IGX

protobuilder wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:[

If you come to us with a 4-minute mile, six months into it you are going to be 30 seconds slower but a whole hell of a lot fitter. Similarly, if you come to us with a 900-pound squat, in six months it's going to be 750 pounds, but you, too, will be much fitter. A 4-minute mile and a 900-pound squat are both clear and compelling evidence of a lack of balance in your program. This doesn't reflect the limitations of our program but the inherent nature of flesh and blood.

But here's the fascinating part. We can take you from a 200 pound max deadlift to a 500-750 pound max deadlift in two years while only pulling max singles four or five times a year. We will though work the deadlift, like most lifts, approximately once per week at higher reps and under grueling conditions. It may intuit well that if you can pull a 250 pound deadlift 21 times coming to the lift at a heart rate of 180 beats per minute, then 500 pounds for a single at a resting heart rate is perhaps manageable.

God that's gold everytime I read it. Just so much wrong with it.

Yesterday, 01:18 AM
Dale F. Saran
CrossFit Staff



Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Westerly RI
Posts: 533
Re: Who has ownership of FGB?
Becca - I don't know what your ties are to Scott, but I can tell you that SportsGrants didn't "create" squat - particularly not FGB. Greg Glassman created FGB for BJ Penn years before Scott had ever even heard of CrossFit. Scott hadn't even heard of CF or FGB until 2006 when he started working out at Andy Petranek's gym. And it was as much Andy's idea as anyone's to use FGB as a fundraising tool.

It would be pretty amazing for SportsGrants, which didn't even exist until 2007, to have created FGB in 2006. Unless it used Doc Brown's DeLorean to get to the event.

The first event was actually called "Athletes for a Cure CrossFit Fight Gone Bad." And when one considers that Scott was working for Athletes for a Cure at the time, it makes sense. Additionally, the license agreement that Scott begged CF HQ for, that he drafted and I reviewed, in which he recited that FGB was CF's intellectual property, and then Greg signed and it was delivered to Scott several years ago, that must be a figment of my imagination.

These facts are verifiable. Go look at the A-Blog from September 2006. I thnk it's the 17th, but I'm not sure. Tell me what you see there and what the title of the event is. In an incredible bit of irony, when I was just a regular ol' garage CF'er, and before I was an Affil or worked for CF, I actually commented on that day's A-Blog post about not being able to go to CF Boston. Comment 4.

And we had done other FGB fundraisers entirely without SportsGrants involvement. Again, go look at the main page from March 29, 2008. Tell me what you see. I'll give you hint, it doesn't include SportsGrants and it has to do with two heroes.

We only found out that Scott had trademarked the name without telling us when one of our affiliates was holding its own local FGB fundraiser and Scott hired an attorney who threatened to sue them if they didn't stop their small fundraiser. And CF HQ stepped in - in the person of me - to protect our Affiliates. And then Scott and SportsGrants threatened another CF affiliate - in Canada, no less - where SG doesn't even have the trademark - after assuring us he would never do such a thing... And now here we are.

So, we're not going to have anything to do with SG. We're not going to be a part of something where our Affiliates are being sent cease and desist letters if they want to do some kind of local FGB fundraiser, and that's why there was a falling out. We moved to cancel the registration of FGB and Scott has now sued us in federal court.

So, a federal judge will decide who really owns FGB.

Those are the facts, not rumors, and about the only ones I'm at liberty to discuss. But there it is. And that's why there are two FGB postings.

WildGorillaMan wrote:f@ggot kookyball @bok @F billboard pic

Fitness Lonnie! Get Hard!

WildGorillaMan wrote:Half-a-dozen different @fitters have emailed this to me in the past day, so clearly it matters to them. Shaf, I apologize for treading on your turf as the Perez Hilton of fitness.

HQ duking it out over who owns the rights to a workout:

http://www.board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=73293

Yesterday, 01:18 AM
Dale F. Saran
CrossFit Staff



Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Westerly RI
Posts: 533
Re: Who has ownership of FGB?
Becca - I don't know what your ties are to Scott, but I can tell you that SportsGrants didn't "create" squat - particularly not FGB. Greg Glassman created FGB for BJ Penn years before Scott had ever even heard of CrossFit. Scott hadn't even heard of CF or FGB until 2006 when he started working out at Andy Petranek's gym. And it was as much Andy's idea as anyone's to use FGB as a fundraising tool.

