The Non-Negotiability of Perfection
Thursday, January 3, 2008 at 05:01PM 
CrossFit is the pursuit of athletic perfection—performing difficult workouts with technical mastery under conditions of duress. We’re looking for flawless form with a jackhammering heart, bursting lungs, and battery acid-filled veins.
When this is accomplished with unyielding intensity, the result is nothing short of beautiful. When we fall short of the mark, the result is horrifying at best.
Athletes often set up a false dichotomy between perfect form and intensity, assuming that as one increases the other must necessarily fall. This idea is a thinly disguised excuse for athletic complacency. Rather than revisit proper technique through low-intensity, low-excitement skill work, the athlete chooses to pursue personal records with diminished form. The unstated reason for this choice: it’s easy on the ego to put up “good” WOD times. Taking a hit to your “Fran” time in order to perform perfect thrusters is not going to move you up the records board—at least not right away—and the blow to the ego is too much to bear.
In reality, form and intensity are not mutually exclusive, but the non-linearity of their relationship leads novice athletes to the wrong conclusion. For the novice, maintaining form becomes a cruel joke as intensity increases, leading to the erroneous conclusion that the two cannot coexist. Advanced athletes believe the opposite. These athletes recognize that continuous high-intensity work is nearly impossible without strict attention to form. The advanced athlete knows that perfect form is perfect for a reason: it imparts structural advantages that poor form does not.
Take the thruster as an example. Performed poorly, the movement relies on the small muscles of the anterior shoulder to support the weight at lockout. These muscles fatigue extremely quickly, leaving the athlete with reduced capacity in short order. When the thruster is performed well, the weight is supported by the large, hard-to-fatigue muscles of the posterior chain, allowing the form-conscious athlete to continue at peak power long after his sloppy brethren have stopped to rest.
The advantages of good form are not isolated to the thruster. Clear structural advantages can be had in the majority of our movements if one chooses to pursue perfect form. Most of these advantages are based on the physics of power transmission, specifically the fact that it is easier to send power through a rigid structure than through a limp one.
Squatting provides a wonderful illustration. The squat utilizes power from the hip to propel the torso through a complete range of motion. If the spine is rounded and the torso is loose, power is lost and the torso becomes difficult to move. If the spine is kept in a neutral or arched alignment and the torso is rigid, as proper form dictates, power flows freely and the load is easy to move. Nonetheless, we’ll often see novices blasting through flaccid, rounded-back squats, heedless of the power-draining effect of their substandard form.
Condoning bad form for the resulting intensity ignores the big picture. In doing so, we rob our athletes of their long-term potential, artificially capping their progress in the name of immediate gratification. An athlete with poor form and an ugly three-minute “Fran” will always have an ugly three-minute “Fran”, while a similar athlete with good form will soon find himself pushing the limits of possibility, utilizing the structural advantages of the perfect thruster to close in on two minutes.
For the CrossFitter, perfection should be non-negotiable, regardless of the near-term outcome. Progressing to the elite level—heart jackhammering, lungs bursting, and records falling—depends on it.
The difference between a structurally solid lockout and its weak cousin is obvious. Photos courtesy of the author.
Reader Comments (24)
Right on, Brother! Ugly reps are for ugly people. Don't take any guff from those swine. Make them do it right...it's the only way they'll learn.
Beautifully put and great stuff to keep in mind. Train the body, not the ego!
Thanks
Good article. I think I understand Jodi's Fran video a little better now. Form emphasized along with speed.
That's how I'm going to do my next Fran. Rx'd and strict. Thanks!
Nice underscore to the purpose of perfect form.
Jon,
Very well written article. We have been trying as a business to perform the movements as close to perfection as possible, and have noticed a significant drop in times.
And now, 6 months later, have seen gains in those times from better form. And the persons with the best form (aka Super Jelli) have seen exponential leaps in their times, strength, and physique.
Thanks for authoring such valid points. Your articles are a great source of contribution to our community!
