The couch thread

[tzg]

My objections, earlier, by the way, are key to understanding what's wrong with the whole "WE GOT THE SCIENCE" thing. Yeah, they have brilliant people with PhDs in a variety of disciplines that may or may not be related to sports collecting their data and running the stats and interpreting those to draw conclusions. But, you know, the hard thing about science is making the right interpretation of your conclusions. The philosophical battle is fought at the level of the questions I asked at the beginning. Otherwise, you have a series of observations, some statistical results about them, and perhaps some conclusions you can draw about what inputs lead to what results (not "better" results, by the way). The rest is ideology. Note that the data don't support the ideology, the first argument about ideology is at the level of the very definitions in this case (and in many others), and you need to win that argument before your data are even relevant. Otherwise, you have to fight on the ground of the others' ideology (ie, use prevailing definitions of fitness and improve it by their measures using your methods). I can explain in smaller words for lurking CrossFitters if they'd like.

Anyway, there's no conceivable data that can prove their definition is the best definition of fitness because definitions aren't "science".

[syaigh]

Here, I translated for the dumb people:

Conjecture is not the same as evidence.

Creating a broad definition of an observed phenomenon is the very beginning of the scientific method, ie a hypothesis. It doesn't prove anything.

[Yes I Have Balls]

My objections, earlier, by the way, are key to understanding what's wrong with the whole "WE GOT THE SCIENCE" thing. Yeah, they have brilliant people with PhDs in a variety of disciplines that may or may not be related to sports collecting their data and running the stats and interpreting those to draw conclusions. But, you know, the hard thing about science is making the right interpretation of your conclusions. The philosophical battle is fought at the level of the questions I asked at the beginning. Otherwise, you have a series of observations, some statistical results about them, and perhaps some conclusions you can draw about what inputs lead to what results (not "better" results, by the way). The rest is ideology. Note that the data don't support the ideology, the first argument about ideology is at the level of the very definitions in this case (and in many others), and you need to win that argument before your data are even relevant. Otherwise, you have to fight on the ground of the others' ideology (ie, use prevailing definitions of fitness and improve it by their measures using your methods). I can explain in smaller words for lurking CrossFitters if they'd like.

Anyway, there's no conceivable data that can prove their definition is the best definition of fitness because definitions aren't "science".

You need to read up on the principles of Newtonian physics - either that or get a strong does of STFU therapy.

I thought this was supposed to be more birthday party than physics class?

[TerryB]

My objections, earlier, by the way, are key to understanding what's wrong with the whole "WE GOT THE SCIENCE" thing. Yeah, they have brilliant people with PhDs in a variety of disciplines that may or may not be related to sports collecting their data and running the stats and interpreting those to draw conclusions. But, you know, the hard thing about science is making the right interpretation of your conclusions. The philosophical battle is fought at the level of the questions I asked at the beginning. Otherwise, you have a series of observations, some statistical results about them, and perhaps some conclusions you can draw about what inputs lead to what results (not "better" results, by the way). The rest is ideology. Note that the data don't support the ideology, the first argument about ideology is at the level of the very definitions in this case (and in many others), and you need to win that argument before your data are even relevant. Otherwise, you have to fight on the ground of the others' ideology (ie, use prevailing definitions of fitness and improve it by their measures using your methods). I can explain in smaller words for lurking CrossFitters if they'd like.

Anyway, there's no conceivable data that can prove their definition is the best definition of fitness because definitions aren't "science".

His dad is a scientist.

Therefore, CASE CLOSED.

[tzg]

Here, I translated for the dumb people:

Conjecture is not the same as evidence.

Creating a broad definition of an observed phenomenon is the very beginning of the scientific method, ie a hypothesis. It doesn't prove anything.

