Forum > The RPGPundit's Own Forum

Boxing Match Between a US Army Woman and a Male Marine Infantryman

<< < (3/10) > >>

Kyle Aaron:

--- Quote from: Shasarak on October 15, 2021, 10:31:06 PM ---Since when does playing an amnesiac fall into the "realism" column?

--- End quote ---
I'm always amused at how distressed people get at the suggestion that they may not be an excellent driver after all. One of the more painful experiences back on the SJGames forum was watching fat nerds stat themselves, basically as ninja commandos. I've had that experience in person, too - sitting in a game group with an infantry war veteran who gave himself fewer and lower skills than the reservist who'd never been deployed.

To be clear about the Conflict rules:

The game makes a distinction between general skills which anyone can do, just not well or quickly, and specialist skills, which nobody can do without training. Basically anyone can do CPR, for example, but how well they don't know until they try - though some are under the delusion they'd be brilliant at it. But few people are under the delusion that they can do internal surgery without training.

Anyone can drive, shoot, punch, cook, etc. Default, zero-level. It's not GURPS or something where if you don't have it then you're fucked, it's more like Classic Traveller or AD&D1e where the GM goes, "sure, you can try that."

But having the skill beyond default level means you can do it well, or quickly. With the optional rule, you don't know how well or quickly until you're tested in a crisis situation.

As the woman in the video demonstrated. She knew how to throw a punch, how to defend, etc. As did the guy. But how well under pressure? That's a different question.

Again, nobody wants that realism option. Nobody wants to be like the woman in the video. That's why it's an optional rule - really it's just there for people to think about the difference between games and reality. In games, you have an exact measurement of your skill. In reality few people do, and so they think they're definitely, definitely an excellent driver. Or boxer, as it may be.


--- Quote from: Daztur on October 15, 2021, 09:04:00 PM ---
--- Quote from: SHARK on October 15, 2021, 05:20:21 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kiero on October 09, 2021, 06:27:13 AM ---Classic example of a woman thinking because she's large and relatively strong (perhaps she's a powerlifter and used to out-lifting many men around her), that means she's tough. Except she's clearly not in very good condition for fighting (look at the roll of fat around her middle) and won't be equal to a man in her weight class.

That Marine didn't look exceptional as a fighter, but she didn't appear to give him any trouble at all. Against a better fighter - even one lighter than her - it would have been even shorter still.

--- End quote ---


That's an excellent point, Kiero. Tatum also observes that the Marine grunt probably isn't anything particularly special--in his unit--and he proceeds to absolutely destroy this chick without even breaking a sweat. As you mention, there are *monster* Marines, and one of them would have utterly crushed her even *sooner*.

Whenever this kind of nonsense comes up, I can't help but think of all of these examples, just like this here, that make an absolute mockery of women being "Equal to Men", and "Women being in Combat Units". As crushing as these examples are--I am reminded entirely how a Chinese soldier, Russian, or Iranian soldier that is in a real fight against our forces--when encountering some stupid American woman, like this one here--they won't stop at just crushing her, and embarrassing the shit out of her.

They will stomp the fuck out of her and kill her--and women just like her--in mere moments. More blood, more stupid, pointless death--while at the same time, taking up time and resources that we could actually be spending on hardened men warriors that at least have something of a chance in combat--but instead, we want to as a nation and as the military institutions go--indulge the fucking Marxists and the Feminists in these kinds of delusional fantasies.

True leaders would have the balls to tell these women and anyone that supports such BS to get their heads out of their asses and fucking live in the real world. Women are not equal to men, and women should not be in Combat Units. Cry, bitch, and moan, that's just the fucking truth and the harsh reality. The military is not a social engineering play shop, but an organization designed for killing, fighting, and winning wars.

Anything--and anyone--that detracts from that core mission is unsuitable, and must get the fuck out.

From what I understand, the same kind of Marxist and Feminist BS has also been infiltrating the British military forces, as well as other Western European nations. Nothing good will come of that, for certain. The American military is rapidly deteriorating at an alarming rate, in part due to all of this kind of BS. We have even had official Veteran studies here composed not only of generals and admirals, but other officers and enlisted, that have presented reports to the Pentagon that the embracement of Marxism, Feminism, SJWism, Wokism, all that--has seriously damaged America's ability to fight and win wars.

*SIGH* Writing this stuff makes me want to smoke a cigar. ;D

Semper Fidelis,


--- End quote ---

Well then I suppose that it's a good thing that modern warfare involves remarkably little hand to hand combat.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---- All-male squads and teams outperformed those that included women on 69 percent of the 134 ground combat tasks evaluated.

- All-male teams were outperformed by mixed-gender teams on two tasks: accuracy in firing the 50-caliber machine gun in traditional rifleman units and the same skill in provisional units. Researchers did not know why gender-mixed teams did better on these skills, but said the advantage did not persist when the teams continued on to movement-under-load exercises.

- All-male squads in every infantry job were faster than mixed-gender squads in each tactical movement evaluated. The differences between the teams were most pronounced in crew-served weapons teams. Those teams had to carry weapons and ammunition in addition to their individual combat loads.

