Part of this is that I think people are using different ideas of what CrossFit "is." And, part of that problem is that it can be interpreted as many different things. You can consider it a specific workout program (the main page WODs as prescribed), a set of different workout programs (including CFFB and CFE), a set of principles (which I outlined awhile ago), or even a sport in itself (the CF Games). I tried to make it clear what I was talking about by not mentioning the word "CrossFit" and instead using WCABTAMD.
As far as the last page, I was talking about CF as a sport in itself. If you don't want to call it a "sport" (which is defined as "Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively"), then it is an attempt to measure who has the highest WCABTAMD.
I'm not arguing that all athletes should follow the main site CF. I think it's a pretty good (albeit not optimal) set of background training principles for MMA athletes and people with goals very close to increased WCABTAMD. Other than that, if you very broadly interpret the principles (I outlined these several pages ago), they're pretty good for many different sports (i.e. Everett's WODs are what I would consider a very broad interpretation of CF principles and applying them to Olympic Weightlifting).
Quote:
|
compete in CrossFit (people who pursue CrossFit as their sport, "specializing" in the movements and "modal domains" that CrossFit prioritizes)
|
Hmm, this almost worked for me, but if the CF competitions were done "right" the modal domains in the games would be very unpredictable.
Emily -- I don't know what you are trying to argue here. I have not claimed that maximizing WCABTAMD is the answer to improving your powerlifting total or 100m dash. I also don't see how you think the concept of increasing WCABTAMD is "uselessly broad" or "effectively useless."
Some of this you just might have tried so hard not to be "brainwashed" that you avoided reading about the concept.
Quote:
|
What time and modal domains?
|
The totality of them. It's supposed to be broad. That's the point. A modal domain is like a way of moving, or an exercise. A modal domain could be to skip 100m, to run 100m, to run backward 100m, etc, etc. You want to maximize the totality of the possible modal domains.
Quote:
|
How do you define work capacity?
|
(Ability to generate) Power. Power = Work / Time...
Quote:
|
What the hell are time and modal domains, anyway?
|
I explained modal domains above. Broad time domains would be the range ofpossibe times. So anywhere from less than 1 second to over 5 hours.
Quote:
|
In what way are you improving and how quickly? Everything is improving, forever?
|
That is obviously up to you. Greg Everett talks in Plandomization at focusing on specific areas while doing just enough of the rest to maintain your abilities.
Honestly, no offense, but I don't think you are grasping the concept. Either that, or you think I'm arguing for something I'm not.
Part of this is a kinda abstract, i.e. "how many points in time are between 1 second and 10 seconds?" But, if you think abstractly, I think it's a cool thing to compete in. In very basic terms, it's like a contest to be the best, overall, at everything from running a marathon as fast as possible to clean & jerking the max weight. The main site of CF has one program for maximizing WCOBTAMD. Everett takes a diferent approach, which I like more.
The biggest problem to me is that after Glassman thought of such a cool concept and the idea of competing to see who has the highest WCOBTAMD, his competitions were not great measurements.
Quote:
|
CF makes you great at CF, it makes you good at any one specific task. ... Specificity will eventually win out over non-specialization when it comes to competition unless you build the competition around the construct of anything goes.
|
??? If this is what you and Emily are arguing, you aren't arguing with anyone.
Quote:
|
what I'm saying is that there isn't a single substantive element of CF that hasn't been part of the physical culturist idea since the pre-steroid bodybuilding era.
|
I don't really care that much about whether CF came up with something new or not, but if this is your line of thinking, then has anyone come out with anything new?
Can you show me any pre-1960s programs that: (a) employed the ordinary concurent method, (b) mixed running/rowing, gymnastics, and weightlifting in highly-intense cardio circuits, (c) performed highly varied 1-5 rep max work about 3 of every 12 days, and (d) randomized their workouts?
I mean, yeah, if you broaden things like crazy then all this stuff was around forever. AFAIK people lifted external objects, ran, and did bodyweight movements about 2500 years ago. In that sense, nobody has come up with anything new since then.
Quote:
|
It's pretty varied, but it's all very much biased towards strength (you wouldn't see a 5k run in the WSM) and there are a number of very common events you can expect to see (eg. Atlas stones).
|
I hope you don't interpret this the wrong way, but if this is your stance then you're just missing the point, too. WSM is centered on "strength" and can potentially have any set of events to test that. If WSM started to pick specific events, then it would not be a contest of who is the strongest, but instead who is the best at Atlas Stones, or deadlift, or log press, or whatever.
I really don't see how you can say the random WSM events make a legitimate sport, but CF events (which aim to test WCABTAMD) do not make a legitimate sport.