CrossFit vs. crossfit

CrossFit vs. crossfit

As CrossFit has exploded in popularity over the past few years, there has been an increased focus on the safety of the programming.   As with anything with a large number of followers, media scrutiny will soon follow. It is this media investigation that has been such an annoyance to the business of CrossFit. To alleviate some confusion, for the sake of this post, I will here-after refer to the CrossFit corporate identity as “HQ”.     Just as the CrossFit Games (HQ’s premier event crowing the fittest person on earth) were coming to a close,  ESPN aired an Outside the Lines segment highlighting some incidents of people being injured while working out.  Predictably, HQ released a statement rebutting some information in the piece. In the statement, HQ focused on the fact that two of the injuries discussed during the segment did not occur at sanctioned HQ events/affiliated gyms.  This is true.  The injuries did not occur during the CrossFit Games process or at an affiliated HQ facility, but does that really matter and is that really what HQ is fighting against? The answer, I believe, is a resounding no.  HQ is fighting to hold onto the name “crossfit”. Directly from the HQ website (What is CrossFit?)is this statement: “CrossFit itself is defined as that which optimizes fitness (constantly varied functional movements performed at relatively high intensity).” CrossFit.com So by that definition, it should not matter where the activity is performed.  Whether an affiliated gym or not, it’s the activity that defines the word, not the company.  They then immediately follow that up with: “CrossFit is also the community that...