Travis Mash calls out Rippetoe

If you're in a comp, or training for one, for either strongman or powerlifting, then sure, squat as heavy as you damn well can.

But if you're not, why should you?

Well, the obvious "to not be a pussy" has already been said, even though that was my first thought, so:

1. Squatting heavy (above, say 90%) has consistently been shown to improve motor unit recruitment, inter- and intra-muscular coordination, etc. You do not get the same training effect with lighter weights.
2. Knowledge. You need to push for your limits to learn them. And you must know them, understand them and, above all, figure out what you need to do to push them further. If you do not test your limits, you will never exceed them.
3. Squatting really heavy weights is just plain, fucking cool. Even though the squat is not my best lift, few things are as satisfying (in lifting) as a squat PR. This is both motivating and rewarding. Both of which are critical to maintaining both focus and enjoyment in training.
 
No, it's not. It's extremely flawed logic to assume that the guy that can squat the most weight will be better at teaching it. We've seen in EVERY sport (hell, any result oriented activity period) that the most talented practitioners rarely end up being the best coaches, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to lifting.

I'd be interested in Legs or Eric's opinion on this matter.
 
While I tend to agree that mediocre athletes make better coaches, my response to your Jackson example would be that he has proven himself as a guy who can produce at the highest levels(ridiculous understatement).

Most intelligent people can readily, and rightly, support Rip's contributions to the strength community as a whole by packaging and selling a sound training concept and leading untold droves of noobs into strength athletics. Kudos, big time.

My issue is when the cult of personality that has formed around him somehow grants him the authority to speak on subjects to which he is not an expert. Especially Weightlifting or the performance of highly ranked Raw Powerlifters.
When he starts producing nationally/internationally ranked PLers or WLers I will take his input on those subjects quite seriously. And I mean produced as in began training them at the novice/beginner stage on through elite competition.


Full disclosure: I've been ejected from a gym for disagreeing with his programming/methodology/generally disliking his face. So, I'm biased.

EDIT: I disagree with a lot of the information that many respected American WLing coaches put out. However I understand that 1: they have considerably more experience than myself and likely arrived at their conclusions based on reasonable observances over their career and 2: there is no "one right way" to do anything, especially In Weightlifting. Simply take a look at the technical differences between Dolega and Yong as they go head to head at international competition. Yes there are similarities and constants between the two techniques but to anyone with an eye for Weightlifting the differences are much, much more pronounced. And yet.... both are operating at the top .05% of their sport and winning international medals.

So, long story short, until I have numbers and performances to back my opinions on the subject I STFU unless directly asked a question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Full disclosure: I've been ejected from a gym for disagreeing with his programming/methodology/generally disliking his face. So, I'm biased.


This alone is telling. People are welcome to disagree with me, as long as they do not start shit during training. You never know when I might learn something.
 
Some of the best coaches I have seen have been mediocre at best. And by mediocre I mean when compared to the level he/she is coaching at. If the candidate hasn't at least competed at an international level, do you want him/her coaching the national team? I realize there are exceptions to this.

Coaching requires knowledge beyond the scope of technique. There needs to be proficiency in general management, an experience portion and a sound understanding of the body, its parts and their function.

I think Legs nailed it here:

My issue is when the cult of personality that has formed around him somehow grants him the authority to speak on subjects to which he is not an expert. Especially Weightlifting or the performance of highly ranked Raw Powerlifters.
When he starts producing nationally/internationally ranked PLers or WLers I will take his input on those subjects quite seriously. And I mean produced as in began training them at the novice/beginner stage on through elite competition.
 
I think some of the best coaches I have seen have been mediocre at best. And by mediocre I mean when compared to the level he/she is coaching at. If the candidate hasn't at least competed at an international level, do you want him/her coaching the national team? I realize there are exceptions to this.

Coaching requires knowledge beyond the scope of technique. There needs to be proficiency in general management, an experience portion and a sound understanding of the body, its parts and their function.

I was stronger than my first coach by the time I got out of high school. If he were still around today, I would still listen to him. Largely because he was a good coach and I could use the feedback on the quick lifts.

There are some key points in considering what to look for in a strength coach:

1. How often do their athletes get hurt? This is number one. And probably two and three. If, as a coach, your athletes are losing training time due to injuries, then you are doing something wrong. Athletes do not get better when riding the pine, for whatever reason. (or, as the ADA said to me before I actually started in my first AS&C position "If my athletes get hurt because of you, have your shit packed before I run into you."
2. What level have the coaches athletes achieved consistently. Key being "consistently." A star athlete is something one sometimes stumbles across, and they can go far with mediocre coaching. The coach who continually produces high level athletes with low injury rates is the one to listen to.
3. How well does what the coach says (or writes) match up with what we know of good coaching practices? (and this includes issues such as sound biomechanical principles, etc.) If they are flying in the face of everything that we consider to be "the basics" then they need to be crushing it at the national or world level. This is a fairly easy one to observe.
4. Can they get their point across to a broad spectrum of individuals?
5. Are they willing to learn? Coaching is teaching applied physical skills. Which means the coach should be learning as well. If you wind up with someone who "knows everyone else is wrong," well, send them a tube of lube for their ears so they can pull their head out of their ass.

There are others that are important, but these are my top picks.
 