It would be pretty amazing for SportsGrants, which didn't even exist until 2007, to have created FGB in 2006. Unless it used Doc Brown's DeLorean to get to the event.

The first event was actually called "Athletes for a Cure CrossFit Fight Gone Bad." And when one considers that Scott was working for Athletes for a Cure at the time, it makes sense. Additionally, the license agreement that Scott begged CF HQ for, that he drafted and I reviewed, in which he recited that FGB was CF's intellectual property, and then Greg signed and it was delivered to Scott several years ago, that must be a figment of my imagination.

These facts are verifiable. Go look at the A-Blog from September 2006. I thnk it's the 17th, but I'm not sure. Tell me what you see there and what the title of the event is. In an incredible bit of irony, when I was just a regular ol' garage CF'er, and before I was an Affil or worked for CF, I actually commented on that day's A-Blog post about not being able to go to CF Boston. Comment 4.

And we had done other FGB fundraisers entirely without SportsGrants involvement. Again, go look at the main page from March 29, 2008. Tell me what you see. I'll give you hint, it doesn't include SportsGrants and it has to do with two heroes.

We only found out that Scott had trademarked the name without telling us when one of our affiliates was holding its own local FGB fundraiser and Scott hired an attorney who threatened to sue them if they didn't stop their small fundraiser. And CF HQ stepped in - in the person of me - to protect our Affiliates. And then Scott and SportsGrants threatened another CF affiliate - in Canada, no less - where SG doesn't even have the trademark - after assuring us he would never do such a thing... And now here we are.

So, we're not going to have anything to do with SG. We're not going to be a part of something where our Affiliates are being sent cease and desist letters if they want to do some kind of local FGB fundraiser, and that's why there was a falling out. We moved to cancel the registration of FGB and Scott has now sued us in federal court.

So, a federal judge will decide who really owns FGB.

Those are the facts, not rumors, and about the only ones I'm at liberty to discuss. But there it is. And that's why there are two FGB postings.

Maybe if he wasn't up at 1am snitting at people on the @fit Forumz he wouldn't be so cranky all the time.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:There is obviously an astonishing amount of douchbaggery arrayed on both sides of that lawsuit.

I am confident that the Rampant Prick will be victorious.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The trademarking of "Fight Gone Bad" was imbecilic.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The trademarking of "Fight Gone Bad" was imbecilic.

Terry B. wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:Someone, help The Gorilla understand this mindset. From the @fit Commentz:

Would like to give crossfit some accolades, tried an experiment today. For the last 7 months I have done no workouts other than WOD's. Then today tested fitness level with a marathon. Although I added an hour to my PR and hit the wall about 5 miles earlier than I normally would, I still feel the same as after any other, and didn't have to waste hours upon hours in training runs. Thanks
Comment #44 - Posted by: Derek at February 5, 2012 11:59 AM

So, let me get this straight: Do mainpage WODs for seven months and you'll run a marathon a full hour slower than normal, but you'll still feel as tired as when you ran faster, and for that the program deserves accolades?

:facepalm:

Similarly, I have a programme that will take 50 kilos off your best squat and require NO TIME SQUATTING!

lasalle wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:There is obviously an astonishing amount of douchbaggery arrayed on both sides of that lawsuit.

I am confident that the Rampant Prick will be victorious.

The first advice given by competent attorneys once you're heading to litigation is to SHUT THE FUCK UP externally. CrossFit might end up prevailing-who knows and ultimately who cares-but I'm dumbfounded by Saran's inability to do anything but continue to demonstrate publicly that he's rabid and butthurt.

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The trademarking of "Fight Gone Bad" was imbecilic.

This is a do-or-die battle for HQ. Who "owns" a workout is everything to HQ because without that they're nothing.

Dan Martin wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The trademarking of "Fight Gone Bad" was imbecilic.

This is a do-or-die battle for HQ. Who "owns" a workout is everything to HQ because without that they're nothing.

My math skills are fuzzy, but isn't twice nothing still nothing?

Dan Martin wrote:

WildGorillaMan wrote:

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The trademarking of "Fight Gone Bad" was imbecilic.

This is a do-or-die battle for HQ. Who "owns" a workout is everything to HQ because without that they're nothing.

My math skills are fuzzy, but isn't twice nothing still nothing?

I'm here because of Shaf