I am questioning whether the extra mass is beneficial when you look at the soldiers purpose.
I stated that few of the soldiers are big and that their training has little to do with building mass and there might be a reason for this. Generally, the big soldiers are big because they have lifting as a hobby. Am I wrong here?
If the extra muscle would be a benefit, why aren’t they all big? Could those that are big overcompensate in other factors? Maybe they’re better shots, have better social skills (teamwork), are better at keeping their cool etc.
Do you really think that excess muscle is a benefit in all situations?
I am questioning whether the extra mass is beneficial when you look at the soldiers purpose.
I stated that few of the soldiers are big and that their training has little to do with building mass and there might be a reason for this. Generally, the big soldiers are big because they have lifting as a hobby. Am I wrong here?
If the extra muscle would be a benefit, why aren’t they all big? Could those that are big overcompensate in other factors? Maybe they’re better shots, have better social skills (teamwork), are better at keeping their cool etc.
Do you really think that excess muscle is a benefit in all situations?[/quote]
They aren’t all big because not all lift weights or have the same genetics. Yes, it is that simple. How could strength be a drawback? Not all special forces are that strong. So why don’t they all train for more strength? Because not all want to. They are fine being the way they are. Being skinny wouldn’t be a benefit in ALL situations so why would muscle be a benefit in ALL situations? Again, what point are you trying to make? Do you honestly think there would not be a need for someone with more size in special forces? If so, why do you think this?
There are BODYBUILDING soldiers in the military. A few of them even compete with more than two often featured in the magazines (David Henry for one). Why are you trying so hard to make muscle seem like a negative in terms of military force?
[quote]Chris Jayne wrote:
More important than him being ‘ripped’ is the fact that he is a full on badass. he never plays weedy characters. he was also awesome in munich.
i reckon he will be one of the best bonds.[/quote]
This is the important thing. Unlike the superhero characters, when was Bond ever big? Why should he be? Size is an afterthought in my mind, if it’s a consideration at all for this role.
[quote]miniross wrote:
He was just on TV saying how it was important that he got into shape for the role, and “apparently” is doing stuntwork.
I really think he will be good. He is porbably the “best” established actor to go into a bond role. The rest were “off of that tv programme, you know, the one with the car” (the saint, remington steele etc.)
[quote]etaco wrote:
SirPhisticated wrote:
Yeah why don’t they make James Bond a jacked 240 lbs with 18 inch arms. He would then blend in perfect with the rest of the playboys sporting his tuxedo at a casino. Everyone knows that James Bond’s job is all about brawn anyway…
As long as the guy looks a little more in shape than Roger Moore (hahaha, Roger Moore running! How’s that for tongue in cheek Bond humour?) I think he’s good to go. Bond is supposed to look something like NORMAL. He isn’t supposed to look like a bodyguard, he’s supposed to look like the guy being guarded.[/quote]
Yup. Fine to have a solid physique, but I don’t think Bond SHOULD be big. Not that Bond movies are realistic by any means, but how many spys do you think look like bodybuilders? They’d stand out too much.
Being big is not a liability in the military. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be big soldiers. And there are. It would also make sense to me that it’s not a tremendous advantage; otherwise there would be a required lifting program and perhaps dietary modification. Why would you try to imply that size is a liability?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
miniross wrote:
He was just on TV saying how it was important that he got into shape for the role, and “apparently” is doing stuntwork.
I really think he will be good. He is porbably the “best” established actor to go into a bond role. The rest were “off of that tv programme, you know, the one with the car” (the saint, remington steele etc.)
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Being big is not a liability in the military. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be big soldiers. And there are. It would also make sense to me that it’s not a tremendous advantage; otherwise there would be a required lifting program and perhaps dietary modification. Why would you try to imply that size is a liability?[/quote]
Not enough wars to curt wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Big peron = Big target?
Ghurkas are tiny, yet have one of the greatest reputations in the world. and big guys would overheat faser in jungles. It certainly does not mean that theycannot be as effective, it is just that those traits may not advantage, and may even be a slight disavantage in those or maybe more circumstance.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They aren’t all big because not all lift weights or have the same genetics. Yes, it is that simple. How could strength be a drawback? Not all special forces are that strong. So why don’t they all train for more strength? Because not all want to. They are fine being the way they are. Being skinny wouldn’t be a benefit in ALL situations so why would muscle be a benefit in ALL situations? Again, what point are you trying to make? Do you honestly think there would not be a need for someone with more size in special forces? If so, why do you think this?
