“X for Y” Startups

“Uber for Car Washes” or “Pinterest for Dudes” or “AngelList for Real Estate.” We’re the “X company for Y niche.” Elevator Pitch Shorthand.

While not as bad as asking investors to sign an NDA, it’s a bad practice. Why?

1) It’s a Terrible Signal. The elevator pitch is the very first opportunity for a founder to prove they can communicate and inspire confidence in a sales situation. A founder using “X for Y” is either lazy, doesn’t truly understand their market or incapable of communicating why they’re special. All are fatal flaws.

2) It’s Unnecessarily Risky. If a startup fills its marketing materials with we’re the “X company for Y market”, what happens if X company is indicted for securities fraud — or it’s founder pulls a McAfee?

3) It’s Limiting. By being “X for Y”, a startup starts to punt on thinking critically about how to create a business model that works for its market. The startup also inherits all the public concerns with the business it’s copying.

4) Finally, it Probably Means The Startup Is Screwed. If AngelList’s model would work well for real estate, wouldn’t they be in a better place to attack it than a new startup? The best “Groupon for Pet Owners” is going to be Groupon.

Tech startups that matter create categories rather than refine one. Dropbox, Google, Facebook, Angellist, Zillow, Parse, Heroku, and Rackspace couldn’t be described as “X for Y” businesses.

Given reporters and investors love the “X for Y” shorthand, it will happen. However, it’s the startup’s job to explain why it is defining a new category and not a “me-too.” — and that’s easiest to do when a startup chooses a path that isn’t a “X for Y” business in the first place.

Impressions From A Decade Without Coding

After a decade spent outside of tech, I have returned to writing code.  

Things have improved!  Rails, StackOverflow and Heroku all make today a paradise compared to an era when Java was the ease of use standard, installing Apache securely was a weeklong ordeal and my original iPod had like 50 megs of storage.

But even with the improvements of the past years, programming today feels broken. I returned expecting programming to be simpler so it’s accessible to more than just the best educated and smartest.  I expected developer tools to be more intuitive, visual and intelligent so they’d help programmers move faster.*  Programming would be done in something more akin to natural language so people don’t need to learn complicated syntax.  And so on.

I returned expecting an iPad and I got a programming world that is still a 1980s-era VCR.

The Visa Crisis

We can’t hire enough programmers!”  We must raise the visa cap to avert this crisis.  Big Tech companies are spending big money to save us from Doom.

Sadly, this would fail any Lean Startup solution fit interview. It’s not scalable. We could 5x the visa limits and we’re still going to run out of programmers.

The problem isn’t that the USA has too few programmers. The problem is programming is still too hard to leverage the people we already have.**

Misguided Incentives

Big Tech companies and developers have little incentive to expand the population of programmers.

No tech giants are really working to expand the developer population because no one makes big money making developer tools.  When programming is hard, big companies keep up their competitive advantage because they have the developers on staff already.  Visa workers are especially attractive because they are trapped with their sponsor company for years.

Developers have little motivation to grow the world of those who can program.  Once you’ve invested years becoming a top-notch programmer, there’s little reason to create a tool so other programmers can skip that agony.  So, the programming world focuses on developments that help those already in the know like node.js or Golang and not investing in truly groundbreaking tools.

Changing The World

Want to truly change the world? Figure out how a novice programmer never has to understand MVC just like they don’t have to understand how ethernet’s collision handling works.  Figure out how someone can build their first beautiful, complex web app going in a weekend and not in years.***

In other words, figure out how programming can be less broken and more like this:


* Many startups are working on this. My favorite for HTML5 mobile and web apps is Drifty.  Others are doing it for WordPress and web sites (Strikingly, RapidWeaver)

** I’m pro-immigration BTW.  You’re smart and motivated and want to come to America?  We should get you here as quickly as possible.

*** Many people never start programming because it’s too hard and has developed a terrible reputation. To quote from a developer who picked up programming late in life: “I still feel my problem with picking up programming was my limiting beliefs, “I can’t do this”, “it’s too hard”, etc. BUT when I picked it up I found that wasn’t the truth. Yes a more friendly environment, better/friendlier tools and differing perception of how ‘hard’ programming is would probably have had me starting earlier.”

[Thanks to Greg Cerveney, Richard Ortega, Tex Morgan, Jason Straughan, Vid Luther, Ben Sperry, Max Lynch, and Cole Wollak for reading drafts of this blog post.]

