The 2010 CrossFit Games

1. dan thacker wrote...

Awesome event at the Midwestern Sectional! Before everyone goes crazy about Rochelle's estimated numbers for the 54321 WOD, just remember she probably hasn't slept in weeks and may have been a bit off! haha. The top scores seemed to be 250+ with a couple 300's in there. Great workout and great weekend. Good job and congrats to all the athletes.

14 February 2010 / 4:21 p.m.

2. rochelle Simmer wrote...

What are you trying to say??? LOL You are right Dan Thacker, I haven't slept and I don't even know what I was saying.... The athletes were awesome today! And if all my members threw over 300, they would have all been competing..
Great Job everyone. TNT is very proud of you!

14 February 2010 / 4:38 p.m.

3. Emily Berg wrote...

I had a great time judging all the great competitors, great event at Midwestern Sectionals. Rochelle you did a great job and CrossFit TNT looks great.

14 February 2010 / 5:48 p.m.

4. qualfier wrote...

rowing in the 200s? yeah right!

scoring was questionable.

15 February 2010 / 1:27 a.m.

5. jake wrote...

why was the scoring questionable??? seemed to work out just fine.

15 February 2010 / 4:55 a.m.

6. dan thacker wrote...

I'd also like to hear arguments against the scoring. We've used this system here too. When you have a timed workout where the lower numbers are better and then a rep workout where higher numbers are better, it gives you a nice system. It truly makes every second and rep count, allowing big margains of victory to carry leverage, not just a rank. As long as the event points carry a relatively equal value (leverage), I think it's spot on.

15 February 2010 / 5:47 a.m.

7. Gale Yocom wrote...

To the crew at TNT, what a great job leading off with sectionals for CF. The programming was spot on with great wods. We have used some them here already. Enjoy the rest day Rochelle.

15 February 2010 / 5:57 a.m.

8. Ron wrote...

An alternative way to run these combination time and scored event is as every seconds counts, but convert the scores to times thisways: Each place behind first gets X seconds per rep/point they were behind first place. So in the Midwest case, the second WOD would add 5 seconds for every C&J behind 1st, and 0:01 for every point in the 54321. Pete Rasmusen would have 3:54 for the 1st WOD, 0:00 for C&J since he tied first, and 0:54 for the third WOD(54 reps behind 1st), giving him an overall time of 4:47. Second place would have a total of 5:35, and so on down the line. I'm 99% certain the results come out exactly the same this way, it's just a different way of presenting it. If you have more scored events than timed, then points probably makes more sense.

The 1% lack of certainly is due to my lack of coffee this morning. Overall I'm very happy with the way the scoring on the Midwest turned out.

15 February 2010 / 8:57 a.m.

9. chad hobbs wrote...

Regardless of how it was scored they found the top 30 (male and females) athletes to move on the the regional and I think the Midwest will be very well represented. I'm proud to have been a part of this and thought it was very well ran. Can't wait to compete again next year.

15 February 2010 / 9:09 a.m.

10. Ralph Hicks wrote...

Exactly Chad!

Who cares about scoring, the fittest will prevail.

30 is enough, 20 is enough.

The midwest regional of 3 making it to the games is going to be crazy!

There are more than a few guys and gals from the games last year that are auto into the regionals.

It's hard for me to even comprehend making it to the games this year.

Some absolutely amazing athletes!

15 February 2010 / 9:15 a.m.

11. chad hobbs wrote...

I will say this, I would like to see a more centralized location for our regional. Let's say Nebraska-ish, by my count there are 65 affiliates between Montana, Colorado, Wyoming. There are 75 affiliates between the midwest sectional.

15 February 2010 / 9:29 a.m.

12. Neil Jones wrote...

Huge thanks to Rochelle and TNT for all your hard work! What an incredible event! Good luck to the athletes moving on!

15 February 2010 / 10:59 a.m.

13. Josh R. wrote...

Hey Chad, lookin' good in that pic!! Great performance that weekend, your WOD#2 was something impressive!

15 February 2010 / 11:01 a.m.

14. dawn wrote...

