Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Community > Community & Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2011, 08:26 AM   #2321
Pat McElhone
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Walls View Post
Isn't that Brian Clay about to bench more than a lot of people probably deadlift?
and I bet he has never heard of "Linda".
__________________
Training Log
Pat McElhone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:28 AM   #2322
Andrew Wilson
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 1,140
Default

Just recieved Crossfit Rhabdo 218 in a PM, from an affiliate owner that did "Nicole"
Andrew Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 09:28 AM   #2323
Justin Arnold
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 102
Default

now THAT is ironic.

but then again maybe not.. given the climate at HQ.
Justin Arnold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 09:55 AM   #2324
Shane Skowron
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Z. Smith View Post
Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm
Shane Skowron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 10:59 AM   #2325
Russell Crosswy
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm

I would imagine a logical fallacy class would have a field day with using Greg Glassman videos for examples of different logical fallacies.
Russell Crosswy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 11:40 AM   #2326
Tom Seryak
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 29
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm
i saw a guy running on a trail at the metropark yesterday. he stopped at the overlook to do some incline push-ups on the bench. he must be a crossfitter
Tom Seryak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 12:43 PM   #2327
Derek Weaver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,642
Default

It may be annoying, but it still looks like.... 335?

That's not Bryan Clay is it?

edit:
That apparently is Bryan Clay.
__________________
Quote:
And if you don't think kettleball squat cleans are difficult, I say, step up to the med-ball
- CJ Kim
Derek Weaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 12:53 PM   #2328
Corey Kissel
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 76
Default

http://www.vimeo.com/27423280

Discuss.
Corey Kissel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 01:04 PM   #2329
Corey Kissel
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Skowron View Post
Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

There's so much pseudo-logic and arrogance going on in this video. What's most ironic is that Glassman tells the guy "you're getting really non-science here." What a jerk.

I wish I had been in that audience. The guy who asked the questions started out by making some good points but I think he got intimidated and couldn't really point out GG's fallacious argument. The whole concept of "constantly varied functional movement at high intensity" is "big" because there is no limit to what is considered varied. If I picked a functional movement (squats), and I did it at high intensity (near max effort) every day, but I changed the weights and reps, then it is still constantly varied, isn't it? So that's Crossfit.
If it's not, then there must be a frequency of repetition by which something is "not varied" enough. Maybe it's such that you can't do the same exercises two days in a row to be considered Crossfit. Oh wait, they've done that on crossfit.com too.

And yes, Glassman, definitions can be big. It's actually a logical fallacy:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/broad.htm
Yep, this video totally did it in for me. It was this very video that put me over the top for the whole CF mantra and no one wanted to continue the discussion as you can tell.

I'm the last comment on the thread, I'll just post what I said so you guys can find the posts that make this video look like a joke.

"This issue still remains unresolved in my mind, the number of posts above that have questioned the broad all-inclusive definition still leave my explanation contradictory when classifying what is and isn't "CrossFit."

The CrossFit Journal and mainsite have provided me with more knowledge about fitness than I could have ever dreamed of during my undergraduate study in strength and conditioning. I have nothing but great things to say about the contributions that have been and are continuing to be made on a daily basis by HQ and affiliates.

That being said, I can not see how CVFMHI is an appropriate description for what constitutes "CrossFit" for reasons such as post number 27, 44, 45, 53, 57, 64, 65, all posts from Matt Solomon...etc. Also of interest would be to what degree "broad time and modal domains" are "CrossFit" (i.e. how broad, which modes - in which case the modes can not be defined as functional movements for reasons such as the previously posted non-functional movements being utilized to improve functional movement capacity)

I hope we can share some more insight and perspectives to continue this discussion." - Me

I acted as inferior and willing to learn as I could have possibly been, and maybe too much caused it to seem like sarcasm which defeated the purpose, but that post was over 3 months ago and not a single one of those questions are answered in any of the responses before mine. All of Budding's arguments are circular. GG is so ridiculously into himself in that video it makes me sick. "This isn't our first rodeo, you know." You would think after lecturing hundreds of times he could actually define his own terms, but he fails to do so. I think I remember him saying that defnitions are amenable blah blah and blah, the very essence of CF is yet to be defined...
Corey Kissel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 01:08 PM   #2330
Corey Kissel
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 76
Default

Yeah, he said "I don't think definitions have magnitude, they're not big or little, but they're amenable to precise and accurate estimation.".

Seems paradoxical to me.
Corey Kissel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator