CrossFit Discussion Board  

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

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2009, 04:26 PM   #21
Robert D Taylor Jr
Member Robert D Taylor Jr is offline
 
Robert D Taylor Jr's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Chesapeake  VA
Posts: 1,736
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Nainby View Post
I have a real problem with this statement in the Journal description:

"CrossFit trainers have more in common with rugby or swimming coaches than trainers in commercial gyms. That’s because CrossFit trainers keep score in competitive workouts. And sports coaches have a higher risk tolerance than Globo Gym trainers. When novice members of rugby team are taught to tackle, one or two may get injured. The only way to have a perfectly safe program is to have a perfectly ineffective one."

This was clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the correct rugby coaching process. Ask any accredited rugby coach and the first thing they will say is that safety when coaching tackling is paramount. The way we teach tackling is safe, effective and most importantly fun as it builds on progressions that reflect the player's ability and makes them want to keep coming back. There is no enjoyment in getting injured and very few would go back again if that was one of their first experiences of rugby. That isn't to say this hasn't happened but if you have been through the coaching accreditation it shouldn't.

I am a Level 2 rugby coach and I work with novice rugby players on a regular basis and I would never expect the possibility that one let alone two might be injured when introducing them to tackling.

This poster shows many of the coaching cues which are based on keeping the tackle safe and yet effective.

http://www.community-rugby.com/commu...ster%20v33.pdf (WFS)

The International Rugby Board have also initiated a course called Rugby Ready which is specifically aimed at ensuring coaches use safe and effective methods:

http://www.community-rugby.com/commu...formation4.pdf (WFS)

If it was a Representative game being played at the very limit then I might expect injuries in a tackle due to the fine line the players are treading but never when learning in a coach controlled environment.

I would say that a perfectly safe tackle is perfectly effective.
Fine, go away then. If you expect me to believe that a novice rugger has no chance of getting hurt and you're so offended by the idea, then go play rugby and have a nice day.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 04:50 PM   #22
Michael Kellberg
Member Michael Kellberg is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Copenhagen  Denmark
Posts: 189
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Nainby View Post
I have a real problem with this statement in the Journal description:

"CrossFit trainers have more in common with rugby or swimming coaches than trainers in commercial gyms. That’s because CrossFit trainers keep score in competitive workouts. And sports coaches have a higher risk tolerance than Globo Gym trainers. When novice members of rugby team are taught to tackle, one or two may get injured. The only way to have a perfectly safe program is to have a perfectly ineffective one."

This was clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the correct rugby coaching process. Ask any accredited rugby coach and the first thing they will say is that safety when coaching tackling is paramount. The way we teach tackling is safe, effective and most importantly fun as it builds on progressions that reflect the player's ability and makes them want to keep coming back. There is no enjoyment in getting injured and very few would go back again if that was one of their first experiences of rugby. That isn't to say this hasn't happened but if you have been through the coaching accreditation it shouldn't.

I am a Level 2 rugby coach and I work with novice rugby players on a regular basis and I would never expect the possibility that one let alone two might be injured when introducing them to tackling.

This poster shows many of the coaching cues which are based on keeping the tackle safe and yet effective.

http://www.community-rugby.com/commu...ster%20v33.pdf (WFS)

The International Rugby Board have also initiated a course called Rugby Ready which is specifically aimed at ensuring coaches use safe and effective methods:

http://www.community-rugby.com/commu...formation4.pdf (WFS)

If it was a Representative game being played at the very limit then I might expect injuries in a tackle due to the fine line the players are treading but never when learning in a coach controlled environment.

I would say that a perfectly safe tackle is perfectly effective.
There is a big difference between teaching people to form tackle and learning them to tackle at game speed. Sure if you walk trough tackles the chance of getting hurt is minimal but so is the efficiency. If rugby is anything like football tackling wise you are not going to make that many form tackles in games (if any) so you need to practice full speed tackling and then people will get hurt.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2009, 05:13 PM   #23
Christian Gotcher
Member Christian Gotcher is offline
 
Christian Gotcher's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Annapolis  Maryland
Posts: 751
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Just to piggyback off of what's already been said:

What you're describing, the exposure of novices to new technique, is no different from CrossFit ramp-up courses, technique introduction, and 'form repetition.' This is, like your tackling practice and barring any unusual incidents, perfectly safe. You can't expect me to believe, however, that with nothing more than a few 'safe' tackling classes you've produced good ruggers. You said it yourself- they're still novices at that point. To get them to the point of excellence is going to necessitate getting them dirty, bloody, sweaty, and maybe, every once in a great while (and preferably not, but the possibility is still out there), hurt. Safe tackling training is not 'effective' if producing champions is your definition of effectiveness. It's a stepping stone.

