Tommy Fannon in defense of support gear

[kite]

Tweet1. Geared lifters aren't getting stronger.
2. Geared lifters think they are stronger than raw lifters.

The former point:
I will address here the most popular form of attack from the anti-gear crowd.

1) Geared lifters aren't getting stronger

So, here goes. Please read carefully and don't blow a gasket because it hurts too much to think through things...

1) George squats 500 RAW. He buys a double poly suit.. within a year, he squats 600. He then gets a canvas and some metal briefs and within a certain amount of time squats 700. Okay. In this case, he has certainly gotten support from gear. Has he gotten stronger? Probably or maybe he just got lucky and got a lot out of his gear. some people are just luckier. Let's continue.

Now that he has macked out his gear he wants to squat 900 LBS! How does he get there? There is no more gear to buy. So, given that, there is only one way for him to get there.

Train hard and train efficiently to take advantage of the gear. Let's say within a year using the same briefs and squat suits, he squats 800 lbs. He got there by getting stronger. How can you possibly disagree with that?

Neural efficiency to the gear? yes, that happens, but eventually it peaks. You will see it peak within a few months.

More gear? no. not if he is to stay legal. put enough gear on and it is either illegal or he wont hit parallel. so, granted that judging doesnt suck (which is a whole seperate issue).. to go from 700 - 800 was accomplished by getting stronger.

Does everyone follow?

Yes, gear will give you support.

Yes, the first time you put gear on, you'll be able to lift more than if you were raw.

But to continue to progress, you will need to actually get stronger. No smoke and mirrors, no magic. Just hard training.

This concludes lesson #1 in dispelling the anti-gear lies and rhetoric.

The latter point:

i broke this into another part because i honestly believe raw zealots have something wrong with their brain which prevents them from processsing too much data at once.

if you just read point #1 and are angry, please take a few breaths, go eat a twinkie, and come back later. the post will still be here.

Fallacy #2: geared lifters think they are stronger than raw lifters

With VERY few exceptions, i have never heard a prominent gear user say he is stronger than someone in the past. In fact, the people doing all the whining are the people who are NOT using gear or who are closet gear users who are still no good. Why is this?

The only person who i remember in recent history spout about how great he is happens to be Brad Vargason, and to his credit, he ONLY compared himself to lifters of his genre. Yes, there was some talk about Shawn Frankl approaching Coan's legendary status. You know what? Frankl didn't put that up there. It was his fan club. Fan clubs whether they are fans of Jesus, sports figures, rap stars, politicians, etc tend to cause many problems.

It makes no sense for anyone to compare lifters from a different era in terms of numbers. Even my partner in debate Dmitry made the point.. 'it's a different sport'. Well, it is and it isn't. It's a different era of the sport. The spirit remains the same but the parameters have changed slightly.

Just like baseball, just like auto racing, just like anything really. evolve or die.

i honestly think powerlifting was running its course as a sport. weightlifting has been on a decline in popularity in the united states for a long time due in large part to how little it has changed. i personally think powerlifting was revitalized by evolution of training (westside, metal militia, big iron style). shit, barbell clubs are springing up all over the place now.

Why doesn't Hank Aaron get on public tv and ***** about shorter fences, lowered pitchers mounds, corked bats, etc, etc. It's pretty simple to me:

he was one of the greatest of his time and will be remembered as one NOT because of a magic number but because of his prominence as a player, his longevity, and because at the time he was the a mile above his peers.

This is the same for the likes of Eddie Coan, Bill Kazmaier. It will also be the same for the likes of Gary Frank, Chuck Vogelpohl,etc.

The numbers don't mean shit folks. It's how competitive they were in their era.

So, people, your heroes will still be heroes, way into the future. An absolute number doesn't make the best lifter. It's a comparison to lifters of his own era...

[jamescb77]

Tweetthis makes very good sense good find and good post bro

[T-Man007]

TweetWow, that's a great read bro! It's like an Arnold versus Ronnie comparison...there's not one because of the era in which they performed. I personally am a bigger fan of the older era because I like the the thin waist lines and the vacuum pose, which we all know none of todays bber's could ever pull off with their GH guts. But in respect to what was posted above, Arnold and Zane were the best of their time and even if 'I' think they are the best....it's because I got into this sport when they were the kings of it. I got in just as Lee Haney was taking the helm.

I think old school guys like old school heros. Take football for instance, I would take guys like Ronnie Lott and Earl Cambell over most of todays guys.

[ottorotvic]

TweetAwesome post, **** (no names-lol). I want to copy it and post it up in the RAAAAAAAW forum over at MM. I always get pissed when I check that forum out.