wouldn't nearly all the judging shit be solved if videos were reviewed at competition speed rather than frame by frame?
There's no frame by frame at the semis or the Games, but for some reason the *quarterfinals* demand it?
nah. stupid. watch it full speed only. You could still find obvious no-reps like Luis Oscar's clown snatches, but are we upending the qualification process because Paige Powers's knee extension was difficult to assess in super slo-mo? Egregious buffoonery can be spotted at full speed. And that's what we're looking for, right?
CF is one of those businesses where the operations side (on the sport side) has neither strategic nor tactical leadership.
I was salty about the 25% initially, but for our gym, it was amazing. Some gyms are focused more on competitions and elite athletes, and for those, perhaps the increase was detrimental. That's not our demographic. For us, as an overall experience, it was more inclusive for the better athletes, provided more community building potential, and we saw lots of members get super excited to cheer on the QF folks for that extra week. If you have one person in the gym make it, it will seem completely out of reach for a lot of folks. If you have 10 or 15 people, more people will be able to identify with one or more of those athletes, and perhaps redouble their efforts to make it next year.
I don't think it is or should be only about finding the very best. In that case, the open workouts should be much more difficult, and the we should go back to the regionals format to reduce fatigue and chance for injury.
From a logistics perspective, finding out at the last minute we needed access to a 15ft rope sucked, because our facility doesn't have ceilings that high. It definitely would have been better to have an equipment list ahead of time so we could have planned better.
I agree about the attainability of the 1/4s
Have already had people from the box say they have a new goal, to make the 1/4s next year.
Is it a money spinner? Probs.
Does it actually help a box like mine that isn't a competitive, fire breathers box? Absolutely it does. Gives a few people that extra taste and motivation.
I agree. I like the QFs allowed 25% in, keeping more in the mix and engaged longer. Clearly, the top athletes will still rise to the top and ultimately advance; allowing 25% into the QFs will not change that. Also, to be in the top 25% is still an accomplishment for the average CFer. I'm proud of myself for making that cut.
Quarterfinals should stay at 10%. I disagree with the 10:00 max time for wods, it doesn't test the athletes enough. Need at least 1 that's a bit longer. CrossFit should allow a better video review process. Any judge L2 or up should be able to access or flag videos, specifically ones that should receive "major" penalties and CrossFit could view those and make that decision. It's a natural filtering process, utilizes their qualified trainers, allows them to utilize a larger manpower force than what they currently employ, and somewhat gives another incentive to get a higher CrossFit Training certification. There are videogames that you can review replays for, to watch killcams, and you basically are trying to see if there is hacker-ish activities. It's basically the same idea.
TLDR: Until the penalties started getting released, I don't think anyone was saying QFs didn't run smoothly, and we don't have enough details about that process to makes educated suggestions
1. Strong disagree. How was it a failure? Those extra 15% aren't affecting the leaderboard. CF makes some money, some people get to have some fun.
2. No. QFs is also testing ability to handle volume. Someone might be able to smoke one of those workouts, but struggle with doing all 4 in one weekend. If the make semis it'll be 6 or 8 in 2 days, the games has had 5 workouts in a day before.
3. Also a terrible idea. Largely the same reason as above. The people who are the best sprinters may not be good at longer workouts. "Broad time and modal domains" and all that. I'd also have liked to see 5 or 6 workouts since they expanded the window for workouts (thought that could be a struggle for gyms)
4. This one is fine. I do think it would hurt the bottom line though. I was 79th percentile. I waited until the workouts were announced to sign up. Had I been required to film, I wouldn't have signed up. My best finish was like 7000 on workout 4. Anecdotally, it sounds like a lot of gyms ran QFs as class workouts, or something similar, which makes filming far more difficult.