There are BODYBUILDING soldiers in the military. A few of them even compete with more than two often featured in the magazines (David Henry for one). Why are you trying so hard to make muscle seem like a negative in terms of military force?[/quote]
I have elaborated on my first points several times.
I never said muscle doesn’t have it’s place in military in general. I only questioned it regarding Special Forces because they usually use light equipment, light weapons, are to be highly mobile and cover large distances.
Maybe you can elaborate on how that extra muscle could be beneficial for them?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yup. Fine to have a solid physique, but I don’t think Bond SHOULD be big. Not that Bond movies are realistic by any means, but how many spys do you think look like bodybuilders? They’d stand out too much.[/quote]
[quote]miniross wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Being big is not a liability in the military. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be big soldiers. And there are. It would also make sense to me that it’s not a tremendous advantage; otherwise there would be a required lifting program and perhaps dietary modification. Why would you try to imply that size is a liability?
Not enough wars to curt wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Big peron = Big target?
Ghurkas are tiny, yet have one of the greatest reputations in the world. and big guys would overheat faser in jungles. It certainly does not mean that theycannot be as effective, it is just that those traits may not advantage, and may even be a slight disavantage in those or maybe more circumstance.
You wouldn’t want a big sapper, would you?[/quote]
Maybe not. Valid points. I suppose it depends on where the war is and what the nature of it is.
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Professor X wrote:
They aren’t all big because not all lift weights or have the same genetics. Yes, it is that simple. How could strength be a drawback? Not all special forces are that strong. So why don’t they all train for more strength? Because not all want to. They are fine being the way they are. Being skinny wouldn’t be a benefit in ALL situations so why would muscle be a benefit in ALL situations? Again, what point are you trying to make? Do you honestly think there would not be a need for someone with more size in special forces? If so, why do you think this?
There are BODYBUILDING soldiers in the military. A few of them even compete with more than two often featured in the magazines (David Henry for one). Why are you trying so hard to make muscle seem like a negative in terms of military force?
I have elaborated on my first points several times.
I never said muscle doesn’t have it’s place in military in general. I only questioned it regarding Special Forces because they usually use light equipment, light weapons, are to be highly mobile and cover large distances.
Maybe you can elaborate on how that extra muscle could be beneficial for them?[/quote]
[quote]miniross wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
miniross wrote:
He was just on TV saying how it was important that he got into shape for the role, and “apparently” is doing stuntwork.
I really think he will be good. He is porbably the “best” established actor to go into a bond role. The rest were “off of that tv programme, you know, the one with the car” (the saint, remington steele etc.)
Maybe you can elaborate on how that extra muscle could be beneficial for them?[/quote]
By making them stronger and able to physically withstand longer periods without food if the need arose. The body would have more fuel for energy in a worst case scenario than some skinny guy who was simply lean. This was also presented to you by another poster above. I am still confused as to why you would think muscle is a liability in combat. It make little to no sense.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
miniross wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Being big is not a liability in the military. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be big soldiers. And there are. It would also make sense to me that it’s not a tremendous advantage; otherwise there would be a required lifting program and perhaps dietary modification. Why would you try to imply that size is a liability?
Not enough wars to curt wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Big peron = Big target?
Ghurkas are tiny, yet have one of the greatest reputations in the world. and big guys would overheat faser in jungles. It certainly does not mean that theycannot be as effective, it is just that those traits may not advantage, and may even be a slight disavantage in those or maybe more circumstance.
You wouldn’t want a big sapper, would you?
Maybe not. Valid points. I suppose it depends on where the war is and what the nature of it is.