You know, that's not quite what I was saying, but it is an important thing to note. There are some things, especially in softer sciences, that depend on definitions, and the definitions themselves are not scientific. Health. Fitness. Etc. The amount of "evidence" can really prove that one definition of "health" or "fitness" is "better" than another. We're not dealing with hypothesis yet. Note that most scientific journal articles talk about specific outcomes rather than "health": such-and-such reduces mortality, that sort of result, rather than blah-blah-blah is healthier. The argument about what makes a healthy diet or whatever first has to answer the question of what health is, and the answer isn't scientific, it's ideological. A medieval ascetic has a different ideal of healthfulness and it's not "wrong", either. The short answer here is that people either agree with CrossFit's goals or they don't, and if they don't, CrossFit is just a bunch of pompous jackasses for claiming they've "got the science" and are newtonian what-have-you.

[syaigh]

The way I see it, is that there is a spectrum between the humanities and hard science that affects the requirements of evidence, both in form and quantity and most people don't discern between them when making arguments like @F is trying to make.

In medical studies or biological sciences, epidemiologists study populations to find trends and observations that may provide the key to phenomenon that could perhaps be related. We then take that data and go to the lab to prove and/or disprove this. This is the way that we discovered the role of human papillomaviruses in cervical cancer. It wasn't proved by the epidemiology, simply uncovered. Many other things are shown by epidemiology that never pan out into anything.

In philosophy, history, or literature, "evidence" is logic applied to concepts that can bring to light new ideas, methods, and/or concepts.

In physics and match, new ideas can be proved physically and/or theoretically as there are often no ways to test the accuracy of the theorum in the physical world.

So, what often happens in the mish-mash of human thought, is that "proof" is misapplied. Can you apply a mathematical proof to the human body? Can you use logic to prove the limits of human performance? Can you apply the self-reported observations of a select group of individuals to the general population as proof of anything?

No.

If CF has evidence, it has the epidemiological observations from the main page comments that could perhaps be used to develop a hypothesis such as: "Our methods are the best for improving human performance at performing our methods." But hypotheses are usually a lot more specific. But to move forward, they will have to collect actual data. And so far, they haven't.

[Yes I Have Balls]

Mark Twight chimes in on the utter uselessness of Couch, BMac-N-Grilled Cheese and CFE in general:

Finally, this year marks the return of my endurance. After having built a 20-year base I fell into the trap of thinking there might be a free lunch. I went against everything I had learned over those 20 years because the argument and its presenter was quite convincing, and I was susceptible to the easier way, the cure-in-a-bottle way, and I wanted the experts to be wrong. I went into it headlong, and received enough positive feedback to swallow the hook rather than letting it set in my lip. Emphasis on short-duration, high-intensity work didn't strip endurance from me right away, rather the opposite occurred in the beginning. However, 18 months of nothing but short, hard efforts did "cure" my endurance. Despite an ability to go hard for durations up to three hours in length, "hard" is a relative term that didn't equate to fast in my case. I couldn't recover quickly from such efforts nor did I improve even after I balanced short, high-intensity work with longer, low-intensity training sessions. I realized that if I didn't spit up the hook I'd be stuck on the low plateau I'd chosen for the rest of my life. While some are content with mediocre performance - especially if someone keeps telling them its "elite" - I expect better of myself and I'm willing to suffer trying to achieve it.

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=42

[TerryB]

The way I see it, is that there is a spectrum between the humanities and hard science that affects the requirements of evidence, both in form and quantity and most people don't discern between them when making arguments like @F is trying to make.

In medical studies or biological sciences, epidemiologists study populations to find trends and observations that may provide the key to phenomenon that could perhaps be related. We then take that data and go to the lab to prove and/or disprove this. This is the way that we discovered the role of human papillomaviruses in cervical cancer. It wasn't proved by the epidemiology, simply uncovered. Many other things are shown by epidemiology that never pan out into anything.

In philosophy, history, or literature, "evidence" is logic applied to concepts that can bring to light new ideas, methods, and/or concepts.