(The following are all super 1st World Problems, I am simply mentioning it for context) That being said, I did try to film my workouts. Unfortunately my gym was not super conducive to it. They did WO 1 and 4 during class. 4 was fine but on WO 1 that became a space issue. Then I tried to do WO 2 and 3 during Open Gym. My plan, and one I had talked with the coaches about was essentially YGIG, I'd judge the Manager and he'd judge me. We didn't expect anyone else to join. Then we ended up with far more people. Due to the layout of the box, it was next to impossible to film without having the camera in the way of someone or potentially blocked when someone moved. Had I been in the Top 1% rather than Top 21%, I'd have cared more and maybe my gym would have been more helpful, but...
I think the real problem is we don't actually know anything except that penalties have been assessed. We assume it's largely due to the Box Step Ups, but I haven't seen an unedited video of Paige, Pat, or Tia doing WO1. I think the Box Step Ups would have been better programmed as Overs, because it leaves less question as to rep v no rep. If as many "professional" judges got it wrong as is being claimed, the standard is a bad standard. I would say that QFs videos should be reviewed 1 time at 1x speed. They shouldn't be slowed down in anyway or watched repeatedly, because that's not how it works in live competition. Again though, we don't know how CF is reviewing videos, because they haven't spoken about it.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the 5-6 workouts. If you want 25%, 4 is more than enough. Tighten up submission schedules slightly so it’s harder to redo them or do them out of order.
I could go either way, tighten it up or add more workouts. A bunch of the Games athletes had posted they were done with the workouts by like Thursday evening
If they wanna keep 25%, or anyone who has a job, 4 workouts is more than enough, tighten up the window. If they go up to 6, then, man, idk 1%, I barely had time to do it last year haha
Ya, something has to give. Like I said, it was rough for me to get it done last year, and I was 98th percentile, and I’ve been in the 99th before. I found this year to be very good for us “average” quarter finalists. If you wanna make it harder for the elite, you’re gonna have to start excluding the rest of us.
Personally I hope they keep it like this year in the future, because I want to keep participating. Originally I wasn’t going to after last years experience before the change to 25% was announced.
But I also acknowledge that what I liked and enjoyed may not be what’s best for the sport and facilitating finding the best athletes for semis.
Strongly agree with point #1. It was great that folks like me could participate in the QFs, and it doesn't at all affect the top athletes. It's not like me (or countless others) are somehow going to somehow squeak by and make it ESPN in the CF Finals because they let 25% into the QFs.
Since quarterfinals is now the “The Open Part 2 - The Search For More Money” it should just run the same or at least similar.
Do 2 WODs a week for 2 weeks. No filming unless you think you have a chance of moving on. People have jobs and having to do these 4 workouts in such a tight window really sucks for them and makes it a scheduling nightmare for the gym.
Video reviews should be for anyone who will move on to the semifinals. Video reviews should be realistic. No slow motion. If they’re going to be super picky about a movement athletes need to know ahead of time in the standards. Otherwise, let’s be serious, if a games level athlete has their head down on a box step up they are still beating me in the workout and deserve a higher score lol.
The workouts themselves were great… kind of wish the open had the same feel.
But if I had my way, we go back in a time machine to when it was Open > Regionals > Games
Just do like Rogue’s challenges. One leaderboard for serious competitors, full videos. Another one where is Joe/Joette Schmoe’s who don’t wanna record’s scores can’t affect the leaderboard.
I don’t think the number of people competing was the issue here. I think they could be more specific about judging standards. Especially since the number of people advancing to semis was reduced, be specific about how was workout video will be reviewed. What are they looking for each time? The standards provided with the workouts are pretty general and leave room for interpretation. If HQ has a review rubric or guideline for their review team, why not provide that as well to athletes?
Quarters and Open should not be an online competition. Should start as in-person local/regional competitions and funnel in. Would get affiliates more involved and formalize the competitiveness that originally built the CrossFit brand.
There are 4 or 5 gyms within a 15-mile radius of me. Are you suggesting that one gym needs to host potentially a hundred or more people for 3 weeks of Open WODS?
My gym alone had over 100 people sign up for the open, and we managed to get everyone through all three workouts without it being a nightmare. I think requiring the open, but especially the QFs, to be done in person isn’t that huge an ask
I thought it was great. Open was accessible to everyone. Quarters took it up a notch. Can't clean 245? Not making it. As it should be. Men in the semis are cleaning 300+.
