PDA

View Full Version : Mike Boyle - On the money or off the podium?


James Evans
12-11-2006, 06:15 AM
I read with interest, and a slightly raised left eyebrow, the recent discussion on the CrossFit board regarding Mike Boyle's apparent aversion to high rep Olympic lifts.

Here's the flavour:

One common criticism leveled at CrossFit is that we engage in the "dangerous" activity of "high rep Olympic weightlifting."

Very recently Mike Boyle of "Mike Boyle Strength and Conditioning " offered this objection when asked about CrossFit at a SOCOM sponsored "Special Op's Medical Conference."

And all were invited to post their opinions to comments.

Now I've read a lot of what Boyle has to say and I think it is very easy to misunderstand him, if you only digest the soundbites.

I think the point is that Boyle primarily trains athletes. He has formulated his theories over a number of years. He does what he does because he thinks that it is inherently safe.

One of the things I notice about those who post to comments and those who post to the message board is the contrast in their depth of knowledge. Many people do CrossFit and it really works for them. And they post to comments to pay tribute to this fact. Good. But there is a world outside.

Sometimes people just get it wrong. One poster says Boyle has a problem with front squats. No, he has a problem with back squats. But that post will stick in many reader's minds.

Furthermore, I'm not a soldier, I'm not a cop. I've got different goals. Elements of CrossFit work for me. Others don't. Elements of Functional Training are just pointless to me. I don't have the time or the inclination.

I don't want to start another Boyle-CrossFit slagging match, I'm just interested in a discussion about his theories and methods, many of which I believe are inherently sound.

Just to express my own position:


If something works for you, do it
If something doesn't, drop it
If something injures you, either you're doing it wrong (therefore learn to do it properly) or it's not for you, either currently or at any stage in your training
Just because someone else doesn't agree with what you are doing does not mean that they have no valid opinions. You can still learn from them.


All very simplistic I know but the theories are the simple bits, it's the training that works you over.

Mike ODonnell
12-11-2006, 07:23 AM
without going into a rant...as I like some of Boyle's stuff for athletes, it's just the simple fact not there is no such thing as one perfect program for everyone. People who are overweight need fat loss....people who are weak need strength training...athletes need movement specific training...etc. The best program for anyone is just the one you do with consistency and progression whatever that may be. People will get results on any good program as long as they stick with it. It's been said that a person will get better results if he follows an average program to a 95% consistency and intensity, vs the person who follows the best program in the whole world with only 50% consistency and intensity.

There are really no new ideas in the fitness world....just different ways of putting them all together in a program. After all....it's just training, life is such a bigger picture.

Steve Shafley
12-11-2006, 11:21 AM
Boyle has been training people for a long, long time, and he makes a good living from it. In addition to that, he has trained numerous collegiate and professional athletes. And he's done it quietly, mostly under the radar. Other S&C professionals knew his name and respected his work. It's only late 2005-2006 that the S&C internet community really started to talk about him, and when he started to put together his own forum and start to publicize himself with his book and the articles easily available now.

I read that thread, and I wasn't really going to comment on it, but I will say a few things, and try to stay on a positive note, both James and Mike have made very good points.

1. You can't compare apples to oranges, despite arguments to the contrary.
2. Hockey players are going to stomp Crossfitters at hockey. Crossfitters are going to stomp hockey players at Crossfit. A Crossfitting hockey player? Well, the sport specific skills are what's going to matter.
3. Special Forces people are going to get the job done whether they run, lift weights, do crossfit, follow Stew Smith's routines, or whatever. No matter what they do, it's covered.

Steve Shafley
12-11-2006, 11:28 AM
Someone pointed this thread out to me:

http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/22/33859.html


Brian Vandewettering

I had a failure on a snatch when doing the last WOD due to poor focus/fatigue. The bar came down on my knee and could have really done some damage if it were a heavy load. Can someone explain the proper bail out for the OHS and Snatch? A video link might be helpful. For now, I'm going to concentrate on proper form.

Thanks!

Yael Grauer
12-11-2006, 11:37 AM
3. Special Forces people are going to get the job done whether they run, lift weights, do crossfit, follow Stew Smith's routines, or whatever. No matter what they do, it's covered.

A little off topic but just curious - what's with Stew Smith thinking ruck runs are dangerous?

R. Alan Hester
12-11-2006, 12:41 PM
This is an interesting thread, which I first saw over at Crossfit. I was at the Special Operations Medical Association (SOMA) conference in question. I am a former SF medic, but I still stay in contact with other guys in the Spec. Ops community. I sat in on the Human Performance lecture, which is where Mike Boyle's comment was made. He was part of a larger panel comprised of fitness gurus, one of whom was Mark Twight (Gym Jones). Although I was in and out of the lectures--it lasted roughly 90 mins--I did not find it to be anti-Crossfit in anyway. I think, from talking with a few operators, the questioning of high rep Oly lifts come from the ground up; i.e., they had concerns with its efficacy and safety, and he just addressed it. If the lecture was unclassified, which I assume it would be, I may be able to get my hands on a copy.

It is funny Steve mentioned Stew Smith, because I used his program to prepare for SF Selection, and then turned into a LSD-slut while in SF , and only started Xfit after I left the military, then shifted toward and currently use Coach Rut’s methods. Had I known what I know now (God, I have tuned into my dad), I would have adopted the Xfit or Xfit-like methodology while serving, because I suffered many injuries.

In the end, I think it does come down to personal preference. I am just glad the conversation is occurring. The Human Performance lecture is a manifestation of upper echelons recognizing that you cannot mass produce spec. ops. guys, so you had better maintain them with the same funds and vigor as you do weapon systems. Granted, the conversation will include those that do not want to budge from their chosen method, but as long as educated, even-tempered individuals continue to seek optimal performance it will continue to grow.

Just my thoughts.

Alan

Pierre Auge
12-11-2006, 07:58 PM
My point of view is this, with proper precautions lifting is inherently safe. To the unitiated and those with poor judgement (I may be included in this) any activity including lifting is dangerous. The eversion of risk is what limits us from progressing. The application of risk with good judgement is what produces results.

Hockey is a terrible example of this because as the injury ratios go up in the sport S&C coaches are getting further and further away from efficacious training. And because of this the injury ratios climb... It's a vicious circle.

Mike Boyle is a good coach the only disagreement I have with his position is not that I think he is wrong, its that I think his eversion to exercises that are risky also limit the possible progression of his athletes. He is one of the better S&C coaches in hockey unfortunately in my opinion that isn't good enough!!!

As far as SF guys getting the job done, I agree they may do just that. But will they continue to be able to get the job done as long as they are capable or will they shutdown before their time. I can't speak on the issues in the U.S. but the fact is in this country we didn't fix what we didn't know was broken...

Just because we don't know it's broken doesn't mean it isn't. Sometimes you have to step back and think, we are sending these guys in to risky scenarios, under real life conditions. So why would we train by removing all possibilites of risk? That makes no sense to me... We are setting people up for failure in my opinion.

Athletes in contact sports particularly are no different than SF personel. They are required to enter particularly riscky scenerios yet we train to avoid risk, which causes us to systematically fail when risk crops up when its least expected. We are fooling ourselves if we think avoiding something that may, perhaps, possibly, maybe cause an injury and believing that we will be ready to handle physical stress.

