Unknown and unknowable
Posts games WODs a week before the games
[quote]d1chet wrote:
Unknown and unknowable
Posts games WODs a week before the games[/quote]
To let the participants practice the workout every fucking day for the week…
[quote]d1chet wrote:
Unknown and unknowable
Posts games WODs a week before the games[/quote]
Did you know they were going to announce the workouts in advance? I didn’t. It was unknown!
But really it’s only half the workouts, just to be precise.
I remember reading an interview of one of the top scorers (a lightweight competitive powerlifter) of the Crossfit Games. He said that most participants of the games really are not training crossfit per se and generally are complete renegades in the “World of Crossfit”, not following their shit. Apparently people of Crossfit do not succeed in Crossfit.
[quote]haploid wrote:
A few points:
-
The vast majority of CF affiliates program substantial strength components into their training sessions. A one hour session with a 15 minute metcon is not being padded with 45 minutes of foam rolling and paleo recipes. Usually there are 5x5 or 1 rep ladders. And yes, a good number of affiliates use periodization. Those assuming that crossfit.com programming is representative of mainstream and modern CF training are poorly informed.
-
What constitutes a “sport” is entirely arbitrary. Here’s Merriam-Webster: “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature”. By this standard, CF is a sport, ridiculous arguments about popularity and methodology notwithstanding.
-
These movements, still common in CF, are stupid: Kipping pullups, high rep bounding box jumps, sumo deadlift high pulls, and high rep olympic lifts in general.
[/quote]
Yeah, from what I have read (and now experience training oly in a cf box), as crossfit has evolved and gotten smarter, it looks in practice more like a strength workout with a metcon finisher. All of those outlaw workouts seem to have the signature crossfit metcon as an afterthought, focusing on an oly or gymnastic skill, then doing strength with an assistance exercise or 2, then maybe conditioning, which can be as boring as just a bunch of rowing or running.
So basically, crossfit is converging to a relatively pedestrian yet effective workout routine structure, and everyone has given up on acheiving the 700lb deadlift from 2 years of doing Fran.
If they could stop threatening to sue everyone, quality control their instruction, and quit claiming superlatives for themselves (elite, fittest on earth, world records in inane shit) it might become something I could condone without throwing up a little in my mouth.
[quote]d1chet wrote:
Unknown and unknowable
Posts games WODs a week before the games[/quote]
it is in a way, they rocked up and have been told the games will start 2 days earlier than they thought. Pre contest prep has now been fucked over.
The regional games favoured the bigger stronger guys so they ended up at the games, the first workout is a triathalon style event. Fuck most never saw that coming.
they do some dumb shit though e.g. teams workout at the regionals was 2 people deadlifting on the same bar at the same time for reps. But the girls are hot.
I personally feel cross-fit is mostly for show. I’m all for circuit training, I help out in teaching such classes. But it seems cross-fit has the biggest snobs in the gym. They pull out half the equipment in the gym for personal use, and can’t be bothered to return it most of the time. Mostly my gripe with them, but I feel it is possible to workout equally as efficient without having to hoard the amount of equipment they tend to.
Crossfit, ropes, bumper plates, tires, women in short shorts, muscle ups, they are all pretty cool…
… but i’d rather spend $45 a month to go to a good 24 hour fitness, thats right next to my apartment, than $200 a month to go to crossfit classes.
THIS IS AWESOME.
I was impressed as hell watching the games today to see a lot of guys power cleaning 300+ lbs after a full day of competition. It’s not for everyone, but they produce some impressive athletes.
Crossfit has some banging ass chicks other then that I really could care less I’m not gonna watch people workout
The clean ladders were entertaining to watch.
[quote]haploid wrote:
- What constitutes a “sport” is entirely arbitrary. Here’s Merriam-Webster: “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature”. By this standard, CF is a sport, ridiculous arguments about popularity and methodology notwithstanding.
[/quote]
What constitutes “gay” is entirely arbitrary. Here’s Dictionary.com: Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive . awkward, stupid, or bad; lame: This game is really gay.
Whatever else you say the levels of fitness are pretty impressive in the current games. A 165kg clean is pretty impressive especially when you consider it was the 10th event (including a triathlon with 11km run) and also the fact that jumps in the clean weight had to be done in 30sec intervals
I found the Games more engaging than a bodybuilding competition and even powerlifting…and I am a powerlifter. I personally like the concept of Crossfit. Does it have valid criticism? Absolutely as do all sports. The top athletes train different than we the watchers. They are elite. Same goes for Olympic athletes or top powerlifters. Still there is alot to be learned. I do support the events. I especially love that women earn just as much as the guys. I think that is pretty cool.
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
I was impressed as hell watching the games today to see a lot of guys power cleaning 300+ lbs after a full day of competition. It’s not for everyone, but they produce some impressive athletes.[/quote]
This is the misconception. The athletes in the crossfit games were not produced by crossfit. They come from other sports/ athletic fields. They’re gymnasts, competitive sprinters, triathletes, etc who have adopted crossfit post-athletic career. Look up ANY of the top crossfit athletes and this becomes apparent.
