Provide list of athletes DB has worked with, what their PB’s were before working with him and PB’s after working with him. These are the only statistics that matter in coaching.
Hey man. Do what you like I do not know his athletes or some statistics, who does? Wait a minute I got it now. You are so great! Thanks! You know I have thought that he had something to offer, but man was I wrong. He offers me no “statistics that matter in coaching”. Would you be kind enough to offer me the statistics so that I could become a better athlete.
I will not be your whore! Comment on his system and what you disagree on and we can have a conversation.
I don’t know about you but I like to see the improvements a coach has made in athletes as well as the system. Ben started at 11.8h and went 9.79 slowing down with Charlie. That right there is a very impressive example of his training philosophies working. I’m not saying DB isn’t a good coach, I just think that we should see what improvements he’s made in his athletes before we can reach a final conclusion on how effective his training system is.
DB does not deal out that information. We cannot do anything about that.
DB isn’t asking us to evaluate his ideas in isolation- he’s asking us to consider them in light of the ‘FACT’ that he has produced this or that result, created a number of high caliber athletes and so on. This is the WHOLE point!
So lets spell it out:
if db’s system works (then) => db has produced these wonderful results
but
we have no confirmable results!
therefore we have to deny that the system works at least from the information we have
It’s all about CREDIBILITY!
and db ain’t got none…
Why should i spend my hard earned money or time on someone who lacks all credibility?
Why bother discussing ideas that seem spun out of thin air?
And please don’t tell me because their interesting- they’re interesting because of the supposed reults - that’s it. Remove the results and you remove the interest.
On another note, a friend of mine, who happens to be bulgarian expat, has a book coming out in which he shows how anyone, especially sub 10 sprinters can reduce their times by 10% in just 4 fifteen minute sessions. Anyone interested please forward a 100US money order to the masonic lodge in sophia, bu. Remember to include a return address.
Blagodarya.
Hi man. Easy solution for you: STOP reading this thread, so you won’t spend your valuable time on non-credible bullshit. Makes me wonder why read and even bother responding? For me if I think something is not worth spending my time with and lacks all credibility the solution is not to spend time with it. Though sometimes I test and evaluate ideas even if they do not sound for example logical. But as you said you cannot evaluate the ideas and system without in this case knowing the athletes he has trained? Well that my friend is your limitation and you will have to live with that.
antii,
the reason why those statistics are necessary is that the human organism is very complex. Biological systems have too many variables to track at once, not to mention too many to completely control. Natural talent is one such variable. I have seen many people who have succeeded despite of their program rather than because of it. Often, the reason why we think a particular training mechanism works is completely different from how it actually physically works.
To see how a system or style of training works in reality allows one to understand how it used. It also allows for a validation of the strengths and weakness of a training system. No system is 100% better for all atheletes all of the time than another. Knowing how a system works on real people helps to determine what type of athelete would benefit from such a system or how such techniques would be proscribed for an athelete with a particular weakness. To not understand the context of how this training was proscribed to real atheletes makes any claims regardless of the actual truth of the statement unhelpful. This is the reason why books like “Speed Trap” are so useful. It gives Charlie’s views on sprint training in the context of which it was developed and applied. This combined with this forum and CFTS allows one to see the “derivation” of the system as one would view a mathematical proof (not to imply that Charlie’s system is based on formulas 
i know that is pet peeve)…
Anyways, i hope this explains why I would like to see the statistics, sorry for the long rant. I just read an article which had some badly applied physics in relation to an engineering failure…
I’ll pretend to be a nice guy and tell you something:
I am positively surprised that my provocative comments do not produce as immature comments as my personality is.
Well on the matter at hand:
If you think you can learn something from DB then study his material and maybe spend the money you were going to spend on your protein that made Ronnie Coleman as big as he is (How’s that for statistics :)) on his book. If you cannot learn and maybe apply his system without athlete references given then that is your choice. DB has stated that he gives no references so it’s up to you whether you whine or not or decide to try to learn and apply or not.
Having read the latter few posts it is nice to see some of DB’s training ideas being discussed. Lest this be a lesson to DB as well! Hence in his articles / writings he should not make unfounded comments concerning a number of coaches (i.e., Charlie Francis, Dr Mel Siff, Westside and all ‘Americans’ (which is a bit of a misnomer)) and if he is stating he has something better than these latter coaches show us the evidence!! This is not evidence:
“you know how many times I have NFL-prep wide recievers come to me……”
“one of the best NBA players came to me back when he was struggling a bit.”
Hey guys,
It’s amazing how some people act like they’re ready to go to war over stuff that they believe or don’t believe. DB has simply written material that is truly innovative in it’s approach (not subject matter, APPROACH). Agreed, much of RFD and other aspects of his methodology have been previously defined by original researchers in various ways but perhaps just not put together in a system such as AREG.
No one can deny that the late, great Dr. Mel offered much in the way of theory but less in the way of an innovative usable system. This could be frustrating at times but it had its place in our ability to evaluate training protocols and design implementation. This is NOT to say he couldn’t design a kick-butt workout protocol; simply, he spent much more time explaining the precursors to what goes into a program. DB, on the other hand, is sharing his experience with a program that has given him tremendous results. Who is anyone to discredit what he’s accomplished. Would you write a book and face ridicule and scrutiny knowing full well if DID NOT work? You’d be screwed for life in your respective field of expertise.