I dropped out of Crossfit for the simple reason that it often becomes a competition to finish first. When I watched a woman with proven athletic ability do a WOD with beautiful, precise form and finish last in a room full of wannabees, I decided it was time to go. If there is an obvious diparity in times of several minutes someone is not being honest either in their form or their counts. I have to ask, what's the point of the drill?
Kate,
There's a constant battle between maintaining good form and motivating intensity by starting the stopwatch.
The problem you're describing arises when athletes are not taught to value mechanics above intensity. If you find yourself in a room full of CrossFitters where the only goal is intensity (a.k.a "winning"), and your value system places mechanics at the top, you'll inevitably be disappointed.
At CrossFit Boston, your time on any given WOD is only recorded if the workout was done with good mechanics. While your reps won't always be perfect, imperfect reps are repeated until they embody the current physical capacity of the athlete performing them.
A zero-tolerance culture for half-hearted attention to mechanics is the only way to breed true CrossFit firebreathers.
I'm truly sorry that you left CrossFit, and I hope you find a gym that gives you the mechanics, intensity, consistency, and variation that leads to all-around fitness.
Best,
Jon
Jon,
Again, a great article. Keep 'em coming.
Kate,
I don't know where you live, but if it's near Athens, Ga, you are more than welcome to train with us. Here, your rep doesn't count in any workout unless it is executed with satisfactory form. Hopefully you will find that somewhere.
Regards,
Adam Head
Great article. Good numbers on the board and continuous improvement (and safety) are impossible without proper technique. Check out the Colm O'reilly video from the main page last Friday--he went to a certification, and spent a great deal of time developing squat technique--something he previously thought he had down pat! Practice, listen, practice, be patient, practice, repeat. (oh, yeah--and PRACTICE!)
Matt,
Thanks for your kind words. I understand that you do more than your fair share for the community as well, and I look forward to meeting you one of these days.
Best,
Jon
NICE.. very nice! Not as nice as your dress!
Were you inspired to write this after seeing the FRAN on the main board a few days (weeks) back? no pun intended :)
sevan
Sevan,
You're pretty funny for a midget. I hate to cut my comment short, but I have to go move something heavier than a microphone.
Best,
Jon
Jon,
I agree with very much of what you say, but I have some areas of serious disagreement as well.
When the range of motion of an exercise is short changed, e.g., when a pushup does not go all the way down or all the way up, or when a squat does not go below parallel or to full extension at the top, then the reps should not count and the times posted for the workout are not valid. In every case of shortened range of motion, the amount of work done is reduced, and that is a cheat. The workout times are not valid, and the athlete's progress is hindered. In this respect, we are in perfect agreement.
Then there is the separate question of inefficient technique. A movement may be done through full range of motion with improper technique, and you are right to say that bad technique not only hinders performance, it can be dangerous. An example would be a deadlift with the back in flexion.
But much of your article is directed to the issue of acceptable form for a thruster during a Fran workout. Recall that you made a comment on the HQ site that 2/3 to 3/4 of the thruster reps in the "Franlanta" video should not have counted. Two photos accompany your article. In one the bar is over the heels, and the head and torso are pushed forward into the classic overhead position that would get the green light from Olympic lifting judges. In the other, the bar is way out in front of the lifter's center of gravity. I agree that the latter is bad technique and that no one will achieve their true potential at Fran using such technique. But the bar can be kept over the lifter's center of gravity at full elbow extension without the lifter getting his head and torso forward and under the bar. See the photo here:
http://crossfitatlanta.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/11/20071218_at_103808.jpg
This is the position I see in Mike G's thruster reps, in Josh Everett's 2:25 Fran, in Greg Amundsen's Fran, and in AFT's 2:19 Fran. You make the point that the strict overhead position is stronger and more efficient for holding weight overhead, and you are absolutely right about this. A heavy jerk, push press, press, or snatch cannot be got up or held up any other way, and that is proof of the efficiency of the technique. But with the light weight used in Fran I don't think you are right to say that those who lock out elbows while laying the torso back slightly and who don't get their heads through and under the bar are cheating and are also condemned by bad mechanics from ever reaching their true Fran potential.
