The first Crossfit Games consisted of three events over two days: one metcon workout, one endurance run, and one strength event.
The recent sectional events seem to be around 75% metcon workouts. Almost all the sectionals have more than three workouts as well - with the exception of Midwest and Australia which have 3 metcon events - so the ability to recover from metcons will surely play a part even in events that aren’t metcons.

Comments? Are the sectionals a good representation of Crossfit or have they become the MetCon Games?

I think it is a hard task to find a happy medium…the opposite end is making Crossfit a weightlifting event…which in the past I think it has been in danger of doing so.  In my opinion I think a metcon bias makes the games more equal in relation to differing bodyweights…strength bias obviously gives the bigger people an advantage…this is just my opinion.

Cheers Buff

Linc - When you look at the size of many sectional events the ability to include some sort of ME component would be pretty challenging.  Also, if you give weight to strength then surely it follows that you must also test straight mono structural.  Leaving not much time or opportunity to test other skill based attributes.  However, cleverly designed CF metcon’s allow you to test more than one attribute at once.  My gut feel is this is the reason for the metcon bias in most sectional programmes.  Of course, not all CF metcon’s are cleverly designed but that is a rant for another day

Cheers, kempie

EDIT - also, the sectionals are just one layer of the program.  expect the regionals to be different in some regards

From the sectional videos that I’ve seen, they seem to be lacking both ME and Endurance events. As Kempie suggests, it might be logistically impossible to test this given the number of peeps, and the area the host box has to offer.

I bring up endurance given last years brutal 7K run. I would assume this years games is going to test endurance as well. Yes, the Metcons at a sectional test endurance, but only an approximation. Just look at how many top dogs were crushed by the hill run last year.

WalterMitty - 04 March 2010 03:56 AM

I bring up endurance given last years brutal 7K run. I would assume this years games is going to test endurance as well. Yes, the Metcons at a sectional test endurance, but only an approximation. Just look at how many top dogs were crushed by the hill run last year.

Yep.  If you aren’t doing crappy hill sprints . . . it’s not like you haven’t been warned . . . repeatedly . . .

It seems to me that a successful Crossfit competition would be one that does the best job possible at measuring what is fitness:

http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ-trial.pdf (Crossfit’s “What is Fitness”)

So how are the sectionals doing?

Do they meet Crossfit’s 1st standard of fitness, the 10 generally recognized physical skills of cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, coordination, agility, balance, and accuracy? Are any being missed? Are some being given more weight than others? Are any being skipped?

How about Crossfit’s 2nd standard of fitness, performing well at any and every task imaginable? (i.e. the hopper model) For example, is the GHD event a good “task” to measure?

How about the 3rd standard of fitness, the three metabolic pathways? How much of the events in the sectionals are devoted to each pathway? Is too much emphasis being placed on any one particular pathway?

Or the fourth model - health? (Admittedly awkward to measure in a weekend event)

LincolnB - 04 March 2010 12:11 PM

Or the fourth model - health? (Admittedly awkward to measure in a weekend event)

Colonoscopies for time?? 

Now, now. Not all scoring is for time. Lowest number of polyps wins.

It would be best if this event was held AFTER the run and the deadlifts.

LincolnB - 04 March 2010 03:26 PM

Lowest number of polyps wins.

I believe I have a new sig line!

LincolnB - 04 March 2010 12:11 PM

Or the fourth model - health? (Admittedly awkward to measure in a weekend event)

Health before or after?

OPT mentioned in an interview that he had to take a break from training following the last games due to adrenal fatigue. I think Salo also had similar issues following the games.

I do hope this years games is easier on the health of the participants.

I just registered for Central Canada Regionals and I’m expecting it to be much the same as the others that have already been held.

I think that it will not fully evaluate fitness as CrossFit defines it.  Like most of these tests, I’m sure it will be heavier in the MetCon than in lifting or endurance and I think that it will not begin to tap into testing the overall athleticism of the athletes*.

But I do think that it will do a very good job of evaluating fitness and athleticism for what the event is.  And “what it is” is a qualifying competition open to all skill and fitness levels with the clear goals of:
1. Letting reasonably experienced CrossFitters participate, not just true Firebreathers.
2. Identifying and advancing the most qualified to the Sectionals.
3. Not killing anyone in the process.

What that means is that these qualifiers are not going to be as long and grueling as the finals, and likely sectional, will be.  Read that to mean that it likely won’t involve any event lasting longer than 25 minutes and there will likely be no more than 4 events (3 may even do it).  Given these constraints, I think it reasonable that in order to meet the stated goals, there is likely to be one lifting event and two or three metcons.  At least one of those metcons will likely hint towards the endurance range… but only hint.  Another will likely hint towards total athleticism and skill development by drawing on one of the more skilled movements in the CrossFit repertoire, but will likely not stray too far outside what is seen in the mainpage.

As the athletes move farther up the ladder, I think the opportunity for the organizers to test a wider range of fitness grows exponentially.  I believe this is what we began to see the birth of last year at the finals with the Row/Sledge and Trail Run events. 