- Male-only rifleman squads were more accurate than gender-integrated counterparts on each individual weapons system, including the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle and the M203 grenade launcher.

- Male Marines with no formal infantry training outperformed infantry-trained women on each weapons system, at levels ranging from 11 to 16 percentage points.
In a findings briefing sheet, officials also noted that there were tasks female Marines routinely struggled with that posed no similar challenge to their male counterparts.

In scaling an 8-foot wall obstacle, researchers wrote, male Marines would throw their packs to the top of the wall, while female Marines "required regular assistance" to do the same. During simulated casualty evacuations involving a 200-pound dummy, mixed-gender groups were notably slower at the task, except in cases when a single Marine would move the dummy using a fireman's carry. And in those cases, "it was most often a male Marine who 'evacuated' the casualty," according to the findings analysis.

A team from the University of Pittsburgh recorded athletic and biological data from each Marine volunteer before, during and after the assessment. The average differences between male and female participants may explain, in large part, the disparity in overall performance. Among their findings:

- The average male Marine volunteer was 178 pounds with 20 percent body fat; the average female volunteer weighed 142 pounds with 24 percent body fat.
In anaerobic power and capacity, female Marines averaged 15 percent lower levels than their male counterparts.

- In anaerobic power performance, the top 25 percent of female performers and the bottom 25 percent of male performers overlapped.
In aerobic capacity, female Marines demonstrated levels 10 percent lower on average than male Marines.

Over the course of the assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates totaled 40.5 percent for women, more than double the 18.8 percent rate for men.
In all, female Marines sustained 21 "time-loss" injuries which took them away from task force duties for a day or more. Nineteen of the women's injuries were lower extremity injuries and 16 percent took place during a task that required movement while carrying a load. Officials said they could not immediately provide the comparable injury rates for men but said lower extremity injuries were the most common among male Marines as well.

--- End quote ---

Godfather Punk:

--- Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 15, 2021, 11:22:38 PM --- In reality few people do, and so they think they're definitely, definitely an excellent driver.

--- End quote ---
But can they accurately count toothpicks at a glance?


--- Quote from: Shasarak on October 15, 2021, 10:31:06 PM ---Since when does playing an amnesiac fall into the "realism" column?

Does my character have any ranks in Piloting?

Only one way to find out.

--- End quote ---

THIS would be hysterical in a Paranoia game! Memory wiped clones don't know their abiltiies and only find out when it's too late!


--- Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 15, 2021, 09:55:16 PM ---There are real and significant differences between men and women, as is shown in this video. However, I think the bigger factor in this particular case was skill level.

In the video, it's plain that the woman was unskilled, and that she had never before experienced being punched in the head by anyone of any gender, age, size or skill level. The man was no master, but he'd felt a punch, and been eye-to-eye and toe-to-toe with someone willing and able to hurt him.

In my game Conflict, you choose a career path and throw dice for which skills you get, like Classic Traveller. An optional rule for realism which nobody has ever wanted to use was: you choose careers, and the GM throws the dice for which skills you get, and doesn't tell you. You don't find out until you actually try the thing. You can assume you have all the skills, or none - it's up to you.

Dunning-Kruger is a real effect - you need a certain level of competence in order to be able to assess your level of competence. One of the difficulties with a post-industrial society like that of the West is that many of the jobs we do have less than tangible outcomes. How do we know an office manager is good at their job?

However, the skills of conflicts and trauma have very tangible outcomes. A paramedic friend was treating an assault victim who said, "Oh yeah, it was my jiu-jitsu skills that saved me." He replied, "Mate, I hate to tell you, but if you're in my ambulance - you lost." And that patient left the ambulance in no worse shape than he entered it - so the paramedic succeeded.

Fewer and fewer people do jobs with tangible measurable outcomes, and thus more and more people are able to deceive themselves that they're extremely competent in a wide domain. I call it the Rainman Effect: "Definitely, definitely an excellent driver." But all he'd done was drive around in circles slowly with nobody else around. That's different to taking a corner at speed at night in the rain with other vehicles around.

Gender, size - of course all these things matter. But skill? If you haven't been tested, you just don't know.

--- End quote ---

  Disagree.  I worked with amateur and professional fighters for years, male and female.   The difference is sex.   I can take a good amateur man, and he will beat the UFC champion female in his weight class probably 7 out of 10 times.  I take a barely professional male, and it is going to be measured more like 88/100, and likely more.   

   She could have been the same skill and he was, and she would be beaten just as badly, I would also say I think their skills were similar, it is not she was not used to getting hit, she was not used to getting hit like *that*, as in by a man. 

  edited to add:  I think they were likely similar skill level, probably around 6 months or so of exposure to boxing for 2-4 sessions a week.  She did not make the mistakes or the behaviors I would expect out of a complete newb, and I can not assess how well the guy would do if pressured, as he was simply hitting a heavy bag (and sloppily at that) the whole time.

 Also added:  I know you have quite a bit of experience lifting weights.  Take the squat for example, any female who can squat 300 pounds is very exceptional.  Any male, who can not squat 300 pounds is considered well below average after any sort of time training (6-12 months).


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version