Parents please get informed..

MemberLG said:
Like you said, we probably mostly agree on many things. I will still disagree on the NYT assertions until I can actually read the minutes and summary. As posted before, the link only shows the first page. It could have a simple technicial oversight or the NYT just posting a related to document to give undeserved creditability. How many people will actually clik the link to actually read the minutes? Many things media reports, they only need a small truth. Many cases, the Army won't fight the media stretching the truth as they already lost if they have to explain things or get technical. The fighting the media will only generate more interest rather than a quick death most stories have.

This discussion probably have to do with how I don't trust the media. On a sidenote, many folks shared the same opinion.

Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Historical Low http://www.gallup.com/poll/185927/americans-trust-media-remains-historical-low.aspx

"Since 2007, the majority of Americans have had little or no trust in the mass media."
Click to expand...

Having been misquoted by a major NY journal with a resulting damaging headline, I too am not blind to issues in the media. You could fairly call me an equal opportunity skeptic.

To return to the boxing, and to pick up on what Navy Hoops wrote, its a great area ripe for study. Trident scholar kinda stuff. There are about 1000 or so student annually at each Academy doing this course right? The medical data is available obviously. The training protocol are all documented and the equipment easily considered. The statistics would be powerful and informative. There are also lots of folks in the field both with and without boxing experience at both the officer and enlisted level that could be studied against various outcomes. Less opinions; more data and factual analysis.
 
Kanye's Dad's Sock Puppet said:
Having been misquoted by a major NY journal with a resulting damaging headline, I too am not blind to issues in the media. You could fairly call me an equal opportunity skeptic.

To return to the boxing, and to pick up on what Navy Hoops wrote, its a great area ripe for study. Trident scholar kinda stuff. There are about 1000 or so student annually at each Academy doing this course right? The medical data is available obviously. The training protocol are all documented and the equipment easily considered. The statistics would be powerful and informative. There are also lots of folks in the field both with and without boxing experience at both the officer and enlisted level that could be studied against various outcomes. Less opinions; more data and factual analysis.
Click to expand...

Who needs studies? Political opinions overrule them anyway. Just ask Ray Mabus.
 
Kanye's Dad's Sock Puppet said:
Having been misquoted by a major NY journal with a resulting damaging headline, I too am not blind to issues in the media. You could fairly call me an equal opportunity skeptic.

To return to the boxing, and to pick up on what Navy Hoops wrote, its a great area ripe for study. Trident scholar kinda stuff. There are about 1000 or so student annually at each Academy doing this course right? The medical data is available obviously. The training protocol are all documented and the equipment easily considered. The statistics would be powerful and informative. There are also lots of folks in the field both with and without boxing experience at both the officer and enlisted level that could be studied against various outcomes. Less opinions; more data and factual analysis.
Click to expand...

Like to discuss something different

Another favoriate topic of mine - studies

We don't need a study. Why waste money to learn what we already know.

I am pretty sure any study conducted on damage caused to a cadet brain during boxing class will be something like

1. Boxing does cause some damage to cadet brain. Recommend conducting another study to determine long term impact of such damages. This study will be the study of all studies as it will track cadets over their life time to accurately capture enviornment factors, need cadets to donate their brain so they can be examined for brain damage after death. Non USMA officers also studied. So we will get the result about 50 years from now.
2. Things can be done to reduce concussions during boxing class. I will hate to be the test group with no changes.
3. For extra payment, the study will have a conculsion that supports the party making the extra payment.

Of course, what a study cannot determine is how much boxing experience contribute to personal/leader development.
 
Sorry LG. I'll part company with you and gladly let you stand with Sledge on that one.

“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”

If you want to argue for the sake of argument, I'll pass. Your logic is circular.

First you want specific solutions and now you agree with Sledge that any study is useless.

There is a lot we don't know and if you can't figure how it could be learned without a "test group with no changes" I can't help you. Can't believe you are serious with that one.

You never did say if you went Marines (again, joking) :cool:

Anyway we seem to be a long way from USMA boxing so I am going to tap out.

