Day 2: The Games Get Technical

July 12, 2009 11:02 AM

Posted in The Games »
121 Comments » on this entry

Day two of the 2009 CrossFit Games started at 9:30 a.m. when eight women locked hook grips onto barbells and started pulling 1RM snatches.

Less than half an hour earlier, the 32 athletes assembled in the warm-up area were struggling to loosen up muscles that needed a week of recovery rather than 12 hours. If the competitors thought they were sore at the end of Day 1, they woke up in agony on Sunday morning, feeling the full effects of Saturday's five brutal WODs. Many hobbled around the room moving like C3P0 from Star Wars.

Eliminated competitor Charlie Dunifer said in the warm-up area that he simply couldn't have competed if he had made the top 16. Jolie Gentry said she was unbelievably sore, but anyone who had watched her compete in the past knew she'd push through it.

Regardless, soreness was washed away by waves of adrenaline when the first heat started at 9:30.

"I'm not too bad," Spencer Hendel said as the first women's heat started. "I actually woke up feeling a lot better than I thought I would. I think I can make it through one more. Once the adrenaline kicks in, it will definitely overtake the soreness."

Tamara Holmes took an early lead in Heat 1, getting a pair of big red 45s overhead quickly while the other competitors fought with combinations of yellows and greens. Holmes couldn't get much more on the bar despite on-the-spot coaching from Mike Burgener and won the heat with 145. Stacey Kroon locked out a PR of 110 right at the buzzer and drew a roar from the sun-soaked crowd packed into the bleachers.

The first men's heat, several competitors went above 205 right off the bat. Jeff Leonard and Jason Khalipa both locked the weight out, though Leonard power snatched it and showed he had a hell of a lot more in the tank. The big firefighter from California topped out at 240, while Jason Khalipa and D.J. Wickham both threw 225 up.

The top eight women were up next. The powerful Cyndi Frieling turned the snatch into a high pull and press, hitting the ceiling at 120, while Tanya Wagner was more technical in getting under 135. Kristan Clever listed hard to starboard on several lifts but still had the strength to level 130 in the end.

Laura DeMarco--who never thought of herself as an athlete and played no high school or college sports--lifted 115 and finished ninth.

"It's the first time I've ever worked on a single-rep max," she said "It was frustrating because I could have done more... I don't have the technique down, and it's all technique."

The top eight men featured some aggressive attempts, with Spencer Hendel winning the heat with 225 and showing his skill as an Olympic lifter.

"I will take him right now and make him a national champion," said Coach Mike Burgener, who was impressed by Hendel's speed and passion.

Burgener thought Leonard was the best technically but loved D.J. Wickham's speed through the middle of the pull. Coach B also noted Tommy Hackenbruck has immense potential as a lifter.

At the end of the women's heats, Holmes stood atop the standings, followed by Wagner in second, and Clever and Lindsey Smith tied for third. For the men, it was Leonard in first and Hendel, Wickham and Khalipa tied for second.

The women's overall standings after six events found Wagner in front by nine points, with Annie Thorisdottir next, and Sarah Dunsmore 19 points back in third. On the men's side it was Tommy Hackenbruck with a two-point lead over Moe Kelsey and an eight-point lead over Mikko Salo.

Follow the scores live as they're delivered to the Games 2009 Media Centre by clicking on the link at the top of the page.

Next up: WOD 7.

121 comments on this entry.

1. EG wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:16 AM

FINALLY, Tanya makes the front page. Bring home first Tanya!

2. Duke Nukem wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:18 AM

lol walking like "C3P0"

3. M Cleeton wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:21 AM

Way to go Moe! Muscle through!

4. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:24 AM

OPT is about to crush this next wod. As well as Mikko. There will be some reordering of rankings after this

5. Kizzee wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:24 AM

So its basically impossible for anyone over 100 points to win it at this point...

6. Dr.Eric wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:25 AM


Been checking this web every second I can this weekend!!

Tanya you are an inspiration!!

Bring it on home!!

7. pat wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:27 AM

For all intents and purposes only the top 3 could win it all at this point unless they change the scoring system.

8. Filer wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:28 AM

Let's go Pac Northwest boys!

9. Jpratt wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:29 AM

How bout some coverage of the unknown Moe Kelsey tearing it up in second place?? He's been in the top 10 since the second event and not one line, picture and only one comment about him.

10. ben replied to comment from Kizzee...

July 12, 2009 11:30 AM

Pretty much. Those most you can make up in any event is 15 points. The second day scoring, as previously mentioned, is whack

11. Duey wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:30 AM

Cmon jolie and OPT!!!!!