How To Find A Technical Co-Founder

“Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder but nobody wants to lift no heavy ass weights,” — Ronnie Coleman, 7-time Mr. Olympia

A non-technical person wants to do a tech startup to build a mobile application that does xyz - but – this “Idea Person” can’t find a technical co-founder.  They eventually give up.

“There’s just not enough programmers!” — Every Idea Person In History

Uh, no.  The majority of Idea People are sending all the wrong signals to a potential CTO for their startup.  They’re like the guy who shows up at the bar unshaven in ratty cargo shorts and expects the women to flock to him.  Programmers are the hot girls at the club and they have their pick on who they want to dance with.

Fear not, Idea Person, all is not lost.  I have seen a few people be successful in attracting a technical co-founder. They transform themselves from Idea Person to Business Person With a Clue. Here’s how they do it:

1) They’re Enjoyable.  They have a welcoming personality.  They’re fun.  They display leadership characteristics.  They’re the type of person with whom you can have brutally honest discussions — and still hug it out afterwards. Your personality sucks? That takes practice and study. Start with a classic.

2) They Bring Lots Besides An Idea.  Here’s a secret: programmers have ideas too!  Ideas are freaking easy.  The successful Idea People bring other things to the table such as access to funding, credibility and salesmanship*, knowing how to organize a business for scale, and understand how to hire/fire people.  They may know about specific industries, can think strategically, and have communication skills.  As one programmer friend told me:

“Programmers are attracted to people who can do shit.”**

The ways to learn this stuff quickly:  mentors, asking lots of questions and reading.

3) They Understand Product Scope.  This means they understand the customer’s problem, the underlying features and have an understanding how to build the product.  Sadly, most Idea People have never typed “git” or done a basic “Hello World” application.  That’s a terrible signal:  ”So, I’m the CTO and not only will I be up at 3am fixing bugs, you’ll be asleep AND unable to understand what’s going on?”  One friend said:

“In my previous life as a marketer I told my programmer to use ‘Hadoop, Redis, MonogDB, an MVC framework, Backbone.js, Rackspace cloud servers, Node.js’, that was in 2011 (when most of these technologies were bleeding-edge and hadn’t matured let alone did any of them make sense working together).”

The solution:  If you’re an Idea Person, lock yourself in a room for a couple of months and teach yourself the basics of the relevant technologies.  For example, if you’re doing a web app, learn Ruby on Rails.  Build something.  It’s the only way to show you’re serious.  You aren’t going to become a programming god but that’s not necessary.  You just need to know enough that you’ll be able to make good decisions and intelligently discuss issues.

4) They Understand Project Scope.  Once they understand the underlying technical concepts (from point #3), the successful Idea Guys know the roles and tasks in application development.  What is QA?  A/B testing?  Back end versus front end?  Designer versus graphic designer?  Who does what? How hard is each role?  AWS is down, what do we do?!

You learn these the same way: by doing and reading.  Doing is not as hard as you think.  Find something to volunteer on.  Pick any one of the bazillion open-source projects out there and try to help.

There’s a common theme here:  If someone wants a Scotty to their Captain Kirk, Idea People have to put down the “idea generator” for a while and invest in growing their skills to go from Idea Person to the Business Person with a clue.  These things all need significant investment from an Idea Person beyond an “awesome” idea.  They have to spend their time studying the tech startup game and learning the underlying technologies just as they expect their technical co-founder to have spent years honing their programming chops.  If not, well, they have little chance of convincing a potential co-founder that they’re the right choice.

(Thanks to Richard Ortega, Jason Straughan, Tex Morgan, Clint Watson and Matthew Egan for reading drafts of this blog post.)

(EDIT – the Hacker News discussion of this post is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5769824 )

* One tech friend said about good Business People: "They can sell. Folks with technical chops are not always the social butterflies of the world.  A great idea combined with a great technical solution will not sell itself.  Someone has to make it rain."

** To quote further from a technical co-founder friend of mine:  "Essentially programmers are attracted to people who can DO shit. Whether that's building, selling, or raising funds. If all you can contribute is advice, random ass strategy, and some insight you read from a book rather than personal experiences GTFO."

*** One programmer friend noted when reading this paragraph: Don't exaggerate skills.  Good Business Persons know what they know and are comfortable with that.  Don't bullshit and definitely don't play technical world roulette (e.g. "Should we github our relational UI deployment constructor?").