Well, the obvious "to not be a pussy" has already been said, even though that was my first thought, so:

1. Squatting heavy (above, say 90%) has consistently been shown to improve motor unit recruitment, inter- and intra-muscular coordination, etc. You do not get the same training effect with lighter weights.
2. Knowledge. You need to push for your limits to learn them. And you must know them, understand them and, above all, figure out what you need to do to push them further. If you do not test your limits, you will never exceed them.
3. Squatting really heavy weights is just plain, fucking cool. Even though the squat is not my best lift, few things are as satisfying (in lifting) as a squat PR. This is both motivating and rewarding. Both of which are critical to maintaining both focus and enjoyment in training.

I think I was misunderstood. When I asked that, I wasn't talking about absolute numbers. I was talking about numbers relative to your current max.

I took the original comment to mean that he squats at his 1rm, or close to it, frequently, which is the only thing that I can imagine would cause you to think that you're about to die while you're squatting. That's pointless and counterproductive though.

Squatting at 90% is perfectly fine, but that's a far-cry from squatting at your 1rm.
 
I think I was misunderstood. When I asked that, I wasn't talking about absolute numbers. I was talking about numbers relative to your current max.

I took the original comment to mean that he squats at his 1rm, or close to it, frequently, which is the only thing that I can imagine would cause you to think that you're about to die while you're squatting. That's pointless and counterproductive though.

Squatting at 90% is perfectly fine, but that's a far-cry from squatting at your 1rm.

Not that far, it is 90% of the way there, obviously, and produces roughly the same training effect. And I said "above 90%," not 90%.

These things are important from a training standpoint. And a lot of lifters squat close to their 1RM regularly. With consistent training, the ability to do this can be developed, then improved. And no, it is not the only thing. Squat with 95% just once, have it get too far forward, and somehow grind it back up into position and see how you feel.

There are plenty of ways that can make you feel as if you are going to die while training. Again, if you do not know this, you are just not training very hard.
 
I was stronger than my first coach by the time I got out of high school. If he were still around today, I would still listen to him. Largely because he was a good coach and I could use the feedback on the quick lifts.

Which kinda proves my point. He was mediocre medicocre in terms of what he had or could have accomplished at the high school level.

I was always a better hockey player than all my coaches had ever been. But they were suited for the positions they were in. When I was in Novice and Atom I was better than the dude who coached me when he was my age (my father). Same for HS hockey. Coach may have played some high school hockey and maybe some uni hockey, but I was still more skilled than he was. They were always mediocre.

When I jumped in uni, my coach was Catherine Bond-Mills. Defintely a world-class athlete, but not the best. Was mediocre at best. Great coach, though.

Now if I was your strength coach in HS there would be a huge discrepency
 
Which kinda proves my point. He was mediocre medicocre in terms of what he had or could have accomplished at the high school level.

I was always a better hockey player than all my coaches had ever been. But they were suited for the positions they were in. When I was in Novice and Atom I was better than the dude who coached me when he was my age (my father). Same for HS hockey. Coach may have played some high school hockey and maybe some uni hockey, but I was still more skilled than he was. They were always mediocre.

When I jumped in uni, my coach was Catherine Bond-Mills. Defintely a world-class athlete, but not the best. Was mediocre at best. Great coach, though.

Now if I was your strength coach in HS there would be a huge discrepency


Well, in his defense my coach lifted at 123 and was nearly 60 when he started coaching me.

:)

Once upon a time, he was a very good lifter. Just never very big. Possibly his parents never let him out into the sun, so he did not really grow as a child.
 
If you're in a comp, or training for one, for either strongman or powerlifting, then sure, squat as heavy as you damn well can.

But if you're not, why should you?

How else do you recommend getting stronger?
 
There are actually plenty of great lifters who I would not trust to train a dog, let alone an athlete.

no question.

Exactly the same with Martial Arts.

"Some of the best Fighters in the world are the worst Coaches. Because most elite Fighters possess tremendous natural attributes. They can apply techniques that are not practical for the average Martial Artist, so they often don't know how to train them correctly."
- Guru Dan Inosanto.
 
Edit: hadn't read KT's post above. Same jist.

My opinion on great players =/= great coaches is that for people like Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky, the game comes so naturally to them such that when it comes time for them to coach someone, they are not able to explain things quite as well as someone who was not a great player but understands the game very well and are able to express themselves very well to their players (ala Phil Jackson).

Whether that argument can hold true for weightlifting or powerlifting, I don't even want to bother thinking about that right now.
 
Comparing sports like basketball, hockey, football, and soccer to lifting is silly.

As far as coaching ability vs. the coach's own skills, it's not a bad comparison. It's a more convincing argument to argue about the content rather than the person behind the content. Rippetoe was a few years out of college when he hit his best ~1600lb @ 220 powerlifting total and then had some motorcycle and horse riding accidents that forced him to retire from competition. His opinions are from coaching at his gym for the past 30 years and he has produced zero great lifters in that time. A coach's accomplishments or lack of accomplishments alone don't say much about the validity of his opinions and teaching ability though.
 
Edit: hadn't read KT's post above. Same jist.

My opinion on great players =/= great coaches is that for people like Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky, the game comes so naturally to them such that when it comes time for them to coach someone, they are not able to explain things quite as well as someone who was not a great player but understands the game very well and are able to express themselves very well to their players (ala Phil Jackson).

Whether that argument can hold true for weightlifting or powerlifting, I don't even want to bother thinking about that right now.

I'd much rather be trained by Gretzkys dad than the a Great One himself. His dad's innovative training was credited with much of Gretzky's ability, even though Walter never really taught beyond beginner
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,839
Messages
55,311,451
Members
174,734
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top