12. pat wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:30 AM

I agree Andy. But there will be no reordering at the top. Hackenburk and Kelsey are both guaranteed top 5 unless the scoring system changes.

13. Kizzee replied to comment from pat...

July 12, 2009 11:32 AM

Even starting the day off... Tommy had to get last on all three WOD for anyone over 100 points to even beat him (if the way im thinking is right).... Im not deminishing his efforts at all.. Hes a beast... but for competition sake the points system is alittle off this year.

14. Jody wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:36 AM

A simple way to "fix" the under-weighting of Day 2 scores (in the individual and the affiliate competitions) would be to reset the day 1 scores based on only the finalists. In other words, still use the rankings but compared only to the other finalists. This would change some pre-final placings but tighten up the scores, give an equal weight to the day 2 events, and drastically open up the possibilities.

15. Ed wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:36 AM

Are points from the second day events awarded on the same basis as the day 1 events, eg 1 pt for 1st, 2 pts for 2nd, and so on?

If so, they have botched the scoring system. The maximum differential between 1st and last place for the 2nd day events will be only 15 pts; for day 1 it was 73 points. That means the day 1 events count 4 times as much as the day two events. It is nearly mathmatically impossible for anyone to catch Hackenbruck, Kelsey, or Salo today.

I hate to say it but they need to hire a non-athletic geek with thick glasses to design the scoring next time.

Someone please tell me I misread the scoring rules.

16. Mike Cappi wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:37 AM

Yeah Tanya!!!!! Apex is rooting for you and we all know you have the potential to take this one home this year! You have the full support of Apex as well as the rest of the mid-atlantic region so stay strong through out these final two workouts because YOU GOT THIS!!

17. Duke Nukem wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:42 AM

Ed, you are correct, and I agree with you. Maybe they should use the message boards to ask for input for next year's games. I hate to knock Cfit since I really do like to see these competitions, but some of the aspects of this competition are just not well thought out.

18. Nick wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:47 AM

Last year, it worked really well just giving those in the lead a head start... b/c it allowed any in the final group to win. There is no prize to even fight for, for most of the competitors now..

19. anthony cook wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:47 AM

I agree that the finals aren't as climatic as they could be if there were different scoring in place for Day 2. If you watched the video of Castro talking about event 1 and such his words were it pays to be a winner. Why change the scoring so that someone that busted his or her ass all day on Saturday and builds a lead has a chance to lose because they have a bad event on day 2?

20. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:49 AM

Joe, there aren't DNF's on AMRAPs. But the chipper could produce some DNF's. Homes will just get 16 points for this wod.

21. jesse wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:49 AM

I think everyone can see that the scoring system might be less than optimal but that hardly takes away from some of the awe inspiring performances going down in Aromas this weekend.

The winners will have surely earned their $$$, place in CF history, and likely future CF fame.

I wish my gym was open today.

22. Mike Cappi wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:51 AM

anyone know if kipping handstand pushups are going to be allowed for the 2nd event?

23. Emilie wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:51 AM

Some info on Moe. He's from Bellingham, WA. He's a Kirkland, WA firefighter. He's competed in tri's in the past but hasn't done any yet this year. He's pretty much a 'self-made' Crossfitter... does most of his WODS at the firehouse, at home, and at Jogo. UNBELIEVABLY strong, determined, and has NO IDEA what a stud he is. One Saturday he rocked DT with us in just under 8 and then casually walked around cheering for everyone as if he had just finished his warm-up... one of those moments that makes you giggly and shake your head as a coach. Really great & humble guy. So stoked to see him doing so well... and can imagine that he just gritted through the 1RM Snatch, as that's not his strong suit :)


24. Gary M wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:53 AM

Awesome job Cyndi!!!

25. Eida wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:54 AM

Post #22 I hear ya. I'm wishing the gym was open too. These guys and gals are motivating. Imagine 8 crushing WODs in less than 48 hours.

It makes me lightheaded to even think about it...

26. Nukemarine wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:55 AM

Jody (and latham from the previous post) are correct. Yes, it seems like BS to reset scores, but are ANY, ANY of the top 16 going to moan if it's changed to be as if they were competing only amongst themselves since WOD1?

In addition, if any of the players get DQ'd such as from a PED test, use the "trim scoring" method allows you to fairly re-evaluate the winner without the DQ being in the scoring at all.

Yeah, it's Monday morning quarterbacking, but it does make sense.

27. Lorie wrote...

July 12, 2009 11:59 AM

Way to go Tayna, CrossFit Ocean City rooting for you all the way!!

28. Ed wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:00 PM

Actually yes, flawed scoring does take away from the awe inspiring performances of the athletes. Those who give it their all deserve better than a half-arsed scoring system.

