The 2010 CrossFit Games

1. Amit Ghate wrote...

From what I can tell, this regional has the best scoring system. Every event is equally weighted (as is true of the ranking scoring), but margin of victory /difference between competitors is also recognized. Congrats on what appears to be an awesome comp!

30 May 2010 / 10:43 a.m.

2. bo wrote...

first off, congrats to all the qualifying athletes, wouldn't want to take away from anyone, but to say this is the best scoring system is completely absurd. you had athletes who beat other athletes in 3 of the 4 events and because the last event was really worth it all, hence not equally weighted, the athletes that did good in that last event, basically made up for being average in the other 3 events (athletes on the podium). how could you beat someone by 3 minutes in one workout or outlift someone by over 30 pounds, yet do average in the last event and not end up qualifying? so you could be average in the 3 events and good in the last event and make the podium but not make the podium being good in the 3 events and average at the last one? if it was scored like the actual games, then it would be a totally different story. crossfit needs to have scoring standards all across sectionals and regionals. that scoring system doesn't seem fair??!!

30 May 2010 / 4:06 p.m.

3. kris kepler wrote...

Gary
you have to the biggest troll on the face of this earth...do you still live with mommy and daddy down in the basement? I'm sure you suck your thumb, and wet your bed don't you? Or am I just being an a## like you. Gary, you are the problem with society, grow up. stop saying Central had any prior knowledge of the workouts, because we didn't. What seems to be your problem? We had 1 guy in the top 10, 2 in the top 20, 1 in the top 30 and 2 in the top 40. not a bad showing + 2 females in the top 4 and our affiliate team took 1st. so Gary if that is your real name, why don't you crawl back down into your parents basement, I'm sure your teddy misses you.

30 May 2010 / 7:20 p.m.

4. Adam Drake wrote...

Bo,

The scoring system (standard score from what I can tell) is actually the most fair I've seen. My background is applied mathematics and the way the scoring was done here weighs each event equally but rewards the athletes who do better than average. If you do FAR better than average then you obtain more points than someone who did slightly better than average (which theoretically obtains 0 points).

The fact is that the athletes who did exceptionally on the final event earned more points because they did proportionally better than the other athletes. If you win the event by 4 minutes, don't you think you should get more points than someone who only wins by 4 seconds?

On the flip side, if the results from an event are very close then fewer points are earned by all athletes since everybody was close to average.

Basically, the more you are above average the more points you get, which is precisely how scoring should be.

As an applied mathematician I cannot think of a more fair scoring system, and I'm sorry that you haven't looked into it enough to agree.

This may be of some help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score

30 May 2010 / 8:01 p.m.

5. Michelle wrote...

It amazes me how much people hate on CF Central. I live in California and workout at CF Central when I visit my sister in Austin. I was also able to spend time with them when they were at the Games last year. The CF Central team is a great group of people. If all those haters ever spent time with the CF Central team they would join me in cheering them on instead of trying to break them down.
Anyways I just want send some California love to CF Central and say CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Good luck at the games, I'll be cheering you on.

30 May 2010 / 8:02 p.m.

6. casey wrote...

Bo,

I agree, the top 4 athletes are definitely worthy of going to the Games buts the scoring system was not very good. Its seems like the scoring system from last years games was a straight forward easy way to decide a winner. I think every competition should do it that way.

Kris,

Good response! :) your gym is legit and put out some great competitors. There is always gonna be guys like gary who try to find excuses for losing.

30 May 2010 / 8:11 p.m.

7. casey wrote...

Oh and I think the Affiliate Teams are wrong. It should be,

Crossfit Central
Crossfit Albequrque
Dallas Central
Crossfit Denton County

30 May 2010 / 8:13 p.m.

8. CFCMatt wrote...

The only comment I would like to make is that this was among the best, if not the best, competition I've been at or been a part of in regards to athlete effort and performance.
And, as important to me, with only a few very rare exceptions, all the athletes conducted themselves as true professionals and it was a pleasure working with them.
Matt Munson
CrossFit Champions

30 May 2010 / 8:20 p.m.

9. tucker wrote...

Gary - you could not be more wrong. It is very clear you do not have a clue waht you speak of.

