For many years Dave Castro kept our sport in a clear, linear progression, and the evolution of our sport was astounding. Compare the clean event of the 2012 Games to the clean event of the 2019 Games. Everyone was getting stronger, running faster, swimming more fluidly, climbing longer ropes without legs, and the sport continually produced more astounding athletes. I remember a CrossFit video where Justin Bergh said, “In the future, everyone will have 400-pound clean and jerks and run sub 5 minute miles.” And it seemed we were headed there.
I’m not saying that every competition was perfect, but we all seemed to be on the same page of what was being tested and where the sport was headed. I’m not so sure anymore. New emphasis has been placed on being able to adapt to new niche skills. When Tia-Clair Toomey trips on a single-under, is that really a reflection of her fitness? Is that what we are trying to test? Is that a part of forging elite fitness?
Last year during the CrossFit Games we saw some new movements pop up with single-unders and double-under crossovers. Then again during this year’s Quarterfinals we saw crossovers. These additions have had polarizing reactions to say the least. On one end of the spectrum there is the “stick to CrossFit”; “these have no place in competition”; “this is a movement for school children.” On the other end of the spectrum there is the “this is totally CrossFit”; “these fit within the 10 general skills of fitness”; “you just don’t understand CrossFit methodology.”
So which is it?
As many have pointed out these movements do fit within the 10 general skills of fitness. These general skills, as Glassman points out, have been widely recognized by exercise physiologists. One note here; these were not created by CrossFit.
10 General Skills of Fitness
Cardiovascular Endurance
Strength
Stamina
Flexibility
Power
Speed
Coordination
Agility
Balance
Accuracy
Glassman in the article, “What is Fitness?” described a hopper with an infinite number of movements.
“The essence of this model is the view that fitness is about performing well at any and every task imaginable. Picture a hopper loaded with an infinite number of physical challenges, where no selective mechanism is operative, and being asked to perform feats randomly drawn from the hopper. This model suggests that your fitness can be measured by your capacity to perform well at these tasks in relation to other individuals.”
It would be pretty tough to argue that any of these new movements are not CrossFit. But herein lies the problem. What movement wouldn’t be described as ‘CrossFit’? By this definition, juggling, archery, dancing, surfing, skateboarding and acrobatics would all be considered CrossFit. In fact, in this very article Glassman describes dancing and yoga as integral parts of gymnastics. Salsa dancing in the team competition, anyone? Technically it would be CrossFit.
I’ve heard multiple pundits say “Everything is CrossFit.” This is congruent with the ideas Glassman presents. However, if everything is CrossFit, how do you determine what makes a worthwhile test at the CrossFit Games? If all we have are the 10 general skills and a hopper with infinite movements, the Games could literally go in any direction. Defending the programming with these principles alone, you have no way to limit what is tested at the Games.
Perhaps “Is it CrossFit?” and “Is it a good test to find the fittest?” are two completed separate questions.
Could there be a limiting principle that defines whether a skill, movement or workout is a good test? I believe Glassman provides us with a simple elegant principle.
“Our fitness, being ‘CrossFit’, comes through molding men and women that are equal parts gymnast, Olympic weightlifter and multi-modal sprinter or “sprint athlete.” Develop the capacity of a novice 800-meter track athlete, gymnast and weightlifter and you will be fitter than any world-class runner, gymnast or weightlifter. Let us look at how CrossFit incorporates metabolic conditioning (“cardio”), gymnastics and weightlifting to forge the world’s fittest men and women.”
Broad capacity is the separation our sport requires. That capacity exists in the three domains of gymnastics, weightlifting, and metabolic conditioning. I think the simple principle we can apply for determining a worthwhile test is, “Does it require elite levels of capacity?” As Glassman says, capacity within metabolic conditioning, gymnastics, and weightlifting forge’s the world’s fittest men and women. This was the clear direction that Dave Castro’s programming was taking us. By and large the programming asked athletes to be as strong as possible while sacrificing none of their gymnastic, athletic, or metabolic capacity.
There is more in the article to create a more nuanced principle for creating a broad and inclusive test. Glassman describes how the 10 different general skills are developed.
“Importantly, improvements in endurance, stamina, strength and flexibility come about through training. Training refers to activity that improves performance through a measurable organic change in the body. By contrast, improvements in coordination, agility, balance and accuracy come about through practice. Practice refers to activity that improves performance through changes in the nervous system. Power and speed are adaptations of both training and practice.”
Glassman draws a distinction between practice and training when it comes to developing the ten general skills of fitness and keep in mind these ten skills did not come from CrossFit. Some require training and others require practice. Most movements we see in CrossFit competition require copious amounts of training and practice. I believe we create a bad test when competitions utilize skills that require only practice without developing a significant level of capacity in weightlifting, gymnastics, and metabolic conditioning.
If someone who had never trained and developed capacity in these three domains, could beat the best of the best at the CrossFit games because they had practiced and developed the requisite changes to the nervous system to perform a niche skill well, it’s probably not a good test. Our athletes train in ways I can never imagine to develop unheard of levels of capacity. It doesn’t seem wise to select movements that require only practice and no training to be competitive.
It’s a limited test that claims to crown the fittest human alive. Things have to be left out. Things that are as much CrossFit as the thruster and the burpee. And if things must be left out, what is included becomes that much more important. CrossFit as a methodology and CrossFit as a test to determine the fittest person alive needs to have some differences.
The need for a limiting principle is clear. I believe Coach Glassman provides us with one in his article “What is Fitness?” We want to test to find the broadest capacity across metabolic conditioning, gymnastics, and weightlifting. These movements are expressed through the most functional movement patterns needed for survival in the primal sense. Of course many of these movements require skills to be developed through the practice of coordination, agility, and accuracy. But, this should be in conjunction with capacity developed through training.
Are these new niche skills CrossFit? Without a doubt. Are they a good test to crown the fittest people alive in a limited format? It’s hard for me to see why they are necessary.
These athletes rip their hearts out so that we can marvel when Dani Speegle hoists a 250lb sandbag to her shoulder or watch in awe as Alexis Raptis dominates at a new handstand push up variation, or when Roman Khrennikov annihilates a ski erg. We also get to see the limits of their capacity tested as we watched many athletes struggle to carry the Husafell Strongman Bag up the final flight of stairs in the Capitol. Do we really need to watch them stand there in frustration because they didn’t practice a niche skill that has nothing to do with their capacity developed through the most grueling training?
I worry that this push towards testing niche skills has stunted the progression of our sport. It obfuscates the nature of what we are testing and brings into question the legitimacy of the test itself. We need a limiting principle, and we need to get back on the track of forging elite fitness.
If this limiting principle doesn’t work for you, what would? Or do you feel we have no need for one? And how will you feel if a perennial games athlete misses the Games because a new skill is programmed at Semifinals? I don’t think this is a good direction for the sport, but what do you think?