A good coach shouldn't stand on competent athletes a good coach should produce competent athletes. If an athlete can't perform an exercise safely its the coaches problem. If the athlete trains themself and can't perform safely then its their own. Hockey is the worst sport on the planet when it comes to S&C coaches knowing the needs of their players. Mainly because none of them have played the damn sport and don't understand the risks! Soldiering is the same!

I at least think the Glassman's understand this. I've never been intimidated by a broomstick, and if an individual is too cocky to move beyond this before they are ready and a coach too incompetent to allow it than its their own damn fault, their own damn loss and my athletes will be better off then theirs!

Steve Shafley
12-11-2006, 08:45 PM
Pierre, you've got to show me the money on this:

A good coach shouldn't stand on competent athletes a good coach should produce competent athletes.

Because there's reasonable doubt in my mind. Everyone "comes" to Crossfit, there are very few "home-grown". I'd say that XF can't take credit for a Robb Wolf, a Josh Everett, a Mark Twight, though I would come back and say that XF has definitely added something to their mixes, but the basic recipe had already been cooked up.

And this:

Athletes in contact sports particularly are no different than SF personel. They are required to enter particularly riscky scenerios yet we train to avoid risk, which causes us to systematically fail when risk crops up when its least expected. We are fooling ourselves if we think avoiding something that may, perhaps, possibly, maybe cause an injury and believing that we will be ready to handle physical stress.

I respectfully beg to differ.

Athletes in contact sports particularly are no different than SF personel.

Let's get to the very lowest common denominator. If your operator is injured, he won't go out. If your athlete is injured. He can't play. In that way they are similar. SFs need to operate under the worst conditions imaginable. Athlete operate under the best conditions imaginable. This should impact their training. SFs' lives are at stake. Athletes' livelihoods are. An athlete in a contact sports needs are dictated by the sport. An SF doesn't need to be able to ice skate and shoot a puck, and an hockey player doesn't need to be a expert rifleman. Those are a fairly superficial example, but it serves to illustrate my point.

They are required to enter particularly riscky scenerios yet we train to avoid risk, which causes us to systematically fail when risk crops up when its least expected.

This is completely unfounded. There is absolutely NOTHING linking training to avoid risk and "systematically" failing when risk crops up when "least expected." I understand you were a soldier. What happens to soldiers in combat when things are "least expected"? They die. What happens to athletes in a similar situation. They lose, or get injured, or, in extreme cases, they die. Neither the soldier or the athlete should be unprepared for those types of situations. This a product of training OTHER than that of physical conditioning.

We are fooling ourselves if we think avoiding something that may, perhaps, possibly, maybe cause an injury and believing that we will be ready to handle physical stress.

Pierre...I'm not going to let you get away with anything here. This is just unfounded, pure and simple, like the entire paragraph. Maybe your first language isn't english, but your statements have a bizarre kind of circularity as in "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

There is nothing inherent in avoiding a potential injurious situation or exercise that's implicit in failure somewhere further on down the line.

I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you, Pierre. You often have excellent insights and opinions. This isn't one of them.

Mark Joseph Limbaga
12-11-2006, 09:26 PM
take everything with a grain of salt. He does have soe valid points

Steve Shafley
12-12-2006, 05:45 AM
Boyle hasn't bothered commenting upon any of the comments upon his comments.

At least on his board, nor elsewhere that I've seen.

I haven't looked on T-mag yet...supposedly there is another totally gonzo Poliquin article there.

Mike ODonnell
12-12-2006, 06:39 AM
Hockey is a terrible example of this because as the injury ratios go up in the sport S&C coaches are getting further and further away from efficacious training. And because of this the injury ratios climb... It's a vicious circle.

A good coach shouldn't stand on competent athletes a good coach should produce competent athletes. If an athlete can't perform an exercise safely its the coaches problem. If the athlete trains themself and can't perform safely then its their own. Hockey is the worst sport on the planet when it comes to S&C coaches knowing the needs of their players. Mainly because none of them have played the damn sport and don't understand the risks!

As a hockey player my whole life and knowing some S&C coaches to pro teams I can honestly say that is not true. I have an offseason program from an NHL team that specifically has Power Cleans, Deadlifts, Squats built in and programmed anywhere from sets of 3 to 8. Because NO ONE has the transcript to what Boyle actually said, it's pure guess work to know what his intention or message truely is on high rep OLY lifting. Mike Boyle is a smart man and produces pro level hockey players, that's his job to do that. You see plenty of pro athletes working with the likes of Mark V (Core Performance), Juan Carlos Santana, Mike Boyle, etc....all who you know are using OLY movements in their training periodization (along with other specific training just for the needs of the sport).

Remember to, if you are a S&C coach...and you do things that hurt athletes in the offseason then you are not going to be in business long. Doing a clean/DL with 85% max 21 times will lead to bad form as fatigue sets in. If you don't believe me you can read the Xfit message boards and see all the people talking about back, shoulder, knee, wrist pain etc. Do that to an athlete just once and you are fired as a S&C coach. Pro athletes also do 2 hours of sprints on ice, track work and other things....so conditioning with high rep OLY lifts is not needed and will actually take away from their other training. Those lifts are meant for low reps and power in that kind of sports program. They get plenty of other conditioning work in later.

Poliquin also calls out the Westside guys and says "box squats are useless"....but that's the nature of this business, everyone has their own philosophy...you just can't expect yours to be the only right answer out there.

Boyle probably has no idea there is this huge debate going on. He may not even know what CF is. I would love to see him invited here to comment, I think he deserves his say before the hanging at the town internet square. Something tells me though I may end agreeing with Boyle on this subject.

Danny John
12-12-2006, 07:00 AM
I don't see why he should comment, Steve. It really is just another "blip" on the crazy screen. "I heard somebody say that you said that..." is more appropriate for my high school hallways than intelligent discourse. Frankly, to say I am disappointed would be an understatement.

You might notice that posts that disagree with the party line on "that site" get taken off quickly. Larry "somebody" was cleared right off when they pointed out that once again, ONE person started the fight.

Personally, I just think some people are mad because they weren't invited to speak at a conference. Also...the constant attacks on Mark Twight have just become pathetic. Mark is the real deal. I have been with him when he works "people." The people he works with are the real deal.

Steve Shafley
12-12-2006, 10:01 AM
No, I don't think Mike Boyle needs to comment, I didn't mean to imply that he should. I just thought that it was funny that there's this kind of low noise about something he said, but he's just keeping on keeping on.

Danny John
12-12-2006, 11:02 AM
But, he did:

People have asked me to speak so I will. To address a few points
1- It amazes me how people can turn idealogy person. I don't feel I have a big ego and don't consider myself a capitalist. I paid my own way to the SOMA Conference to sit on a panel and provide an opinion. I did that and fully expected to be asked the "CrossFit" question. I gave my opinion. I don't like high rep olympic lifting and particularly dislike it for those who are not good at it. There are better ways to work hard and develop muscle endurance.
2- I sat next to Mark Twight. I had a good conversation with him and exchanged emails. I don't believe any comments were directed at Mark. Hopefully if he reads this board he can address this himself.
3- My athletes regularly use olympic lifts. We hang clean, snatch and dumbell snatch. I have written articles on teaching olympic lifts and have produced a video on the same. We rarely do more than 5 reps. I use olympic lifts for power and other methods for endurance.
4-I train kids and adults as well as professional athletes.
I have no interest in making money off the military and have no issue with the people at CrossFit. That being said, I stand by original comments.

