Mike, no one is saying that being strong isn’t a good thing. The only thing Davan, Thomas, and I are debating is that heavier loading comes with more costs than benefits for athletes. What do you get from working with >85% 1RM that you don’t get from working with 70-80% 1RM?
I know people are going to say that it trains rate coding and muscle recruitment, but both of those are movement-specific. People are also going to say that it results in more functional hypertrophy, but there’s no real evidence of this, and with sufficient sprint and jump volume, it’s definitely not an issue. Really, in my own assessment, all lifting heavy does is saddle athletes with excess fatigue. Can it work? Yes, and it routinely does. The real question however, is does heavier lifting provide anything that lighter lifting does not when both are incorporated into a well-designed training plan?
What you and Davan are saying is that the masses should adopt your method because its worked for a few people, like you and Davan. For every strength athlete that never goes above 80%, I can show you dozens who routinely include reps in the >85% range. So what I’m saying is that the masses should first consider the methods which have successfully worked for the masses, not the methods that have worked for just a few.