In short, I think that the grass roots levels of this type of competition will for the most part remain a MetCon games with the token strength/oly event… but I would argue that for the current CrossFit environment this may be the only way to go for events open to all comers.  This may mature over time such that they can safely involve more, and I hope they do, but I also hope there will always be a place for the non-elite CrossFitters to go and be competitive.

*We have discussed before how the movements and workouts typically used in CrossFit programming do not truly tap into the potential measures of skill and athletic movement.  Aspects that I believe are not fully addressed are ones like advanced motor skills, accuracy, balance, and coordination.

The reason that these aspects are neglected is that these attributes are difficult to measure in a controlled environment.  Personally, I hope to see more very inventive and challenging ways to test this type of fitness at this year’s finals.  I think the top level has to keep pushing the boundaries with that type of event (and with the strength and endurance components) to ensure we are actually putting our money where our collective mouths are.

Well said Bathmatt

and good luck at sectionals!

You could be a complete monster, but if you can’t swing an object and connect it with another… your functionality (and therefore fitness) has to be called into question.

I completely agree but I question why this event was bracketed with the rowing. Was there really a need to test skill in a fatigued state, given that all eight events were performed in a fatigued state? (Or at least that was the intent, as evidenced by the slight snafu with the deadlift event) Surely testing skill in a fresh state is a valid test? And maybe not such a bad idea considering the hammering the athletes were already taking?

Indeed, I was disappointed with the snatch 1RM event for this reason. The max anyone managed was only 108 kilos, despite the fact these were supposed to be the best Crossfitters in the world in an unrestricted weightclass with highly relaxed rules and unlimited attempts. A 108 kilo snatch for an elite heavyweight athlete indicates either a highly fatigued state and thus not a good indication of true ability or it indicates a non-elite level of skill.

LincolnB - 05 March 2010 09:59 AM

Indeed, I was disappointed with the snatch 1RM event for this reason. The max anyone managed was only 108 kilos, despite the fact these were supposed to be the best Crossfitters in the world in an unrestricted weightclass with highly relaxed rules and unlimited attempts. A 108 kilo snatch for an elite heavyweight athlete indicates either a highly fatigued state and thus not a good indication of true ability or it indicates a non-elite level of skill.

On the flipside, you could say that the 108 kilos represents an elite number, given a highly fatigued state…which is what the games might have been trying to test.

I do see what you are getting at though. If you had 10 different tests…but allowed full rest (whatever that means) you would get “the best” results and the overall winner of these 10 events with full rest could very well be a different bloke than bunching the same 10 events together.

In addition to the logistics of giving full rest, I would assume that the CF games is intentionally trying to test athletes at the limit/in a fatigued state.

BathMatt - 04 March 2010 08:10 PM

I just registered for Central Canada Regionals and I’m expecting it to be much the same as the others that have already been held.

I think that it will not fully evaluate fitness as CrossFit defines it.  Like most of these tests, I’m sure it will be heavier in the MetCon than in lifting or endurance and I think that it will not begin to tap into testing the overall athleticism of the athletes*.

But I do think that it will do a very good job of evaluating fitness and athleticism for what the event is.  And “what it is” is a qualifying competition open to all skill and fitness levels with the clear goals of:
1. Letting reasonably experienced CrossFitters participate, not just true Firebreathers.
2. Identifying and advancing the most qualified to the Sectionals.
3. Not killing anyone in the process.

BM good points!

I took part in the NZ sectionals the WODS were (Row-burpee- side2side jumps, 1 RM FS, Heavy AMRAP, then finished off with a fire fighter skill metcon). CF NZ did an outstanding job in their balanced programming with the resources/ space available.

My personal thoughts were that the sectionals are about getting ALL ABILITIES involved and growing CrossFit as a sport as much as a training programme. The WODS were accessible to all ages/ sexes/ abilities which meant a great accessibility to the masses.

As the games progress onto regionals then obviously the technicality needs to increase (eg OLY lifitng + gymnastic advanced skills) to show the breadth and depth of athletes’ training… and to make it more challenging, and even more exciting to watch

In addition to the logistics of giving full rest, I would assume that the CF games is intentionally trying to test athletes at the limit/in a fatigued state.

I’m sure that was their intent. In fact, they pretty much stated it. The surprise during the deadlift event was when the athletes weren’t as fatigued as the event directors had planned for.

The question is this: is that fitness? If you are measuring the ability to perform a task (The second Crossfit definition of fitness) should you only measure those tasks when the athlete is in a state of fatigue? How many of the Olympic events test a high level of skill in a high level of fatigue? Most don’t. Some do; ice skating and biathlon come to mind.  But most high skill events are done in a rested state: shotput, discus, weightlifting, javelin, high jump, ski jumping, half-pipe, pole vault, gymnastics, etc.

It would taken only a modicum of cleverness to allow certain events to be performed in a state of relative rest. For example, make the deadlift event first and the run second. As another example, have more very short events that are completed in a short time domain. At the 2009 games, 6 of 8 events were in either the glycolitic or oxidative time domain. Only two tested performance in the phosphagen metabolic pathway.

There are two erroneous definitions of fitness that should be concerning. The first has been around forever, which is the association of a physical beatdown with a good workout. The other is Crossfit equals metcons.  Combine those two and you’ll have people defining a good fitness competition as the ability to survive a beatdown. I think we need to be careful with that.