The standard scoring system (deviationn score) is the most fair level systme HG offered us as an option to use. The final workout - was clearly a test of all required fields of fitness and then some - based on skill requirements for movement and strength with form. An athlete should be able to do a basic move - like a HSPU without a kip. Thise that could do all the other events well, and still perform all the required event movements and strict standards - rose to the top, in both teams and individuals.

Was a grand and good weekend - and the events picked some solid athletes.

tucker

30 May 2010 / 8:50 p.m.

10. Samantha Tucker wrote...

All I can say is I had a blast and can't wait to come back next year! I was excited to be a part of an amazing affiliate team and loved the entire weekend. Thanks Tuck for hosting us!

30 May 2010 / 9:24 p.m.

11. Drew wrote...

Bo,
Agreed.

Adam,
If it's all about math, then we should just base all performance upon power output. That would put your math skills to the test, figuring in biomechanics, bodyweight, load, reps, and distance moved.

Tucker,
Based upon that scoring system, why was the first workout capped at a certain weight? In that case, then the other WODs should have had a limit, as well...no athlete is allowed to do it faster than X minutes...or complete more rounds than XX. That's what happened on the first one, right? The athletes were capped in performance. That skews the scores. Also, you're going to have a much wider range of times on the final workout because some athletes who are not in the running to qualify are not going to make it a close? So, if I am a competitor that saves some gas for the last WOD when most others are dogging after realizing they've not got a shot, I can leverage that wide range of times and catapult to the top. Basically, the last workout was weighted due to the wide range of times, giving certain athletes a definite advantage in the end.

Hmmm...doesn't seem to fair to this guy.

-Drew

30 May 2010 / 9:30 p.m.

12. Steve wrote...

Drew
Agreed it doesn't take an applied math whiz to know that the scoring, especially in the last WOD, had TOO much of an advantage in point spread to not only gain on the first four positions but surpass them. The first WOD was capped and clearly does not allow the athlete to show off their full potential. Even if ONE athlete can overhead squat more than 225/135 then he/she deserves to show their talent off like the athletes in the last WOD who were able to smash the required time.
Adam, dont you think if someone on the first WOD can overhead squat more than 225/135 he/she can widen the gap on the point system? No one on the podium (for men) could overhead squat 225 (just a stat this wouldn't matter if the last WOD was capped also by the way) ...If someone lifts an exceptional amount of pounds over their competitor should they not receive more points?
Based on this scoring system on this regional the athlete that could simply hang on the first 3 WODs and blow the last one to pieces could march on the final games :/.....An athlete in particular was knocked off top status because of this, and lets just say his performance was nothing short of incredible..... And since we're calling out our intellectual status (which wasn't necessary ) Im a double major in Math and engineering with years of independent business ownership under my belt. *New rule no one can accomplish FRAN in under 2 min* its now capped.

30 May 2010 / 10:30 p.m.

13. Deric wrote...

Drew, For the Record, at no time did I "save" any gas, and if you are during these comps and still being competitive, either you are A, a freak of nature or B, an idiot and you shouldn't be a competitive CF'er.

@ any complaints: crappy judges, crappy scoring, crappy WOD's, etc. we could go all day, in the end, it is what it is.

Coach G says, "work your weaknesses-"

a CF competition corollary from me, "-hang on during weaknesses, thrive with your strengths."

30 May 2010 / 10:45 p.m.

14. Amy Maddux wrote...

Tucker,
It was a pleasure to meet you and compete at Regionals. I don't care about how the scoring system goes. My thoughts are, if anyone cares, if you can do all four wods then YOU ARE AN AMAZING ATHLETE! I have only trained for sectionals and regionals (making it here was a shock to me) since Feb. To be able to compete with, not against, these athletes was worth it to me. You put on a GREAT event and I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. I see my weaknesses and know where to improve! Can't wait to compete again next year!!

Amy Maddux
County Line Crossfit

31 May 2010 / 5:26 a.m.

15. melissa wistrom wrote...

Does anyone know where you can order pictures or videos from the event? I think this was an awesome event. There was great friendly competition and a lot of wonderful people that volunteered their time to put this event on for us. Thanks to all who contributed to making this a valuable life experience.

31 May 2010 / 8:05 a.m.

16. LeeW wrote...

Tucker - thanks for hosting. Matt - great job of managing the judging. To both - and all organizers and volunteers - great event.

