The 2010 CrossFit Games

1. Zach @CFWS wrote...

These events are rad! Nice job up there guys, hope to see you at the FFCC if seattle has one again this year.

28 January 2010 / 4:18 p.m.

2. Jessica wrote...

Why scale the reps down for women? Shouldn't the women who qualify for regionals be able to complete 24 C2B pullups and 24 ring dips over the course of the met-con in a reasonable amount of time?

28 January 2010 / 6:12 p.m.

3. ZachM_PantherCF_71''/190 wrote...

I don't really know about some of these events. I'm not going to touch on the vertical leap, because that could be argued either way, but I don't like the max wattage on the C2 rower. Honestly, does that really say anything about your fitness at all? There's a CFJ video with row instructor Bruce Koch (see link below) talking about pulling for max watts, and he says that it's basically just a game. If you came up to me and bragged about what your C2 wattage is, I would ask you what your 500m, 2K, and 5K times are, because that's what matters. Want to know who has the strongest pull? Ask them to do a max deadlift.

http://library.crossfit.com/premium/video/CFJ_AgainFaster_RowWattGame.mov?e=1264741959&h=44b61e45035777a9a1e2f115f173ca65

28 January 2010 / 8:22 p.m.

4. Doug wrote...

Zach M ... I think that this is all about defining fitness. From day 1 crossfit has tried to stretch across all sorts of domains. Rowing wattage and deadlift are definately different concepts. A REALLY good technique at rowing doesn't yeild amazing deadlifts. I'm not calling your claim illegitimate I'm just adding some food for thought. Either way I'm sure it will be a great event and most often the best athletes prevail reguardless of the events. Good luck!

28 January 2010 / 10:49 p.m.

5. Aaron wrote...

This is one of my favorite parts of the CF Games. Seeing how all of the different fitness labs (regions) choose to test their results.

1 rep max clean and jerk seems good. Wonder what the standards will be. However, I think there is a case to be made if you have a big snatch, you likely have a big C&J, but not necessarily the other way around.

Vertical leap is new and interesting. Like a max box jump, but no height advantage.

Max wattage on the rower is also new. There may be some terrible rowers who do well on this event. You probably get the same results from a 200m race. Make a 500m race and you have to be big and strong AND be able to row. But this will be like testing a 40m (or even a 10m) dash. It has value.

I think all these are pretty good when put in the context of ALSO having to do a 2 mile run. Power athletes who do well on the first three will need to show they can express power over a much longer period of time.

The last workout looks fine to me as well. Yes, a woman going to nationals should be able to do more ring dips and chest to bar pull-ups, but I like erring on the side of caution with some of these skills. Otherwise you get a women who took last in the power events, last in the run, but is a former gymnast body weight monster who is the only one who even FINISHES the last WOD thus making her the rep to regionals.

At the sectionals especially I think the goal should be to set minimum standards (you must be able to DO chest to bar and ring dips which MOST women cannot) but we are not going to DNF you if you aren't great at them. We had a ring dip WOD at our gym last night. Of the approximately 100 people who ran through the workout (about half of which were women) exactly 3 women did it as RX'd. You don't want to design your WODs with a single point of failure so only a few people are eligible to qualify. You want to punish people who are bad at things and reward people who are good at them, but not make it an all or nothing proposition this early in the game. Save that for later. Let us not forget that we had women in the final 16 at Aromas last year who DNF'd because they couldn't do HSPU. I don't think it would have been cool if they had not even been allowed to compete in Aromas because they didn't qualify out of their region after dominating every event and DNF'ing a HSPU WOD.

See, I told you this was my favorite part!

29 January 2010 / 7:06 a.m.

6. Will wrote...

Aaron, very insightful brother.

29 January 2010 / 1:50 p.m.

7. Clay Hamilton wrote...

Zach,

Thanks, I dont think are are any perfect events but we put a lot of thought into our selections. Im sure arguments can be made by anyone on either side. Bottom line, we are confident the fittest atheltes will prevail. We posted early to be fair to all competitors due to our participation in the event.

*Hope to see you at The FFCC World Championships

30 January 2010 / 12:49 p.m.

8. Nicole wrote...

Very well said Aaron. I totally agree with your comments.

