Souders recently offered a surprising perspective on John Danaher: respect mixed with constructive criticism.
“His ideas are not wrong. His application is wrong”
Souders states plainly when discussing Danaher’s coaching methodology on Jits and Giggles podcast.
Souders credits Danaher as a significant inspiration for his own journey. A 2016 conversation with the renowned coach proved pivotal. When Souders asked how Danaher knew his systems were correct, the answer was revealing: he doesn’t. Danaher admitted to using trial and error, sometimes going six months in the wrong direction before course-correcting. Most importantly he advised Souders to
“learn how to be confident and trust your own ideas through the results you get”
That single conversation gave Souders permission to stop being “a coward” about his own ideas and put them into practice.
“If a guy this smart thinks this, too, then it’s okay for me to think this”
Souders recalls thinking.
Despite this respect Souders identifies a fundamental difference in their approaches.
“He’s a traditionalist”
Souders explains. While acknowledging Danaher as an intelligent thinker who has produced exceptional athletes and pushed the sport forward, Souders believes there are critical gaps in his understanding of practice design and application.
The core disagreement centers on methodology. Danaher thinks in hierarchical, step-by-step systems that Souders appreciates for study purposes but finds limited for practice.
“I understand application better than he understands application”
Souders asserts, not out of arrogance but because he’s explored research and concepts in motor learning and ecological dynamics that exist outside Danaher’s framework.
Souders sees his work as a continuation of what Danaher missed rather than a complete rejection.
“There are things he says that I disagree with, but I think the work he’s done has pushed this sport forward”
he acknowledges. The issue isn’t Danaher’s conceptual framework or strategic thinking—it’s how those ideas translate into daily training.
What frustrates Souders most is the missed opportunity for dialogue.
“I would love to engage him intellectually in public”
he says though he doubts Danaher would be open to it. Souders embraces the possibility of being proven wrong publicly, viewing it as exciting rather than threatening.
“Defend your ideas. Let them be wrong”
is his philosophy.
