Women Fail Army Ranger Course

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
1. I still am looking for a source saying it needs to be re eevaulated.
2. Firemen/women have to carry large heavy hoses up and down stairs in full gear. It is a absolute req that they be strong.

Are all men equal in strength? No, just like all women are not, some are stronger then others.

1. The Washington Post good enough for you? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/04/16/opinion-its-time-to-reevaluate-standards-for-women-in-the-military/

2. Yes, and no one is saying everyone regardless of fitness should get in, people are just saying that perhaps the training standards should be publicly re-evaluated.

Originally posted by Bardock42
1. The Washington Post good enough for you? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/04/16/opinion-its-time-to-reevaluate-standards-for-women-in-the-military/

2. Yes, and no one is saying everyone regardless of fitness should get in, people are just saying that perhaps the training standards should be publicly re-evaluated.

That source is talking about all military around the world. And started off by talking about the Marines.

The topic at hand was should standards be re evaluated in the US Army Rangers. I thought we were sticking to OP.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Pushups increase upper body strength, overall fitness and body conditioning.. Yes they are very important, do you even push up bro?

Yes, but that's not the precise point. Is the set standard now really necessary to be a Ranger? Maybe the set standard should be increased, that could also be the outcome of a reevaluation.

Well yes, I do, 50 each morning.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, but that's not the precise point. Is the set standard now really necessary to be a Ranger? Maybe the set standard should be increased, that could also be the outcome of a reevaluation.

Well yes, I do, 50 each morning.

Yes you are right, maybe the standard should be increased.

Originally posted by Robtard
As it relates to the topic/the point: is being able to do say 100 pushups (or whatever is the standard) really all that important in being a US Army Ranger. ergo reevaluation of the standards to see.

Man, I don't know. That's tough.

If you could do 100 pushups with a full pack on, I'd definitely think you have a great foundation for the Army Rangers. Other things would need to be tested, obviously, but that's a nice physical base to start with. 🙂

In the spirit of "Anyone can do any job," I propose the following also be re-evaluated...

1. High intelligence occupations, so morons can become doctors and scientists.
2. Pro sports, so the clumsy and butterfingered can win championships and earn multi-million-dollar contracts.
3. Entertainment, so people who can't sing or act can win Grammies and Oscars.

................

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man, I don't know. That's tough.

If you could do 100 pushups with a full pack on, I'd definitely think you have a great foundation for the Army Rangers. Other things would need to be tested, obviously, but that's a nice physical base to start with. 🙂

I could do it 👆

Originally posted by Mindship
In the spirit of "Anyone can do any job," I propose the following also be re-evaluated...

1. High intelligence occupations, so morons can become doctors and scientists.
2. Pro sports, so the clumsy and butterfingered can win championships and earn multi-million-dollar contracts.
3. Entertainment, so people who can't sing or act can win Grammies and Oscars.

................

3 already happens

Originally posted by Robtard
3 already happens

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, I do, 50 each morning.

Originally posted by Mindship
In the spirit of "Anyone can do any job," I propose the following also be re-evaluated...

1. High intelligence occupations, so morons can become doctors and scientists.
2. Pro sports, so the clumsy and butterfingered can win championships and earn multi-million-dollar contracts.
3. Entertainment, so people who can't sing or act can win Grammies and Oscars.

................

What I was alluding to earlier.

Originally posted by Mindship
My bad.

Have you tried tricep pushups? Harder variation; don't have to do as many reps.

Originally posted by Mindship
Have you tried tricep pushups? Harder variation; don't have to do as many reps.

When I don't sleep at home (brother's house, hotel etc), I do 100 regular palm-on-ground for my morning exercise.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
What if he's doing 50 tricep pushups?

Originally posted by Robtard
I have before, I still prefer the standard pushup, but I do use pushup handles that raise by body and allow me to dip a few inches deeper into the pushup, it's about twice as difficult using those, why I do 50.

When I don't sleep at home (brother's house, hotel etc), I do 100 regular palm-on-ground for my morning exercise.

Originally posted by Mindship
[B
2. Pro sports, so the clumsy and butterfingered can win championships and earn multi-million-dollar contracts.
[/B]

Lets take that one.