I personally think these workout choices are unigue and very well ballanced. I like that they are not sticking with the easy "norms" but thinking outside the box. I think the scaled womens numbers are also appropriate. Way to go AK. And Good job posting early to keep the playing field level.

30 January 2010 / 1:44 p.m.

9. Tony wrote...

Zach M, lets get into vertical leap, I want to hear your argument regarding that one too. Let's for a moment wonder why so many power sports test this in their athletes: volleyball, football, basketball, track and field, etc? Here's why I picked it as an event: I was attending a NSCA event about 8 years ago at which Boyd Epley (a very high regarded strength and conditioning coach to say the least, google him) was the keynote speaker. He said that the vertical leap test is the best indicator compared to all test given to the power athlete to determine lower body power, athleticism, and genetic predisposition as an athlete. This test on a vertex can't be faked when struggling of the shoulders during the reach is disallowed, either you have it or you don't and it goes a long way.
I'll also take a moment to address the watts test on a concept 2 rower. You said it means nothing, why not just do a deadlift to find the best pull. We'll let's look at my watts test for starters and compare it to my deadlift. My watts test os 1117 amd my deadlift is 545 lb. So yeah, why don't we just deadlift? The watts test took 10 sec to administer; comparatively to work up to my deadlift max it takes a minimum of 10 min. Answer, it tests a very simliar capacity in a lot less time, with minimal expense to the athlete. So why along side the clean and jerk? I believe the clean and jerk is more technical, the watts test is a lot rawer; anyone can do it with minimal instruction. A decent watts test doesn't require as much specialization; to have a "good" clean and jerk one has to cross the line so to speak to specialize slightly in my opinion for a payoff that doesn't really inprove overall athletlism past a point. Zach, you also said to ask someone with a decent watts test what he or she's 500 m, 2,000 m, and 5,000 m is? My scores are 1:20.3, 6:32, 18:31; I am by no means a rower. I have done each of tests a handful of times all out (I've done the 2,000 m once). One could argue from my scores that a decent watts test will also predict success in the 500m and even out to the 2,000 m.

Thanks for all the input out there and great response Aaron.

30 January 2010 / 8:51 p.m.

10. MARKO wrote...

Vertical Jump??? I've been an athlete my whole life and can tell you vertical jump is primarily genetics. You can improve upon what you were given, but a guy born with a 28" vertical will NEVER BUILD IT TO 42". However, there are guys born with the ability to jump 42" vertically.

There are guys I know that don't do a thing and when tested have 32" vertical jumps.

I agree it's a measure of athleticism but not for Crossfit. All the other exercises and disciplines you can, with technique and time, improve to levels that would allow you to compete with anyone.

This is not true for vertical jump...

A guy can do every exercise under the sun for as long as he would like and there is only so much you can do with a vertical jump. Believe me...

I played basketball in college and EVERYONE worked on vertical jump and adding 3 inches was a HUGE DEAL.

I'm not with them on this one.

It's like having a 40 yard dash as an event. You're born fast and with a lot of work you can add some speed. However, Usain Bolt didn't get that fast because he worked harder than everyone else. He worked hard and was genetically made to run fast.

30 January 2010 / 9:19 p.m.

11. Fast Trac Dan wrote...

Excellent events! Should be some interesting results...

30 January 2010 / 9:49 p.m.

12. Bryan K wrote...

Tony and Clay,

I am looking forward to the AK sectionals. Ok, I am more excited about returning from Iraq to be with my family, but I am glad that I will be home in time to compete. I hope that my training progress while deployed will be sufficent to be a little competitive.

31 January 2010 / 12:09 a.m.

13. Dave P wrote...

Hi, can someone explain how to perform max watts on the C2 rower? Thanks

Dave

31 January 2010 / 2:31 a.m.

14. home slice wrote...

seems like everyone is making a big deal about the vertical jump event...i personally think that it is a great event to test power. the snatch event at the games was (because of the standards) an event that really tested who can muscle snatch the most weight...so the games imo lacked a significant test for the "power domain".