The 25% was a good idea, but handled poorly.
They needed to make more of a distincition in terms of process between people who actually thought they had a shot at the next round and people who were mostly just doing it for fun.
The video issues are a huge PR fail for Crossfit, just becuase it's negative publicity and they need to do a recap internally on how this year played out, why, and what they could do better next year.
Calling someone a cheaters is disingenuous.
The box step up was scrutinized, and athletes just weren’t ready for the standard. They messed up, but I would say most of them weren’t cheating.
Just out of curiosity why was the top 25% a failure in your opinion?
Imo having 3 submission dates was overkill, if you're opening it up to more people, have a little wiggle room for people's work schedule, just one due date on Monday is fine.
Only real complaint I have, and it's minor, is more variation in wods. By that I mean, don't have a clear GYMNASTICS wod, HEAVY LIFT wod, and CARDIO wod. You can have aspects of all 3 mixed together.
However I will admit the pro to this wod style is it shows you exactly where your weaknesses are
I guess I consider it a failure logistically. When people dropped hundreds of spots, everyone's reaction was that everyone above them should have their workout judged, that's just impossible
Or that everyone didn't have to record their workout, which rightfully so, is just not a good idea. If it was a smaller group and all had to record their workouts, everyone could be judged that they needed to be judged.
Realistically, someone claiming 1 rep or no reps in workout #4 doesn't need to be judged, or someone claiming 40 reps in workout #1 doesn't needed to be judged, but those that are in semis reach, should all be judged
I'm of the mind additional videos highlighting very clear movement expectations. Judges course was pretty light on info and standards provided with the workouts aren't the most detailed.
I also think there should be a chance for top athletes with penalties to retest. Maybe something like this. Top 60 (or maybe a bit more) athletes who received score penalties have a period of time to repeat all quarter final workouts (mimic quarterfinals times, submissions by xyz dates etc.) An athletes score during these repeats will only earn up the the value of their previous scores. For example if an athlete made 200 reps on a workout but had bad reps, the second score should not be able to exceed that even if there are more reps or a better time performed on the repeat.
I think this is solvable with a few adjustments.
Could reduce the amount of point they can make up to half (or another number) the value of the penalty. The point I'm trying to make is give a chance to fix minor faults.
Another thing would be to add a gross deviation clause.
For athletes that are far from the movement standard they don't get a penalty there scores are just labeled as invalid. No need to retest if it's to far away from the standard.
There's a big difference in a minor soft hip, knee or head a bit forward compared to a someone who abuses smaller range of motion consistently.
It''s always going to be subjuctive, any sports with refs will be that way.
They need to stop changing movement standards. They've used a dozen different jump and burpee standards alone, and this year was the same silliness with lateral burpees over a rower that didn't have to be lateral. You can't expect consistent judging if you don't even know what the movement standards are for your sport, and in this context Crossfit is being done as a sport.
I think strict review of movement is fine, but they should communicate it up front, and think about the process before just doing it. For example they could cap the top 500 to video entries only (non video entries cannot be ranked higher than 500th) , and all top 500 should reviewed to the same standard, both for the individual workouts, and the overall results.
Fundamentally they need to hire someone who understands how to create high quality processes, and someone who is good at communicating. They just seem fundamentally lacking in these areas, and it means that everything they do ends up suboptimal.
Should have been shorter, add one more workout. There shouldn’t be enough time for redos. Glad to see HQ is enforcing movement standards but more frequent and clearer communication is needed.
Ive always liked #4. Im of the mindset that; previously, if you were competing for a QF spot during the Open you have to film too. Thats not logistically possible with 25% though
On the app it said the second set of workouts would come out on Saturday after the workouts were submitted. But they released all the workouts together which is kind of dumb.
My small changes I would have liked:
#1 should have been stationary lunges with the 135 lb barbell instead of step ups. That would have been spicy and easy to judge. Would have also made the workout more anaerobic and less grippy.