I don't understand all the complaints about scoring. As a competitor, I thought it was fair. The 4th WOD was seemingly weighted so heavily, if my understanding is correct, ONLY because the top 2 finishers blew the rest of us out of the water. It was even close! I think they were 50% faster than the 10th place finisher!! You didn't see that kind of lop-sidedness in the other WODs, and the 4th was the most balanced in terms of skill, strength, etc. Think about that. To say that WOD1 should have counted more would be to say that strength matters more, and that balance has no meaning in testing all around fitness.

But... I have an idea for an interesting twist on WOD1 for the the future. Let the athlete decide how many OHS they want to do at their max snatch weight (in the 45 secs). That would give you more spread in the results.

Great competition, though. And I have no doubt that the top guys going to Nationals will do well - and better than, anyone else who might have gone under a different scoring system. And that's the bottom line.

31 May 2010 / 8:21 a.m.

17. Winchester wrote...

Amazing weekend. Amazing people.

Much love goes out to my CrossFit Central brothers and sisters -- y'all are all warriors. Thanks to our friends, family and clients who came out to support, and to Jess, Jenn and the team for moving on to the games!

Class act from GSX, the judges and fellow athletes all weekend. By far the most humble, talented and elite group of athletes I have ever had the honor to compete with and against.

Gary, I personally invite you to come to CrossFit Central, meet us, and say whatever it is you have on your mind to our faces... if you're man enough that is...

31 May 2010 / 8:24 a.m.

18. ken c wrote...

steve and drew

every scoring system has its faults. the scoring used was the fairest i've seen so far in competition. if there's a better one, i'm open to hearing about it.

i'm not sure how anyone could strategically "hang" for the first 3 workouts and then crush the last one. its all about which workouts favor your strengths. nobody that i know of in a crossfit competition holds back on anything. you shoot for the best place/score possible on every event.

as for the athlete you speak of, paul smith didn't get screwed by the scoring. the handstand push up hand placement standard hurt him as it did all taller athletes. 30" is not wide enough for most guys over 6'. nobody dictates hand placement on a press, jerk or a thruster. hands grab the bar where its comfortable to press overhead without constricting the shoulder. same with a hspu. hand placement should be determined by the width of each athlete's chest and shoulder width.

deric - congrats on an amazing performance in the final workout and best of luck in CA.

paul smith - i'm a huge fan and wish you had made it this year. come back strong.

31 May 2010 / 8:39 a.m.

19. Carl wrote...

The complaints are valid cf'r's work hard to get to where their at, true 3 guys killed the last wod but no one was given the opp to kill the first wod... And to say there was no one else in the comp that could have moved on and done better is ignorant to say the least. No one saying to outweigh strengh over all around fitness only that all athletes should be given an opp to showcase their full abilities.

31 May 2010 / 8:44 a.m.

20. Tom wrote...

Great weekend, Tucker! Thanks for coordinating and hosting. You and your crew all did a tremendous job and your efforts are much appreciated.

Nice work by all of the individual and team competitors. Good luck in Los Angeles to those who qualified.

31 May 2010 / 8:55 a.m.

21. tony r wrote...

I think the weekend was overall a great event. As a spectator, every event was great to cheer for and the athletes really left their hearts on the line. To take away from any athlete is poor sportmanship, especially for those of us that saw the event. The final results show how much preparation each individual put forth. As far as showing favoritism towards athletes or affiliate teams, I think that every spectator there was extremely happy with what they saw, and most athletes earned their cheers through their EPIC performances. Nobody can take away from CrossFit Central because they did produce amazing athletes and perfromances. And give credit to GSX for really putting forth a great effort to make the system as fair as possible. Candice Ruiz, is where she is because of the great coaching of Ken C and Chris L, they deserve some credit for her performance. It was unfortunate that some people struggled on WOD 4, but HSPU and Muscle Ups are preached to be trained consistently on the CrossFit main site. I personally was cheering for Paul Smith and the standards did hurt some people as Ken C wrote, but Deric's performance was amazing. Hopefully this will lead to a phenomenal showing for all these athletes at the GAMES.

31 May 2010 / 9:10 a.m.

22. Me wrote...

Great weekend...hot as hell...judges did great...only complaint, spectators paid good money to "spectate", however, many were unable to watch events and were yelled at if they got too close to the cones. Advice if you care....have it somewhere that has bleachers or seating areas for spectators.
Awesome job to all athletes and good luck to those who are advancing to California!

