Before I say anything about the post, I want to congratulate you on making it to the Games. On that note, I believe had the events been placed in a different order, you would have advanced beyond the first two events and possibly to that 2nd day. However, you train to be fit and advancing beyond those first couple of WOD’s may have been detrimental to your overall health because of the ill effects it would have had on your body.
8 WOD’s in 2 days is borderline dangerous and we saw as a couple of the day 2 athletes became injured and could no longer compete. At Level I Certs, I was taught that training beyond 1 WOD a day starts becoming dangerous because of the potential for over training and injury. A test of fitness should cover broad times and modal domains, and it should coincide with Crossfit’s mentality of “training for the unknown and unknowable”. However, the reason we do Crossfit is because it’s safe and it leads us on a path of wellness and fitness on the continuum. This weekend became an “Ironman” competition, and I’m afraid it did more harm than good to a lot of athletes.

My feelings on the volume of workouts is pretty in line with what has already been posted. I heard second hand (from my sister who talked to athletes there) that more than one competitor said they weren’t disappointed they didn’t make it to day two because they were doing so much work it wasn’t fun anymore. Now I’m not sure if they would say the same thing if they made it to day to, maybe some competitive juices would get going, but that seemed to be a popular (and understandable) theme.

I think the workouts definitely tested fitness well and I think the right people won, but I also think it could have been done with fewer workouts. For reasons I’m not really sure of, there was very little skill component to day 1. Hammering a stake certainly counts, but that’s a different topic. Snatches would be considered skilled, but at 75lbs, there is no technique necessary to put that over your head. So what I don’t completely understand is why energy systems were tested twice–once with low skill, and then again Sunday with high skill (and far less points on the line…but again another topic). For example, the final WOD on day 1 vs. the final WOD on day 2. Both longer workouts. One with an inordinate amount of squatting after a VERY(I would say overly) leg-intensive day of workouts. The other with a large helping CrossFit “skills.” I don’t think BOTH of these workouts were necessary. I think the only thing the the couplet established was the ablity to handle pain and squat with light weight. A lot. A similar comparison holds for the row/sledge vs. the triplet. These were pretty similar in time domain, but I think the triplet was more efficient at sorting out the most well-rounded competitors. If that workout was in day one I think the final 16 would have looked a little different.

One more thought on the first day’s workouts: The way I saw it, there was no advantage whatsoever to having a good strength-to-weight ratio during day 1. Obviously everyone capable of going to day 2 has good absolute and relative strength, but there were certainly competitors there that are on a whole different plane of relative strength and if anything, were punished for it. Not to knock any of the competitors that made it to day 2, but I think it’s disappointing that a “sweet 16″ competitor can’t do CF movements like MU’s and HSPU. If you are one of the top 16, you should be able to do those things. There were people sitting out on day two with comparable capacities and superior skills.

In all, I liked the workouts, but I thought the order could have been better and there could have been a couple less workouts without sacrificing a definitive test of who was the fittest.

rOBERT,
That would be interesting indeed. I am not sure how that would turn out. Definitely a more complex way to score but it could work.

Dave,
Word.

Chris,
First of all if you are going to test fitness but not use your definition of fitness as a marker for the test you have missed the point. The test should not compromise your health like it did this weekend.
You actually contradict yourself in the first and second paragraph. If you were to increase the amount of competitions you would again compromise someones health.

Thank you for your thoughts!

Lets hope no one kills themselves trying to prove they are as fit as Mikko.

Dutch

I think the goal of this year’s event was to secure a TV deal for next year’s games. With that goal in mind, they needed to make the event extreme in an attempt to attract viewers and legitimize in the eyes of the sporting media. It reminds me of the original UFC tournaments where it needed to be extreme to attract attention. Once they got the world’s attention, Dana White toned it down and made it a real sport. I think that may happen with CrossFit, as well.

I too think 8 extreme WODs in 2 days is nuts. But, it did provide great entertainment and I think the most fit of the athletes prevailed. They truly showed that they could perform at a high level across broad times and modal domains.

Dutch,

How exactly did I contradict myself? I never suggested we increase the number of competitions.

