First Pull-Ups, Then Combat, Marines Say

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Luigi59, Feb 7, 2013.

  1. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    It appears the USMC will hold their members to an identical physical standard in order to qualify for combat.

    How many pull-ups does it take to make a female Marine?

     
  2. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    It appears the USMC will hold their members to an identical [minimum/base line] physical standard in order to qualify for combat

    Details matter, 8 and 20 are not identitical
     
  3. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    They are identical if you're measuring a perfect score for "Fitness". If you don't measure fitness and capability different, then why isn't a perfect score for pullups 50,,,,, 60,,,,, 70,,,,, 100. That's a capability. To prove a 5 year old child was physically fit, would they have to do 20 pullups? How about a 90 year old man? He could be totally "Physically Fit" but probably can't do 20 pullups.

    So yes, if the "Perfect Score" is to determine "Fitness", then yes, 8 and 20 can very much be "Identical".
     
  4. FlyingFuzz

    FlyingFuzz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait, the marines only require three underhand pull-ups to be combat ready? Weak! :thumbdown:
     
  5. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,545
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    That's to pass the PFT.. but that number is surprising as well. But if you're doing that many for long as a male you will soon tire of all the haranguing.
     
  6. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    As I stated above in my post -- the standard to qualify for combat is identical - 3 pull ups.

    The article also clearly stated that the standard for a "perfect score" is not.

    Details only matter if one pays attention to them. :wink:
     
  7. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I did add "minimum/baseline" to the quote

    Or reading page 2 . . .

    "Marines, typically, raise the bar. A 17- to 26-year-old male Marine has to run three miles in 28 minutes or less on his annual fitness test; compared with 31 minutes or less for a female Marine of the same age."
     
  8. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    "Perfect Score" to determine "Fitness" does not change gravity.
     
  9. Malachy Marine

    Malachy Marine Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the center of the argument for female Marines in combat.

    3 pull-ups is the minimum required of ALL male Marines. That is for entry and during annual PFTs. However, there is an unwritten rule that a Marine is good-to-go with a High First Class PFT around 270 points and above. There is no current combat arms fitness test.

    The male standard for the PFT is not just the minimum but also the scoring scale. For women to be held to the exact same standard (the way everyone claims it will happen) they must be evaluated the exact same way. An example 14-15 pull-ups, 100 crunches, and a 22:00 3-mile as a male yields a 246. This is considered by many in the infantry to be sub-par, and an enlisted Marine would likely get below average marks for his unit and a junior officer would get counseled for it.
     
  10. BigBear

    BigBear Class of 2015

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1
    Except fitness doesn't matter in combat. Capability does.
     
  11. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    811
    tpg: my memory is admittedly foggy, but I thought there was some age element to the scoring. Did the score for 1st class drop based on age or something?

    Or maybe the whole scoring mechanism changed over years eliminating age brackets?
     
  12. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,545
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    I don't know if there was a change, but currently the age component, of which you speak (as my son might say), is for the minimum scores. The max score requirements remain the same regardless of age.
     
  13. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    811
    Kinnem: You are correct. The maximum score of 300 points remains the same regardless of age.

    I just went to the basement and pulled out my "Essentials Subject" book (yes, I still have it!). There were three age brackets that define the minimum score and set standards to achieve 3rd, 2nd and 1st class scores.

    The brackets were age 17-26; 27-39; and 40-45
     
  14. USMCGrunt

    USMCGrunt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    811
    tpg: at age 46, you needed a 175 so your 282 was still kick axx.

    Way to go!
     
  15. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    That has nothing to do with my quote or response. MemberLG was trying to argue that for "COMBAT", the marines are saying that MEN and WOMEN have the same standard, yet he was complaining that a perfect score for pullups for a woman was 8 and a male was 20, and therefor that WASN'T the same standard. My point is, that is WAS THE SAME STANDARD. "For FITNESS".

    For Combat, the standard is the same. BOTH NEED TO DO 3.

    You, MemberLG, or anyone else can argue/debate fitness, capabilities, combat ready, etc... But you can't mix and match and pretend that they mean the same thing. They don't. A woman maxing pullup scores by doing 8 and a man maxing pullup scores by doing 20, have absolutely nothing to do with capability or combat ready. It's simply a score to demonstrate physical fitness. Which is totally different. I would not expect a 25 year old woman, or 7 year old male child, who are both 100% physically FIT, to be able to do the same amount of pullups as a 25 year old male. Even a 25 year old male who WASN'T 100% physically fit.