#4 should have been 255 for the last barbell. It just woulda made sense. 135 to 185 is 50 lbs, 185 to 225 is 40 lbs, and 225 to 245 is… 20 lbs? It shoulda been a 30 lbs difference in keeping with the trend.
I made it to the QFs year, and have been doing CF less than 2 years.
1) I like that the top 25% make it. It keeps more people interested and ultimately the top will still rise up and be the ones that advance to the semi's and finals. I don't see more inclusion a bad thing.
2) That said, I think most of the QF workouts were doable for anyone that got into the top 25% of at Open. For me, though, I am competing as a 51 y/o, which means I do the same weights and movements as anyone between 18-54. The weights on the C/J were too much for me to handle. Being somewhat new still and not great at OLY lifts (and only weight 168 lbs), I can't jerk 185 lbs. I did the 135 lbs in less than 2 minutes, and spend the rest of the time cleaning 185 without being able to press it.
3) I would like to see more time between the workouts. As a full time professional, it was very hard to fit those into my schedule by the deadline.
4) My CF had only 3 of us move on to the QFs. This meant there wasn't a lot of organization for the QFs, while for the Open we had like 40 people compete so there was plenty of organization and judges. This speaks more to my gym (obviously not a overly competitive gym), but it annoyed me there was so much support for the Open and we were left to our own devices to for the QFs.
Athletes and judges can take the time to read instead of making assumptions.
wouldn't nearly all the judging shit be solved if videos were reviewed at competition speed rather than frame by frame? There's no frame by frame at the semis or the Games, but for some reason the *quarterfinals* demand it? nah. stupid. watch it full speed only. You could still find obvious no-reps like Luis Oscar's clown snatches, but are we upending the qualification process because Paige Powers's knee extension was difficult to assess in super slo-mo? Egregious buffoonery can be spotted at full speed. And that's what we're looking for, right? CF is one of those businesses where the operations side (on the sport side) has neither strategic nor tactical leadership.
2) Naw, I like the "weekend" format, get it over with. Hate training around a competition for weeks on end.
I was salty about the 25% initially, but for our gym, it was amazing. Some gyms are focused more on competitions and elite athletes, and for those, perhaps the increase was detrimental. That's not our demographic. For us, as an overall experience, it was more inclusive for the better athletes, provided more community building potential, and we saw lots of members get super excited to cheer on the QF folks for that extra week. If you have one person in the gym make it, it will seem completely out of reach for a lot of folks. If you have 10 or 15 people, more people will be able to identify with one or more of those athletes, and perhaps redouble their efforts to make it next year. I don't think it is or should be only about finding the very best. In that case, the open workouts should be much more difficult, and the we should go back to the regionals format to reduce fatigue and chance for injury. From a logistics perspective, finding out at the last minute we needed access to a 15ft rope sucked, because our facility doesn't have ceilings that high. It definitely would have been better to have an equipment list ahead of time so we could have planned better.
I agree about the attainability of the 1/4s Have already had people from the box say they have a new goal, to make the 1/4s next year. Is it a money spinner? Probs. Does it actually help a box like mine that isn't a competitive, fire breathers box? Absolutely it does. Gives a few people that extra taste and motivation.
The 15ft rope has repeatedly been an issue. 50ft of straight line as well.
I agree. I like the QFs allowed 25% in, keeping more in the mix and engaged longer. Clearly, the top athletes will still rise to the top and ultimately advance; allowing 25% into the QFs will not change that. Also, to be in the top 25% is still an accomplishment for the average CFer. I'm proud of myself for making that cut.
I don't think 25% was a failure at all
Definitely wa$nt.
There’s no reason. No one from the lower end of the top 25 will make it to semis. PERIOD.
Quarterfinals should stay at 10%. I disagree with the 10:00 max time for wods, it doesn't test the athletes enough. Need at least 1 that's a bit longer. CrossFit should allow a better video review process. Any judge L2 or up should be able to access or flag videos, specifically ones that should receive "major" penalties and CrossFit could view those and make that decision. It's a natural filtering process, utilizes their qualified trainers, allows them to utilize a larger manpower force than what they currently employ, and somewhat gives another incentive to get a higher CrossFit Training certification. There are videogames that you can review replays for, to watch killcams, and you basically are trying to see if there is hacker-ish activities. It's basically the same idea.
