Introduction Of The Reverse Hyperextension Controversy
THE REVERSE HYPEREXTENSIONS CONTROVERSY RESOLVED.
In a nutshell, the article titled "The Case of the Purloined Exercise." is an airtight, albeit lengthy, rebuttal of Mr. Louie Simmons' claim that he discovered the reverse hyperextension exercise on his own and received no information about it or about me indirectly via a mutual acquaintance or friend, Mr. Fred Hatfield. Not true! I passed all the relevant information about the exercise and how to perform it to Louie Simmons via Mr. Fred Hatfield, along with my name and contact information, should he need help or would like to talk with me about the exercise and how I used it. At the time, this exercise and how to do it was new information to Mr.Hatfield, and he was excited to pass it on to his friend, Louie Simmons. Before receiving this information from me, he thought Louie's lifting career was over. But armed with my exercise information, he felt that Louie could rehabilitate his back and resurrect his lifting career.
To understand and be thoroughly convinced that Mr. Simmons' claim is false, you can either read my lengthy, scorched-earth rebuttal found in "The Case of the Purloined Exercise," (link on the right) or you can read a much shorter rebuttal found in the following extract from an email that I had sent to a friend explaining the controversy in a much more abbreviated way. This shorter version is just below.
The Succinct Rebuttal
On March 14, 2009, Louie Simmons sent me a letter in response to an article on my website titled "Reverse Hyperextension Controversy and Challenge. In the letter, Louie put his foot in his mouth when he said, "There was no reason to call you in 1982 because I was doing Reverse Hypers for at least eight years at this point."
What Louie should have said if he was telling the truth is that how could he possibly have contacted me when he had never heard of me and necessarily would not have had my phone number, for as he says just two sentences later, "Fred Hatfield never passed any information about this matter." Since "any information" would include my name and phone number, he should have said he had never heard of me at this point. So Louie's first sentence claims that he had no "reason" to call, meaning he could have called but had no reason to do so. Well, how could he have called me if he had never heard of me?
There you have it—a glaring contradiction in two sentences that will shut down any naysayers. However, for any persistent dullards, I would suggest that they read the more extended rebuttal found in The Case of the Purloined Exercise. If they do, they will become cheerleaders for me unless they are dishonest or some form of retardation is involved.
And if you are wondering why I never took Mr. Simmons to court over the matter, the simple answer is that I gave my information to Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Simmons to help Louie rehabilitate his back. I don't begrudge Louie for making a machine that incorporates my exercise information. All I wanted then and now was recognition for having passed the reverse hyperextension information onto him. I just wanted the truth told.