31 May 2010 / 9:19 a.m.

23. Steve wrote...

Ken
Paul needs no excuses for his performance and I'll start with that he did what he could.
I understand your reasoning and that does play a huge roll but that doesn't account for capped wods and the ability for a guy to climb from such a low rank to such a high rank in one workout. but let's not forget the 3rd wod that also displayed all around fitness (running, rowing, cleans, double unders) He had the fastest time and compared to those that are at his strength level it was pretty amazing to watch him move the way he did faster than smaller competitors. Power output formula would have been an effective method as well for this regional. Yes there are flaws in every scoring system but like the last comment states it's extremely ignorant to say those on the podium would be better in the final games than other athletes competing in this regional. nothing to do now but work, good luck to those who moved on. And no one strategically plans to be mediocre on the first 3 wods that's called sarcasm, the scoring made it seem that way is all.

31 May 2010 / 9:26 a.m.

24. deh wrote...

If an athlete and crossfiter like Paul Smith didn't make it to the cf games, then i know for sure that the scoring system was messed up. It really is a shame that somebody like Paul who lives and breathes crossfit didn't make the games. People aren't going to get an opportunity to watch a true beast go to work. Paul, you are the definition of a true crossfitter..and your humble nature puts you above so many!

31 May 2010 / 10:32 a.m.

25. keisha T wrote...

In my opinion every single one of the athletes that competed this weekend "lives & breathes CrossFit" that's why they qualified for this weekend!! Every single one of those athletes out there this weekend deserve to go to the games! They ALL showed a lot of heart & determination! Unfortunately not every one gets to go. That's life! PLEASE don't take away from what the competitors that did qualify to go to Cali did! I'm REALLY tired of all the complaints & negativity that I see in a lot of these posts! If you think you can do things better than Tucker, the Munsons & the rest of the crew that made this Regionals happen - then step up to the plate & volunteer your time next year to take on some of the things that these guys did this past weekend!

31 May 2010 / 11:31 a.m.

26. Deh wrote...

Keisha, if you're tired of it then don't read it :) Problem solved, people are allowed to be dissaproving..and I didn't say anything about any of the athletes that did make it once in my post, I only mentioned Paul Smith's name. Kudos to the athletes that made it, very well deserved. I am only expressing MY opinion like everyone else writing on here and think its a damn shame that a beast like Paul isn't going to be @ the games.

31 May 2010 / 11:58 a.m.

27. Candice Ruiz wrote...

This weekend was amazing and I am so grateful to have been given an opportunity to be a part of it all! So many amazing athletes and so many hard working judges/volunteer's. You guys busted your butts and it did not go unnoticed.

Great job to my GSX crew for putting on such a great event, especially with the limitations that go with such a small box. You guys are awesome, you are all family to me, and your support and positive energy is what kept me pushing through every WOD this past weekend. Thank you!

To Chris L. and Ken. C., as always, thank you for your coaching, guidance, and for your faith in my abilities. You both saw something in me that I did not and I wouldn't be where I am today without the both of you. It's an incredible feeling to know I am going to compete against the women I have been looking up to since I discovered CrossFit... I still haven't absorbed it but I am so grateful for this opportunity!

31 May 2010 / 12:03 p.m.

28. Robin wrote...

I just wanted to say thank you to Tucker, voluteees and judges for putting on a great event. The athletes were phenomenal to watch and I am always blown away by the crossfit community. Congratulations to the competitors who are going to Cali. To those who didn't qualify this year, I know that you will be coming back stronger next year. See y'all in Cali - it's going to be an awesome weekend!

31 May 2010 / 12:58 p.m.

29. tucker wrote...

Ken - first of all. great weekend, you never fail to amaze me with your passion and athletic prowess. Proud of you and for you old man!

I also appreciate your comments concerning the events. You always weigh in with good info and solid intent.

I understand your views on the measurement for the HSPU, "nobody dictates hand placement on a press, jerk or a thruster. hands grab the bar where its comfortable to press overhead without constricting the shoulder. same with a hspu. hand placement should be determined by the width of each athlete's chest and shoulder width. "

But we went with the standard used for the games from last year that no one will go outside of 30 inches and made it applicable to all - for the hspu. Pretty simple really - and the reasoning is sound as well in that the rom is set for each athlete so we dont have anyone going so wide that it does not change the rom - pretty simple really.