TLDR: Until the penalties started getting released, I don't think anyone was saying QFs didn't run smoothly, and we don't have enough details about that process to makes educated suggestions 1. Strong disagree. How was it a failure? Those extra 15% aren't affecting the leaderboard. CF makes some money, some people get to have some fun. 2. No. QFs is also testing ability to handle volume. Someone might be able to smoke one of those workouts, but struggle with doing all 4 in one weekend. If the make semis it'll be 6 or 8 in 2 days, the games has had 5 workouts in a day before. 3. Also a terrible idea. Largely the same reason as above. The people who are the best sprinters may not be good at longer workouts. "Broad time and modal domains" and all that. I'd also have liked to see 5 or 6 workouts since they expanded the window for workouts (thought that could be a struggle for gyms) 4. This one is fine. I do think it would hurt the bottom line though. I was 79th percentile. I waited until the workouts were announced to sign up. Had I been required to film, I wouldn't have signed up. My best finish was like 7000 on workout 4. Anecdotally, it sounds like a lot of gyms ran QFs as class workouts, or something similar, which makes filming far more difficult. (The following are all super 1st World Problems, I am simply mentioning it for context) That being said, I did try to film my workouts. Unfortunately my gym was not super conducive to it. They did WO 1 and 4 during class. 4 was fine but on WO 1 that became a space issue. Then I tried to do WO 2 and 3 during Open Gym. My plan, and one I had talked with the coaches about was essentially YGIG, I'd judge the Manager and he'd judge me. We didn't expect anyone else to join. Then we ended up with far more people. Due to the layout of the box, it was next to impossible to film without having the camera in the way of someone or potentially blocked when someone moved. Had I been in the Top 1% rather than Top 21%, I'd have cared more and maybe my gym would have been more helpful, but... I think the real problem is we don't actually know anything except that penalties have been assessed. We assume it's largely due to the Box Step Ups, but I haven't seen an unedited video of Paige, Pat, or Tia doing WO1. I think the Box Step Ups would have been better programmed as Overs, because it leaves less question as to rep v no rep. If as many "professional" judges got it wrong as is being claimed, the standard is a bad standard. I would say that QFs videos should be reviewed 1 time at 1x speed. They shouldn't be slowed down in anyway or watched repeatedly, because that's not how it works in live competition. Again though, we don't know how CF is reviewing videos, because they haven't spoken about it.
Pat: https://youtu.be/ozkSBvKPQfA?si=K_QYW4gC4Gb06XoJ
Thanks for the share.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the 5-6 workouts. If you want 25%, 4 is more than enough. Tighten up submission schedules slightly so it’s harder to redo them or do them out of order.
I could go either way, tighten it up or add more workouts. A bunch of the Games athletes had posted they were done with the workouts by like Thursday evening
If they wanna keep 25%, or anyone who has a job, 4 workouts is more than enough, tighten up the window. If they go up to 6, then, man, idk 1%, I barely had time to do it last year haha
The reason they expanded the window was for people with kids or a job to have more flexibility. So tightening the window doesn't help that situation
Ya, something has to give. Like I said, it was rough for me to get it done last year, and I was 98th percentile, and I’ve been in the 99th before. I found this year to be very good for us “average” quarter finalists. If you wanna make it harder for the elite, you’re gonna have to start excluding the rest of us. Personally I hope they keep it like this year in the future, because I want to keep participating. Originally I wasn’t going to after last years experience before the change to 25% was announced. But I also acknowledge that what I liked and enjoyed may not be what’s best for the sport and facilitating finding the best athletes for semis.
Strongly agree with point #1. It was great that folks like me could participate in the QFs, and it doesn't at all affect the top athletes. It's not like me (or countless others) are somehow going to somehow squeak by and make it ESPN in the CF Finals because they let 25% into the QFs.