What if the NBA had a rule that you have to shoot 50% 3-pointers to play. That would get you a lot of good shooters, but would it necessarily get you the best Basketball players? No. People like Shaq would not be able to do that, yet he's a great player, so that test should be reevaluated and the 3 pointer percentage lowered, so people with other amazing and relevant qualities can play as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets take that one.

What if the NBA had a rule that you have to shoot 50% 3-pointers to play. That would get you a lot of good shooters, but would it necessarily get you the best Basketball players? No. People like Shaq would not be able to do that, yet he's a great player, so that test should be reevaluated and the 3 pointer percentage lowered, so people with other amazing and relevant qualities can play as well.

There's an alternative explanation to yours that uses your same idea but has the opposite intention.

What if the NBA had a rule that you had to be able to run up and down the basketball court, two times, in order to be considered fit enough to play in one of their games? If you couldn't, then you were considered too out of shape and a medical risk to play so you'd be disqualified from playing in the NBA. You can be the best shooter in the world but you have to be able to make it to a strategic spot without becoming so winded you collapse on the court. Your amazing and relevant quality to shoot a basketball is overshadowed by your inability to effectively run on a basketball court.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's an alternative explanation to yours that uses your same idea but has the opposite intention.

What if the NBA had a rule that you had to be able to run up and down the basketball court, two times, in order to be considered fit enough to play in one of their games? If you couldn't, then you were considered too out of shape and a medical risk to play so you'd be disqualified from playing in the NBA. You can be the best shooter in the world but you have to be able to make it to a strategic spot without becoming so winded you collapse on the court. Your amazing and relevant quality to shoot a basketball is overshadowed by your inability to effectively run on a basketball court.

Yes, that is the other possibility. Now we'd have to publicly check whether the Rangers standards are of the former or the latter kind.

What if NBA had a rule where you had to be all around good enough to be in the NBA? Even seemingly miniscule details.

What if the Rangers which is an extremely specialized branch of military and they want people better than "just good enough" had a rule where you had to be all around good enough to be in it? Even seemingly miniscule details.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, that is the other possibility. Now we'd have to publicly check whether the Rangers standards are of the former or the latter kind.

👆

My bet is on the latter kind since they have the "obstacle course", "man-carry", "pack run for 3 miles", "target shooting", and other things like wilderness survival tests.

Those all seem quite relevant to being a member of an elite and highly trained military unit.

Here's a breakdown of their training/tests.

Let me know which elements you feel are irrelevant to the things that the Rangers do in the real world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_School#Capabilities

Then this thread can be closed?

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
What if NBA had a rule where you had to be all around good enough to be in the NBA? Even seemingly miniscule details.

What if the Rangers which is an extremely specialized branch of military and they want people better than "just good enough" had a rule where you had to be all around good enough to be in it? Even seemingly miniscule details.

Why not raise the standards then? Get even better people? Run 10 miles in a minute or you're out, you'll get the best of the best of the best!

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's an alternative explanation to yours that uses your same idea but has the opposite intention.

What if the NBA had a rule that you had to be able to run up and down the basketball court, two times, in order to be considered fit enough to play in one of their games? If you couldn't, then you were considered too out of shape and a medical risk to play so you'd be disqualified from playing in the NBA. You can be the best shooter in the world but you have to be able to make it to a strategic spot without becoming so winded you collapse on the court. Your amazing and relevant quality to shoot a basketball is overshadowed by your inability to effectively run on a basketball court.

You are both right in your examples.

Hence they are just examples highlighting the points that have already been made numerous times. Simply that until things are reevaluated we don't know if your hypothetical need to run up twice on the courts would produce the best competitive basketball players we can. Maybe the number needs to be higher, maybe lower. Or maybe simply running up and down the court is itself not suitable metric for finding the best competitive basketball players we can.

So the need to reevaluate the standards by which we measure what is acceptable or not for given roles.

Originally posted by dadudemon
👆

My bet is on the latter kind since they have the "obstacle course", "man-carry", "pack run for 3 miles", "target shooting", and other things like wilderness survival tests.

Those all seem quite relevant to being a member of an elite and highly trained military unit.

Here's a breakdown of their training/tests.

Let me know which elements you feel are irrelevant to the things that the Rangers do in the real world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_School#Capabilities

Then this thread can be closed?

Okay, looking over those, I think 48 pushups and 57 sit ups should be enough. Do we agree?