Thanks
Michael

Comment #152 - Posted by Michael Boyle at December 12, 2006 08:50 AM

Mike ODonnell
12-12-2006, 11:25 AM
Mike is a stand up guy and I like the stuff he puts out. That being said....if anything this whole thing just brings to light what many people like myself really haven't seen before. It's grade school gossip at best.

Dan, where did Mike post that out of curiosity?

Steve Shafley
12-12-2006, 11:52 AM
In the Crossfit WOD blog. #153 or something.

Pierre Auge
12-12-2006, 12:01 PM
Mike,
firstly my opinion of Mike Boyle is a very high opinion.

secondly if you read my comment more closely you will see that I agree with you that doing 21 reps with 85% of max is close to stupidity. (though I do it myself to myself because I can push there) I would never bring an athlete to that point. This is why I make the broomstick comment.

I disagree with you on S&C for hockey, I as well have been around hockey all my life. My family owned a successful Junior A team fo several years. And my argument is that until you get to a professional level, S&C for the sport is all but non existant. I can't speak on Junior level clubs in the U.S. as I've no experience there but here in Canada few junior clubs have significant S&C programs.

I think all of Mike Boyle's comments are accurate, and I think he is wise. But I have no problem in making someone perform high rep Olympic lifts because mastery of a broomstick or medicine ball will always be precursor to heavier objectives. We are only limited by our own imaginations.

Thats my only point, the exercise is dismissed because of an inate association to heavy weights, the reason we use the lifts in this manner has nothing to do with the weights in my opinion, but is relative to the dynamicism in the body involved in the movement.

Dynamicism in the body not the implement, thats what makes these great at high repetition. So screw the weight if you have too, but get moving thats all I'm saying.

Anyway its an insignificant blip in time as Dan John said. And these are just my opinions which most probably don't matter much and will continue to evolve as I get older and mature in experience.

Danny thanks for that post, puts things in perspective.

Robb Wolf
12-12-2006, 12:32 PM
I have some thoughts on this...too burried to organize them right now.

Mike ODonnell
12-12-2006, 12:48 PM
Couldn't find Mike's post on the CF boards...must of been deleted or I am mildly retarted right now...each has a good probability.

Pierre, I guess I should of said "NHL S&C" coaches only. Yeah Juniors and minor league systems really are another story....that's more like you get a free gym pass to a local fitness center and that is it. There are no S&C specialists pretty much in the minors.....or they are worth the $15k they get paid a year. My High School conditioning program consisted of a rusted out all in one nautilus machine in the basement of the school with a senior telling you what to do.

Steve Shafley
12-12-2006, 01:29 PM
In the WOD comment blog on the main page.

http://www.crossfit.com/cgi-bin/moveabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1562

Russell Greene
12-12-2006, 01:42 PM
I can somewhat understand not liking high rep snatches and clean and jerks for most athletes. If you are not a proficient olympic lifter your technique will probably turn to crap, and if you are you are probably more concerned with developing strength and power through low rep lifting than with metabolic conditioning. That said, if your goal is a high level of generalized fitness, I think that developing the ability to clean and jerk a moderate load for high reps with good form is certainly a worthwhile goal. If we are going to define fitness as Crossfit does, then it is even a necessary goal. If you start out with a medicine ball or broomstick, and move up over the course of several years to a 135 lb. bar, with a competent coach giving you feedback on technique, I find it hard to believe that this will lead to many injuries.

That said, barbell thrusters and high pulls, and dumbbell or kettlebell long cycle clean and jerks, one arm snatches, and squat cleans for high reps are effective and less technically demanding than barbell clean and jerks and snatches and offer most if not all of the benefits. I have wrestled, run cross country and middle distance track, played rugby, and rucked with a 115 lb. pack for 5 miles, and none of that compared to the fatigue and full body involvement and concentration of high rep Crossfit workouts. For someone who has to be ready for anything, anywhere, I don't understand how a workout program that always separates cardiovascular training from strength training implements can compare to Crossfit workouts. No amount of sprints, rowing, or other forms of metabolic conditioning will have the same overall impact as a Crossfit-type workout.

As for the common assertion that Crossfit doesn't develop its own, I have seen it do just that in myself and others. My friend Brendan Gilliam at CFHQ came to Crossfit skinny and without a single muscleup and can now overhead squat 225, do muscleups with a 50 lb. vest, and run 25 miles with no long distance prep. I fell over with the bar the first time I tried an overhead squat four years ago at an exceptionally muscular 140 lbs. bwt. and now I OHS 165 lbs. for five sets of three at 172 bwt with a 220 lb. power clean. I am running faster track workouts now than when I was 15 lbs. lighter and running 5 days a week for high school track with a 5:12 mile. I would never have even come this far without Crossfit, though I am very far from satisfied with my current level of fitness.

The underlying question in the debate is how well Crossfit workouts like Grace and Fran carry over to other domains. If you think that their effects merely test one's ability to do Crossfit and say very little about anything else, or that other workouts can effectively simulate their effects with less risk, then it doesn't make much sense to do them. If you think that the fitness that Crossfit workouts develop is unparalleled and transferrable to most real world activities, then it makes sense to accept a certain amount of risk, and to aim to minimize that risk through competent coaching. I think that determining the answer to this question conclusively would be impossible. Therefore it is up to each of us to find out what works in our particular circumstance. In my case, and in the case of most of those whom I've trained with, high rep lifting and Crossfit-type workouts are irreplaceable. It is not just a question of preference, but of performance.

Neal Winkler
12-12-2006, 02:00 PM
Steve, when I read Pierre's post that you responded to, it seemed pretty good to me. When I read your response, it didn't seem like you really understood what he said. In fact, I couldn't comprehend a single paragraph that you wrote, I almost thought that you were reading something entirely different than I was.

Pierre Auge
12-12-2006, 04:30 PM
Steve,
I am baffled that we are not on the same page here let me make my point this way: (Sorry this is going to end up on a wild tangent I know it)

Contact Athletes (MMA Fighter): - Avoiding Risk “broad example”
Statement - If you've never taken a punch, the first time you do it's going to be a complete shocker. If you continually avoid getting hit while training to be a fighter, once you do you're going to be unable to cope when your opponent is feeding them to you.

Point - This is my point on stress and I can think of one or more for each and every contact sport I've seen.

I am also a CQB/Tactical Shooting Instructor and can think of many in relation to combat whether that involves a LEO or Military scenario. Under duress your body has certain responses that you cannot train out, only individuals with pathological deficiencies do not have these responses and this is what makes them more dangerous than your non-pathological street cop. Drugs like PCP are great for inducing these pathological responses.

Hockey Players – Avoiding Risk
Statement- The human body does not particularly care what kind of stimulus it receives in my opinion. Whether you get hit by a car at 40mph, or a 250lbs defenseman at 40mph, you’re still getting hit by something bigger than you at 40mph. The induced trauma may be of different magnitudes but the stimulus itself for all your body cares is the same. A hockey player who is constantly avoiding the hits will not adapt to getting hit in the instant when he can’t do anything about it.