29. Seattle Chris wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:03 PM

I don't see how the scoring system is flawed, because all of these competitors had an equal opportunity to be at the top right now, except day one had more competition with more athletes.

If the scores were tight and the top 16 were within a dozen points of each other would you want the scoring changed, or is it the fact that the top three have such a huge lead over the rest?

My two cents, give me yours.

30. James wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:04 PM

Ed, i agree. next year they should hire a non athletic geek do the scoring system.

31. Amit Ghate wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:06 PM

Other than the snafu with not having heavy enough DL's to distinguish between the top 16 deadlifters (and awarding them all a 1), I think the scoring is working pretty well despite the imbalance between day 1 values and day 2 values. One indication is to look at the maximum scores for the top athletes. Tommy is at 24, Moe at 28, Mikko at 32. Thus being very well-rounded is paying off in the comp, just as it should. (Not sure what happened to JasonK on the first run, his next lowest finish is a 13.)

32. WeezyMcG wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:06 PM

7th events illustrates the disparity between between first day and second day scoring.

The athlete who won the 7th event only moves up a place. The individual currently in first place finished in the bottom half of today's field, picked up 9 points and remains in first place.

If the same had happened yesterday, Mr. Hackenbruk would have finished about 50th, which would have dramatially changed the standings.

33. Dave wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:11 PM

I think there was another miss step in not going heavy enough on the deadlift. Too many people lifted the max least for the guys.

34. Seattle Chris wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:11 PM

I think the lack of updates and live coverage could be improved, there are plenty of websites that allow you to stream video and it doesn't seem like that aspect of the games was well thought out.

I'm stuck to refreshing a twitter page in a language that sounds foreign to me, instead of having someone reporting and blogging from the games with accurate scores and times as soon as they happen.

35. brad wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:12 PM

Agree that the scoring system takes away some of the excitement towards the end of the competition, but I think we can all agree that it won't take anything away from the winners of this event.

36. Mike Cappi wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:13 PM

anyone know what place Tanya Wagner took in this event??

God i'm so proud of my trainerr!!! :]]]]]]]]]]]]]

July 12, 2009 12:13 PM

Seattle, if the games were like Year 1 when all competitors kept competing, it would make sense.

Look, it's a simple oversight like stopping the DL at 505#. It'll likely not impact first place at all. I agree, you shouldn't change the scoring mid-game. The only way one should even try that is to allow secret ballot of all the competitors to see if they want it changed. Us in the bleachers don't get a vote, but the feelings of the final 32 prior to the last WOD can be good enough to change scoring.

So, there's my say: if a super majority of the competitors (21 votes) are willing to accept a change by secret ballot to use MB's trimmed scoring or other alternate. Otherwise, stick with what's given.

38. pat wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:16 PM

Another scoring option would be to triple point values for today's wods. My suggestion to for next year is to run a smaller competetion using whatever scoring system they plan to use. This way any flaws should be apparent and can then be fixed.

Another anonymally from this scoring is that someone could win the last 2 events, and still finish out of the top 10. No one has won 2 events yet so its a shame that these last 2 wods hold such little weight.

39. mike replied to comment from Dave...

July 12, 2009 12:17 PM

Yes, the 16 way tie for first was the glaring mistake fo the weekend. I'm sure HQ didn't think that would happen, but hey, this is the third year of the CF Games so there's no way all the kinks could be worked out yet. I'm sure we won't see something like that again!

Seems like the other most talked about issues are the scoring system and the hammer WOD. It will be interesting to see what lessons HQ takes away from this year. I'm guessing by next year's Games they'll have these issues worked out, but others will pop up. The nature of the beast! Remember, it took a while for the NFL to move the goalposts behind the end zones too!

40. Cameron Watters wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:18 PM

Moe is a stud and I'd love to see more mention of him from hq.

Super humble guy. Wish I was there to make his cheering section a bit larger.

41. Ed wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:18 PM

Just because it was set up that way does not make it right. We must learn from our mistakes to improve. Nobody is immune from that principle, including Castro and CFHQ. It's too late to fix this year, but the error needs to be pointed out so it is not repeated next year.

Each of the 8 events should count equally towards the final result. This is a simple concept.

42. Kizzee replied to comment from mike...

July 12, 2009 12:19 PM

Good points.

BTW... what was the issue with the hammer WOD? I thought it was a great idea for the accuracy aspect of CF..

43. Gusten wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:20 PM

I'm gonna try and illustrate what the current scoring system has for effects compared to the proposed system where only the last sixteen are ranked against each other for all workouts.

