Talk:Matt Furey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article is in direct violation of Wikipedia policies 2 Need for expansion and focus of article 3 Furey's Wife 4 Hindu squat entry? 5 Add signatures to excessive IP-only editors, editing war with possible marketing partners 6 Dive bomber pushup link 7 A letter response by Matt Furey 8 What is it about all you guys hating Matt Furey? 9 Fat into muscle 10 An Indian point of view 11 Neutrality 12 Safety 13 Critical of Matt Furey 14 Image? 15 Chest Expanders

[edit] Article is in direct violation of Wikipedia policies

This article is not the appropriate venue for personal attacks and must be taken elsewhere. Wikipedia’s policies clearly state this. A lot of work will need to be done to correct this. Please stop all vandalism immediately.

From the Wikipedia's policies:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.185.84.17 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Need for expansion and focus of article

I agree about expansion. I will add some material about Combat Abs, another of his bodyweight-only exercise programs. I have begun to change the order of presentation of some of the criticisms. It comes off as slanted to present the criticism before presenting Furey's views. I haven't removed any of the critiques. I would really like to see some references for the many points at which "critics" are referenced. Without some ref's, again, the article comes off as slanted. Any help out there? --Moondoggie 18:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Major update, I think this article needs a lot of expansion. I have attempted to provide views of both sides of the issue, but I encourage people to edit (not remove) my additions to make them more neutral if there are biases, misleading statements or lies I've missed User:Tyciol

[edit] Furey's Wife

Why do people remove the link about his wife being a mail order bride it's true it's featured on Psycho Cybernetics website. --User:144.136.49.7

Perhaps it is true. What do you have against Furey? --Philosophistry 14:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of this myself, I'd like the reference to where it mentions this in Psych-cybernetics. Either way, it doesn't really sound like any kind of relevent mention. Do you have a moral objection to mail-order brides? If so, feel free to mention that neutrally in a new section at your discretion. User:Tyciol

How can MF sell a sucess course if he had to order his wife. PS he lifted weights to become a world champion. --User:203.59.215.179

I don't believe there's any evidence he ordered his wife, there's yet to be anything provided from the Psycho Cybernetics website. I do agree that he lifted weights to be a champion, the picture of him under the waterfall was during the time he lifted weights, and he falsely uses it to market his 'impressive physique' when as you can see in all recent pictures, he is fat. --Tyciol 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many pictures of Furey and the guy doesn't look fat to me, he looks pretty stalky and not ripped, like the steroid blasting athletes I see in the competitions.. I admit he has a little layer of flub, but the mans belly is not round, it looks quite flat. Why are people saying he is fat? Is Karl Gotch jealous of Furey, why is he calling him the fat man?? I am subjective here, but how can you call the man fat, he doesn't look fat, rather hard and rocky in my opinion. The only thing he lacks is the high reptition , low calorie rippping exercises pro bodybuilders use to show muscle definition during a show. --User:Yonatan777 Feb 2007

This is an ad-hominem attack, what possible bearing does Furey's wife have on his methods or philosophy. Did I miss something here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scttash (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, you did miss signing your comment. ;-) But yeah, I don't think Fury's wife is really relevant. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu squat entry?

However, this completly ignores the fact that the Hindu squats can be done on either the balls of the feet, or with flat feet, and that one cannot ballance for a one-legged squat on only the ball of one foot at a time. Is not tru on Matt Furey's website there is a picture of him doining 1 legged squat on the ball of his foot. Ross can also do then from www.rossboxing.com 155.143.165.133

Not sure why you added this here, not really relevant to his wife, so I gave it a new heading. Hindu squats are only done on the ball of the foot, pushing the knee forward. When the heel is on the ground, it's an ormal squat. Matt has never shown the ability to do a one-legged hindu, only a one-legged (pistol) squat, and even then, he's only shown himself in the bottom position. We don't even know if he can push out of it. Ross can do both, and in his later books has stopped supporting Hindus from what I've seen. He's also an advocate of weightlifting, unlike Matt. Tyciol 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add signatures to excessive IP-only editors, editing war with possible marketing partners

