Dmitry Klokov Interview

[Michael Wolf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25nhCAdJvIU

Not just Klokov, but Mark bell, too. Rip says Weightlifters should do Deadlifts, people call him a hack, a clown, doesn't know shit. Mark Bell shows up with his "JackedandTan" bullshit, has them doing fucking sumo deadlifts and box squats and it's alright because its Mark Bell and he actually knows something. I find it hysterical that he has shit on Rip's squat teachings yet his right hand man Silent Mike uses specific cues and techniques that Rip advocates. Fucking people, these days.

The more I see stuff like this, the more frustrating the whole thing gets. Seriously, can someone tell me why there is such a strong, visceral reaction from so many in the WL and PL worlds about things when they come from Rip/Starting Strength community? It's really just weird at this point.

[Immortal_k]

The more I see stuff like this, the more frustrating the whole thing gets. Seriously, can someone tell me why there is such a strong, visceral reaction from so many in the WL and PL worlds about things when they come from Rip/Starting Strength community? It's really just weird at this point.

Those who discredit and mock Rip's analysis and method are simply not being objective in their reasoning. I've come to the conclusion that many hold personally averse feeling towards Rip and allow those emotions to dissuade them from reading his book or attempting to debate his ideas on a scientific and logical basis.

There is a sense of quid pro quo, wherein the self-proclaimed incumbent PL coaches are regaled and validated by the similarly incumbent WL coaches and vice versa. Generally, neither criticizes the other in their respective sport and they don't contradict one-another regardless. Rip on the other hand has criticized both parties, his critique is founded on sound analytic and scientific grounding but it bluntly hurts their ego and possibly their income when their method, technique and analysis are subjected to the cold harsh reality of science, evidence, logic and numbers. To cope they've talked down Rip through their gyms and followers in a non-planned but mutually understood and supported effort to degrade his work and reject him as a prominent figure in both sports whenever he or his methods are brought up.

[Michael Wolf]

Those who discredit and mock Rip's analysis and method are simply not being objective in their reasoning. I've come to the conclusion that many hold personally averse feeling towards Rip and allow those emotions to dissuade them from reading his book or attempting to debate his ideas on a scientific and logical basis.

There is a sense of quid pro quo, wherein the self-proclaimed incumbent PL coaches are regaled and validated by the similarly incumbent WL coaches and vice versa. Generally, neither criticizes the other in their respective sport and they don't contradict one-another regardless. Rip on the other hand has criticized both parties, his critique is founded on sound analytic and scientific grounding but it bluntly hurts their ego and possibly their income when their method, technique and analysis are subjected to the cold harsh reality of science, evidence, logic and numbers. To cope they've talked down Rip through their gyms and followers in a non-planned but mutually understood and supported effort to degrade his work and reject him as a prominent figure in both sports whenever he or his methods are brought up.

This makes some sense. In one of the articles on his site, Mike Tuchscherer writes:

The real question in any training discussion is not “what works.” Rather, you should ask, “What is optimal?”

I think Rip's and our collective search for what's optimal - and the implication that there is, in fact, an "optimal" and that the currently very popular "find what works for you" doesn't hold up to analysis - is also at play here. It's easy for everyone to be friends and pat each other on the back when you post a picture like this one:
Screenshot 2014-09-28 11.32.33.jpg

and say "A comparison of 2004 Olympic Champion, Taner Sağır's pull to 3 time world champion, Marcin Dołęga's pull. They're obviously both very different, but they both clearly work. Contrary to some beliefs, there's more than one way to lift big weights." As opposed to deconstructing how heavy weights interact with gravity and the human body, and then using that model to show how, although heavy weights can be lifted in lots of different ways by very strong, talented lifters, this doesn't mean that all techniques are equally optimal. It's much easier to make friends within the community doing the former than the latter. And especially since people tend to take critiques poorly - as if it's an attack on their very person and worth, rather than an observation intended to help them, and everyone else, lift more optimally.

[Les Hahn]

The more I see stuff like this, the more frustrating the whole thing gets. Seriously, can someone tell me why there is such a strong, visceral reaction from so many in the WL and PL worlds about things when they come from Rip/Starting Strength community? It's really just weird at this point.

Just being honest, I think it is the way the arguments were presented.

[Brodie Butland]

I think Rip's and our collective search for what's optimal - and the implication that there is, in fact, an "optimal" and that the currently very popular "find what works for you" doesn't hold up to analysis - is also at play here. It's easy for everyone to be friends and pat each other on the back when you post a picture like this one:
Screenshot 2014-09-28 11.32.33.jpg

and say "A comparison of 2004 Olympic Champion, Taner Sağır's pull to 3 time world champion, Marcin Dołęga's pull. They're obviously both very different, but they both clearly work. Contrary to some beliefs, there's more than one way to lift big weights." As opposed to deconstructing how heavy weights interact with gravity and the human body, and then using that model to show how, although heavy weights can be lifted in lots of different ways by very strong, talented lifters, this doesn't mean that all techniques are equally optimal. It's much easier to make friends within the community doing the former than the latter. And especially since people tend to take critiques poorly - as if it's an attack on their very person and worth, rather than an observation intended to help them, and everyone else, lift more optimally.