But we can always review it for future events of course. We learn from all of these events we attend and host.

Again,

Good Job and proud to know you. Also thanks for helping us out back when you had time between classes and training.

tuck

31 May 2010 / 1:24 p.m.

30. jason wrote...

I'd like to address a few of the questions that we received regarding the workouts and scoring for the South Central Regionals that took place this past weekend.
The main question we heard was, "How are all of the workouts scored?" The scoring system that we chose to use for our Regionals was CrossFit's "Standard Scoring System". This system essentially uses standard deviations to calculate each athlete's score on a given event. The system takes into account every score that was entered for a given event and calculates the average score among all the athletes. If you're score on that particular workout was exactly on with the average, you would receive a score of 0 for that event. If you are just below the average you would have received something like a -0.1 as your score and alternatively, if you scored just above the average, you would have received something like a +0.1 for your score. Those that scored far below or far above the average are given higher points based up how far from the average they are.
As an example, we had a number of individuals asking why some of the top finishers in the final workout were given upwards of +2.0 points for their performance. The reason for this is that the average finish time for the final workout was somewhere around 10 minutes. This means that those individuals that finished with times in the 13 minute range would have lost a substantial amount of points and those individuals that had times that were sub 6 minutes would have gained a substantial amount of points. For those workouts that didn't have such a large spread for the scoring, the points given out would have been much closer together.
To quickly summarize: those individuals that finished substantially ahead of the pack were awarded with higher point scores than those that finished closer to the average time. This can easily be seen with our top four male and female finishers. Most every athlete performed around the average for most workouts and had at least one where they performed far better than the average. This allowed those athletes to pull ahead in the field as a result of their exceptional performance.
Hopefully this clears up many of the questions our athletes and guests might have had regarding the CrossFit Standard Scoring system that was used for our event.

Jason Malutich

31 May 2010 / 1:28 p.m.

31. brent wrote...

what happened to Russel Aldredge did he get hurt during wod 3, and how come Crystal McReynolds didn't compete. also anyone coming through Boerne, Texas hit me up and come by for a wod. www.hillcountrycrossfit.com

31 May 2010 / 2:54 p.m.

32. Bo wrote...

Jason,
I understand how the scoring system worked. But my question is why was the first event capped at a certain weight, therefore not allowing athletes to show their full potential? I get the scoring but let's use rankings to better explain just for the sake of not getting into numbers s right now. That first event basically the worst place athlete got the score/points as if they finished 10th but in the last wod if you were last you would get points based on being 60th place let's say for men, thus making it pretty much impossible to make up those points. Do you see where I'm coming from? I know on the girls side, their were athletes that beat 2 of the 4 qualifiers in 3 out of the 4 events & because they didn't finish or go as far as those athletes, they got way out of contention. And that's def the same for men.

31 May 2010 / 3:13 p.m.

33. Dave Re wrote...

@ Melissa (post 16) - for photo inquiries - please email jeff tucker - tucker@gsxathletics.com.

31 May 2010 / 5:51 p.m.

34. Raif wrote...

All I want to say is BIG, BIG LOVE to Candice! You are amazing! Ali and I are sooo happy for you and we are looking forward to watching you kick butt at The Games! It's been fun to watch your progress and really cool to workout along side you.
Congratulations!

PS you're right about Chris L. and Ken C. doing such a great job coaching you. Hats off to the great programming!

31 May 2010 / 6:27 p.m.

35. DW wrote...

The scoring system was not an adequate system for all four types of WOD's. The system used at the games (ranking system) should be the same system used across the board for all regionals. HQ needs to make up their mind on what system they want to use for scoring as the "Standard" for crossfit and set it in stone. The top 3 men that qualified hands down earned their spot at the games off the ranking system or the weighted system. After those three, the results will vary depending on what system you use, weighted, ranking, etc....
The problem is that the guy who placed 4th would have placed 9th on the ranking system. Thats a deviation of 5 places depending on what system you use.
Crossfit needs to standardize a scoring system for crossfit!!!

