The couch thread

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux


KingSchmaltzBagelHour
Top
Posts: 1620
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:57 am

Re: The couch thread

Post by KingSchmaltzBagelHour »

I agree that Glassman is looking more and more like Artie, but he probably won't try to off himself.
:Hangman: :Hangman: :Hangman:
And Artie is funny on purpose.

User avatar

WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by WildGorillaMan »

Certain concerned citizens who shall remain nameless updated the @fit wikipedia entry, and it remained extant for almost a week before it was changed back and the responsible parties barred from future updates.

See if you can spot the differences.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.

User avatar

Anon
Top
Posts: 1771
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by Anon »

It seems like a link to the couch thread would be an appropriate link for the crossfit wiki.

The fact that the Robb Wolf link stays there is interesting, why have the spin doctors not removed it?
"Anonymous. Because none of us are as cruel as all of us."

User avatar

Shaun B. O'Murnecan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 8624
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:13 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by Shaun B. O'Murnecan »

If one of you diligent mutherfuckers want to push the issue and have reasonable arguments and plenty of time to devote to it, you will get your way on wiki. The big deal wikipedians hate hagiographies and product endorsements masking as entries.
Image


JohnnyBadAss
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by JohnnyBadAss »

Anon wrote:It seems like a link to the couch thread would be an appropriate link for the crossfit wiki.

The fact that the Robb Wolf link stays there is interesting, why have the spin doctors not removed it?
Notice that the Robb Wolf link is red...that means the page doesn't even exist on Wikipedia.

User avatar

WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by WildGorillaMan »

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:If one of you diligent mutherfuckers want to push the issue and have reasonable arguments and plenty of time to devote to it, you will get your way on wiki. The big deal wikipedians hate hagiographies and product endorsements masking as entries.
at issue here is the truthiness of any assertions. We have nothing to back up the claim that Couch used to wrestle circus midgets.

Then again he has nothing to back up the claim that he used to be a gymNAHST so whatever.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.

User avatar

kreator
Top
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:52 am

Re: The couch thread

Post by kreator »

At one point the Wikipedia page said "Crossfit was founded by Greg Glassman, a former gymnast [citation needed]."
Sadly, no longer.


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by TerryB »

l-tree wrote:Got bored, so I asked couch for some evidence or proof of any of the claims he has made re @fit. Here's my response.
There seems to be some conflation here between data and evidence. I hope I'm not contributing to that.

You want data? Every single WOD posting is a critical data point for a kinematic analysis of the athletes performance and eventually the quality of the conditioning stimulus. (Especially when height, weight, and age are included.

Are you looking for data with regard to my suggesting that the fitness industry needs to define it's terms (fitness, intensity, functionality, and health), or our offering of definitions readily amenable to precise and accurate measurement? Like our defining of fitness across broad time and modal domains? If so, the request makes no sense. I can neither produce data nor evidence to support the call for defining terms and quantifiable/empirical/scientific methodology. That cannot be done.

Are you asking me for data or evidence to support the claim that CF increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains? Every athletes log with increased performance is EXACTLY that.

Are you asking me top support the contention that CF increases work capacity across broad time and modal domains better than any other protocol? If so, two things, 1. I've never said that, and 2. To be validated or invalidated the terms we insist on defining still need to be defined and the metrics we're suggesting for measure need to be made.

You want evidence for CF's implementation at BUD/S in Phase 2 and won't take the word of the LDO who actually did the work, because he is an ensign? Come, on, you're falling apart on me. You want evidence of CF's implementation or evidence of an official endorsement from the Navy?

You discredit Mark Devine because he's running a business. Guess what, so am I. So is the Navy. So is Mike Caveston. Think for a minute or two about your disqualification based on being paid. It's silly. Right?

Finally, I want you to fully understand that I have publicly, professionally, and repeatedly asked that the industry define some universal lexicon and if possible give definitions that meet scientific muster. We offered some for functional movement, intensity, fitness, and health that will meet muster - everything we suggest measuring can be readily measured, and by several means, and by solid (accurate and precise) whether absolute or relative in metrics. We then put workouts forward that have found broad acceptance in mil/LEO communities - we're doing private mil/LEO certs every single week.

