Flashermac Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 The VN era PT test was 500 points - minimum 300 to scrape by, but most people scored around 420 to 460. Found these on line - Army (male) 17 to 21: Push-ups - 71 for maximum, 42 for minimum Sit-ups - 78 for maximum, 53 for minimum 2 mile run - 13 minutes for maximum, 15 minutes 50 seconds for minimum The push-ups and sit-ups look pretty damned easy, since our drill sergeant dropped us for 100 whenever they felt like it. Still, the run is no fun. Wonder what the "new system" is going to do to scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizardKing Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 Anyway, my army VN vet buddy blames this situation on the lack of physical education in schools that was mandated under JFK and that we all enjoyed (like it or not) until recently. I don't doubt it. I remember that when I was in middle school, more than half of us got the patch for passing all the challenges: And it was a source of pride -- I got mine every year and worked hard for it. If you didn't get one, you were teased mercilessly. I recently read that even tho' the standards were greatly lowered, less than 5% of the kids in the 2000s got it. Sad. If nothing else, where is the pride & competitiveness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 I couldn't believe it that my nephew had to take only ONE YEAR of physical education in high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acockasian Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 A relative recently graduated from high school in California with ZERO physed in four years! It was a big surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USVirgin Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 I know I'm getting old when I say this but, back in my day, all most kids wanted to do in their free time was go out and play sports. Granted, about 10% really didn't want to play, weren't any good at any sport, and got teased about it. Nowadays, kids have other interests and horrible diets, all the more reason to re-institute physical education programs that were dumped for budget cuts. But, wait a minute, what if we took a different approach and encouraged kids for the unique talents they might possess, such as the example of the ADHD girl (before ADHD was invented) who couldn't think unless she was moving. Shrink said to the parent, "Your daughter is not crazy, she's a dancer." And the girl went on to be very successful. Nevertheless, I still think some form of phys-ed should be mandatory. If you have 20 minutes, check this out. I kyped the link from a Crash999 post elsewhere. It might destroy my argument for mandatory phys-ed, but it's still cool. Edit: He makes a case for full body education, which I lost sight of during my post - a few paragraphs is a marathon for me. iG9CE55wbtY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 < 100 sits 16 pulls 3 miles in 22 min. And it kicked my ass!>> early july i could run 4 miles in 28 minutes, 12 wide grip pulls (16 close grip), 40 push ups (proper ones, unlike what i see at the gym).....then i had 3 weeks in los and now all i do is cycle to work (5m in 5m back) which frankly hardly breaks a sweat, cycling is pretty easy, finding it really hard to motivate myself to run again, but so far my trousers are still losse, for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 I always hated running. I was one of the slowest guys in my company in BCT and AIT. However, I never dropped out of a run - as some of the speedy guys had to do. I had stamina but not speed. Call me the Tortoise. I hated running because it was just plain boring running around a track. Running down roads in the mountains or woods wasn't so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous God Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 The NG and Reserve were cushy jobs for years, though not aany more. I'll bet a Biah Chang that tub of lard in the photo is an NG. He is way over the weight standards and wouldn't even be allowed to enlist at that size. Any recruiter that signed him up would be in deep doodoo over it. I agree being god is a cushy job, and I am a fat tub of lard, but I am not THAT fat tub of lard in the photo, regardless god being every where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamui Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 Making Soldiers Fit to Fight, Without the Situps FORT JACKSON, S.C.  Dawn breaks at this, the Army’s largest training post, with the reliable sound of fresh recruits marching to their morning exercise. But these days, something looks different. That familiar standby, [color:red]the situp, is gone[/color], or almost gone. Exercises that look like [color:red]pilates or yoga routines are in[/color]. And the traditional bane of the new private, the long run, has been downgraded. This is the Army’s new physical-training program, which has been rolled out this year at its five basic training posts that handle 145,000 recruits a year. Nearly a decade in the making, its official goal is to reduce injuries and better prepare soldiers for the rigors of combat in rough terrain like Afghanistan. But as much as anything, the program was created to help address one of the most pressing issues facing the military today: overweight and unfit recruits. “What we were finding was that the soldiers we’re getting in today’s Army are not in as good shape as they used to be,†said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who oversees basic training for the Army. “This is not just an Army issue. This is a national issue.†... NYT :content: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted September 15, 2010 Report Share Posted September 15, 2010 If I remember right, Fort Jackson isn't a basic training post for combat soldiers. It is mainly for non-combat troops - which really is absolutely no excuse not to give them proper training in defending themselves. Even in the early 1990s I saw this bizarre distinction in the Army. I was on an Ordnance post and it was a far cry from what I knew as a combat MOS (CE). I remember when a new post command sergeant major arrived and started giving the troops hell over their hair cuts, sloppy appearance etc. The post commander told him to take it easy on the troops, telling them they were ordnance soldiers not infantry. The CSM replied, "Yes, sir ... but I thought we were still in the same Army." This distinction by MOS pisses off a lot of career soldiers, especially those in combat arms who see the REMFs having it easier but getting the same pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.