31 January 2010 / 9:40 a.m.

15. Tony wrote...

Marko - Why are we not suppose to test genetics? Would you not argue that the best runners and endurance athletes were gifted with good VO2max's, so does that mean that we should not test the run because it is unfair that they will do better than someone without that gift. You really don't believe that their is a genetic cap to all that we do with Crossfit? Also here's a way to change your vertical leap: body composision.
Could one argue that when you use your basketball player example that you are refering to a group of athletes that have over all the years of training for their sport already worked their vertical leap to near (within 3 inches) their gentic potential?
I'm sorry but athletics, which includes Crossfit is just as harsh as the real world; sometimes the best athletes are born and then made along with hard work. Some of us may do everything right, hard work, good recovery, great nutrition, and great training and we just might not win...that's not fair...but that's the nature of the beast. My job in designing these events is to produce an overall athlete that would most likely have the best chance to compete at the next level.
One last point, this is not the only event, it will get weighed in with all the others. Wining the Vertical leap event does not give you a bye past the other events. Our best Crossfit competitors from Alaska will be down at regionals.

Dan S...are gonna compete these year?

31 January 2010 / 3:35 p.m.

16. ZachM_PantherCF_71''/190 wrote...

Tony,

Like I said, vertical leap could be argued either way. Your argument for explosiveness is completely valid. However, when I saw that, I immediately thought of all the YouTube videos I've seen of people with ridiculous box jumps, but don't have much else going for them.

As for the max wattage test- you certainly have impressive row times. I think it could be argued, though, that a great 500m/2K/5K time is a good indicator of a high max wattage, but not necessarily the other way around.

Do I believe that whoever comes out on top will be fit? Absolutely. I just hope that the people running the sectionals don't feel the need to work under the "anything and everything" precedent set by the row/sledge WOD. I feel that a sectional qualifier should be a more basic test of fitness (ie components of named WODs) rather than things like a vertical leap and max wattage. Those tests might be better implemented later on to create more of a spread amongst the elites. It would be a shame if a CrossFitter who deserved to go on to Regionals or even the Games missed out just because he didn't have a good vertical leap.

31 January 2010 / 9:27 p.m.

17. MARKO wrote...

Tony-

I'm simply making commentary on this event because I hope that we don't see more of this type at any other Sectionals, Regionals, or The Games.

I do not believe the other disciplines are weighted toward athleticism through genetics. If someone has a high VO2 Max they are not guaranteed to win anything. We see this time and time again where someone with excellent technique can out perform someone with a big engine due to their efficiency of movement.

It's a level playing field in that those with a lower VO2 max genetically must overcome this disadvantage by a strict regiment of technique and efficiency.

An individuals vertical jump range is genetically determined. They can only improve within a small range. There are not techniques to increase vertical jumps by large margins. There are however serious genetic advantages that can not be overcome.

Type 2B (Fast Twitch) Muscle fiber recruitment is not equal in all people and plays an enormous roll in this explosive movement. This isn't something that can be developed to equal levels in all athletes. There are also mechanical advantages having to do with tendon length, and hip position, that are essential in creating an explosive jump.

All I'm saying is that this event does seem to work toward finding the fittest man alive. Every event counts and many of these sectionals will be decided by a single event.

This is like your pull on the rower for the Max Watts on the Concept 2 Rower. Is their a serious mechanical advantage to someone that is tall? YES. Is it even greater if they are tall and strong? YES. Can technique work into pulling the highest number? Sure....to a degree.

Put up it to a 2K or a 5K? And the Technique guy will win every time. 500K or less can go to a guy with a huge engine, but technique will help (Not critical though...it's too short).

That may be fair as not everyone has a rower....

Highest wattage??? It's going to be real hard to be the guys with the mechanical advantage of height and strength. Simple physics...

31 January 2010 / 9:53 p.m.

18. ZachM_PantherCF_71''/190 wrote...

MARKO,

I'm not sure I understand the problem you have with testing for fitness as a result of genetics vs. training. Fitness is fitness, and if the CF Games are set up to be a test to find the fittest person on the planet, then that person is going to have great genetics along with a strict training regimen (Mikko).

01 February 2010 / 5:51 a.m.

19. JAY wrote...

Are the first three events going to be scored while taking body weight into account, like they did at the western canadian regionals last year with the C&J? If not Im afraid that these events look terribly biased towards larger athletes. The last events gymnastic elements are pretty much a none issue compared to the time it takes to do the Row and Thrusters. Large or small, 6 pull up/dips will be easy to do, even if you suck at them. This turns the last met-con into just another event testing hip explosiveness, which is exactly what the first event does.