The main problem is, in my opinion, that the regional qualifiers get a potentially huge impact on what kind of champion we are gonna get, and not in the way you'd think. If qualifers send people with huge deadlifts that can't run for example, they won't impact the first event, but will definately impact the second, making the competitors deadlift matter much more than their running. The opposite could be equally true of course, if qualifiers send weak runners.

44. Alex wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:21 PM

I think any scoring system is equally valid, since all the competitors were subjected to the same system throughout.

Despite the first event exposing what might be his one weakness, I think it's amazing how far Khalipa has come back after 72nd in the long run. It shows just how strong and powerful he is at almost all events. To make the top 16 in a huge field (hundreds and hundreds at the open qualifiers) a year after winning against a relatively small field is an enormous accomplishment.

45. Alfie wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:21 PM

It looks like Mikko Salo is moving up.

46. Mike Cappi replied to comment from Ed...

July 12, 2009 12:22 PM

they did count equally towards the final result, the people on top just consistently did very well which spaced them out from the other competitors. The scoring system could have turned out to be closer but the top athletes made themselves known from the very beginning.

47. mike replied to comment from Kizzee...

July 12, 2009 12:22 PM

Well, I don't know if it was really an issue per se, just a LOT of people didn't like it, including a few posters who were in attendance and said it was kind of silly. I wasn't commenting either way so please nobody take this as an invitation to lecture me on the ways of functional fitness. The other thread turned into a lot of that.

48. mike wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:26 PM

ESPN was showing a lot of World's Strongest Man competitions last night. Their format seems like a great idea. Run mini-competitions with the athletes split into four big groups (on a Friday, say) and have the top four from each heat (or whatever number) advance to Sunday for the final three WODS. Scores would get reset and everyone would start equal on the last day. The Affiliate Cup could fill in on Saturday so the competitors can get a day of rest before crushing themselves again Sunday.

49. Nukemarine wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:27 PM

Out of interest, how did they go about with the drug testing? Was it fill the bottle from five feet away for time?

50. Dominic wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:32 PM

..and if I had a tail and walked on four legs, I'd be a monkey.

If I ws lighter on my feet I would run a 5k faster, but I am not.

There has to be rules and that's the way things are. some twists of fate may favor one athlete or another. The eclecticism of CrossFit automatically creates situations like this. Otherwise it would be a specialized competition.

51. Gusten wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:35 PM

Except, that's not necessarily what it does. If there was an aggressive cutoff time that might have been the case. Now we instead could potentially have a part of the field who never were going to win anyway who cushion for example the run, and splits the field during the deadlift, or the other way around.

I'm not saying this was a huge problem this year, but the system is flawed in that respect.

52. Dave wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:39 PM

53. Seattle Chris wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:41 PM

Where can I find a list of today's workouts?

54. Ed replied to comment from Mike Cappi...

July 12, 2009 12:41 PM

Not true. A poor performance on day 2 costs only 1/4 the points of a poor performance on day 1. And since the winner is the person who is penalized least for poor performances, the day 1 events count 4 times as much as the day 2 events in the final total.

55. Dave wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:42 PM

"People who can't run can't win title of fittest person in the world." Completely agree. Maybe even include a 100 meter dash. Let's see who can run fast...if you can't, you should be penalized. Same way if you can't deadlift 505 lbs, you get penalized.

56. Dave wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:43 PM

"People who can't run can't win title of fittest person in the world." Completely agree. Maybe even include a 100 meter dash. Let's see who can run fast...if you can't, you should be penalized. Same way if you can't deadlift 505 lbs, you get penalized.

57. sky wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:44 PM

I think the scoring is perfectly fair to the competitors. The complaints would come from the spectators since there isn't the feeling of "it's anybody's game"

58. Chris wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:44 PM

Curious to see the mayhem that would ensue by allowing ALL of the competitors to continue on the second day. This would be madness to coordinate that number of participants but would allow for more of a chance for a comeback or at least allow for our number one to score a 75 (or however many the field has at the time)instead of a 16.

IMHO that could add to the surprise factor for the finish.

59. Dave wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:44 PM

"People who can't run can't win title of fittest person in the world." Completely agree. Maybe even include a 100 meter dash. Let's see who can run fast...if you can't, you should be penalized. Same way if you can't deadlift 505 lbs, you get penalized.

60. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:44 PM

At the same time that the fittest person has to be able to run. Seems to me like the fittest person has to be able to deadlift 505. Someone with a deadlift of 375, speal per se, had no chance. Even though speal's strength to weight ratio is incredible. That seems wrong. The scoring system is great, I just think the wod's weren't great. So it is more important to be able to lift a heavy bar rather than lift your own bodyweight? No one that can't do a handstand push (there were plenty) should have been working out on sunday. ONE simple gymnastic type wod on saturday would have evened this out.