Also, CF defines fitness in three ways: 1) Balance among the 10 general physical skills, (2) Ability to perform equally well at any and all events that might come out of a hopper, and, (3) Balance among the three metabolic pathways. Anyone who’s been around CF for any length of time knows this. So, how did the Games not test CF’s definition of fitness? Because someone is less fit after the competition than they were before does not mean the competition is inherently flawed. Yes, I think HQ could have reduced the number of events, but even with fewer events the athletes would not have improved their fitness over the course of the weekend because that’s not the point of competition.

Jerimiah,
Good insight. I had not thought about it that way. However, I’m not sure I agree entirely. If an athlete starts prepping for the 2010 CF Games by doing multiple workouts a day, eventually they’ll hit a wall and their performance will start to decline. A smart athlete, or at least one that’s in tune with their body, will realize they’re overworking and underrecovered and, as a result, will ratchet back their training. I guess my point is that the best preparation for the CF Games (or any other competition) is whatever allows you to continually improve your performance. If performance is increasing (i.e. workout times going down, strength numbers going up, etc.) then the athlete is becoming fitter. It would be asinine for an athlete to continue performing multiple workouts in a day if it is hindering, or more likely decreasing, their overall performance just because they’ll have to perform multiple workouts in a day at the competition. The goal is to show up to the competition in top shape, which means the preparation must be done in such a way that gets you in top shape. Does that make sense?

Dutch,

I concur with your appoint about people not hurting or killing themselves by trying to prove they are as fit as Mikko. During the 2008 Games I followed along and did my best (which wasn’t Games worthy) on the WODs. I was prepared to do the same this year for comparison, but once info about the WODs started coming out I just threw in the towel and stuck to my regualr programming. I knew it was beyond me. Not only from a preparedness standpoint, but from a desire standpoint. 3 WODs in one day has put my body in rough shape for several days…8 may have put me in the hospital.

Dutch,

I have been waiting for you to post your thoughts on the Games. For me my first thought was “I am glad I didn’t qualify” I even put on my FaceBook status “What Happened to Dutch and Hobart” I mean who would want to qualify to be tortured to death by a compeition that was to see who could take the most pain? I thought the point was to see who is the fittest not to see who will tolerate bad programming and survive.

Over did it is too short of a statement to describe the 2009 games. The wod’s were so complex and out of order from a viewers prespective that it was almost impossible to follow.

I hope people have turned in some comment cards from the games because I am interested in compeiting but not at the risk of trying to prove to hq that I can tolerate pain and abuse.

NO THANKS!

Now that we’ve got two Chris’s posting, I’ll change mine to “CR.” For the sake of clarity, I was the one going back and forth with Dutch earlier.

Chris,
According to Khalipa’s statement in one of the videos posted on the CF Games site, he has been doing quite a bit of running over the past year. Apparently, his lack of success in the run had more to do with debilitating cramps than lack of preparation.

Dutch,
Now you’ve really got me thinking! First, yes, fitness and health are interrelated, or, as the Coach Glassman said, “Fitness is super-wellness.” Second, as I think about this, it seems the goal of the CF Games has evolved. In 2007 it seemed like a friendly competition between a relatively small number of the top CrossFitters and those “in the circle” so to speak. 2008 was obviously very different, and the goal appeared to be to find the best CrossFitter. This year, the goal seemed twofold. On one hand, it was about testing the efficacy of the mainpage programming against the other manifestions of constantly varied, high intensity, functional movements (i.e. Gant Grimes hybrid, CFFB, CFSB, etc.), and, on the other, it was about finding the fittest individual per CF’s definition of fitness.

Without knowing the exact training programs of every participate (or at least a large number), it’s difficult to comment on the mainpage vs. everything else issue. The video of Mikko posted on mainpage today indicates that he’s been training mainpage CF for 2 years. In an interview with Khalipa after last year’s Games, he said that he follows mainpage. So, mainpage is doing something right, but, with that said, I think there’s a much underdiscussed aspect of the top CFers and that is their prior experience/training. Personally, I think a CFers background plays an integral role in what type of programming is or is not successful. That’s a long discussion for another day, however.