01 February 2010 / 11:51 a.m.

20. Lisa wrote...

I am curious why the events were posted so early, isn't crossfit supposed to test the unknown and unknowable. If it is because the organizers want to compete, go compete in someone elses sectionals I am sure that HQ would allow for that. I think knowing 6 weeks ahead of time completely defeats the purpose of the games. JMO.

01 February 2010 / 1:02 p.m.

21. MARKO wrote...

Zach M:

I realize genetics will absolutely play a roll in the games. However, in the other events presented in Crossfit there is the additional element of technique to level the genetic playing field.

For example, I'm a bigger guy and running is not my thing. I can learn to POSE to become more efficient, consider losing some mass, or work to increase my endurance.

The same is true for a smaller guy in the max clean and jerk. He can focus on the techniques and elements of the lift to close the gap between him-self and a heavyweight.

Vertical jump does not have this element...

You are limited by genetics and there isn't any way to level this genetic playing field.

To be quite honest....

The whole schedule of events is heavily waited for larger competitors. The bodyweight events are not significant enough to level the event out for different strengths.

I travel and attend three affiliates and each one has concept 2 rowers. After the video of max wattage was posted it became an event at every gym.

Guess who wins at every gym? The tall (6'3" +) strong athletes won everytime. That's why I think it's a fun test but certainly not fir to be used as a qualifier.

The 1000M Row is however a great test. Someone with technique is going to have a serious advantage, but a guy with a genetically gifted VO2 Max could potentially offset this technique in this distance. It's a great test...

2000M-5000M the technique guy wins everytime.

Max Wattage: my money is on the tall strong competitiors EVERY TIME.

Vertical Jump: Anyone genetically predisposed to be able to jump high (35"-40" vertical)wins. This individual can win and have never been involved in a single element of Crossfit. That's why I do not like it.

01 February 2010 / 2:40 p.m.

22. MARKO wrote...

Lisa-

I totally agree...

How is this the unknowable?

01 February 2010 / 2:45 p.m.

23. Nicole wrote...

Couldn't an olympic weight lifter win the Clean and jerk and never have been involved in a single Crossfit? Couldn't a elite runner win the 2 mile without ever having done Crossfit? Wouldnt an elite oarman win the Watts, wouldn't an elite gymnast win a muscle up contest?...... So of course someone with a genetic gift for fast twitch fibers and jumping who has trained verticle leap might win that one event. We could go on forever. The point is who is consistantly good across multiple elements. Not to mention, if you dont think technique and efficiency of movement across a large multi joint movement is important in the verticle leap, you dont know much about it. Try putting as much time into your verticle as you do your max clean or squat and you will see improvements in proportionate increments.

If you have a good clean and jerk, a good watts pull, a good verticle, a good 2 mile, and a good mixed metcon ability with advanced gymnastics and heavy thrusters. I argue you are Crossfit!

If genetic predisposition is grounds for disqualifing an event then I cant figure out any event that is left?

Shorter arms, longer arms
Tall, short
Long legs, shorts legs
More fast twitch muscle fibers, more slow twitch
Good Vo2 max, poor Vo2 max
Stocky, skinny
Good looking, ugly

Everyone is different and we all have our genetic strengths and weaknesses. Trying to over analize a single event or two is counter productive. Everyone has their opinions on every event. These events when all put together in one day should find a very well rounded athlete at the top.

01 February 2010 / 3:38 p.m.

24. MARKO wrote...

Nicole-

You're missing it.....

When you say, "Could an Olympic Lifter come in and when the Clean and Jerk? And never have been involved in Crossfit.." You've missed the point.

How are they not involved in Crossfit?

Do we do Olympic Lifting in Crossfit? Of course we do (Snatch, C&J, Frnt Sqt, OHS, etc, etc) Does an Olympic Lifter also practice these techniques? Absolutely. And what makes a great Olympic Lifter; Genetics or technique?

The argument could shift based on the O-Lifter you're talking about. That's exactly what I'm talking about. They do the same techniques and the genetic playing field is leveled out with technique.