In physics and match, new ideas can be proved physically and/or theoretically as there are often no ways to test the accuracy of the theorum in the physical world.

So, what often happens in the mish-mash of human thought, is that "proof" is misapplied. Can you apply a mathematical proof to the human body? Can you use logic to prove the limits of human performance? Can you apply the self-reported observations of a select group of individuals to the general population as proof of anything?

No.

If CF has evidence, it has the epidemiological observations from the main page comments that could perhaps be used to develop a hypothesis such as: "Our methods are the best for improving human performance at performing our methods." But hypotheses are usually a lot more specific. But to move forward, they will have to collect actual data. And so far, they haven't.

TITS OR GTFO

[friedquads]

Mark Twight chimes in on the utter uselessness of Couch, BMac-N-Grilled Cheese and CFE in general:

Finally, this year marks the return of my endurance. After having built a 20-year base I fell into the trap of thinking there might be a free lunch. I went against everything I had learned over those 20 years because the argument and its presenter was quite convincing, and I was susceptible to the easier way, the cure-in-a-bottle way, and I wanted the experts to be wrong. I went into it headlong, and received enough positive feedback to swallow the hook rather than letting it set in my lip. Emphasis on short-duration, high-intensity work didn't strip endurance from me right away, rather the opposite occurred in the beginning. However, 18 months of nothing but short, hard efforts did "cure" my endurance. Despite an ability to go hard for durations up to three hours in length, "hard" is a relative term that didn't equate to fast in my case. I couldn't recover quickly from such efforts nor did I improve even after I balanced short, high-intensity work with longer, low-intensity training sessions. I realized that if I didn't spit up the hook I'd be stuck on the low plateau I'd chosen for the rest of my life. While some are content with mediocre performance - especially if someone keeps telling them its "elite" - I expect better of myself and I'm willing to suffer trying to achieve it.

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=42

Mayor McCheeze is right now on a self-induced hand-job high at the moment for @FE showing up in Triathlete Magazine. The article might as well have been written by those fucks who do their @Fit Journal. Completely unbalanced.

[WildGorillaMan]

Mark Twight chimes in on the utter uselessness of Couch, BMac-N-Grilled Cheese and CFE in general:

Finally, this year marks the return of my endurance. After having built a 20-year base I fell into the trap of thinking there might be a free lunch. I went against everything I had learned over those 20 years because the argument and its presenter was quite convincing, and I was susceptible to the easier way, the cure-in-a-bottle way, and I wanted the experts to be wrong. I went into it headlong, and received enough positive feedback to swallow the hook rather than letting it set in my lip. Emphasis on short-duration, high-intensity work didn't strip endurance from me right away, rather the opposite occurred in the beginning. However, 18 months of nothing but short, hard efforts did "cure" my endurance. Despite an ability to go hard for durations up to three hours in length, "hard" is a relative term that didn't equate to fast in my case. I couldn't recover quickly from such efforts nor did I improve even after I balanced short, high-intensity work with longer, low-intensity training sessions. I realized that if I didn't spit up the hook I'd be stuck on the low plateau I'd chosen for the rest of my life. While some are content with mediocre performance - especially if someone keeps telling them its "elite" - I expect better of myself and I'm willing to suffer trying to achieve it.

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=42

Mayor McCheeze is right now on a self-induced hand-job high at the moment for @FE showing up in Triathlete Magazine. The article might as well have been written by those fucks who do their @Fit Journal. Completely unbalanced.

How much ad space did CFE buy? There's usually a direct ratio of ad buys to feature article fellatio.

[dead man walking]

what is a modal domain?

[powerlifter54]

I realized that if I didn't spit up the hook I'd be stuck on the low plateau I'd chosen for the rest of my life. While some are content with mediocre performance - especially if someone keeps telling them its "elite" - I expect better of myself and I'm willing to suffer trying to achieve it.

Progress for one poor soul.

Can I get an "Amen"?

[Mountebank]

Please...someone feed them...please?

