CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Competitions (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :( (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=59811)

Kevin Bensette 07-20-2010 10:44 AM

Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
Guys & Gals as a 6'2" 235 pound guy, I have to say that I was really concerned with the choice of events for the 2010 games. When checking the entrant list there were 17 guys 6 feet tall and up, with the tallest being 2 guys at 6'3".

I also see 13 entrants at 200 pounds or higher with only 4 men weighing more than 210 pounds.

Tommy Hackenbruck was the highest placing big guy in 9th Place at 6'1" 200 pounds and really, that's not even a big man.

Given this years programming and the total lack of a true 1RM lift that relied 100% on the ATP-PC System, you have essentially lowered the average size of the competitors for 2011.

You can argue about weight classes and lifting until you're blue in the face, but a properly programmed series of events that hit all 3 energy systems will balance out the whole size and strength issue.

If you rely 100% on the 1st system, a power lifting event breaks out. If you rely 100% on the 3rd system, you end up with a bunch of frail guys from Nigeria and Ethiopia running a marathon...

^^Without proper balance between these 2 things, you influence the size of the competitors that make it into the top 10.

Any of the bigger guys that cracked the top 10, top 15 this year...Those guys are phenominal athletes, that perhaps should be looking into other sports that allow their talents to show (and pay much more)

The fittest man on earth was not crowned this year, not by a long shot. I'm not even sure we managed to find the best crossfitters on earth. Women, yes. Clevar is robot. On the men's side, I think we found the man who tolerated the stresses of the programming the best.

I highly doubt anybody trained for a triple metcon with 25 seconds of rest between events.

Although the games were exciting and enjoyable, looking back the programming was just designed to beat everybody into the ground. I'm not convinced that much thought was put into keeping a fair and level playing field in competition without weight classes. I'm not convinced that they even looked at a graph and thought about testing the ATP-PC System, Anaerobic System and Aerobic System to without doubt identify the fittest man/woman on earth.

Just my thoughts and opinions, you don't have to agree with me.

Katherine Derbyshire 07-20-2010 10:51 AM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
Have a look at the events from 2009 and 2008. Based on 2009, everyone thought the strong guys would blow the field away this year. (And lots of people focused on strength when maybe they should have been training gymnastics. Oops.) Past performance is not indicative of future results.

As for beating everyone into the ground .... endurance and recovery are part of fitness too.

Katherine

Stephen Flamm 07-20-2010 10:55 AM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
A well-programmed, balanced GPP competition should yield a top-5 of varying shapes and sizes. This year's Games top-5 included a small guy in Spealler, three mid-sized athletes in Graham, Rich, and Mikko, and one 200+ lb-er in Matt Chan. I would have preffered to have seen a true max effort event in addition to a true endurance event, but I cannot argue with results.

On a side note, I don't think it will be long before a true big man wins the Games. 6'4" 230+ lb. freaks are out there, and soon enough one will contend.

Justin McCallon 07-20-2010 11:29 AM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
I think Matt Chan was about as big as Tommy Hackenbruck. He was 4th I think.

I wouldn't expect a big guy to win the games if the events are like this. Again, I liked last year's events a lot more. More balance.

That said, the top 2 guys were legit. Rich has around a 325lb Clean. Graham Jerked 275 after finishing first in the double Helen. These guys aren't weak. (Also, don't go off stat sheets, because I think those are wrong).

Stu Christensen 07-20-2010 11:47 AM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
I will go on record right now to say that no male, over 200# will ever win the CrossFit Games. Ever. Unless the programming changes to what I describe below.

If you go back to the original journal articles, and see how the programming was originally supposed to be set up in order to build all modalities of fitness...you would think that this is the model that should be USED to test the modalities of fitness. Yet, we have not yet seen anything even remotely close to this...and we won't because Coach and Castro have lost touch with reality and what CF has been about from the beginning. A true test of all modalities. If you are throwing 8 events at the athletes, why not make it 9 and go through all of the different types of methodologies preached in the journal articles and really find a true "Fittest CrossFitter On Earth". [See "Theoretical Template for CF Programming"]

I will say it again, the top 4 athletes finished where they did in SPITE of the events, not because of them. There was no balance this year, or in previous years. And that, coupled with the horrendously flawed scoring system will ensure that every year these boards blow up and arguments arise - because really, HQ is doing a *****ty job putting together the games and programming (this goes for Castro and his horrible mic skills as well).

Things need to change.

Will they?

No.

Marcel Zwinger 07-20-2010 12:42 PM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
let's face it, CF is not interested in a pure 1RM anything, or a pure skill or flexibility or agility test.
they are intertwined and they are tested as such.
and I understand this and accept it to sime degree.

what gets me irritated is, they had a whole year to think about the workouts, and THIS is all they could come up with?

I mean, not that they were bad, but even the first event "Amanda" (with all respect to her) started rather anti climactic.
9-7-5 of a couplet is a strange first test for the fittest on earth.

hellen was ok, liked it. throw in a two pood next time. hey, they're the fittest! Eva is MUCH worse, so what?
the 90sec test was ok too. move some weight, when you are tired, ok I get it.

then I think was the Dead-Pistol-DU think in AMRAP7, great but pointles if you also have the Clean/HSPU WOD. why both?

sandbags: good idea! more of it, that's more of "fittest on earth"

Clean/HSPU: see above

Final: too rep/based, each WOD in and on itself didn't look too impressive to me.


all in all, it was harder to grasp.
if you showed someone the 2009 games you could easily explain them what's going on (maybe until it gets weird... day2).
and I bet they get the idea of how and why they are testing the fittest man/woman on the planet.
in fact, I DID explain it to 1 or 2 (or more ;)) persons.
it was easy to grasp, run, pick up stuff, sprint uphill, everything has its purpose. then do a bit hammering (also VERY understandable from where I am, but one of those stakes was just a joke, should have been 5 or something - they are the FITTEST!)
and then a weird couplet, but now you could explain that you've tested a lot of things seperated - now it's time to mix stuff together.
etc...etc...
hmmm, I just noticed: maybe 2009 was better...?

Andrew Bell 07-20-2010 01:30 PM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcel Zwinger (Post 814039)
let's face it, CF is not interested in a pure 1RM anything,

Then why does it come up in the daily programming? :confused:

Personally they should have done a 1RM before the Hellen and after, and combined those scores.

Brian Bedell 07-20-2010 01:56 PM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Bell (Post 814067)
Then why does it come up in the daily programming? :confused:

Personally they should have done a 1RM before the Hellen and after, and combined those scores.

It doesn't come up in "daily" programming, not even weekly programming. Hence the ever increasing popularity of alternate CF strength-biased programming found at many affiliates, cfsb, cffb, etc.

IMO, there really is no rhyme or reason to the MP programming.

Ryan Hoegner 07-20-2010 02:04 PM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
Pretty sure Matt Chan was listed at 210. Also, Moe Kelsey was 6'3 215 or so and did pretty well.

Jamie J. Skibicki 07-20-2010 02:04 PM

Re: Concerned what effect the 2010 programming will have on future competitors :(
 
WHat Brian siad is certainly true, but even beyond that, training and competition are different. Many sports (well, all of them) have you do things in training that are not done in competition.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.