PS - There is a good Buckley quote you could refute Roosevelt with.
 
Last edited:
Prevalence (# of concussions) is not the same as incident rate (# per exposure). Perhaps, the concussion rates at the SAs differ because USMA cadets take boxing for 19 lessons vs. 8 lessons at USNA. There are many more variables, such as the rigor of the course, techniques taught, amount of sparring, definition of concussion, reporting and assessment mechanisms, etc. USMA requires molded mouthpieces, 16- or 20-oz gloves depending on cadet-athlete size, specially designed headgear, injury education, pre-participation medical screening. USMA Boxing Instructors are at least USA Boxing Level I certified, and the Course Director is USA Boxing Level IV certified. Cadets at USMA are not only matched by size, they are also matched by skill level which is constantly adjusted to assure a common developmental experience for all abilities. In other words, the "big bad wolf" is never matched with clearly less proficient (defined by both psychomotor and affective proficiency within the course) peers.
Furthermore, the definition of concussion may differ at each of the SAs. For example, one may use any "altered mental state" (a very presumptive and most cautious definition) associated with a direct linear blow to the head or rotational force; another SA may use "loss of consciousness" as its definition. One SA may have a very mature reporting procedure with dedicated and certified faculty while the other may employ athletic trainers whose primary employment focus is intercollegiate athletics.
There is much to be learned about concussions, and all SAs are part of the NCAA-DoD Grand Alliance CARE Consortium that is studying the injury in intricate detail, to include long term effects. Baseline tests are part of the study, and USMA leads the way (by a longshot) in "baselining" and enrolling its cadets.
Not sure why the other commissioning sources don't have Boxing - likely because they can't provide nearly the same degree of control in managing the risks.
What if Football or Soccer or Rugby has higher incident rates than Boxing, should we eliminate those entertainment sports? Boxing serves a purpose at the SAs, and that purpose is supported by the extremely controlled and risk mitigated environment in SA classes where cadets must confront a physical fear, control emotion, and deliver a directed response - the very same we will ask them to do in dealing with the enemy. Leader development for our military demands what not all citizens are willing to realize - physical and mental toughness to close with and destroy the enemy. At present, they only must do that for their own benefit. In the future, they will do the same thing in combat for their Soldiers. Read it - http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
 
USMA94 said:
Not sure why the other commissioning sources don't have Boxing - likely because they can't provide nearly the same degree of control in managing the risks.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the reason. ROTC units do not have the funds to provide the instructors that carry these certifications. Couple that with the fact that ROTC cadets are spread out across the country, the SAs have that benefit of having them all in one place with a controlled environment and specific instructors.

If offered I'm sure most ROTC cadets would jump at the opportunity, My older son did have the opportunity to take a Boxing class through the university with the same level of instruction, he enjoyed it and did get his bell rung a couple times. Boxing is not without risk but the SA's seem to have a good program in place with tight controls, not sure I would see a need to end such programs as long as they are run to this level.
 
Wow! Great post USMA94. Thanks for joining and weighing in. Great points, well made.
 
jcleppe: I agree with the reasons offered for a lack of institutional programs of boxing at ROTC .
 
Kanye's Dad's Sock Puppet said:
Sorry LG. I'll part company with you and gladly let you stand with Sledge on that one.

“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”

If you want to argue for the sake of argument, I'll pass. Your logic is circular.

First you want specific solutions and now you agree with Sledge that any study is useless.

There is a lot we don't know and if you can't figure how it could be learned without a "test group with no changes" I can't help you. Can't believe you are serious with that one.

You never did say if you went Marines (again, joking) :cool:

Anyway we seem to be a long way from USMA boxing so I am going to tap out.

PS - There is a good Buckley quote you could refute Roosevelt with.
Click to expand...

Now you are being too serious. I guess I need to work on my sarcasm skills. I was half serious and half kidding.
 
I know we're 4 pages into this but if you're just now reading this thread and going to the end and/or skimming through, go back and read NavyHoops and USMA94's post. They are very informative and bring to light excellent points. Hats off to both of you.
 