61. Wally wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:45 PM

I am sensing there may be two icelandic winners. They both have the advantage of feeding off each other's success. Seems like its going that way.

62. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:47 PM

I think it will be Salo, Hack, Willis

63. Nukemarine wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:48 PM

I will say, although I don't think the scoring should be changed mid-games this year, it should be considered for next year's game no matter the format. Granted, that's assuming they don't use a timing format like with last year's game (itself a great method).

Amazing competition regardless. Everyone giving their all.

64. LT wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:50 PM

Seems crazy that the competition for the fittest person on the planet has speal, everett, barber, etc. out before day 2? Also, what about the regionals? Speal dominated the Great Basin, where Egyd(sp?) failed to qualify. A few months later, now Egyd is top 5 and Speal doesn't even move on to day 2? It's all about a snap shot. The winner will be the person who does the best with the programming given. Also great to see folks who don't train simply in CrossFit doing so well. No imagine if someone w/ the natural athletic ability of a world class "specalist" puts their hat in the ring.

65. Dave replied to comment from Andy...

July 12, 2009 12:50 PM

Andy..great point. It seemed absurd to me that a guy (Spealler) who finished 1st in the run, then goes out and DL's close to 3x his body weight ends up in so much trouble. They definitely should have had a gymnastic component yesterday.

Also, if Mikko DL'ed 10 more lbs, he would have had a "1" for that WOD, instead of a "17" and these games would basically be over. The DL scoring was the #1 problem yesterday. How can a guy who's max DL is 505, and another guy who could have gone on to DL 585 get the same score. It would have been nice to find out who was able to DL the most weight under those conditions.

Anyway, it's the 3rd year of a long process. Hopefully HQ will learn from their mistakes and make it better every year. It's a great event either way.

66. Dominic wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:51 PM

Whatever your opinion on the scoring system, you have to admit that these last 32 athletes are pretty much total firebreathers. I am a little surprised that some couldn't complete the HSPU's - probably due to fatigue.

67. Andy replied to comment from LT...

July 12, 2009 12:52 PM

"The winner will be the person who does the best with the programming given."

Couldn't agree more.

68. Seattle Chris replied to comment from Dave...

July 12, 2009 12:53 PM

Dave, it wouldn't have mattered if it didn't top out at 505, Mikko still would have had a 17, the only people that were affected were the ones that could have kept going. If those 16 people in front of him all ended up with different weights still heavier than Mikko, there would be no difference.

69. tomh wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:55 PM

Consider this: Hack did not make it out of the NW Regional, which some I have spoken to, favored the Weight Lifters (typically bigger guys). The deadlift and push press were a major component. (Thank goodness for the video qualifer). Hack himself was almost not in the games based upon a regional.

Meantime, I would suggest that he has been super consistent among the workouts known to favor the lifters and also consistent in the WOD's - - across the board really. He is neither big nor small, but at the end of the day, he may be the best athlete, or certainly among them.

70. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 12:57 PM

I can't believe how hostile all your posts are. We are allowed to all talk about what we like and dislike about whatever we want. Get used to it.

71. Dave replied to comment from LT...

July 12, 2009 12:58 PM

LT--exactly...all of the sudden Spealler became less fit that Egyd? As far as training Crossfit to win...Crossfit didnt create cross-training. These athletes from Iceland do similiar stuff, as do NFL Running backs for that matter. When you say "imagine if someone with natural athletic ability threw their hat in the ring" the answer is, that person would probably win these games. If a 19 yr old woman's pole vaulter from Iceland is competing at such a high level, I would imagine an NFL Running back might fare well. Reggie Bush, for instance, would be the favorite to win the X Fit games. Being a great athlete matters.

72. Dave replied to comment from Seattle Chris...

July 12, 2009 12:59 PM

I was saying under this format he would have had a "1". Which demonstrates the flaw in the system

73. Duke Nukem replied to comment from Dave...

July 12, 2009 1:02 PM

I agree with you and Andy. I really don't understand how HQ could not come up with more balanced programming for the WODs, and a better scoring system. Maybe they should have asked for input, since it seems that a lot of posters have come up with stuff in a matter of minutes that is better thought out than what HQ came up with in a year.

If Crossfit measured brain-power, there'd be a lot of DNF's at HQ. :)

74. James replied to comment from Andy...

July 12, 2009 1:03 PM

Just ignore him Andy, he is a joke.

