Guru Humility or Lack of It

[GqArtguy]

Its one thing to write that youre the bomb or have your circle of friends keep saying that for you, but its quite another to behave as if you are. One thing that I find fascinating about the gurus is the huge ego and total lack of humility in conducting themselves when caught back pedaling, misrepresented themselves, or just flat out being questioned and/or proved wrong.

We've seen this superiority complex from the great Dos, and recently Jimmy Smythe. The latest drivel is coming from Chad Waterbury. In his latest article he says the following:

3) My Real Strength Guidelines Sometimes I feel like I've been misquoted more than a hooker with a speech impediment. At the top of the list of hyperbolic bullshit is what I've read and heard about my own purported strength requirements for a fighter. It's time to set this nonsense straight. (And since I prefer clean air, I'll do my best to refrain from burning any bridges.)
First off, it's been said that I require fighters to squat and deadlift 2.5 x their bodyweight. I didn't. I said squat or deadlift. If you're tall with long femurs, you're not built for squats. You'll probably break down your joints before achieving a 2.5 x body weight squat. That, of course, is counter-productive to building a strong, healthy body.

Second, a 2.5 x bodyweight squat or deadlift is not a requirement! It's simply a benchmark. What I'm saying is this: if you're built for the deadlift, it's a good idea to include maximal strength training with the deadlift until you can lift 2.5 x bodyweight.

Lets see if we can find the misquote from the article hes referring to:

Maximal Strength: For those who are new to training for MMA, or for those with low levels of maximal strength, I'll first build up the three powerlifts. The most important powerlift for a MMA fighter is the deadlift. The first priority will be to develop a 2.5x bodyweight deadlift.
So, if you weigh 180 lbs, you'll need to achieve a 450 lbs raw deadlift (no belt, suit, or straps). Eventually, the ultimate goal will be a 3.0x bodyweight deadlift. But this is by no means written in stone. Depending on the lifter's height and skeletal structure, a 2.5x bodyweight deadlift might be sufficient.


The second priority is a 2.5x bodyweight squat. Again, this must be a raw effort. For taller trainees (over 6'), a 2.5x bodyweight squat is ideal. For shorter lifters, or for those who have the skeletal structure conducive to squatting big numbers, I might kick the number up to 3.0x bodyweight (but this is rare). Keep in mind, I'm referring to a powerlifting squat where you're only required to drop your femur just below parallel to the floor.
The third priority is a 2.0x bodyweight bench press. This is the least important of all the powerlifts, but a bigger bench can help your fighting efforts. Nevertheless, whatever you can bench press must be perfectly matched by a seated row (even though a seated row is not a powerlift). I only allow my clients to increase their bench press if their rowing strength matches their current pressing strength. And if their bench press increases 20 lbs, so does their rowing strength.

Sorry but I see no 'or' there. Nor is there any misquoting given what hes written. What amuses, me about these gurus is how they attribute their missteps to the audience misinterpreting them or attack the audience as being negative or assume that they are so important that there are people 'out to get them' when the source of reaction is coming from the guru themselves.

One thing that these gurus need to learn is that if they are going to parade about being the next great thing in fitness, or the leading authority, or whatever is that they also have to live on the pedastool that they are creating to market themselves.

[PowerManDL]

That should be just common sense stuff, too. 2.5-3x BW on the SQ and DL are powerlifting numbers, stuff that requires specialized training.

I doubt any fighter needs to focus on building up that kind of strength; the carryover just won't be there.

But hey, we can't admit we're wrong, right! That might cause you to lose face.

[RedWifey]

I am just wondering what the purpose of this new thread is. I can agree with you that Chad has gone back on what he originally said and is now unwilling to admit it, but do we need another thread to discuss it?

[GqArtguy]

Originally Posted by RedWifey

I am just wondering what the purpose of this new thread is. I can agree with you that Chad has gone back on what he originally said and is now unwilling to admit it, but do we need another thread to discuss it?

I think its useful to point out since lots of these gurus sell products on this site (and usually restrict their posts to just selling). One of the biggest issues in this industry is sifting through the information of whats good, what sucks, who to trust, etc.

So its also not fair to jump on someone like Jimmy for his shadiness and then let guys like CW get a free pass by blaming the audience.

