client he trained, year after year, won the olympia. We are talking about elite level coaches here. Like I said, if even if his trainees won the olympia, year after year, all that would mean is that he did the most with the most, because he would have to be training some of the more genetically gifted bodybuilders, as well as bodybuilders that were on the best stuff around, and had been training for years and years.
When you start talking about Alywn and CT and people who do alot with people who have the least, now your talking…
[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
Charles Glass I agree is phenomenal. Have you ever seen him train? Its mesmerizing!
“Hey you over there stick this needle in your ass then and we can work on your 20 rep leg extensions and 1 arm dumbell rows with 200lbs and a 5inch ROM.”
Anyone who almost exclusively trains juicers is a piece of shit.
Bravo! Way to paint with broad brush strokes!
If you could find even one olympia-caliber bodybuilder who doesnt juice I’d be shocked. But not all juicers win the olympia. For that matter not all olympia-winners are charles glass trained, nor are all charles glass trainees olympia winners. But it WOULD be possible to have an intelligent discussion at to WHY, if his training ideas have no merit, he seems to have several very successful clients
I dont give a shit if every client he trained, year after year, won the olympia. We are talking about elite level coaches here. Like I said, if even if his trainees won the olympia, year after year, all that would mean is that he did the most with the most, because he would have to be training some of the more genetically gifted bodybuilders, as well as bodybuilders that were on the best stuff around, and had been training for years and years.
When you start talking about Alywn and CT and people who do alot with people who have the least, now your talking…[/quote]
Really? You honestly think that training people with the least genetic potential makes you a better trainer? Why would anyone care unless they also had extremely minimal genetic potential?
You sound jealous more than anything. Glass has been in the game for decades. I seriously have a hard time understanding someone who would turn their nose up at him as if they couldn’t learn anything from him.
I personally don’t have “the least genetic potential” so I am not looking for someone to tell me how much of a hardgainer I am. You seem to be looking for just that. That says more about you and what you believe you can accomplish than anything else.
Tell me, how would someone who believes they can only achieve the absolute minimum ever know they are making the most progress? Someone like that would be satisfied with just about anything in the way of progress. With that in mind, how would the trainer of such a person stand out as knowing so much…by not achieving much?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Florida Titan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bendo13 wrote:
guru
Definition:
influential expert: somebody who has a reputation as an expert leader, teacher, or practitioner in a particular field
Not sure where you got your definition but it is very incomplete.
A Guru (Sanskrit: गुरू), is a teacher in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, as well as in many new religious movements. Based on a long traditional line of philosophical understanding as to the importance of knowledge, the guru is seen in these religions as a sacred conduit, or a way to self-realization. The importance of finding a true guru is described in the scriptures and teachings of religions in which a guru plays a role.
“Guru” also refers in Sanskrit to Brihaspati, a Hindu figure analogous to the Roman planet/god Jupiter. In Vedic astrology, Guru or Brihaspati is believed to exert teaching influences. Indeed, in many Indian languages such as Hindi, the occidental Thursday is called either Brihaspativaar or Guruvaar (vaar meaning day of the week).
In contemporary India, “guru” is widely used within the general meaning of “teacher”. In Western usage, the original meaning of guru has been extended to cover anyone who acquires followers, though not necessarily in an established school of philosophy or religion. In a further metaphorical extension, guru is used to refer to a person who has authority because of his or her perceived knowledge or skills in a domain of expertise.
What was the point of this post?
The term “guru” has a negative connotation.
I do not like s&c gurus. I like s&c coaches. Most of the guys listed here are great coaches but not “gurus”.
Paul Chek is a “guru”.[/quote]
I tend to agree. However, Paul Chek is only a guru because of the following he has. Like a cult.
Poliquin is similar, as is anyone who gets to the top of their field.
Marketing play a huge roll in guruism.
Check out Poliquin’s site. He has an 'Ask The Guru" section.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:
Charles Glass I agree is phenomenal. Have you ever seen him train? Its mesmerizing!
“Hey you over there stick this needle in your ass then and we can work on your 20 rep leg extensions and 1 arm dumbell rows with 200lbs and a 5inch ROM.”
Anyone who almost exclusively trains juicers is a piece of shit.
Bravo! Way to paint with broad brush strokes!
If you could find even one olympia-caliber bodybuilder who doesnt juice I’d be shocked. But not all juicers win the olympia. For that matter not all olympia-winners are charles glass trained, nor are all charles glass trainees olympia winners. But it WOULD be possible to have an intelligent discussion at to WHY, if his training ideas have no merit, he seems to have several very successful clients
I dont give a shit if every client he trained, year after year, won the olympia. We are talking about elite level coaches here. Like I said, if even if his trainees won the olympia, year after year, all that would mean is that he did the most with the most, because he would have to be training some of the more genetically gifted bodybuilders, as well as bodybuilders that were on the best stuff around, and had been training for years and years.
When you start talking about Alywn and CT and people who do alot with people who have the least, now your talking…
Really? You honestly think that training people with the least genetic potential makes you a better trainer? Why would anyone care unless they also had extremely minimal genetic potential?
You sound jealous more than anything. Glass has been in the game for decades. I seriously have a hard time understanding someone who would turn their nose up at him as if they couldn’t learn anything from him.
I personally don’t have “the least genetic potential” so I am not looking for someone to tell me how much of a hardgainer I am. You seem to be looking for just that. That says more about you and what you believe you can accomplish than anything else.
Tell me, how would someone who believes they can only achieve the absolute minimum ever know they are making the most progress? Someone like that would be satisfied with just about anything in the way of progress. With that in mind, how would the trainer of such a person stand out as knowing so much…by not achieving much? [/quote]
Professor X, do you stick a needle in your ass or not? I am not saying Charles Glass is a bad trainer. He is a good trainer of genetically blessed juicers. If you fall into this category than I can see why you have alot of respect for him.
Just like you said, why would someone with good genetic potential want to train with a coach known for training people with poor genetic potential? Your exactly right. Well I dont give a shit about training with a trainer who is known for training genetic freaks who juice.
Why would I care about his progress training people of this nature? I dont stick a needle in my ass, which is the main difference. His kind of training works for cheating fucks. Period.