Peter McGough vs. John Romano

[Unchained81]

I have worked for Joe Weider since 1992.

Well that explains it.

[Unchained81]

So when you said "old man", "creepy", "writing muscle worship articles" ,"i would wager, he never was in shape", "conman" "homosexual" etc. these were not your personal opinions?
So what was the last piece of his you read and what is your personal opinion of his writing ability?

Come on man, I don't know PM personally but you know that some of the writers at flex are a little strange, maybe I should not have thrown PM in with them since I haven't heard anything about him, but some of those guys are not what they claim to be on their boards.  I will leave it at that, I have heard this from a reliable source.  I don't want to lamblast anyone personally here so i won't go into it.  Just quit acting like all of the rumors about the Weider's and thier cohorts are'nt there for a reason.

[Joe Roark]

Well that explains it.

If this is an example of what you deem proof to be, you had best ignore my invitation to defend Anderson's pro lifts.

[kmhphoto]

Come on man, I don't know PM personally but you know that some of the writers at flex are a little strange, maybe I should not have thrown PM in with them since I haven't heard anything about him, but some of those guys are not what they claim to be on their boards.  I will leave it at that, I have heard this from a reliable source.  I don't want to lamblast anyone personally here so i won't go into it.  Just quit acting like all of the rumors about the Weider's and thier cohorts are'nt there for a reason.

In one post you attack PM, then you admit you know nothing about him, then you say you haven't heard anything about him, so you must have made it up?
What are the claims that these people are making on their boards? Be a little more specific.
Now some of  the writers are "a little strange" because you heard it from "a reliable source". Presumably you haven't met any of them either? But you're prepared to believe rumors!
Rumors are there because people often prefer fiction because it's often more interesting than facts.

[LuciusFox]

Well that explains it.

 This is not evidence or reasoning

[brianX]

I have checked on Anderson's feats and have defended his amateur record, which is quite certain and proveable. His pro status and feats are quite vague, and witnesses vanish under scrutiny, reported weights are lighter than claimed, etc. There is a thread on my forum inviting proof for some of his unsubstantiated feats. Feel free to join and provide the proof. So far, no one has- you'll be a first!

I have worked for Joe Weider since 1992.

Why aren't you inviting proof for some of Weider's "unsubstantiated feats"? In an interview with Dr. Squat, he claimed a 600 deadlift for 5 reps. That's far less believable than anything Anderson did.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat4.htm

[kmhphoto]

Peter McGough is a good writer and he looks to be in good shape in that picture but I disagree with one article in particular he wrote a couple of years back. 

The link doesn't work for me, but was that the article where he was questioning the need for Ronnie to compete at a much heavier bodyweight because he had been too light the previous year?

[Joe Roark]

Can you please show me some evidence to support your claim that Albert Beckles is born in 1938?  I am not denying he was, but I have no evidence of his date of birth either way (1930 or 1938).

Without evidence your claim is meaningless.

I have written extensively on this, but in a nutshell:
Even Albert agreed with the 1938 birth timeline until 1984- he even asserted that those trying to claim he was older, were wrong. Then, after 1984, the story changed. Now he apparently prefers vagueness.

The early British magazines covering the period when he arrived in England, and covering the contests he entered, all support the younger timeline. Indeed, even when other men in the senior division were being complimented that at such older ages they were in shape (and he was in the contest) he was not mentioned as being as old as they- which he would have been if the 1930 timeline is correct.

In the piece I wrote for the cyberpump.com site this topic is covered in detail with quotes and references. I am not trying to also be vague- but the answers are detailed and lengthy. The text appears in the paysite at cyberpump, but I may transfer it to my site if you are really interested.

[Joe Roark]

Why aren't you inviting proof for some of Weider's "unsubstantiated feats"? In an interview with Dr. Squat, he claimed a 600 deadlift for 5 reps. That's far less believable than anything Anderson did.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drsquat4.htm

Brian, I see you are using the ploy that most use when confronted with this situation- you change topics, to try to show that others have also not made the lifts claimed by them or for them. While that may be true or not true on a case by case basis- it proves or disproves nothing about the Anderson situation.

So, okay, I cannot prove that Weider deadlifted 600 even for one rep (I did not yet read the link you provided)- I must admit I had never heard that claim.

So, are you concluding that since Weider could not deadlift 600 for reps that Anderson could do all the pro lifts attributed to him? Are you aware of the lifts attributed to him? No sarcasm there- I have found many people have simply (like I did originally) believed what they first read with no serious investigative follow-up.

If you choose to believe Anderson's pro lifts, that's fine. If you care to present proof, come to my forum, where much text and a solid beginning is already in place including the triology I wrote for Iron Game History- which, by the way, no one has yet refuted with proof, settling instead for emotional distraction, and changing the subject.