[/quote]
This is getting stupid. If you are wearing camo, a backpack and a rifle, you are just as much of a target as the guy next to you outweighing you by 40lbs. To believe otherwise is sheer stupidity. This is not aimed at you, jsbrook, but at anyone who believes that the safest guy in a troop is the shortest skinny guy. If that were the case, midgets would be the best fucking soldiers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SirPhisticated wrote:
By making them stronger and able to physically withstand longer periods without food if the need arose. The body would have more fuel for energy in a worst case scenario than some skinny guy who was simply lean. This was also presented to you by another poster above. I am still confused as to why you would think muscle is a liability in combat. It make little to no sense.[/quote]
Because if a heavy guy is shot, he is more of a burden to the others, than if it was a guy equal their size. Often larger guys move slower than smaller guys too and you can’t deny, he’d be a larger target to hit.
You’re changing focus specific to combat now, like you changed it to overall military earlier. I pointed out issues in general that I see.
I understand the part fully with the body using the protein in the muscle as fuel in case of starvation. Larger musles need more fuel though. But you have a valid point there.
I don’t think it outweighs the other issues though.
I don’t think it outweighs the other issues though.[/quote]
There are no other issues. If anyone gets shot they become a burden. Who will carry that person? The 150lbs guy who avoided ever gaining any muscle mass? It becomes a mass carry as usual if any soldier drops meaning 4 people on each side of the stretcher. That means you have little point unless someone is so massive that four people can not carry the person. Also, again, with all of your gear on, you are ALL targets to the same degree. They aren’t just shooting for the big guy. With that much gear on, you aren’t that different in size. Further, most of the actions of special forces won’t be common knowledge anyway making any points you are making up pure speculation. I still don’t understand what your goal is. Why are you even attempting to portray muscular soliders in special ops as a liability?
[quote]miniross wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Being big is not a liability in the military. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be big soldiers. And there are. It would also make sense to me that it’s not a tremendous advantage; otherwise there would be a required lifting program and perhaps dietary modification. Why would you try to imply that size is a liability?
Not enough wars to curt wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Big peron = Big target?
Ghurkas are tiny, yet have one of the greatest reputations in the world. and big guys would overheat faser in jungles. It certainly does not mean that theycannot be as effective, it is just that those traits may not advantage, and may even be a slight disavantage in those or maybe more circumstance.
You wouldn’t want a big sapper, would you?[/quote]
You also wouldn’t want weaklings to carry heavy machineguns etc.
No need for Ronnie Coleman size but 160 pound marathon type guys aren’t as well suited to carry heavy stuff as are fit 225 pound guys.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
miniross wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Being big is not a liability in the military. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be big soldiers. And there are. It would also make sense to me that it’s not a tremendous advantage; otherwise there would be a required lifting program and perhaps dietary modification. Why would you try to imply that size is a liability?
Not enough wars to curt wheat from chaff, so to speak.
Big peron = Big target?
Ghurkas are tiny, yet have one of the greatest reputations in the world. and big guys would overheat faser in jungles. It certainly does not mean that theycannot be as effective, it is just that those traits may not advantage, and may even be a slight disavantage in those or maybe more circumstance.
You wouldn’t want a big sapper, would you?
Maybe not. Valid points. I suppose it depends on where the war is and what the nature of it is.
This is getting stupid. If you are wearing camo, a backpack and a rifle, you are just as much of a target as the guy next to you outweighing you by 40lbs. To believe otherwise is sheer stupidity. This is not aimed at you, jsbrook, but at anyone who believes that the safest guy in a troop is the shortest skinny guy. If that were the case, midgets would be the best fucking soldiers.[/quote]
I don’t think it outweighs the other issues though.
There are no other issues. If anyone gets shot they become a burden. Who will carry that person? The 150lbs guy who avoided ever gaining any muscle mass? It becomes a mass carry as usual if any soldier drops meaning 4 people on each side of the stretcher. That means you have little point unless someone is so massive that four people can not carry the person. Also, again, with all of your gear on, you are ALL targets to the same degree. They aren’t just shooting for the big guy. With that much gear on, you aren’t that different in size. Further, most of the actions of special forces won’t be common knowledge anyway making any points you are making up pure speculation. I still don’t understand what your goal is. Why are you even attempting to portray muscular soliders in special ops as a liability?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s about size or being a target at all. It’s about mobility. Big soliders who are just as mobile or more mobile than smaller soldiers certainly aren’t a mobility. Given the mass carry that you mention, the weight difference would seem to be negligable spread out over 8 guys. By the same token, having a big guy to help with a fallen man wouldn’t be much of an advantage either, it would seem