Vertical jump is a genetic predisposition with very small margins for any kind of improvement. There is no leveler to this genetic advantage. Someone with a 20" inch vertical can't technique his way to a 36" vertical.

These aren't the NFL combines.....

BTW...All of this is just my opinion from years of experience in competitive athletics where 40 yard dash and vertical jumps are a measure of raw athletic prowess. Raw meaning, show what God gave you.

If I was a little guy I'd be really bummed at this programming. The wattage and max clean and jerk is going to be won by the big guys.

Had it been 1000M for time and Max C&J you would level the field. You have a big guy event and a little guy with a big engine event. However, either guy could win the other event.

the second day event has heavier weight for the strong or technique proficient. However, the number of reps for the body weight exercises is too low to level the field for the smaller guy. In some case the 135 thruster may be 10 pounds lower than their weight.

01 February 2010 / 9:43 p.m.

25. Bryan K wrote...

Lisa,

If you knew the specifics behind the planning of the AK Sectional, then this makes perfect sense. Both Clay and Tony, owners of Revolution Sports Training/CF Alaska both plan on competing in the Games and are planning the sectional. If the two individuals that made up the WOD kept the information to themselves until a week or few days prior, how much of a S**tstorm would be unleashed when they crushed the competition. I pesonally applaud them for making the events public knowledge so far in advance. Would it be better to have a disinterest third party develop the events in secret? Perhaps, but that is not the case. Open source and good sportsmanship is what we are talking about here. They have chosen to give all AK participants an even playing field.

To support your train of thought:

What I like about the CF Games is the test of how well one is able to test their fitness across multiple domains. A Marathon runner knows exactly how far he will have to run during a marathon, knows that the course will be flat, hilly, humid, etc. A Decathlete knows that there will be 10 known events over 2 days, in a specific order. CF Games athletes know that they will have perform to the best of their ability at tasks they do in training. Period. No set schedule, no strict event protocol or delay tactics, they just have to pick up the frickin' bar or push/pull their bodies through space in a grueling, exhausting test of mental and physical strength.

Good job Tony and Clay. Thank you for no muscle ups or HSPUs. Those are still my CF goats....

03 February 2010 / 12:24 a.m.

26. IAMTOO7 wrote...

I want to address, on a very DEEP level what has only been hinted at so far, the fairness of affiliate owners competing in an event they are hosting (fairness... maintaining the "unknown and unknowable" standard... how Alaska athletes specializing will affect their performance at Regionals.. and what the AK affiliate owners failed to reveal). PLEASE READ TO THE END.

Sure, we know the affiliate owners (Tony & Clay) are wanting to compete and this forced them to post the event early, especially after what happened last year at one of the Regionals when two affiliate owners (husband and wife team) competed at their own event and placed in the top to go to the Games. It created quite a stir and they forfeited their places. The problem was: they knew what was coming before everyone else did.

So, naturally, if they (T & C) want to compete they are forced to make the events known in a timely matter, though we ALL know this does not support the foundation of CrossFit (preparing for "the unknown and the unknowable").

THIS IS STILL VERY QUESTIONABLE THOUGH. Just because the events were made known 6 weeks prior to the Sectional doesn't mean Tony & Clay hadn't been working at the events for 6 weeks ALREADY! How are we to know? IT IS VERY QUESTIONABLE.

Unfortunately, any reasonable doubt puts them in a not-so-trustworthy position in the Alaska Sectional (their own event). WE HAVE THAT REASONABLE DOUBT. To avoid this they should have had Crossfit Headquarters handle the planning and posting of the events. Naturally, then, the events would have been posted just as every other Sectional will, a week or just days out. Crossfit HQ travels all over the world doing certs. Alaska would have been no big deal for HQ to oversee for the sake of fairness AND maintaining the "unknown and the unknowable" for everyone including the trainers at Crossfit Alaska.

We all know the creed of General Physical Preparedness also says, "specialization is the enemy." Now for the next 5 weeks, Alaska will have athletes who are specializing for the Alaska Sectional... NOT GOOD! How will that affect their performance in May at the Regional? Of course that is uncertain. But we know FOR SURE they will have to correct certain chinks in their armor due to the specialization required to be competitive in the AK Sectional IF they want to compete well in Washington where they'll be forced to compete at "the unknown and the unknowable".