[friedquads]

Mark Twight chimes in on the utter uselessness of Couch, BMac-N-Grilled Cheese and CFE in general:

Finally, this year marks the return of my endurance. After having built a 20-year base I fell into the trap of thinking there might be a free lunch. I went against everything I had learned over those 20 years because the argument and its presenter was quite convincing, and I was susceptible to the easier way, the cure-in-a-bottle way, and I wanted the experts to be wrong. I went into it headlong, and received enough positive feedback to swallow the hook rather than letting it set in my lip. Emphasis on short-duration, high-intensity work didn't strip endurance from me right away, rather the opposite occurred in the beginning. However, 18 months of nothing but short, hard efforts did "cure" my endurance. Despite an ability to go hard for durations up to three hours in length, "hard" is a relative term that didn't equate to fast in my case. I couldn't recover quickly from such efforts nor did I improve even after I balanced short, high-intensity work with longer, low-intensity training sessions. I realized that if I didn't spit up the hook I'd be stuck on the low plateau I'd chosen for the rest of my life. While some are content with mediocre performance - especially if someone keeps telling them its "elite" - I expect better of myself and I'm willing to suffer trying to achieve it.

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=42

Mayor McCheeze is right now on a self-induced hand-job high at the moment for @FE showing up in Triathlete Magazine. The article might as well have been written by those fucks who do their @Fit Journal. Completely unbalanced.

How much ad space did CFE buy? There's usually a direct ratio of ad buys to feature article fellatio.

Don't have to buy ad space if you've duped the editor (TJ Murphy, the TJ is short for Tug Job) into believing all your snake oil.

[___________]

We'll see if bmack is unscared.

Posted this to his blog, awaiting moderation:

bmack, are you too UnScared to finish a race? Dirt Diva has a better track record then you do. You’re as big of a huckster as that obese cult leader of yours, Couch.

http://www.iamunscared.com/protein-wars ... omment-320

[KingSchmaltzBagelHour]

When grown ass men refer to other adults as "kids", it makes me want to punch.

[johno]

Please...someone feed them...please?

[Shafpocalypse Now]

Bringing the love across broad time and modal domains:

Coach Glassman, the creator of CrossFit, the person who redefined fitness and it's methodology, created the competition to prove who's the fittest person on the planet; doesn't even do any of his workouts. It appears also, that he doesn't even exercise, at all. This is extremely odd. Every coach or doctor that I've been under; someone I've learned from or followed, has always, in some way, been a very strong athlete in the sport they're in. My doctors at the university are older by a decade than Glassman, and they still compete in the masters division of Ironman or run high level marathons; the department head interestingly still runs a 5 minute mile as a sixty year old. My weightlifting coach placed 4th at worlds as a master and can run a 6min mile as a weightlifter; his partner is also retired and can still power clean 170kg. Coach Burgener and Louie Simmons still train. Mark Rippetoe still trains. But Mr Glassman doesn't? That's so strange. Mr Glassman seems to be the most unfit person in CrossFit, That's fascinating.

Not only this, but it also seems that the people that follow the CrossFit.com workouts, are also the most unfit in the CrossFit community. The original source of the new world training methodology to produce elite fitness, cannot even produce a placer in their own fitness competition, or it seems, finish the competition. This is fascinating.

It also seems that CrossFit HQ, the cadre of the most advanced CrossFitters, generals to the Gandalf of fitness, Greg Glassman, guys like Tony Budding, Dave Castro, and the other unnamed people, who've done CrossFit since the Santa Cruz box in the early days back in the early 2000s; guys with the most experience and knowledge in the CrossFit training program; are also the next weakest performers and unfittest people under Glassman. They follow the mainpage religously. When was the last time you saw a video of Mr Castro and Mr Budding doing a WOD, and people were legitimately impressed? Impressed with the performance, NOT blowing out your back or doing something wrong. They're the most entrenched in CrossFit, shouldn't they be out performing everyone in CrossFit? Because they're not. The guy that people are paying $1,000 to hear from on programming advice and who is running the CrossFit Games, the legendary competition to see who's the fittest person on the planet, can't even squat 375 below parallel, and even deadlift double body weight with a straight back. Are these people, you as a CrossFitter, should be following? The unfittest people in the community?



