CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Competitions
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Competitions Competitions, contests & challenges

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-22-2012, 08:22 AM   #41
Michael Kelley
Member Michael Kelley is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Virginia Beach  VA
Posts: 317
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

I just can't get behind the complaints about the burpee workout. So rarely do we ask that of CF athletes, that it was a big surprise to everyone. Isn't that supposed to be the point? It's a high rep, bodyweight exercise that isn't going to injure anyone (unlike the high rep pullups, box jumps, etc, that CF programs so often). The problem with the scoring gaps is really about the thousands of people who dropped out of the open over the 5 weeks, not the workout itself.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 08:40 AM   #42
Christopher G. Woods
Member Christopher G. Woods is offline
 
Christopher G. Woods's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ellicott City  MD
Posts: 2,119
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kelley View Post
I just can't get behind the complaints about the burpee workout. So rarely do we ask that of CF athletes, that it was a big surprise to everyone. Isn't that supposed to be the point? It's a high rep, bodyweight exercise that isn't going to injure anyone (unlike the high rep pullups, box jumps, etc, that CF programs so often). The problem with the scoring gaps is really about the thousands of people who dropped out of the open over the 5 weeks, not the workout itself.
What I find amusing is that you keep hearing all of the big strength biased athletes crying about the burpee workout, but you never hear any of the small bodyweight specialists complaining about the snatch workout. The reason this is so funny to me is that, when you do the math, the snatch workout actually carried more weight (pun intended) in the final rankings.

That being said, I do agree that the scores of individuals who did not complete all five events should not count towards the rankings. I'm pretty sure that's the way it was last year; I don't know why they decided to change it this year.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 08:46 AM   #43
Andrew N. Casey
Banned Andrew N. Casey is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Abilene  KS
Posts: 2,590
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

alot of issues... have to decide what the goal of each level is, and if it's for the competitors or for the games... also have to fix the scoring. also, i think there is some truth in saying that the open is for the 99, and the regional is for the 1, but i think that concept goes deeper than just the level of athletes. in the open you also have to workouts that require only equipment that 99% will have. movements that the 99% can do. and movements that are easy to judge. also, you want workouts that might be fun to do, perhaps in a group setting on a saturday at a box, but they don't have to be fun to watch. once you get to regionals, you can use more complex workouts with more variety of equipment. you also want workouts that are more spectator friendly. once you get to the games, all of this is even more true. another piece of the puzzle is that is also the recovery, and i think that might have something to do with some of the drop in performance at regionals by some people. it is much easier to go all out once a week than twice a day for three days.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 09:00 AM   #44
Brad Welshans
Affiliate Brad Welshans is offline
 
Brad Welshans's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Spring  TX
Posts: 58
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

Despite all the back and forth about wods in Opens or Regionals favoring different types of athletes, in the end:
  • Of the 43 qualifying men, 38 came from the top 10 in the Open and 41 from the top 20 (in their respective regions)
  • Of the 43 qualifying women, 37 came from top 10 and 42 from top 20
  • Total, 87% of qualifiers were in the top 10 in their regions during the open and 97% were in the top 20 (and one of three who weren't, Pat Burke, is a known beast)

Light/heavy, short/long, one workout per week/6 workouts over three days, whatever. Nobody "snuck" into the Regionals or cheated their way in and then qualified for LA. The people who are going to the Finals also did well during the Open.

FWIW - it appears that the Open could be used to send just 30 individuals (just like teams) to the Regionals without disrupting that top 1% of athletes. Might make for a better spectator event (although, admittedly, fewer athletes would be able to compete at the Regionals which I believe is an incentive for many).
__________________
M/52/6'/180
Crossfit since 9/1/2008
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 01:04 PM   #45
David Larson
Member David Larson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 35
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

It's clear that Games are structured to test for the top athletes able to perform typical crossfit exercises. They are not structured to find "The Fittest on Earth". If they were structured to find the "The Fittest on Earth" they would not have movements that requires skills and practice that are typical of crossfit specifically.

To test this theory is easy. Take a person that is known to be extremely fit, say an MMA competitor, that knows little to nothing about Crossfit. Now, ask them to do 120 pull-ups (Event 4). What will happen? They won't have a clue about kipping and they will fail. Someone that may, in fact, be the "Fittest on Earth" has been eliminated because of a Crossfit skill.

Again: The Games test for athletes to perform typical crossfit exercises. They do not test to find "The Fittest on Earth".
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 02:38 PM   #46
Jeryd Leuck
Member Jeryd Leuck is offline
 
Jeryd Leuck's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spokane  WA
Posts: 86
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

Then how do you test for fittness?
__________________
Quote:
It's only work if somebody makes you do it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 03:21 PM   #47
Phil Griffin
Member Phil Griffin is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Spring Grove  MN
Posts: 155
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Larson View Post
It's clear that Games are structured to test for the top athletes able to perform typical crossfit exercises. They are not structured to find "The Fittest on Earth". If they were structured to find the "The Fittest on Earth" they would not have movements that requires skills and practice that are typical of crossfit specifically.