The same is true of CF. The ramp-up programs are 'effective' insofar as they prepare someone to begin training, but not for making great athletes. For a CrossFitter to become good at CrossFit or any activity, they're going to have to get dirty, bloody, sweaty, and accept the possibility of being hurt. Maybe it's being dizzy after a WOD, banging your chin on the pullup bar, scraping your shin on the box jump, tripping during a run; if you're moving fast enough, it's going to happen.

The principle here is simple. We are not resigned to failure, nor do we encourage people to injure themselves. We do, however, accept the possibility of that injury as the consequence of training at high intensity. If there is no risk, there is no potential reward. The end goal is to train with intelligent intensity, and if we do it right, we can minimize unnecessary suffering and get an athlete back on their feet when they cross the line. However, the moment we remove even the possibility of failure, our trainers are reduced to babysitters and we are wasting our time.
__________________
M/22/155|Murph-28:19|Helen-9:39|Annie- 5:12|CFT-700|1.5 Mile-8:35|Strict PU-24|Fran-5:24 log
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 03:03 AM   #24
Simon Nainby
Member Simon Nainby is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Buckhurst Hill  Essex
Posts: 33
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H. Meador View Post
That's what everyone says about their own sport - it's different, you can't use it as an analogy, we're not after the same goals, there's a right way to teach it and only accredited coaches know that way. It's freaking rugby. People get hurt playing rugby, especially novices, despite their best efforts otherwise. You can spend a year solid only teaching proper tackles and as soon as you start a scrimmage, somebody gets hurt.
This is exactly the type of statement I am disputing. With all due respect that statement displays how little you know about the sport and the coaching process. It is very rare for novices to be injured especially when they are being coached properly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Kellberg View Post
There is a big difference between teaching people to form tackle and learning them to tackle at game speed. Sure if you walk trough tackles the chance of getting hurt is minimal but so is the efficiency. If rugby is anything like football tackling wise you are not going to make that many form tackles in games (if any) so you need to practice full speed tackling and then people will get hurt.
Why is it inefficient to use safe progressions? Like I say I think that is the most efficient method for short term and long term technique and enjoyment.

Rugby is nothing like American Football and most tackles are made with good form as this is the most efficient way to bring a ball carrier to ground and then compete for the ball. Also there are laws that ensure this - charging, pushing, blocking, tackles above the line of the shoulders, stiff arm tackles, tackling in the air are all penalty offences because they are dangerous to the ball carrier and tackler. The aim in American Football is simply to take the ball carrier out then play stops, add in the fact the players wear helmets and pads and that makes it quite a different prospect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Gotcher View Post
You can't expect me to believe, however, that with nothing more than a few 'safe' tackling classes you've produced good ruggers. You said it yourself- they're still novices at that point. To get them to the point of excellence is going to necessitate getting them dirty, bloody, sweaty, and maybe, every once in a great while (and preferably not, but the possibility is still out there), hurt. Safe tackling training is not 'effective' if producing champions is your definition of effectiveness. It's a stepping stone.
I never said that just a few safe tackling practices produce good rugby players but I am disputing the sweeping statement that whenever anyone learns to tackle in rugby one or two will be injured. Most here would dispute that statement when others accuse Crossfit of the same.

Look at any World Champion team and you will see very few tackles being made that are dangerous (there will be some I admit but not through a lack of being able to tackle) because not only is it illegal and teams that are constantly penalised will not win anything but also safe tackles are more effective.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 04:38 AM   #25
Christian Gotcher
Member Christian Gotcher is offline
 
Christian Gotcher's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Annapolis  Maryland
Posts: 751
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
I never said that just a few safe tackling practices produce good rugby players but I am disputing the sweeping statement that whenever anyone learns to tackle in rugby one or two will be injured. Most here would dispute that statement when others accuse Crossfit of the same.
Suggesting that tackling itself inherently injures people is an overgeneralization- I think most people can accept that. The act of tackling, however, tends to hurt, and when two bodies collide, even with the best tackling technique (especially when one doesn't want to be tackled) things can go wonky and people get hurt. There is a reason people sign a waiver to complete in most sports- there is risk involved.

Quote:
because not only is it illegal and teams that are constantly penalised will not win anything but also safe tackles are more effective.
Of course: good technique and power are interrelated. Technique can be divided up into safeties, standards, and supports, and if you don't have technique, you can expect unsupported, powerless movement that injures you regularly. However, even athletes with the best technique, when operating at the very edge of their capacity, get injured. We see it every year in professional sports and in the Olympics. It happens.

