Jump to content

Why no fitness requirement?


Recommended Posts

I know every one opened this ready to tell me about the fitness requirement for Tenderfoot and the Personal Fitness Merit Badge required for Eagle. Sure we have that but why is there no fitness testing for any other rank.

 

I don't think that we need requirements for each rank (5 chin ups for 2nd Class, 20 for Life) but if there is a fitness requirement for Tenderfoot, there should be a similar requirement for other ranks.

 

I don't know what your troops are like but a good 75% of of the Scouts in my troop are competing with the Scouters for biggest gut.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The fitness requirement for Tenderfoot, as you probably already know, is to increase (show improvement) in the metrics chosen by the BSA (quarter mile time, push-ups, chin-ups, standing jump, sit-ups, etc.). However, all ranks require that the scout shows scout spirit which is living by the scout oath and law in their everyday life. The Scout Oath (see below) includes a reference to physical fitness. Therefore, there IS a physical fitness requirement for all ranks.

 

At the age most boys are attempting to earn the Tenderfoot rank (10 - 15 at most), their bodies are still developing and growing. Their strength, especially their upper body strength, is usually increasing by excercise, increased testosterone production, human growth hormone production.

 

Now the real question is why the BSA is somewhat lax on the "physically strong" and very strict on the "morally straight." It seems to me that a smoking, huffin' and a puffin' five foot nine, three hundred pound Scouter would be an "avowed" non-physically strong individual.

 

. . . To keep myself physically strong, . . .

Take care of your body so that it will serve you well for an entire lifetime. That means eating nutritious foods, getting enough sleep, and exercising regularly to build strength and endurance. it also means avoiding harmful drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and anything else that can harm your health. (BSA interpretation, not mine.)

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)(This message has been edited by acco40)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me that 75% of your troop shouldnt be advancing if they are competing with the leaders for the biggest gut. That would mean they arent keeping themselves physically strong. Or at least not trying to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya' Know FOG, you may have just hit on something there. It may do us all (scouts and scouters alike) some good if physical requirements were more present in the scouting arena.

 

For scouters, you cant be on a high adventure trek unless you are under some percentage of weight for your age and height

 

You cant be a National Jamboree Leader without being under some percentage of weight for your age and height

 

You Cant be a Scoutmaster without being under some percentage of weight for your age and height

 

The same with scouts, maybe losing a few pounds to be under a guideline for making a rank is just what a scout needs.

 

I cant see running a mile in a certain time or less, but while scouting tends to round a guy out, there is round, and there is ROUND.

 

The whole image of scouting could be improved by more "fit" leaders with a more "fit" bunch of scouts in tow.

 

Now, just whose charts do we use and what percentage do we want to hit?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE, you and others (like the vast majority of Americans) fall in to the trap of equating fitness with weight. While it may be a good rule of thumb to equate fitness to weight, there are many tremendously out of shape individuals who are not "heavy" and there are a few individuals who are in excellent shape (aerobic and anerobic) who most would consider overweight or fat.

 

The intention of the Scout Oath is great. What metric to use is difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple thing would be to require improvement over their last test or to test every six months and require improvement. That might add a time factor to advancement but that isn't a bad thing.

 

We have become a nation of obese people. Ever wonder why the famed "plumber's butt" condition exists? Because their waist is now larger than their hips and the pants just slide right down with nothing to stop them.

 

There are heavy peole who are fit. Heavyweight boxers come to mind, powerlifters, and defensive linemen. However, when a 15 year old boy has bigger boobs than a Playboy Playmate and can't walk a mile without collapsing, he is dangerously out of shape.

 

There are also thin people who are not fit but I think that the thin unfit person is better off than the fat unfit person. Why? He's hauling around less tissue that does nothing except store calories. Less strain on the heart, less strain on the joints, less strain on the car seat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, OGE, I like that rule, 50 pounds over "ideal" weight. Since I am about 60 pounds over "ideal" weight (at least the last time I read a chart, ideal for 6'0" was about 180), and I thought I had to lose 40-45 to even get somwhere in the general neighborhood of the vicinity of my ideal weight, this is great! Now I only have to lose 10 pounds! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here's a radical plan.

 

How about we use the Tenderfoot to First Class fitness requirements along with personal growth opportunities and a fun and adventurous outdoor program to promote fitness and a healthy lifestyle for the scouts to follow?

 

Question FOG, all these out of shape scouts you have...are these the same ones you say in another thread aren't attending scout activities becaus they play on so many sports teams? That seems contradictory.

 

Just a thought,

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Question FOG, all these out of shape scouts you have...are these the same ones you say in another thread aren't attending scout activities becaus they play on so many sports teams? That seems contradictory. "

 

That's quite a reasonable question but it shows that you don't have much experience with youth sports. Unless you are in a very competitive program or a scholastic sports program, fitness is not a requirement for most sports. It may help but it isn't required. To play CYO basketball requires neither skill nor fitness, it only requires the desire to practice once a week and play one game a week. Baseball is another sport that can be played by incredible slugs and some of the fattest kids that I've ever seen were swinging a bat. Think about it for a moment. A baseball player rarely needs to run more than 30 yards, sometimes he might need to run 60 yards. Sure, professional ball players are in good shape and to play American Legion ball you need to be in good shape BUT 99% of the games played out there are lousy baseball with overweight kids that can't move. Wrestlers need strength and agility but and they should be aeorbically fit but many in the youth leagues are not.

 

Go out and spend some time on the fields of youth sport and you'll see so many out of shape kids that you'll want to cry. Not high school sports or upper level AAU sports. Go watch recreation leagues, church leagues or town leagues where all comers are welcome.

 

Some will say, "hey, it's great that these kids are out doing something." Maybe so or maybe no. All too often the only exercise that they get is the hour of practice each week and the hour of the game. They'd be better served saving their parents the $100 and getting outside to play a pick-up game every afternoon and to play the game, they'd have to ride their bikes or walk to the field.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...