Another way of looking at this is: If I were part of the team hosting the Northwest Regional and I knew Alaska athletes were specializing AND I knew exactly HOW/WHAT they were specializing for, I just might decide to choose some events that target the weakenesses their specializing has caused. THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE THAN IT APPEARS TO BE!

If T & C really cared about Alaska making it to the 2010 Games they wouldn't have put Alaska athletes in this position. Selfishness becomes the main driver here. Sorry, but just trying to keep it real. THIS IS THE SACRIFICE ALL AFFILIATE OWNERS/TRAINERS MUST BE WILLING TO MAKE: GET Crossfit Headquarters invovled (so that no one on your team knows what's coming) or DO NOT COMPETE. After all, your job is to: TRAIN and create athletes fit for the Games.

Finally, though all the events of the Alaska Sectional have been made known and as I have noted this issue is very questionable and not compeltely trustworthy, they have failed to be completely candid. A warning is given about a 2 mile outdoor run in the bitter winter of AK. BUT, since we are trying to be COMPLETELY fair we need to know the EXACT route of the run. Sure all the athletes will have to battle unpredictable elements of the season, BUT this doesn't change the fact that Tony and Clay (owners of the Affiliate and competitors in their own Sectional) ALREADY KNOW WHAT THE ROUTE IS, which of course, is not fair.

Again, this places them in a not-so-trustworthy position. There are far too many NEGATIVE variables here to be ignored. Headquarters needs to step in and make some serious guidelines for Crossfit affiliate trainers who want to compete in an event they are hosting. I can see this becoming a BIG headache for Headquarters. My suggestion is: If you are a part of the creating team that is hosting the event in anyway, direct or indirect, you cannot compete in that specific event but, perhaps, can enter another event outside of your area.

04 February 2010 / 12:02 p.m.

27. ARS wrote...

This regional is a joke. I hope other affiliates and HQ are paying attention this. AK needs a remedy.

04 February 2010 / 10:17 p.m.

28. Tony Budding wrote...

IAMT007,
You have made several good points, and these are important. In an absolute sense, hosts programming and competing is surely a conflict of interest. There is no doubt of that. So why did we allow it?

The answer is a little subtle, and perhaps uncomfortable. It has to do with evaluating the realistic options given our resources, knowing the stakes, seeing the good over the perfect, and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

First and most importantly, if it wasn't for Tony and Clay, there would be no Alaska Sectional. This alone is reason enough to let them compete in it. Sure, they know the events, but they still have to perform well at them. For example, unless there is some shockingly difficult component to the run, I don't know how much of an advantage knowing the route really is.

What are the stakes? Three spots to the Regionals in a remote part of the US where Tony and Clay probably would have been the only ones to travel to what would have been their Sectional in Washington. The events programmed are broad and are an adequate test of fitness. The athletes that end up at the top of the competition are very likely the right athletes to go to Regionals. Good enough, not perfect.

Furthermore, there are several purposes of the Sectionals. The main one, of course, is to get the best people to the Regionals. But there is another very important one, and that is to give the broadest number of people the opportunity to come together for a CrossFit competition. If the barriers are too high, there would be no Alaska competition. I'm glad they're doing it, and the benefits far outweigh the flaws.

Finally, this is not going to happen at a Regional, but we're tolerant of it at a Sectional. The game and stakes are a of a different scale. Can you understand that?

05 February 2010 / 7:33 a.m.

29. IAMTOO7 wrote...

Thanks Tony Buddying,

I do appreciate your response and see your perspective.

I want to comment on what I think might be the summary of what you said,"the benefits far outweigh the flaws."

I am by no means a perfect individual, but in a matter than draws so much attention to the philosohpy of an international entity (our Crossfit), integrity must be beyond question and above reproach to the highest degree. I would assume CEO Glassman sees this as a priority as well.

I'd like to paint a picture here: On the level of Alaska as a community, "the benefits [might] outweigh the flaws"... on the level of Crossfit as international there may be more at stake. BUT, it might be more appropriate to flip the coin and say, perhaps on the level of Alaska as a community there is much at stake... on the level of Crossfit as international "the benefits far outweigh the flaws".