For everyone that doubts that this stuff works, simply dismiss it as something to monitor over the next several months. For everyone who buys the material and implements its “methodics”…get what you can out of it and speak well or ill of your experiences.
In the meantime, I"m examining the material for myself and looking forward to something that may help overcome stagnancy in my training efforts due to lack of boredom more than anything. 
Hakdaddy
Passion of the Christ (Feb. 25, 2004)
Yes, I think that this is one clear difference in philosophy between CFTS and DB. For example, if one achieves a PB in a workout, CFTS would cut the workout short in anticipation of the recovery demand for achieving this new level. DB would continue to have you work to your drop off level (but the drop off would be reset based on the new PB, so the workout would likely be somewhat shorter.)
Maybe I can come up with an example:
You may have an excellent sprinter with excellent lifts BUT you may also have an excellent sprinter with good to average lifts. The recovery demands of the excellent sprint sessions will be much greater than the needs of the lifts (in either case, but more with the lower lifts), so the recovery cycles may be all over the map, ending up, on one occasion, with lifts on the same day as the sprints, and, on another, an alternate day, etc.
I’m not sure I still understand this. In the CFTS, since we always do our lifts right after our sprints, then there is simply cumulative CNS fatigue and I don’t lift or sprint until I am optimally recovered for my next workout so this isn’t an issue, right. In DB’s system, I think that he approaches it the same way except that the next workout is based on the AREG formulas. I don’t think that he does separate AREG cycles for the different training activites. If so, then I agree that it would be difficult if not impossible to manage.
Can anyone more familiar with DBs system shed some light on this?
I’m not trying to draw too many differences between systems, I’m just pointing out where a problem appears.
In my example, I point out the PROBLEM of how the weights and speed may create different recoveries.
The ORDER of my workout, with lifts right after speed, and the frequency of lifts in the schedule, is part of my SOLUTION to that problem, when demands are highest in the program (you can see on the GPP DVD that this isn’t always the case)
Also, though my programs attempt to be proactive, this simply isn’t possible all the time, especially at the highest level, so you must be prepared to be reactive as well.
While I don’t like unsubstantiated claims and attacks on other programs, I DO like the disscussion of demands and recoveries. There simply cannot be enough of it!
But, while we discuss these points, lets not forget about the role and timing of work in the potentiation and preparation for subsequent work.
Experience will allow for the customization of formulaic systems.
What did I start??? :eek:
The best part for me so far is when CT put.
I have just finished reading the book. To me it’s nothing ground breaking as I’ve been using almost all of these techniques for sometime. However I did pic up a few new info that I’ll be sure to apply.
I find his (and Kelly’s) writing a lot easier to follow than DBs.
Without doubt many are put off by DBs writing style, arrogance, lack of studies and decision not to name names,but… at the end of the day if it works for me I dont really care. I appreciate that I am not a top level or even competitive athlete so my priorities and reason to train are different. Heck, if Fat Joe from next door came up with a program after watching the Simpsons one night and it looked to have some interesting concepts I would at least investigate it further. If guys like Kelly, Joe and Colin tried it and said they had stunning results I would definitely check it out, which is what I am doing. I have a lot of questions and hopefully with more reading and posting either here, Rugged or at Inno-Sport I will get clear understandable answers.
It seems to me that there are 2 different points of interest in his work, the exercises and the CNS management.
The CNS stuff I think is very interesting and using a set system for determing workout timing and fatigue is good.
The exercises are similar to what CT has discussed but but more so. Some of it seems hard to do on your own especially in my case training with pretty basic equipment in my garage. I am currently already utilising things such as iso holds, plyos, iso ballisitics and static holds to good effect.
That said, I’ll keep reading (both DB and CTs stuff) and try to get my head around it and apply some of it to my training. I’ll try and put together a CNS based plan starting around June. By then I will have done the things I currently have planned, finished reading CTs books, got fully up to speed with DB Hammers stuff and designed a program.
And all this time I thought antti was a girl.
Damn, can we all get over the fact that DB is not saying who he’s trained and just look at his methods. The same people saying the same crap over and over. We get the point. If you’re not interested unless he says who he trains then stop criticizing.
BTW, who has Charlie trained other than Ben Johnson. He often says he’s worked with NFL or college teams, but he never discloses who. I’m curious to what teams and athletes he worked with recently, but I’m not going to discredit him just because he has mainly been publicized with one well-known extremely gifted athlete who worked with him.
???
I’m a little boy :). Finnish can be somewhat confusing regarding names and all but don’t worry: SpeedKills sounds really masculine even in Finnish.
Can someone confirm what this means?
Is it set 1: 100%
then all successive sets @ 94% until you fail to reach the set/time goal @ 94%.
Thank You.
I worked with a lot more than one athlete who broke world records, but, even if it had been only one, that’s a whole lot more than none!
You use the term “extremely gifted” as a put down. There are a hell of a lot of extremely gifted athletes out there who have gone nowhere.
I didn’t just go out there and TALK about it. I went out there and DID IT.
Yet, still, I hear bullshit from those who can’t be judged on anything.
As for who and what teams I work for now, you can be sure I WOULDN’T get work with ANY of them without a known track record and referrals to back me up. Just in case you’ve been in a cave for the last year, some names have come out!
Fair enough, but other than Marion who have you been working with. Specifically with football or basketball because I’ve been in a cave.