Point – You’re better off to suck it up tighten up the body and take the hit, you’ll take less damage.

Conditioning – Broad Statement
Statement- The fact is hi-rep hi-intensity snatches and clean & jerks suck in a broad systemic nature. They are some of the most taxing exercises you can do for repetition and this why they are great for soldiers and athletes alike. The skill required to maintain form and consistency at hi-rep is something that is invaluable to anyone who has to operate under stressful conditions. Completing the workout is stressful, playing any team or contact sport is stressful, combat is stressful.

Point – The only difference is the stressors and for an athlete these stressors are limited in their variability. For a soldier they are invariable, and I would argue this for everyone. Example: I had no idea I was going to get run over by a French guy delivering Chicken Wings driving a Ford Focus a little over 2 weeks ago. An athlete who trains only with simple and easy to learn techniques will be limited his application of complex motor skills. This is why gymnasts learn other sports more easily than other athletes because they are accustomed to complex motor patterns, everything else is simple as pie. Lifting at hi intensity has the same type of broad systemic effect on conditioning.

Coaches
Your Statement - Because there's reasonable doubt in my mind. Everyone "comes" to Crossfit, there are very few "home-grown". I'd say that XF can't take credit for a Robb Wolf, a Josh Everett, a Mark Twight, though I would come back and say that XF has definitely added something to their mixes, but the basic recipe had already been cooked up.

Point - I can’t argue with this and I don’t know why you brought it up but my intent was this: You are right coaches don’t win the game. But had the coach not been there the athlete would not have learned to play in the first place.

Statement – My initial statement: “A good coach shouldn't stand on competent athletes a good coach should produce competent athletes.” Should be interpreted as this – somewhere along the lines Robb Wolf, Josh Everett and Mark Twight were taught by someone how to perform their respective games without killing themselves. And once they were competent enough, they themselves were able to progress.

Point – We all learn from others, at no point have any of my ideas not been influenced by others. A coach influences his athletes and will be influenced by them. That same coach should not expect that each of his athletes are competent to begin with, he should ENSURE that they are competent before they attempt to progress. Such as this - before I put someone into an advanced live fire night shooting scenario, I will make damn sure they know how to safely aim the weapon and pull the trigger! Or before an athlete performs grace with prescribed weight, I will make damn sure they can do it with a broomstick, rebar, a 10lb training, bar, a women’s bar, a men’s bar so on and so forth.

Anyhow I’m a windbag.

Steve, I respect where you are coming from, I honestly like Neal have no idea where that is, but like you - I simply don't agree with it. And thats OK! I don't mind disagreeing as long as everyone realises that I'm right!!! That's a joke by the way haha.

Steve Shafley
12-12-2006, 06:02 PM
You're probably right, Pierre.

Perhaps I was reading too much, or something different into what you were posting. Essentially, we are on the same page. Maybe I didn't bite down hard enough on my inherent assholishness.

I apologize for not taking greater care in reading your post and in wording mine to be more coherent and cohesive.

Pierre Auge
12-12-2006, 06:26 PM
LOL

I think the issue here is not one of whether Mike Boyle's comments are accurate, or necessary. I think the issue is that rather than individuals asking the Glassman's opinion about hi rep snatches in the use of crossfit they asked someone else. Usually that will bring about an opposing opinion particularly when that person doesn't use the method in question. Opposing opinions are great as long as we are wise enough to assume the point of view from which they were gathered in order to gain an honest perspective into them.

Does that make any sense? Or is my bad english mixing with my bad french?

Steve Shafley
12-12-2006, 06:33 PM
Perfect sense.

Blame it on the late hour of the post. Or the booze. Definitely the booze!

Mike ODonnell
12-12-2006, 07:30 PM
On a completely side note...I know of a pro hockey player who makes like $5mil a year, is in the top 25 in points...and can't do like 3 frigin pullups.....damnit, I must be worth $10mil at least! lol

Yael Grauer
12-12-2006, 07:34 PM
How's your hockey, OD?

Ken Urakawa
12-12-2006, 08:18 PM
On a completely side note...I know of a pro hockey player who makes like $5mil a year, is in the top 25 in points...and can't do like 3 frigin pullups.....damnit, I must be worth $10mil at least! lol

But just wait 'till they get that professional pullup league going!

Pierre Auge
12-12-2006, 09:17 PM
Ken,
shit thats funny.

Mike on that side note, I'm seeing it more and more in this country particularly here in Ottawa the Nations Capital. Every gym I go to is has replaced their free weights with machines, and even the athletic training centers are swapping out for Swiss/BOSU Balls, balance boards and the like.

I've seen pro (NHL) hockey players standing around on BOSU balls waiving their sticks around messing with a puck in the middle of a gym and when I asked what was going on I was told that this was the new thing in functional training...

Looks and sounds pretty disfunctional to me! Oh well off to bed I have a job interview at that same athletic training center in the morning LOL wish me luck!

James Evans
12-13-2006, 04:02 AM
I'm feeling a little regretful that I posted this and I guess I set things out in a rather ambiguous manner. I was interested to see what people thought of the Boyle approach. I have taken a lot of good stuff from his book and the articles he has written.

Dan correctly points out that Boyle responds as comment #152. This is immediately followed by someone defending Mark Twight (ironically) and maybe two more posts. When I first wrote this, the day after, there were only 151 comments and the last one was by Coach Glassman. From what I have read of Mike Boyle his post does not surprise me. Thoughtful and courteous. I wouldn't have bothered to step in.

As has been said above, Boyle trains professional athletes. If an athlete is injured while training, you are looking at a business consideration. You reconsider who you employ as a strength and conditioning coach. In Rugby Union too many players are injured while training. That is utterly inexcusable. Boyle has developed his own system of training, Glassman his, and of course so have Mark Twight, Dan John, Robb Wolf etc. All based upon experience and all subject to change as experience progresses.

From my point of view I like the approach to single leg training Boyle employs. I very really have access to squat racks and am normally reliant on dbs, step-ups etc. to train my legs. His ideas are useful to me because I have other requirements than that which he intends. But I have no desire to master pistols on a whoopee cushion. Furthermore, like Steve, I don't have the aversion to benching that many "functional" guys have. Press ups with torso rotation on a Reebok core board is a stage of evolution I can live without. Suddenly Boyle becomes a bad coach? No. Read his stuff on warming up. Very good.

I read Robb say that he didn't like standing lunges much. He may have changed his mind, I don't know, but it rang true with me. I've never felt particularly stable while doing them and certainly will avoid anything like jumping lunges. Still, lots of people do them. Good for them.

I hurt my lower back about a year ago. When I eventually got to see a physio it had eased a lot and I was training again. She asked me when it hurt and I replied that overhead squats were a little uncomfortable. She looked at me in horror and said "well I don't think you should be doing those."
So started a tedious professional relationship. She thinks I'm a lunatic. I think she's an idiot. We're probably both right to degree but I'm trying (struggling) to find some middle ground and guess she is as well. If I ever told her my full theories on training she'd collapse in a fit.