This is fascinating and very very odd. But none the less, very very entertaining.

I would like to hear from CrossFitters on this, because there's 20,000 views of this thread, and they aren't coming from 5 people. Why are people listening and following the unfittest people in the CrossFit community?
I'm curious to find out, the people at the level 1 certs, who've never done a CrossFit wod, whether they can out perform Mr Castro, Mr Budding and Mr Glassman on day one in a wod? I haven't heard a 8:00 miler giving advice to a 3:50 miler... why should CrossFit get away with it? It's not like all three of those guys have a sub 2:00 Fran. And none of these people have produced a Games winner. I'm curious to hear from CrossFitters on this.

[Cave Canem]

Bringing the love across broad time and modal domains:

Coach Glassman, the creator of CrossFit, the person who redefined fitness and it's methodology, created the competition to prove who's the fittest person on the planet; doesn't even do any of his workouts. It appears also, that he doesn't even exercise, at all. This is extremely odd. Every coach or doctor that I've been under; someone I've learned from or followed, has always, in some way, been a very strong athlete in the sport they're in. My doctors at the university are older by a decade than Glassman, and they still compete in the masters division of Ironman or run high level marathons; the department head interestingly still runs a 5 minute mile as a sixty year old. My weightlifting coach placed 4th at worlds as a master and can run a 6min mile as a weightlifter; his partner is also retired and can still power clean 170kg. Coach Burgener and Louie Simmons still train. Mark Rippetoe still trains. But Mr Glassman doesn't? That's so strange. Mr Glassman seems to be the most unfit person in CrossFit, That's fascinating.

Not only this, but it also seems that the people that follow the CrossFit.com workouts, are also the most unfit in the CrossFit community. The original source of the new world training methodology to produce elite fitness, cannot even produce a placer in their own fitness competition, or it seems, finish the competition. This is fascinating.

It also seems that CrossFit HQ, the cadre of the most advanced CrossFitters, generals to the Gandalf of fitness, Greg Glassman, guys like Tony Budding, Dave Castro, and the other unnamed people, who've done CrossFit since the Santa Cruz box in the early days back in the early 2000s; guys with the most experience and knowledge in the CrossFit training program; are also the next weakest performers and unfittest people under Glassman. They follow the mainpage religously. When was the last time you saw a video of Mr Castro and Mr Budding doing a WOD, and people were legitimately impressed? Impressed with the performance, NOT blowing out your back or doing something wrong. They're the most entrenched in CrossFit, shouldn't they be out performing everyone in CrossFit? Because they're not. The guy that people are paying $1,000 to hear from on programming advice and who is running the CrossFit Games, the legendary competition to see who's the fittest person on the planet, can't even squat 375 below parallel, and even deadlift double body weight with a straight back. Are these people, you as a CrossFitter, should be following? The unfittest people in the community?



This is fascinating and very very odd. But none the less, very very entertaining.

I would like to hear from CrossFitters on this, because there's 20,000 views of this thread, and they aren't coming from 5 people. Why are people listening and following the unfittest people in the CrossFit community?
I'm curious to find out, the people at the level 1 certs, who've never done a CrossFit wod, whether they can out perform Mr Castro, Mr Budding and Mr Glassman on day one in a wod? I haven't heard a 8:00 miler giving advice to a 3:50 miler... why should CrossFit get away with it? It's not like all three of those guys have a sub 2:00 Fran. And none of these people have produced a Games winner. I'm curious to hear from CrossFitters on this.

=D> Pure gold. Has the post already been deleted and the poster banned ?