As some might notice, I've added signatures to all who have made the comments. Yes, they're IP addresses, but it's still good to have them. I notice 144.136.49.7 and 144.136.49.84 are similar and likely a repeat user. To interact more fully with Wikipedia and the Matt Furey wiki in the future, why not get a name? --Tyciol 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

68.42.72.27 and I have been going back and forth with editing of the marketing partners, and I'd rather resolve the dispute here than have it degrade into a revert war. I have explained myself, he has not. I'm using a name, he's using an IP. I do not like text to be outright deleted. You have introduced NPOV material such as 'successful' and removed the suspicious inclinations. I will admit to a negative NPOV in that it is more out of suspicion and co-quackery I post some of the names, but you should only add a positive side, not do so and simply delete the negative side. Tyciol 18:12, 27 February 2006

(UTC) - 68.42.72.27

68.42.72.27 has also added Jordan Hill to the list. I've removed this until a reference can be given that the country western person in question has made such a connection. Since this is also my name, I see it as likely being vandalism directed at me. Tyciol 18:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dive bomber pushup link

This animated image has been linked in the article as a dive bomber pushup, in the sentence, "Critics claim that the 'Dive Bomber' pushup is a more complete muscular exercise than Furey's Hindu Pushup because of it's increased difficulty". I think it should be removed given that it omits the return movement, and so cannot be used to show the difference between a dive bomber and a hindu pushup. Also, the filename ("FureyPushUp") indicates to me that it is meant to demonstrate a hindu pushup, not a dive bomber. Anyone agree or disagree? -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, David. My mistake. I should have examined the image more closely. I have moved the image link from "Dive Bomber Pushup" to Furey's "Hindu Pushup" as it is indeed a hindu pushup. Thanks for catching the error. -68.235.162.179

Hmm, so what is a "dive boomer" pushup? I found no refference to one on google, while hindu pushup returns plenty of links. The Hindu pushup is a personal favorate of mine, I do fifty a day :) -84.108.26.73

All of you please sign your comments by adding four ~ after you're done, and sign up for a User account name. I'm tired of signing your names to this. Tyciol 05:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A letter response by Matt Furey

Matt-My name is Toben, and i am a believer in your systems. I have a number of your products and the progress i have made towards my goals because of them is nothing short of remarkable. But then there is my dad. He has recently started lifting weights and has found a great deal of satisfaction in doing that, however because of a bad knee he has been less than willing to try any of my suggestions (in all fairness, your suggestions) in regard to maximizing his time working out. The point i am getting at, is this...

How can i make a believer out of him when he cant jump rope (thereby eliminating the circuit outlined in Combat Conditioning), doesnt see the point in Hindu Squats, etc. Any advice you could give me about some stretches or anything else would be greatly appreciated because i want to keep the old man around and think he could benefit from Combat Conditioning.

Again, thank you for being an inspiration and for all the benefit i have gotten from following your advice. All the Best- Toben R. Squires

M.F.: Toben, my advice may surprise you. I believe it is often futile to try and change someone's mind or, as you say, 'make a believer out of him.' I would refrain from doing so and simply appreciate your father for what he is currently doing. Afterall, you must give the man credit. Most 'dad's' don't and won't do anything, even if they absolutely KNOW it is good for them. At least he has taken the first step. Simply 'do your thing' and if he shows interest, then tell him. Your job is to 'take care of your-self.' And if you do that, especially when others see the results you are getting - they will gradually be attracted to the method.

Some people, regardless of who they are and how close they are to you, will not start doing Hindu squats, Hindu pushups and bridging. They will not make a decision to change their life for the better. All you can and should do is be ready. As the saying goes, when the student is ready, the teacher will arrive. Conversely, as I have seen in my own life, over and over again, 'When the teacher is ready, the students will arrive.' Good luck.

This article, posted in Furey's newsletter, proves that he puts higher value on free choice than in his contempt towards free-wieght lifting. Enjoy! -84.108.26.73

I must heartily disagree with this, it's simply a marketing gimmick. Saying 'don't try to change people' doesn't reflect his mindset as that's what he tries to do with his products. It's reverse psychology. Tyciol 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is it about all you guys hating Matt Furey?

