Chris Sinagoga | Friday, October 1, 2021 at 12:42PM On December 29, 2014 our 12 noon session was packed with some of the best athletes/names to ever come into the gym. The workout that day was "Kelly". As described in our All-Decade post:
This session contained Matt Fecht, James Rogers, Shannon, Murley, Elizabeth, Ricky, Bromm, Emma, Alyssa, Tyler, Bubs, Carter, Jacqueline Banet, and Tara Taylor. That's 2 Athletes of the Summer, 3 stud Champions Club coaches, an NFL player, and a professional marathon runner. Jacqueline Banet and Alyssa Jabara were after thoughts, despite being two of our fittest kids at the time. In terms of names, talent, and fitness level at a Champions Club session, I don't think any other session could come close. It's also one of the nastiest benchmark workouts CrossFit has to offer.
benchmark, bubs, from the vault, girls, james rogers, katie bromm, kelly, matt fecht, murley, ricky, shannon in Archive Videos 
Reader Comments (7)
Here with my annual comment of how a box jump is not completed until the knee and hip are fully locked out, either on top of the box or subsequently after jumping off of it. Peace!
Did you watch the archive video with Josh Everett doing Kelly?
https://www.crossfit.com/at-home/from-the-archive-kelly-wod-demo-with-josh-everett
Of course. #1, That's a classic video, c. 2012. #2, Josh is my man. OG. One of my original inspirations for CrossFit.
And if you watch the video, he reaches full knee and hip extension on the box jump, usually right after jumping off of it. It can be hard to judge in competition, which is why CrossFit changed the standard a year or two later to full extension on the top of the box only.
The thesis for why you need full knee and hip extension is simply because it's the amount of work done. We don't pull ourselves only halfway up on a pull-up, we don't quarter-squat, and we have to touch our toes to the bar for toes-to-bar (ahem).
Of course it's faster to only do part of the work, but that doesn't make it right. Also, I don't mean this as a criticism of partial T2B or partial-depth squats when that's all the athlete can do or if it's more appropriate for the stimulus of the workout (partial-ROM GHD sit-ups, as one example). But those are "scales" and should be considered as such.
/soapbox
He was nowhere close to full hip/knee extension on most of those box jumps!
I do agree that I need to revisit what I consider rx for benchmark workouts. It's a difficult transition to go from using workouts as practice most of the time to using them as the test/game on the named workout occasions.
Okay here's a good analogy, in my opinion: what's the rx on a burpee?
You could jump as high as you can - which would mean you're doing more work, but it might not fit the purpose of the workout. You could also do wide landing, clap behind your head, but that might not apply to anything else you do.
The purpose of the box jump (touch-and-go) is to practice elasticity: standing up on top of the box does not do that. Coming to full hip and knee extension is counterproductive to that elasticity, similar to running.
Obviously depends on the specific standards, but Rx on burpee in my book is that the chest touches the ground at the bottom and we can see full extension of the knee and hip at the top of the jump (no height required on the jump). Of course, you could jump higher but then that would be a different standard - and we have seen that in the Open ("jump and touch an object 6" above your reach"). The clap behind the head was originally - as you likely know - an attempt to force athletes to reach full global extension on the jump. Burpees of course are difficult to judge, and CrossFit over the years has made the competition burpee more complicated - burpees over the bar, bar-facing burpees, burpee box jumps, burpee box jump-overs - primarily to force athletes to do the full body of work: down to the ground and 100% vertical again. (And secondarily to make us all suffer more...)
Your point on the box jump is well taken. But I would submit that an athlete gets more plyometric benefit from the rebound at the bottom of the box jump vs. that at the top (also more force per square inch on the Achilles, so be careful Masters athletes). And second, you don't have to come to a full stop at the top of the box to reach full extension - in the Josh Everett video, he is rebounding at the top, but he is also making sure to reach full extension, if not on the box then in the air slightly after he jumps from the top. (That is, he's actually jumping "up" a little as he jumps off the box.)
Lastly - and again just an observation - it seems that for so-called "benchmark" WODs (vs. ordinary WODs), you allow more leeway (for lack of a better word) for the athlete not quite meeting the standard. Whereas my logic tells me that the "benchmark" WODs should be held to a higher standard, so there should be less leeway than an ordinary WOD. That is, who cares if you have a sub-3 Fran if you never got below parallel on the thrusters? We all want to brag about our "benchmark" PRs; these boasts are made more meaningful if everyone knows that the standards for "benchmark" WODs are held to a high bar.
Sorry for the novel.
No need to be sorry about a novel if it's good stuff.
I think if you look further into your second paragraph, you'll find a good reason for you to not reach full hip extension on box jumps touch-and-go. Hint: "also more force per square inch on the Achilles, so be careful Masters athletes."
For your last paragraph, here's where I'm stuck: the benchmark workout, for me, serves the purpose of the highest standard on INTENSITY, not necessarily ROM. And by intensity, I guess I should say the classic sense of intensity, not the literal "equals power" definition. From what I have observed, knowing how to go to "that place" and being okay with it is a main limiting factor in people that are 6 months + in experience. The range of motion is something that comes.
Fran, for example, is waaaaay worse for Mr. Kuiper and Madison if they do some full-ROM pull-ups and some half pull-ups; if they only allowed full ROM pull-ups then it would be a 6-7, maybe 8 minute workout. That is not Fran, in my opinion. That's just a random Tuesday couplet of thrusters and pull-ups that exaggerate pulling/pushing skill and jumping with a ton of ROM. Over time the consistency is built up in other "practice" workouts and carries over. Cecilia and Jessica, for example, were legit on depth, bar over head, and pull-up height.
But sometimes I don't do a good job of letting the athletes know that "okay this is Kelly, and yes I want you to go fast, but your wallballs need to be hips below your knees and hit the target, not skim it." We have a lot of people right now who are still new in my eyes but move to standard at at a low, medium, and medium-high intensity. So I want to find out the balance between not letting the intensity slip while also increasing ROM from what they usually do.