[Mountebank]

Bringing the love across broad time and modal domains:

Coach Glassman, the creator of CrossFit, the person who redefined fitness and it's methodology, created the competition to prove who's the fittest person on the planet; doesn't even do any of his workouts. It appears also, that he doesn't even exercise, at all. This is extremely odd. Every coach or doctor that I've been under; someone I've learned from or followed, has always, in some way, been a very strong athlete in the sport they're in. My doctors at the university are older by a decade than Glassman, and they still compete in the masters division of Ironman or run high level marathons; the department head interestingly still runs a 5 minute mile as a sixty year old. My weightlifting coach placed 4th at worlds as a master and can run a 6min mile as a weightlifter; his partner is also retired and can still power clean 170kg. Coach Burgener and Louie Simmons still train. Mark Rippetoe still trains. But Mr Glassman doesn't? That's so strange. Mr Glassman seems to be the most unfit person in CrossFit, That's fascinating.

Not only this, but it also seems that the people that follow the CrossFit.com workouts, are also the most unfit in the CrossFit community. The original source of the new world training methodology to produce elite fitness, cannot even produce a placer in their own fitness competition, or it seems, finish the competition. This is fascinating.

It also seems that CrossFit HQ, the cadre of the most advanced CrossFitters, generals to the Gandalf of fitness, Greg Glassman, guys like Tony Budding, Dave Castro, and the other unnamed people, who've done CrossFit since the Santa Cruz box in the early days back in the early 2000s; guys with the most experience and knowledge in the CrossFit training program; are also the next weakest performers and unfittest people under Glassman. They follow the mainpage religously. When was the last time you saw a video of Mr Castro and Mr Budding doing a WOD, and people were legitimately impressed? Impressed with the performance, NOT blowing out your back or doing something wrong. They're the most entrenched in CrossFit, shouldn't they be out performing everyone in CrossFit? Because they're not. The guy that people are paying $1,000 to hear from on programming advice and who is running the CrossFit Games, the legendary competition to see who's the fittest person on the planet, can't even squat 375 below parallel, and even deadlift double body weight with a straight back. Are these people, you as a CrossFitter, should be following? The unfittest people in the community?



This is fascinating and very very odd. But none the less, very very entertaining.

I would like to hear from CrossFitters on this, because there's 20,000 views of this thread, and they aren't coming from 5 people. Why are people listening and following the unfittest people in the CrossFit community?
I'm curious to find out, the people at the level 1 certs, who've never done a CrossFit wod, whether they can out perform Mr Castro, Mr Budding and Mr Glassman on day one in a wod? I haven't heard a 8:00 miler giving advice to a 3:50 miler... why should CrossFit get away with it? It's not like all three of those guys have a sub 2:00 Fran. And none of these people have produced a Games winner. I'm curious to hear from CrossFitters on this.

=D> =D> =D>

[Crust Bucket]

[TheCoug]

"I would like to hear from CrossFitters on this, because there's 20,000 views of this thread, and they aren't coming from 5 people. Why are people listening and following the unfittest people in the CrossFit community?
I'm curious to find out, the people at the level 1 certs, who've never done a CrossFit wod, whether they can out perform Mr Castro, Mr Budding and Mr Glassman on day one in a wod? I haven't heard a 8:00 miler giving advice to a 3:50 miler... why should CrossFit get away with it? It's not like all three of those guys have a sub 2:00 Fran. And none of these people have produced a Games winner. I'm curious to hear from CrossFitters on this."

With about what, 1500 "boxes" all over the world, each with oh, at least 10 members, we are talking about at least 15000 crossfitters in the world. Obviously that is a very conservative figure, and I'm doing it on purpose.

Those who focus all of their energy on HQ, Glassman, Main Page, etc., seem (to me) to miss the fact that each of these 1500 boxes are truly free to run their own programming, and having WODDed in Pittsburgh, Flagstaff, Phoenix in about four boxes, California and Nevada, I havent met ONE crossfitter who is a main page junky following those WODs and these people without question.

