Isn't Rich Froning's title more even solid since he has finished on top in every individual competition since winning the CrossFit Games 2011?
If Rich just won one competition, one could object that it was a fluke or due to the programming. But to win every competition over several years, ranging from tests that all can be done in a garage gym, to ones that include obstacle courses, ocean swimming, a zig-zag sprint, etc.?
That can't just be favorable programming. It must be a general ability to do work in varied time domains and modalities. Let's call it fitness.
Originally Posted by Drew Cloutier
I think many people have made good points throughout the entire thread, I also think some people are quite narrow minded in their views.
I agree and disagree with some of what Rip said.
I'd like to touch upon something someone said on here though about how the Games is the test for Crossfit, and how if someone doesn't recognise Rich Froning as THE fittest person on earth they are right out to lunch.
I think the Crossfit Games are highly entertaining, and definitely not a piece of cake, but I don't think you can say that any ONE test is the supreme test of who is fittest. Especially when that test is SOOOOOO vastly different from year to year. I guess I am one of those people who would like it to be more quantifiable from year to year, the events vary so much that you could take the competitors of 2013 and have them do different years Games events and wind up with different placings.
I'm am not advocating having 10 events and 10 events only and forever more that's what it will be. I think Crossfit should consider doing like Strongman does.
Strongman generally has the following events to choose from and WSM usually chooses 7-10 events, but each event has variations, either reps, weight, height, weight, time, etc...
I think if the Games stopped trying to come up with new whacky crazier stuff every year and just had say 20-30 events to choose from and picked 10 every year it would be better, IN MY OPINION.