Let's consider the issue of high rep Olympic lifts. Boyle made a very simple statement and whole universes have been inferred from it. What constitutes high reps? I remember a workout described on the CrossFit message board:

10 Power cleans @ 60kg
15 Press ups

5 rounds

This was aimed as a test for MMA guys and the mark was sub 5 mins. Someone mentioned that they had referred to this on another board and had been berated with "why the **** do you want to do high rep cleans?".

Are we talking about 10, 15, 21, 50 reps? What weight are we talking about? This has all been covered to exhausting lengths. Workouts are set for different aims. I've done 150 clean and presses at 50kg and felt fine. Thanks to Mark Twight I've done 208 deadlifts @ 208lbs and felt appalling (see definition of SMMF at www.gymjones.com - I won't be doing that again in a long time.) Mike Boyle's aims are different to those of Greg Glassman's, and Glassman's are different to Mark Twight's.

Incidentally, the last time I attempted the above clean/press up workout, I got a severe headache after only 4 cleans. So severe I was sent to hospital with a suspected subarachnoid haemorrhage. I'm ok now but still unsure as to why the headache happened. I'm also a little reluctant to push the buttons much at the moment. Lumbar punctures can do that to you.

One area I would like to finish with is the conditions in which people train, something I think has as much pertinence as the exercises which they perform. CrossFit is for the most part correspondence training and this is a fantastic element of the movement. However, many of those who train at home or even at a private gym have never been coached, have never been supervised, are self taught in the basic exercises. For every person who asks "what is a back squat?" on Comments, how many more don't have a clue, don't ask and just have a go? This can obviously be dangerous. I realise that scalability is hammered home all the time, as is form but people do pile in and do stupid **** (see 208 deadlifts @ 208lbs above).

Now I believe you don't push yourself as hard when you train on your own and that suits me to some degrees. I tend to work myself over more when I train with others because I become competitive. That's normally when I hurt myself. However, you don't have the scrutiny applied to you that a professional athlete under Mike Boyle or a client at CrossFit Santa Cruz enjoys every time they work out. Bad habits become ingrained. Form drops when you're tired and no one is watching. You've over estimated what you should lift for a workout and there's no one to say "come on, back off a little."

In the Royal Marines, doctors have to constantly monitor the potential officer recruits to make sure that they are not training through injuries. It has not been uncommon for guys to attempt the final selection tests with stress fractures. I've seen players in Rugby League, a sport which avoids much contact work off the field, take to the pitch off their heads with pain killers to mask their injuries. Thankfully this practice has been banned now. There's being a hard man and there's being a wingnut.

Ok, these are two very extreme examples but I'm trying to convey the idea that many of us don't have the protective cushioning of organised coaching or even a governing body who say: "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!". Perhaps it would do a lot of garage athletes some good to think about that, to go out and get some Olympic coaching, watch some decent videos, read more of what Dan, Robb, Rip, Steve, even Mike Boyle have to say.

Right, I'm off to do a 1000 Moldavian Fanny Hammers for time. Sorry for wasting your time.

Steve Shafley
12-13-2006, 05:35 AM
Yeah, Rugby and Soccer are the next two sports that need a serious S&C revolution.

Ironically, both rugby and soccer S&C, when done correctly, can look a lot like XF. I'd have more lifting for rugby forwards, though.

So many rugby teams follow what teams like the NZ All Blacks perform for S&C, without taking into consideration that the islander blood is loaded with fast twitch genes, and that these folks NEED more conditioning, as opposed to the white European genotypes.

James Evans
12-13-2006, 06:10 AM
Steve,

I could talk to you all day about that subject.

Mike ODonnell
12-13-2006, 06:19 AM
Anyone ever read the book "ProBodX" from Marv Mirinovich? Now that was some weird training stuff he wanted all the pro's doing. Never using over 20lbs....and I still think he does train some pros.

Yael, let's just say I'd rather have the $5mil and skills if it came along with the 3 pullup ability! lt's easier to learn pullups than make my hands work better at shooting.

Danny John
12-13-2006, 07:31 AM
I have to comment on this:

"If you start out with a medicine ball or broomstick, and move up over the course of several years to a 135 lb. bar, with a competent coach giving you feedback on technique, I find it hard to believe that this will lead to many injuries."

My first workout with Dick Notmeyer...after I saw Pete Hoffman do the snatch...I snatched 135 and finished with 165 that day. Three weeks later, in my first meet I snatched 187. I had just turned 18 and weighed...when I met Dick 162ish and ended up at 202 four months later. Obviously, I needed some legs under me.

This is EXACTLY what drives me crazy about this discussion. I have given three or four clinics to this community in question and I have had grown men tell me that their "PR" in the snatch is 85 pounds (funny...the workouts call for 95...or more) and it turns out after an hours work they can snatch 165...more if we could meet three times a week for two weeks.

If you define "fitness" in a way that supports how you train, you get to measure fitness in a way that supports how you train.

I have always defined "fitness" from Maffetone's excellent definition: the ability to do a task. Nothing else.

So, you are complete tool if you can't throw the discus (the two kilo international discus) over 160 feet. Why? Because, from now on...that is the danjohn standard for fitness. Cuz I said so.

Strength Coaches...the real ones, like Ethan Reeve...are FORCED to use measurements like this: he has two punters in the NFL right now. Both cleaned over 300 at Wake Forest. Now, maybe these two punters can't do a bunch of kipping pullups or have a lousy time in Edna, but they are measured by a task: punting. Reeve helped them on this journey.

I saw this "he said/she said" post at that site and I continued to read. There was a point made about "how many NFL, NHL, blah blah blah guys" and how it has no meaning. Well, if like Ralph Maughan, I take four high school kids and train them up to being on the Olympic team...my methods work.

I point this out all the time...like when I read that so and so "coached" 400 Olympians. As of this day, no one I know has ever used high rep Olympic lifting...or Concept II rowers...to make the Olympic team in the discus. I would be interested to see the other events take on this, too.

And there is the crux of my issue: those of us who live in the world of Sports Performance have a very short shelf life...if a program isn't working...it isn't working.

Listen: it isn't an issue with me. I had a roomful of kids last night snatching 8 sets of 3 with most around the mid-100s. We also pulled sleds and did some other stuff and made progress. Our football program went 10-2 and we just got "over humanned" in the second round of playoffs...you can't be the smallest school in 3A by 300 students and not get exposed somewhere...

I just get tired of a monthly attack on people on those massively CCed drunkemails. Also, on the thread in question...and in other places...guys "threatening to take a drive up" and physically deal with it. Stop it. Recess is over.

Billy_Brummel
12-13-2006, 08:11 AM
Anyone ever read the book "ProBodX" from Marv Mirinovich? Now that was some weird training stuff he wanted all the pro's doing. Never using over 20lbs....and I still think he does train some pros.

Mike,

I trained with Marv for a little while a couple years ago. Some very different stuff. He trains Jason Seahorn(NFL turned model) and Steve Finley (MLB) and some various minor leaguers now.

Russell Greene
12-13-2006, 09:54 AM
"I have to comment on this:

"If you start out with a medicine ball or broomstick, and move up over the course of several years to a 135 lb. bar, with a competent coach giving you feedback on technique, I find it hard to believe that this will lead to many injuries."