The goal is to progress intelligently to mitigate that risk while growing as an athlete, not to eliminate that risk entirely. I think we can all accept that as the reality of training and, for that matter, life.
__________________
M/22/155|Murph-28:19|Helen-9:39|Annie- 5:12|CFT-700|1.5 Mile-8:35|Strict PU-24|Fran-5:24 log

Last edited by Christian Gotcher : 08-06-2009 at 04:41 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 06:25 AM   #26
Randy Tarasevich
Affiliate Randy Tarasevich is offline
 
Randy Tarasevich's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norwich  CT
Posts: 1,632
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

I don't bother to read past the first page, but here's my opinion:

CrossFit WODs are the "game" and one should expect some injuries if you are participating in this sport, like any other sport. However, when actually do skill development and coaching athletes through typical CF moves, no people shouldn't be getting hurt too often. But hell, even practicing handstands it is possible to tweak your shoulder. **** happens.

Coach's comments are right on, because you really can't have Perfectly Safe and Perfectly Effective. They cannot coexist. Anyone trying to argue this is just trying to be combative and argumentative. people even get hurt learning how to tackle in rugby, doing martial arts, etc. Don't say they don't because that'd be lying. They may not say anything so they can keep practicing and playing, but athletes get hurt and that's the bottom line.
__________________
www.sectcrossfit.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 07:07 AM   #27
Joey Powell
Member Joey Powell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Prescott  AZ
Posts: 569
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

This is one of the dumbest topics up for debate I have ever seen...

if you approach CrossFit as "Sport" as either an athlete or the actual "coach" then on occasion a tweek will happen ON OCCASION

Why else would every serious athletic department from High Schools to Pro Teams have Trainer Departments, whirlpools, Ice makers etc.

If you approach it as a means of personal training then YOU are an idiot as a trainer if you set your clients up for failure.

In the middle ground.... if you or your affiliate trains it as "sport" you need to still bring people up slow with the order of merit always being technique, consistancy, then intensity. Not just because you are afraid of injury, but IT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS BETTER FASTER IN THE LONG RUN!!

Quit playing the rube.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 08:07 AM   #28
Simon Nainby
Member Simon Nainby is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Buckhurst Hill  Essex
Posts: 33
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Powell View Post
In the middle ground.... if you or your affiliate trains it as "sport" you need to still bring people up slow with the order of merit always being technique, consistancy, then intensity. Not just because you are afraid of injury, but IT ACTUALLY MAKES YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS BETTER FASTER IN THE LONG RUN!!
This is what I am getting at - rugby is coached and played the way it is because the safe techniques are the most effective so safe does not mean ineffective.

Sessions run with safety as the focus will be more effective than those which disregard or put safety low on the list of priorities as technique will be better short and long term when it is built properly and there will be fewer (if any) injuries. I see this on a regular basis.

There is a risk as there is in anything but it is a dull view that when novices learn rugby they are likely to get injured.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 08:12 AM   #29
Steven Matheson
Banned Steven Matheson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Petaluma  CA
Posts: 629
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Powell View Post
if you approach CrossFit as "Sport" as either an athlete or the actual "coach" then on occasion a tweek will happen ON OCCASION
I can't think of another single sport where a "Coach" is allowed to "teach" grown adults complicated weight bearing moves (that in their own right take YEARS to learn) after only paying $1000 and taking a two-day seminar where passing is 100% guaranteed.

I'm lucky - my affiliate is staffed with great coaches. Clearly not all affiliates are created equal.

Last edited by Steven Matheson : 08-06-2009 at 08:15 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2009, 09:15 AM   #30
Derek Franks
Member Derek Franks is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Durham  NC
Posts: 471
Re: Perfectly Safe isn't perfectly ineffective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Powell View Post
This is one of the dumbest topics up for debate I have ever seen...
+1 - this is just people arguing for arguments sake.
  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

vB 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
Does a perfectly-rested person feel pain from foam rolling? Ryan Whipple Injuries 6 03-14-2009 04:51 PM
safe? Xavier Iturriagagoitia Exercises 2 06-21-2008 04:11 PM
Help with W/F safe joke Alain Latour Stuff and Nonsense 5 04-11-2008 08:52 AM
Is this safe? Lisa Sanfilippo Nutrition 8 01-28-2008 10:19 AM
Safe situps? Kevin McKay Starting 26 02-20-2006 01:45 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:53 PM.


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