    But if a combat roll such as Para-Rescue requires than an individual can carry over their shoulder, a 175 lb person, to carry them to a helicopter 100 feet away; then THAT is the standard. It shouldn't be less for a woman. It doesn't matter if it's a male, female, gay, straight, 5'2", 6'6", etc... If a person in that combat job "NEEDS" to carry "X" amount of weight; run a certain speed; swim a certain distance and speed; etc.... to be "COMBAT READY" in that job; then THAT is/should be the standard for ALL individuals wanting to do that job. This is NOT open for debate or discussion. What is however, is that there are/could be some "Arbitrary" standards that are set for certain combat jobs. If the standard truly is needed and can be justified, then that should be the standard. If a standard can't be justified and there's really no reason for having it, then that standard should be addressed.
     
  16. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I think we presenting our opinions differently, although they are similar

    I don't care how someone's fitness is measured to include gender and age specific.

    The point I was trying to make is that in absence of MOS specific physical standard/testing (i.e. "Para-Rescue requires than an individual can carry over their shoulder, a 175 lb person, to carry them to a helicopter 100 feet away"), folks tend to mix and match (i.e. many females score higher than males on APFT/PFT). I am all for MOS specific physical standard/testing.
     
  17. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,545
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Marines are supposed to be coming up with such a test for combat infantry. At least that's what General Amos said in a video I watched this week.
     
  18. BigBear

    BigBear Class of 2015

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't see how you can argue that we are the one's mixing and matching. The fitness test doesn't exist so that we can all get a good score and take a ribbon home to put on the fridge, it's the first stage of preperation for our jobs. If the fitness test isn't accurately measuring capability, I think that should be getting more attention than trying to figure out which standards to lower for women.

    You don't seem to be able to understand that capability is more important than fitness, and women simply aren't as capable. why should they be able to get higher scores than men who are more capable than them? why not just say, an acceptable score for women is 225-250, and for men is 270-300? With a universal scale, it is much easier to look at someone and know what they are capable of.
     
  19. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    You don't get it. A car can have 300 horsepower and a truck can have 200 horsepower, but BOTH can have DIFFERENT CAPABILITIES than each other.

    The PFT/APFT/CFA/etc... are designed to see if you are "Physically Fit". In other words; ARE YOU HEALTHY!!! Totally different purpose that to determine if you are CAPABLE.

    Example: You could be physically fit; can do 100 pullups; 500 situps; etc... But because you're "Color-Blind", you can't be an electronics technician or engineer. You aren't "CAPABLE" of doing a specific task/job/etc...

    And NO, you are wrong. Capability is NOT more important than fitness. They are two totally different things. And no, you are wrong again; women are NOT getting higher scores than men on "Combat Capability Tests". (For lack of a better word). It was already posted that for marines, combat capable, had to do 3 pullups. That's men, women, gay, straight, short, tall, fat, skinny, etc... That's a measurement of a necessary "Capability". Women, so far, have a different "Scoring" for "FITNESS". Again, totally different.

    Sorry; but you're the one that doesn't understand the difference between the two, and are trying to make them mean the same. Along with their scoring. Do you remember the PAWS, Iowa, etc... type tests you took in high school and junior high??? They are different than the ACT/SAT. They have a different purpose. A score on one does not translate to a score on the other. You can't have the same scoring when determining Physical Fitness. How would you know if a person is fit and healthy? A girl does 2 pullups but a guy does 10 pullups. Is the guy healthier? Is he more physically fit? NO on both questions.

    Put it this way. A 55 year old man, with bronchitis, smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day, has lung cancer, weighs 280 lbs; and he can lift 150 lbs and can do 20 pushups. Is he MORE Physically Fit than the 10 year old boy who is totally healthy, but can only carry 40 lbs? Or the 16 year old female ballerina who can only lift 40 lbs and do 10 pushups? That's why the weight standard is DIFFERENT for each person's HEIGHT!!!

    If you want women and men to have the same FITNESS standards, then I guess women and men should have the same WEIGHT standards too??? Then, you'll have a lot of weak and fragile men; or all the women will be fat amazonians. You choose. Fitness & Capability are 2 different things and CAN NOT be compared in the same sentence.
     
  20. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    First I just want to say that yes, I understand the difference between Fitness Standard and Capability and agree with your explanation.

    Speaking form the Army side of things I think one of the concerns some cadets have is with branching into MFE Branches such as Infantry and Armor.

    For AROTC these two branches are highly competitive, most cadets who receive these branches have high APFT scores, 290 and above. The issue now becomes that women may be able to compete for these branches as well. This is where the Fitness Standard comes into play, a 290 for women is no where near the numbers that a male has to perform to get a 290, though this is what will be listed on the females OMS thus effecting her OML giving her the opportunity to branch Infantry. The difference in Fitness standards will then come into play if the female is branched Infantry and then is now required to meet capability standards that hopefully will be gender neutral. A male scoring at the same level as a female's 290 APFT standard would himself have a hard time meeting the capability standards set for Infantry and Ranger School. If women are allowed to branch Infantry I hope that they come up with a gender neutral capability test that needs to be met by females before branching, of course the males would have to take the same test. I am sure there are a few women out there that will suprise the men.
     

Share This Page