75. Mike Erickson wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:04 PM

At the end of the day I'd like to see the number crunchers on here re-calculate the finish two different ways:

1. The final 16 competitors start w/ zero points on Sunday, a total fresh start at the final three wods.
2. The points from the first day are reset to the order the final competitors placed w/ respect to each other, ie: max of 16 points for any first day event. This would be as if the final 16 where only competing against each other for both days wods.

See how that changes the top five. This is so fun.

July 12, 2009 1:04 PM

Already working on #2... lol

77. Eida replied to comment from Mike Erickson...

July 12, 2009 1:07 PM

Would be an interesting analysis.

Now add a third way:

3. The way the games were calculated last year (every second counts).

78. Duke Nukem wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:07 PM

No doubt DL going to 505 was a mistake, but the point is that there are a good number of mistakes, and many of them were avoidable with just a minimal amount of planning and thought from smart people. The stats of all the competitors were posted in the weeks leading up to the games. Some guys had over 600# deadlifts. Why would you only go to 505?

79. Shane Rugby wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:08 PM

Apologies if I'm missing some cool link, but I'm not the best twitterer there is. What are the standings with points? There's one event to go, right? So how many points separate the top 5? Is this info available?


80. Ed replied to comment from Duke Nukem...

July 12, 2009 1:09 PM

Programming is inherently subjective. Programming is an Art, and there will always be different views on the arts. My personal view is they did a good job of picking a wide selection of events to measure general fitness.

Scoring is a Science. When you get it wrong, it is immediately, glaringly obvious. Like now.

81. Skip Lineberg wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:10 PM

Gooooo Tanya! We're rooting for you!

82. JO wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:11 PM

"final wod, will include muscle-ups, box jumps, double unders, toes to bar"

Now we're going to have all these goliaths competing in a "Speal WOD" totally composed of small-guy movements... That is a little frustrating, but will still be exciting.

OPT and brOPT can make up ground here. Mikko will crush it too. Khalipa, even as a huge guy, will beast it out for sure.

83. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:11 PM

I do like the starting with 0 points on sunday. World's strongest man style. They would have to balance the first days events better though. Did anyone else realize that Saturdays wods were all legs. Not one movement (except hammering) didn't use legs. Where are the push ups, pull ups, muscle ups...gymnastics rant again, I just can't get over it

84. Shane Rugby wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:14 PM

Guys and girls - can Mikko make up the ground required in this last WOD? How many points separate the top 5? Is this info available?

Sorry to repeat - just very keen to know this!! Thanks.

85. Kieran wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:15 PM

The other aspect of the deadlift workout problem hasn't been talked about.

Take Salo, finishing in 17th. If this position was in the run, 16 people take lower points than him, but the total number of points he gives away is 1 + 2 + ... + 15 + 16 = 136.

Coming 17th on the DL WOD gives up 16 * 16 = 256 points BECAUSE CFHQ DECIDED TO GIVE TIES THE MINIMUM POINTS!!!

This worked against anyone who didn't finish on 505. The correct thing would be to average the points available for the tied positions, and assign that. This would have given all 16 8.5 points for the DL workout.

86. Kat wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:16 PM

The Calgary Big Dawgs are going to kick butt in this one! Sounds just like a typical OPT wod to me!

87. Kat wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:18 PM

The Calgary Big Dawgs are going to kick butt in this one! Sounds just like a typical OPT wod to me!

88. Jake Mathis replied to comment from Eida...

July 12, 2009 1:18 PM

Are you serious? How do you suppose they count the number of seconds for the deadlift workout or snatch 1rm?

Some of these comments are ridiculous. This is the third year of the crossfit games. Everything is not going to go perfect. I'm sure the powers in charge will evaluate everything about the competition and learn from possible mistakes and also the things that were done right, but to change the scoring system during the middle of the competition is absurd and unfair.

89. Tommy wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:19 PM

One of the problems with the deadlift scoring stems from, One of the organisers on a games post saying that he thought that "no one would complete all the lifts" But did not at least two of the guy's leading up to the games have post's of about 600lbs?

90. Jami replied to comment from Shane Rugby...

July 12, 2009 1:19 PM

There's 1 point difference between Mikko and Tommy. It's going to be exciting..

91. Ben wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:20 PM

Just 1 point separating Mikko and Tommy going into the final event!

92. Kieran wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:20 PM

The score has been updated at .

Tommy Hackenbruck 1 (76)
Mikko Salo 2 (77)
Moe Kelsey 3 (82)
Steve Willis 4 (91)
Peter Egyed 5 (99)

Salo vs Hack for the win. If Salo wins the last WOD, with Hack second, Salo wins on countback. If Salo DOESN'T win the last WOD, and Hack finishes one place behind him, Hack wins on countback.