You would think for the dedication these folks put towards working out, they would read a kinesiology book and perhaps some work about energy systems and plyo metrics. Following this, maybe there would be no crossfit.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
I was impressed as hell watching the games today to see a lot of guys power cleaning 300+ lbs after a full day of competition. It’s not for everyone, but they produce some impressive athletes.[/quote]
This is the misconception. The athletes in the crossfit games were not produced by crossfit. They come from other sports/ athletic fields. They’re gymnasts, competitive sprinters, triathletes, etc who have adopted crossfit post-athletic career. Look up ANY of the top crossfit athletes and this becomes apparent.[/quote]
Ok but this can be turned around a little to. The reason that many current crossfit athletes come from other sports is that crossfit is relatively new. To be a top level competitor in any sport takes a considerable amount of effort and time. According to some researchers 10,000 hours. With its relatively recent popularity burst crossfit has not had the opportunity to produce (utilising only its own guidelines) athletes that have clocked in enough hours to match semi-elite athletes from other sports who transfer their skills.
If a sport was invented that involved ridding a bike for 10miles and then bench pressing a maximum weight I am pretty sure that the people who would succeed at the top end would initially be either cyclists or powerlifters. It would take a considerable time before individuals developed solely in this sport would begin to win anything.
Crossfit is currently in this boat. Until now it has not had the popularity or financial reward to attract individuals with the best genetic potentials - they have gone elsewhere. Like it or not with its gaining popularity and financial reward it will attract them at a very young age from this point on. In 10-years time you may or may not see athletes developed entirely by crossfit protocols at the top of their sport. Then and only then can you judge the effectiveness of crossfit. I am neither against or for crossfit - but merely pointing out that time alone will provide answers.
I have no doubt that there are two separate branches of crossfit. The GPP plan for the general public - hard work, functional movements (some good, some bad), no planing and a pretty decent outlook on nutrition. Not perfect - but for 90% of people better than they would be doing without the main site WODs. There is the second branch - elite crossfiters training for a sport, who plan their training and realise that strength and power are extremely important and elite fitness is not simply met-con after met-con.
As a side point I am pretty sure that Rich Fronning’s college baseball training did not prepare to perform 14-events in 5-days at the intensity he produced.
[quote]Cymru wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
I was impressed as hell watching the games today to see a lot of guys power cleaning 300+ lbs after a full day of competition. It’s not for everyone, but they produce some impressive athletes.[/quote]
This is the misconception. The athletes in the crossfit games were not produced by crossfit. They come from other sports/ athletic fields. They’re gymnasts, competitive sprinters, triathletes, etc who have adopted crossfit post-athletic career. Look up ANY of the top crossfit athletes and this becomes apparent.[/quote]
Ok but this can be turned around a little to. The reason that many current crossfit athletes come from other sports is that crossfit is relatively new. To be a top level competitor in any sport takes a considerable amount of effort and time. According to some researchers 10,000 hours. With its relatively recent popularity burst crossfit has not had the opportunity to produce (utilising only its own guidelines) athletes that have clocked in enough hours to match semi-elite athletes from other sports who transfer their skills.
If a sport was invented that involved ridding a bike for 10miles and then bench pressing a maximum weight I am pretty sure that the people who would succeed at the top end would initially be either cyclists or powerlifters. It would take a considerable time before individuals developed solely in this sport would begin to win anything.
Crossfit is currently in this boat. Until now it has not had the popularity or financial reward to attract individuals with the best genetic potentials - they have gone elsewhere. Like it or not with its gaining popularity and financial reward it will attract them at a very young age from this point on. In 10-years time you may or may not see athletes developed entirely by crossfit protocols at the top of their sport. Then and only then can you judge the effectiveness of crossfit. I am neither against or for crossfit - but merely pointing out that time alone will provide answers.
I have no doubt that there are two separate branches of crossfit. The GPP plan for the general public - hard work, functional movements (some good, some bad), no planing and a pretty decent outlook on nutrition. Not perfect - but for 90% of people better than they would be doing without the main site WODs. There is the second branch - elite crossfiters training for a sport, who plan their training and realise that strength and power are extremely important and elite fitness is not simply met-con after met-con.
As a side point I am pretty sure that Rich Fronning’s college baseball training did not prepare to perform 14-events in 5-days at the intensity he produced.
[/quote]
Crossfit is 12 years old. Is it new compared to say, baseball? yes. But a 16 year old who started at the beginning of crossfit would be 28 now, an athlete’s prime. So it has had PLENTY of time to develop top notch athletes. Even the crossfit games, with the monetary incentive you’re talking about, have been around for 5 years.
Here’s the more important thing when we’re talking about whether crossfit can or will develop elite athletes on its own: the infrastructure and oversight absolutely sucks. There is zero regularity from box to box. And that makes for a huge problem when determining what crossfit can and can’t do for an athlete. It’d be like saying a dozen athletes who trained at a particular 24-hour fitness made it to the NFL, so 24 hour fitness trainers in general are a good route to pro football. I know there are great crossfit boxes out there, no doubt. There are some athletes at crossfit gyms doing some serious training. But their training is less about the brand of crossfit, and more about applying the things they’ve already learned from strength and endurance training, and pushing their focus towards exercises rather than traditional skill-based sports.
I think for these reasons, we have some common ground, but I don’t think the crossfit brand deserves the credit for the production of any real athletes.
Doing the “mainsite wod” will never send anyone “to the games”. As far as I can tell the formula is 450lb squat + 515lb DL + college athlete who spent some time on circuit training and the oly lifts in recent years.
If you widen the definition of “crossfit” based on what one box or another does you will eventually take credit for every weight ever lifted. What boxes actually do is incredibly varied and you are effectively claiming every program with a circuit training component (not even every day) as crossfit.