John Rogers: "Don't Write Action Scenes"

"Don't write action scenes. Write suspense scenes that require action to resolve."

~John Rogers

    "Don't write action scenes? Uh, no way. You can't not have at least one action scene." Did anyone else think something like that when they first saw this quote? I did. But it makes a lot more sense when one thinks about it.
    I don't think Rogers is saying that writing scenes in which there's action (like a fight or a chase or something like that) is ineffective writing, but he's saying that writing scenes that are completely about the action is ineffective. Maybe it's wrong to make action the only point (or the only important one) of a chapter, because then all the other things in that chapter just exist for that particular action. The setup's purpose would only be to lead up to it, and it would seem that after the action, there'd be very few options for ending the scene aside from a cliffhanger.
    It also risks having faulty reasoning, prompting a reader's questions such as: "Wait, how did that little argument turn into a full-out fight?" or "Why was she even there in the first place?" or "If he has a phone he can call for help with, why is he going after the guy himself?"  Most people would try to avoid conflict until they have no other choice, so when there's a fight (or another action event) there's got to be a very, very good reason for it; there's got be something building up to it, a suspenseful series of events, like John Rogers proposes. This would make the action the natural effect of other events in the scene, instead of making all those other events unnatural effects of the action.
    What's your opinion on the matter? Do agree with John Rogers and think that chapters should be "suspense scenes" with action occurring only as a result of the suspense, or do you think that "action scenes" are "action scenes," and that there's nothing wrong with making the fight (or whatever action it is) the main attraction? Or are you in a gray zone between the two?