**** A late comment from another friend:  "don't even bring up the words "NDA" as the idea person.  I cringe every time someone finds out I'm a programmer and pulls me aside with their "great idea" for the next big iphone app."  Made me smile to hear that one.

Why San Antonio’s Future is Bright

(This article also appeared in the Rivard Report here.)

Every city government loves to trumpet that Good Times are ahead and San Antonio is no exception. Having lived here most of my life, I’ve long heard the rhetoric. But, it wasn’t always clear that our city was truly on an upward trend. Now, it’s clear to me that the stars are aligning in favor of our fair city.

Why? A number of macro and micro trends are aligning all to our city’s benefit:

Eagle Ford Shale: We’ve all read the numbers but they only hit me when I saw on Craigslist a young woman had posted: “Needed, 1 bedroom apartment for rent. $1600 or less.” $1600? In San Antonio? For a recent grad? That’s enormous. What was cool is she said she wanted it near her job on the south side at I 37 and 1604. Only jobs that far south are (a) farmer and (b) at one of the new oil company offices. I’m guessing she was in the oil company category.

Hispanic Immigration: Much is said about the “Sonterey” effect where wealthy Mexicans are fleeing and taking root in the Sonterra/Stone Oak area on the north side of San Antonio. This is a huge shift from our hispanic migration of decades earlier where immigrants were mostly the poor and uneducated. Now, we see the educated and wealthy moving here. These folks are bringing an entirely different feel in the city. At the Whole Foods at 1604 and Blanco last week, I was the only person out of a queue of four to order in English and the only one not to drive away in a Mercedes-Benz or BMW.

Internal (Southerly+Easterly) Migration: The intra-USA migration towards the south from the rust belt has been going on for decades. What’s relatively new are the California/Arizona escapees migrating east. One particular friend of mine picked San Antonio as a place to expand her business from Arizona. Her whole family is here now.

Noble Cause Philanthropy: San Antonio’s most recent crop of philanthropists here don’t care to have their names on buildings like earlier generations. Instead, they’re interested in investing in “places” like The Pearl or Geekdom where communities of like-minded, energetic people develop and flourish. They get that people and relationships, not buildings, are what makes a meaningful community.

Military: Nothing special in this category except for the fact little has changed. Physical war is as old as man. What’s new are the cyber wars. The most recent publication of APTs (Advanced Persistent Threat) groups operating out of China and elsewhere means continued heavy investment in cyber security. It doesn’t hurt that San Antonio is the home for much of the military (and NSA’s) cyber security work as well as the central training place for many military healthcare workers at Ft. Sam Houston.

Healthcare: Similarly, nothing has changed on national policy on healthcare in America. Our national healthcare system is still a ‘ginormous’ mess. That’s good for San Antonio. Where the healthcare system is inefficient, there’s opportunity for companies large and small to exploit those gaps and profit. The medical sector centered around the South Texas Medical Center will only grow as an economic driver.

Tourism: As we know, travelling by plane is getting harder due to security concerns and more expensive due to rising fuel costs. What better choice for a destination than one clearly outside of the firing line of terrorism and in driving distance? If you are going by plane, what better city to visit than one with a small but accessible airport?

Tech + Austin: Austin’s gain is San Antonio’s gain. As Austin establishes itself as the nation’s #4 tech hub (#1 SF Bay, #2 Boston, then tied #3 New York City & Austin) in the US, that’s only going to help San Antonio due to our proximity to our “Weird” neighbors 70 miles away. Things are happening in San Antonio. Besides Rackspace, dozens of IT companies are springing out of Geekdom at a torrid pace: TrueAbility and Par Level Systems being two of the most promising.

What’s missing? The biggest missing part of the puzzle is a top-tier, scale educational and research institution. Something on par with those in Boston, San Francisco and Austin that will attract the most special people from around the world. UTSA is trying hard but it has a systemic problem in that UT-Austin will always be the big brother and thus get to pick projects and people first.  Trinity is small so its impact is limited.

But, times are changing for the Stanfords, MITs and UTs of the world. The extreme cost of college combined with the potential disruption of online education means San Antonio’s lack of a premier and large educational institution might not matter as much any more — and prove the leaders who decades years ago hitched San Antonio’s wagon to tourism and the military were very prescient.