93. Eida replied to comment from Shane Rugby...

July 12, 2009 1:20 PM

Yes, he's only 1 point back. The scores are up.

94. Shane Rugby wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:22 PM

Jami - thanks, man. Keep the info coming if you have it! Think I met you at the CFEQ in Northern Ireland? I was a spectator only :)

Very pleased to see Mikko doing so well.


95. Kieran replied to comment from Tommy...

July 12, 2009 1:22 PM

Tommy, you're right.

Also, even if they'd guessed right, and the WOD couldn't be completed, then there was a strong probability of 10 people finishing in a tie on first on say, 475lbs. They'd still have that distorting the results. See my post on tie-breaking above.

96. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:23 PM

The battle between OPT and Khalipa will be epic. They have the same points and I'm thinking they will finish higher in the rankings, 5th and 6th maybe. cool.

97. Jeff wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:23 PM

If it was ever to be changed (which it won't) my vote for most fair scoring on the DL WOD would be to keep 1 point for all those who did the 505 and then the next place gets 2 points (Salo) instead of 17 and so on down the chain. That would give Salo a giant lead right now whereas he is sitting in second.

98. Ed Flood wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:23 PM

Well in that case GO MIKKO!

99. christine wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:24 PM

Right on Joe. "People who can't run can't win the title of fittest person in the world". Khalipa should have been eliminated after the first event.

100. heidi hack wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:25 PM

Go Tommy !!!!!!!!!

Third and've always been great under pressure.

Do your thing. And have fun!

Your family loves you.....

101. tomh wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:26 PM

Does anyone have any real information that favors one or the other?

Anything in the last 30 hours to suggest a favorite?

102. Dominic wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:30 PM

That gymnastics WOD mkight be for the affiliates and not for the individuals

103. Ben wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:30 PM

Scoring for the 2nd is screwed up. If I finish 1st and you finish last on day 2, then it should put me as much further ahead of you overall as on day 1. But instead it only puts me 15 points ahead of you, instead of the 73 points on the first day. So Khalipa has DOMINATED this whole competition except the run, where he finished near last. He could win all three comps today with Hackenbruck finishing dead last in all three, and not come close to catching up.

They should have mulitplied points for day 2. So 1st is worth 4 points, 2 is 8 points, and 9th , which is how Hackenbruck finished for the first two of Day 2 would be worth 36 each, giving him 72 so far for the day, which is much more accurate based on his proportional placing in each event.

Based on a fair scoring system, a cursory glance shows Khalipa destroyed everyone, even before the final WOD.

104. Lehti replied to comment from Kieran...

July 12, 2009 1:31 PM

Fully agree. I don't see major problems with the events chosen but the scoring system is lacking, to say the least. I don't think that all events should necessarily be given equal weight. But the DL workout started with the assumption that no one or very few would do the max at 505. The decision to give all who tied for first place the minimum point(s) was probably hasty. Using the same principle the injustice would not be that great if 3 or 4 guys tied (with 4 tied and all given one point only 1+2+3=6 points would have been "lost"), but with 16 guys at 505 Kieran shows the huge injustice this (probably hasty and not thought out) decision does to the rest of the competitors. I think 3 years is plenty of time to get the scoring much better figured out. This is just an insult to all the competitors who work their ass off that not more thought has been put into a fair and well thought out scoring system with consistency and fairness and logical coherence. (Also, well said Ed #85)

105. Kieran replied to comment from christine...

July 12, 2009 1:34 PM

Christina, correct about running being way important, but I don't think it applied to Jason. Last year he was competitive in the run (although it was shorter), and this year is placed 16th in the sandbag sprint.

I think he finished way back due to cramps according to what I saw somewhere. That buys him more than a pass in my book. To guts it out through cramps shows a lot of character in my book. I think his spectacular comeback is going to become part of Crossfit legend, myself.

I don't think kicking people out on the basis of one bad result really in tune with Crossfit. Everyone has weaknesses. Speal came 4th last in the DL WOD.

<troll>Clearly the guy has no athletic future</troll>

106. Kizzee wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:34 PM

If the rankings that MB posted in the last CF Games post are correct.. (the re-ranking of the final 16.. just using ranking each other according to the top 16 performances) then Jason Khalipa would be winning going into the FINAL WOD..

Thanks MB for doing that.

