Final games thoughts

[Adam Carlson]

Yeah, basic skills to a gymnast... How many can make the claim to being gymnasts? For most of us, getting a muscle up, walking on our hands, and doing a HSPU is a huge achievement.

Look, we could argue about all of the specializations that are missing, but that's not the point. The point is that someone did well in a whole mess of events, and that is what they want.

It seems to me that some people would like to see this as the Games:

Event 1: Ironman Triathlon (and be competitive with the world's elite)
Event 2: Deadlift 800lbs for reps
Event 3: Maltese on rings, held for time
Event 4: Throw 27 strikes in 27 throws, minimal ball speed 100 mph

And the argument will be 'they should be able to do it if they are elite'.

Yes, some big claims have been made, but you do have to admit that the Games have done a good job of pushing people to their limits, and have been extremely entertaining as well as educational.

[Mauricio Leal]

Originally Posted by Adam Carlson

Yeah, basic skills to a gymnast... How many can make the claim to being gymnasts? For most of us, getting a muscle up, walking on our hands, and doing a HSPU is a huge achievement.

I would like to reiterate that I think the Games are awesome as is and will only get better each year, and I am not advocating for more specialist movements, but would like to point out that some perceived biases are misplaced.

This is a common misconception about gymnastics. It is well documented that fairly average kids off the street can walk into a gym and be taught a backflip in 10 minutes in many cases. In fact, this is exactly what Carl Paoli did with Jason Khalipa in one of the journal videos recently. It took him 13 minutes I think. I believe Paoli said a 185# Hang Clean was a strength/power pre-requisite for getting it easily. This is writ large. I know of several dancers, including myself, who have never had a coach or teacher who can pull off what many would consider "advanced" gymnastics moves with some self-taught practice. The reality is that they are not advanced, but just appear to be relative to the layperson, and I've seen it written elsewhere that while some adaptable but untrained athletes can waltz in and quickly pick up A (front/back lever, front flip) and sometimes B (planche) level skills, they would always be stifled in getting to C and above by lack of foundation. Blah blah, the point is if kids on youtube can do it, it's not that complicated.

[Justin McCallon]

I can't think of any "real world" instance where doing a back flip would be beneficial. Same with walking on my hands.

If I want to get from the endzone of a football field to a point 150ft away, my method of doing it is sure as hell not going to involve walking on my hands.


I like gymnastics and I think it's great, but I don't think we should be specifically testing gymnastic skills. Gymnastics gives a good foundation for a lot of real skills. Scaling walls, having abdominal strength to lift a car, etc. But, in and of itself, I don't think we should be testing gymnastics. Now, something like a (safe) parkour event? Yes. That's a true test of real fitness.

This kinda goes to my explanation to gym rats about why we would never do curls in a CF competition. If I want to move that weight from a "hang" position to my neck, I'm going to be a lot more efficient hang cleaning it. So, why test curls? Just get the weight from Point A to Point B.

[Mauricio Leal]

I can't think of any "real world" instance where doing a back squat/overhead squat/snatch would be beneficial.

Functionality does not imply specific probability.

Powerful and coordinated movements are universally useful, self-similar, and "functional."

Many of the best parkour guys are former gymnasts. For that matter, many of the fastest adapters to CrossFit are former gymnasts.

[Katherine Derbyshire]

Originally Posted by Justin McCallon

I can't think of any "real world" instance where doing a back flip would be beneficial.

I read a novel once where a guy did one to get out of the way of a car that was trying to hit him. Nowhere to go but straight up, so he did... :-)

But this gets back to the arguments about "what is functional." There are lots of instances where body control is "functional," and gymnastics is one of the best ways to teach it.

Katherine

[Justin McCallon]

Originally Posted by Mauricio Leal

I can't think of any "real world" instance where doing a back squat/overhead squat/snatch would be beneficial.

Functionality does not imply specific probability.

Powerful and coordinated movements are universally useful, self-similar, and "functional."

Many of the best parkour guys are former gymnasts. For that matter, many of the fastest adapters to CrossFit are former gymnasts.

I don't think I disagree with any of this. I think I said the same thing about gymnastics helping parkour in my post above.

I don't think back squats/overhead squats/snatch should be tested movements. Throw a ball/keg/whatever. Get from point A to point B. Move stuff with you. Load stuff onto a truck. Jump over stuff. Scale tough obstacles. Climb. Push or pull a sled. Lift the front of a (very light) car 5 feet. Etc.

[Justin McCallon]

Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire

I read a novel once where a guy did one to get out of the way of a car that was trying to hit him. Nowhere to go but straight up, so he did... :-)

But this gets back to the arguments about "what is functional." There are lots of instances where body control is "functional," and gymnastics is one of the best ways to teach it.

Katherine

Why didn't he just jump straight up and pull his legs into him?

I think gymnastics is legitimately very very functional. I think it's great at developing your ability to do functional ("Real World") movements. I just don't think it should be tested. The actual Real World movements themselves should be tested.

[Adam Carlson]

Originally Posted by Justin McCallon

Why didn't he just jump straight up and pull his legs into him?

I think gymnastics is legitimately very very functional. I think it's great at developing your ability to do functional ("Real World") movements. I just don't think it should be tested. The actual Real World movements themselves should be tested.

I'm totally saying this as a joke and poking at 'real life' for 99% of the people I know, not making a comment about anything you've said so far.

The new 'real world movements' CF Games:

Event 1: Grocery shopping for time (included in the time is finding the closest parking space to the store doors available)
Event 2: Elevator button push for time
Event 3: Microwave cooking for time
Event 4: Skills - typing with internally rotated shoulders
And the strength even to end all strength events for Event 5: Pick up child and hold, for time (naturally)

[Justin McCallon]

Haha, I was actually thinking that as I was typing. I am trying to think of a better way to express what I am saying than "Real World" tasks. I don't get physically tested in anything I do outside of my planned workouts...

[Adam Carlson]

I think what you're looking for is the idea that modern life doesn't test us the way we were meant to be tested, and you'd like to see that in the Games more often, right? Instead of a convenient barbell and such, an obstacle course, or things like that.