Super big shout out to all the judges who volunteered their time and helped make this event possible and successful. i had a wonderful group of individuals who helped me make this happen.

thanks for all your motivation, inspiration, dedication, and desire to make the midwest sectionals a completely professional and successful event. without you, it would not have been possible.

i want to thank Rochelle and CF TNT for allowing eric and I to run the judging - there is always something to be said about the CF community - wherever you are, wherever you are from, the community is always welcoming. we are blessed to have been a part of this event.

congrats to all the athletes who came out and participated this past weekend. we saw nothing but heart, will, and determination on all three of the WODs. it is ALWAYS exciting to watch athletes of all skill levels leave it all one the floor, fulfill dreams, and make things happen.

WHOOP WHOOP!

15 February 2010 / 11:43 a.m.

15. Dan wrote...

Just to pipe in on the scoring--that was the first thing that jumped out at me. The concern I have is how heavily weighted the first WOD was. To understand what I mean look at the point distribution--in WOD 1 it ranged from 233 to 1186; WOD2 0 to 235, and WOD3 152 to 313.

What this does is put way too much emphasis on the first WOD--if Pete Rasmussen (fabulous performance, BTW!!) didn't bother to do WOD2 and finished dead last in WOD3, he still would have been in the top 30.

IMHO, the WODs need to be more evenly weighted.

One way I've seen scoring done when mixing various types of events is by being place based. So sticking with Pete as our example, his score would have been 1+1+17 for a final score of 19. Lowest score wins.

Using this method, the top 10 would look like this:
1. Dave Regula 10 (3+4+3)
2. Justin VanBeek 11 (2+1+8)
3. Alex Netty 16 (6+9+1)
4. Pete Rasmusen 19 (1+1+17)
5. Josh Nimmo 21 (4+4+13)
6. Garry Martin 23 (10+11+2)
7. Josh Earleywine 38 (5+23+10)
8. Jake Howard 40 (9+17+14)
9. Phillip Kniep 42 (7+3+32)
10.Jacob Szafranski 49 (32+11+6)

Most of the top 10 are still in there with some reshuffling, but an example of a more significant change would be Brian Llewellyn who drops from 10th to 16th. Although he rocked the first WOD, he was outside the top 50 in the next 2, so that sounds a little more reasonable to me.

15 February 2010 / 12:03 p.m.

16. Dan wrote...

Sorry--correction for Brian L.--he was 51 on the Final WOD, but 11th on each of the first 2 (but still 16th overall with my scoring method.)

15 February 2010 / 12:11 p.m.

17. Josh R. wrote...

Dan,
I originally was thinking the same thing as you were, but I also believe that margin of victory should be taken into account as well.
Pete slaughtered the field by 1:20 in the first WOD. By awarding points based on place and not the actual performance, aren't you shorting those athletes who dominate a given WOD?
I'm not saying one way is right and the other is wrong, I'm just pointing out that I think there needs to be consideration for margin of victory, not just placement. I'm perfectly happy with how things were scored at the MW Sectional.

15 February 2010 / 12:20 p.m.

18. jake wrote...

i agree with josh r. you can't just assign points based on placing because every second doesn't really count then. pete deserved to have a sizable lead by the way he slaughtered the first wod. there were some great athletes at this sectional who put on some amazing performances, but pete deserved the win based on his performance in the first two wods.

15 February 2010 / 1:25 p.m.

19. dan thacker wrote...

Some great points on the scoring. Really, I don't know the perfect system and I'm not smart enough to figure it out. I do like having every second and point count. I also like margains of victory to matter. It is interesting that someone could smoke one WOD, then basically walk through the rest and still place! Love to have HQ's input on this kind of scoring system. By the way, props to everyone! We've managed to have an intelligent discussion without an online brawl! lol

15 February 2010 / 1:32 p.m.

20. Dan wrote...

Josh/Jake,

I've been thinking all afternoon on this topic, and I think I'm even more convinced that simply going placement is the way to go. Here's why--one of the foundational tenets of crossfit is to be fit/strong across multiple modalities. By taking into account margin of victory, you INCREASE the affect that specialization can have. For example, if one of the WODs was a 40k bike race and Lance Armstrong showed up, he would liikely win the whole thing based on his margin of victory in that one WOD, regardless of whether he could even finish the other WODs. And although I think Lance is a great athlete, I don't think I'd want him representing my section at Crossfit Nationals. ;-)

As a side note, is also makes it easier to diversify your events--if you should decide to include a max-height box jump or a farmer's walk for distance you are not left trying deperately to figure out how to convert it into time or reps.