If you could well articulate what you want I'd provide it. You've not done that yet. You're looking for "data" but seem to mean evidence and you want evidence for something that I've never heard claimed anywhere. (See my original post you included above. Every word of it is exactly true. The soldiers and cops providing the evidence and data stand by their claims. No where was claim made that the US Army endorses CF, etc. Right? You're asking me to support something never claimed, not wanted, and of very, very, little commercial portent to CF Inc.

I do not think that you are being disrespectful, just quarrelsome. I'm also greatly intrigued by your science background. It would be outside of my experience to find a "man of science" balled up in the manner that you are. You've got me wondering how you could ask people screaming for evidenced based fitness (us) to provide data for that call?
That's classic. Glassman lamenting the existence of meaningful definitions when (a) he's ignored the ones used by sports science for decades now, and (b) he is the master of providing useless, ambiguous, amorphous "definitions" for all sorts of shit he just dreams up.

When pressed for evidence, he backtracks now? That is not the Glassman of old, who swore he had evidence when nobody else did. That was what was supposed to separate Cultfit from the pack, remember? Then Caviston blew that out of the water by pointing out that you can't compare anyone's Fran to anyone else's b/c of the ranges of motion, slop, etc.

And using WOD's as "critical data point for a kinematic analysis" is hilarious. Good news guys, this means all your workouts over the years are "critical data points," so I guess we're all running labs in our basements now. Someone call the sports scientists. And if WODs are "critical data points," then so are the craptastic cultift videos posted everywhere.

Most awesomely, if Glassman claims WODs are data points, then so are the injuries caused by his workouts. Previously, Glassman had claimed (a) Cultfit didn't have a high injury rate (a flat out lie), and (b) that you couldn't quantify the injury rate b/c no "studies" had been performed. Convenient, but ultimately irrelevant since all WOD postings are fair game for statistical analysis.

Also, sadly, this whole post from Couch reveals the huge glaring whole in his game: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO STUDIES, NO NOTHING THAT SHOWS CULTFIT IS SAFE OR EFFECTIVE. Funny, that.

Now pay him $1000 for a piece of paper, retards.
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image

User avatar

LiftHeavyShit
Sarge
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:58 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by LiftHeavyShit »

That's classic. Glassman lamenting the existence of meaningful definitions when (a) he's ignored the ones used by sports science for decades now, and (b) he is the master of providing useless, ambiguous, amorphous "definitions" for all sorts of shit he just dreams up.

When pressed for evidence, he backtracks now? That is not the Glassman of old, who swore he had evidence when nobody else did. That was what was supposed to separate Cultfit from the pack, remember? Then Caviston blew that out of the water by pointing out that you can't compare anyone's Fran to anyone else's b/c of the ranges of motion, slop, etc.

And using WOD's as "critical data point for a kinematic analysis" is hilarious. Good news guys, this means all your workouts over the years are "critical data points," so I guess we're all running labs in our basements now. Someone call the sports scientists. And if WODs are "critical data points," then so are the craptastic cultift videos posted everywhere.

Most awesomely, if Glassman claims WODs are data points, then so are the injuries caused by his workouts. Previously, Glassman had claimed (a) Cultfit didn't have a high injury rate (a flat out lie), and (b) that you couldn't quantify the injury rate b/c no "studies" had been performed. Convenient, but ultimately irrelevant since all WOD postings are fair game for statistical analysis.

Also, sadly, this whole post from Couch reveals the huge glaring whole in his game: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO STUDIES, NO NOTHING THAT SHOWS CULTFIT IS SAFE OR EFFECTIVE. Funny, that.