Wow, I miss all the good debates!!! Since we are well into opinions and recommendations:
  • I'm all in favor of USNA Mids beating each other. "Officer and a Gentleman" convinced me it was an important mid skill, and "Hawaii 5.0 TNG" underscored how often grads need to use that skill
  • I'm all in favor of USMA cadets learning the core lesson plebe beating purports to teach. However, I am not convinced that:
    1. Boxing is the most effective way of teaching said point
    2. That boxing is a useful skill in it's own right compared to alternatives. And accordingly, not a good use of time
    3. Even if 1 & 2 support boxing, then why is it not used for enlisted, Ranger School, etc? Which all use combativeness to accomplish similar goals. Other Armies?
Listen to cadets and it becomes clear that all other things being equal, reach largely determines Beater/Beatee within weight classes. And that outside of a few who develop skills or an attraction to boxing as a sport, they feel better comparatives training or something like Krav Maga would accomplish the same goal AND leave them with a more useful skill for the same amount of time.

I "get" there is a tradition aspect... but we don't use equestrian skills anymore to teach Calvary tactics. Queensbury boxing is about as relevant to modern combat as horseback cavalry techniques.

To be clear: I'm not saying make it easier... make it more relevant to modern combat and a better use of time/expense

In the spirit of that, here's my recommendation:
  1. Bring in COL Crazy (Ret) ("The Crazy COL") to delivery 2-3 resounding blows to each plebe with his popeye arms. Tell the plebes how to block or it will hurt. This will accomplish the "learn what it's like to be punched" goal. Tell him not to leave a bruise and avoid concussing the hapless plebe
  2. Spend the remaining half semester teaching a relevant modern unarmed combat technique. Then get the COL again, let him try to punch while they use their new skills to avoid, or better yet, take him down.
  3. Make sure whatever is implemented is gender equal/neutral (funny how there are no calls for equality in this type of space, or registering for the draft, or... ) Do we really need gender segregation here? I know as fact there are female USMA plebes who could kick the but of a large percentage of male plebes. Just like there is similar variation within male plebes in boxing. (Even within weight ranges)
I am a big supporter of the USMA leadership development method combining tradition with modern goals. But plebe beating is not a good example of that approach. I feel pretty confident there is a better way! But my sense is plebe beating is a sacred cow.

Maybe for the next debate we can move into the "get me a West Point football player" mythos and the role of D1 athletics in leader development?
 
hawk said:
Wow, I miss all the good debates!!! Since we are well into opinions and recommendations:
  • I'm all in favor of USNA Mids beating each other. "Officer and a Gentleman" convinced me it was an important mid skill, and "Hawaii 5.0 TNG" underscored how often grads need to use that skill
  • I'm all in favor of USMA cadets learning the core lesson plebe beating purports to teach. However, I am not convinced that:
    1. Boxing is the most effective way of teaching said point
    2. That boxing is a useful skill in it's own right compared to alternatives. And accordingly, not a good use of time
    3. Even if 1 & 2 support boxing, then why is it not used for enlisted, Ranger School, etc? Which all use combativeness to accomplish similar goals. Other Armies?
Listen to cadets and it becomes clear that all other things being equal, reach largely determines Beater/Beatee within weight classes. And that outside of a few who develop skills or an attraction to boxing as a sport, they feel better comparatives training or something like Krav Maga would accomplish the same goal AND leave them with a more useful skill for the same amount of time.

I "get" there is a tradition aspect... but we don't use equestrian skills anymore to teach Calvary tactics. Queensbury boxing is about as relevant to modern combat as horseback cavalry techniques.