I used his three-step workout and, guese what? with one week I was seeing improvments! I cut my workout time down from an hour and a half to barly fifteen minutes, and I was still seeing better results! I now no longer want to touch wieghts, all I need for a good workout is on me right now. I can only uploud for Matt Furey's terrific work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.26.73 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say the primary reasons why people dislike Furey include his extremely aggressive and deceitful marketing, the lack of content in his products, his vilification of his opponents, his portrayal of himself as an absolute authority on all matters relating to whatever he's selling, the high prices of many of his products and his apparent obsession with money. Don't take this the wrong way though; I don't doubt that you have experienced physical improvements using the Royal Court workout. I experienced improvements from this program also. However I then discovered other sources of information such as Ross Enamait, who provided a massively greater amount of information, and better information, at a lower price, and who's motivations seemed a lot more altruistic. There's a lot of information out there that's a lot better than what Furey offers. I haven't even looked at my copy of Combat Conditioning in well over a year. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 10:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, if a fat man decides to climb the stairs one day after doing shit all but pumping 5lb dumbbells, he'll see better improvements, but it doesn't mean stair climbing is the end all of physical fitness, or superior to weighted squats. Congrats to the culty eh Dave? Tyciol 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyciol said it: Furey's defenders just continuously make the claim that his methods 'work'. Well of course they work; all exercise works. You can undertake any exercise regime and it'll get easier the longer you stick with it. That doesn't mean it's the best way to develop fitness. -Unknown

Wikipedia is the easiest solution for opponents of anyone, or anything, to quickly produce slander against that target. Which is why, gentlemen, Wikipedia cannot ever be trusted. -Unknown (assumed not to be the above person)

Wikipedia is the easiest solution for people interested about anyone or anything to quickly produce their opinions and research related to that topic. Which is why, everyone, Wikipedia can be trusted to be the most neutral source of information on the entire Internet, as everyone can read it. Matt Furey does not allow a free message board for people to discuss his system on, he makes you pay high prices to join his special group to even talk to other people, and I would assume he would kick out anyone who spoke against his methods there. Tyciol 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fat into muscle

The line "Furey has also claimed that his exercises turn fat into muscle - a scientific impossibility." seems to be pretty POV. It seems to me that this is simply an expression stating that muscle growth will replace fat (so you won't lose weight). It's like saying that when you work, you are "turning your time into money." I would suggest that it's removed. --220.9.84.66 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it will stay, he said it. Spouting BS for marketing purposes just shows that he's a marketer, and not a knowledgeable or honest person. Furthermore, since he has also spouted things like spot reduction of fat, he could very well believe this. Since he has no qualifications in nutrition or exercise science, we have no clue what he believes or knows. Tyciol 08:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How can they attack Furey for saying this, it seems very much like a ploy from his competitors.. I mean thats a typical saying in the gym from what have heard, "turn fat into muscle." What person in their right mind, will think Furey has dung for brains, thinking that he can perform some type of magic that convert fat deposits into muscle strands. Please, remove this stupid attack on Furey, it is childish. And I will tell you, I have gain a lot with his useless exercises, more than in the gym, but I am still open to the arguments of him being a greedy scoundrel. I say I am open, I don't say he is, Matt Furey charges a lot, but he always gives discounts, which I bought his combat conditioning course for like 60% the bloated normal price. It still seemed expensive, but that course definately had a lot of information in it. Perhaps his other course are a gimmic. I think some of the attacks on here are futile and obviously posted by enraged bodybuilders. User:Yonatan777 Feb 2007

[edit] An Indian point of view

I'm from Mumbai, India - I'd been looking up free weight excercise alternatives online when I came across Matt Furey's work- He's basically telling old truths that we follow here in India- I myself am experienced in the tecniques he talks about like the Hindu push-up known as Surya Namaskar here- and I support his claim on strength building from the same. I've been doing 200 of what he calls Hindu squats daily - my own variation combined with heavy squats once a week- I went from 100 pounds to 250 pounds in 2 months..