Now pay him $1000 for a piece of paper, retards.
:supz:
Image

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21342
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: The couch thread

Post by Turdacious »

WildGorillaMan wrote:
Norman U. Senchbau wrote:If one of you diligent mutherfuckers want to push the issue and have reasonable arguments and plenty of time to devote to it, you will get your way on wiki. The big deal wikipedians hate hagiographies and product endorsements masking as entries.
at issue here is the truthiness of any assertions. We have nothing to back up the claim that Couch used to wrestle circus midgets.

Then again he has nothing to back up the claim that he used to be a gymNAHST so whatever.
We have nothing to back up the claim that Couch ever won a match against a circus midget. The shame caused by his pathetic record may be at the root of his excessive gin consumption.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar

WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by WildGorillaMan »

Norman U. Senchbau wrote:
sanchezero wrote:
w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-yO80dgyvo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=don7aNiNALA[/youtube]

hoorah for dance and primal scream.

and now for up close and personal
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXf90SPWsjE[/youtube]
this girl is full of win. unfortunately she is not properly attired to workout. definitely needs to ditch the jammies for a sports bra and tiny booty shorts.
Tell me she is not 13. I think the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky hold sway here when it comes to the treatment of minors.
I concur.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.


Gin Master
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3024
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:41 am

Re: The couch thread

Post by Gin Master »

w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.

User avatar

WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by WildGorillaMan »

Gin Master wrote:
w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.

True, but there are good reasons for that. For one thing, she likes it rough.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.

User avatar

Yes I Have Balls
Top
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat

Re: The couch thread

Post by Yes I Have Balls »

WildGorillaMan wrote:
Gin Master wrote:
w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.
For one thing, she likes it rough.
Don't they all?


w00tz
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by w00tz »

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
WildGorillaMan wrote:
Gin Master wrote:
w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.
For one thing, she likes it rough.
Don't they all?
If she really wants rough, perhaps they should clean + jerk and snatch her then drop her like the bumper plates. If she bounces back up then it is extra win.

User avatar

Yes I Have Balls
Top
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat

Re: The couch thread

Post by Yes I Have Balls »

w00tz wrote:
Yes I Have Balls wrote:
WildGorillaMan wrote:
Gin Master wrote:
w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.
For one thing, she likes it rough.
Don't they all?
If she really wants rough, perhaps they should clean + jerk and snatch her then drop her like the bumper plates.
My guess is that particular @fitter could neither jerk nor snatch that much weight.


w00tz
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by w00tz »

protobuilder wrote: That's classic. Glassman lamenting the existence of meaningful definitions when (a) he's ignored the ones used by sports science for decades now, and (b) he is the master of providing useless, ambiguous, amorphous "definitions" for all sorts of shit he just dreams up.

When pressed for evidence, he backtracks now? That is not the Glassman of old, who swore he had evidence when nobody else did. That was what was supposed to separate Cultfit from the pack, remember? Then Caviston blew that out of the water by pointing out that you can't compare anyone's Fran to anyone else's b/c of the ranges of motion, slop, etc.

And using WOD's as "critical data point for a kinematic analysis" is hilarious. Good news guys, this means all your workouts over the years are "critical data points," so I guess we're all running labs in our basements now. Someone call the sports scientists. And if WODs are "critical data points," then so are the craptastic cultift videos posted everywhere.

Most awesomely, if Glassman claims WODs are data points, then so are the injuries caused by his workouts. Previously, Glassman had claimed (a) Cultfit didn't have a high injury rate (a flat out lie), and (b) that you couldn't quantify the injury rate b/c no "studies" had been performed. Convenient, but ultimately irrelevant since all WOD postings are fair game for statistical analysis.

Also, sadly, this whole post from Couch reveals the huge glaring whole in his game: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO STUDIES, NO NOTHING THAT SHOWS CULTFIT IS SAFE OR EFFECTIVE. Funny, that.