15 February 2010 / 1:58 p.m.

21. unit wrote...

dan thacker...

i agree... to relate to something i'm more familiar with, the decatlon... i've been in competitions where someone was beastly enough to finish very well (3rd at our SEC conference meet my senior yr of college) after a no-height in the pole vault... i think the decathlon is a good 'model' of determining the best athlete based on a system where every second (tenth of a second) and meter (centimeter) counts... this is just one example... but it's been around a while and there aren't too many arguements in T&F about how a deca should be scored... i'm not getting into how to score CF comps... just saying that it was nice to see someone rewarded appropriately for their beastly performance compared to others. great job putting this on this wknd and it was a pleasure to meet u...

~gm2

15 February 2010 / 1:58 p.m.

22. Josh R. wrote...

Dan,

I thought about that. However, if you reward by placement, what motivation would an athlete have to push himself in any event? For example, with Miko and Speal in the '09 Games. Either one of them could have just hit the breaks and walked the last quarter mile because they were so far ahead of anyone else. All you would have to do is push yourself just hard enough to be in front of whomever you were trying to stay ahead of.

I think the balance has to be is that you punish the specialist with a greater amount of variety within a workout, or across the entire competition.

15 February 2010 / 2:12 p.m.

23. Josh R. wrote...

By the way, has no one tracked down what the soundtracks used in either video are? I'm dying to know here. My google search bar is smoking from all the searching I've done on that Air Force WOD tune.

15 February 2010 / 2:20 p.m.

24. Ron wrote...

If we seek to "punish the specialists", shouldn't we then award the top prize to the person who was closest to average in all the events? Determine the mean time/score for every event, determine how far away everyone is by some method, and then award the most "average" person.

15 February 2010 / 2:21 p.m.

25. jake wrote...

dan, you make a valid point. maybe the scoring system should be chosen based on the wods selected. if the wods are broad, general, and inclusive, then the "every second counts" system might be best. if the wods favor the specialist then the "placing point" system might be best.

15 February 2010 / 3:38 p.m.

26. TRoach wrote...

No doubt, the event this weekend was awesome, and the host gym did great. But one tiny complaint: the music was horrible throughout. Sorry, but I just can't get pumped up to Prince, slow Nirvana and Haddaway's Baby Don't Hurt Me. I think I must have heard Kiss' Rock and Roll all Night about 12 times over the weekend. I'd almost prefer no music at all.
I would LOVE it if games organizers would ask competitors for song suggestions and then randomly pipe those in.
Thanks!

15 February 2010 / 3:50 p.m.

27. rochelle Simmer wrote...

The song is Secret Secret. And FYI to UNIT, I was the one that put on this Sectionals. Dan Thacker rocks but I have to get a little credit for the major bags under my eyes. lol

15 February 2010 / 3:56 p.m.

28. jake wrote...

ron, maybe i misunderstood your post, but why would you want to award the most average person? if we determine the means for each wod (not including DNFs on the airforce wod) then we would then be awarding someone with a time of approximately 10:47 on the air force wod, 30 reps on the c&j wod, and a 226 on the 54321 wod. how is that in any way representative of the fittest? maybe you meant to take the person with the highest average finishes, which would be how dan wanted to score it. he has dave regula winning b/c he had placings in the 3 wods of 3rd, 4th, and 3rd.

15 February 2010 / 3:59 p.m.

29. Ron wrote...

I meant what I said. It was a reductio ad absurdum.

15 February 2010 / 4:06 p.m.

30. bryan K wrote...

could someone post the final scores from Sunday?

15 February 2010 / 4:39 p.m.

31. unit wrote...

