Yeah, the guy is arrogant enough to attempt to prove his superiority by supplying details of his supposed salary. I guess that’s what you resort to when you have nothing else to offer to a debate/arguement such as a point.
Good point on peanuts-makes him eligible for welfare.
Well he started it 
He sure did. He pretends to have all of the answers but in reality has none but at least he has a near un-ending supply of peanuts.
Interesting that someone who is so disappointed in coaches’ performances can actually enjoy the performances of the athletes they work with. I would think this would prevent him from enjoying the sport.
Many people share that trait in common. Whether you can do somethign better or not is a matter of proof…it’s all talk until it’s tangible.
For instance I was thinking last night how if I was to start a fitness club it’d be out of this world and make me a LOT of money. Given, though, there’s a lot of high class fitness clubs in the downtown core (Toronto) and whether my income would be comparable to them is debatable. Until I actually accomplished it…I’m just all talk (like him).
Yes, as Charlie has said that no one feels more qualified to comment on a particular subject then the guy with no experience in that subject (or similar).
The dilemma I would think some would have in starting businesses is how willing someone is to compromise on what they believe to be good training and necessary vs. the person who successfully markets and promotes themself via toys/gadgets and fluff programs which they promote because of it’s uniqueness.
I know some compromise could take place but many people, unknowingly, are duped by the flash and different appeal of some programs. To the inexperienced customer, they can’t separate the flash from the effective.
Exactly, and when you have flash with amazing testimonials…they have no competition. Proactiv with their celebrity “interviews” about how great the product is has a booming success even though for a lot of people it doesn’t work at all and might even irritate their face.
Strongest survivor!
Same guy proposing in past on clyde hart q & a there(find it with search) that it would be “nice” (I guess he means slow) to have guys go out slower in the first 200’s of the 400 and see what they can come back in-I think most of us know-slow. He thinks that running negative splits are going to produce some great times due to his understanding of phys and how the body should work. What top 400 guys have achieved their p.r.s with negative splits? I can’t think of any. Might be some but I can’t imagine many.
Negative split 200’s of a 400-good one.
This is a question of pacing stategy. Please, direct that guy to St Clair Gibson et al. The Role of Information Processing Between the Brain and Peripheral Physiological Systems in Pacing and Perception of Effort. Sports Med 2006; 36 (8): 705-722.
Science can wait for contradictions to be resolved by future research. Coaches and athletes are on a fixed time-line and, as you say Duxx, right or wrong, we cannot sit in the starting blocks waiting for someone else to take responsibility for making the decisions. We sometimes make the wrong call, but we must keep moving and at least we will never die wondering? 
But, ultimately the coach - much like the scientist - learns from trial and error.
Thanks, I think it would be a good resource to bring up with a reasonable sort but I’m pretty sure that all evidence/proof will simply be dismissed as it already has been.
Yes, and some of those scientists who haven’t coached can’t fathom that it’s not simply about plugging in equations and applying the same methods to everyone.
Some fail to see why you can’t just forge ahead with your plans at all times. This, since the athlete will react differently and sometimes unexpectedly to previous work done as well as all of the various stressors in their life. The fact that the athletes physical state changes daily, if not more often, also throws them for a loop. One guy said that a good performance was proof that the inclusion of a certain drill was proof that it had worked or contributed to the improved performance. I added that there are far too many variables to be able to prove conclusively that something specifically resulted in the improvement. No doubt, that you are able to make educated guesses, etc. but how can you prove such a thing? Maybe it had no effect, maybe it was a negative but not enough of an impact, who really knows? You only really know that the total program+talent+conditions, etc.=results.
Like you said, we can’t wait around for the test results before we can move forward with the program and the only test results we need are typically the ones from the most recent meet and/or training sessions.