This is EXACTLY what drives me crazy about this discussion. I have given three or four clinics to this community in question and I have had grown men tell me that their "PR" in the snatch is 85 pounds (funny...the workouts call for 95...or more) and it turns out after an hours work they can snatch 165...more if we could meet three times a week for two weeks."

I was not saying that it would take that long to lift 135 once, I was suggesting it may take that long to train somebody to lift that much with good form, safely, for 30 reps at a pace fast enough to be difficult metabolic conditioning, say under 4 minutes. Obviously someone capable of that will have a much much higher max than 135.

I don't think it's very surprising that many crossfitters who train on their own are incapable of olympic lifting very much. The vast majority people I meet outside of the gym don't know how to air squat correctly, let alone snatch. It may not be unreasonable to expect someone to learn to olympic lift well on without an olympic weightlifting coach, but it certainly is uncommon. Check out the local high school or even college football team's weight room for corroboration.

"If you define "fitness" in a way that supports how you train, you get to measure fitness in a way that supports how you train.

I have always defined "fitness" from Maffetone's excellent definition: the ability to do a task. Nothing else.

So, you are complete tool if you can't throw the discus (the two kilo international discus) over 160 feet. Why? Because, from now on...that is the danjohn standard for fitness. Cuz I said so."

It is clear that fitness is a normative concept. That is, it is up to the individual to decide which definition he prefers or which makes the most sense to him. But I do think that in the future it will be empirically shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone who can competently olympic lift, do gymnastics, run fast, and do high intensity mixed modality metabolic conditioning will have an excellent base of overall fitness and thus be miles ahead of his jogging, benching, and bosu ball competition in most if not all sports. And that general level of fitness is certainly worth training for, and worth measuring through a series of quantitative workouts or fitness tests. Does anyone disagree? If not, where has Crossfit gone wrong in pursuit of this goal? Too much metabolic conditioning? Not enough skill emphasis? Not enough heavy lifting?

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about what bad manners Greg Glassman has on other boards or emails on this board. It is not relevant to the fitness discussion here. Whether or not somebody is well-behaved has no logical bearing on whether his ideas have merit.

Mike ODonnell
12-13-2006, 10:27 AM
I have to comment on this:
So, you are complete tool if you can't throw the discus (the two kilo international discus) over 160 feet. Why? Because, from now on...that is the danjohn standard for fitness. Cuz I said so. .

Yep...it's official now...I am a Tool. lol

Good points from all sides....I like to think it's a simple answer, you train for what you need to do and no one way is the right way. Training programs are good...strict unbending philosophies can be bad.

Danny John
12-13-2006, 11:32 AM
Not once, not once did I mention a name.

Frank Herbert said it best in "Dune:" I cut a piece of cloth and you made a suit of it.

Danny John
12-13-2006, 12:10 PM
And that general level of fitness is certainly worth training for, and worth measuring through a series of quantitative workouts or fitness tests. Does anyone disagree? If not, where has Crossfit gone wrong in pursuit of this goal? Too much metabolic conditioning? Not enough skill emphasis? Not enough heavy lifting?

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about what bad manners Greg Glassman has on other boards or emails on this board. It is not relevant to the fitness discussion here. Whether or not somebody is well-behaved has no logical bearing on whether his ideas have merit.

Long before the internet, I gave a series of workshops in which I stated my two rules:

1. Everything works...for a while.
2. Specificity works...at a price.

So, yes general conditioning works...then it doesn't. And Specificity (discus throwing is wonderful)...until you get hurt from overuse stuff. So...

Listen, I was just yanking your chain on a lot of this. It's actually amazing to me that I even give a shit about this, but I do. I only do because I keep getting brought back into this from emails.

On someone's bad behavior...hmmm. Let me think it over. You see, I think it does. One of the knocks on me is that I write for people who sell supplements. My ideas about loaded carries and lifting followed by sprints are suspect because a place I write for sells protein.

Danny John
12-13-2006, 12:23 PM
I've been realizing lately that in order to get something, you have to give something up. Our lives our completely full right with whatever we've decided to fill them with now, so in order to add anything, something's gotta go. In some instances what has to go is TV time, or junk food, but in more advanced athletes its often not necessarily "bad" stuff. For example, the guy I'm mentioned above isn't doing snatches, or cleans, or tabata thrusters, or gymnastics work on the rings. Why not? They're good exercises right? Of course they are. Problem is, he's doing loads of work outside of the gym already, so everything except the bare essentials had to go. I get him in the gym for thirty minutes, we get what needs to get done, and he's out. He's not sore and immobile for days, he's not spending hours in the weight room, he just gets what he needs and is out.

Another example of this principle is my own training this summer. When I was creating my training program I thought about my weaknesses. I decided as a goal to clean and jerk 225 for reps, which I knew would give me more than enough strength to manhandle most of the Crossfit workouts. My endurance is already mostly in place, so I knew I wouldn't have to emphasize it. As soon as I came up with that goal of clean and jerking 225 for reps, I thought, what am I going to have to give up in order to get it? For one, I made the first day of every 4 day training cycle heavy lifting day. No metabolic conditioning, no gymnastics, just heavy ass weights. Secondly, I knew that my pulling was not my weakness here. At the time my power clean was a decent 225 lbs. and my jerk was a pathetic 185 lbs. Thus I created a lifting program with a strong overhead and squatting emphasis with only a little bit of pulling work. I had to give up cleans in order to bring up my jerk and squat. This has worked very well so far. A few days ago I split jerked 175 for 5 sets of 2 and it was easy, whereas a month of go I doubt I could have managed one set of two at that weight.

In short, you can have it all, but only if you're willing to give something up. I've noticed that unless I'm willing to focus on training my weak points by giving something less important up, I make no progress at all on Crossfit. Even with a completely generalized goal, specialization and thus sacrifice, is required.


Russ, I thought this was brilliant when you wrote it. I kept it. I think that is the point.

Again, on that other thing...you might not know the extent of all of it...

Ron Nelson
12-13-2006, 02:44 PM
But, he did:

People have asked me to speak so I will. To address a few points
1- It amazes me how people can turn idealogy person. I don't feel I have a big ego and don't consider myself a capitalist. I paid my own way to the SOMA Conference to sit on a panel and provide an opinion. I did that and fully expected to be asked the "CrossFit" question. I gave my opinion. I don't like high rep olympic lifting and particularly dislike it for those who are not good at it. There are better ways to work hard and develop muscle endurance.
2- I sat next to Mark Twight. I had a good conversation with him and exchanged emails. I don't believe any comments were directed at Mark. Hopefully if he reads this board he can address this himself.
3- My athletes regularly use olympic lifts. We hang clean, snatch and dumbell snatch. I have written articles on teaching olympic lifts and have produced a video on the same. We rarely do more than 5 reps. I use olympic lifts for power and other methods for endurance.
4-I train kids and adults as well as professional athletes.
I have no interest in making money off the military and have no issue with the people at CrossFit. That being said, I stand by original comments.

Thanks
Michael

Comment #152 - Posted by Michael Boyle at December 12, 2006 08:50 AM

I posted a comment on that day, but would edit one statement if I could. I made a comment that degrading one system to promote another is bullshit of the purest form, which it is. Unfortunately, I made that statement based on what someone told somebody else that this guy said something about another GPP program. You get the point. Had Mr. Boyle posted this before my post, my comment would not have seen the light of day.

