Whats his problem?

Whats his problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Manlet.

bad trigger discipline

He's just Texan. Stubborn about his views and thinks calling others a sissy constitutes an argument.

He's THE resource to learn the main lifts and SS is solid. Texas method is good for squats. Otherwise, he should be completely ignored

Doesn't sleep well.
Able to articulate his beliefs and logic well, but people don't want to understand.
Business isn't growing as fast as he'd like. See reason 2.

He sounds like an idiot and his form sucks. Good way to tear a tendie

He dedicated his life to competitive powerlifting and still got absolutely BTFO.
That said he's pretty based but seems like a chore to be around.
I imagine he just constantly goes on autistic rants in a bored-sounding, monotone drawl.

Chooses revolvers

Very good advice, hes just stubborn and doesn't respect any variation on his program.

I like him, but I don't like that SS became the standard beginner pogrom

I know Medi is a Belgian kebab internet marketer, while Mark has lifted way heavier and trained others
but SL > SS in my opinion

the average guy will get so much out of just a simple routine 3 times per week
power clean is shit, and a waste of time
unless you're an athlete sports player or something

>not choosing revolvers for superior reliability

SS and SL are effectively the same fucking program, moron.

>do strong lifts
>get strong
>switch to ss because friend was doing it
>after cleans are introduced i get not only strong but also incredibly good at sports and my overall athletic performance improves dramatically. literally beat my entire school at 100m dash despite some of guys competing locally
>also never stalled at deadlift again

what about reloading reliability

youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw

none, he cares about strength not looks

>ugly
>not particularly strong

so he's a failure twice?

CANT STOP BELIEEEVING

...

Why isn't texas method good for bench/ohp? 1.5 times/week not enough? Got any better intermediate routine for that?

WR is 1268 lbs, which makes Mark's number below 50%, which is a failure.

It's fine if you've wrung everything you can from a noob program like starting strength.

Or capacity?

Reload.

Or accuracy.

Oh, wait.

With a revolver? Let me know how that goes in a high intensity situation.

If you have problems reloading under pressure, that's on you.

See:

Whatever you say my dude. I'll let my local police force and government military know they're using the inferior firearms. pic related

>doesn't know why appeal to authority is a fallacy

You're an idiot. That guy is a speed shooter, and one of the best in the world.
Most people can reload a magazine fed pistol much faster than a revolver. There's a reason the military and police don't issue revolvers like they used to.

>doesn't know why moving the goalpost is a fallacy

You might be the biggest retard on the planet. I bet you call mags clips.

"Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument"

>when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument

So the police/military are not relevant to the use of firearms in extreme situations? You're not too bright.

>doesn't know why ad hominem is a fallacy

Again. Whatever you say man. You obviously know what you're talking about.

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a constructive way of getting your point across. It'd be like if your job was to pick fruit, but all you did was walk around the farm pointing out "There's an Apple!". It makes people think you're mentally deficient.

>thinks authority trumps data
>still doesn't know why appeal to authority is a fallacy

whats your motive buddy

Hon, you clearly don't even know what *we're* talking about.

Lol cool bro I'll call up delta and let them know that this super smart bro on fit says they should use a revolver.

>Uses calling out logical fallacies as only source of argument

You want to argue, make arguments. Don't merely expect people to pretend that you're making arguments.

In your terms, I'm telling you that the "apple" you pointed out is a cow turd.

Provide the data that proves revolvers are superior to magazine fed pistol in combat. In 1985 the US military began to issue the M9 over their service revolvers due to its HIGHER CAPACITY and it's EASIER to reload .

>doesn't know what a straw man is

Honey, to be wrong, you'd have to make an argument. You didn't even do that, so you're not even wrong.

I'm arguing for the use of pistols not revolvers you dyslexic fuck

>doesn't know what a strawman is

Quote me where I said that's the point I was arguing.

Lol yes I do. You can quote fallacies all you want bro. The fact is there are people out there that aren't you that actually know a thing or two about killing.

>doesn't know why appeal to authority isn't an argument

"If you have problems reloading under pressure, that's on you"

That's implying that the issue lies with the user of the gun. When that's simply not true. A revolver is innately harder to reload than a bottom fed handgun, assuming you have pre-loaded magazines ready. If it were as simple as becoming more adept at your reloading speed the military/Leo would no doubt train their personnel to use them. But they don't, because revolvers also have a much lower capacity. Which implies it is not as good in an intense situation.

>doesn't know why moving the goalpost is a fallacy

I understand this is just 4chin, but if you're not going to provide adequate responses then have a good day.

You're the one expecting me to respond to non-arguments as if they were arguments.

Toodles.

I'll be here for another hour and a half or so if you want to get your shit together and take another run at this.

He fell for the Starting Strength meme.

What points did I not address? My argument is simply that revolvers are not as easy/fast to reload as a magazine fed pistol, therefore the military do not use them. I'm not the first person you responded to either. I just can't see what your point was, as you haven't really said anything informative or refuted any points.

Pity response

that's in multi ply PL; his numbers were set in single ply equipment
that said, his numbers aren't even competitive for Raw @220lb nowadays.
the useful thing about this information is that it really frames Rippetoe's mentality in regards to training. For a person lifting in a squat suit to squat less than their deadlift is very poor.
I'd guess that he argues so hard for low bar squatting because it's the only way he could get a decent squat going. His bench is very poor for a 220, and his deadlift is only so-so.
I'd guess that his training premise is based around the concept that he could easily get away with deadlifting less because he was built more favorably for it and could use low bar as his main movement to drive volume to progress both his squat and deadlift.
He simply doesn't emphasize bench because he's not good at it.
It's a lazy pseudo-powerlifting training methed by a mediocre powerlifter.

>doesn't know why moving the goalpost is a fallacy

Here's a hint. Go back and read *exactly* what I wrote and what I responded to. Do yourself a big favor and avoid reading anything into it.

"Look mom I posted it again hue hue hue"