[Kaiser]

Where, exactly, did Chad put that article GQ? And can you point to a previous link in this forum mentioning it or, perhaps, a post discussing it?

RW's question seems a good one to me because there are very few MMA trainees here, and if the article wasn't referenced here, I'm not sure why it would be relevant, even to those who buy Waterbury's products.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of misrepresentation here with Chad... if anything, he clarified a previous position to make it clear what he meant. Not sure how that would indicate a lack of trust, shady practices or anything worth debating.

[GqArtguy]

Originally Posted by Kaiser

Where, exactly, did Chad put that article GQ? And can you point to a previous link in this forum mentioning it or, perhaps, a post discussing it?

The were both posted on t-mag.

RW's question seems a good one to me because there are very few MMA trainees here, and if the article wasn't referenced here, I'm not sure why it would be relevant, even to those who buy Waterbury's products.


There doesn't seem to be any kind of misrepresentation here with Chad... if anything, he clarified a previous position to make it clear what he meant. Not sure how that would indicate a lack of trust, shady practices or anything worth debating.

Its not the content of MMA thats the issue, its the example of these gurus blaming the audience for the backlash to the drivel that they put out. In this particular case it has nothing to do with shady practices or lack of trust.

As a trainer, my one of my roles is to teach fitness. If Im educating people on fitness then its my responsibility to convey things clearly. If I am misunderstood, then something was lost in my message and as an educator I should strive to make sure that my explanations are clear and look within when Im misquoted. Otherwise, its like a teacher in school blaming a student for not getting what was written on the board.

In this case, we do have Chad clarifying his stance, but what rubs me the wrong way is the following:

1) Hes blaming the audience for misquoting him

2) Because of 1) then his argument must be examined and you can see that the older article does not line up with his clarification, thus its difficult to blame the audience

I would have no problem if he just said 'hey, people are saying X and while I can see why they say X, I really meant X'. But instead hes back pedaling and blaming others for misinterpreting him. Whats ironic is that some of the criticism comes from some member who specialize in training fighters as well as general 'wtf' reactions.

Finally, even if the article isnt referenced here, it is important because this forum at least does care about the character of who theyre buying from.

[Jean-Paul]

I think prolific authors are pretty target rich. Maybe your bigger point is his defense of his article, but with as much as he produces, it is understandable that you don't always communicate your points the way you want them to come out.

Both Chad and Dos are solid trainers/coaches though. At my level, they are accessible and helpful, and I might well be the target audience. At your level with your background in oly training it may contradict with your training.

In Dos' defense, he has never actually tried to sell anything in here. Chad has, but always at my invitation, and never unsolicited.

I only point this out because I see you as an up-and-comer in the industry, and when you open yourself up to public scrutiny, you will be surprised how much it "backs you up" to have someone criticise your ideas/theories.

I acknowledge that occasionally we have witnessed gurus go a little haywire from time to time. Personally I don't like to pile it on when someone is in defense mode. Not that I'm one of the big guys, but I feel like I can empathize with them. pershaps because I have said stupid stuff in the past.

I agree that the best response is to not blame the reader for not understanding... Afterall, that is the writer's job. When caught in an inconsistency, the best response is to own up to it because no matter how good you are, when you're hanging it all out there for the public, you will screw up.

I wouldn't say that the pros are thin-skinned, but they are obviously human, and when you feel like you are under attack, it seems pretty natural to want to defend. I watched Alwyn speak for 500 trainers at an event, and he had them eating out of his hands... Absolutely killed 'em! One person came up to complain about his frequent use of the word, "fuck," and it really bothered him. Less than 1% of them had a problem with it, and it was based on her being uptight and wound up, not at all about his content, which was excellent.

The reason I bring this up is that he is well-liked, competent, and confident. He's also human. It doesn't stop him from doing his thing, but it bugged him. Kinda like a small rock in your shoe. I can completely relate to that experience. I have a great track record with my clients and members, but when I have a rare member who doesn't like my club or complains about my services or staff, it eats my lunch!

[Terry Monk]

Fantastic response JP. GQ - I must admit you've got some very good points and when you lay it out as well as you did I start to agree, but JP defends from the human standpoint even better than your argument. I still see your point, but I look at how I might try to defend myself in a similar situation and I can see how this could play out.

Thanks to both of you for making me think more about what I read.