I am not here to defend Barry’s character or his insights. Just as I don’t know your client base or number of elite or emerging elite athletes you’re coaching, you likewise don’t know the extent of his. Nor does it matter, because it’s drifting from the initial reason I came back to post to this thread in the first place: the dismissing of a study conducted by an Air Force officer for a legitimate graduate level project because the findings seemed to corroborate the points Barry highlighted in his protocol. By all means dispute the methodology, control group, etc. of that study That is part of good academic debate. But what saddened me was the dismissal of someone’s efforts primarily because they seemed to reinforce points proposed by someone various forum members simply do not like. That just doesn’t seem fair or professional. Officer Pike was not shilling for Barry Ross. I feel sorry for Officer Pike. He did nothing wrong
Further, I don’t know if it is fair to assume that Barry’s strength protocol is largely untested without knowing his client base or ties to the research community. After all, it is that very research that forms the basis of his approach. And if you set the value of his client base to world class athletes using his protocol, then you are indeed correct, that his approach is untested among an elect group for whom very few of us ever have the opportunity to train. Would it be fair to offer that your protocols are unproven because I don’t see any Olympic finalists in your resume? Of course not.
And if the man happened to be coaching national class athletes within your area, which could indeed be the case, what would it matter? If someone dislikes him and what he stands for, mentioning those individuals he is training will be met with either challenges by those who dispute those relationships (without really knowing their history or background), or charges that he has resorted to shameless pandering or bogus connections to sell a book. In other words, he’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.
If you have read Underground Secrets, didn’t like the book, and didn’t catch the clearly “tongue-in-cheek” nature of the phrase itself and the cover of the book, that’s fine.
We are all able to write our own texts based upon what we have learned through our associations, contacts, experiences, and educational backgrounds.
Regarding the previous comments about “why the lies” and being “dumb on purpose,” might not those also constitute “poor remarks” about someone you do not really know?
Do I now go back to bearpowered and claim I’ve been called a ‘liar’ or ‘dumb’ by members of this forum? Of course not.
Once again, my point is that it is neither fair nor professional to challenge someone’s character on the basis of partial information or comments taken out of context or suspected motives And this is what I believe has been the case with Officer Pike. Sadly, that is no longer the point being discussed now.
And on a final note, since I’ve told this to him many times, I didn’t think much of Barry in our initial exchanges either, until I got to know the man.
We should all take a lesson from Charlie, whose shoulders are indeed broad enough to look beyond those remarks that others would find offensive or disrespectful. Charlie’s art is his ability to find some good in the message regardless of any initial impressions as to the character of the messenger.