My brother and I gain muscle mass in the gym simply by mixing up conventional body building wisdom with the old pehelwan methods- I'm more inclined to free style body lifting currently forsaking weights because of the expense and time constrainsts of joining a gym- Furey's fitness methods are fine to get in shape- but there also must be a holistic and spiritual approach to your training- yoga and discipline work for me.. I like Furey's writing style- it's a peppy one- but I question his basic goals coz he seems to limit himself to just a working understanding of the techniques and not the lifestyle they were designed for- Yoga and pehelwan exercises are component parts of a lifestyle choice- that should not be ignored. -Unknown

It is great to hear from someone with first-hand knowledge of the traditions! Please participate in Wikipedia by adding this alternate term for the hindu pushup to that article! Sadly, this is not a truth. These techniques do build great endurance, and if done with speed (though jumping is better) can build explosive strength, and mental focus even in exhaustion. You may also view performing traditional exercises as being spiritual, although weightlifting has been done for some time in human history so it can serve the same purpose. I agree also that bodyweight exercises cost less (nothing) and use less time for transportation and membership and waiting for machines, so this is a good advantage, although the high repetitions necessitated may make performing the actual exercises take longer.

They do not build strength, however, nor do they build muscle past a certain point, as they will break muscle down for fuel. It is your heavy squats you have to thank for this great transformation, along with good eating. Yoga and the other traditions these are associated with are good practises, and more valuable than Furey's limited training, and complement weight lifting and martial arts training wonderfully. Tyciol 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The neutrality of this article was disputed, but no appropriate thread is creating it. I have created this. If no one posts why they are disputing the neutrality by the next time I check (some weeks or whatever, or if anyone else wants to take the lead) then I will delete the tag from the article. Those tags only serve a purpose to stimulate discussion and revision of the article, not to tag how you don't like people slandering your messiah. Tyciol 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

Is there any physio types who can say one way or the other if the exercises are "safe" ie not damaging to the knees or neck? As mentioned in the article all my previous instruction has been that it is very important to keep your knees in-line or behind your toes during squats. I showed the back bridge/resting on forehead position to my wife(Doctor) and she was a bit sus about it with regard to slipping a disk. Most of the other exercises seem fine but I'm looking for some informed feedback. Cheers Mick 203.63.14.248 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Scott Sonnon, a Ph.D. in Health and PE and noted USA National Coach of Sambo wrestling has published a series of articles on his website regarding the science behind the dangers of this "Royal Court" exercise program. Dr. Sonnon also demonstrates in these articles where Matt Furey misrepresents that these are related to traditional yoga but explaining the difference between the biomechanics. Dr. Sonnon then offers the public domain alternatives (from traditional hatha yoga) to counter Matt Furey's dangerous recommendations. B-ham 08:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt Furey encourages the idea that we'd somehow adapt if doing these gradually, ala 5 hindu squats a day, then 6, then a year later progressively going up 1 at a time, I suppose 362? I must admit, I do believe that if it were possible to adapt to something so strenuous for the knees that would be the way to do it. Unfortunately, that does nothing to show if it would actually be adaptable for everyone's knee structure, even with ideal joint supplementations. There are much less dangerous ways to do cardiovascular exercise, which is all this really is anyway. The guy won't even do these exercises on one toe, he does it flat-footed during one-leg squats. What's that say about him? Even Ross Enamait does it on the toe, and probably only because he doesn't know it's dangerous and is so damn strong from doing WEIGHTED SQUATS that it doesn't bother him. Tyciol 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical of Matt Furey