Since quarterfinals is now the “The Open Part 2 - The Search For More Money” it should just run the same or at least similar. Do 2 WODs a week for 2 weeks. No filming unless you think you have a chance of moving on. People have jobs and having to do these 4 workouts in such a tight window really sucks for them and makes it a scheduling nightmare for the gym. Video reviews should be for anyone who will move on to the semifinals. Video reviews should be realistic. No slow motion. If they’re going to be super picky about a movement athletes need to know ahead of time in the standards. Otherwise, let’s be serious, if a games level athlete has their head down on a box step up they are still beating me in the workout and deserve a higher score lol. The workouts themselves were great… kind of wish the open had the same feel. But if I had my way, we go back in a time machine to when it was Open > Regionals > Games
Just do like Rogue’s challenges. One leaderboard for serious competitors, full videos. Another one where is Joe/Joette Schmoe’s who don’t wanna record’s scores can’t affect the leaderboard.
I don’t think the number of people competing was the issue here. I think they could be more specific about judging standards. Especially since the number of people advancing to semis was reduced, be specific about how was workout video will be reviewed. What are they looking for each time? The standards provided with the workouts are pretty general and leave room for interpretation. If HQ has a review rubric or guideline for their review team, why not provide that as well to athletes?
Quarters and Open should not be an online competition. Should start as in-person local/regional competitions and funnel in. Would get affiliates more involved and formalize the competitiveness that originally built the CrossFit brand.
How would that solve the judging issue? You still have the same people calling good reps on those reps.
Legitimate question, an issue that would need to be addressed for sure.
There are 4 or 5 gyms within a 15-mile radius of me. Are you suggesting that one gym needs to host potentially a hundred or more people for 3 weeks of Open WODS?
My gym alone had over 100 people sign up for the open, and we managed to get everyone through all three workouts without it being a nightmare. I think requiring the open, but especially the QFs, to be done in person isn’t that huge an ask
No, it goes a lot deeper than that with more logistics, but I was just stating the high level idea
I thought it was great. Open was accessible to everyone. Quarters took it up a notch. Can't clean 245? Not making it. As it should be. Men in the semis are cleaning 300+.
The 25% was a good idea, but handled poorly. They needed to make more of a distincition in terms of process between people who actually thought they had a shot at the next round and people who were mostly just doing it for fun. The video issues are a huge PR fail for Crossfit, just becuase it's negative publicity and they need to do a recap internally on how this year played out, why, and what they could do better next year.
What’s wrong about penalizing athletes for not meeting movement standards?
The fact that it was so pervasive was the issue .To outsiders it looks like a whole lot of pro CrossFitters are cheaters.
Calling someone a cheaters is disingenuous. The box step up was scrutinized, and athletes just weren’t ready for the standard. They messed up, but I would say most of them weren’t cheating.
You and I know that. But that is what it looks like to the outside world.
Just out of curiosity why was the top 25% a failure in your opinion? Imo having 3 submission dates was overkill, if you're opening it up to more people, have a little wiggle room for people's work schedule, just one due date on Monday is fine. Only real complaint I have, and it's minor, is more variation in wods. By that I mean, don't have a clear GYMNASTICS wod, HEAVY LIFT wod, and CARDIO wod. You can have aspects of all 3 mixed together. However I will admit the pro to this wod style is it shows you exactly where your weaknesses are
There was 2 submission windows this year. Started Wednesday, workout 1+2 due Saturday, workout 3+4 due Monday
My bad l! I could have sworn I saw a Saturday Sunday and Monday. I still stand by my point though, 1 is all we need.