The second goal (determining the fittest individual per CF’s definition of fitness) is what you’ve got me thinking about. Regarding CF’s pursuit of developing super-wellness versus the possible unhealthy side effects of the Games themselves, I would say this: producing super-wellness is a process that occurs over weeks and months and years, and while this may be the overarching theme of CF, is it necessarily related to the Games? I think that if you were to ask Dave, Tony, or Coach if the CF Games were healthy they would say no. The difficulty, then, is rationalizing this with the overarching goal of producing super-wellness. Is it possible to have a contest in the course of 2 or 3 days that adequately measures the 3 models of fitness while maintaining a healthy end result? Is a healthy contest even necessary or is a slight degradation in overall fitness necessary collateral damage for a competition? I’ll have to think about this more and get back to you. Also, I’ll probably start a thread about this on either the CF or CA forum for those of you who are interested.

Alright, so my question is how many events do they need in order to actually test overall fitness? I think they did a pretty good job, and one thing that I liked about this years games was the fact that it was a grueling 2-day event.

At our gym, we talk about durability, and your ability to recovery as being part of your overall fitness. For most athletes, it’s great if you can go out hard on friday and perform well, but can you get up on saturday and perform again? If you truly want to claim this person as the ”fittest man alive” then you need to have the games set up this way (in my opinion).

I totally understand what you’re saying about the injury risk, but life (and most sports) doesn’t let up on you when you’re tired, sore, exhausted. Fitness also involves coming back and performing well after you’ve been beaten down by something. At least to me it does.
Besides, overall wellness and health comes from a lifestyle of good nutrition, hard work, and healthy habits. The games are a test, thats it. I don’t think anyone is pretending to have gotten “more fit” at the games, except maybe mentally. I for one liked the way the games were set up this year. Just my two cents. What do you think, Dutch?

I didn’t agree with, or understand why, the decision was made to cut athletes after the first 2 wod’s. Perhaps it had to do with the scoring system and who would be most likely or most eligible to win based on their points, but who gives a shit at that point? I could have more easily gone along with cutting after 4 wod’s, which may have painted a more accurate picture of an athlete’s fitness…

Cutting after 2 was too early!

I totally agree Dutch… Amen!

Good discussion here. As an avid CF’er for 3 yr and now affiliate owner, I follow this type of discussion with much concern. I do not however feed my family with income from CrossFit training, its more of a “lifestyle hobby”. I had several points to share and they are simply one man’s humble opinions.
First, the ‘09 games , like all of the games, are a “snapshot” of fitness and those in the top quartile are mostly determined by the programming and scoring of the events. On any given day, depending on the choice and order of events, guys like Dutch, Speal, and Everett would be in the top quartile if not higher. This event happened to select out those with great endurance, above average DL, skill with a sledge (most of whom admitted gaining from nonCF activities), and one helluva tolerance for quad pain.
Secondly, the fact that gymnastics and heavy-ish Oly lifts were conspicuously absent from day 1, was dissappointing to me.
Third, the scoring, as has been discussed elsewhere, had some shortcomings.
I have recommended elsewhere that ‘10 Games have Day1 on Friday with 3 Wods testing Power, endurance, and skill in various ways, followed by a rest day Sat, then day 2 on Sunday with another 2-3 Wods with a clean scoring slate to allow 16 competitors to compete head to head with fresh legs and refueled met-con capacity. I truly believe this would be more effective at selecting the most skilled “CrossFit” competitors and fairly evaluate them without increasing risk of debilitating injuries.
I think that may be more in line with what you were saying about effective, fair, and safe testing of this extreme level of fitness. These are not complaints but observations since again I have NOTHING to gain or lose in this except credibility of the lifestyle and fitness that I embrace. The efforts of all involved was awesome and awe-inspiring, but as the fitness of these incredible athletes continues to evolve, so should our means of testing them, particularly as the “financial purse” develops and a “prime-time” position emerges. As Dutch points out, we should practice what we preach and “live to fight another day”, because as many Affiliate owners know the “Fitness World” is watching with a critical eye. The more we “injure” our own, the less likely we will attract new clients.