[LuciusFox]

Brian, I see you are using the ploy that most use when confronted with this situation- you change topics, to try to show that others have also not made the lifts claimed by them or for them. While that may be true or not true on a case by case basis- it proves or disproves nothing about the Anderson situation.

So, okay, I cannot prove that Weider deadlifted 600 even for one rep (I did not yet read the link you provided)- I must admit I had never heard that claim.

So, are you concluding that since Weider could not deadlift 600 for reps that Anderson could do all the pro lifts attributed to him? Are you aware of the lifts attributed to him? No sarcasm there- I have found many people have simply (like I did originally) believed what they first read with no serious investigative follow-up.

If you choose to believe Anderson's pro lifts, that's fine. If you care to present proof, come to my forum, where much text and a solid beginning is already in place including the triology I wrote for Iron Game History- which, by the way, no one has yet refuted with proof, settling instead for emotional distraction, and changing the subject.

 Great post, Joe Roark!

[Unchained81]

Mentioning Paul Anderson and Wieder in the same conversation about weight lifting is comical.  I would like an explanition for the pics that are seen from time to time in Weider's publication where he looks to have Arnold like size.  Everyone knows this is fake.  I have seen with my own eyes a pic where "Joe" is doing a most muscular, shown from the waist up, with Arnold like size.  Everyone at my gym laughed when we saw it.  Below the pic it said "Joe practiced what he preached" regarding the Weider principles.  LOL.

[LuciusFox]

Mentioning Paul Anderson and Wieder in the same conversation about weight lifting is comical.  I would like an explanition for the pics that are seen from time to time in Weider's publication where he looks to have Arnold like size.  Everyone knows this is fake.  I have seen with my own eyes a pic where "Joe" is doing a most muscular, shown from the waist up, with Arnold like size.  Everyone at my gym laughed when we saw it.  Below the pic it said "Joe practiced what he preached" regarding the Weider principles.  LOL.

 You wouldn't say that to Joe's face

[Unchained81]

You wouldn't say that to Joe's face

Uh, and why do you think I would not?  I am not a mean spirited person, nor do I have any real animosity towards him, so I would'nt start yelling it at him, but if you are implying that he is a man to be feared well then, LOL.  Look, I have seen how you defend all pro bbers and IFBB officials on here, and I am not a pro hater.
I know some posters on here relentlessly bash Bob Chic and others, I do not want to do that.  I just think that putting your head on someone else body and claiming it is real in a publication is pretty lame.  If asked about it by Weider I would say the same, and Paul Anderson is an all time great in the strength world, Weider is not even close, that is why I said they should be discussed together.

[Joe Roark]

Uh, and why do you think I would not?  I am not a mean spirited person, nor do I have any real animosity towards him, so I would'nt start yelling it at him, but if you are implying that he is a man to be feared well then, LOL.  Look, I have seen how you defend all pro bbers and IFBB officials on here, and I am not a pro hater.
I know some posters on here relentlessly bash Bob Chic and others, I do not want to do that.  I just think that putting your head on someone else body and claiming it is real in a publication is pretty lame.  If asked about it by Weider I would say the same, and Paul Anderson is an all time great in the strength world, Weider is not even close, that is why I said they should be discussed together.

Certainly Weider cannot compare to Anderson in the strength world, nor can Anderson compare to Weider in the publishing world.

I suppose how you define 'all time great in the strength world' is the key phrase. Within a few years of Paul's amateur retirement, his lifts were surpassed- in some cases by men of much lighter bodyweight. The same could be said of other great weightlifters, of course, so I do not know how 'all time great' fits any lifter whose lifts have been surpassed, unless you mean that for a period, each was top man. Certainly that is the case with Paul and many others. So each could be remembered for all time as a great lifter for a specific period ending when his lifts were surpassed. Then a new king arose.

[LuciusFox]

Uh, and why do you think I would not?  I am not a mean spirited person, nor do I have any real animosity towards him, so I would'nt start yelling it at him, but if you are implying that he is a man to be feared well then, LOL.  Look, I have seen how you defend all pro bbers and IFBB officials on here, and I am not a pro hater.
I know some posters on here relentlessly bash Bob Chic and others, I do not want to do that.  I just think that putting your head on someone else body and claiming it is real in a publication is pretty lame.  If asked about it by Weider I would say the same, and Paul Anderson is an all time great in the strength world, Weider is not even close, that is why I said they should be discussed together.

   I'm just joking with you . Although I would laugh if Joe beat you up .

[bb doc]

If only Peter McGough would fire Julian "Mr. Thesaurus" Schmidt....


Speak on this Ron + Joe!