Jason Khalipa (39)
Mikko Salo (43)
DJ Wickham (47)
Tommy Hackenbruck (51)
Moe Kelsey (53)
Steve Willis (53)
Blair Morrison (55)
Jeff Leonard (55)
Spencer Hendel (57)
Patrick Burke (59)
James FitzGerald (61)
Peter Egyed (63)
Jeremy Thiel (67)
Sveinbjorn Sveinbjornsson (68)
Michael FitzGerald (71)
David Millar (72)

note: I did not check MB's ranking to see if it was accurate.

107. Beth wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:37 PM

I don't understand how the scoring for the triplet works. What do the numbers in the parentheses mean? Why would Crystal McReynolds only have a (2)?

108. Wally wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:43 PM

Did Hackenbruck play for Urban Meyer? I'd like to see Tebow in the games.

109. bkm wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:43 PM

Ed and LT make the best arguemnets above. As it were, the design of the scoring system, particularly with todays wods carrying 0.25 the power of placement as the previous 5, as well as those penalized by the DL format (in that undoubtedly there were a number in the 505lb group who could have gone much higher), makes this "snap shot" of the fitness level of those involved somewhat murky to interpret. Given the scientific and evidenced based approach of everything else CrossFit, I am somewhat surprised at these oversights in design, programming, and scoring. Again, not complaints, just observations, since I certainly lost nothing on these events. However, should these Games make it to "primetime" in the coming years, particularly if a sizeable financial purse emerges, these shortcomings need to be addressed.
Incredible efforts by the athletes, you are all heroes this weekend.

110. Ed replied to comment from Lehti...

July 12, 2009 1:43 PM

111. Andy wrote...

July 12, 2009 1:45 PM

Did anyone ever find out what happened to Omar Torres (Bionic)?

112. Nukemarine replied to comment from Kizzee...

July 12, 2009 1:45 PM

Kizzee, thanks for the post. Like someone mentioned above, there are different ways the results can be scored that changes the outcome. Current version, MB's version, the strongman version (all start at 0 on day 2). Plus, there's the issue with the DL, which MB's version at least reduces (due to not all the 1's made the cut). All versions are just as fair as the others with flaws, although I like MB's version the best as a determining method.

What that tells me is that all 32 men and women are among the fittest people on the planet. Given just a slight change (scoring, order of WOD, type of WOD), any could be at the top.

113. Eida replied to comment from bkm...

July 12, 2009 1:46 PM

Yep. What he said.

114. Ron replied to comment from Beth...

July 12, 2009 1:46 PM

Crystal only completed 2 RX'd HSPUs, so none of her other work counted.

115. ken c replied to comment from Beth...

July 12, 2009 1:48 PM

the number means total reps. the handstand push ups were on paralletts i believe. very hard.

116. Beth replied to comment from Ron...

July 12, 2009 1:48 PM

Thanks...after reading the next post from HQ that's what I figured had happened.

117. heidi hack replied to comment from Wally...

July 12, 2009 1:53 PM

Yes, Tommy played for Urban Meyer. U of Utah, 2004 season, 12-0 capped off by a huge win over Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl.

118. Dave replied to comment from Tommy...

July 12, 2009 2:12 PM

One of the organizers didn't think they'd get to 505 because Castro only got to mid 400's...a ridiculous theory. Lance, Josh, Khalipa, Theil, Rob O , etc.. can DL 505 any time they want. Bad mis-judgement by Castro and Budding. On the other hand, it's still a learning process. They screwed up...shit happens. They will learn from this. In the meantime,Mikko was one of the favorites going in, and if he beats Hack and Moe in the last WOD he will deservedly win. The guy is a beast.

119. Wade Smith wrote...

July 12, 2009 2:17 PM

Enough with the complaints about scoring.

The truly fittest man & woman, per CF standards, WILL be able to do ALL things well no matter the format, scoring system, or WODs chosen on any particular day.

I'd be interested to see a spreadsheet of Coach's 10 components of fitness and how balanced this weekend has been.

CrossFit should ALWAYS expose weaknesses. That's why the games are not predictable. Unknown and unknowable: Get ready for everything.

120. christine replied to comment from Nukemarine...

July 12, 2009 2:41 PM

First big laugh of the day. Thanks.

121. Seattle Chris replied to comment from Kizzee...

July 12, 2009 3:12 PM

Kizzee, it looks like they have the scoring right then, since there's a greater disparity between the top competitors in your scoring system.

Just because Khalipa, Everett, Spealer and the rest of the favorites aren't in it at the end shouldn't take away from how close the competition is. Right now it looks like only 3 or 4 have a realistic chance of winning and the odds are that it's going to be whoever wins between Mikko and Tommy.

In your scoring system there are the same number of people who could realistically win it, but the names are different.

If Khalipa wanted more points on the run, he could have run faster.....