First: I have yet to hear or read any persuasive argument that moving the bar to full lockout of the elbows with the torso and head laid back a little is any less work than moving the head and torso under the bar to the position of strict overhead. Because the same amount of work is being done, it is not a cheat like short stroking push ups and pull ups is.
Second: If moving to a strict overhead position is more efficient, then we would see faster times using the allegedly more efficient technique. The test of such a theory is results. And on that basis the theory fails. Every sub 3 minute Fran video that I have seen has guys who do not move into the strict overhead position that you claim is essential to truly fast Fran times. In the fast Fran videos I have seen the bar is moved to full elbow lockout with the bar over the mid foot, so they are not cheating on the range of motion, and they are doing the same amount of work as someone who moves the bar to a strict overhead position. If your theory were correct, they could all go even faster if they used the more efficient technique. The problem with the theory is that as far as I know of no one using the allegedly more efficient technique goes faster than the guys using the allegedly inefficient technique. If they have, let's see the video.
In Fran the bar is not HELD overhead at full extension. It starts down the instant after it hits full elbow extension. The faster and more directly it can come down, the faster the movement can cycle. Moving the head under the bar and then moving it back out of the way before the downward movement begins is wasted motion, is unnecessary, and takes time, and that is why no one doing thrusters the way you insist will ever approach the times put up by athletes who move like Josh, Greg, AFT, and Mike G.
Dan,
Good stuff! I'm glad you took the time to post a well-reasoned response. Truth be told, you're right on the money that this is a criticism of "Franlanta". The video made me cringe.
You claim that you have yet to see any persuasive evidence that full lockout is more work than "frontal" lockout. From a pure classical mechanics point of view, you're close enough to correct. The difference in bar height is negligible.
Nonetheless, our typical work over time equals power argument does not hold water when muscle activation patterns differ between movements. In the full lockout, the entire shoulder girdle is engaged. In the "frontal" lockout, shoulder activation is minimal.
For me, the proof is in the pudding. Pick up a barbell, and perform both movements. The full lockout is more difficult, requiring more effort of the athlete. We could even say that (in the colloquial sense) the athlete is doing more work. After all, if it wasn't more difficult, why would athletes avoid it in favor of the "frontal" lockout?
I disagree strongly that the athletes you mention--Greg, at least--avoid full lockout during their efforts at "Fran". I've witnessed Greg's effort in person, and he certainly achieves proper positioning.
You are correct that very fast "Fran" times can be achieved with "frontal lockout". The efficiency of proper movement will not manifest itself in such a short time period (2-3 minutes). I stand corrected, but ask yourself this--if "Fran" was 10 reps longer, would these guys have the strength to finish?
Regardless, I would never allow the "frontal" lockout to count, because it is technically unsound, does not carry to the Olympic lifts, and exhibits an incomplete muscle recruitment pattern. Of course, what counts in your gym is up to you.
This argument is an interesting one. Thanks for your post!
Jon...How do you explain these videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWslrYQYdG8
http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/fran-greg_annie.wmv
http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/Josh_Greg-Fran.wmv
In every one of these Greg is doing "frontal" lockouts.
And in this video:
http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/AFT_FRAN.MOV
Brett Marshall is also doing a "frontal" lockout.
Brent,
Partial-ROM reps are exactly that. You've unearthed multiple instances of other folks doing incomplete reps and getting credit. That does not make them correct.
Further, you're headed down a slippery slope. Where do we stop? When these become standing bench presses?
As long as we're at it, here's the last video I witnessed from Greg, which post-dates every one you posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWslrYQYdG8. Every rep isn't perfect, but he certainly achieves lockout on the vast majority. Perhaps the need for technical perfection was impressed upon him at some point?
Regardless, if you choose to call repetitions valid, go ahead. You know what I believe, and you're not going to change my mind. I don't believe I'll change yours.