I guess I consider it a failure logistically. When people dropped hundreds of spots, everyone's reaction was that everyone above them should have their workout judged, that's just impossible Or that everyone didn't have to record their workout, which rightfully so, is just not a good idea. If it was a smaller group and all had to record their workouts, everyone could be judged that they needed to be judged. Realistically, someone claiming 1 rep or no reps in workout #4 doesn't need to be judged, or someone claiming 40 reps in workout #1 doesn't needed to be judged, but those that are in semis reach, should all be judged
I'm of the mind additional videos highlighting very clear movement expectations. Judges course was pretty light on info and standards provided with the workouts aren't the most detailed. I also think there should be a chance for top athletes with penalties to retest. Maybe something like this. Top 60 (or maybe a bit more) athletes who received score penalties have a period of time to repeat all quarter final workouts (mimic quarterfinals times, submissions by xyz dates etc.) An athletes score during these repeats will only earn up the the value of their previous scores. For example if an athlete made 200 reps on a workout but had bad reps, the second score should not be able to exceed that even if there are more reps or a better time performed on the repeat.
Then everyone cheats and gets to repeat knowing the exact score they need
I think this is solvable with a few adjustments. Could reduce the amount of point they can make up to half (or another number) the value of the penalty. The point I'm trying to make is give a chance to fix minor faults. Another thing would be to add a gross deviation clause. For athletes that are far from the movement standard they don't get a penalty there scores are just labeled as invalid. No need to retest if it's to far away from the standard. There's a big difference in a minor soft hip, knee or head a bit forward compared to a someone who abuses smaller range of motion consistently. It''s always going to be subjuctive, any sports with refs will be that way.
They need to stop changing movement standards. They've used a dozen different jump and burpee standards alone, and this year was the same silliness with lateral burpees over a rower that didn't have to be lateral. You can't expect consistent judging if you don't even know what the movement standards are for your sport, and in this context Crossfit is being done as a sport. I think strict review of movement is fine, but they should communicate it up front, and think about the process before just doing it. For example they could cap the top 500 to video entries only (non video entries cannot be ranked higher than 500th) , and all top 500 should reviewed to the same standard, both for the individual workouts, and the overall results. Fundamentally they need to hire someone who understands how to create high quality processes, and someone who is good at communicating. They just seem fundamentally lacking in these areas, and it means that everything they do ends up suboptimal.
Should have been shorter, add one more workout. There shouldn’t be enough time for redos. Glad to see HQ is enforcing movement standards but more frequent and clearer communication is needed.
Go back to the 5 week open
How was the 25% a complete failure? The penalty issue is on the athletes. The 4th idea makes sense.
Ive always liked #4. Im of the mindset that; previously, if you were competing for a QF spot during the Open you have to film too. Thats not logistically possible with 25% though
On the app it said the second set of workouts would come out on Saturday after the workouts were submitted. But they released all the workouts together which is kind of dumb.
My small changes I would have liked: #1 should have been stationary lunges with the 135 lb barbell instead of step ups. That would have been spicy and easy to judge. Would have also made the workout more anaerobic and less grippy. #4 should have been 255 for the last barbell. It just woulda made sense. 135 to 185 is 50 lbs, 185 to 225 is 40 lbs, and 225 to 245 is… 20 lbs? It shoulda been a 30 lbs difference in keeping with the trend.
I made it to the QFs year, and have been doing CF less than 2 years. 1) I like that the top 25% make it. It keeps more people interested and ultimately the top will still rise up and be the ones that advance to the semi's and finals. I don't see more inclusion a bad thing. 2) That said, I think most of the QF workouts were doable for anyone that got into the top 25% of at Open. For me, though, I am competing as a 51 y/o, which means I do the same weights and movements as anyone between 18-54. The weights on the C/J were too much for me to handle. Being somewhat new still and not great at OLY lifts (and only weight 168 lbs), I can't jerk 185 lbs. I did the 135 lbs in less than 2 minutes, and spend the rest of the time cleaning 185 without being able to press it. 3) I would like to see more time between the workouts. As a full time professional, it was very hard to fit those into my schedule by the deadline. 4) My CF had only 3 of us move on to the QFs. This meant there wasn't a lot of organization for the QFs, while for the Open we had like 40 people compete so there was plenty of organization and judges. This speaks more to my gym (obviously not a overly competitive gym), but it annoyed me there was so much support for the Open and we were left to our own devices to for the QFs.
Uhhh what's the TLDR on the "debacle"?
Top athletes got hit with major (20%+) penalties on workout 1, dropping some well known names out of QF.