Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
I disagree with the whole thesis that someone should be able to "come from behind" at the very end and make up for poor performances in the beginning. I hate competitions where, for television's sake, the first rounds essentially get ignored to always generate an exciting "photo finish" by stacking all the weight on the final event. It always seemed contrived and gimmicky.
Why shouldn't each event get the same weight? If one athlete has a wonderful series of performances and is running away with the competition, how is that bad? The logic escapes me. In team sports, touchdowns don't count for 2 points in the first quarter, 3 in the second, 5 in the third, and fifteen in the fourth so as to ensure every game will remain competitive until the final seconds because any team could come from behind.
In CrossFit, where we are crowning the fittest man and woman on Earth, the rationale behind having the various events all count the same is even more important. If the final event is a deadlift, should the powerlifter who can't do a double-under or a muscle-up win because he crushes that event? If the final event or events was given all or most of the weight, there would be an element of gambling injected into the Games: The goal would be just to survive the cut and pray the final event was something you were great at.
If someone wants to win the CrossFit Games, they need to be good at everything and do well on the initial workouts as well as the final ones. The scoring system needs to stay like it is.