And what's amusing is, weightlifting seems to be one of the only sports in which this "do what works for you" advice is mainstream.

Take pitching in baseball, for example. There are a handful of sidearm and submarine pitchers who have enjoyed some success in the big leagues. Yet no pitching coach in his right mind ever coaches youngsters to pitch sidearm or submarine "if it feels right to them." Rather, they try to steer youngsters into a "model" pitching form that has certain obvious indicia.

I think the problem is that people who are big fish in their own ponds don't like be told by people in other ponds that they're wrong--and it isn't until the old guard die off that new ideas (or in the case of weightlifting, old ideas) can become mainstream. That's the way it seems to be in every line of work, unfortunately. Copernicus's ideas didn't become mainstream until centuries after his death either.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Just being honest, I think it is the way the arguments were presented.

Perhaps you could elaborate.

[Bluntschli]

What are the differences I am supposed to be seeing in that picture? They appear to me to be taken at different times in the pull (pre- and mid-jump), so to my untrained eye I'm not sure how you're supposed to compare the two.

[Les Hahn]

Perhaps you could elaborate.

It is the whole, "spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down" thing. You presented valid arguments, but some of the articles also bashed professions (PT's) or groups (USAW) without really needing to. That puts them on the defensive right away, which is going to make them less likely to really listen to what you are saying. Like others mentioned, this is already touchy because of egos, etc. so why add fuel to that fire?

Meeting in the middle and showing respect helps too. I know that can be tough when some of these people are bashing you, but it would have probably helped the message hit the weightlifting masses. For instance, had you started with "strength is really important" piece and then tried to open up a dialogue with the coaches about how they are doing that, would be better than just saying that the weightlifting coaches don't care about strength. From what I read here and elsewhere, most of them do care about strength. That puts them in the defensive right away. In actuality they just might not be programming that optimally. Had you opened a dialogue about programming in a positive light and slowly made suggestions about how we could tweak things to make them better, it might have given the coaches a chance to really listen to what you were saying. After that, then slowly move in to the LBBS piece. The number one priority would be getting them stronger, and then you could have brought up new ways to help that along.

Maybe too many egos would have been bruised either way, but I do think an approach which fosters respect and general interest works better than just saying they are doing things wrong. This works in other areas too (I do it often). Respecting the other person does a lot to get things going.

[Mark Rippetoe]

What are the differences I am supposed to be seeing in that picture? They appear to me to be taken at different times in the pull (pre- and mid-jump), so to my untrained eye I'm not sure how you're supposed to compare the two.

You're not supposed to compare them. You're just supposed to agree with them.

It is the whole, "spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down" thing. You presented valid arguments, but some of the articles also bashed professions (PT's) or groups (USAW) without really needing to. That puts them on the defensive right away, which is going to make them less likely to really listen to what you are saying. Like others mentioned, this is already touchy because of egos, etc. so why add fuel to that fire?

1. This is the internet. People don't read things that do not cause hatred to ensue. If you want anybody to read your ideas, you must first make hatred a possible consequence.

2. Both groups richly deserve hatred.

Meeting in the middle and showing respect helps too. I know that can be tough when some of these people are bashing you, but it would have probably helped the message hit the weightlifting masses. For instance, had you started with "strength is really important" piece and then tried to open up a dialogue with the coaches about how they are doing that, would be better than just saying that the weightlifting coaches don't care about strength.

This assumes that the only interaction I have had with these people is on this board. You believe what you read elsewhere, and you are not informed.

From what I read here and elsewhere, most of them do care about strength. That puts them in the defensive right away. In actuality they just might not be programming that optimally.

Do we have to talk about this again? Really??

Had you opened a dialogue about programming in a positive light and slowly made suggestions about how we could tweak things to make them better, it might have given the coaches a chance to really listen to what you were saying. After that, then slowly move in to the LBBS piece. The number one priority would be getting them stronger, and then you could have brought up new ways to help that along.

Again, you're assuming the only conversations I've had have been here. Again, you believe what you have read elsewhere, and you are not actually informed.

Maybe too many egos would have been bruised either way, but I do think an approach which fosters respect and general interest works better than just saying they are doing things wrong. This works in other areas too (I do it often). Respecting the other person does a lot to get things going.

I'll try to remember that. Thanks.

[hamburgerfan]

Bio-mechanical analysis of the lifts is good, but people don't want to listen if that is all there is. People will be more likely to listen when there are exceptional results to back it up. Pointing out that some good/great lifters sometimes share certain aspects of squat form isn't sufficient.