regionals and games will be redundant?

[Joey Scafidi]

who thinks that the winner of the open will be the games winner? I know that different workouts produce different winners. But if we see a wide enough spectrum of events in the open, then i'd be surprised if there was a different winner at the games. I'm calling it: Open winner will win the games.

[Dave Traeger]

I'd say some are taking it fairly easy at this point to save power for the Games.

[Joey Scafidi]

Originally Posted by Dave Traeger

I'd say some are taking it fairly easy at this point to save power for the Games.

I don't know. If Rich Froning was taking it easy with nearly 10 rounds in the first workout and Mikko Salo with 45 rounds in the third workout, then that's just effin' scary!! Who woulda thought Mikko would out rep Khalipa on that one?!

I know Holmberg said he was takin' it easy. And i'm not knockin' the guy at all but I think the workouts last year lined up perfectly for him.

I don't think the top guys are taking it easy at all. This is training for them and I think they give it their all, damn near all the time.

My money's on Rich to win the open and the games. The guy is a monster on pretty much everything I've seen bar the rope climb at the games last year, and he's fixed that now.

[Michael Kelley]

Maybe, but there is a difference between people who are fit through these 6 weeks and those that peak for the "snapshot" provided by a final competition. We don't know where any of these folks are in that cycle.

[Charles Applin]

Originally Posted by Joey Scafidi

who thinks that the winner of the open will be the games winner? I know that different workouts produce different winners. But if we see a wide enough spectrum of events in the open, then i'd be surprised if there was a different winner at the games. I'm calling it: Open winner will win the games.

The winner? No. However, it's likely that a large percentage of the open's top 50 will be at the games. In addition, I'd wager that how they placed in the open will be close to placement at the games.

Think of it like a big experiment on the theory that CrossFit Games can rank fitness. So, we'll have 1000 men/women going head to head at 17 different regionals. How close will their relative ranking in the Open (6 Wods over three days) compare to their rankings at regionals (3 or 4 WODs over a day) using completely different workouts? With that, we have damn good evidence to determine likely rankings at the Games.

Now, the closest we got last time was with the Masters where placement at sectionals was on average within 2 to 3 ranks of placement at the Games (I think random chance is 6 ranks). Definitely will be better using 1000 people instead of just 20.

[Matt Rainwater]

Think of the open as a ranking system. I ran track in college (DII) and you would qualify for Nationals by running one of the top 16 in your event at some point during the season. You could get last place, or not even run your event at conference (the meet preceding nationals) and still go to the big show. Some athletes would purposely hold back all year, run a “relaxed” qualifier, and then run a huge pr at the championships. In track if you have run a 3:59.99 mile to my 4:00.01 you are a better runner on paper; but when you add the pressure of a big event things do change. The open is similar to this except for the judging portion. The reason we run Nationals is to crown a national champ and to do that you have to be the best on that day. It didn’t matter if your pr was 3:55 to my 4:05 if I ran a smarter race on that day and beat you, I would be the champ. I would venture to guess that less than 50% of #1 ranked athletes in track and field end up winning their events at the NCAA championships. I have a feeling that you will see people make tactical errors, crumble under pressure while others rise to the occasion. With that said Joey I’m willing to say that we are very likely to see a different winner in the open and the games.

[Brad Welshans]

The men's field seems like there is strong competition through the first hundred or so competitors. But, in the women's open, it looks like a two horse race. Kristen and Annie seem so far ahead of everyone else. Yes, the selection of wods will play a big role as it has in the previous Games, but those two seem highly adaptable. If I had to bet on it, I'm putting my money on Clever as the first repeat winner.

[Katherine Derbyshire]

Originally Posted by Joey Scafidi

who thinks that the winner of the open will be the games winner? I know that different workouts produce different winners. But if we see a wide enough spectrum of events in the open, then i'd be surprised if there was a different winner at the games. I'm calling it: Open winner will win the games.

Does it work that way in any other sport?

The big practical difference I see is that one workout a week is a different challenge from 3-6 workouts in a weekend. Recovery will play a much bigger role in the regionals and the Games.

Another big difference is that you can have an off day if you only have to do one workout in a week. In a one or two day competition, you've got to bring it on that day.

I'd view the Open winner as a top seed, certainly, but not as a lock.

Katherine

[Rebecca Roth]

Another thing to remember is that these people are often highly prepared for each of these workouts before doing them, they are able to control their workout environment for optimal performance generally, and can repeat the workout as many times as they want to improve their score. This will obviously not be the case at a regional/games competition level.