My comment may have been a truism, but it was made regarding 2nd, 3rd, perhaps 10th hand knowledge which is not my style at all (not that I'd expect anyone to know this). That is why I regret that part of my post and, if I could, would gladly edit it out.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Boyle did not get in the mud on this one.

Robb Wolf
12-13-2006, 02:49 PM
Wow!
This thing has taken off! First, I think Mike Boyle showed some serious class in his response. Concise, to the point, take it or leave it. When you start trying to sell someone on something to the point of name-calling and public executions this is where things take a turn from “fitness program” to “movement” to “cult”.

Loads of things I wanted to comment on. Regarding the ability of CF to “Home Brew” an elite athlete…the person either comes to the party with the engine or you need to take the time to build it. The front page WOD has shifted stunningly in the past year since Rutman’s ME-Black Box piece. Compare some Oct ’06 programming with Oct ’01, 02, 03…you are not going to build a strength base with that previous programming. I had my head up my hoo-ha on this issue and could have been further down the road. Rut asked me what I thought of the combined template and I thought it was unnecessary as I was making progress nearly daily on straight WOD, front page programming. I also had a good gymnastics, PL’g and OL background. I was seriously wrong, but observing the progress, or lack thereof in our clients opened my eyes. People got some stronger, certainly better cardio/metcon, but nothing impressive. Now that folks O-lift, do weighted pull-ups and the like we are building some intermediate to high-level athletes from scratch.

One of the big eye openers for me was when Ido had one of his students come to stay with us for a few months. She came from a background of heavy low rep strength work, Olifts, gymnastics, Capoeira and boxing. She was at the top of the heap on ALL of the CF WOD’s the first time she tried them. She had multiple muscle ups, HSPU’s solid DL and squat numbers…and could do metcons like 130 back flips for time. According to Coach Glassmans definition of fitness ala CrossFit, Ido and his folks are MORE fit. Why? Due largely to their strength base and “metcon” from boxing and capoeira intervals. That floored me and Ido has been fighting the good fight trying to keep me focused for nearly two years now. Sorry if this is meandering a bit, loads of ideas going on.

Back to the Boyle question. Off base? He recommends Olifts for strength/power and “other methods” for endurance. To my knowledge Poliquin employs similar methods. Poliquin has a boatload of Olympic medallists he works with. Boyle has a pretty impressive client list. To my knowledge CrossFit has produced NO Olympic medallists. If I’m wrong about this I’m confident I’ll be set straight. I think some Crossfitters may have won the PanAm’s and Mundials in BJJ. Good stuff. But if one makes the claim of “The Fittest” I think it important to use something other than the progress of military trainees doing CF vs standard PT as the gold standard. Who would think that long slow running, push-ups, sit ups, flutter kicks, ruck marches would produce the best fitness? Of course KB’s, Olifts, gymnastics and INTENSITY will elevate the games of these folks. I’ve said elsewhere that I think the fitness CF produces is likely the best for health there is…but this is far different than claiming the ultimate system for athletic greatness.

Lets take a look at the new CrossFit total. Squat, DL, Press. How do you recommend attacking this? What is your best route to improving this total so, as Coach Glassman asserts, overall CF performance will improve? Some strength work….then some metcon in the same day? One day of strength work, one day of metcon? Or something like several months of strength work followed by a shift towards metcons…with a small peppering of strength work to maintain strength during the strength endurance phase…then a shift back to strength work, possibly Conjugate methods, some Olift derivatives for rate of force development. Hmm. Looks remarkably like modern periodization with the emphasis being a stud strength/endurance athlete. This would be a phenomenal CrossFit Journal topic: How to optimize CrossFit-One year of Periodized progressions.

What is my point to all this? It’s nothing new. Most folks in S&C understand:
1) Strength endurance is predicated on strength.
2) It requires only a small amount of strength work to maintain a high degree of strength.

CrossFit is defined as “A strength & conditioning program built on constantly varied if not randomized functional movements, performed at high intensity”. I contend that the constant variation is detrimental to overall development and that some measure of planning, specifically of strength work, will produce the best results, by the standards of fitness CF lays out. I’m not sure if that tweak entitles me to the intellectual property of a program like I outlined above but it is interesting. Oh, but wait…Ross Enamait has already put forward programming like that. I wonder if he will mind co-patenting this with me.

CrossFit is phenomenal for increasing work capacity and, if done smart, unparalled in staving off fatigue at high work output. Increasing volume of work up to the point of failure again and again enhances substrate storage and improves subsequent efforts. Again, nothing new…that’s in the supposedly archaic NSCA CSCS manual.

I’m starting to wander here but I’ll wrap up with this. Coach Glassman has asserted that if you take a given group of people doing CF and folks doing another system and compare them head to head, the Crossfitters will come out ahead. Here is a study I’d love to see, and since CrossFit Inc. is seeing such explosive market share they could easily fund it. Three groups of people age, gender height, weight matched and a baseline of fitness established by a long list of standards (CF WOD’s, max efforts, runs…you name it). Standard scientific practice is used in data collection. The groups would be trained as follows:
Group 1- Standard randomized CF WODS chosen from the previous 4 years of offerings from crossfit.com. Everyone eats Zone. Rationale? CF does not change programs for various athletes (from the Foundations I believe) and the Zone. What more is there to elite nutrition after all?
Group 2- Periodized program with strength emphasis. Individual loading is closely monitored and cycles between blocks of strength work, power work and metcons. Nutrition is monitored daily, as is sleep, and various elements of recovery used to assess overreaching/overtraining. Rationale? A structured strength base will produce a better strength endurance athlete.
Group 3-Jazercise. Just for kicks.

I’m confident Group 2 wins out. I’m also confident group 3 gets beat up a lot.

This may sound like a bunch of armchair pontificating but not only would this play out as predicted, this is what DOESS play out every day…and it was not on anyone’s radar except Michael Rutherford. Now it’s added to the mix and the new and improved, community driven program is better…but everyone outside the community, who do things differently are apparently idiots! Hmm.

My thought on high rep Olifts? I like ‘em. I use them appropriately however. I have a client pushing 400lbs and not even the super accessible medball clean is going to work. He rows, walks, frequently with a sled and that is about it. His squat form is abysmal and I’m nervous about blowing out his knees. He does what he can and I keep it simple. He makes progress. Yippee. I think these points of contention are interesting but can be taken to extremes IMO.

Ron Nelson
12-13-2006, 03:29 PM
Robb,
I wish you wouldn't veil your thoughts in double entendre and innuendo. Just tell us how you really feel.

Having dropped out of the CF community for quite some time, I was surprised to see the amount of ME work appear. The one reason I stopped doing the WOD for so long was to build my strength foundation using a couple of different programs. Result? Better performance on some of the benchmark WOD's that called for strength. My Helen sucked before, became shit after (using Dave Tate terms), but I can live with that.

By the way, I'll volunteer for the over 40 portion of group 2 in your study if you write my Paleo menu each day. Like Dan, I have to be told what to do if I'm going to do it. I'm eating an apple right now; that's paleo isn't it?

As far as the Boyle thing goes, I said it in my post on the CF site; I agree with his stance on back squats (probably because my front squat is better than my back squat) but like barbell deadlifts better than single-let DL's. I also said he tends to piss off a lot of people in the S&C community (just look at his last T-Mag article). I guess you can add the CF community to his list.

