What type of physical fitness is appropriate for today's tactical threats?

[bamaranger]

academy and managment

Everybody expects officers to run like a deer. My agency pushes fitness standards big time, and it is all geared to runners and agility people.

Good thing too, cause many of these antelopes and jack rabbits have little total strength. They better be able to run away! Most of the strength tests/standards are balanced against body weight. The lighter the officer is, the less weight they have to press to score well. The fact that you can press 110 % of your body weight is moot if you only weigh 155. A measure of fitness yes, but not fight winning strength. Total strength helps win fights.

Although the strength tests are adjusted by body size and weight, giving small officers good scores, though they may not move as much weight as a larger man, the run and agility tests are not. Somebody that weighs 250 is expected to be as fast and quick as another at 155. Its absurd! That's akin to expecting your lineman to be as fast as your running backs.

Despite what you see on the tube, it is my experience that the bad guy gets away on foot chases. Not every agency has choppers and dogs. And a blind foot pursuit is a dangerous thing. I feel I'm quick and agile enough to find cover, cross rough terrain. I am not, and never have been, a sprinter or gymnast.

You don't need to out last your assailant, you need to overpower them, subdue them. Most struggles/fights are quick and dirty. Strength and power are your friends. I'm slower and older than nearly all the guys I work with. In sheer strength, I'm stronger than many of them.

 

[booker_t]

I think bamaranger makes a great point. In LE scenarios, more often than not the scumbag is trying to flee, not win a fight. The Operator, on the other hand, is trying to apprehend, with minimal injury (and minimal paperwork!).

Getting that roided-up chucklehead to the ground and controlling him to where you can put cuffs on and protect everybody's safety is very different to winning a fight in the ring, a race on the track, or a pushup/situp contest.


--BREAK--

I wonder how many of the ~55% that responded "decathlete" actually know what's in the decathlon. I submit for review the following modern decathlon:

Day 1
100 meters
Long Jump
Shot Put
High Jump
400 meters

Day 2
110 meter hurdles
Discus
Pole Vault
Javelin
1500 meters

I've never seen much requirement to throw heavy objects or spears in the field, so Shot Put, Discus and Javelin are pretty much pointless.

General running and speed is worthwhile (not so much for patrol cops, but for SWAT/SRT/military definitely), so the 100m, 400m and 1500m make sense. But a decent sprinter or "cornerback" can score well in these runs. But quite frankly, running down an alley, through a crowded street, up and down stairs.. all very different to running around a 1/4 mile rubber-top track.

So what's left.. long jump, high jump, hurdles. Sure leg strength/power is important but I don't see any direct correlation from these events to tactical requirements. You might make an argument that you have to hurdle obstacles, but if you're wearing 30-80+ lbs of body armor and kit, you're not really hurdling you're traversing however best you can.

I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess pole vault is primarily technique.

 

[DanThaMan1776]

If you're worried about hand-to-hand encounters... method means more than physical ability. If you're worried about a shootout... knowing what to do means more than physical ability.

But if it comes down to you and an adversary who share knowledge, a little strength, endurance, and speed would be nice

 

[cracked91]

MMA vs Boxers? I personally laugh at the thought of people thinking boxers would have chance. Boxers don't stand a chance against experiences wrestlers generally, let alone someone who can do both. The boxers I have encountered would generally be able to give me a severe beat down, until I took them off their feet. Then they squirm around wondering where their arms are and why they can't breathe.

Watch UFC people. The simple fact is your gun would probably be the only thing that would save you from someone who trains like these guys do. You guys can love to think its still the 1800s, but fighting techniques, as well as technology, and everything else on god's green earth, have advance quite a bit in recent years. Every branch of the Military teaches some form of MMA now. Because its effective. A blend of boxing, wrestling, and pressure points. Thats what fighting actually is. Zero rules. If you get half a chance to kick someone below the belt line in a fight, you better take it, because they are going to do the same thing to you given the chance. Biting, scratching, things that are considered "cowardly", start to seem like a much better idea when your on the receiving end of 3 guys with baseball bats.

Many people who get in brawls, particularly here in AZ where I live, don't stop to think until someone's dead. Things have changed. Its not bar fights anymore. There were a few students who were killed in unarmed fights when I was in high school. Not at the school, but at parties/bars.

Never assume that because you have some manly fighting morals, that the person your fighting does.