To test this theory is easy. Take a person that is known to be extremely fit, say an MMA competitor, that knows little to nothing about Crossfit. Now, ask them to do 120 pull-ups (Event 4). What will happen? They won't have a clue about kipping and they will fail. Someone that may, in fact, be the "Fittest on Earth" has been eliminated because of a Crossfit skill.

Again: The Games test for athletes to perform typical crossfit exercises. They do not test to find "The Fittest on Earth".
Controversial stuff, but I gotta say I agree. The removal of a few of the high skill events (muscle ups, snatches, HSPU, non-strict pullups, walking on hands, double unders, etc) from the open, regional, and games would to me make the Crossfit Games claim of "fittest on the planet" ring much more truly. I think that naming someone the "fittest on the planet" for their ability to bike, run and/or swim extremely long distances is dumb. But judging people based on very high skill exercises....it just excludes many extremely fit people from being able to compete in a competition that claims to crown the "fittest on the planet". Nothing wrong with learning, teaching, and programming high skill exercises, but if we're truly having an open competition, there are plenty of things CF could program that would keep it more inclusive. Plus, the current CF'ers at the top of the list would still be at the top of the list.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 03:36 PM   #48
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

If you remove "typical CF exercises" or high-skill stuff then it basically becomes a decathlon, which already exists as a sport. But even a decathlon requires high-skill stuff like discus and pole vault and javelin...so if someone does well on 9 of 10 events but whiffs on the "skill" of pole vaulting, can he claim he's the real winner? Specific skills are part of any reasonable test of fitness.

Then again, on the spectrum of skills that a gymnast needs to be competitive, a muscleup or handstand walking don't even register. Same for a bunch of reps of 225lb hang cleans, or power snatching up to 295lbs, for a good Oly lifter. In your example about the MMA fighter, if he's a good athlete with above-average body control and coordination, he could learn to kip in about 5 minutes. So that's not a valid argument.

I understand as well as anyone that saying "world's fittest man" in this case really means "world's best CFer." In my eyes it's a good marketing slogan and not much more than that...just like how the winner of the 100m at the Olympics is called "world's fastest man" even if he's not the fastest over 200m or 800m or 1500m or a marathon.

By CF's definition of fitness, the winner of the Games is the fittest man/woman alive. It's fine if you don't agree with that definition of fitness, but the open, regionals, and Games are designed to test based on that definition.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 09:21 PM   #49
Phil Griffin
Member Phil Griffin is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Spring Grove  MN
Posts: 155
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Montgomery View Post
If you remove "typical CF exercises" or high-skill stuff then it basically becomes a decathlon, which already exists as a sport. But even a decathlon requires high-skill stuff like discus and pole vault and javelin...so if someone does well on 9 of 10 events but whiffs on the "skill" of pole vaulting, can he claim he's the real winner? Specific skills are part of any reasonable test of fitness.

Then again, on the spectrum of skills that a gymnast needs to be competitive, a muscleup or handstand walking don't even register. Same for a bunch of reps of 225lb hang cleans, or power snatching up to 295lbs, for a good Oly lifter. In your example about the MMA fighter, if he's a good athlete with above-average body control and coordination, he could learn to kip in about 5 minutes. So that's not a valid argument.

I understand as well as anyone that saying "world's fittest man" in this case really means "world's best CFer." In my eyes it's a good marketing slogan and not much more than that...just like how the winner of the 100m at the Olympics is called "world's fastest man" even if he's not the fastest over 200m or 800m or 1500m or a marathon.

By CF's definition of fitness, the winner of the Games is the fittest man/woman alive. It's fine if you don't agree with that definition of fitness, but the open, regionals, and Games are designed to test based on that definition.
I've only seen 3 of the 10 decathalon events ever be programmed the 100m, 400m and 1600m runs. I would strongly be in favor of introducing pole vaulting to crossfit, I've always wanted to try that.

I guess this discussion comes down to the definition of broad modal domains. How broad? The broader you get, the more high skill stuff you're going to include. Trying to decide which high skill stuff to include gets tricky. Even when crossfit tries to include high skill stuff there is pushback (ocean swim, softball throw, walking on hands) from crossfitters.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2012, 11:10 PM   #50
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: 2012 Opens vs. Regionals Athletes

Balance, agility, and coordination are part of Crossfit's definition of fitness, too. However, all three are somewhat skill-dependent. A soccer player might demonstrate amazing agility as he's running a ball up the field, but be completely uncoordinated if you put him on a pair of rings.

So how do you test those aspects of fitness without introducing a skill-dependent component? The standard Crossfit movements at least have the advantage of being known to all competitors in advance.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How many athletes or former athletes follow CF? What was your sport, level of competition, and why did you begin CF? Ben Jackson Fitness 23 03-08-2012 02:54 PM
Preparing for the opens Gary Fisher Competitions 4 01-31-2012 08:08 AM
Do all your Games/Regionals athletes know how to swim? Pär Larsson Community 31 06-17-2011 12:03 AM
Fredericksburg Affiliate OPENS Adam Eidson In Search of CrossFitters 0 09-27-2008 07:20 AM
Power athletes are more insulin resistant than endurance athletes Neal Winkler Fitness 46 03-01-2006 04:36 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:04 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.