Are Machines Ruining CrossFit?

Can't we just all get along?

Every once in a while, a familiar take pops back up in the CrossFit world:

“Machines are ruining CrossFit.”

Too many rowers.

Too many bikes.

Not enough barbells, gymnastics, or “real fitness.”

And if you’ve been around CrossFit long enough, that reaction probably makes sense — at least emotionally.

I started CrossFit in 2011. Back then, “machines” meant:

• one Concept2 rower

• and a beat-up Airdyne you bought off Craigslist that might’ve been haunted

There was no BikeErg.

No SkiErg.

No Runner.

So yes — objectively — machines are used more now.

The question is whether that fact actually means anything.

The Claim: Machines Are “Taking Over”

The core argument usually goes like this:

• Machines are easier to coach

• Machines are easier to program

• Machines guarantee sweat

• Machines remove skill, coordination, and complexity

And if CrossFit is supposed to be about broad, functional fitness, then leaning too hard on machines must mean we’re moving backward.

On the surface, that sounds reasonable.

But it skips a really important step:

context.

More Tools Doesn’t Mean Less Fitness

One thing that gets lost in this debate is history.

When CrossFit started, we didn’t avoid machines because of philosophy — we avoided them because they barely existed in usable form.

As equipment improved, reliability improved, and options expanded, so did the programming toolbox.

That’s not dilution.

That’s evolution.

More tools doesn’t automatically mean:

• less barbell work

• less gymnastics

• less skill

• less complexity

It just means more options to test and train different qualities.

The argument assumes a false tradeoff:

“If machines go up, everything else must go down.”

That hasn’t actually happened.

Where the Criticism Is Fair

Now — this part matters.

There are valid critiques buried inside the “machines are ruining CrossFit” take.

Machines can absolutely be misused.

They’re misused when:

• they’re added just to add something

• they don’t change the stimulus at all

• the workout would be identical with or without them

• they’re used as filler instead of intent

If you throw a machine into a workout and can’t clearly explain:

• what it’s testing

• what it’s adding

• or why it belongs

That’s not good programming.

But that’s not a machine problem. That’s an intent problem.

And the same criticism applies to:

• unnecessary gymnastics

• random heavy barbells

• overcomplicated combinations

Bad programming is bad programming — regardless of equipment.

Testing vs. Training vs. Entertainment

Another piece that often gets tangled up in this debate is why workouts look the way they do.

Are we:

• training general population?

• preparing athletes for competition?

• testing fitness?

• or trying to make something watchable?

Those are different goals, and they lead to different decisions.

Machines:

• are highly measurable

• are highly repeatable

• reduce risk

• and remove some skill variability

That makes them useful in certain tests and certain training phases.

Are they the most exciting thing to watch? Usually not.

But entertainment value and test quality don’t always align — and they never have.

The Games Are Not the Gym

Another mistake is using elite competition programming as a proxy for everyday training.

The CrossFit Games are:

• a narrow slice of the population

• designed under specific constraints

• influenced by safety, logistics, and environment

One year having more machines doesn’t suddenly redefine CrossFit.

If anything, it reflects:

• available equipment

• available space

• and lessons learned from previous seasons

Treating one season as proof of philosophical collapse is a stretch.

The Bigger Misunderstanding

At its core, this debate often comes down to identity.

If you define CrossFit as:

• nonstop metcons

• constant suffering

• and aesthetic hardship

Then machines can feel like a threat.

But CrossFit was never just about metcons.

It’s a training methodology meant to:

• build broad fitness

• prepare people for the unknown

• improve health over time

Machines don’t oppose that goal. They support it — when used with purpose.

The first time I almost puked was a one-minute all-out test on this bad boy.

So… Are Machines Ruining CrossFit?

No.

But they can expose bad programming faster than other tools.

They’re neutral.

They amplify intent.

Used well:

• they improve training quality

• allow more work with less breakdown

• and help more people train consistently

Used poorly:

• they become lazy filler

• ego protection

• or “look how sweaty I got” props

That’s not a machine issue.

That’s a coaching issue.

The Real Takeaway

This doesn’t need to be a team sport.

You don’t have to be:

• “old school CrossFit”

  or

• “machine-heavy modern CrossFit”

Both can exist.

Both already do.

What matters is whether the workout:

• has a clear goal

• matches the athlete in front of you

• and fits into a bigger plan

If those boxes are checked, the tool choice matters a lot less than people think.

Machines aren’t ruining CrossFit.

Confusion about intent might be.

And that’s something we can actually fix.

Stay Dope.