Smith Machine - all that bad?

Hanley

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nope

Still waiting on the other reasons so.

Point out where i said this ???

There were a rake load of suggestions. You weighed in saying Dorian preferred smith squats. The thread then descended into madness, with you slagging and insulting everyone while sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la la".

The thread was about building legs without squats. You seem to think it's about smith squats. THe fact you've talked about nothing but smith squats implies you think they're the best thing going. Except for leg presses. Cos Dorian said so.

At which point did i say this ???

:rolleyes: You HAVEN'T said it. That's the problem. I'm asking you for proof or at least some way of backing up that smith squats are better for building your legs. I wouldn't be asking the question, the one you bolded, if you already had.

Hanley you are getting into this annoying habit of jumping in at the end of a conversation without being aware of the whole conversation with what appears to be the soul purpose of picking an argument

The absolute AMAZING thing about a forum is that you can re-read the conversation. Can you believe that???? :eek: I've watched this thread from it's second or third post btw and you have this annoying habit of being a condescending (oops, almost said it). You're talking down to guys who are carrying more muscle, and are stronger than you. You've attempted some psedo-intellectual argument, accusing people of things they haven't said, and then tried to further your own agenda by "proving" them wrong. It's called a strawman argument.

crotalus667

kevpants wrote: »

God

Sorry but there is no god

kevpants wrote: »

you're just going to say we're misunderstanding you if we criticize.

Errrrr no , however I will say you misunderstand me when you misunderstand me , and when you say I said something which I did not I will call you on it

kevpants wrote: »

You won't commit to an opinion or provide backup because that means you're accountable

FALSE STATMENT

kevpants wrote: »

I think you're oversimplifying how you train legs for size,

Do explain useing actual quote's from me

kevpants wrote: »

I'm afraid if you spend hours isolating all of the individual muscle groups you're setting yourself up for a fall.,

Who said to "spend hours isolating all of the individual muscle groups"?? if you are sujesting i did i'd like to see the quotes

kevpants wrote: »

I usually hate the "I lift 20kg more therefore my opinion is 20kg's more valid" but I suppose my argument comes down to proof and the big tasty leg pudding I enjoy.

There are many ways to skin a cat , a lot of which are good and a lot of which are bad , I wont comment on the way you skin the cat because I don’t know how you do it

telemachus

crotalus667 wrote: »

Sorry but there is no god
There are many ways to skin a cat , a lot of which are good and a lot of which are bad , I wont comment on the way you skin the cat because I don’t know how you do it

I think his point is that regardless of how he did the foul deed, his cat is significantly balder than yours

Khannie

crotalus667 wrote: »

You clearly have not under stood what I have poster , (and/or it would also appear you have not understood what you yourself have posted) read it again and if you still cant understand , well tough luck because I am not going to draw it in crayon just for you , I am not your special ed teacher

Right....that special ed thing. You pull any more **** like that and I'll give you a nice break.

Also, I'm gonna point out that you keep pointing out that people need to go back and re-read things. Stop doing that please. It's melting everyones head here (including mine because I've better things to be doing on a bank holiday Friday than reading this). If you want to point out where someone's misread, back it up with a quote. You seem skilled at quoting anyway.

Only 20 more posts to read.....

kevpants wrote: »

But...(G'em and Khannie, I'm usually pretty well behaved around here right? Can this one be my mulligan?)... WTF???? Just WTF???

Yes, I agree, and there's a nice infraction coming, but please please do me a favour and report posts like that. Makes it easier to nip stuff in the bud.

kevpants wrote: »

Insinuating that someone is "special needs" to try and publicly humiliate them is disgusting and I'm a bit annoyed no Mod picked up on it, though I'm sure I'll be collared for this post. You don't know the history of the poster you're attacking nor of the people reading.

I didn't pick up on it 'cos I didn't read the thread. You're right though, I thought it was nasty. Just report posts like that though.

kevpants

Ok you require direct quotations before any criticism can be offered on your opinion. Clearly the logical conclusions we all seem to be coming to are wrong based on your responses.

crotalus667 wrote: »

Size and size only , there is little point in using it for strength as it would support the ankles too much leading to an ankle injury when the strength is applied in a sport type setting (unless like the op you have little other options in which case a lot of the other exercises for the legs would be made up of free weight work ie walking DB lunges)

Wrong.

When Dorian or whoever uses the Smith Machine in the manner you are describing, you also stated

crotalus667 wrote: »

Because of the removal of a need to balance the free bar a stance that focuses more certain muscle groups can be taken

they are NOT training for size.

What they are doing is working on symmetry. The Smith Machine may be a genuinely good tool when trying to put the finishing touches on an already massive slab of muscle, I don't know. Like you said, stances focusing on say the outer side of the left leg if it were unsymmetrical can be adopted.

There is zero point in a beginner looking to increase the flare in their outer quads or whatever. It's just about adding old fashioned slabs of beef. for that reason I stand behind my statement that your point is invalid in this context.

That any better?

Khannie

ok, I've only skim read the last few posts. I'm tempted to just lock this because I'm not sure any good will come of it, but I'll leave it for now.

Crotalus: You're getting an infraction for personal abuse (you threw the first punch).

Kev: I'm going to give you the one retaliatory post I think you deserved, this time, but just report the post next time please.

Any more personal abuse in this thread and bans will ensue.

Have a nice long weekend suckers.

crotalus667

Hanley wrote: »

There were a rake load of suggestions. You weighed in saying Dorian preferred smith squats. .

after some one posted negatively about them

Hanley wrote: »

The thread then descended into madness, with you slagging and insulting everyone .

I did not slag and insult everyone

Hanley wrote: »

:rolleyes: You HAVEN'T said it. That's the problem. I'm asking you for proof or at least some way of backing up that smith squats are better for building your legs. I wouldn't be asking the question, the one you bolded, if you already had..

The reason why is because that is not my belief , you automatically assumed it was that was wrong on your part , I am under no obligation to provide back up to statements that are not mine.

Hanley wrote: »

:You've attempted some psedo-intellectual argument, accusing people of things they haven't said, and then tried to further your own agenda by "proving" them wrong. It's called a strawman argument.

I have not accused anyone of saying what they did not

Khannie wrote: »

Right....that special ed thing. You pull any more **** like that and I'll give you a nice break.

ok maybe it was ott it was meant to be nasty it was meant to be taken light heartedly (there is a movie refference in it )