Even so, San Antonio is riding trends that are hugely in our collective favor. Cities like Cleveland or Las Vegas would kill for a list that included one or two of these things. There’s much to get psyched about and I’m glad to be part of the ride.

Age and CrossFit Performance

[Note: This is one of a series of posts on the 2013 CrossFit Games Open. For more details on the project, check out this post here. I previously wrote on height and CrossFit here.]

I’ve arrived at many a “functional fitness” (code for not trademarked Crossfit) competition to discover that all the other entrants are in their early twenties. What’s an old guy to do?

As part of this look into the results of the 2013 Crossfit Games Open, I wanted to examine the effect of age on athletic performance. What happens as we age? When does performance peak? Did any one event favor older competitors or vice-versa?

Findings

  • Men’s scores on average peak at age 23. Women’s scores on average peak at 25 years old.
  • Women’s performance decreases until they reach 30, at which point the rate of decrease is smaller until their mid-30s.
  • Men lose on average 3% of their ranking in the open each year from age 22 to 39. Women lose 1.8% of their ranking on average from 25 to 39.
  • Older competitors of both sexes performed better at 13.5 (never-ending Fran) compared to younger participants. For men, 13.2 (Box Jumps+Deadlifts+Push Press) showed a skew towards better performance for younger male competitors. For women, 13.1 (Burpees + Snatches) skewed better for younger female competitors.

The Data: Age & Crossfit

Looking across the entire Open, we have the following summary of ages across all men:

  Min.    1st Qu. Median  Mean    3rd Qu. Max.    NA's 
  13.00   26.00   31.00   32.48   37.00   80.00   1 

Screen Shot 2013-05-05 at 10.23.52 AM

And for all women:

   Min.   1st Qu. Median  Mean    3rd Qu. Max.    NA's 
  14.00   26.00   31.00   31.99   37.00   79.00   2

Screen Shot 2013-05-05 at 10.23.31 AM

As the entire set of entrants in the Games Open this year was unwieldy (over 200,000 entrants), I broke it down into manageable samples. This is the sample of 10,806 Men chosen at random (all of whom completed all 5 workouts):

Characteristics of Sample of Men by Ages in CFG 2013

Summary Information on Sample of Men by Ages in CFG Open 2013

Here’s a similar summary for women:

Summary information on sample of Women in the Crossfit Games 2013 Open

Summary information on sample of Women in the Crossfit Games 2013 Open

Interesting to compare the two distributions. While both women and mean peak at 28, women drop off much more suddenly compared to men who have a smaller decline as they approach their mid-thirties. Notice all the peak in participation around cultural age milestones such as 40.

So far, so good.

Performance vs. Age

Let’s plot the average rank (lower being better) versus age for our sample of men:

Average Rank Across All 5 CFG Open Workouts vs Age for Sample of 10,8000 Male entrants

Average Rank Across All 5 CFG Open Workouts vs Age for Sample of 10,8000 Male entrants (lower rank = better performance)

The performance is best, on average, for younger men. In this sample, the average is lowest for men in their early 20s. The inflection point of our average happens right at 23 and then goes up from there as men age.

We can zoom in further to the age range of highest performance (18-35):

Average Rank vs Age for CFG 2013 Open Performance of a Sample of 10,800 Men aged 18-30

Average Rank vs Age for CFG 2013 Open Performance of a Sample of 10,800 Men aged 18-35

Peak performance maxes for the population around 23 and goes down from there. (The gray stripes are because making graphs is hard in R. Sorry!)

Let’s look at the sample of 10,600 women. Here’s their age vs performance:

Average Rank vs. Age For a sample of 10,6000 CFG Open 2013 Women Competitors

Average Rank vs. Age For a sample of 10,6000 CFG Open 2013 Women Competitors (lower ranking = better performance)

(Note the dip after 50 is likely due to the weights used changing for women in the super-masters divisions.)

And limiting our age range to find the age with the lowest average score:

Average Rank vs. Age For Competitors Aged 20-30 from a sample of 10,6000 CFG Open 2013 Women Competitors

Average Rank vs. Age For Competitors Aged 20-30 from a sample of 10,6000 CFG Open 2013 Women Competitors

Women’s performance is peaking at age 25 on average.

Predicting Performance as a Function of Age

Now that we know where performance peaks (23 for men, 25 for women), can we model out how much of a disadvantage are competitors as they age?