If I have to read "Brodnigagain (sp?)" again when a simple adjective like "massive, huge, or large" would do, I'm gonna be pissed.

Good writing = clear writing.

[LuciusFox]

If only Peter McGough would fire Julian "Mr. Thesaurus" Schmidt....


Speak on this Ron + Joe!


If I have to read "Brodnigagain (sp?)" again when a simple adjective like "massive, huge, or large" would do, I'm gonna be pissed.

Good writing = clear writing.

 Sometimes it is good to be challenged! Expand your mind, man!

[bb doc]

LF-

I guess J. Schmidt is just a pet-peeve of mine.  I've bitched about him before many times on getbig.

I was 1 of those geeks who played Scrabble as a kid, etc., + I'm obsessive about knowing the definition of every word in anything I read (thank goodness for internet dictionaries!), so my vocabulary's pretty decent, but I swear, I have to use a dictionary MORE often with Schmidt's articles than an article in the NYTimes, Economist, an academic journal, etc.

It's ridiculous. 

Seriously, man, Good writing = Clear writing - this is a fundamental principle of writing.

Schmidt's writing is Garbage, plain + simple.  Man should be fired + his Weider paychecks for the last 20 years retroactively pulled.

And he should be forced to write w/o an Internet/actual thesaurus - hell, even if he actually DOES know those polysyllabic, sesquepidalean words, there's STILL no reason to use them!

Read something by say William Safire, a NYTimes columnist - sure every know + then he uses a "big word" that's not that widely familiar to a college-educated audience, but it's only "every know + then", not every frekaing sentence! 

Hell, pick any widely recognized as "smart" public person (Bill Clinton, Kissinger, Bill Gates, etc.) - their writing is 1000000% clearer and better than that fool Schmidt.

Can you tell that I really hate his writing?

Rant off!

-bb doc

[240 is Back]

Part of being "smart" is being able to communicate effectively and get your message across.

While Julian may deliver art/prose with his articles, most readers don't know what the hell he's talking about.

[LuciusFox]

LF-

I guess J. Schmidt is just a pet-peeve of mine.  I've bitched about him before many times on getbig.

I was 1 of those geeks who played Scrabble as a kid, etc., + I'm obsessive about knowing the definition of every word in anything I read (thank goodness for internet dictionaries!), so my vocabulary's pretty decent, but I swear, I have to use a dictionary MORE often with Schmidt's articles than an article in the NYTimes, Economist, an academic journal, etc.

It's ridiculous. 

Seriously, man, Good writing = Clear writing - this is a fundamental principle of writing.

Schmidt's writing is Garbage, plain + simple.  Man should be fired + his Weider paychecks for the last 20 years retroactively pulled.

And he should be forced to write w/o an Internet/actual thesaurus - hell, even if he actually DOES know those polysyllabic, sesquepidalean words, there's STILL no reason to use them!

Read something by say William Safire, a NYTimes columnist - sure every know + then he uses a "big word" that's not that widely familiar to a college-educated audience, but it's only "every know + then", not every frekaing sentence! 

Hell, pick any widely recognized as "smart" public person (Bill Clinton, Kissinger, Bill Gates, etc.) - their writing is 1000000% clearer and better than that fool Schmidt.

Can you tell that I really hate his writing?

Rant off!

-bb doc

 I agree that he is over the top with his use of obscure words I would like to know how and why he started writing like that. It might be an interesting story.

[bb doc]

Hmm, good point, Lucius.

Maybe there's a method to his madness.

Or maybe - probably - he's just a tool.

[LuciusFox]

Hmm, good point, Lucius.

Maybe there's a method to his madness.

Or maybe - probably - he's just a tool.

 

    Or maybe - probably - he's just a tool....he has to know that what he's doing is going to annoy people, but he does it anyway. I like that

[bb doc]

Ha!

That sounds like 240!

[Joe Roark]

If only Peter McGough would fire Julian "Mr. Thesaurus" Schmidt....


Speak on this Ron + Joe!


If I have to read "Brodnigagain (sp?)" again when a simple adjective like "massive, huge, or large" would do, I'm gonna be pissed.

Good writing = clear writing.

If I am the Joe mentioned here, okay, I will speak on this.

In my case, there are several writers whose work I scan quickly, not because of large words but because of small content. That goes for some on internet forums, as well as in magazines. If you are bothered by a writer, or by his style, you have the option of not reading his writing.

Interestingly, no one is suggesting that Julian's work is ghost-written.

[bb doc]

Joe Roark-

Your post was not very informative.

Schmidt is 1 reason I canceled my 7 year subscription to Flex magazine a while back.

If you actually have some insight into Mr. Schmidt's writing style, why he writes that way, etc., please let us know.

tx,

bb doc.