I know this has been discussed before but... despite what anyone's objections are of this man's fitness philosophy, I do not think that a Wikipedia article is an appropriate place for an extensive critique of his approach. Shouldn't the article more appropriately deal with significant events/achievements in his life? If there is a bona fide controversy about his approach, this would warrant a mention, of course, and with a solid reference. I propose that the extensive criticisms about his approach be deleted. (Note: Personally, I neither support nor dispute his claims. I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place for the extensive criticism included in the article) Katalaveno 14:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice you have tagged this with disputed neutrality, and lack of verifiability. If you have positive things of obvious note to add about Matt Furey in a neutral matter, please do so. I can unfortunately not think of how to word such an entry. There is indeed a bona fide controversy about his approach, as discussed by many fitness professionals and groups. You'll notice links to these sources are provided at the bottom of the article. Matt Furey does not reveal many details about his life, beyond what is already mentioned, though it would definately enrich the article if it were found. It is not that important though, considering he is more well known for his fitness systems and his marketing than what he does in his personal life, which would be rather invasive. Anyway, I would like to enhance the articles so the two tags you've added are no longer necessary. What statements do you feel have not been verified and are not accurate? What statements do you feel lack neutrality? Tyciol 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input. I agree that I would like tags to go away. Personally, I am not neutral about the subject and I indeed share most of the criticisms. (I have made up my mind, now, after reading more about it...) However, my main point is that this is an article about Matt Furey not an evaluation of Matt Furey's approach to exercise. This should be a primarily biographical article about him. As you say, his approach is controversial so, of course, within the section about his career there should be clear mention of the controversy. But that is where it should end. Perhaps another article that compares approaches to exercise would be more appropriate. In this sense, the biography is not neutral.

In answer to you next question about references (it is rather useless to request this as I feel the critique doesn't belong in the article anyway), there is only one reference in the entire critique of his exercise philosophy (in the Karl Gotch section). Citing a reference is not just for quotes. Any statement that makes any kind of claim (that is not undisputed common knowledge) should be referenced. For example, the sentence, there is no reason to believe that the body responds any differently to lifting the weight of the body rather than that of a barbell or dumbbell in the section called Unsupported bias against weight lifting is a fine statement and seems to make sense. However, the thing is, has anyone examined this question scientifically and drawn conclusions based on the findings? Someone probably has and so, the reference should be put in there. And there are many other statements that make sense but are unreferenced. The point here is that, while the criticisms may be well founded, they are not annotated with sources that support them.

Again, my original point--this article is a biography, not an essay on how to, or how not to, exercise. As such, the criticism section, no matter how perfectly researched it might be or become, does not belong here. That's my view, anyhow. Katalaveno 21:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

I think an image would greatly add to the article, but I'm not very familiar with the image policy to know which ones I find are allowable to use. Personally, I like this one: [1] since it's more recent than most of the ones I find during a search engine. One I definately wouldn't accept would be the one of him by the waterfall because it's over a decade old and shows his physique from lifting freeweights, and thus would misrepresent his system. Tyciol 15:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chest Expanders

So far this article only talks about body weight exercises that Furey promotes. But he also promotes chest expanders, which are a form of strength training. Many of the criticisms that apply to body weight exercises do not apply at all to his chest expanders, which come in nine levels of difficultly and are indeed a way of doing strength training. It is totally false to assume that weights are the only method of doing strength training. Furey promotes the idea of using both body weight exercises and chest expanders. This is a link to his marketing letter for the chest expanders. Expander The only reason I am using a marketing letter is because I know of no other reference that explains what they are. But if someone else can find a neutral source, great. Even though it is a marketing letter, there is no doubt that chest expanders are a form of strength training.Karmak

I appreciate your contributions to the article, but the chest expanders aren't really a major factor of Matt Furey and take up a bit much of the article considering that. Also, I don't agree with what has been added saying that Matt is 'all for weights' and okay with it. He isn't. He repeatedly lambasts them as injurious and inferior to bodyweights, and whenever he refers to his clients lifting weights, he is always going on about how much better his bodyweight stuff is, how they cure weightlifting injuries, and crap like that. That will be addressed soon when I have time. Furey is not unique in the idea of combining BW things with other things, it's a general part of physical culture. His strand-pulling/lifeline thing was likely taken up because people weren't getting good enough results with his exercises (mainly fat people) and needed additional resistance for results. Resistance bands (another name for these implements) are pretty common in strength training. No one ever said weightlifting was only possible with weights, just that it is the simplest form of consistant measureable progressive increases in resistance, and that they are no more likely to injure someone than BW exercises. Tyciol 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)