Let’s start with the women this time. Here’s a linear regression for women 25 through 49:

Plot and Correlation of sub-Sample of 10,600 CFG 2013 Women Aged 20-49

Plot and Correlation of sub-Sample of 10,600 CFG 2013 Women Aged 25-49

Using this linear model, we can predict the average rank of participants aged 25 would be 14,487. Each successive year would add 265 places (using this model) 265 places. Or, 1.83% per year slower. Thus, a 39 year old on average is 25.62% worse ranked than a 25 year old woman.

For men:

Plot and Correlation of sub-Sample of 10,600 CFG 2013 Men Aged 23-49

For men, we can predict that the average male will be at place 21,249. Each year will add 680 places or about 3 percent until the average 39 year old is finishing 9,739 places (45% higher) beyond the average 23 year old.

Each Games Open Event Versus Age

I next plotted the average ranking for each event in the Open (13.1 -> 13.5) for both men 18-49:

Average Ranking by Age for all 5 CFG 2013 workouts.  13.1=blue, 13.2 = red , 13.3 = orange ,  13.4 = purple , 13.5 = pink

Average Ranking by Age for MALES for all 5 CFG 2013 workouts. 13.1=blue, 13.2 = red , 13.3 = orange , 13.4 = purple , 13.5 = pink

Above we see that 13.2 (box jumps + push press + deadlifts) was particularly punishing on older male competitors while younger competitors performed better on average. At the height of the box jumps for this event (24″), I believe younger legs would likely have made all the difference.

Plotting the same for our sample of 10,800 women:

Average Ranking by Age for a sample of 10,800 WOMEN all 5 CFG 2013 workouts. 13.1=blue, 13.2 = red , 13.3 = orange , 13.4 = purple , 13.5 = pink

Average Ranking by Age for a sample of 10,800 WOMEN all 5 CFG 2013 workouts. 13.1=blue, 13.2 = red , 13.3 = orange , 13.4 = purple , 13.5 = pink

The workout that shows the largest age distortion is 13.1 (burpee + snatch ladder). My theory is that young legs are a huge benefit in burpees. Notice that we see a similar pronounced dip in favor of young legs for the same graph for men.

Discussion

  • As we can see from the performance graphs, the performance as a function of age doesn’t look linear. Sinclair Coeffcicients use the top performances at different weight classes to then generate multipliers. It’s clear that something similar is the correct methodology to generate a good equalizing model for age in Crossfit competitions. Perhaps that’s the topic of the next post.
  • Also, getting old appears to suck. ;-)

How to Avoid Athletic Injury

In spending much of my free time around the gym, I’ve seen lots and I try to pay attention.  The things I’ve noticed is that injury correlates strongly to inflexibility.  In other words, the people with the broadest range of motion become injured the least often.

It happened to me: I have very flexible shoulders and my upper body is never injured — and I put them through a lot.  My worst joint is my right ankle.  Wonder which knee gives me problems?  Yup, the right one.  I see this same pattern continue with knee, wrist, ankle or elbow problems.  All about flexibility.  The least injured hard-charger I know is also the most flexible.

Like much of exercise science, we have little statistical facts to validate my hypothesis.  But, watch your friends and see who is getting hurt.  Flexibility is likely a huge problem for them.  So, give them a hug, piece of gum and a groupon for some cheap yoga classes.

What is the Best Height for CrossFit Men?

Note: This is one of many questions I’m attempting to answer by analyzing the 2013 CrossFit Games Open.  For more details on the project, check out this post here.  This is the first (of hopefully) many posts on this topic.

Imagine you’re building a super-star team of men for CrossFit.  How tall should your candidates be?  Or, more specifically, is there a height range that you should immediately rule out?

Answers

* Shoot for 5’8″ to 5’11″ tall for the “super-team.”  If you have to choose between someone a little too short or a little too tall, go for the shorter man. (Sorry, tall people!)

* Crossfit, where the Open is concerned, attracted competitors who are taller than the general population on average by over 1 inch.

* The most competitive Crossfit athletes are on average shorter than the general population by about 2 inches.

The Data: Height & Crossfit Men

To start, here’s a random sample of all men who completed all 5 Open workouts (sample size 14,853):

Data Summary of Men's Sample from CFG 2013

Data Summary of Men’s Sample from CFG 2013

The average height of all competitors worldwide is about what we’d expect — 179cm (5’10″) and the distribution looks normal.    