If you stay on Mainsite and think that the people posting there are a true rep of ALL of Crossfit, it's like thinking that the people on IGX represent every strongman and powerlifter. Maybe IGX represents more than Mainsite represents all of crossfit.. I don't know.

I will get my ass handed to me for this post, but I'm a CrossFitter and I'm here responding. I don't know of one affiliate owner who programs according to mainpage. I don't know one at this moment who isn't aware of the fact that you gotta do strength training to increase strength. I'm sure they are out there....I don't know them.

I am aware of a multitude of CrossFitters who do not aspire to be elite at anything, never want to compete, will not go to the games, but are getting more fit and healthy than they had with anything else they tried. Emphasis on: they tried. People try what is brought to the masses. CrossFit made it to the masses.

The few who glorify the games winners soon realize that unless they devote their entire lives to training, they will never, ever make it. And the games competitors I'm aware of.. those who want to at least make it out of Sectionals, work closely with coaches on serious strength programs that don't consist of weeks full of idiotic wods in the hopes of becoming elite.

Nobody wants to hear this here. THere is so much garbage that comes out of mainsite.. it's easy to jump on it and say that it represents all of crossfit. Talk to the people on the ground, talk to the people training in boxes and see what's really going on. It's different.

[TheCoug]

Oh. And Happy New Year.


I'm going to say one more thing. I am going to contradict myself. I am aware of a Box that programs the dreaded Sexy Metcon and has trainers who honestly don't know what the fuck they are talking about. (But they don't follow mainsite at all).

That box is losing it's "elite" athletes one by one. The people who want to train smart are doing things like joining a globo to do strength and wodding a couple days a week at the box.. or just leaving for other boxes that have smarter programming.

That box is great with people who see CrossFit as a fitness program. Again, those people never go to mainsite, don't even know who Glassman is (most Crossfitters I talk to have absolutely no idea who Glassman is.. they just know the name of their immediate coaches and affiliate owners), will never compete ever, anywhere, and are happy as can be trying to get close to doing the wods as rx'd, if they even care about that.

That box has also posted some videos of it's athletes that are horrifying. Form is really bad and "everyone else" talks about it.

On the other hand, I know of a box owned by a guy who doesn't need the box to make money. It's a second job. He's a USAW trained coach, has done the certs, is an OLY guy, and he picks and chooses the people who train with him. Surprise. His people tear up all of the competitions around here, his people made it to regionals last year, his people have excellent form, his people command respect.

I know another box owner who loves OLY and can't stand to WOD anymore. The focus of the box is strength + metcon and this owner is aware that the business is going to have to grow on the merits of producing good, injury-free athletes.

Again, none of this has to do with Glassman, the Mainsite, the Journal or the Games Winners from four years ago. Just sayin.

[kreator]

THere is so much garbage that comes out of mainsite.. it's easy to jump on it and say that it represents all of crossfit. Talk to the people on the ground, talk to the people training in boxes and see what's really going on. It's different.

Sure, there are some good affiliates. But the point is that dozens of people still pay thousands of dollars every single weekend to listen to some pompous Ivory Tower Mainsite spew. And most of them go back for more and think that they are becoming edumacated and becoming a "coach." Even if there are affiliates that know how to train athletes, some of that pretentious pseudo-scientific sewage still seeps into the masses.

[Jag Panzer]

Stupid's always going to stand out. I don't think anybody here, being honest about it, would demonize each and every Crossfitter as being a clueless moron with no idea what they're doing in the gym. But there's enough stupid with the brand name across the top that it's real easy to gloss over the ones that aren't tard-asses, even if they're a majority (and that's a case of your anecdote vs. everyone else's).

When you're part of a movement that developed around measurable and repeatable stupid, you're going to take flak for it even if you're not sipping the Bombay Sapphire.