


And Artie is funny on purpose.
Moderator: Dux
Notice that the Robb Wolf link is red...that means the page doesn't even exist on Wikipedia.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?
at issue here is the truthiness of any assertions. We have nothing to back up the claim that Couch used to wrestle circus midgets.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.
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.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.
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.WildGorillaMan wrote:at issue here is the truthiness of any assertions. We have nothing to back up the claim that Couch used to wrestle circus midgets.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.
Then again he has nothing to back up the claim that he used to be a gymNAHST so whatever.
I concur.Norman U. Senchbau wrote: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.sanchezero wrote: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.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]
Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Gin Master wrote:Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
Don't they all?WildGorillaMan wrote:For one thing, she likes it rough.Gin Master wrote:Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
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.Yes I Have Balls wrote:Don't they all?WildGorillaMan wrote:For one thing, she likes it rough.Gin Master wrote:Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
My guess is that particular @fitter could neither jerk nor snatch that much weight.w00tz wrote:If she really wants rough, perhaps they should clean + jerk and snatch her then drop her like the bumper plates.Yes I Have Balls wrote:Don't they all?WildGorillaMan wrote:For one thing, she likes it rough.Gin Master wrote:Even when deadlifting 100lb. women, these retards have to bounce them off the ground.w00tz wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzWYs5EG_S8[/youtube]
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 eitherprotobuilder 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.
No way. She's heavier than a 20 oz piece of PVC pipe. They don't test for that modal domain.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.
Then they should use some of the guys instead of the andro chicks.Jag Panzer wrote:No way. She's heavier than a 20 oz piece of PVC pipe. They don't test for that modal domain.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.
Someone has gotten @fit on urbandictionary.com:The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:One of you computer geniuses should put an entry for the couch thread on Wiki.
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".
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?The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:One of you computer geniuses should put an entry for the couch thread on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfit_Critiquel-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!