It just depends on your viewpoint and which is more important to you. Of course, the end result at this point is "uknown and unknowable". So, it seems to me that our primary concern should be: honesty, integrity and leadership from our affiliate representatives.

05 February 2010 / 8:41 a.m.

30. Bryan K wrote...

IAMTOO7,

Even though I know exactly what the events in my sectional will be, the only thing that I have "practiced" has been the clean and jerk. I would have done that same work since I have recently been reading/studying/watching Greg Everett's Oly Lift material so much that I naturally would have done so anyway. The other day the main site had a WOD that was very similar to the AK sectional WOD. Row, MU and heavy thrusters. Since I cannot do MUs yet, I had to sub pulls/dips making the WOD very similar. I decided that it was in my best interest to continue in the same training plan (mainsite WODs while deployed) than to cherry pick something else. I think that this method was much better since it was more rounds, more pullups/dips and 20 lbs more on the thrusters.

I have stated again and again that I believe the best part of the CF Games is to test the unknown and unknowable, to be able to test your fitness conditioning with whatever is thrown at you. I also want to be able to compete head to head with Tony and Clay at our sectionals. They are still much better than I am, but since I have been deployed I have not been able to test myself against them.

Lastly, if any of our AK Firebreathers are "specializing" in training for our sectional to simply make it out of Alaska, they have lost sight of the goal of the CF Games. If they are not well-rounded athletes, they will be crushed in Seattle at the Regionals. The best plan is to continue the current training plan, focus on perceived weaknesses and see what happens.

05 February 2010 / 10:54 p.m.

31. Dave P wrote...

Hi, still looking for what the max wattage test entails on the C2 rower, thanks
Dave

06 February 2010 / 4:19 a.m.

32. ZachM_PantherCF wrote...

I am with IAMTOO7... should a compromise of integrity be tolerated simply because it is a Sectional instead of a Regional? Making any concession whatsoever to select individuals suggests that these people are more note worthy than CrossFit itself or what the CrossFit Games are trying to accomplish, and the estimate of competition is lowered, not only in these individuals but in myself as well. I'm sure the guys planning this Sectional are great athletes, but for the same reasons that you shouldn't program for yourself, you shouldn't program for your own Sectional. If you program for yourself, you are naturally going to avoid things that you suck at. Likewise, I don't think it's a coincidence that Tony's max wattage on the C2 is the most impressive thing about him as a rower. His 500m, 2K, and 5K are all great numbers, but his max wattage is the most "unfuckwithable" score. I'd venture a guess that Tony and Clay also have ridiculous vertical leaps. Glassman wants the CF Games to be a legitimate test to find the fittest person on the planet. This legitimacy will continue to be questioned if HQ continues to uphold lax standards for these qualifiers.

06 February 2010 / 11:56 p.m.

33. Justin McCallon wrote...

I haven't read through all the comments here, but I just want to say that this is the best set of events that I have seen put together at a Regional thus far (although I would make the run a 5k).

I have been so disappointed that CF has failed to truly test power. Even though I don't think it is going to help Alaska weed out the people best qualified for the games, it is nice to see someone pick up on the fact that your ability to move both your body and an external object really fast is part of fitness.

And to the people that think the C2 Wattage is a dumb test -- that is ridiculous. For one, it does a good job testing horizontal pulling strength, which is absent in most any other movement. For two, it's no more "of a game" than running a 40m dash. Yeah, working on your 40m dash isn't going to have much carry over to your 5k run, but it's a good test of power in and of itself. And lastly, it gives taller athletes a chance to compete. The shorter athletes don't need to do as much work as the taller athletes in 90% of the CF events. It's nice to see that someone picked up on this and is giving a true test of power.

11 February 2010 / 8:37 a.m.

34. ZachM_PantherCF wrote...

"...it is nice to see someone pick up on the fact that your ability to move both your body and an external object really fast is part of fitness."

SNATCH?

11 February 2010 / 9:11 a.m.

35. Justin McCallon wrote...

Now I have read through everything. Some of the commentary is frustratingly stupid.