Rochelle...

i truly apologize 4 not giving credit where credit is due... u did a fantabulous job organizing the event this past weekend and it all went EXCEEDINGLY smoothly... a great big kudos 2 u 4 keeping things running on time/schedule as well [not an ez task by any means...]
oh, and ur fiance deserves a big props 2 4 all the work that he did that gave him bags under his eyes as well!... lol!...

~gm2

15 February 2010 / 4:55 p.m.

32. Justin VanBeek wrote...

I didn't completely understand the points system til after the second... third... then fourth time through it... haha but I think it's fair and that's coming from the guy you could argue has the biggest reason to question it... Once Pete smashed that first WOD I was in a huge hole and it would have taken a lot to dig my way out but with the way he performed he definitely deserved it... Just wish I would have not paced my last minute on the second WOD... I could have broken 50 C/J's with no issue but hey it's all good... Great job to all the qualifiers and see ya in Denver!

15 February 2010 / 5:46 p.m.

33. Jacob wrote...

scores2010.crossfit.com

15 February 2010 / 6 p.m.

34. Chad Hobbs wrote...

Would LOVE max height box jump, please do the programming for next year's MW sectional.

15 February 2010 / 6:29 p.m.

35. Pete Rasmusen wrote...

Thank you Cross Fit TNT for hosting such a great event. It was an awesome experience that I was able to enjoy with a lot of my friends from Cross Fit Fire.

To all of fans that came to support the athletes I wanted to extend a special thank you.

Congratulations to all of the athletes that were at the MW Sectional and good luck to all of the athletes that will be advancing to CO.

See ya in Denver!!!!

15 February 2010 / 8:02 p.m.

36. Ryan wrote...

The programming looked pretty good for this sectional...however i think there is one thing to be said. A workout in a competition should either be for a total amount of weight (1RM), a fixed amount of work with variable time, or a fixed amount of time with variable work. The air force WOD had variable work with variable time, making it maybe not the best type of workout for a competition. Maybe instead it should have been 5 burpees, 20 thrusters, 5 burpees, 20 SDHP, 20 burpees...etcetc so that way everyone is doing the same amount of work and then the fastest time wins. A workout like this becomes exponentially harder as time increases. A great way to train, but not the best for a competition,

15 February 2010 / 8:08 p.m.

37. Ryan wrote...

4th to last line should read: 20 sdhp, 5 burpees (not 20 burpees)

15 February 2010 / 8:09 p.m.

38. To late for that wrote...

Everything you are emailing is great to hear, but it is too late. The Sectionals are done and everyone already competed. Why do people have to try to change things around. It wont change because it already happened. I would guess that those wods were approved by Head Quarters, and they are the ones who make the final say so? And I assume that goes along with the scoring as well.

Every Sectionals and Regionals will be with different programming, so unless you are the one hosting it, your two cents really doesn't matter.

15 February 2010 / 8:37 p.m.

39. Matt wrote...

I usually try to stay out of this stuff but couldn't resist. I took a quick look at the score sheets. The Air Force WOD was almost perfect. I think only 4 of the top 30 scores from that WOD didn't end up in the final top 30.

Some say it was because it was too heavily weighted in the scoring.

I say it was a good test all by it self.

We could Monday morning quarterback all day long. At the end of the day 30 are going on to the next round and all the bitching and whining isn't going to change it.

Great Job to all those who competed or worked the event.

15 February 2010 / 9:17 p.m.

40. Ryan wrote...

4th to last line should read: 20 sdhp, 5 burpees (not 20 burpees)

15 February 2010 / 9:44 p.m.

41. Dan wrote...

Huh. I guess I just have a different perspective from some folks here. A healthy discussion on what worked, what maybe didn't and can we can make things even better next time doesn't constitute "bitching and whining" in my book.

Anyway, back to weighting issue. I like the example of decathlon, but the problem is that it is a defined event and as such has very established standards for each event. We could do that, but that would require only using WODs for which we (the crossfit community) have established standards, which would greatly limit the creativity in programming.