(The lumpiness in the distribution is due to rounding.  Since competitors entered their height in inches and we converted to centimeters, some values don’t show up as often.)

What we do know is data about the height of the US Population, so we can look at how the US competitors compare to that.  The distribution of the subset of competitors in the USA aged 20-29 looks like this:

Height Distribution of CFG 2013 Males - US Only - 20-29 years old

The average of all competitors is 179cm (5’10.75″).  The US average height is 5’9.5″ for men 20-29.  Crossfit for the Open is taller than average.

But, a skew starts to emerge towards below average height as we limit our sample to the top performers.  Below is all men in the Top 500 in total reps completed for the open in the USA who reported their height in their profile:

Height of Top 500 Men by Total Reps in the CFG 2013 Open

Height of Top 500 Men by Total Reps in the CFG 2013 Open

The Top 500 are a full centimeter shorter than the average.

The Top 50 get even shorter.  The average of the top 50 in the USA goes down to 175cm (5’8.75″):

Top 50 Men in CFG 2013 in USA who reported their height

In the Top 50 performers in the Open in the USA, only two are over 6′ tall.

Performance vs. Height

Let’s plot the heights into buckets versus average rank (lower being better).  This graph is the all men in the top 40,000 overall:

CrossFit Games 2013 Men 22-33 Average Place Dot Chart

The average best rankings happen right around the 175-183cm (5’9″-5’11″ range).  Being a little shorter or a little taller doesn’t seem to hurt so much.  But, when you start to push over 6′ tall, things get worse.

(The N/A means the people reported heights outside of our graphing range.)

Here’s another view of height versus average ranks.  This one includes a “heat map” and average showing the count of places in the top 40000:
CF-men-22-to-33-top40000-ranked-with-smoothed-avg-line-and-heatmap

Another view here is the total reps for the entire open versus height in cm (Using total reps and not a more advanced statistical method is because of laziness.  It’s my belief that any difference is inconsequential given the size of the data set.):

Total Reps Completed vs. Height for a Random Sample of ~14k CFG 2013 Participants

Total Reps Completed vs. Height for a Random Sample of ~14k CFG 2013 Participants

An interesting insight here is how tall people vary more around the mean for their height than shorter people (as demonstrated by the width of the gray area around the line and the color distribution).

Being too short for Crossfit is not a killer for someone aspiring to top-tier performance.  Being too tall is.  As we exceed 6’3″ (190.5 cm), the number of high scores drops off.  These would be represented by black square in the heat map in the top right of the graph.  Once we exceed 6’4″, the number of elite competitors drops to nothing in our sample (Sorry, Aja Barto).

But, how much does being too tall or too short hurt a person?  My hypothesis is that the relationship is non-linear (i.e. things get progressively worse as people get taller).   At the present time, this is beyond my data skills.  If we glom on a Simple Linear Regression, it does give us a model (though not a strong one.)

Correlation of Height > 180cm and Average Total Reps in CFG 2013

And going up to 180cm:

Men Less than 180cm Tall from a Sample of 14,000 Men of All Ages CFG 2013

Men Less than 180cm Tall from a Sample of 14,000 Men of All Ages CFG 2013

Does the same apply for the best of the best CF competitors?  In this sample, we’ve taken the top 15% of performers worldwide from 10-54 in Age.  (At 55, the standards changed.)

Top 15% of Male Scorers in Crossfit Games 2013 Height vs Total Reps Through All 5 Open WODs

Discussion

  • It is probable that the skew towards being shorter is more pronounced than even this data shows.  Given the data on height is self-reported and the social belief that “taller is better”, many competitors are likely to have exaggerated their height.
  • The design of the Open workouts was done to make them as accessible to as many competitors as possible.  This, inherently, made the workouts often favor taller people.  Many of the exercises that shorter people love like ring dips or handstand push ups did not make appearances in the Open.
  • Do our results jive with what we know from the sport?  Yes, it would seem to.  The movement standards for CrossFit are highly dependent upon a person’s body build.  If you’re doing a barbell movement from shoulder to overhead, the bar will need to travel the length of your arm.  In addition, it’s well-known that the best movers in Olympic Lifting are those with long torsos and short-limbs.  This is a characteristic usually not found in the tallest of people.  Additionally, looking at the top competitors in the Games, very few of the best performers are over 6′ tall.