I thought crossfit was about finding the most fit individuals on the planet, to get the best result, you have to have the best athletes at the games. In the case of this weekend, no doubt there are some great athletes going, but were they truly the most fit from this region?

Another side note, my hats off to GSX and all of the judges and volunteers this past weekend. It was a great event and was run very well.
In the future I have a bit of advice to the volunteers who judge a crossfit event along with the standards for judging. If you don't tell a competitor that the reps didn't count until after his 4th consecutive rep, then you cant take the reps away from him, just make sure that he does the rest of the reps properly. It is the judges error for waiting till the 4th rep to see the reps were done incorrectly, so don't penalize the athlete for human error on the judges part. 4 reps may not seem like much to make a difference in total time, but if you are a crossfitter than you know how big of a difference that can make, especially if its the 4th WOD of the day.

31 May 2010 / 7:08 p.m.

36. Kameron wrote...

@12 and 14:

I did very well in the last wod this weekend at the south central regional and I like, Deric, find it ridiculously offensive that you would say some of us "dogged" the other workouts and saved our energy for the last event. Deric, congrats to you on a stellar performance ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE WEEKEND! You and those who qualified were the MOST ROUNDED athletes out there, and your performances prove that. Good luck Deric and the rest of the South Central athletes in California!

31 May 2010 / 7:15 p.m.

37. Candice Ruiz wrote...

DW-(David Wardy) You said, "The top 3 men that qualified hands down earned their spot at the games off the ranking system or the weighted system." and then, "I thought crossfit was about finding the most fit individuals on the planet, to get the best result, you have to have the best athletes at the games. In the case of this weekend, no doubt there are some great athletes going, but were they truly the most fit from this region?"

Trying to take away from Deric or any other athlete who performed this weekend because you don't have a warm n' fuzzy in your gut about the scoring system or who placed does not mean you need to bash them on the Games site. Each of those athletes earned their spot on the podium. You should respect each one of them for their performance, effort, and hard earned trip to the Games.

Congrats to all the male and fellow female athletes who are heading to LA...at least each of us (and most others) understands the blood, the sweat, the tears and the heart that we put into earning this incredible opportunity.

Raif-Thanks again and I wish you hadn't have got hurt prior to the third WOD. You and Ali (as well as the rest of the GSX crew out there, Whoot! Whoot!) were incredible supporters out there and I hope I won't embarrass everyone when I compete at the Games!

31 May 2010 / 9:11 p.m.

38. tucker wrote...

DW - could not agree with you on this one in any respects concerning the scoring system, and placement of winners.

Thanks for the kind words on the event judges and staff - our team went above and beyond for folks. We tried to put on the best event we could.

Candice, you acted like a real lady and true competitor the whole event. Proud for you.

tucker

01 June 2010 / 5:57 a.m.

39. Fake Name wrote...

Did some athletes less talented than others get into the games while others were left out? Absolutely. Probably not just Paul Smith either, which is the only athlete that these posts seem to be about. That is the nature of the beast though. Crossfit is about finding an athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. Paul found one weakness that dropped him from contention, plain and simple. You can’t blame a scoring system and you can’t take away anything from what the top four athletes did. Anyone who watched Paul on that third WOD knows what kind of athlete he is and what his Crossfit future holds. He may not have made the games this year but I can guarantee you that next year the other athletes will know and fear his name, I know I will. After meeting him and seeing his low key nature I’m pretty sure he would disapprove of all these comments and all this attention. Paul if you’re reading this I look forward to competing with you on the battle field next year.

01 June 2010 / 8:16 a.m.

40. DW wrote...

Cadice Ruiz-
I was not taking away from Deric or any other athlete this weekend. I am fully aware of the hard work each of those athletes put themselves through to get to the games. I look up to all of the athletes that competed this past weekend. I was merely pointing out that crossfit needs to standardize the scoring system across the board and using this weekend as an example. I know there is never going to be a perfect system for scoring, but when you put on a competition of this nature, you should take all factors into consideration when deciding how the scoring will be done and what is the most fair to ALL athletes depending on the events you choose. I have experience in hosting fitness challenges and setting standards for scoring and for judging. In my opinion, which I am entitled to, I believe that there were some things that could have been improved on from a scoring standpoint to make things fair and to find the most fit from this region. I also think you are a great athlete and a true competitor, and my opinion was never meant to take anything away from you or any other athletes that qualified this weekend.
Fake Name-
These posts aren't just about Paul Smith, there are a number of other athletes that would have been in contention to qualify if the scoring was done differently. I agree with you that this is the nature of the beast, and about finding an athletes strengths and weaknesses. Next year will be even more competitive to make it to the games, so all crossfitters will have to work even harder to earn their spot at the games.
Tuck-
Agree to disagree....LOL, your a stand-up guy and again my hats off to you and your crew this past weekend.

