[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
…
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…[/quote]
If I was shot I suspect a fit 225 pounder would probably carry me to safety more easily tha a 160 pound marathon man.
[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]
Now that is a stupid comment and you know it.
But i get what you are saying.
I still stand that enviroment will lend itself to certain somatotypes, or rather, the other way around.
anyway, back to bond…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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 am merely pointing out what I think are realistic issues and how I think muscle can be counterproductive. I have no hidden agenda.
I have explained my opinions over and over. It’s pointless. I’m done with this.
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
I am merely pointing out what I think are realistic issues and how I think muscle can be counterproductive. I have no hidden agenda.
I have explained my opinions over and over. It’s pointless. I’m done with this.
[/quote]
You’re right. It was pointless because muscle is not “counterproductive” when the goal is to fight and kill people.
I don’t have experience in this field but Pavel Tsatsouline does and he’s written extensively about why too much muscle mass is a hardship in combat. That being said, “too much” is a lose term, it would vary per individual, I’m guessing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You’re right. It was pointless because muscle is not “counterproductive” when the goal is to fight and kill people.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s the general function of soldiers. We were talking Special Forces. How much direct confrontation do they see? Isn’t the whole goal that they only see very limited amounts of combat? When I think SF, I think search and rescue, intel gathering, sabotage or taking out few critic targets. But obviously, I’m so wrong.
Let’s throw in Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, “squat till you puke”, “I’ll hit it” and a shoe and we have a happy ending to the thread like many others.
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You’re right. It was pointless because muscle is not “counterproductive” when the goal is to fight and kill people.
Yeah, that’s the general function of soldiers. We were talking Special Forces. How much direct confrontation do they see? Isn’t the whole goal that they only see very limited amounts of combat? When I think SF, I think search and rescue, intel gathering, sabotage or taking out few critic targets. But obviously, I’m so wrong.
Let’s throw in Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, “squat till you puke”, “I’ll hit it” and a shoe and we have a happy ending to the thread like many others.[/quote]
Pavel Tsatsouline was mentioned and he definitely believes in being light in combat. That seems to be his whole foundation in terms of his instruction to SWAT he has trained. Everyone won’t agree with him and what qualifies as “big” is also relative. I have seen extremely impressive black belts who weighed about 200-210lbs that I know would be hard to take down in a fight. I would rather someone like that be by my side in combat than some skinny guy afraid of any and all muscle mass.
It seems to me that if getting big and packing on a lot of muscle was detrimental to special forces soldiers, they wouldn’t do it. I mean, we’re not talking about guys who parade around on a stage in a banana hammock, but guys whose lives and the lives of their comrades often depend upon physical performance. If a given SEAL or Ranger or whathaveyou was getting so massive that he could no longer easily keep pace on a run or was so lumbering and bulky he couldn’t quickly take cover, don’t you think he’s going to realize there’s a problem? And if not, don’t you think the guys in his squad are going to realize it? If I’m a special forces soldier and my life may depend on the guy next to me doing his job, I am damned well going to have a talk with him about it and get that straightened out.
In short, these guys know what it takes to do their jobs better than anyone else might. If they feel that buiding a bunch of “extra” or “excess” muscle makes them better soldiers, let’s assume they understand their business better than we do.
As to the original topic, James Bond should never be so big that he can’t pull a suit of clothes off a retail rack and go out in public without comment. Despite his good looks, Bond is a spy and that means blending in and not attracting attention. Athletic, sure. Built up and completely ripped like Caveman? Not so much - it might help for the commando bits, but not discretely loitering around on beaches in the French Riviera with the movers and shakers of high society.
Dillinger was small?!
[quote]vermilion wrote:
…
As to the original topic, James Bond should never be so big that he can’t pull a suit of clothes off a retail rack and go out in public without comment. …[/quote]
Bond would NEVER wear anything off the rack.
Bond is not much of an undercover agent. He always tells everyone his real name.
^
Missing the point.
One of Pavel’s biggest gripes with “bulky” soldiers was the fact that they needed to eat more frequently to be effective in the fied.
He also calims real men don’t wear shoes.
I hate this new Bond.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bond is not much of an undercover agent. He always tells everyone his real name.
[/quote]
He was home with a case of the clap the day they went over that in spy school.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
. Fat T-man doesn’t count, as he is clearly a troll.
And velvet revolver, 5 mile runs do not require strength. Look at the people who do well at five mile runs, then try and tell me that a big squat leads to better distance ability.[/quote]
Eh, I dont think Fat Tman is a troll
I never said 5 mile runs require strength. All I was saying is that big guys can run, alot better than you would expect. Your average NFL linebacker could run 5 six min miles no problem.
Would squatting help you in distance running? No. Would a 220 lb guy with strong legs, that squats, be able to improvise a quick mile long run better than your average joe? You bet.
Big guys can run. Trust me on this.
There arent to many 150 lb navy seals. My friend who is an ex navy seal and I had this discussion last night. He said he weighed in at 210 during his stints as a navy seal in vietnam. He said your average seal at the time was around 180-220 lbs. He claimed that there were SEVERAL big guys, and it was necessary. More often than not, there were required to do rescue missions. You HAD to be big and strong to carry wounded people out, people to weak to walk on their own, and carry your own equipment on top of that.
I dont see how weighing in at 220 would be detrimental as a Seal. These guys arent weilding swords and shield, and don’t have to be lighting quick. Its better to be moderately fast AND strong. This isnt midevil fighting where size would be a disadvantage.
My preconceived notion of a spy’s physique would be of a slender to medium size build.Why? Because of the images of WWII spies. Nothing more, nothing less.
As well, spies should go unnoticed. So if you’re 6’ tall and 230lbs ripped beast it simply leads to suspicion. Just like using military jargon and tattoos would.
If you look feeble and weak minded you’re underestimated and disregarded.
If you look like a beast and have an attitude to match, it makes ppl nervous which brings up their awareness.
Again, I’m simply talking about spies, not soldiers or spec-ops.
As for soldiers and spec-ops, you need ppl of all shapes and sizes for various tasks - like a football team.
You need guys to kick open door, carry the heavy gear and you need the slim-jims for rat tunnel type shit.
[quote]Velvet Revolver wrote:
This isnt midevil fighting where size would be a disadvantage. [/quote]
Say what now?
[quote]vermilion wrote:
^
Missing the point.[/quote]
You sure did!
[quote]etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bond is not much of an undercover agent. He always tells everyone his real name.
He was home with a case of the clap the day they went over that in spy school.[/quote]
Bond couldn’t catch the clap. He uses protection. He keeps a 9mm under his pillow.
[quote]SirPhisticated wrote:
Maybe you can elaborate on how that extra muscle could be beneficial for them?[/quote]
Carrying 60lbs+ of equipment, whipping ass in CQB, carrying VIP/KIA, repairing vehicles and large weapons, digging beds, kicking in doors when clearing houses, detaining suspects when clearing houses, building tents and places to sleep, ect ect.