To be clear: I'm not saying make it easier... make it more relevant to modern combat and a better use of time/expense

In the spirit of that, here's my recommendation:
  1. Bring in COL Crazy (Ret) ("The Crazy COL") to delivery 2-3 resounding blows to each plebe with his popeye arms. Tell the plebes how to block or it will hurt. This will accomplish the "learn what it's like to be punched" goal. Tell him not to leave a bruise and avoid concussing the hapless plebe
  2. Spend the remaining half semester teaching a relevant modern unarmed combat technique. Then get the COL again, let him try to punch while they use their new skills to avoid, or better yet, take him down.
  3. Make sure whatever is implemented is gender equal/neutral (funny how there are no calls for equality in this type of space, or registering for the draft, or... ) Do we really need gender segregation here? I know as fact there are female USMA plebes who could kick the but of a large percentage of male plebes. Just like there is similar variation within male plebes in boxing. (Even within weight ranges)
I am a big supporter of the USMA leadership development method combining tradition with modern goals. But plebe beating is not a good example of that approach. I feel pretty confident there is a better way! But my sense is plebe beating is a sacred cow.

Maybe for the next debate we can move into the "get me a West Point football player" mythos and the role of D1 athletics in leader development?
Click to expand...

Something more along the lines of this?

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/197th/combatives/
 
Boozebin said:
Something more along the lines of this?

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/197th/combatives/
Click to expand...

I could support it as long as we still let the "Crazy Colonel (Ret)" get a couple of good licks in. And Mids need to keep boxing to prepare for their showdown with their cadre NCO nemesis/mentor/father figure.

But just be aware that your suggestion would have the unintended consequence / adverse impact of further aligning the USMA cadet experience & training with the real Army experience. Next you'll want them to really throw grenades in CBT!!! (Oh wait.... nevermind)
 
hawk said:
Boozebin said:
Something more along the lines of this?

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/197th/combatives/
Click to expand...

I could support it as long as we still let the "Crazy Colonel (Ret)" get a couple of good licks in. And Mids need to keep boxing to prepare for their showdown with their cadre NCO nemesis/mentor/father figure.

But just be aware that your suggestion would have the unintended consequence / adverse impact of further aligning the USMA cadet experience & training with the real Army experience. Next you'll want them to really throw grenades in CBT!!! (Oh wait.... nevermind)
Click to expand...

As an aside, I'd like to comment that throwing grenades was, according to my son, one of the highlights of BCT at Ft. Benning (as opposed to the heat/humidity). The experience filled three paragraphs of one of his handful of letters home. If it's not done at SAs, apparently they are missing out on some really fun stuff.

Who knew! As a mother, I filed this information on grenades under "things I didn't know I didn't know, nor probably needed nor wanted to know". lol!

Okay - back to boxing....
 
Kyguardmom said:
As an aside, I'd like to comment that throwing grenades was, according to my son, one of the highlights of BCT at Ft. Benning (as opposed to the heat/humidity). The experience filled three paragraphs of one of his handful of letters home. If it's not done at SAs, apparently they are missing out on some really fun stuff.
Click to expand...

Apparently throwing live grenades was added back to USMA CBT fairly recently (c/o 16? 17?) along with some other CBT/CFT/CLDT changes to improve alignment of USMA training/experience with that of big Army. So my grenade comment was only slightly tongue in cheek, as to me it supports the case of aligning combatives approach as well.

Back to boxing, I'm still in support of Mids beating each other in preparation for their final bout with Gunny Foley, but not in support of them getting to use real grenades! :) Unless maybe they are clearly USMC material.
 
hawk said:
Back to boxing, I'm still in support of Mids beating each other in preparation for their final bout with Gunny Foley, but not in support of them getting to use real grenades! :) Unless maybe they are clearly USMC material.
Click to expand...


A couple of things. I love the avatar change Hawk makes me a little jealous!:oops:

I would hate to see boxing go but it should be replaced by another martial art (no exceptions for gender). I've ground and pounded before and switching it to an MMA type class where they learn to strike, grapple, throw and holds would be a good thing.

And now to scare you, what if they gave the AFA guys and gals grenades?!:groupwave:

At least they wouldn't have to be told over and over again which way down range is!:cool:
 
I believe some of the AFA grads already get grenades... 500lb ones!

And I'm disappointed Sledge is worn out or bored already (Had to look up NVM....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top