01 June 2010 / 5:10 p.m.

41. tucker wrote...

DW

you make a comment in here that is true - but only if you apply it to your case sir. "These posts aren't just about Paul Smith, there are a number of other athletes that would have been in contention to qualify if the scoring was done differently."

this qoute - could also read the same if the wods were different, or we used the nascar system, or the 08 games system, or if we had given longer dnf times.... and so on.

that scoring system was developed last year by Ron, and is a pure, concise, and clear way to determine a winner in allaround events competitions. it also allows for anathlete to make up ground and come from behind - and that applies to any athlete.

i wont name names here - but one athlete littlerally in contention could not squat clean the bar (hang on to it) after finishing the HSPU's - and they did awesome in the snatch wod. same athlete was gassed on the row after the sand bag run, and seconds and time mattered here in all these events.

point is - the points were tallyed based on overall performance - and if you were average or less than average on events it showed. - nothing was inadequate about this scoring - in fact i feel it is the best system HQ offered us and actually fit this event.

you are entitled to an opinion for sure, you may even think you are correct - i dont think that you are. but when you use words like fair and finding the best overall athlete - well we did that this past weekend and then some.

have a good day!

tuck

02 June 2010 / 7:19 a.m.

42. curious wrote...

All these posts about scoring seems more to be concerning the men's events. I think its more evident on the female side. If the scoring is based on how well or poor you did compared to the average, for the females it was way skewed because only 6 athletes out of 43 even finished that last event. So if you finished you got crazy amount of points cuz the average was so low but yet the average on the first event could only be so low since there was only 10 spots you could hit. So even if the average was 85 lbs for the snatch, you wouldn't/couldn't get the same amount of points as you could on the last event if you exceeded it. So those that struggled significantly on the first event, if they could basically finish the last event, they would be able to contend for 1 of the 4 spots, It seemed like if you could do mu and hspu, no matter how you did on the other 3 events, you would have a better chance at making it. And yes, mu & hspu are crossfit skills necessary to compete at the level at the games, but why would snatch or any other skills from the other wods not be as important as well? I understand there has to be some kind of scoring system used to try to be as fair as possible but then maybe making the wods to where one's not capped thus not allowing a huge point differential if done poorly and then not having the others that way, could've been a little more fair. The top 2 females were awesome and consistently awesome throughout all events but it could've turned out maybe a little differently for 3rd or 4th place. Of course despite these opinions, these 4 girls did awesome and are deserving and I wouldn't want to take away anything from any athletes so congrats to everyone. Just my thoughts and opinions and regardless it was a great event and was awesome to compete against some amazing people!!!!

02 June 2010 / 9:57 a.m.

43. tucker wrote...

Curious,

I can see how you could make such an arguement. However, we knew that the final event would be a major hurdle for some, most women. But - as you stated this is about getting the best athlete for the games in LA from our region, and those women who worked on skill requirements used for the last event have no doubts about being prepared for their time in LA.

I suppose what I am saying here is this - it would not be way skewed as you put it - if those other women had the requirements of mu's and good form hspu - would it? And if we agree there - then it speaks more so to the point that the upper body strength required for those movements need to be further developed.

Nor would it be skewed if those women had a good event placement in the first event. And many women did - the upper level of those women who did well inthe first event had a very good placement based on getting to 130 lb snatch/squat movements and so in turn placed very well.

make no mistake - you needed to do well in the last event. but you needed to do well in all events. you could not coast into the final event and merely get by - because their were many athletes working full out for these spots.

on a final note - all reps were counted for the final wod - it was not merely a dnf... and i know one woman in particular who got thru the entore event - stunned she did it - and then completed it for full time credit. it brought her scores up significantly over all - and yet she did not place in the top 4.

make sense?

t

03 June 2010 / 7:15 a.m.