Now pay him $1000 for a piece of paper, retards.
What could the WOD's be used as "critical data points" of? I'm somewhat new at this game, but it seems to me that the only meaningful data (if any) one can derive from performing a WOD is either
1) the time it took you to complete whatever number of crap was set for you
or
2) the number of sets you completed in whatever time limit was set for you

Maybe if they consistently tested a single WOD for some length of time, we might see improvements in one's performance over time and say "oh look, you get better at Fran by doing Fran a trillion times". But when WOD's are different every-fkn-day, how can we look at them as critical data points and derive any conclusions about what exactly is effective and what isn't?
:toimonster:

User avatar

Jag Panzer
Gunny
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:07 am

Re: The couch thread

Post by Jag Panzer »

w00tz wrote:If she really wants rough, perhaps they should clean + jerk and snatch her then drop her like the bumper plates. If she bounces back up then it is extra win.
No way. She's heavier than a 20 oz piece of PVC pipe. They don't test for that modal domain.


w00tz
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by w00tz »

Jag Panzer wrote:
w00tz wrote:If she really wants rough, perhaps they should clean + jerk and snatch her then drop her like the bumper plates. If she bounces back up then it is extra win.
No way. She's heavier than a 20 oz piece of PVC pipe. They don't test for that modal domain.
Then they should use some of the guys instead of the andro chicks.

User avatar

Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21342
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: The couch thread

Post by Turdacious »

One of you computer geniuses should put an entry for the couch thread on Wiki.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar

Yes I Have Balls
Top
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat

Re: The couch thread

Post by Yes I Have Balls »

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:One of you computer geniuses should put an entry for the couch thread on Wiki.
Someone has gotten @fit on urbandictionary.com:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crossfit
A bunch of rich white people paying $250/mo. to have an uncredentialed coach instruct them to have spasms with PVC pipe and siezures on pull-up bars until they vomit. They generally do this for a period of 10-30 minutes and call it a workout. Those who partake in these group activities also have the option to pay $1000 to attend a weekend course where they have an alcoholic instruct them how to better lift their PVC pipe. Some people who do these activities may also confuse being nauseous with being elite.

Guy 1: Hey, I started this great workout program lately. It's called CrossFit!
Guy 2: You go have fun with that. And don't bother calling me when you need someone to take you to the emergency room.

Guy 3: Dude, when did you get all those tribal tats? You didn't start---
Guy 4: Hey man, I just started doing this awesome workout program called CrossFit!
Guy 3: Oh, fuck.

Guy 5: The CrossFit workout was brutal today! I'm already sore as hell!
Guy 6: Maybe you should have scaled down to 1/2" PVC rather than 3/4".


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by TerryB »

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:One of you computer geniuses should put an entry for the couch thread on Wiki.
I don't know shit about Wiki but there should be no reason why a "Criticisms of Cultfit" couldn't be included in the general wiki entry. And since Cultfit strives to be controversial, they really couldn't object, unless of course their Wiki is just a marketing tool, in which case it should be taken down, eh?
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image


T-L

Re: The couch thread

Post by T-L »

In looking at the Wiki, they do have a criticism section. However, the editors found it to be getting too long and so in 2007, they cut it down. Several of you have mentioned though that the entry could be removed. I agree with this if someone has the time to argue the point, the entry could be construed as advertisement.

However, the entry was removed once by the editors as it was considered advertising previously, so the new editors have done much with their language to keep it generic. The best thing to do IMHO is to find fact to discredit the postings. If these are made, then the owners of the entry can do nothing as the editors are all about facts.


T-L

Re: The couch thread

Post by T-L »

All that being said, I am posting a Wiki called Crossfit Critique. Please follow the rules of Wiki so the page will stay up for all to review. For those not familiar with Wikipedia, go to www.wikipedia.com and search for Crossfit or Crossfit Critique. Follow the rules and instructions and have fun!


w00tz
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: The couch thread

Post by w00tz »

l-tree wrote:All that being said, I am posting a Wiki called Crossfit Critique. Please follow the rules of Wiki so the page will stay up for all to review. For those not familiar with Wikipedia, go to http://www.wikipedia.com and search for Crossfit or Crossfit Critique. Follow the rules and instructions and have fun!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfit_Critique

"This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity."

Can you really make a page like this without wikipedia nazis coming down on you?

Post Reply