trail wrote:
>Crossfit does not start out with a goal at all.
Sure it starts with a goal. The goal is to increase fitness, with the definition of fitness provided by Crossfit, e.g. a broad mix of strength, stamina, etc. Also I think there's an unstated goal to "look good."
Crossfit training is also highly structured and systematic.
>It starts out with a bunch of pointless activities.
Pointless to whom? That's an arbitrary judgment. Running for the sake of running faster is no more "meaningful" than doing pull-ups for the sake of doing more pull-ups.
(I'm not a Crossfitter, so have no real dog in this fight, I just find the vocal criticism to be odd. From my perception it's a little cultish, but also a healthy, time-efficient way to stay physically fit.)
Being "fit" as defined by crossfit?
That is circular or self referential.
I think a goal must have some external measure.
Running is a component of football, soccer, etc.
But it was also the very first sport. The first means of rapid transportation. It is a "thing" in and of itself.
Pull ups are good training for gymnastics and rock climbing.
But an end in themselves?
If so then, why not look at each of the components of pull ups?
To train for pull ups we will practice grabbing a bar, moving biceps etc.
Are those "sports."
How about thinking about doing pull-ups?
Could that be a valid "sport?"
Thinking is part of doing pull ups, and pull ups are good training for rock climbing, which is useful in mountaineering, which could take you to Everest.
So, thinking about doing a pull up is the same as climbing Everest?
No- there has to be a limit on how derivative an activity can be and still be considered a "thing " in its own right. I