Alaska probably has all of 4 people that have a shot at making it to Aromas. It looks like 2 of those 4 were asked to organize this event. If they just let someone else decide the events, there would probably be a logistical problem with getting the equipment ready. And, the events probably wouldn't be as well put together as this one. As a result, they did the most fair thing possible -- they posted the events 6 weeks in advance so that everyone knows them.

The fact that people still try to hold a CF Sectional in Alaska to the same standards as an NBA playoff game is just ridiculous. Most likely these 2 were going to be the ones that come out of this competition regardless.

I also want to reiterate how stupid it is to me when people complain about larger competitors having such an advantage on certain events.
First, let's look at which events/exercises favor taller athletes:
1 - Rowing (1/3 of one event + about 1/3 of another)
2 - Running (1 full event)
In both/all three of these events, taller athletes do an equal amount of work as shorter athletes.
Now, let's look at which events/exercises favor shorter athletes:
1 - Clean & jerk (1/3 of one event)
2 - Thrusters (about 1/3 of one event)
3 - Pull-ups (about 1/6 of one event)
4 - Dips (about 1/6 of one event)
In all 4 of these exercises, the taller athletes are required to do MORE work than shorter athletes.
So we are talking about a 1.66 to 1.33 ratio.

Now, let's switch and see which events favor heavier athletes:
1 - C&J (1/3)
2 - Rowing (1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3)
3 - Thrusters (1/3)
And which are better for lighter athletes?
1 - Vertical jump (1/3)
2 - Run (1)
3 - CTB Pull-ups (1/6)
4 - Ring Dips (1/6)
So heavy:light = 1.33 : 1.66

So, yeah, the events might give an extremely slight edge to a tall/thin competitor in the same way that just about any actual real-world test favors taller people (I don't see a lot of people doing push-ups to fend off the zombies, but they might hit them -- and being taller helps with that). But, taller competitors are doing the same amount of work as everyone else, unlike the traditional events where they are at a leverage disadvantage AND they need to pull the bar 20% farther. The reason you people are getting so up-in-arms about this is because most CF workouts cater to short, light people.

And the whole idea that people are "genetically" good at certain things is not even worth addressing any further than saying that it is really stupid.

11 February 2010 / 9:11 a.m.

36. Justin McCallon wrote...

Zach -- No. That is just moving an external weight. (Obviously any time you move an external weight there will be some degree of moving your body weight).

Who has the highest snatch in the world? Someone that weighs something like 250+lbs I believe.

Who has the highest vertical jump in the world? Someone that weighs something more like 150lbs.

Another thing I'd love to see: Throws.

11 February 2010 / 9:15 a.m.

37. Adam wrote...

MARKO, IAMTOO7 and the other Nay-Sayers

There's always someone that thinks they know better, or could do it better than the next guy. You are those people.

Are you competing in the Alaska Sectional? Are you competing in any sectional?

If CrossFit thought you could do it better they would have chosen you. T & C have obviously put in the time and effort, building respectable clients and a great box. They have earned the trust and respect of CrossFit HQ.

IAMTOO7:
Your "genetic based advantage" theory holds no water when referring to the vertical jump being more weighted than another event. There are many aspects of CrossFit where genetics can play a huge roll in one's performance. Some people may be genetically predisposed to running; so what? No matter how hard I train, I will never be as fast as some athletes. So what if we put a 400m run in a Sectional, Regional, or the Games? Does it not test functional fitness? Granted, the genetically predisposed will dominate, but that is just one event. The AK Sectionals have a wide variety of exercises that test many different domains of fitness. The best CrossFitter from this event will be great at all of these tasks, and not specialized in one area.

Lastly, if you truly believed in and understood what CrossFit is, then you would never have put their (T & C) honesty in question. You have accused them of cheating, and in doing so, proved to everyone else, what kind of a person you are.

When questioning someone's integrity in an open forum, you better have some serious fact to back up your accusations. Im assuming you have no facts; this is based on the embarrassing image you have portrayed of yourself on this website. Also, using an alias is a real chicken-sh!t move; this gives you no credibility.

Bottom line: Quit arm-chair quarterbacking. HQ knows whats going on. If they have a problem with it, they will fix it. So unless you're on their pay-roll, fix your panties, and blog somewhere else.

16 February 2010 / 9:39 a.m.