Best,
Jon
Jon;
I have to admit a big smile came to my face when you mentioned the shortcoming of viewing the total work as the “classical” component. Bravo. Although your implied wording was strictly incorrect (even the activation of secondary muscles or chemical energy in the body would still strictly be classical thermodynamics and mechanics) your point was right on. The assumption that can “sometimes” be misleading is that total work is only comprised of the vertical (gravitational) component. In reality, as you perfectly point out, the body is a complex machine and many non-gravitational work components can enter into the picture making two “equivalent” gravitational work exercises feel different to an athlete. A good example is an isometric exercise where the bar is not moving. Here the body burns classical chemical energy and power even though the bar is not moving vertically doing classical mechanical gravitational work.
On the other hand I am having trouble understanding your implied argument that form on a metabolic high rep low weight exercise must always be the same as form on a low rep strength exercise. Sure, for many exercises the form must remain the same in terms of safety and ability to benchmark across athletes. But sometimes it simply does not make sense to use the same form, and doing so can diminish the metabolic component of an exercise routine. A key example would be the crossfit staple, the kipping pullup. The reason the form is changed to a kip is to maintain a rep speed that can facilitate a power generation that is reasonable. So I do not think that the muscle recruitment plan must “always” be the same between different versions of a movement. It is up to the athlete and trainer to decide when variations in form should be used (albeit minimally, and with great caution) between high rep and low rep efforts. As to what is correct in a thruster, I can see both sides of the argument, it is a tough one to decide…Personally I lean towards a slight form modification to allow higher total power output during rep cycling as long as athletes can still maintain the proper lockout form in their one rep attempts.
Ken Gall
Professor
Mechanical and Bioengineering
Georgia Tech
Ken,
Thanks for your comment! I'm always excited to learn new things, and your post certainly left me better informed. Bravo right back at you!
Your argument regarding power facilitation is certainly valid, but your analogy is faulty via a false parallel. The relationship between the kipping pullup and the pullup is not the same as the relationship between the "frontal" lockout and the full lockout.
In the former pairing, we see broad similarities in motor recruitment throughout the arms and back--the same muscles are used in both instances of the pullup. In the lockout pairing, motor recruitment patterns are markedly different between the two versions, as I indicated in the original article. Thus, we see that kipping pullup practice facilitates increased competency at the deadhang pullup, while "frontal" lockout does little to increase full lockout competency--the necessary posterior chain muscles are never activated in the "frontal" version.
In the end, I don't believe that practicing "frontal" lockout increases intensity over full lockout by a large enough degree to warrant its inclusion. What it WILL do is reinforce an undesirable motor pattern, leading to muscle memory that interferes with proper movement during presses, push press, and push/split jerks.
Nonetheless, I see your point. I believe that a good trainer is well within the bounds of his/her rights to modify exercises to achieve a given goal. Maintaining credibility requires that trainer to acknowledge the change, elucidate its benefit(s), and ensure that the athlete retains the ability to perform the technically correct movement.
Even with this concession, please realize that the CrossFit Community is the realm of the beginner. Thousands of people visit CrossFit.com for the first time every day, and that demographic is largely inexperienced with functional movement. Giving a public example of a less-than-desirable or trainer-modified movement to these folks right off the bat invites trouble.
Best,
Jon
Jon, thanks for the thoughts and response. Ken
Actually, if you look at the Annie/Greg video, you'll see a direct comparison of the two ideas here. In the first set of 21, Annie is slightly faster, but still avoids the frontal lockout. Greg uses it, but it didn't seem to make him go faster.
I admit that limb lengths may have had something to do with it, but the fact is that Annie got a very good time without resorting to bad form.
Were her lockouts absolutely complete, as in the above photo? The video angle makes it somewhat difficult to tell, but I don't think so. I am satisfied, however, as the bar was well overhead. To keep that kind of speed going, I'm not sure if complete strictness would have worked.