If we want to go with the "every rep, every second counts" option (which there are some very valid arguments for) there are some good ways to give the WODs equal weighting (unless they're intentionally weighted). What comes to mind is to simply calculate a standard deviation for each WOD and then apply comparable scoring--e.g. set the mean to 0, and one standard deviation out is 100 points (or -100) for every WOD--and plot the results against that.

It's a little more work, but allows for novel WODs, rewards consistancy across WODs, but still also rewards over-the-top performances such as Pete's Air Force WOD.

P.S. I tend to agree with Ryan that variable work over variable time is probably not the best option.

16 February 2010 / 6:15 a.m.

42. Eric wrote...

I would like to say that the judges did an outstanding job. It's great to not see or hear the usual "day after" bashing of how "watered down" or "sloppy" the judging was. Kudos to all for your professionalism.
All of these judges sacrificed a great deal of personal time, money, and effort to attend the judging clinics that were put on by Dawn. She wanted to ensure that they were the best they could be for the athletes. The judges came from all over, time and time again, to be ready to fairly and accurately judge the phenomenal performances that were put on at the sectionals. BIG shout out to Dawn for organizing, rehearsing, and preparing all of her judges to be top quality. She put her heart and soul into this and she definitely stepped up to this monumental challenge. Great effort by all the athletes, many thanks to CF-TNT, to all who supported. Thanks Dawn for getting the job done! You should be very proud of your judges and of yourself.
WHOOP! WHOOP!

16 February 2010 / 6:30 a.m.

43. Paul Cegon wrote...

I have to agree Eric. Dawn and her judges had one of the toughest jobs in the house. They had to deal with the noise of the crowd, music, the fast paced environment, safety, dissappointed athletes and much much more. I was very much impressed by thier accuracy, consistency and fairness. Great job and I truly appreciate all of the effort put into this by all. I know it wasn't easy.

BTW
as far as scoring went, I believe TNT just reported numbers and HQ handled the rest. There may, indeed, be several ways of scoring and weighting each event, I have no idea which is superior. Ultimately what matters is that a choice was made, that system was applied, and we have some very tough folks going to Denver. Another Day, another WOD, another scoring system may have yielded different results. All of the competitors put out what they had they should all be proud. Great job everyone!

16 February 2010 / 7:23 a.m.

44. Dan wrote...

Agreed Paul--we'll kick some butt in Denver with the awesome athletes we have going!

Just to clarify, I have no problem with the scoring or the way it played out, nor do I have any vested interest in debating it--I don't even know anyone who competed. I'm just trying to evalutate and discuss to see if there are ways to improve it for future competitions.

16 February 2010 / 7:46 a.m.

45. rochelle Simmer wrote...

Hey Guys! What a crazy w/e we had at TNT! First off, Heber was awesome in catching the best moments of the weekend on video. I know there were more, but then that would have been hours of coverage. Thanks to HQ for sending him to our first 2010 Midwestern sectionals. Coby from CMAX Photography has many professional action shots available to order at www.cmaxphoto.com

I felt very confident with everything that was thrown at me this weekend (there was a lot!!) but it all came together and we got what we wanted out of this. The top 30 male and 30 female athletes to go to Denver. I am proud to say that I had an amazing Judging Director, Dawn Williams and her demo boy Eric Guzman. She and her hard ass judges spent months and hours going to judging clinics and multiple judging practices at TNT's Rehab Saturday's to make sure we got the best of the best.

A big shout out to all the athletes who amazed me! I was very lucky to be so close to see the determination and every ounce of energy they had to finish each of the 3 WODS with pride. Weather they were an elite athlete or a beginner, each athlete is a winner in my books. With out all of you, I wouldn't have had a competition to host.

We still have a few Midwestern Sectional Shirts left, if anyone is interested, I will be happy to send you one. Discounted at $20 with $2 shipping. I can't wait to do it again next year!

16 February 2010 / 9:51 a.m.

46. Paula Wedgbury wrote...

Hats off to Rochelle and the gang who Midwestern sectional. It was a great weekend and there were tremendous athletes there.
Also, want to thank all the judges who gave their time and encouragement. The weekend could not have happened without all of you1 (esp. my boy Jeff!!! you were fun)

17 February 2010 / 4:19 p.m.