Ok here is my opinion of the two different podcasts and their episodes regarding form. I made this after listening to all of JVB’s podcasts and rebuttals then going to listen to Steven and Marks speak with form. My opinions came listening to them in their entirety.
First both podcasts had great opinions and information that forces me as a critical thinker to evaluate each side. Both sides had personal attacks that were unnecessary and may have hurt each point.
We are looking critically at the conversations each podcast shared data. If this were the science world or academia their data sets would not pass the test because of the significant bias and no control or blinding. So we call both anecdotal or the lowest data point in the evidence. Do both have good numbers yes. But there is no blinding or anyway for them to get rid of their own biases.
Second. If we as the consumer can’t consume data that is contrary to our beliefs then we aren’t learning or becoming better.
Third. If we as a consumer can’t consume the data that is contrary to our points with out name calling the other side (ie fudd, insider, piss ant, fanboy, etc). Then this turns into a political battle of he said she said. A popularity contest. Rather then an educational opportunity to better our sport.
Ultimately form had lots of great points that I have to evaluate. Like why wouldn’t I use the weapon that is going to allow me to be more accurate and therefore deadly. JVB has many great points as well. Sadly this has turned into a name calling he said she said and not a lot of critical thinking. Passions getting in the way of critical thinking.
If we get past the hyperbole there is great information in both podcasts. Would it surprise me if they have had private conversations about this topic, absolutely not. It will be great to see them get together. I would caution them that, it shouldn’t be a political debate where emotions run high. If it does then both parties and the consumer lose. We get entertained but not enlightened.