Tim, I just simply said that he's a good speaker (in my opinion). When Kai talks everyone seems to really listen in. And he's also soft spoken too which may help I think. I don't believe I typed out my post properly then. But I don't mean to compare him to, I don't know, lets say Martin Luther King Jr or Winston Churchill... When you watch his interviews you can see what I mean. Anyway I hope that clears things up a bit Tim!
I have to agree with this. I got sick of the super slow vids where Kai would just stare into space rambling on about crap and when he talked about his past, but that's just my opinion. I can understand both sides of the argument. Some people like it/others don't.Originally Posted by Tim
1. The technique used to get the point across, the actual performance of the words said. Which can be assessed on an 'objective' scale.
2.The value each person gives to the words spoken. Which is entirely subjective and relative to each individuals beliefs. Their is no right or wrong here, just as their is no right or wrong in morality only preference.
The reason I am saying this is b/c Kai answers in a manner that is consistent to the way a philosopher writes, and I am not referring to the self help garbage. Kai starts from the beginning of an issue and then reasons point by point to his answer.
As a public speaker I have to agree with Tim, Kai's technique really is not that great. But honestly, Kai does not have to be a great public speaker. Kai is a professional bodybuilder and he is should not be judged by the platform of a professional speaker.
As a bodybuilding fan, and a fan of Kai Greene, the in depth answers Kai gives to questions allow for a better understanding of what he has experienced and where he came from, which allows his fans to give more value to Kai's answers and Kai himself. This is where Kai should excel and this is where Kai does excel. Kai has the tools that are appropriate for his platform. Kai is an absolute expert in the one area that is relevant to giving a great answer to a real bodybuilding fan who want to get to know the bodybuilder, Kai's self. And in this area i agree with Johnny Kai is great.
This is part of what I've already stated.Quote
I understand your point but disagree. While individuals will relate to certain topics or ideas more keenly, whether through alligned ethos or social conditioning, the value in the words still has a lot to do with delivery and quality of the words. The greatest orators in history have been able to tap into emotions, values, beliefs and channel them with the correct choice of words to do so. The individual words can be spoken by two different people with profound differences. To say that you can assign value to the words alone is negate the delivery, which creates a fundamental conundrum, as there cannot be words without delivery.Quote
He does not. He speaks like he is regurgitating a bunch of stuff he has read and not understood. In one part of the video (the one where his coach is cooking his meal) he is straight up parroting a section from one of the books. If he had understood it he would have needed to adapt its message to his situation and would have relayed the message with his own cultural shapings and personal ethos attached.Quote
Yes, agreed. But I never said he had to be, only I was contesting the statement that he was.Quote
Can't argue with this. But I can say I haven't been endeared to Kai through any of his videos. If anything I have been endeared to his work ethic and won over a bit by his physque (which I'm still not a fan of). Also while I'm on the point; Kai's spouting of philosophy about winning, etc, and then the juxtaposition of his body language leading into the Mr O night show smacks of someone who is deperately seeking self belief. I wouldn't be surprised if he is reading all the philosophy because he is trying to address a competitive flaw he has.Quote
You cannot be a good speaker just by having a message that people relate to. The more you see presenters and general people speak on similar topics and how well you become engaged in the talks the more you realise that you cannot just draw the distinctions you are trying to draw. I myself have literally taken a talk that someone else had given and presented it myself. It went from the talk that was rated the worst by the audience to the one that rated as "the first time someone has explained the topic clearly". I have this appraisal on file as I consider this a small personal achievement (I used to hate and suck at public speaking), especially given the subject matter was boring and banal.
Because you are a fan of something or someone will immediately predispose you to wanting to hear what is said. Fine. But don't then think that this means the topic or presenter were actually any good. They are not "two different scales", it is merely the interest level, not how well that interesting thing is being presented.
I agree I could be wrong about Kai. He may have actually grasped all the philosophy, he may be very well versed. It still doesn't change my observation that he mumbles his way through without any real train of thought.
No he said that Kai was a good speaker. Completely different statement.Originally Posted by co05