Again, nice ramble Mr. Wolff.;)

Robb Wolf
12-13-2006, 03:35 PM
Thanks Ron, it was a ramble. Other folks, youself included, were much more cogent than I.

I just want to offer up some appreciation for the level of respsect in the thread. It's easy enough to express a differing point of view with out running people down. It tends to keep things a discussion and not a blood bath.

Billy_Brummel
12-13-2006, 04:03 PM
Robb,

The people on the jazzercize.com forum are really worked up about your earlier posting. You might want to do some damage control over there.

Steve Shafley
12-13-2006, 05:09 PM
Did somebody mention blood bath?

Mike ODonnell
12-13-2006, 05:56 PM
"The people on the jazzercize.com forum are really worked up about your earlier posting. You might want to do some damage control over there."

Curves sucks....just wanted to make sure we didn't leave anyone out, now the blood..or jelly stuffing from the donuts will flow.

Eva Claire Synkowski
12-13-2006, 06:46 PM
maaan, i actually went to jazzercise.com to see if they have a forum.

fyi - they dont, but you may get hooked on some of the testimonials, e.g.,
"No one worries about what you're wearing or even if you make a mistake - it's fun and it's a great stress release.

now, back to pontificating, robb. interesting read.

Robb Wolf
12-13-2006, 07:23 PM
Billy-
I was going to offer my first born as thanks for the heads up but I see i've been duped! I'll keep my eye on you and your slick Lionel Ritchie avatar...

Eva-
Do they (jazercise) appear to have any problems with....oh...say, um...working out NAKED...but around a bunch of other CLOTHED people...I'm asking for a friend who, Oh how do i put this? This person has special NEEDS...

Pierre Auge
12-13-2006, 08:20 PM
I am continuatlly amazed at how much I don't know and I gather theirs only two things I can guarantee in life...

1. There are many things I am never going to know!
2. Someday I am going to die!

I figure I better be content with that, one way or another! I am contented to have the opportunity to learn from people such as this while I have the chance!

Ron Nelson
12-13-2006, 10:04 PM
Thanks Ron, it was a ramble. Other folks, youself included, were much more cogent than I.

I just want to offer up some appreciation for the level of respsect in the thread. It's easy enough to express a differing point of view with out running people down. It tends to keep things a discussion and not a blood bath.

So what you're saying is, this forum has no business being on the internet.

Actually, I also appreciate the level of discourse on this subject in this thread. Good read all around.

Billy_Brummel
12-13-2006, 10:15 PM
Sorry to all who went over to jazzercize.com looking for the forum, didn't mean to waste your time.

But wouldn't it be awesome if they jumped into the fray??

I can see the postings on their forum:
I'd be willing to put up one of our athletes against any other system's athletes, and I'd bet that after 10 minutes of high kicks, purple spandex, and songs from the catalog of the Pointer Sisters, any other athlete would run from the room, covering their ears screaming, "Make it stop!! Make it stop!!"

Again, sorry for wasting your time.

Eva Claire Synkowski
12-14-2006, 04:53 AM
lionel - no apologies to me needed. i enjoyed falling for the diversion among the he-said, he-said posts (although, really good stuff by all!).

robb - from what i saw, they were all clothed. but dont you run your own gym? i think you just found a whole new brand of fitness.

Allen Yeh
12-14-2006, 05:14 AM
This is EXACTLY what drives me crazy about this discussion. I have given three or four clinics to this community in question and I have had grown men tell me that their "PR" in the snatch is 85 pounds (funny...the workouts call for 95...or more) and it turns out after an hours work they can snatch 165...more if we could meet three times a week for two weeks.


Hey that guy sounds familiar......

Allen Yeh
12-14-2006, 05:15 AM
Awesome post Robb, I'd take the jazzercise people though over the other 2 groups just becuase they are so "high on life!"

heh

James Evans
12-14-2006, 05:31 AM
Robb,

really enjoyed that. I was worried that this would descend into a slanging match and that was never my intention.

Now this is the trend you all need to be wary of:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=420355&in_page_id=1879

I see Paris Hilton leading an army of transvestites to CrossFit HQ for the final apocalyptic showdown.

10 daiquiris and some Scissor Sisters for time anyone?

Mike ODonnell
12-14-2006, 07:12 AM
I am continuatlly amazed at how much I don't know and I gather theirs only two things I can guarantee in life...

1. There are many things I am never going to know!
2. Someday I am going to die!



I keep it simple.....condense 2 things into 1 and say "I have no clue when I am going to die"....really free's up my day.

Scott Kustes
12-14-2006, 08:59 AM
robb - from what i saw, they were all clothed. but dont you run your own gym? i think you just found a whole new brand of fitness.
/me makes mental note: stay out of Chico.

Steve Shafley
12-14-2006, 10:21 AM
A naked gym? Right ON! Will someone hold the rope for me while I climb it?

Mike ODonnell
12-14-2006, 10:44 AM
Seinfeld said it best...there is good naked and bad naked....I think exercise naked is right there with "fixing the bike" and "hanging shelves" bad naked.

Forget the rope...how about a HSPU spot??

Ron Nelson
12-14-2006, 01:12 PM
A naked gym? Right ON! Will someone hold the rope for me while I climb it?

Two things:

First, as I used to say on the CF forum years ago, "I am only surprised that I had nothing to do with the degeneration of this thread." That is, I'm enjoying the hell out of it, just not responsible for the funnier posts.

Second, I will not spot for anyone in a naked gym with the exception of female squatters, nor will I be caught dead putting Blue Ice on Steve Shafley's back as he goes for ME in the squat.


That said, I believe my stiletto heel workout is starting. I must go.

Ken Urakawa
12-15-2006, 08:46 AM
A naked gym? Right ON! Will someone hold the rope for me while I climb it?

As long as you don't ask me to spot you on squats...

Ken Urakawa
12-15-2006, 08:47 AM
And with that, the thread descended straight into the abyss.

Robb Wolf
12-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Two things:

First, as I used to say on the CF forum years ago, "I am only surprised that I had nothing to do with the degeneration of this thread." That is, I'm enjoying the hell out of it, just not responsible for the funnier posts.

Second, I will not spot for anyone in a naked gym with the exception of female squatters, nor will I be caught dead putting Blue Ice on Steve Shafley's back as he goes for ME in the squat.


That said, I believe my stiletto heel workout is starting. I must go.

Ron-
You need to loosen up amigo. Help Steve out, he's a good look'n dude...be adventurous

Ron Nelson
12-15-2006, 06:17 PM
Only if you're chaperoning, Robb. I heard Mr. Shafley is quick for his size.

Mike ODonnell
12-15-2006, 06:20 PM
I wonder what people just looking through the PM think of threads like this?? lol

Steve Shafley
12-15-2006, 06:31 PM
Maybe once upon a time.

The Lightning Reflexes of a Three-Toed Tree Sloth.

Pierre Auge
12-16-2006, 03:41 PM
Tree Sloth's have three toes? Well you learn something new everyday!

Robb Wolf
12-18-2006, 05:23 PM
I wonder what people just looking through the PM think of threads like this?? lol
So much for our credibility!