Talk:Mike Mentzer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"successfully implement the only scientifically valid theory of bodybuilding" -- is this true? -- Tarquin 20:04 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say "scientifically valid" but he is pretty much the only one who has ever attempted to use the scientific method to find the most efficient way to train. He doesn't absolutely prove everything he says but does have good arguments. What I'd like to know is who, when and on what basis has generally accepted that his method's would not be the best for everyone? Slux 11:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "pretty much the only one who ever attempted to use the scientific method to find the most efficient way to train" -- this is almost certainly not true, though some margin can be made for distinguishing strength training from bodybuilding. Russian (soviet) scientsts keenly interested in scientifically, though through "brute force" trial-and-error, examined the biological mechanisms and the training techniques which elicit hypertrophy. Most well known in the West is Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky who authored Science and Practice of Strength Training; this was followed up by and in collaboration with Mel C. Siff and his seminal text Supertraining. These came to define, though later authors tended to unscientifically distort, the methodology of periodization.
- Mel C. Siff (Memorial?) Supertraining Website
- you're right, I was only referring to bodybuilding and actual successful bodybuilders at that.. There may well be scientists and less well known enthusiasts that have a similar approach to their training but at least Mentzer's the one who raised controversy when he popularised the notion that there might actually be a "right" way to train and that way is possible to find using the scientific method. Slux 08:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
"Mentzer's theories, (and Mentzer's theories alone), are the only ones that ensure a person can reach his full genetic potential in the shortest amount of time." -- Who wrote this stuff, Mentzer's publicist?? John Owens
Seems to be written by someone who has a strong personal/financial investment in Mentzer's ideas. This article is filled with very strong, unfounded statements about his methods and needs to be cleaned up. As it is, it reads like the back of one of Mentzer's books. Arild 02:02 6 Jan 2006 (CET)
Mentzer developed one style of training effective yes but no better neccesarily that any other. For Arnold long workouts and two a day workouts worked best for him. Obviously his physique shows the quality of his training methods. No training method can be said to be the best, they all have foundation but training is different for each person.
The last paragraph above is replete with argumentation fallacies. First of all, the idea that Arnold's long workouts "worked best" for him is what is called a questionable premise. But before dealing with that, let us deal with the second fallacy noted in the above paragraph: the idea that the man's physique showed the quality of his training methods.
[edit] Argumentation Fallacies Need Not Apply
The material in the paragraph preceding this section is an example of the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proper hoc. Just because something happens after an event does not mean that said event caused it. Nor for that matter does it mean that the quality of Arnold's physique can be ascribed to his training methods.
Arnold like all champions of that physical elite had unique genetics, superior recovery ability, a top-notch metabolism, etc. and he took steroids to boot. With those factors in his favour, he could train far more than most people, recover far better than most people, etc. Furthermore, the bulk of Arnold's muscle was built with shorter routines as is the case with everyone so to ascribe what he did in the 1970's to being what he always did is a mistake of no small degree.
So if one wants to argue against the training methodology of Mike Mentzer, they will have to do a hell of a lot better than stringing together a bunch of normative subjective assertions and considering that to constitute a viable argument. In the words of that great western philosopher Homey the Clown "Homey don't play that!!!" ShawnM 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- That's all fine and dandy (especiallly if all of what your saying is true - which it's not), I'm sure you'll find many people who will argue Mentzers "theories" all day long. However Wikipedia is Nuetral Point of View (NPOV). Keep your edits as such and you'll have no problem with anyone, however if you attempt to turn this article into a "many people think Mentzer should have won this or that show" or other edits in a similar vein, without providing reputable sources, I will revert them. Yankees76 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course by claiming to need to see "reputable sources" you are in essence engaging in a fallacy of begging the question as well as normative argumentation. I posted one source but someone edited it out which makes me wonder just how seriously your statement is actually to be taken. I also noticed you referred to the placing Mentzer was given in the 1980 Olympia as "tied for fourth" which is odd since I have seen that verified nowhere. Even Mike said he was given fifth place.
The fact, is, there were a number of people in the bodybuilding community who took the views I noted; ergo my use of the term "many." Or did Mentzer being given perfect scores in one of those contexts somehow not constitute "neutral point of view"? Look it up if you doubt me. I suppose you will then assert that no bodybuilding contests have ever been fixed either. And furthermore, I suppose you would find it not relevant that some of the judges at the 1980 Olympia were business partners of Arnold's. Furthermore, the audience booed the contest result and that can also be verified: they knew it was a scam as did CBS Sports who never aired the film they flew halfway around the world to shoot. All of this can be documented but why bother since (i) I am not very good with the formatting on this page anyway and (ii) based on the way previous links were deleted, I see no reason to doubt that any links I did post would be deleted by someone again (probably by you).
The bottom line is, you can claim that something I wrote was not true but assertions do not themselves constitute proof. But then again, that is why I noted at the outset of what I posted above "argumentation fallacies need not apply." Apparently you did not see the headline before posting your blurb above. ShawnM 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
ShawnM, I invite you to review the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability. Particularly the bolded statements that say:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
See point number three in particular.
To address some of your accusations. Mike Mentzer tied for 4th at the 1980 Mr. Olympia. Please see www.ifbb.com, FLEX Magazine August, 2002, Getbig.com, and Schwarzenegger.it to name just a few. IFBB.com [1] alone is enough to make this a verifiable statement.
Sure there are many there were a number of people in the bodybuilding community who took the views you noted (I'm friends with quite a few of them), however again, read the policy on Verifiability, particularly the section on Original research.
Regarding links, view the guideline on external links, particularly links to normally avoid.
Follow the rules, stick with the verifiable facts (be prepared to provide sources for your statements) and leave the drawing of conclusions to the reader.
Do so and you can edit all you like. It's good to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and no other editors need to ask you permission to remove or alter any piece of information you provide. Other editors removing or altering your material are not personally attacking you or in this case Mike Mentzer, they're simply looking to improve the article to make it as factual and neutral as possible. If you want to blog your own views and feelings about Mentzer, there are plenty of other places for that. Thanks. Yankees76 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
